[mcbaby]

this should not be treated as a victory, because the entire piece of "legislation," if we can even call it that, might as well read in lobby-dollars from the old media titans to the cogs of Washington's political machine

Calling this small concession a victory implies that we acknowledging some form of legitimacy in the bill.

(I do think some of the issues SOPA deals with are ones that need to be addressed, but SOPA, in its current form, does all but adequately address these problems)

[bittermang]

It's never been the DNS part I've had a problem with. It's the process by which things are deemed illegal and the appeal process.

Love it or hate it, the DMCA has clearly defined rules that protect both the host and the copyright holder. SOPA dictates removal of entire sites -- not just content -- first and foremost, with an appeals process after the fact. Literally shooting first and asking questions later.

Frankly, after that, the DNS process by which they sought to remove content was a trivial concern. It's the process itself that has problems, not how they planned to do it.

[jerf]

The DMCA wasn't bad because of safe harbor. It is bad because of its onerous anti-circumvention provisions. I actually think DMCA safe harbor is reasonably well-balanced, and is the reason why SOPA is entirely unnecessary. DMCA safe harbor is adequate. SOPA is a petulant fit by the media industry, not good law.

[mcbaby]

Couldn't have said it better. It's their entire approach to the process is wrong.