Then why spend so much time, money, and effort on it?
This just helps the anti-SOPA argument. They can already shut down sites that are primarily for IP theft (even if they claim a "no we're not wink wink nudge nudge" description) through existing laws.
e: Also the feds got the Canuckistan and New Zealand feds to help them. I think something besides piracy is afoot...
XCVG said:
I'm sad now. Megaupload was a nice site, and I actually had some legit stuff on there.
Is "safe harbor" already dead, even without SOPA?
Yeah but 90% of the stuff on megaupload (and Megavideo) was ripped, copied, cracked, or porn.
The thing about the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA is, you're only safe as long as you make a reasonable effort to take down the infringing material in a certain timeframe once you're made aware of it. SOPA would eliminate that and open every website with user-generated content immediately liable for the things their users post. It takes the existing model of "allow everything and weed out the infringing material" and flips it around so legit content has to be approved if sites want to remain completely safe.
Let's say a one-click upload service is a flea market, and in between all the auto parts, pottery, and antiques there's a guy selling knockoff handbags. Under the DMCA, the cops can go in with the organizer and shut him down. Under SOPA, the cops can nuke the whole place from orbit at their discretion and ask questions later. (They can also
do the same to sites which link to the file sharing site call in hits on everyone who talks about the flea market and shut down
web crawler based search engines which found it the Yellow Pages for listing it.
If SOPA was written and signed into law during the Clinton administration, I think the user-driven, Google-indexed Internet as we know it probably wouldn't exist.
e: VVVV And stealing another man's porn is just that, isn't it?