Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Columns
  • SOPA: All Your Internets Belong to US

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext

SOPA: All Your Internets Belong to US

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Wednesday November 16, 2011
The U.S. Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debated over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that supporters argue is needed combat online infringement, but critics fear would create the "great firewall of the United States." SOPA’s potential impact on the Internet and development of online services is enormous as it cuts across the lifeblood of the Internet and e-commerce in the effort to target websites that are characterized as being "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." This represents a new standard that many experts believe could capture hundreds of legitimate websites and services.

For those caught by the definition, the law envisions requiring Internet providers to block access to the sites, search engines to remove links from search results, payment intermediaries such as credit card companies and Paypal to cut off financial support, and Internet advertising companies to cease placing advertisements. While these measures have unsurprisingly raised concern among Internet companies and civil society groups (letters of concern from Internet companies, members of the US Congress, international civil liberties groups, and law professors), my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the jurisdictional implications demand far more attention. The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as "domestic" for U.S. law purposes.

The long-arm of U.S. law manifests itself in at least five ways in the proposed legislation.  

First, it defines a "domestic domain name" as a domain name "that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States." Since every dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain is managed by a domain name registry in the U.S., the law effectively asserts jurisdiction over tens of millions of domain names regardless of where the registrant actually resides.

Second, it defines "domestic Internet protocol addresses" - the numeric strings that constitute the actual address of a website or Internet connection - as "an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States."

Yet IP addresses are allocated by regional organizations, not national ones. The allocation entity located in the U.S. is called ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. Its territory includes the U.S., Canada, and 20 Caribbean nations. This bill treats all IP addresses in this region as domestic for U.S. law purposes.  

To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.

Third, the bill grants the U.S. "in rem" jurisdiction over any website that does not have a domestic jurisdictional connection.  For those sites, the U.S. grants jurisdiction over the property of the site and opens the door to court orders requiring Internet providers to block the site and Internet search engines to stop linking to it.

Should a website owner wish to challenge the court order, U.S. law asserts itself in a fourth way, since in order for an owner to file a challenge (described as a "counter notification"), the owner must first consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.

If these measures were not enough, the fifth measure makes it a matter of U.S. law to ensure that intellectual property protection is a significant component of U.S. foreign policy and grants more resources to U.S. embassies around the world to increase their involvement in foreign legal reform.

U.S. intellectual property lobbying around the world has been well documented with new Canadian copyright legislation widely viewed as a direct consequence of years of political pressure. The new U.S. proposal takes this aggressive approach to another level by simply asserting jurisdiction over millions of Canadian registered IP addresses and domain names.
Comments (58)add comment

mark said:

Goes this also cover CIRA registered names?
November 16, 2011

Reid said:

CIRA registered domains essentially correspond to ARIN supplied IP's, so it will offer no protection.
November 16, 2011

Anonyme said:

Jurisdiction of foreign websites?
So, according to the congress of the US: the world belongs to the USA?

Captcha : ntmodif après? interesting... lucky me I had a Canadian French keyboard^^
November 16, 2011

Brent said:

Michael, .org is managed by Afilias, a company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, with operations centers in Toronto, Canada and New Delhi, India. I'm not sure then that a .org domain will always fall under "domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States."
November 16, 2011

Matt said:

.org is run from Dublin, but is managed by PIR, in the USA.
November 16, 2011

Crockett said:

We are the Coalition of the willing ... hello ... hello ... can you hear me now?
What rt we have here is a disconnect between the 'old and new' media. You often hear lamenting from the IP industries that they are being upsurped by the 'greedy tech companies'. Just check out this reality disconnecting video ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...GOPNsB_ymU

The problem is obviously US big media, whom was used to having their civil property issues handled by the US Senate find themselves having to operate on a global scale. Rather than adjust to new markets, they they to extend their lobbied reach to the world.

To the tech aware, we understand this is ultimately a war lost unless the internet as we know it is essentially dismantled. It's hard to believe this would come to pass, but if it does it will create so much more economic damage and loss of jobs than what is being impacted in the US IP industries. Never mind the loss of free speech and education resources to the developing world.

Sure digital infringement affects the Big media industries, but smaller independent creators are finding innovative ways to not only survive but thrive in the new digital economy.

This legislation is the equivalent of the US military 'shock and awe' tactics that have made the world such a 'brighter and safer' place. It will not end well.
November 16, 2011

IamME said:

While a vast majority of users reside outside the US, MOST of the Internet backbone resides in the US. This is the great failing behind the Internet. For instance, the US wholly controls 10 of the 13 root DNS servers, so they could conceivably block any content they deem unfit from most of the world. This is too much power for one country. In my opinion no country should control more than one root DNS. If they want to block stuff in their own country, fine, but when they start forcing it on other countries, something should be done. The US is nothing but a big bully that needs to be put in their place.
November 16, 2011

Graham J said:

Bye bye NA
Thanks for the tip, I'll be sure to host my upcoming mobile game in Europe with a non com/net/org domain.
November 16, 2011

Byte said:

With EMI recently being gobbled up between Universal and Sony, there's one less player on the Music front - a Big Three that control over 80% of the market. Films are still the Big Six controlling that market.

Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act... TRIPS... ACTA... TPP... PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA... How is it possible that 9 corporations have so much power?
November 16, 2011

IamME said:

"How is it possible that 9 corporations have so much power?"
In a word...


The US will ALWAYS bend in favor of industry when money is involved.
November 16, 2011

pat donovan said:

plus policing
US fed marshals allowed to operate here now, too.

welcom to the region 1 corp monoculture.

November 16, 2011

MP said:

Perhaps a little gratitude....
to the US Department of Defense for creating the internet, then making it publicly available. This is an attempt to create a legal framework for going after crooks who use US-registered domains to commit crimes, then hide safely in another jurisdiction. The only ones who have to worry are the criminals.
November 16, 2011

Doog said:

This is an outrage - we are a SEPARATE country, to hell with manifest destiny. Canada should have its own version of ARIN, and internet backbone structure, which would create jobs and prevent this or any other kind of censorship brought about by greedy corporate lobbying.
November 16, 2011

Joe said:

From the sounds of it, websites with servers in the US or those that fall under US jurisdiction already have little to worry about, or am I not reading something in-between the lines?
November 16, 2011

Doug said:

The point is laws are routinely abused by police and government authorities
Wiretap laws have been abused by police to charge people who use cell phones to record police misconduct. The charges are eventually thrown out but the damage is already done. That is the kind of abuse that routinely occurs and it is a danger to society as a whole. Draconian laws will be used in all kinds of situations that the drafters never contemplated. The very freedom we enjoy is at risk with laws like this. If this law really is needed to protect copyrights then it should be carefully constrained so it cannot be abused.

I don't agree that piracy is a problem. The media industry has carefully laid out a fabric of misinformation which dramatically magnifies the actual damage from infringement. If some poor schmuck in India downloads a movie to watch while he eats the few grains of rice he can afford, he will never have the money to pay for movies. The industry cannot claim this as a loss because they would never be able to get money from someone who has almost none.

I paint watercolours and the more people who view my work the more likely I am to sell a painting. I certainly don't think everyone who enjoys my work should pay me for the little bit of pleasure it brings. That is ridiculous but it is exactly what the media industry is saying.
November 16, 2011

Jack Robinson, London Ontario said:

Manifisto Destiny North o' the 49th
Canadian author/academic/journalist Mathew Fraser published a superb book here in Canada in 1999 entitled 'Free for All... the Struggle for Dominance on the Digital Frontier', which rigourously and frighteningly describes the complex mechanisms by which U.S. interests have gained control of virtually every sector of Canadaian media, from newsprint to television to movie distribution to the Internet. What I'm reading here, Mr. Geist, tells me two things I have chosen to rail against but have become axiomatic: Canada has become, through our own Ostrich Herd myopia and narcissitic disengagement... an indentured idiot Wal-Mart Republic to America's Conglom Uber Interests and that we deserve both the virtual Cyber Screwing and Crushed Cajones subjegation that has become our mindfuggeredd mantra of Good Neighbour Gratitude.
November 16, 2011

Scrooge McDuck said:

As an executive for a large US content-provider, I'm very excited about this opportunity to have our foreign competitors labeled as "content thieves" and for them to simply disappear from the American internet. I'm confident that the appropriate lobbying and generous incentives provided to certain members of Congress and the sSenate will ensure a smooth marketplace expansion for our company in upcoming quarters.
November 16, 2011

Byte said:

With apologies to J.R.R.
Three Rings for the Music-kings under the sky,
Six for the Movie-lords in their halls of stone,
None for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Overlord in his White House
In the Land of USA, where the Shadows lie.
November 16, 2011

maebnoom said:

OK I'm totally outraged - this...
...oh nevermind I already circumvented this measure.

November 16, 2011

end user said:

Look at it thsi way
The reason all the media companies have such an easy way of getting laws passed is because the US gov needs those US made movies and music to keep its citizen occupied while they sneak in censoship laws little at a time. If movies and music from other parts of the world would all of a sudden become readiliy available if the US Media empire collapsed that would cause the citizen to open up their eyes and revolt. They can't have that...
November 16, 2011

IamME said:

RE: maebnoom
"OK I'm totally outraged - this...
...oh nevermind I already circumvented this measure."

And that's exactly what it will be. If they lock down the DNS and start censoring to the point that it becomes a joke, alternate systems will be devised. TOR, i2p and similar systems, which will surely be developed, will become much more popular. We're heading in to a global technology war in the name of a few American companies. I truly believe no-one will come out a winner here. Bad legislation will pass, people will get sued, revenues will still go down, pirates will still find a way to circumvent protections and safely download and the Internet will forever be damaged beyond repair. We might as well shut it off now and go cold turkey...get it over with. I grew up in a world without the Internet and survived. A good question might be, "Can the world today survive without the Internet?" Like China, the US can do in its own country what it must, but should the US be allowed that much power and control outside their own country? Canada has to get off ARIN and start up their own, independent of the US. That will never happen as long as we Harper, Obama's little lap dog, ruling here.
November 16, 2011

Throcky said:

I think it's a good thing that the United States is getting serious about enforcing its laws. The intellectual property situation as it is today is untenable. IP law is based on the premise that IP owners' rights will be respected, and as of today that isn't happening. There are only two ways to curb the amount of infringement: either limit IP rights so that less behaviors are infringing, or make it easier for law enforcement to crack down on infringement. The US has only very rarely weakened its IP protections, so the fact that it's taking the latter path is unsurprising.
November 16, 2011

Throcky said:

Sorry about my comment. I am actually paid to write these kinds of comments all over the internet. I have a sad sad life and am a pathetic human being.
November 16, 2011

A name? When posting an anti-American comment? Yeah, right... said:

This seems comparable to how U.S. oil ended up under Iraq sands... They want it, it's theirs, at least in their minds.
November 16, 2011

Leo said:

Inside Job In Canada
It's a good thing that the US & multinationals got their stooge Harper planted here. That will make it infinitely easiet to take over this once-proud country.
November 17, 2011

Deepak said:

iweballey solutions
Thos blogs must have been interesting!

November 17, 2011

Uncle Foo said:

Paranoid Geek
The possibility of abuse of this law is huge. You mean I can shut down my competition's website using only an accusation of infringement? No proof is required? Holy cow is this going to be fun.
I predict that US internet commerce will grind to a halt within 6 months if this passes. Quote me on that.
November 17, 2011

IamME said:

@Uncle Foo
"I predict that US internet commerce will grind to a halt within 6 months if this passes."

Not just the US...remember they control all of Canada and anyone anywhere in the world that uses, ".com", ".org", ".net", and ".ca". These are called TLDs (Top Level Domains). I'm not sure if there are other TLDs they wholly control. One thing you can guarantee that if this passes a whole lot of people and I especially suspect user content driven sites like YouTube and Facebook will be looking for domains not controlled by the US. Currently they're protected by safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA. They will be held responsible for the content posted by their users under SOPA, which is not reasonable. And, really...do I care if it's youtube.com or youtube.eu or youtube.me? Not really...as long as it works. Many ".com" domains will become nothing more than a redirect to another site outside of US control.

Sure, it'll be easy for companies to avoid litigation using such strategies, but it's ultimately the end user that loses out. SOPA is yet another anti-innovation, backward thinking, anti-commerce, anti-competitive tool trying to preserve a dead business model. And what's worse is that any fool can see that it's ultimately going to become a powerful tool for censorship. Like the DMCA take-downs, even if the content is legitimate, most won't bother to appeal because they WILL make the appeal process extremely onerous.
November 17, 2011

Mr. Briggs said:

What about offshore domain name registrars?
Section 101(3) defines a domestic domain name as "a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States."

Does the simple fact that the domain name appears in a domain registry that's located in the United States (or a judicial district thereof) count it as a "domestic doma in name", even if it wasn't actually registered through that registry?
November 17, 2011

Taryn said:

They need to start building more jails and depleting even more of our non-existent funds.
November 17, 2011

Mr. A said:

Don't feel too bad about being the messenger as being paid by those so-called "Copyright Nazis". They're trying to take over the Internet and eventually the World so you we're just paid to spread their lies and propaganda, that's all.

As for the US and this bill, may God have mercy on those poor souls when their country is going to be bankrupted completely in few years after this bill becomes law.
November 17, 2011

Lawrence Savlov said:

I read with interest --- albeit not with pleasure, considering its content --- your column replicated above.
With respect to domain name registry, if my memory is correct, when national suffixes (".ca" for this country) began, only multi-province entities could get ".ca" addresses, resulting in many websites needing .com/.org/.edu addresses. How feasible would it be for Canadian websites to supplement (initially)/change their addresses to ".ca" or ".(province).ca", thus avoiding the US-based registry for commercial, organizational and educational entities?
You indicated that ARIN allocates IP addresses for Canada, the United States, and 20 Caribbean countries. Is it practicable for ARIN to relocate outside of the U.S. (or at least threaten to do so) if the proposed U.S. legislation is not changed? Failing that, can Canada insist on a domestic equivalent to ARIN for Canadian addresses, supplanting ARIN?
With respect to search engines and payment companies, I assume that some non-U.S.-based companies could create equivalents to Google and PayPal, should U.S. law limit the current companies' activities. The U.S.-based incumbents would presumably be making representations to Congress to amend the Bill, thus avoiding increased competition.
I look forward to reading your next update on this topic.
November 17, 2011

Annon Im said:

SOPA is not the only thing we have to stop!
The U.S is not a free country anymore, SOPA is not the only thing that makes the U.S seem more and more of a police state. I've written a post about the other things they did and currently doing that makes the U.S feel less and less secure for the average citizen. Read more on http://janskriver.wordpress.com/
November 18, 2011

Danux said:

One Step Closer
To the reversion back to one-way information flow, like the "good old days". Life is easier when contrary opinion cannot gain any traction because it lacks a venue with the breadth to draw like-minded people over great distances.
It seems to me the political influence of the internet is finally being acknowledged, I suspect that ultimately we will see each G-country establish its own "internet", contained by its political borders, with access to foreign "internets" via fibre in a few spots (like border crossings). This allows each country/trade zone/political zone to open/enforce their own policies; perhaps a self-managed information network has become the sixth (?) keystone to sovereignty.
ADditionally, if information is going to be enforced as a thing having value, then access to a foreign country's information (or by them to ours) should have economic weight, and be considered a part of international trade, shouldn't it?
Control control control...
November 18, 2011

IamME said:

I can't agree more. The US and their media companies are going to be responsible for destroying the Internet...at least on this side of the pond. It looks like the EU is taking steps to ensure such things do not happen over there. Good time to living there...BAD time to be living in the US or Canada. We're seeing more an more restrictions, paying more for less all the time, and legalized, without cause, spying on their own citizens, we're going to see more and more censorship. Canada and the US are police states, or will be soon...or should I say, welcome to China? Again, all in the name a few American media interests. It's so absurd as to be obscene.
November 18, 2011

Nope said:

.... Americans are crazy.
November 18, 2011

IamME said:

Americans are dangerous, self righteous, megalomaniac, narcissists who think they're the center of the universe. I wonder how long they'll be able to maintain this when they go completely bankrupt trying to control the rest of the world. I realize this is a cruel generalization that does not apply to many of the actual people, but it does apply to a vast majority of those in power as well as a vast majority of American big business, (Those most likely to affect foreign affairs) so I stand by my opinion.
November 18, 2011

F. A. Mann said:

"Huetense sich vor amerikanischen Banken!"
"Bleibense Jutristen!"
November 18, 2011

oldguy said:

.."does not apply to many of the actual people, but it does apply to a vast majority of those in power as well as a vast majority of American big business"

Even with this qualification, I think you are overstating. The ones "in power" tend to listen more attentively to the ones with the money, and specifically to the ones that make large political contributions, or have the highest expenses for lobbyists. This actually amounts to very few in the large picture. And since there is feedback loop between "more profit, more contributions/lobbying", this can only continue.

The "state of the economy" is the hot potato in the political world nowadays, including the US and Canada. Historically these economies were strongest when there was a large diversity and quantity of businesses. If an individual saw an opportunity, they could easily strike out on their own with very little startup investment.
Now the legal costs/demands for a startup are much higher, and with the strengthening and extension of patent and copyright laws, a startup is frequently a non-starter. Only the existing "big boys" can afford to play. The "state of the economy" becomes the responsibility of only a few.

Paying attention to those few is the simple and easy answer for a politician. It isn't the right answer for an economy. Especially when you factor in the capabilities enabled by today's and tomorrow's technology. It leads to things like "Occupy" movements everywhere, growing disrespect for society laws, and beyond.

The "right" answer for today's world effectively cuts a political party off from their existing funding stream. And there is always someone else willing to step forward to receive that funding, in exchange for being selective in who they pay attention to.

November 18, 2011

IamME said:

"The ones "in power" tend to listen more attentively to the ones with the money, and specifically to the ones that make large political contributions, or have the highest expenses for lobbyists. This actually amounts to very few in the large picture. And since there is feedback loop between "more profit, more contributions/lobbying", this can only continue."

I have a very low opinion of the US as a world citizen. So the subset is the smaller and I may have over generalized, but by opinion stands, except that I can now add corrupt, which I initially forgot.

In my opinion political parties should not be allow to take donations from corporate interests, period. My wife and her staff work for the government and they're not even allow to take hockey tickets from their contractors because it's considered too much and could be seen as inappropriate. The same policy should be in place at the provincial and national party level.
November 18, 2011

oldguy said:

..."The same policy should be in place at the provincial and national party level."

I agree. And I'd also like to see a cap on any individual contributions allowed (not just tax deducible cap, a maximum per individual or organisation). Same with the amount an organisation be allowed to spend on lobbying.
Political funding resources should depend on both the contribution amounts, and the base size of their supporters, one element should not be allowed to outweigh the other.

..."a very low opinion of the US as a world citizen"

The "mood" of US society changed dramatically after 9/11. Can't say I blame them at the time, but it's been 10 years now and they should be getting past that, at least emotionally. But the word "terrorist" still has overly large meaning to the average American, much larger than it did when it simply meant hijacking airplanes to Cuba, or blowing up the faces of government buildings. Lobbyists use this word frequently, it plays on the emotions of the politicians as well as the people, even if it isn't a logically appropriate context.
The US used to be more internally dissident. Public and personal opinion was harder to influence. There were more competing views. This is decidedly less today. Combine that with the economic mindset of the "too big to fail" bailouts and the military dominance in the world arena. This isn't a good picture when viewed from the world stage. You opinion is being shared by more and more people around the world.

November 18, 2011

Napalm said:

Why would anyone expect any common sense:


November 18, 2011

Maynard Krebs said:

Batshit crazy Americans
If you think you'd be safe using a Canadian bank to process your credit card receivables, say by using Bank of Nova Scotia for your Visa payments, think again. Scotia sold their credit card processing capability to a US-based company and then bought card processing services from the same company, which will gladly cut you off from processing any Visa transactions on Uncle Sam's demand.

Similarly, if you think that banking with Royal Bank here will be safe, think again. Royal Bank USA is a 100% subsidiary of RBC, and operates under US laws. So what you say. Well, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Royal Bank probably values its presence in the USA and opportunity to do business there far more than it values your business and the $1000/year in fees they make from your little business. If Uncle Sam tells them to cut you off at the knees... whadda ya think will happen even if you're Canadian, your company is Canadian, and you don't sell to Americans?
November 18, 2011

Doog said:

media-have-not Country
Another thing that really bothers me about this bill, is that (although I dont think it will affect us yet), a similar bill could be passed here - but we don't have the great variety of online video/music streaming selection the US has. Netflix here has almost NO TV shows here, and all the movies are old B movies, we dont have most other video on demand services (like Hulu), except for Rogers/bell's online streaming methods which either don't have the shows you want, or their "high def" is so horribly compressed it looks and sounds like shit. PVR's here are expensive compared to the US, internet prices here are insane and have low data caps, except for 3rd party ISP's, which are about to get way more expensive (re:CRTC ruling a few days ago). Dont even get me started on cell phone plans here. We dont have iCloud, Siri, Spotify, Amazon Music... the list goes on. The US sentiment that I've heard, is they either dont care at this point, or they mildly object. Canada is NOT ready for legislation like this, as we do not have the online streaming extravaganza that is happening in the US, and our internet/TV industry are anti-competitive. I for one, will continue bittorrenting the shows I cannot watch due to bad scheduling, shows we cant get here (Top Gear), and shows i want to watch when visiting friends. This is ridiculous.
I won't agree with this kind of legislation until I can get the media I want for a price that I can afford!
November 18, 2011

Napalm said:

@Doog: "whadda ya think will happen even if you're Canadian, your company is Canadian..."

Well you could probably still use credit unions, Canada Post and good old cash.

Unless we listen to Michael's proposals of "let's subsidize foreign corporations to take over each and every Canadian business".
November 19, 2011

IamME said:

I tend to agree with you. We're not at a point where we should be passing such legislation. But make no mistake, this is what the US wants, so our US cronies, Harper and Moore, will acquiesce sell us out to American big media. If we start rolling out a bunch of competing services then that limits their opportunity to expand in to Canada. ...not that we will ever see wonderful services like Hulu here in Canada...at least not any time in the next few years. Pandora was here for a time and the CTRC forced them to shut down Canadian operations.

"I for one, will continue bittorrenting the shows I cannot watch due to bad scheduling, shows we cant get here (Top Gear), and shows i want to watch when visiting friends. This is ridiculous."

And this is why C-11 will fail. This sentiment is far more common anyone in Canadian media or government is willing to admit. Services like VPNs for accessing region-blocked content and seedboxes for using bittorrent outside the legal jurisdiction of the US, MPAA, RIAA, CRIA, etc, are becoming cheaper and cheaper all the time.

I've seen European VPN services for as low as $5/mo and seedboxes for as low $15/mo. When push comes to shove, how much is anonymity going to worth in the coming years? Make no mistake, at least for Internet, we're heading toward a Chinese-style police state.
November 21, 2011

Napalm said:

@IanME: "Make no mistake, at least for Internet, we're heading toward a Chinese-style police state."

Except that we're Canada and the police will be in Washington. Which doesn't sound right.

We should be sovereign on our "essential services" and (tele)communications are one of them. Canada Post and the telcos should be kept Canadian.

November 21, 2011

IamME said:

"Except that we're Canada and the police will be in Washington. Which doesn't sound right. "

Well if they eventually plan to take Canada over, they have to start small. What do we have that they need. Wood, water, oil, and many other natural resources long depleted or non-existent in the US. There has already been rumors that the deal surrounding this big pipeline hinges on C-11 getting passed, tying natural resources to other trade. The Americans cannot function without our oil, so is this really an empty threat?

C-11 and the lawful access sister bill hampers Canadian Internet and Canadian innovation and makes us even more reliant and the US services such as Netflix (Well, Netflix-lite here), since going forward it will be preventatively expensive and legislatively difficult to develop such services in Canada.

This in not only immoral...you'd think it should be illegal. Personally, if they want to play dirty politics, I think we should tell the Americans to go $cr3w themselves and take our trade elsewhere. But as we all know, this won't happen as long as we have spineless wannabe Americans running our country. ...or, perhaps they're doing what big-media paid them to do.
November 21, 2011

Napalm said:

IanME: "Personally, if they want to play dirty politics, I think we should tell the Americans to go $cr3w themselves and take our trade elsewhere."

Naah, that would not be PC, we should learn from them. You should just say "thank you so much, we're seriously considering this offer" then "analyze" it through 3 committees to make sure that nothing can happen during the next 15 years or so. :-)
November 21, 2011

IamME said:

A very good article on SOPA
November 22, 2011

AmericanHere said:

SOPA needs to be stoped on both sides
Read all of this and agree, am american but would have to agree with every thing posted here, most of us, even some of the people i know, are to stupid or think so little of themselves that they think they can't do anything about it and don't even try.
December 21, 2011

Jennifer said:

Concerned Citizen
Fahrenheit 451.................wait at what temperature will they burn our computers?
January 18, 2012

jain said:

Jyotirmay Intellisense
after all, we have won but their may be new rules from congress and it will affect around the clock to the world coz they don't stopping. SOPA and PIPA will be activated slowly slowly like poison.

February 08, 2012

MWD78 said:

and nobody even notices this one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Protecting_Children_from_Internet_Pornographers_Act_of_

a lovely bill with a name only an ogre would dare protest that effectively turns the internet into a world-wide surveillance grid...just what DARPA had in mind when they made the internet.
February 28, 2012

Terry Johnson said:

Gourmet Secrets
Hi, You are post an important business development article. Thanks for creating this nice article.
Terry Johnson
"Gourmet Secrets Inc."
April 14, 2012

danielredua said:

corui o mia nave
July 05, 2013

danielredua said:

corui o a mia nave
July 05, 2013

Not to be disclosed said:

A wife, a mother, a sister, a daughter
I do not live in the USA nor am I a USA citizen, however I am a wife, a mother, a sister and a daughter. As I sit here in my rental place I think that you have totally missed the point. I have seen all of my hard work over the last 7 years, were by I came up with a new intellectual that was industry changing; I did the correct thing by obtaining the required certified patents and registered trademarks and registered copyright on my intellectual property. I cost me over 500,000 dollars. Yet I see online pirates making the money from my intellectual property and I also see everyday people stealing from my family and they think they are entitled to down load it because it is online. Next time you go to download something from the internet just stop and think. Would you rob (steal) from your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter? If so then you are no better than the criminals you have locked up in your jails. I have taken large corporate companies to court and have been left bankrupted by the appeals even though all the evidence is undisputed that my company owns the intellectual property. Whilst there is no dispute by all concerned I would have won the appeal, I just could not afford to pay the lawyers anymore after spending in excess of 1 million dollars on the initial case. This is occurring time and time again to good hardworking people. Which is why people like myself turn to the large intellectual property trojans and sell our intellectual property to them. So if you want to complain about this law Stop and think about every else who has not broken any laws but whom has been effected by your law breaking actions. This law is not just about large corporate giants but it is also about individuals and small entities. If you don't want tough laws bought in by governments then the solution is easy - STOP STEALING OTHER PEOPLES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STOP BREAKING THE LAWS.
September 13, 2013

Write comment
smaller | bigger

, ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: