#0
It is interesting that despite photographers having a lot of problems with theft and miss use of their images most are against the new US SOPA and PIPA laws. that should speak volumes about them.
One solution is of course just to disconnect the USA from the Internet. OR at least restrict and filter the gateways into the USA though Canada and Mexico.
Chris Hills
Jagraphics
www.jagraphics.co.uk/photo
Or basically apply the rule of law and not the rule of might is right.
Lawmoment - Lawrence also on my website www.lawmoment.com
President Obama has already made a statement he will veto these bills if they pass, as they are far too broad in their wording, contain too much latitude for abuse, and threaten undue restrictions on the internet.
Majority leader Harry Reed has now postponed voting on the bills by one week to allow more discussion, and debate.
These bills as they are written will not become law.
Just a Traveler With a Camera
They would be unenforceable most of the time anyway. US law only has jurisdiction in the USA. Demotix is not based in the USA.
Chris Hills
Jagraphics
www.jagraphics.co.uk/photo
Unenforceable outside the USA is not the issue. Having the site blocked in the USA is, and is what all the concern is about with these bills. Having the whole of "wordpress.com" blocked in the USA because one person used a copy-written song in a blog is an example of what these bills are about. The same with Demotix, and someone posting a picture with copy-written material in the background. Facebook is the biggie, with how many of it's users include copy-written songs in their profile layouts, or Google for linking to a copy-written news story (there have been court cases involving this very issue).
The bills are not designed to go after, and prosecute purveyors of copy-written material. They are designed only to remove the domain name that publicize copy-written material from the internet in the USA. They aren't even written to remove the IP address, only the domain name.
There are more top level domains based in the USA than you think that would drastically affect the internet if they were forced to be blocked. If Morgan Stanley-Chase had a copy-written picture hanging on the wall in the background of one of their publicized branches, and didn't have a signed property release, under this bill they theoretically could be forced to have their internet domain name blocked in the USA. With them based in New York, it could theoretically end Chase's online banking.
This is taking these bills to the extreme as they are written, but that is what could realistically happen if they pass, and the President were to sign them. Hopefully he sticks to his statement of vetoing them if they do pass, because of how broadly they are worded.
This isn't a small little issue that would only affect the USA. If these were to pass, and go into effect, other countries would follow suit, just to appease those against copy-write infringement when they lobbied those countries for the legislation. Then you can bet (with no one covering the wager), that every angle possible to block the illegal use of copy-written material would be pursued, because if they didn't then favoritism, and selective enforcement could be charged thus negating the legitimate cases.
Just a Traveler With a Camera
