Originally Posted by Nathan

Seriously, all of you are driving me insane... sorry, I have to post, I can not stand this anymore...

There is so much misunderstanding on this board about SOPA it is INSANE...

SOPA misunderstanding 1: The market-driven system (103) does NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE TO HOSTS!!! It _ONLY_ allows notices sent to _AD NETWORKS_ and _BILLING PROVIDERS_.

SOPA misunderstanding 2: SOPA does not apply to sites that offer one link to some copyrighted product!! It has to be DEDICATED TO THE FACT.

SOPA misunderstanding 3: Market-Driven SOPA notices to ad networks or billing providers will most likely result in a counter-notice from the site, which will result in it going to COURT!!! If anyone here thinks that ad networks or billing providers will just voluntarily shut down sites they are insane... if they thought that would make sense they would friggin do it already now.

SOPA misunderstanding 4: SOPAs _2nd_ paragraph -- Section 1 - SEC 2 - (a) (2) -- is there to LIMIT anything following in the law, and it clearly states that anywhere it talks about a breach of Title 17, ALL LIMITATIONS OF TITLE 17 APPLY.. Guess what guys, TITLE 17 SECTION 512 is _DMCA_.

SOPA misunderstanding 5: SOPA was made for sites like pornbb.org or similar, in order to shutdown sites which CAN NOT BE TOUCHED from the US. It is so that although the SITE can not be taken down, it can be blacklisted all over in the US. The ISP provision in 102 is not to send a notice to the HOST OF THE SITE.. It's to send a notice to ALL ISPS IN THE US TO BLOCK THE DNS!

Small hint also regarding our sites and 103 -- 1) We run our own Ad Network, a SOPA notice sent to that one will definitely result in a counter-notice and a lawsuit following; 2) We do not use any billing providers on our tube sites.

In general, 103 will be used by copyright owners without really understanding it, and will likely harm a bunch of them when they have to go to court and pay penalties for false claims. Make _SURE_ you understand 103 (a) (1) perfectly... especially (B) (i) (I)... "primarily" and "only limited purpose or use other than" and "violation of Section 501 of title 17" in connection with 1 SEC 2 (a) (2) are quite detailed as in what they mean and apply to... BTW, (B) (ii) is there for sites like the pirate bay I guess...

BTW, since a comment to that effect was made here, DMCA has nothing to do with not wanting to police a site, but instead that a site taking submissions by ANY THIRD PARTY, even a verified source, needs DMCA to protect itself against someone that posts content she does not own.