Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [CC-Europe] EDRI

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • To: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] EDRI
  • Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:12:48 +0200

[This one has not appeared on the list after 10 hours.
My apologies if you get this twice.]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:43:36 +0200, John Hendrik Weitzmann
<jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de> wrote:
> I also had some doubts at first about the relevance of PIPA/SOPA for
> CC, but after reading some of the worst case scenarios
> (e.g. allegations sufficient enough to enact privately "controlled"
> shut-down of hosting sites)

Dear John Hendrik Weitzmann,
I have also read some of these worst case scenarios, e.g.:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/03275317104/how-sopa20-sneaks-really-dangerous-private-ability-to-kill-any-website.shtml
and I have even gone on to ask the people making those allegations
*what* it is in the SOPA bill that expresses this Really Dangerous
Private Ability To Kill Any Website [tm]. When I ask
this question, I am always told to read the nefarious section 105
of SOPA - so I did.
I suggest you also read it - it is on the net:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text
(This is the version that was the latest when Mike made his
posting.)

First, I think it is important to note that this section *only* applies
to sites that "has only limited purpose or use other than"
... "offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any prescription
medication". That limitation in purpose makes me doubt the allegation
that sec. 105 empowers private parties to take down *any* website.

Second, it doesn't really grant anyone (private or not) any *powers*.
What it grants is *immunity* to ISPs that, "acting in good faith and
based on credible evidence", takes down or refuses to service a
complained about pharmacy site. I understand that one could (and
should!) argue that this way of resolving conflict does not provide
sufficient *protection* and due cause for the wrongly accused - but
saying that this clause enact privately "controlled" shut-down of
a site is - well - stretching it.

For avoidance of misunderstanding - I do not think SOPA is a great
piece of legislation. On the contrary, I think that most of it
is pretty stupid. I just find the allegations that it will
"harm the commons" way over the top. (It will obviously - if
passed - harm the bottom line and therefore also the interests
of the shareholders of certain content aggregators and social
websites, as well as some online pharmacies - but protesting
that should fall within the scope of CC).

> it appears to me that sites hosting a lot of CC content might run
> higher risks than others under such legislation, especially because
> of the CCPL's no warranties structure and the
> publicity/personality/moral rights being excluded.

Well, these things appears different from my perspective. I do not
see a great need for free culture sites to also offer prescription
medication.

> So, alright, Mike could have been more explicit on the possible
> effects, but IMHO he's right after all.

We'll just have agree to disagree on that.
--
Gisle Hannemyr ( http://hannemyr.com/ )




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page