Now that SOPA/PIPA is officially dead, there remains the threat that something similar could follow, especially after the #$@%# election crap gets over with.

It might be a good idea to begin to consider what restriction are appropriate and what ones are unnecessary and/or harmful.

A main problem with the bills most recently considered is that they would have allowed shutting down (without a hearing or legal action) any entire domain, if a copyright holder complained that any site in the domain showed his/her work. Other sites, and especially search engines, could have been barred from linking to any domain (not just the individual site) thus blackballed. The prohibition on linking to sites, even when the site/domain couldn't be shut down, could have been applied to anyone within US jurisdiction (under laws or treaties).

Mudcat is one site that might well have been subject to such actions, unjustified as it might have been.

A "complaint" that points up a problem seen by many copyright holders is "gently(?) voiced" by a web pundit who's generally opposed the draconian legislation proposed by the idiots; but it is a point that should be considered.

Stop pirating my stories about SOPA, or I'll have to support it

By Bob Sullivan
SOPA – Maybe I'm for it after all.

I'm as adamant a supporter of Web free speech as you'll find. And there's a lot to dislike about the Stop Online Piracy Act. But when my stories about Web free speech are stolen and posted in their entirety by "rogue" websites, my head hurts. Stealing content is a funny way to prove your anti-SOPA credentials.

Opponents of controversial anti-piracy legislation called SOPA have been gaining momentum in the past week, and on Wednesday, their show of muscle reached orgasmic proportions. Perhaps swept up in the excitement of a protest that seems to be working, a long list of websites copied in its entirety a story I wrote about it over the weekend and placed it on their own sites. Here's one example, viewed early Wednesday afternoon. ...

The article continues.

Sullivan writes the "Red Tape Chronicles" where I've found quite a few articles well worth some thought, and I've posted links and comments to several of them here. When the articles are short, as most of his are, I've likely pasted a little more than necessary; but I'm pretty sure I've always included a link to the original.

Keeping the copy/paste posts within "fair use" permitted, and even more important, showing some respect for (some) sources should mandate providing a link, if one is available; and even if you have to look a bit to find the originator of an article, and link to there, it does seem fair.

Especially when starting a thread, it would seem that anything worth talking about (for the rest of us) is worth some explanation of why the initiator thinks it's important enough for the rest of us to be inteested, and it would be polite to indicate "which side" the one starting the conversation thinks is the stronger, especially if it's something even slightly controversial.

Reading the original articles linked in discussions surely would contribute to avoiding the appearance of ignorance (although that doesn't really bother some of us all that much), but as Sullivan points out, he also gets his nickel from the number of hits on the article, so as a favor to him I'll request that everyone who reads this post should click the link - even if it's just to help make him happy. (And while you're there, you might look at a few other articles to see if his reporting merits trying to keep him happy if he is quoted again here.(?))

Is this worth discussing?

John