I walk by a pretty good bootleg DVD stand a few times a month — the proprietor sets up at irregular intervals in Union Square just a few blocks away from The Verge offices in New York. Instead of just offering up ripped DVDs with handwritten titles in paper sleeves, he sells meticulous copies of the entire package from sleeve to disc label, and there are a few legitimate used DVDs thrown in for flavor.
If not for the suspiciously low prices and the occasional printing error, you might not ever know the entire operation was operating in brazen defiance of the law. Both bills attempt to deal with online sites that traffic in illegally copied content, but at extreme cost of remaking the architecture of the internet itself. These rules don't apply to domains that end in.
That's just the first part. SOPA section and PIPA section 4 require payment processors and ad networks to shut down accounts if they receive the right kind of letter from a copyright owner — a system modeled on the heavily criticized notice-and-takedown provisions of the current Digital Millenium Copyright Act that requires a service like YouTube to pull down infringing content after the copyright owner complains.
That system has been abused on occasion, but it ultimately works because it allows YouTube to avoid direct responsibility for the actions of its users — it would have been otherwise sued out of existence. There's no such balance of interests for the payment processors or ad networks under SOPA or PIPA: they simply have to block their accounts within five days of getting a letter, unless their accused customer writes back with a letter promising to come to a US court.
A site like YouTube would remain protected under copyright law, but become extremely vulnerable to having its finances choked off by overzealous copyright owners under SOPA — imposing a huge additional cost on new startups that host user content and effectively undoing the flawed but effective protections for those services currently in copyright law.
Oh, but it gets worse. Much worse. SOPA section offers legal immunity to ISPs that independently block websites that host illegally copied material without any prompting from the government.
The oil-loving hydrophobic tail sticks to the oil and trap oil in the center where it can't come into contact with the water. With the oil trapped safely in the center, the micelle is soluble in water. As the soapy water is rinsed away the greasy dirt goes along with it. Ever wonder why it is easier to clean dirty, greasy hands and other things in hot or warm water rather than cold water?
It is because the fats and oils soften or melt in hot water, which allows them to attach more readily to the hydrophobic end of the soap molecule. In turn, that makes it easier to rinse away. Soap is a natural surfactant. A surfactant is any substance that tends to reduce the surface tension of a liquid in which it is dissolved.
Almost all cleansing products are based on surfactants. Surfactants not only reduce the surface tension of the water but the way they are constructed with one hydrophilic end and one hydrophobic end makes them compatible with both water and oils. This property is what makes them good for cleansing. When surfactants lower the surface tension of water, they basically make the water molecules more slippery, so they are less likely to stick to themselves and more likely to interact with oil and grease.
Natural soap needs no synthetic additives to create lather or to clean because natural soap is a natural surfactant. So it not only makes great bubbles and lather, but it also helps clean oily dirt from your skin--naturally!
Let's get this out of the way right at the start: Stealing is wrong. It's unethical and usually illegal to take something that doesn't belong to you without permission or some form of compensation. It's easy to illustrate this point with physical objects -- if you steal apples from a store, that store has fewer apples to sell to other customers. But things get a bit tricky when it comes to digital property. In the digital realm, it's possible to steal something and then duplicate it without depriving the original owner of the stolen item.
If you get your virtual hands on the next scheduled Hollywood blockbuster and put it up on a site for others to access, you've managed to steal intellectual property even though no physical object has changed hands. The movie studio is still able to sell tickets, DVDs or other means to access the content. To complicate matters, the Internet is a global resource.
Using a browser, you can visit sites hosted on computers all over the world. Some of those sites might host pirated copies of media. How can a company in one country stop the activity of a person or organization in another country?
Piracy -- and more specifically the threat of foreign sites hosting pirated material -- is the primary focus of the SOPA legislation. According to the language in the act , its purpose is to "promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U. When you dig into the language of the act, you'll find that the goal is to target sites that exist on computers in countries outside the United States.
Because these sites -- and the people who run them -- are outside the jurisdiction of U. The proposed rules set out by the act are controversial -- several companies and Internet experts have objected to the material in the act and some go so far as to say it could break the Internet.
Although there are multiple sections in the Stop Online Piracy Act, the bulk of the language is about how to keep potential customers in the United States from accessing Web sites that offer pirated or counterfeit goods.
The act targets "foreign infringers. The act aims at sites that exist primarily to distribute pirated or counterfeit goods, for profit or otherwise. The main focus is on intellectual property. The sites must be "United States directed," meaning that it's clear that Americans are at least partly the intended audience. Since there's no easy way to prosecute people or organizations in a foreign country, the act instead puts pressure on companies and services within the United States.
Specifically, the act singles out Internet service providers, search engines, payment network providers and Internet advertising services. If the act becomes law, these entities will have to comply with a strict set of rules if the attorney general serves them a court order.
And they'll have to act on those rules within five days of receiving the order. Those rules are designed to cut off the foreign infringing site. The act requires ISPs to block access to the domain name for the infringing site. That means if you were in the United States and tried to visit a blocked site you'd either receive an error message or you'd be redirected to another page. On the back end, the ISPs would have to ensure that the domain names wouldn't resolve to the IP address for the infringing site.
The attorney general could also command search engines to remove all direct hyperlinks to an infringing site. Services like Google would be required to scour all links to the site within five days of receiving the order.
Payment network providers like PayPal and Internet advertising services would be required to cut off funds to infringing sites after receiving a court order. The hope is that by cutting off the financial support to the site, the illegal activity will stop. In addition, advertising services wouldn't be allowed to serve up ads on the infringing site nor could they produce any advertisements for the site itself.
Other items in the language of SOPA target sites that stream copyrighted works. These are sites that let you watch or listen to content on demand without first obtaining permission from the owner of the intellectual property. There are also sections that target sites that offer up counterfeit goods in general and pharmaceuticals in particular. Cutting off financial support to a site is a big deal and there's a certain set of steps intellectual property owners will have to follow to get it done.
0コメント