The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet
Author
Message
Shu Celestial Council
Number of posts : 10794 Location : Singapore IGN[Game NickName] : Ashura/Iori Yagami Current Status : Busy at Work Registration date : 2008-03-31
Subject: The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:20 am
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column.
Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of SOPA and PIPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act are two radical pieces of copyright legislation currently being pushed through the US government. Although the stated intent of the new legislation is to provide companies with additional tools with which to combat piracy, the bill's loose wording has raised some serious alarm bells. Opponents to the proposed law say it would give corporations the ability to shut down any almost any website under the guise of protecting copyright infringement.
Gamers will be affected worst of all, as the loose wording of the law makes any website with user-submitted content potentially vulnerable to a shut down order. That could include YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, any blog with a comment section, or even any online game with a chat system. Perhaps the scariest part is that you'll be affected even if you're not in the US, as one of the new law's enforcement mechanisms is to remove a site from the DNS records, a move that assumes the US has jurisdiction over the global Domain Name System. AOL is among many huge companies strongly opposing SOPA, and so naturally Massively opposes it too.
In this week's massive two-page Soapbox, I make the case for why you should be worried about SOPA, and I suggest what can be done to tackle piracy in the games industry. Comments can be left on page two.
Current enforcement mechanisms
Companies in the film, music and games industries obviously have a need to protect their copyrights and prevent misuse of their intellectual properties. The internet has provided massive opportunities for piracy, making it incredibly simple and cost-effective to illegally obtain copies of games, films, and music. The use of digital formats means that the old argument of pirate copies being lower quality no longer applies as pirates are getting the full digital product for free.
The current system in place to stop this kind of copyright infringement is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a piece of legislation designed to provide a fast-track method for companies to get their copyrighted material removed from an offending website without putting that website at risk.
Because of the DMCA's "safe harbour" rule, a website with user-submitted content like YouTube is not held liable for the content its users post. If you upload a song to YouTube, you might be breaking the law, but YouTube isn't. When copyright owners find infringement like this, they send the website owner a DMCA request, and the offending content is selectively removed. The argument being put forward by corporations supporting SOPA is that the DMCA doesn't work against websites that just ignore the requests. Websites hosted in the US that ignore DMCA requests can eventually be taken down, as the webhost company would be aiding criminal activities if it refused, but foreign sites can't.
The spirit of the law
The US legal system has no jurisdiction over websites hosted outside the US, so pirates usually just move their servers to another country and ignore takedown requests. These "rogue websites" may be doing business with people in the US, and the spirit of SOPA is to provide a mechanism for blocking access to those websites for all US citizens. Unfortunately, it's such a badly worded piece of legislation that it can be used to block access to almost any legitimate website.
A website can be classified as rogue if it is primarily engaged in offering services that can enable or facilitate copyright violation, but any website with user-submitted content fits that description. The primary purpose of gaming forums and blogs, for example, is to offer people a means to have text discussions. As text can be used to share links to copyrighted material and therefore facilitate copyright violation, those sites (including Facebook and Twitter) could easily be deemed rogue if any user posts a link to copyrighted material. History is replete with examples of people using the word of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, and there's no reason to assume SOPA would be treated any differently.
Shifting the blame
People have also complained about some of SOPA's bizarre provisions that expose website owners to uncertain liabilities; Section 103(a)(I)(B)(ii)(I) in particular renders a website owner liable if he takes "deliberate action to avoid confirming a high probability" that a user is infringing copyright. The unclear wording of this provision means website owners and ISPs that don't invasively monitor all user-submitted content (including private messages) could be held liable for the actions of their users. This would effectively override the DMCA's safe harbour rule for websites operating in good faith whose services are nevertheless used to facilitate piracy. YouTube, for example, could be made liable for copyrighted music appearing on the website even though it's financially and technologically infeasible to check every video for violations.
Head over to page two, where I look at SOPA's DNS takedown provisions and what they mean for MMOs, challenge the effectiveness of SOPA to actually stop piracy and lay down some simple rules for battling piracy in the games industry.
SOPA's own version of the safe harbor rule grants immunity from DNS takedowns to ISPs and websites that voluntarily block content they believe to be in violation of SOPA. This is so incredibly abusable that I'm shocked it's even being considered; it would allow any ISP to preferentially block content from a competitor as long as it could say it had reason to believe there was copyright violation involved. Imagine your ISP blocking a competing ISP's website because of "an anonymous tip" about copyright violation, or webhost Comcast blocking video streaming services that compete with its own NBC. Worse yet, imagine an MMO publisher that also owns an ISP throttling or blocking competing games, in clear violation of the principles of net neutrality. This is clearly a law created by people who fundamentally do not understand how the internet works.
DNS takedowns
SOPA has three major enforcement mechanisms: DNS takedowns, court orders to banks and advertisers, and search engine delisting. The possibility of a corporation getting a court order to cut off a foreign website's access to funds from the US could have dire consequences for startup game studios around the world. Startups won't have the financial backing to stay afloat while a challenge goes through a US court; they may not have the funds to even fight such a case. Delisting an upcoming online game from search engines could also destroy its launch, and Google may also be obligated to delist every gaming news website that linked to the offending website.
What I'm talking about is the most disgraceful form of censorship, with which any corporation with a strong enough legal team can try to erase a competitor from the web entirely at strategic times just by citing belief of copyright violation. The most contentious issue with SOPA has of course been the provision for DNS takedowns. If the law goes into effect, it will allow a corporation that believes its copyright is being infringed upon to get an entire website delisted from the domain name service so that it's inaccessible. This could be disastrous for online gaming, as shutting down an MMO's website via a DNS takedown request would also kill access to any game servers that resolve under subdomains of that domain.
The provisions of SOPA technically don't apply to US websites, only to foreign websites that are accessible in the US. Unfortunately, this too is a legal gray area as most popular websites are not hosted in one particular location. Google has servers around the world, and all of its services are accessible globally. What should really get you worried is that many MMOs and other online games have servers distributed throughout the world to reduce lag by directing players to a local server. Imagine waking up one morning to find the entire RIFT website and its game servers blocked in the US because people on an EU server were sharing links to copyrighted material in chat. It may sound far fetched, but it's all within the scope of SOPA.
At least it stops piracy, right?
If this weren't such a serious issue, I would be laughing at how ineffective the provisions in SOPA will actually be at combating piracy. Takedowns can be easily countered by anyone with half an ounce of wit, rendering it almost farcical that the anyone in the entertainment industries is supporting the bill. When a website hosting pirate material is taken down by its webhosts or domain host, which already happens regularly despite there usually being no legal basis for it, the website can be back online within minutes. If the domain is seized, which has also happened without a legal basis, a new one can be created and within a few hours the new name can proliferate through social media.
Taking a domain name out of the DNS register does nothing to stop people accessing the website, as it can still be accessed via its IP address, and there's no legal way to stop people sharing that. I could write a small piece of software in five minutes that would run in the background and resolve the IP of any website whose DNS record had been taken down through SOPA, thereby bypassing the entire system. People have already started working on browser extensions and alternate public DNS servers to nullify the effects of SOPA; the bill isn't even law yet and it's already obsolete.
SOPA is a goldmine of legal loopholes that grant any corporation with a good legal department shocking censorship powers over the web, and it's a chilling thought that it could actually go live. Just this month, Belarus made it illegal for foreign websites to offer goods and services to the country's citizens, and further made it illegal to access pornographic or extremist websites. Spain followed suit, with its newly elected government putting the controversial Sinde law into effect. Wikileaks reported that the US actually helped draft the Sinde law and threatened to put Spain on a trade blacklist if it wasn't put into force, a move that isn't altogether surprising since SOPA's being fast-tracked through the US government at the same time.
Copyright protection is a colossal issue for the games industry, but bills like SOPA will do nothing to stop it and will cost the world a great deal in personal freedoms. I think the way forward to combat game piracy will be to adopt the same model as the music industry. ITunes reduced the effort threshold to buying music legally so much that millions of users prefer it over pirating, YouTube Vevo monetises popular music through advertising, and a lot of money has been moving to live performances. For games, this model would involve both making it extremely easy for players to buy a game and offering a better product than it's possible to pirate.
Steam is the players' DRM and purchasing-platform of choice; offering free updates or downloadable content on Steam can go a long way to securing a sale and keeping honest people honest. Hard copies of games (even non-collector editions) can continue to offer things you can't easily pirate, like high-quality maps, posters, collectible pen drives and beautiful artwork books or manuals. MMOs in particular are largely insulated from piracy as the online community is what sells an MMO, so perhaps we should see a lot more games for which online play is the main selling point. Ultimately, the best way to combat piracy is just to offer a better product than the pirates.
Shu Celestial Council
Number of posts : 10794 Location : Singapore IGN[Game NickName] : Ashura/Iori Yagami Current Status : Busy at Work Registration date : 2008-03-31
Subject: Re: The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:35 pm
Lamar Smith, the Texas Representative behind the much-debated "Stop Online Piracy Act," has agreed to remove a controversial provision of the bill that would force internet service providers block access to foreign websites accused of hosting copyrighted materials.
This recent change eliminates one of the most contentious elements of the legislation, which could have blocked access to online game content or communities accused of violating copyright law. In its current state, the bill still allows copyright holders to seek court orders to cut off revenue sources from infringing sites.
In a statement on his website, Smith wrote that he has chosen to remove the DNS blocking provision of the bill "so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision. We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers."
This change comes soon after companies and organizations from throughout the online community spoke out against SOPA, decrying it for unfairly restricting ordinary citizens, placing too much power in the hands of large corporations, and more.
Over the past few days, game developers including Epic Games, Riot Games, Mojang, Red 5, and many more voiced their opposition to the bill, with some promising to shut down their games and websites in protest.
Detailing SOPA's implications for the games industry, Riot Games CEO Brandon Beck argued that the legislation could threaten online games by restricting user generated content, community features such as forums and in-game chat, and more.
In its own statement against the bill, PC game vendor GOG.com said the bill would hinder the game community, but have minimal effect on the pirates it targets. "Pirates who torrent via P2P methods will not be inconvenienced in the least by SOPA and PIPA [the Senate's 'Protect IP Act']; people who post 'let’s play' walkthroughs of video games on YouTube, though, may be," the site's organizers said.
The U.S. Congress' SOPA hearings are due to take place January 18 -- and Gamasutra will continue to provide ongoing coverage of the bill and its effects on the game industry.
Shu Celestial Council
Number of posts : 10794 Location : Singapore IGN[Game NickName] : Ashura/Iori Yagami Current Status : Busy at Work Registration date : 2008-03-31
Subject: Re: The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:58 am
Wikipedia's homepage for the 24-hour blackout.
A West Australian IT professor has joined a worldwide chorus of internet heavyweights including Google, Wikipedia and Facebook in protest of two United States' bills aimed at curbing web piracy.
Curtin University Information Systems School head Peter Dell said the affects of the proposed Stop Internet Piracy Act and Protect IP Security Act could be "catastrophic" for other social media sites like Facebook.
Wikipedia has today gone into a 24-hour blackout in protest of the bills, which were due to be voted on the coming weeks, but which reports are already saying are now unlikely to pass the US Senate at a vote next week.
"Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia," the site read today.
"If these sites were felt to be facilitating copyright infringement they could be banned from online advertising, which for sites such as Facebook – where advertising is fundamental to its business model – could be catastrophic," Professor Dell said.
Professor Dell said SOPA would force ISPs to block access to social networking sites which were found to have taken part in the practice.
"Such a decision would obviously not be taken lightly, but the fact that this is what would be possible is why there has been such a loud protest against the bill," he said.
Whether the bill would actually make any difference to the extent to which copyright infringement occurs was not yet clear, Professor Dell said.
"Trying to prevent copyright infringement by blocking sites is a bit like playing "Whack-a-Mole", as soon as you knock one of them down another one pops up somewhere else," he said.
Professor Dell said he was not surprised by the move and did not believe the ongoing battle between content owners and website power houses was likely to end any time soon.
"This is a long debate. It isn't the first time that these two forces have come up against each other and it won't be the last either," he said.
"If someone tries to use some sort of legal or technical means to block something then the people in the internet find another way."
Prof Dell said catching pirates was not the solution to internet piracy, rather remodelling the ways content providers made money off the internet.
"Rather than trying to go after the owners of the site they're making it illegal to advertise on the site – using economic restrictions to get around the problem of jurisdiction," he said.
"It could probably have an impact for any site anywhere in the world. If that site is deemed to be infringing copyright material their advertising drops off the cliff because Goggle won't touch them. "The potential for collateral damage is huge."
Google claims opposition to the bills has been backed by 41 human rights organizations, 110 law professors, more than 200 entrepreneurs, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter and Yahoo.
Number of posts : 10794 Location : Singapore IGN[Game NickName] : Ashura/Iori Yagami Current Status : Busy at Work Registration date : 2008-03-31
Subject: Re: The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 pm
Gamasutra staff will not be updating the website between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. PST on Wednesday, January 18, in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act, which despite some recent changes, still remains a very real threat to freedom on the internet.
We realize that we do provide a service that many people count on daily. But we strongly believe that ultimately, our readership, which includes many professionals in the video game industry, would be greatly damaged by SOPA.
With that in mind, it's important that as the leading industry-facing game news website, Gamasutra takes a clear stance on this issue. So we've made the tough decision to symbolically cease normal news operations, and an ad-free version of this article will take the place of the front page.
We will resume normal updates on Thursday morning. Comments on this article will remain active, and we encourage our visitors to discuss this measure.
The act is a clumsy attempt to eliminate copyright and trademark infringement stemming from foreign "rogue sites" that are deemed by the U.S. government or private corporations as havens for piracy. It would give the U.S. government and copyright holders the ability to seek court orders to block U.S. internet users from accessing sites accused of being "primarily dedicated" to copyright and trademark infringement.
Recently, the bill's author, Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, made an attempt to clear up some vagaries of the bill's original language. For example, instead of targeting sites that supposedly "engage in, enable or facilitate" copyright and trademark infringement, the act now more specifically targets foreign sites that are "primarily dedicated" to copyright and trademark infringement. Last week, Rep. Smith also decided to drop the controversial Domain Name System (DNS) provision.
But those revisions are still not anywhere close to adequate. Even with those revisions, under SOPA, content rights-holders and the U.S. Attorney General have the ability to gain a court order to put supposed infringers on an internet blacklist, bypass due process, and target legitimate businesses with the threat of civil and criminal penalties. And even though "foreign sites" are now the direct target of SOPA, U.S. companies will bear a financial burden as a result of compliance and legal costs pertaining to this measure.
The bill is still all about internet censorship that's akin to the kind used in countries like Iran and China. For our non-U.S. readers who think this won't affect you, think of how much of the internet's power lies in the U.S., and the kind of precedent this could set for other governments.
SOPA is a particular threat to video game companies and their fans who partake in user-generated content, such as mods, videos and screenshots. In general, SOPA would place a chilling effect upon many ways that game companies interact with and foster their communities, and judging how the games industry has been taking its products online and worldwide for years, and positioning games as services, that's a bad thing.
So when your customers and fans are negatively affected, that also affects the business of game developers, killing fun, creativity and innovation, while hampering the industry's economic growth all at the same time. The measure is still overly broad and wouldn't actually stop piracy. It won't protect U.S. jobs, but rather put legitimate game industry businesses in the crosshairs.
Due to the vagueness of the act, experts have said that even in its current amended form, U.S. sites could become direct SOPA targets. Gamasutra currently has comments sections and blogs where users can upload content, and we're planning to expand community features. Depending on the kinds of material posted by our readers in these sections, will we be deemed a site that's "primarily dedicated" to trademark and copyright infringement? Shall we hastily delete anything that might bring down the mighty hammer of the U.S. government or some media conglomerate?
While the SOPA hearings originally slated for Wednesday have been delayed in light of Rep. Smith's revision to the act's DNS provision, Gamasutra and its staff are standing in solidarity with those in the game industry and other websites that oppose this measure.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that video games are protected speech under the First Amendment. Gamasutra supports no measure -- neither SOPA nor the similarly dangerous PIPA -- that will undoubtedly counteract any progress this industry has made towards the freedom to create and innovate within the art and business of video games.
Kris Graft Editor-in-Chief Gamasutra.com
Shu Celestial Council
Number of posts : 10794 Location : Singapore IGN[Game NickName] : Ashura/Iori Yagami Current Status : Busy at Work Registration date : 2008-03-31
Subject: Re: The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:27 pm
[Attorney and frequent Gamasutra contributor Mona Ibrahim breaks down what internet blackout bills could mean for video game developers.]
A lot of congress’ time lately has gone to drafting, revising, and negotiating legislation that in some way shape or form controls America’s ability to access content on the Internet. You have likely heard about SOPA, PIPA, and maybe even OPEN—but how does this legislation apply to game developers, and why have these pieces of legislation created such dissention? This FAQ clarifies the details about these bills and how they affect game development.
1. Aren’t SOPA and PIPA already dead?
No. Both acts still have substantial congressional backing and financial support from the MPAA, RIAA, and other supporters. Although the opposition has increased, there is still a possibility that either Act will be become law. Even if both Acts fail, there is a high probability that future legislation closely resembling those acts will appear before congress again—after all, they themselves are reincarnations of an earlier bill, the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (COICA).
2. So what are SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN?
The "Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) and the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act" or the "PROTECT IP Act"(PIPA) are corresponding pieces of legislation that are currently before the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. Both Acts grant the Attorney General the power to force payment providers, advertisers, search engines, and DNS registries to block access to foreign sites dedicated to infringement. The Acts also give private parties the right to obtain court orders against infringing sites—upon obtaining a court order, private rights holders can turn around and, like the Attorney General, force payment providers and advertisers to cease providing services to the allegedly infringing site. SOPA also imposes criminal penalties for streaming content that’s deemed infringing.
The "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act” (OPEN Act) is a counter-measure to SOPA and PIPA and is currently before both the House and Senate. The OPEN Act puts prosecution power against foreign "rogue sites” in the hands of the United States International Trade Commission. Upon receiving a complaint, the Commission will undergo an investigation to determine whether a site’s sole or primary purpose is an infringing one. Unlike SOPA and PIPA, the penalties to rogue sites are purely financial—the Commission can issue Cease and Desist orders to payment providers and advertisers to cease operations on the rogue site, but there is no corresponding cease and desist forcing search engines or DNS registries to redirect or block access to the site. The owner of the rogue site has an opportunity to raise their defense prior to the Commission’s issuance of Cease and Desist Orders.
3. How do SOPA and PIPA threaten the games industry and game development?
Out of all of the entertainment industries, game development will probably be the most affected if SOPA or PIPA become law. Games rely on the Internet for everything from getting player feedback to promoting their content. So how could the games industry suffer if SOPA or PIPA pass?
Fan-based communities that permit users to post videos or fan-created content will be at serious risk of totally shutting down even in minor cases of infringement by its community members.
Funding opportunities like KickStarter, which enable small-time developers to create content without relying on a major publisher, are at risk of shutting down if even one project is suspected of infringement.
Digital distribution channels (we’ve already seen what happened to MegaUpload), including Steam and Impulse, would also be at risk for the same reason.
Online games and online game communities would be subject to the same threats as those websites threatened by SOPA and PIPA.
Games in particular are affected by any Act that threatens freedom of speech—especially when that threat comes from private parties asserting IP rights. The opportunity to use such legislation to censor content for motives other than those set forth in the Act is high.
Game developers both large and small rely heavily on digital distribution and their fans. Both SOPA and PIPA pose a direct threat to distribution channels and online communities in particular.
4. What makes SOPA and PIPA dangerous?
SOPA and PIPA are dangerous for a few reasons:
Both Acts use vague, ill-defined language to identify both foreign sites and sites dedicated to infringement;
Both Acts give search engines, DNS registries, payment providers, and advertisers clear incentive to proactively block websites even before receiving a court order—a private party/competitor could send a notice to those service providers claiming infringement, thereby giving those service providers the "good faith” belief they need to act in order to protect their immunity. This is particularly problematic if, say, an ISP is also a content provider. It gives them both the power and the incentive to censor their own competitors;
SOPA expressly criminalizes streaming content that contains infringing material—this could be anything from a fan-made game play video that has infringing music playing in the background to an infringing copy of a music video. Sites hosting that streamed content are subject to the blocking provisions set forth in SOPA (including internet community forums and sites like YouTube);
Both Acts pose a threat to constitutional rights like freedom of speech and due process. With regard to freedom of speech, the method of blocking and redirecting sites is a model traditionally used for purposes of censorship in more restrictive countries—even if the purpose of the Act is different, there is no question that the censorship of perfectly legal content is a possibility thanks to the incentives created by both Acts. As for due process, court orders are obtained ex parte and action can be taken against a website regardless of whether the website owner has actual notice—in other words, a website can be blocked or redirected without giving the owner an opportunity to raise a defense.
Many experts believe that the method DNS registries and registrars would have to use to redirect or block websites undermines Internet security.
Opponents of both Acts have raised a number of other complaints citing various problems, but most arguments shake down to the fact that the Acts provide a legal arsenal to censor perfectly legitimate content.
5. How is the OPEN Act any different?
OPEN isn’t perfect, but it is a vast improvement to both SOPA and PIPA for several reasons:
Private causes of action are eliminated—private parties must submit a complaint to the International Trade Commission, which will then investigate the site and make a determination as to whether it is infringing;
It expressly protects websites that act in compliance with the DMCA Safe Harbors;
Sites aren’t blocked or redirected and enforcement is based purely on financial incentives. Cease and desist orders are issued to payment providers and advertisers to terminate financial support to rogue sites;
Prior to issuing Cease and Desist orders, the Commission provides the owner or operator of the allegedly infringing site an opportunity to raise any available defenses;
The Act discourages groundless complaints by requiring complainants to post a bond for preliminary injunction orders.
There are other marked difference between the OPEN Act and SOPA/PIPA, but there are some similarities as well. Some of the language used, particularly definitions, are similar to those we see in SOPA/PIPA. However, the OPEN Act is likely a step in the right direction to shut down foreign piracy sites without catching innocent non-infringers in the same net.
6. So what can I as a game developer or fan do to stop this kind of legislation?
Simply being aware of the problem isn’t enough. Opponents to the bill should contact their representatives and request that they withdraw support from bills that threaten a free and open Internet.
Sponsored content
Subject: Re: The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet
The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet