> False. It's the opposite actually. A site continues to have existing safe harbor protection UNLESS it does this. Even Congress knows you can't put this type of burden on sites.
So any site can continue to operate as long as they pointedly don't police user content? Considering that would make the legislation entirely ineffective, I suspect it'll get conveniently ignored. It would also then remove the ability of sites to enforce their own terms of service on user content, for fear of losing protection. (Consider that YouTube already lets copyright holders police user content, primarily because they got sued and more or less forced to. That would then make them lose their safe harbor.) And in any case, that would still force non-US sites to adhere to US regulations or get blocked, which remains a serious problem given the set of regulations the US would like to enforce on sites.
> False. Individuals and corporations cannot DNS blacklist, or block from Google results. That's only allowed based on a request from the Attorney General, requires approval of a Judge, and only applies to foreign companies that explicitly and solely exist for the purpose of copyright infringement.
Oh, and that makes it OK then? That process seems likely to become a rubber stamp, especially for requests made by the companies that bought and paid for this legislation in the first place.
And considering that the congresscritters that approve the legislation often don't bother reading it before doing so, and rely on summaries instead, I'd hardly fault Tom's Hardware for relying on the general summaries provided by other technical sources concerned about this legislation. SOPA has also undergone numerous changes and amendments since its introduction, none of which make it acceptable, but many of which make the details somewhat less concrete. The article got the major points right, and the details close to right.
So any site can continue to operate as long as they pointedly don't police user content? Considering that would make the legislation entirely ineffective, I suspect it'll get conveniently ignored. It would also then remove the ability of sites to enforce their own terms of service on user content, for fear of losing protection. (Consider that YouTube already lets copyright holders police user content, primarily because they got sued and more or less forced to. That would then make them lose their safe harbor.) And in any case, that would still force non-US sites to adhere to US regulations or get blocked, which remains a serious problem given the set of regulations the US would like to enforce on sites.
> False. Individuals and corporations cannot DNS blacklist, or block from Google results. That's only allowed based on a request from the Attorney General, requires approval of a Judge, and only applies to foreign companies that explicitly and solely exist for the purpose of copyright infringement.
Oh, and that makes it OK then? That process seems likely to become a rubber stamp, especially for requests made by the companies that bought and paid for this legislation in the first place.
And considering that the congresscritters that approve the legislation often don't bother reading it before doing so, and rely on summaries instead, I'd hardly fault Tom's Hardware for relying on the general summaries provided by other technical sources concerned about this legislation. SOPA has also undergone numerous changes and amendments since its introduction, none of which make it acceptable, but many of which make the details somewhat less concrete. The article got the major points right, and the details close to right.