Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Bungie's Position on SOPA
  • Subject: Bungie's Position on SOPA
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Update
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chief sponsor of the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) said Friday he would remove a controversial provision from the bill until further study takes place.

"After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision," Smith said in a statement.

The move by Smith comes after Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said he would consider a similar move for the Senate version of SOPA, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

[Edited on 01.14.2012 5:56 AM PST]

  • 01.14.2012 5:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are you reading my signature? Who actually opens these things and reads them!

And as always, SEND ME A PM. Please. Or really bad things will happen to you.

Posted by: Zon The Great
Posted by: Cranium Crater
This bill does nothing that isn't already being done and adds a whole lot more control over the entire system.

Um...that control...will help them stop copyright infringement (at the curbing of free speech, yes, but that's a problem with copyright law)

Posted by: Cranium Crater
You'll still be able to access foreign piracy sites without hindrance if you know the IP.

Your ISP will block these foreign sites. They won't cease to exist from the Internet, they'll just cease to exist without you somehow tricking your ISP

Posted by: Cranium Crater
This bill does nothing but inconvenience the average user and threaten the existence of social sites and media sharing hubs like YouTube or Tumblr.

Again, there is copyright infringement on these sites. They are breaking laws right now.

Posted by: Cranium Crater
You can't archive the web and not also archive pirated material.

Why not?

1. That extra control will do nothing to stop copyright infringement. There are already bills in place that stop US web based companies from hosting copyrighted material. Ever see a video on YouTube get the "This video has been removed for copyright reasons"? Those laws affect all US websites. SOPA and the Protect IP act are geared towards foreign offenders, but they are going to hurt a lot of sites we use everyday as collateral. Public forums will all but seize to exist. YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Google, and many, many more sites will be taken down.

2. All you need to bypass the government's firewall is the IP address of the website. The way this bill works is by censoring the DNS look-ups and not by censoring websites. For example typing 66.62.238.10 instead of Bungie.net will bring you to the same place. There is no way to stop that from happening, it is the way the internet works. The computers deal in IP addresses, domain names are just there for our convenience.

3. Companies have legal routes already in place to deal with these infringements. And still, taking down a website and/or fining the owner because a user did something wrong solves nothing.

4. Go to Google and make a query about pirated games, or a torrent website. You will find direct links to those sites with legitimate (and probably virus infected) pirated games. Because of this Google will be fined for every offending link if SOPA passes. The way back web archive will go under because they contain archives of sites that have offending material on it. This bill will do nothing but provide a speed bump for the internet pirates and consequently destroy a lot of our favorite websites.


Posted by: Zon The Great
Posted by: XoG Suppressor
The sites aren't black-holed as you're suggesting, they're removed from DNS servers in the USA. You can easily use alternate DNS or connect directly in some situations.

My point was that in most cases, it won't be as easy as he's suggesting. Although this really isn't the point

Posted by: XoG Suppressor
The sites aren't breaking laws, the users are. There's a big difference.

I never said the sites were breaking laws. Rather, I didn't mean that they were. I was referring to the pages with copyright infringement that are breaking laws. And why shouldn't the government have the power to block pages that are breaking laws?


1. It really is as easy as I'm suggesting it is. As he said there are already many tools set up in case it does pass. And while the "average user" will not know about these things, the "average user" is also not the one who is pirating copyrighted material. Unless you count censoring songs in the background of a video on youtube as a good thing, then the "average user" will only be negatively affected.

2. The government isn't being hurt at all by pirated material. The power should lie with the companies being hurt, they should be able to prosecute pirates. This bill undermines previous laws by giving the government the power to prosecute based off the word of private companies.

If you trust your government with that kind of power I really do fear for the future of this country.


Posted by: Economics
-snipped-

*Post can be found at the top of the page.

You are aware that the Internet is not based off of domain names, right? "Going around" the government censors is just a matter of understanding the Internet. The computer does not see domain names, it sees a series of numbers such as 66.62.238.10. Domain names exist so that the Internet is more accessible for ordinary people. Fortunately, the government does not control the Internet and has no way of controlling actual IP addresses and can only censor the DNS look-ups. So all one needs to do is find the IP address of the site using any of a million ways to do so and start using that instead of the domain name.

In short, this bill will do nothing to stop foreign pirating sites or our access to them, but instead will chop 90% of our legitimate internet based businesses off at the knees. And then again at the waist before going in for a finishing move.


[Edited on 01.14.2012 6:11 AM PST]

  • 01.14.2012 5:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

One thought that I can't seem to get out of my head in relation to the idea of a "national firewall" with the Access Control List in the hands of the Feds. I know that this is all being wrapped in the form of "protecting IP and/or stopping piracy", but what if there is/was a national security angle to the idea?

Some nations have already created "a national firewall" for their Internet and related networks within their borders. Something that allows their government to either "block anyone from inside hitting this address outside and vice-versa" as well as "isolate the internal WAN from the external WAN".

China and Iran are two nations that have done this, and as many have observed, the US attempt is similar if not identical.

Has anyone ever considered that this is at its core, a national defense move with a "we're doing this to protect IP" candy shell? Seriously. We've seen government-v-government hacks in the news, and the threat of serious international cyber warfare exists.

The same infrastructure and networking setup that they are talking about to "stop piracy" could also be used to "close the gate" in the event of major network warfare were to start.

Honestly, I am wondering if that is a part of this, but the authors/sponsors fear being called "paranoid kooks" for mentioning it.

  • 01.14.2012 6:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are you reading my signature? Who actually opens these things and reads them!

And as always, SEND ME A PM. Please. Or really bad things will happen to you.

Posted by: Recon Number 54
-Snipped-

It won't work if that's what they are really trying to do. Anyways, the internet as it is right now is very secure and stable. Any hacking success is due to Government's own lack of security on their websites.

P.S. The military (who would hold all the secrets that other government's would want) has their own Internet, I believe. I'm 99% positive about it, I just can't remember how to cross between the two. I know I've seen the .mil extension though and I know it's not part of the normal range of IP addresses.

EDIT: That's my bad. The .mil extension is similar to the .gov for government sites. However, there is more than one Internet and the military does have one.

EDIT2: Huzzah!

[Edited on 01.14.2012 6:31 AM PST]

  • 01.14.2012 6:18 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: Cranium Crater
Posted by: Recon Number 54
-Snipped-

It won't work if that's what they are really trying to do. Anyways, the internet as it is right now is very secure and stable. Any hacking success is due to Government's own lack of security on their websites.

P.S. The military (who would hold all the secrets that other government's would want) has their own Internet, I believe. I'm 99% positive about it, I just can't remember how to cross between the two. I know I've seen the .mil extension though and I know it's not part of the normal range of IP addresses.
To be perfectly honest with you, any of the Lolsec/AnonOps successes in hacking any government website is and was utterly pathetic. And the idea that the government would need to go to these lengths (in any manner) to stop any level of "cyber warfare", as it were, being directed at our government is equally as pathetic.

One of the most powerful nations in the world should be able to protect themselves from a few young adults with a high tech computer, and not have to resort to a guise of this nature to 'backdoor-in' a method of stopping this from happening.

I really do hope that what Recon stated isn't the case. Because, if it is, and we just want something to improve national security, then we should present a bill that is strictly about national security. As has been said, the thread of "cyber warfare" is very real and protecting yourself from it would be completely understandable.

In today's society with the general media and teens/young adults adapting to the technological age at a rate exponentially larger than our elected officials and the establishment they work for, a piece of legislation that is based in protecting us from technologically-based attacks and not rooted in a false care for the copyright woes of Hollywood would be welcomed, if not celebrated (IMHO).

[Edited on 01.14.2012 6:32 AM PST]

  • 01.14.2012 6:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are you reading my signature? Who actually opens these things and reads them!

And as always, SEND ME A PM. Please. Or really bad things will happen to you.

Posted by: Economics
I'm well aware of how DNS works - however, this legislation would make bypassing said DNS with the intent to access copyrighted material, or providing a way to do so, illegal.

I think the younger generation has grown up with piracy and accepts it as "freedom on the internet." At the very least, making them go around normal means of accessing content should draw attention to the fact that what they are doing is in fact, illegal.

Well, while they may wish to do that I don't think it will be possible. The great thing about the internet is that it's anonymous. I can use Google translate to hide my IP from any website, so there is no way for the government to know who is breaking the law.

And while most people will not think to do that, the problematic pirates will.

  • 01.14.2012 7:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Cranium Crater
Anyways, the internet as it is right now is very secure and stable.
Untrue on both counts. As far as stability is concerned, the internet is in the midst of migrating from the archaic IPv4 to IPv6 and as far as security is concerned it's hard to envisage a situation where the internet could be less secure. Switching to IPv6 will alleviate some of the security issues (by enforcing IPSec), but the big vulnerability in the internet is in DNS, and it's a vulnerability SOPA seems to be designed to exploit, probably unintentionally given the incompetence and corruption of its authors.

DNS is the system that converts human-readable web addresses (e.g. "www.bungie.net") into machine-readable IP addresses (e.g. 66.62.238.10). It is effectively a phonebook, with each web address pointing to an IP.

To maintain such a vast and ever-changing phonebook, the DNS system is a network of servers built on a web of trust, all updating each other as and when they themselves are updated by domain registrars or similar.

So, by impersonating an authoritative server (something that is surprisingly easy to do at this point in time), or otherwise introducing erroneous data into even a single authoritative DNS server, you can "poison" the entire network in very short order, effectively hijacking or blocking the website in question for all those who do not have the numeric IP address.

SOPA is designed to use the law to do this. If action is taken against a website, all DNS servers in the court's jurisdiction (i.e. the US) would be ordered to delete the entry for the site, despite the fact the site still exists and the domain is still owned and operated by someone (probably outside the US; within the US the feds can already seize domains).

This means that, under SOPA, American DNS servers would cease to be authoritative. They could no longer be trusted.

This is in direct conflict to the Department of Homeland Security's directive, supported by the apparatus of the internet, to deploy an extension to DNS called DNSSEC. This, in short, secures DNS, forcing all DNS records to be verified with two-factor security, and forcing all those with the improved security to guarantee the veracity of their DNS records. US DNS providers would be unable to meet this requirement. DNSSEC, a DHS/IETF priority, and SOPA are incompatible.

More to the point, this means US DNS servers would no longer be used. Internet standards dictate that any client that receives no response from a DNS server with regard to an address must keep sending requests until it gets a definitive answer. This means your browser will almost certainly hop abroad to some server sat in the UK or Canada or the Netherlands or anywhere else in the world and get the blocked URL's IP without so much as breaking its stride.

This is where it gets scary.

Any individual who attempts to circumvent barriers put in place by SOPA is also breaking the law. So just by browsing the internet, by directing your browser to a site that has been blocked, you are committing a crime.


I alluded to this in my hi-lariously drunk rant last night (I actually don't even remember making that post), when drunkme articulated:2) SOPA is a non-starter, if nothing else, the DHS-driven deployment of DNSSEC will prevent it from ever coming to fruition (if it ever passes, which, let's face it, it won't). Given a choice between SOPA and DNSSEC, the US will choose DNSSEC every timeNow lo, and behold:
All DNS-blocking provisions removed from SOPA, after some bright spark decides to read what DNS actually does.

Hopefully this is the first step towards killing this bill, one of the sorriest examples of legislation I've ever seen.

It's just overflowing with sad hilarity. It really makes me wonder who elects these people. For example, SOPA would probably make it a crime to develop and use tools that could circumvent SOPA's orders. The number one developer of such tools is the US government, in order to support freedom of speech in oppressed countries. What kind of asshat gets so far into writing and campaigning for a bill without having their head explode at the sheer volume of cognitive dissonance in play.

  • 01.14.2012 7:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Update
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chief sponsor of the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) said Friday he would remove a controversial provision from the bill until further study takes place.

"After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision," Smith said in a statement.

The move by Smith comes after Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said he would consider a similar move for the Senate version of SOPA, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Looks like the grassroots movement against this bill is starting to work. I still don't think that Leahy will remove the DNS bock from PIPA though. He is the biggest supporter of the MPAA/RIAA in Congress.

  • 01.14.2012 7:09 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: Economics
I think the younger generation has grown up with piracy and accepts it as "freedom on the internet." At the very least, making them go around normal means of accessing content should draw attention to the fact that what they are doing is in fact, illegal.
Sadly, this is true. I'm currently in High School and the guys at my lunch table (about 15 of them) had a conversation about this the other day and the entirety of them made fun of me for still buying songs on iTunes, citing the indisputable 'fact' that "If you still pay for music, you're an idiot."

  • 01.14.2012 7:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Considering the number of both free and legal services they're not far wrong.

  • 01.14.2012 7:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Cranium Crater
I can use Google translate to hide my IP from any website...
Except google, who are in the US and therefore subject to US law. The only way to really anonymise yourself on the internet is to use a tool like tor (pretty sure pointing out that tor exists would be a crime under SOPA :n).

  • 01.14.2012 7:26 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: elmicker
Considering the number of both free and legal services they're not far wrong.
True. I was just trying to emphasize that teens/young adults of today ARE in the mindset that this kinda of stuff (piracy) is commonplace and don't think of it as the same thing as stealing, doing drugs, underage drinking, etc. in a legal sense (admittedly, it isn't, but you get my point).

Edit: My post just made me think. Isn't discussing SOPA the same as discussing piracy, and therefore against the forum rules? I'm not saying I want everyone in this thread (including myself) banned, I was just wondering if it isn't by technicality or if the rule is being relaxed in this situation?

[Edited on 01.14.2012 7:28 AM PST]

  • 01.14.2012 7:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
(admittedly, it isn't, but you get my point).
No, I don't. Are you trying to say the law is the determinant of morality?

  • 01.14.2012 7:28 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
(admittedly, it isn't, but you get my point).
No, I don't. Are you trying to say the law is the determinant of morality?
No. I'm trying to say that the "youth of day" (really hate to continue to use that phrase but I can't think of another one presently) think of piracy as just something you do on the internet if you want a new album before everyone else or just for free as opposed to paying for it via Amazon, iTunes, etc.

Lots of kids probably don't even realize what they're doing IS illegal*, let alone view it as such. I'm not saying that the law is the determinant of morality, I'm trying to say (as best I can) that the youth of today view much of the law as trying to set an example of morality. And, because they don't see music, game, movie, TV, or any sort of piracy as morally wrong, they don't see it as a "big deal". The law isn't the determinant of morality, but it IS viewed as (attempting to be) such by some.

*I say this not as a factual claim, but as a summation of my experience as one of these "kids" being in an environment filled with these "kids" on an almost daily basis.

  • 01.14.2012 7:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No, they know fine well it's illegal, they just don't care. They're not going to lose any sleep over the RIAA's members not getting their WELL DESERVED CUT of an album's proceeds and what they're doing is so rarely investigated (never mind prosecuted) that the relevant laws may as well not be on the statute books.

SOPA is an attempt to shift the focus of the enforcement of copyright laws from where they should be, at the host and the source, to where they really, really shouldn't: to the carrier responsible for carrying the data.

  • 01.14.2012 7:38 AM PDT

This is a response to a petition I signed on whitehouse.gov a little while back.

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO:
VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet
By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support, and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

Let us be clear: online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Do not limit your opinion to what is the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what is right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you will continue to be part of it.

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget

Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff

  • 01.14.2012 8:17 AM PDT

i c u thar c' ing my signiture

Yours in _Kai_

The bus line consensus is still harder to figure out than coming to a consensus about SOPA. I think you guys made the right decision, because it's not only the developers that it hurts.

  • 01.14.2012 8:22 AM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

The recent decision to ameliorate the parts concerning the DNS restrictions which we've been discussing here, in my opinion, only bring less credibility to the entire bill: it at least seems to suggest that the people in charge of sponsoring the bill (i.e., Lamar Smith, who I must respectfully comment looks more like George McFly in that picture than one educated on the workings of the internet) lack a fundamental understanding of how the internet works and the absurd everyday acts which would have been made a crime by the watered-down portion of the bill. To me, that proves that their method of implementing a law that is probably with good intention completely fails to address all the other myriad of new problems created by its enforcement. They could have at least done their homework before putting something out there which they should have very well known would generate a sweeping movement of protest and opposition. (Think of all the economic damage done to the companies who are being (rightly) boycotted.)

I am very happy to see Bungie take a rare step from our typical modus operandi of avoiding political discussion on the forum to the purpose of preserving not only this community, but the freedoms which we fought a war over to protect. As a New Englander, it is hard for me to ignore that history when I see bills like this.

[Edited on 01.14.2012 8:36 AM PST]

  • 01.14.2012 8:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Economics
The problem is the lack of coherent copyright law across the globe.
No, the problem is companies trying to protect archaic business models with copyright law designed for the pre-internet age. The highest performing companies in the world have no problems with copyright, because they produce products and market them in ways that do not require strong government protection, because customers don't benefit from piracy.

Even if every company in the world instantly moved to lock step with RIAA and MPAA, it wouldn't matter. Anonymising one's self on the internet is child's play. Every time a government moves to shut down one avenue of piracy, another three spring up. Who remembers Napster? Soulseek? Kazaa? Exactly.

Enforcement and legislation have never been the solution, are not the solution and short of creating a totalitarian society where all communication has to be pre-approved, never will be the solution.

  • 01.14.2012 8:40 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: Economics
The problem is the lack of coherent copyright law across the globe.
No, the problem is companies trying to protect archaic business models with copyright law designed for the pre-internet age. The highest performing companies in the world have no problems with copyright, because they produce products and market them in ways that do not require strong government protection, because customers don't benefit from piracy.

Even if every company in the world instantly moved to lock step with RIAA and MPAA, it wouldn't matter. Anonymising one's self on the internet is child's play. Every time a government moves to shut down one avenue of piracy, another three spring up. Who remembers Napster? Soulseek? Kazaa? Exactly.

Enforcement and legislation have never been the solution, are not the solution and short of creating a totalitarian society where all communication has to be pre-approved, never will be the solution.
For the record, I remember napster....<_< >_>

Also, for the record, I agree with you.

  • 01.14.2012 8:54 AM PDT