Why We Can't Have Nice Things: OPEN

[wolven7]

"Even though OPEN is worth discussing intelligently, unlike SOPA, I believe it's based on two underlying assumptions that aren’t fixable.

"First, like SOPA, OPEN assumes there is a problem with foreign rogue websites that needs to be solved. I'm not saying there isn't, but the policy discussions have been startlingly devoid of reliable and credible facts demonstrating the nature and scope of the problem.

[. . .]

"Second, and more importantly, attacking the money supply to supposed bad actors remains too blunt an instrument. I may be truly on my own on this point, as many people I respect—including, notably, Rep. Lofgren (D-CA)—are prepared to embrace the policy solution of cutting off money flows. However, by embracing an attack on the movement of money, OPEN replicates one of SOPA's sins. If a player is engaged in legitimate and illegitimate activity and its money supply is cut off, both activities go down the tubes. In contrast, one of the positive aspects of 17 USC 512(c) and (d) is that they require the copyright owner to identify infringing items and target only those items. Giving rightsowners a remedy that would affect an entire site for only some items on the site goes too far."

So... Vigilance.