User:Whym/SOPAのどこがフリーウェブとウィキペディアにとって問題なのか

SOPAのどこがフリーウェブとウィキペディアにとって問題なのか (How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia)

Posted by Geoff on December 13th, 2011

2011年12月13日、ジェオフ・ブリガム (Geoff Brigham)

For the past several days, Wikipedia editors have been discussing whether to stage a protest against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I’ve been asked to give some comments on the bill and explain what effect the proposed legislation might have on a free and open Internet as well as Wikipedia. My goal in this blog post is to provide some information and interpretation that I hope will be helpful to Wikipedia editors as they discuss the bill.

ここ数日、ウィキペディア編集者たちはオンライン著作権侵害防止法案 (Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA) に対抗して抗議行動を行うかどうかについて議論しています。私は、その法案についてコメントし、提案されている法案がフリーでオープンなインターネットならびにウィキペディアにどのような影響を与えるかを説明してほしいとの依頼を受けました。本稿の目標は、ウィキペディア編集者がこの法案を論じるに当たって有用な情報と解釈とを提供することです。

SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

SOPA はオンライン著作権侵害と戦うとの名のもとにインターネットの検閲を促進するものだとの不評を博しています。ウィキメディア財団はその法案に反対します。しかし、明確にせねばならないのは、ウィキメディアは同時に著作権侵害にも強く反対するという立場をとっているということです。知的所有権について類を見ない研鑽を積んでいるウィキメディアコミュニティは、そのウェブサイト上で著作権侵害が起こらないようにするため、長いあいだ人知れず努力を続けてきました。自由ライセンスのもとにおかれる情報を信奉するこのコミュニティにおいて、著作権侵害は決して許されません。

We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners’ private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org, and others.

悪と戦うとき、別の相手を傷つけることがあってはなりません。SOPA は、マスメディアなどの権利者が自分の利益を守るためには検閲を許容してもよいという誤った判断に基づいています。 SOPA のもとでは、sight select 侵害コンテンツを除去する対応策として、外国のウェブサイトを米国内でまるごと遮断することもありえます。そうした物騒なやり方の代わりにデジタルミレニアム著作権法によってよりバランスのとれた処置ができるケースであってでも、そうなります。このことから、私たちは志を同じくする、電子フロンティア財団、Public Knowledge、クリエイティブ・コモンズ、 Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org ほか多数の組織に加わり、法案に反対する取り組みを主導することにしました。

On Tuesday, after receiving input on the original version of the bill, the House Judiciary Committee issued a new version of SOPA for its mark-up scheduled for this coming Thursday. A vote on that mark-up may take place on the same day. At the end of this article, I provide a summary of the most relevant parts of this new version of SOPA as well as a summary of the legislative process (which you can also follow here).

火曜日に意見を元にして原案を修正したのち、下院司法委員会は SOPA の新しいバージョンを提出し、修正期日を木曜日としました。同日、投票が行われる可能性があります[訳注：その後延期されている]。SOPA の新バージョンの重要な部分の要約と、立法手続きの要約とを本稿の末尾に掲載してあります。

In honesty, this new version of the bill is better (and credit goes to the Judiciary staff for that). But, it continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls, including its focus on blocking entire international sites based on U.S.-based allegations of specific infringement. Criticism has been significant.[1] Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, for example, felt the bill “retains the fundamental flaws of its predecessor by blocking Americans’ ability to access websites, imposing costly regulation on Web companies and giving Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice broad new powers to police the Internet.”

率直に言って、新バージョンはよくなってはいます（司法委員会諸賢の尽力の賜物です）。しかし、構造的な欠陥は依然として解決されていません。たとえば、米国内での特定の申し立てに基づいて一つの国際的ウェブサイトそのものを遮断できるという点を強調していることなどが問題です。批判の声は高まっています。カリフォルニア州共和党のダレル・イッサ議員はこの法案について「旧版の根源的欠陥が保たれており、アメリカ人がウェブサイトをアクセスできなくし、ウェブ会社に高コストな規制を課し、エリック・ホルダーの司法省にインターネットを監視する新しい権力を与える」ものだとしています。

Members of our community are weighing whether a protest action is appropriate. I want to be very clear: the Wikimedia Foundation believes that the decision of whether to stage a protest on-wiki, such as shutting down the site or putting a banner at the top, is a community decision. The Wikimedia Foundation will support editors in whatever they decide to do. The purpose of this post is to provide information for editors that will aid them in their discussions.

ウィキメディアのコミュニティはいま、抗議行動をすることが適切かどうかを検討しています。ここで明確にしておきましょう。サイトを閉鎖したりバナーを出したりといったウィキ上での抗議行動を行うべきかどうかはコミュニティが決めることだと、ウィキメディア財団は考えています。いかなるものであれ、ウィキメディア財団は彼らの決断を支持します。本稿の目的は編集者の議論に役立つ情報を提供することです。

I’ve been asked for a legal opinion. And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.

私は法的意見を依頼されていますので、ここでお伝えしましょう。私の見る限り、SOPAの新バージョンは依然として、インターネットの言論の自由にとって深刻な脅威をもたらします。

• The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.
• DMCA と連邦の法理はインターネット、および著作権者とサービスプロバイダの協力関係を促進してきました。新バージョンは依然としてそれらすべてを損なうものです。SOPAは 連邦訴訟の第一段階においてウェブサイトをまるごと遮断するという制度を作ります。DMCA 手続きのもとでの、選択的に指定された侵害コンテンツを除去させるという、より低コストな法的通知とは甚だしくかけ離れたものです。著作権侵害ではなくリンクを罪とし、通知ではなく訴訟をコストとして要求するのです。
• The expenses of such litigation could well force non-profit or low-budget sites, such as those in our free knowledge movement, to simply give up on contesting orders to remove their links. (Secs. 102(c)(3); 103(c)(2)) The international sites under attack may not have the resources to challenge extra-territorial judicial proceedings in the United States, even if the charges are false.
• そのような訴訟への出費は、私たちの運動のような非営利や低予算のウェブサイトにとっては、命令に反論するのを諦めてリンクを外すように仕向けるのに十分なものです（102(c)(3), 103(c)(2) 参照）。攻撃対象となった国際ウェブサイトには、訴追が本来虚偽に基づいていたとしても米国の法管轄を越えた訴追に反駁するリソースがないかもしれません。
• The new version of SOPA reflects a regime where rights owners may seek to terminate advertising and payment services, such as PayPal, for an alleged “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” (Sec. 103(c)(2)) A rights owner must seek a court order (unlike the previous version) (Sec. 103(b)(5)). Most rights owners are well intentioned, but many are not.[2] We cannot assume that litigious actions to block small sites abroad will always be motivated in good faith, especially when the ability to defend is difficult.
• SOPA の新バージョンでは、「米国財産を盗もうとするインターネットサイト」に対して、著作権所有者が、広告とPayPal などの支払いサービスを停止させることができるという制度を盛り込んでいます（103(c)(2)）。（前バージョンとは異なり）権利者は法廷を通じた命令を出すことができます（103(b)(5)）。著作権者の多くは良心的ですが、そうでない場合も多くあります。訴訟を盾に国外ウェブサイトを遮断するという行為がつねに善意に基づいていると仮定することは、特に防衛が困難なときには、できません。
• Although rendering it discretionary (Secs.102(c)(2)(A-E); 103(c)(2)(A-B)), the new bill would still allow for serious security risks to our communications and national infrastructure. The bill no longer mandates DNS blocking but still allows it as an option. As Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, explained: “The amendment continues to encourage DNS blocking and filtering, which should be concerning for Internet security experts . . . .”
• 裁量の余地があると位置づけてはいる（102(c)(2)(A-E); 103(c)(2)(A-B)参照）ものの、新法案には依然として、通信基盤と国家基盤に対する深刻なセキュリティリスクを起こす可能性があります。現在の案ではDNS遮断は命令ではありませんが、選択肢としては可能なままです。Public Knowledge の法務部長 シャーウィン・スィー の説明を借りれば、「修正案でもDNS遮断とフィルタリングが奨励されており、これはセキュリティ専門家の意見によると問題がある」のです。
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation advises that the new proposed legislation still targets tools that might be used to “circumvent” the blacklist, even though those tools are essential to human rights activists and political dissidents around the world.
• 電子フロンティア財団の助言によると、新しい法案は依然として、ブラックリストの「抜け道」として使われるような手段を標的にしているとのことです。そうした手段を失うことは人道支援活動家や政治的反体制派にとって致命的です。

More specifically with respect to Wikimedia, the new version is an improvement, but, in addition to the reasons listed above, it remains unacceptable:

ウィキメディアに特有の事情に関していえば、新バージョンには改善点もあるものの、上記に述べたことに加えて下記の点も許容できません。

• Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an “Internet search engine,”[3] and, for that reason, a federal prosecutor could obtain a court order mandating that the Wikimedia Foundation remove links to specified “foreign infringing sites” or face at least contempt of court sanctions.[4] The definition of “foreign infringing sites” is broad[5] and could well include legitimate sites that host mostly legal content, yet have other purported infringing content on their sites. Again, many international sites may decide not to defend because of the heavy price tag, allowing an unchallenged block by the government.
• ウィキペディアは「インターネット検索エンジン」の定義 [3] に該当するとの意見があります。そのため、ウィキメディア財団が指定された「外国の著作権侵害ウェブサイト」へのリンクを除去するよう、連邦検事の請求によって法廷命令を出されるか、そうしなければ少なくとも法廷侮辱罪を受ける[4]ことがありえます。「外国の著作権侵害ウェブサイト」の定義は広く[5]、掲載されているもののうちほとんどが合法であり著作権侵害コンテンツがあると評されているだけの合法ウェブサイトすらも含まれる可能性があります。国際ウェブサイトの多くは、その費用が高すぎるために、法廷で戦うことを選ばないかもしれません。そうなれば反論なしとして政府は遮断を実行できます。
• The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.” Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available.
• 法廷による命令を受けたとき、結果としてウィキメディアには何万何億の出典リンクを調査し、「外国の著作権侵害ウェブサイト」とされるものへのリンクを見付、記事やプロジェクトから飛べないように遮断する義務が課されることになります。そのような膨大な作業には、寄付金と職員を多く割かなければならず、「外国の著作権侵害ウェブサイト」が新しく見つかり、検事が連邦裁判所から法廷命令をとりつけるたびにその作業を繰り返さなければなりません。リンクを遮断することは私たちのオープン知識文化を損ないます。とりわけ、より狭く的を絞った著作権侵害コンテンツへの対策が可能なときには。
• Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new version exempts U.S. based companies – including the Wikimedia Foundation – from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours. (Sec. 103(a)(1)(A)(ii))
• 新法案には一つ大きな改善点があります。新バージョンでは、米国に本拠地をおく会社は、著作権所有者が「米国財産を盗む目的を持つウェブサイト」として訴訟を起こす対象から除外されています。ウィキメディア財団もその範疇にはいります。もしウィキメディアがそのような破滅に落とされれば、寄付金の決済処理業者を遮断しなければならなかったでしょう。新バージョンでは当財団のような米国ウェブサイトは除外されています。

In short, though there have been some improvements with the new version, SOPA remains far from acceptable. Its definitions remain too loose, and its structural approach is flawed to the core. It hurts the Internet, taking a wholesale approach to block entire international sites, and this is most troubling for sites in the open knowledge movement who probably have the least ability to defend themselves overseas. The measured and focused approach of the DMCA has been jettisoned. Wikimedia will need to endure significant burdens and expend its resources to comply with conceivably multiple orders, and the bill will deprive our readers of international content, information, and sources.

まとめると、新バージョンには改善点もありますが、SOPA は依然としてまったく受け入れがたいものです。定義は緩すぎますし、その核心に構造的な欠陥があります。国際ウェブサイトをまるごと遮断するという大雑把なアプローチは、インターネットを損ないます。そしてそれは、海外で弁護を受ける能力の小さい、オープン知識運動のウェブサイトにおいてはとりわけ問題です。DMCA の慎重で的を絞ったアプローチは投げ捨てられてしまっています。ウィキメディアは複数の命令を受けることもあり、そうなれば大きな負担を強いられリソースを費やさねばならないでしょう。そしてこの法案によって、読者の皆さんは国際的なコンテンツ、情報、参考文献を読む機会を奪われます。

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

• [1.] http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-new-sopa-now-with-slightly-less-awfulness/ ;

http://cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/1312proposed-revision-sopa-some-welcome-cuts-major-concerns-remain ; https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/sopa-manager’s-amendment-sorry-folks-it’s-still-blacklist-and-still-disaster

• [2.] http://www.chillingeffects.org/resource.cgi?ResourceID=101 参照（特定の著作権者がDMCAをもとに関わった侵害案件を記録した記事のリストがあります）
• [3.] An “Internet Search Engine” is defined as “a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or web sites available elsewhere on the Internet.” Sec. 101(15)(A). This definition does not include services that retain “a third party that is subject to service of process in the United States to gather, index, or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.” Sec. 101(15)(B). Although not conceding the point, Wikimedia arguably does not appear to fall under this exemption.
  • 「インターネット検索エンジン」は「インターネットを通して公開されていて、インターネット上の他の場所にある情報またはウェブサイトの索引を収集し、ユーザーからの要求に応じて報告するサービス」(Sec. 101(15)(A))と定義されています。この定義は「インターネット上の他の場所にある情報またはウェブサイトの索引を収集し報告する、米国内で訴状受け取り資格のある第三者」 (Sec. 101(15)(B)) を抱えるサービスは含まれません。論点には影響しませんが、ウィキメディアはこの除外条項に適合しないのではとの意見もあります。
• [4.] Sec. 102(c)(3)(A)(i). To ensure compliance with orders issued under Section 102, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief against any Internet Search Engine that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of section 102(c)(2)(B) to compel such entity to comply with such requirements.
  • 情を知りながら102(c)(2)(B)の要求事項を意図的に満たさなかったあらゆるインターネット検索エンジンが、 Section 102 に従って出された命令を遵守し要求事項を満たすことを強制する目的で、司法長官は差し止めによる救済措置を出すことができます。
• [5.] Generally speaking, a “foreign infringing site” is any U.S.-directed site, used by users in the United States, being operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject the site to liability for criminal copyright infringement, as well as other federal copyright or trade secret violations. See Sec. 102(a)(1-2).
  • 一般論として「外国の著作権侵害ウェブサイト」は、もし米国内ウェブサイトであったとしたら著作権侵害ならびに連邦著作権、営業秘密の侵害による犯罪で訴追される可能性のある、あらゆる米国向けウェブサイトです。102(a)(1-2)参照。

Geoff's notes on the bill

H.R. 3261 – STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT

Section 102

Section 102

A “foreign infringing site” is a:

• U.S. directed site:
  • Definition: Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents OR that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the U.S. Constitution; according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc.;
• Used by users in the U.S.; and
• Operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to:
  • Seizure or forfeiture in the U.S. in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of 18 U.S.C.; or
  • Prosecution by the Attorney General under sections 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201 of such title.

If a foreign Internet site is a “foreign infringing site,” the Attorney General (AG) can:

• Commence an action in personam against a registrant of a domain name used for the foreign infringing site OR an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
• Commence an action in rem against the foreign infringing site or the foreign domain used by such site if it cannot commence an action in personam.

On application of the AG, after commencement of either of the above actions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against:

• A registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site if the action is in personam; or
• The foreign infringing site or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site if the action is in rem.

After an order is issued and served, the AG can require the following of:

• Internet search engines:
  • Definition: a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
  • Order: Applicable to search engines must be narrowly tailored to be consistent with the First Amendment as the least restrictive means of achieving the goals of this Title.
• Service Provider:
  • Measures: Least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
• Payment network providers/ Internet advertising services:
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable to halt payment processing, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days

Section 103

Definitions were changed and none of the Wikimedia.org properties (or any other U.S. registered sites) are covered by this section.

New definition of “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property”:

• U.S. directed site OR Site for which the registrant of the domain name used, and the owner or operator are not located and cannot be found within U.S.;
  • Wikimedia is outside of this definition because based on the “U.S. directed site” definition outlined above; Wikimedia is not a foreign Internet site.
• Site is used by users within the U.S.; and
• Site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of sections 501 or 1201 of title 17 or certain provisions of the Lanham Act OR the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Qualifying plaintiff:

• Definition has been narrowed down to be “any person with standing to bring a civil action for violations described in paragraph 1(C),” which requires infringement, rather than any holder of intellectual property rights harmed by activities of the site.

Process

SOPA Legislative Process

House

• Full committee markup (Thursday)
  • Members of the committee study the viewpoints presented in detail. Amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members vote to accept or reject these changes.
    • At the conclusion of deliberation:
      • A vote of committee members is taken to determine what action to take on the bill.
      • It can be reported, with or without amendment, or tabled (which means no further action on it will occur).
      • If no vote is taken, another markup will be scheduled
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor.

• Rules Committee Hearing
  • Determines whether the bill will be considered under a closed rule (no amendments), an open rule (any amendment in order), or a modified closed rule (in which only some amendments are in order).
• Floor time (probably not until early January):
  • If the bill is voted on and approved to move to the Floor, floor time must be scheduled.
    • Vote to recommit: vote to send the bill back to committee might be requested.
  • Vote on final passage: if the bill is voted on and passed by the House, it moves out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference.

Senate

• The bill is already out of Committee
• Hold on the bill:
  • Senator Wyden has placed a hold on the bill
  • Senator Reid can override the hold or call a cloture vote to defeat it.
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor
• Floor time (probably early next year):
  • If the hold is defeated or overridden, then floor time must be scheduled.
    • Bill voted on by roll call vote, voice vote, unanimous consent, or division.
  • If the bill is passed, it is sent out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference committee.

Conference Committee

• Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be reconciled if anything in the two versions of the bill is different otherwise it is sent to the President (see below)
• The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences.
  • If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate.
  • If changes are of a more substantial nature a conference is called.
• The conference can be closed and informal or open and very formal.
• Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses. If they are able to agree on the bill, the bill is re-voted upon in both houses.
  • If they were able to agree only on some parts of the bill or unable to agree at all, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, be referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.

President

• Officially, all bills that pass both houses are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate before being presented to the President.
  • This process could delay a bill a day or two.
• Then, the bill is delivered to the President.
  • The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance.
  • If it sits unsigned for more than a 10-day period, it becomes law regardless of his signature or not.
    • The exception to this 10-day period is a pocket veto, in which the President can kill a bill if it goes unsigned and Congress adjourns prior to the 10-day time limit.
  • If the President vetoes the bill, a veto message is sent back to Congress.
    • The two houses of Congress may decide to revote, and two-thirds is needed to override the veto and have the bill become a law.
      • If no immediate revote is taken, the bill can be tabled for later vote or sent back to the committee to have further work done.
      • If a vote is taken to override, and the vote fails, the bill dies.

---

関連リンク

• w:Wikipedia:SOPA initiative
• w:Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action
• wmf:English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout