Aptly acronymed bill DOPA passed the US House of Representatives yesterday with a vote of 410-15. What a disaster. If you've forgotten what this legislation proposed..."To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat rooms."
Here's how "social networking websites" are defined:
(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
(v) enables communication among users.
Well, that would describe Amazon, Open WorldCat, any blogging software, Second Life and so on and so on.
The large vote in favour of the Bill suggests two main things to me: political expediency and ignorance (of the Ted Stephens sort). DOPA still has to pass the Senate, but I hold no hope of it being defeated there.
Links to comments here (this site includes a link to contact your sentators), here, here and here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
stoopid.
Utterly amazing. Do you think they even talked to librarians about this? And if so, who?
As you note, part of the law's definition of a "social networking website" is that it be "offered by a commercial entity."
The "About OCLC" page states, "OCLC Online Computer Library Center is a nonprofit, membership, computer library service and research organization [...]"
I wonder if you could explain how you read a law explicitly limited to "commercial entities" as describing a service (Open WorldCat) offered by the self-described "nonprofit" OCLC?
they heard but they didn't listen - so much could fall under this umbrella - watch out 'brary 2.0
Jack,
I'm not sure of the legal aspectes of the term "commercial entity" but OCLC does engage in commerce by exchanging services for money. It is a business. It could very well meet that requirement unless there is a specific legal definition that exempts non-profits.
David, nonprofit "business" is too creative by half. The Compact Oxford Dictionary defines "commercial" as "making or intended to make a profit."
I don't know about OCLC and the non-profit issue, but what about other sites that allow for discussion, such as yahoo groups, groups.google.com (aka usenet), amazon, or blog sites in general?
Jack Stephens, the link you pointed to has your definition as the SECOND definition of "Commerical." The first is simply "concerned with or engaged in commerce," commerce being defined as "the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale."
More to the point, the bill doesn't actually define who will be targetted, instead leaving that up to a commission appointed by the FCC chair.
"Four of such members shall be representative of the private sector and four of such members shall be representative of the Commission, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Crimes against Children Research Center, school boards, and primary and secondary school educators, respectively."
No librarians. Shocking.
My question was directed to the writer of the post, and at this point I will take her silence as my answer. If OCLC is a "commercial social networking website," then I'm the Wizard of Oz.
Jack: my silence was called "the weekend." This post was not about OCLC's status as a 501(3)c entity: it was about DOPA. I am not going to engage in a discussion on the semantics of "commercial" as it relates to OCLC here (not qualified, not inclined) Other than trying to raise a debate, what was your point about DOPA?
I notice you do not allow comments on your blog....
Alane, I apologize for my snippy comment. I challenged your assertion, and you refuse to discuss it. So, it seems at least we're in agreement on the value of comments.
I agree with mdoneil 100%. Most smart non-librarians (patrons!) think we librarians are ridiculous for getting freaked out over things like DOPA. It gives the profession a bad name. No specifics have been mentioned yet about this law, so why don't we wait and see what happens before getting our undies in a bundle? You might say that then it will be too late, but come on, what are we going to do about it right now? And if patrons want it, why should we argue against it? It is incredibly arrogant for librarians to think they can dictate what patrons should or should not want.
"It is incredibly arrogant for librarians to think they can dictate what patrons should or should not want." Isn't that why we should oppose legislation such as DOPA, which regulates what patrons can view on library computers?
More press on DOPA from Internet Week.
The fact that an activity is offered by a non-profit does not mean that it escapes the definiton of commercial activity. In fact, many non-profits carry out activities that are considered to be commercial in nature. The IRS recognizes that non-profits engage in commercial activity. See:
http://www.compasspoint.org/askgenie/details.php?id=84
Is Jack Stephens a lawyer? Does he know what he's talking about? Before he trots out his dictionary definitions and engages in unsubstantiated attacks, maybe he should do a little research first.
"It certainly is clear that Open WorldCat or anything else done by OCLC would be exempt from the law were it enacted."
Says who? The law doesn't say that it will be limited to commercial web sites. It only says that the FCC shall consider the extent to which a web site is offered by a commercial entity in creating the rules that will govern social networking web site. It doesn't preclude the FCC from promulgating rules that could impact non-profit and non-commercial web sites.
It would be odd for the FCC to create rules to block access to commercial social networking web sites and allow access to non-commercial social networking web sites when the sites would, according to Congress, pose the same threat to children. If the intent is to protect the children, aren't non-commercial sites that allow chat just as much a threat to children?
The law doesn't say that it will be limited to commercial web sites.
Excuse me: the phrase the laws uses is "commercial social networking website."
But who cares what anonymous commenters think?
"Excuse me: the phrase the laws uses is 'commercial social networking website.'"
What is your point? It's already been shown that non-profits can engage in commercial activity so OCLC's activities would be considered coming from a "commercial social networking website". Nowhere in the law does it restrict the scope of the law. The FCC can draft regulations that make it apply to both commercial and non-commercial web sites.
What is your point?
That a tax-exempt, nonprofit Web site is by definition not "commercial," as stipulated right in the law's language, if you'd care to read it.
Not that this hasn't been entertaining.
Time for you to take some remedial business law classes. OCLC engages in commercial activity and that makes their web sites commercial in nature. Last time I checked, OCLC charges for most of the services it provides. That makes those activities commercial transactions. Or are you going to show us how people paying to use OCLC's services isn't really a commercial transaction?
Post a Comment