On December 21 2011 14:10 CellGel wrote: I'm not exactly sure if understand everything correctly. If it's only the owner of the copyright for the material which has been infringed that can take legal action for the website to be shutdown, and that infringement occurs on a USA government discussion site or something similar, wouldn't that mean that if you had sufficient means (read money...), and a small movie or something, you could effectively have control of what gets censored? It seems ridiculous that no-one would have realized this if it's the case, so could somebody please explain where exactly that is prevented?
Yep exactly. There's no due process. Company A complains of copyright on Youtube? All of Youtube is shut down. Company A controls all censorship regarding their material.
There is no prevention. This is why SOPA/PIPA are so fucked. So much power is given to corporations... and if they even *think* you're infringing, your whole website will be shut down without notice.
Thank you for your correspondence regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. I appreciate your input on this important issue.
H.R. 3261, introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (TX), allows the Attorney General to seek an injunction that would block access to foreign websites dedicated to intellectual property infringement. Intellectual property is any product conceptualized by an individual that has commercial value. This includes among other things patents, trademarks and trade secrets. Common intellectual property infringement includes pirated software, illegal distribution of music or movies, or counterfeit merchandise.
Many of these foreign sites appear legitimate to unsuspecting consumers, who are tricked into purchasing shoddy products or downloading pirated content like music, movies or games. Some of these counterfeiters sell imitation goods such as infant formula or baby shampoo that expose children to serious health risks. Illegal online pharmacies market counterfeit drugs to consumers. At best, these drugs may simply be ineffective; but at worst, they can be harmful, or even fatal to consumers. Additionally, individuals put themselves at risk to identity theft, credit card fraud, and exposure to malware and computer viruses by visiting and making transactions on these sites.
Under this bill, once the Attorney General formally seeks an injunction against a foreign website, the Justice Department must go to a federal judge and lay out the case against the site. If a federal judge agrees that the website in question is dedicated to illegal and infringing activity, then a court order can be issued directing companies to sever ties with the illegal website. Third-party intermediaries, like credit card companies and online ad providers, are only required to stop working with the site. They cannot be held liable for the illegal or infringing actions taken by the foreign website.
Under existing law, it is already illegal to operate domestic websites that infringe on intellectual property rights, just as it is illegal to operate a brick-and-mortar store selling pirated goods. H.R. 3261 simply extends those prohibitions to foreign infringing websites.
This legislation elicits vigorous debate on both sides of the issue and I appreciate all the input from constituents I have received on this bill. Unfortunately I believe there are several misconceptions of the bill that I would like to clear up.
First, H.R. 3261 does not restrict lawful free speech and is not a form of censorship. The fact is the bill establishes judicial review and requires judicial approval for a site to be shut down. Ultimately restricting sites from offering fake designer purses or selling copies of the latest Hollywood movie is not an unlawful restriction of an individual's Constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Next, the bill would not require an entire site to be shut down if a single page is found to be infringing. H.R. 3261 allows a court to target only the portion of the site that is engaging in criminal activity or infringing, leaving access to or funding of the rest of the site alone.
Finally, the legislation does not require internet service providers to engage in any monitoring, supervising, or policing of their networks. It only requires them to take action at the direction of the Attorney General if a federal court rules that a foreign site is engaged in criminal activity for which seizure would apply if it were in the U.S. Just like 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, internet service providers are only required to take minimum steps, with no duty to monitor.
H.R. 3261 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits further consideration. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should this bill or any similar piece of legislation come to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote during the 112th Congress.
Again, thank you for expressing your views on this crucial issue. I hope you will continue to contact me on federal matters of concern to you. If you would like regular updates, please sign up for my e-newsletter at http://hanabusa.house.gov.
I think calling her "fucking clueless" is a bit of a stretch. Considering I imagine not a single person on this thread has readthe entire bill, it's just people on your side you link to against what her letter says. My gut reaction is the bill is potentially very dangerous and not worth the benefit, but you're oversimplifying a lot by saying anyone who supports this is fucking clueless.
I did read the bill from start to finish. My opinion still stands against it as more policing of the web will just lead to an influx in costs on every party involved. Cyber-crime is a big deal and should not be looked on lightly but this is over the top. The amount of manpower and resources this bill will sign into law is just insane. There are still ideas yet to be explored to help reduce the amount of cyber-crime that is circulating on the internet. All in all in the long run it will not be an easy or quick fix.
I think calling her "fucking clueless" is a bit of a stretch. Considering I imagine not a single person on this thread has readthe entire bill, it's just people on your side you link to against what her letter says. My gut reaction is the bill is potentially very dangerous and not worth the benefit, but you're oversimplifying a lot by saying anyone who supports this is fucking clueless.
Hmm... you calling my statements oversimplifying, and yet go on to assume that I haven't read the SOPA bill at all. Hypocritical?
Your 'gut reaction'... sigh... don't call me out if you're not even educated on the bill itself. And don't make assumptions that people are just as uneducated as you on this matter.
A large group of TL readers have read the SOPA in its entirety and have been watching every moment of the House Judiciary livestream. "Fucking clueless" is an understatement.
If you had been watching any of the livestream, you would have noticed that MANY, not 1 or 2, but MANY of the Reps have stated/admitted on camera in the livestream that they have no clue how this bill will actually end up affecting the internet.
In fact, I distinctly remember 1 of the Reps even saying they had no clue how the internet even works.
Explain to me how I'm oversimplifying by calling anyone that supports this bill clueless. You made so many assumptions and yet you're quite clueless on this matter, aren't you?
I think calling her "fucking clueless" is a bit of a stretch. Considering I imagine not a single person on this thread has readthe entire bill, it's just people on your side you link to against what her letter says. My gut reaction is the bill is potentially very dangerous and not worth the benefit, but you're oversimplifying a lot by saying anyone who supports this is fucking clueless.
Hmm... you calling my statements oversimplifying, and yet go on to assume that I haven't read the SOPA bill at all. Hypocritical?
Your 'gut reaction'... sigh... don't call me out if you're not even educated on the bill itself. And don't make assumptions that people are just as uneducated as you on this matter.
A large group of TL readers have read the SOPA in its entirety and have been watching every moment of the House Judiciary livestream. "Fucking clueless" is an understatement.
If you had been watching any of the livestream, you would have noticed that MANY, not 1 or 2, but MANY of the Reps have stated/admitted on camera in the livestream that they have no clue how this bill will actually end up affecting the internet.
In fact, I distinctly remember 1 of the Reps even saying they had no clue how the internet even works.
Explain to me how I'm oversimplifying by calling anyone that supports this bill clueless. You made so many assumptions and yet you're quite clueless on this matter, aren't you?
Whoa, chill a bit there buddy. I am skeptical of your claim that a large number of people on TL have read the entirety of a 78 page legalese bill, but if you and some others have, congratulations (not sarcasm). By saying my gut reaction I am admitting to not have read the entire bill, but tentatively side with you since the potential reward, as reiterated by the congresswoman's letter, is not worth the potential abuse.
And yes, it is oversimplifying to conclude, based on one House member saying they don't know how the internet works that they are all fucking clueless. Are you calling them clueless because they don't understand the intricacies of the internet or because they don't understand the potential abuse? If it's the former, sorry but you can't expect every member of Congress to be well-knowledged in the technical aspects of every piece of legislation that comes up. I understand that you and a lot of people are passionate about the issue, but the solution isn't to badmouth everyone that disagrees with you. Hell I agree with you and you flame me for not assuming someone who has a different position has the slightest idea what she's talking about.
"Legacy media companies stand to benefit if there's less unlawful movement of their content on the web, like pirated movies and songs for download."
wrong. and mind you this is from a website supporting the bills downfall.
They stand to stagnate their media and undermine musical freedom. Personally, I pay out the butt for concert tickets, merchandise for music, movies, and other media. Friends and I would be stuck on music circa 2011 simply because this was the time we were able to listen to music freely. Id then search the deep web, find new sources of information, find new music like radiohead did with their OWN production andself-distributionygiving them out personally via a website.
A large group of TL readers have read the SOPA in its entirety and have been watching every moment of the House Judiciary livestream. "Fucking clueless" is an understatement.
If you had been watching any of the livestream, you would have noticed that MANY, not 1 or 2, but MANY of the Reps have stated/admitted on camera in the livestream that they have no clue how this bill will actually end up affecting the internet.
In fact, I distinctly remember 1 of the Reps even saying they had no clue how the internet even works.
Explain to me how I'm oversimplifying by calling anyone that supports this bill clueless. You made so many assumptions and yet you're quite clueless on this matter, aren't you?
There is no oversimplification in your statement that they are clueless. I watched the stream too and almost no one for the bill spoke, and those that did openly admitted they didn't understand either how the internet works, or the workings of the bill, and then they would try to suggest they were right with completely irrelevant analogies (IE: Comparing access to content and piracy with allowing a country access to nuclear energy sources that they could potentially use as weapons. What?). Those that were against the bill were much better educated in the matter and almost all of them had perfect arguments why the bill is bad, but they just repeatedly got shut down when they went to make any actual amendments that would make the bill less volatile. If you watch the streams at all you can see it is BLATANTLY obvious that many of the Reps there have not read the bill and have NO understanding of the internet.
I haven't read the whole thing but I have read many of the highlighted entries. If it is implemented as is, things will be grim, and this legislation will be severely abused. We've already seen groups like UMG abuse their copyright privileges by having things they don't own taken down on Youtube, just wait until they have the ability (due to having more money, and thus better lawyers) to shut down entire sites from competition or those with opposing views. People who doubt this would actually happen don't realize just how greedy and sleazy these companies are. The RIAA, MPAA refuse to change and embrace the internet as a new medium so instead they're going to "lobby" (bribe) the government so they can get their way without caring about the consequences. When every company involved with the Internet, every expert on the workings of the internet,and many law institutions are saying this bill is a huge threat to the rights of not just Americans, but people around the world, you it isn't something to joke around on.
Here's a great analysis on how the bill violates American constitutional rights by a longtime law professor from Harvard:
For those who still have a vauge grasp of what thise bills actuallly are trying to do, I found a really well written summary, that you al should take a few minutes to read. Stanford law review
Two bills now pending in Congress—the PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (Protect IP) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House—represent the latest legislative attempts to address a serious global problem: large-scale online copyright and trademark infringement. Although the bills differ in certain respects, they share an underlying approach and an enforcement philosophy that pose grave constitutional problems and that could have potentially disastrous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet’s addressing system, for the principle of interconnectivity that has helped drive the Internet’s extraordinary growth, and for free expression.
It's welll worth your time to read or skim through.
Ugh, to the people that still dont' believe that there's nothing wrong with this bill, and it's for to end piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods online...
These powers given to the entertainment industry ultimately through the Courts, are so broad, AND with the powers that hollywood already has (through DCMA) they are abusing the shit out of. Get your heads out of your asses, these guys are out to protect their profits, not for the good of the people, and all the collateral damage at the expense of their abuse they won't give a shit, just like they don't give a shit now. This will kill innovation for Christs sake.
Seriously is the MPAA on TL trying to convince us this bill is truly to combat piracy? Lol they use this argument that it's to combat sale of conterfeit goods, and stop piracy over and over, it's BULL SHIT.
The wording is very vague, and could easily be used to shut down websites for no good reason. DMCA has been used countless times to take down videos that people / companies simply didn't like...
You can see the ignorance of most of the congressmen/women there, and also the cute clerk. I will also note the female behind Issa, who some people seem to like.
Watt/Goodlatte are some major douchebags to keep an eye out for.
Anyone know what is european unions opinion about this law and blocking all the music from internet?
God, culture is going to take such huge hit if laws like this get thru. In Finland they want to block piratebay piratebay (and then the rest of torrentsites) to protect finnish music from dying. Lol yeah, like anyone is torrenting finnish music while so many people torrent legal/ethical stuff from piratebay (like some old lost movies, books etc, you can't get other way).
On December 21 2011 23:15 Ryndika wrote: Anyone know what is european unions opinion about this law and blocking all the music from internet?
God, culture is going to take such huge hit if laws like this get thru. In Finland they want to block piratebay piratebay (and then the rest of torrentsites) to protect finnish music from dying. Lol yeah, like anyone is torrenting finnish music while so many people torrent legal/ethical stuff from piratebay (like some old lost movies, books etc, you can't get other way).
don't expect too much from the European Union. A music industry lobbyist is Europe’s copyright boss. i expect SOPA/PIPA to hit Europe in 2012. Even if they fail in the US, i see no reason they wouldn't try here too.
I thought the EU was a great idea, but in it's current form it's nothing more then a lobbyist circle-jerk.
Only hope we have is that ppl aren't afraid of fighting for what's right here (sending letters isn't fighting). I expect allot of ppl in the streets when they try. Come to Brussels and we'll make an epic protest in front of the European commission, i'll buy every1 beers.
Over the years many pro-copyright groups have lobbied extensively for harsher anti-piracy legislation. In Europe, this task may now become a little easier, as a former music industry lobbyist has been appointed as the head of a unit that deals with copyright and enforcement issues at the European Commission.
Pisses me off that these dinasours cant get with the times and realize that their way of business is outdated. Now they want to control the internet... haha gl to them. It will be like injecting some creative super fuel in to all the computer nerds around the world. If they actually think they can take our internet, then i dont mind them trying. Will be a fun spectacle to witness and people will just create better and more amazing things, pissing off the industry once again.
EPT
