Copyright Lobbyists make third push for Net Censorship Powers:

[RedwallFortress]

I doubt this bill will actually pass. Isn't it somehow against the 1st amendment?

Probably yes, it might also violate parts of the 5th Amendment as well.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Funny how the copyright industry always seems to forget these facts:

A person often spends a lot of time and money building a site.

It obvious that websites have intrinsic value, some domains are valued at millions of dollars (examples: facebook.com, google.com, amazon.com).

And that's not even touching on the fact that "original onsite content" could potentially be valued as "Intellectual Property" in its own right.

Therefore websites are to all aspects "property", and should not be subject to arbitrary confiscations.

"Innocent till proven guilty" applies to website owners & users aswell as to anybody else...




Edit: For example, just look at the bottom of this very forum's webpage, it says:

This site is copyright © 2000 - 2011

Doesn't this indicate that its someones Property...

 

[innonimatu]

Here on the other side of the Atlantic copyright lobbyists bent on getting a "copyright police" for their benefit set up in by the european ISPs just got a kicking today (apparently also thanks to the ISP lobbying...). The EU court of Justice has just banned injunctions forcing ISPs to set up filtering of communications. And by the same reasoning I'm guessing that any blanket attempt to get logs will also be denied:

Directives:
[...]
read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding an injunction made against an internet service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering
– all electronic communications passing via its services, in particular those involving the use of peer-to-peer software;
– which applies indiscriminately to all its customers;
– as a preventive measure;
– exclusively at its expense; and
– for an unlimited period,
which is capable of identifying on that provider’s network the movement of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant claims to hold intellectual-property rights, with a view to blocking the transfer of files the sharing of which infringes copyright.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The Constitution is delicious for two reasons:

-It means what you think it means
-It only matters when you want it to

As such, one better hope the SCOTUS isn’t pro-SOPA, otherwise, we have nothing in the government left once it passes.

===

Kudos to Senator Wyden for stalling this.

If the worst happens and it does pass Congress, let’s hope Obama doesn’t sign it. Because otherwise, we’re left with just the SCOTUS… and it would take some time to get a case to them. In that time, lots of damage would be done.

===

I’m all for security. I’m all for property rights.

But sometimes, the costs of enforcement outweigh the benefits.

 

[illram]

While the bill is not a step in the right direction, we already have an "internet killing" power out there in the DMCA notice and takedown procedure. That procedure operates the same way this bill's proposal does, except in this bill the notice goes to the advertisers since it is targeted primarily at sites outside the scope of the DMCA's reach.

So I think the hand-wringing over this bill killing the internet is a little exaggerated. I am not a fan of the DMCA but it did not destroy the internet as we know it. I doubt this bill--which I do not support mind you--will either.

tl;dr: Notice and takedown totally sucks, but the internet will live on. Alternatively: the DMCA already killed 97% of the internet, this bill just puts the rest out of its misery...

 

[warpus]

So I think the hand-wringing over this bill killing the internet is a little exaggerated. I am not a fan of the DMCA but it did not destroy the internet as we know it. I doubt this bill--which I do not support mind you--will either.

It will not destroy it, but laws like these make it a less open and innovative place.

 

[illram]

Yes, I agree. I guess I am making the not-so-brilliant observation that the extreme hyperbole over this bill is sort of exaggerated.

 

[warpus]

Yes, I agree. I guess I am making the not-so-brilliant observation that the extreme hyperbole over this bill is sort of exaggerated.

It's slightly exaggerated for good reason.

You keep passing bills like this and the internet IS going to be gone.

 

[JohnRM]

If they passed something like this, I'd cancel my ISP.

 

[aelf]

I just learned today that ISPs in the UK use proxy servers in order to comply with the IWF-compiled list of child pornography sites, and how this system works in practice is it blocks access to entire domains instead of the relevant content. And this obviously flawed system is allowed to remain in place because ISPs have an incentive to reduce traffic, so more blocked content is good.

With providers like these, who needs lawmakers?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I've heard that both people on the American left and right, including Tea Partiers, against this whole thing.

Heck, if both sides are against it, there's a decent chance it is probably a really, really bad idea.

 

[JollyRoger]

Duplicate thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=446925

So I will start out with the same question:

Can you give a link to the text of the relevant language of the proposed statute?

 

[illram]

It's slightly exaggerated for good reason.

I think it is exaggerated because a lot of people are unaware of the power rights holders already have via the DMCA. I.e. if this bill is the "end of the internet," the DMCA was already the end and this is just an add-on.

 

[Archbob]

The DMCA should really be revoked

 

[NBAfan]

I've heard that both people on the American left and right, including Tea Partiers, against this whole thing.

Heck, if both sides are against it, there's a decent chance it is probably a really, really bad idea.

Indeed.

 

[nikosison]

Duplicate thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=446925

So I will start out with the same question:

From reddit:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3261:
The section that have people worried is section 103 subsection b paragraphs 1 and 2. Those paragraphs (and the entire section) pertains to the private rights of action that could allow corporations to censor almost any small website they wish (given the liberal interpretation of infringement common nowadays).

Link to the text itself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

 

[JollyRoger]

From reddit:


Link to the text itself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

So let's take a look:

(b) Denying U.S. Financial Support of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property-

(1) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS- Except in the case of an effective counter notification pursuant to paragraph (5), a payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after delivery of a notification under paragraph (4), that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification under paragraph (4).

(2) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES- Except in the case of an effective counter notification pursuant to paragraph (5), an Internet advertising service that contracts with the operator of an Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in a notification delivered under paragraph (4), to provide advertising to or for such site or portion thereof, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after delivery the notification under paragraph (4), that are designed to--

(A) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification;

(B) cease making available advertisements for such Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification; and

(C) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification.

Both reference paragraph 4:

4) NOTIFICATION REGARDING INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY-

(A) REQUIREMENTS- Subject to subparagraph (B), a notification under this paragraph is effective only if it is a written communication that is provided to the designated agent of a payment network provider or an Internet advertising service and includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1).

(ii) Identification of the Internet site, or portion thereof, dedicated to theft of U.S. property, including either the domain name or Internet Protocol address of such site, or both.

(iii) Identification of the specific facts to support the claim that the Internet site, or portion thereof, is dedicated to theft of U.S. property and to clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the holder of the intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1) in the absence of timely action by the payment network provider or Internet advertising service.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to establish that the payment network provider or Internet advertising service is providing payment processing or Internet advertising services for such site.

(v) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the payment network provider or Internet advertising service to contact the holder of the intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1).

(vi) A statement that the holder of the intellectual property right has a good faith belief that the use of the owner's works or goods in which the right exists, in the manner described in the notification, is not authorized by the holder, its agent, or law.

(vii) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that the signatory is authorized to act on behalf of the holder of the intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1).

(viii) Identification of the evidence indicating that the site (or portion thereof) is a U.S.-directed site.

(B) SERVICE IF NO AGENT DESIGNATED- If a payment network provider or Internet advertising service has not designated an agent under paragraph (3), the notification under subparagraph (A) may be provided to any officer or legal representative of such provider or service.

(C) NOTICE TO INTERNET SITE IDENTIFIED IN NOTIFICATION- Upon receipt of an effective notification under this paragraph, a payment network provider or Internet advertising service shall take appropriate steps to ensure timely delivery of the notification to the Internet site identified in the notification.

Well, what do you know - the website gets notification before any actions can be taken.

What, oh what, can they do to ward off the Nazis?

Well counter-notification so that things get kicked to a court:

(5) COUNTER NOTIFICATION-

(A) REQUIREMENTS- Subject to subparagraph (B), a counter notification is effective under this paragraph only if it is a written communication that is provided to the designated agent of a payment network provider or an Internet advertising service and includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of the owner or operator of the Internet site, or portion thereof, specified in a notification under paragraph (4) subject to which action is to be taken by the payment network provider or Internet advertising service under paragraph (1) or (2), or of the registrant of the domain name used by such site or portion thereof.

(ii) In the case of an Internet site specified in the notification under paragraph (4) that is a foreign Internet site, a statement that the owner or operator, or registrant, consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under paragraph (4), or an agent of such person, for purposes of adjudicating whether the site is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property under this section.

(iii) A statement under penalty of perjury that the owner or operator, or registrant, has a good faith belief that it does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property as set forth under this section.

(iv) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of the owner, operator, or registrant.

(B) SERVICE IF NO AGENT DESIGNATED- If a payment network provider or Internet advertising service has not designated an agent under paragraph (3), the counter notification under subparagraph (A) may be provided to any officer or legal representative of such provider or service.

And, if the notification is a mispresentaion, sue the notifier:

6) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any provider of a notification or counter notification who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--

(A) that a site is an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property, or

(B) that such site does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,

shall be liable for damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the person injured by such misrepresentation as a result of the misrepresentation.

What happens when you get to court?

(5) RELIEF- On application of a qualifying plaintiff following the commencement of an action under this section with respect to an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the Internet site, or against an owner or operator of the Internet site, or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the Internet site, or against the domain name used by the Internet site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.

So just limited injunctive relief.

Anything else? Well yes, yes there is:

(C) DEFENSE- An entity against whom relief is sought under subparagraph (B) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the entity does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection.

Plenty of opportunities for a website to avoid an injunctive order and such an injunctive order is merely limited to the infringing content.

 

[illram]

Practically speaking, you know that the vast majority of the time the site owner or operator is not going to properly comply with the counter-notification rules and/or the ad sites will cut them off regardless of receipt of any such notice since they are universally risk-averse, and cutting them off is the only guarantee that they will retain immunity. Also, the ad and payment processors have to give the notice to the site owner. And, the ad or payment processors must act within 5 days of receipt of notice from the rights holder regardless of when the site owner gets their notice. It seems to me based on my understanding of that clause, that takedown is not predicated on service of the notice to the site owner first. If so I doubt you will see a notice and counter-notice procedure effectively performed very often within this very tight 5 day window. Thus you essentially have a procedure whereby any purported rights holder can shut down sites and/or content based on any notice with enough evidence (i.e., not a whole lot) to avoid a misrepresentation lawsuit. (Which is a whole different conversation--how many people will have the money to avail themselves of that and how difficult would that be to prove?)

And, even if the site owner complies with the rules by the letter, a litigious rights-holder (and we know how litigious and aggressive they are) will still be able to saddle site owners with the legal fees, costs, and associated stress of a lawsuit--or a threatened one--for a far bigger spectrum of offending content than was available previously. E.g., "facilitating" copyright and trademark violations, and, probably the biggest problem and reason why Google and Facebook and everyone else in Silicon Valley hates the bill, a site owner who is "taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code." (sec. 103(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I).) What does that mean? What is a deliberate action to avoid confirmation of violations of the copyright code? Is a site owner going to be willing to spend the tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to litigate that and/or the affirmative defense of technical infeasibility to actively monitor content? Do we need another 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in attorneys fees and court costs to parse out what this law means? (Google's lawsuit with Viacom has apparently cost just over the $100 million mark in fees and costs.) 9/10 defendants won't take that up to any meaningful level.

I predict we will see, as we saw with the DMCA, an aggressive push by rights holders to choke off content with only 1 out of 10 defendants ever putting up any fight and, eventually, ever having any hope of getting an appellate court to meaningfully analyze the real parameters of this law. And in the meantime lots of content gets stifled and lots of money gets wasted since SOPA stretches the bounds of what is and is not OK. Why was the DMCA not enough?

 

[SouthernKing]

Passing such a law would mean the death of YouTube, Flickr, Vimeo, and tons of other sites. Just about every tech company opposes the bill. Not to mention the mass economic impact it would have. No wonder Republicans in Congress have a 9% approval rating.

 

[JollyRoger]

Passing such a law would mean the death of YouTube, Flickr, Vimeo, and tons of other sites. Just about every tech company opposes the bill. Not to mention the mass economic impact it would have. No wonder Republicans in Congress have a 9% approval rating.

Those sites would have the best shot at fighting back and the only consequence is infringing content being taken down. If the industry oversteps against those sites, the industry is going to be paying their legal bills.