Protect IP/SOPA: The Entertainment Industry's attempt to break the internet

[Tani Coyote]

I can side with the principle of enforcing property laws, but like many security measures, this can very easily be abused and hurt a lot of people who had nothing to do with any illegal activity.

Imagine if we were to mandate strip searching and cavity searching for all people boarding planes. Sure, that would increase security dramatically, but it seems rather abusive, doesn't it?

Not much criteria for such drastic measures means it's creating a culture of fear and going way overboard. Plus, you barely get any time to form a coherent defense. Besides that, you also have the aforementioned facts that sometimes claims are just bogus and not actually based in reality.

Garbage, pure and simple. They should at least make it possible to put up an adequate defense against claims - 5 days is just simply not enough for the average person.

 

[JollyRoger]

Garbage, pure and simple. They should at least make it possible to put up an adequate defense against claims - 5 days is just simply not enough for the average person.

I agree that the 5 days is a bit short but it is only for a relativity simple counter-notification, not a fully developed defense.

 

[zjintz]

I don't care how limited this bill is, I will stand against any legislation that regulates the internet. Call me whatever you want, but I am a firm believer that the internet should remain completely free, uncensored, and unregulated.

100%!

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't care how limited this bill is, I will stand against any legislation that regulates the internet. Call me whatever you want, but I am a firm believer that the internet should remain completely free, uncensored, and unregulated.

So the internet should not be regulated to protect your private information? Your bank should be able to post everything a thief would need to access your account?

 

[Crezth]

So the internet should not be regulated to protect your private information? Your bank should be able to post everything a thief would need to access your account?

Sounds more like a regulation on banks than internets per se.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sounds more like a regulation on banks than internets per se.

I'm not saying don't regulate intellectual propertybanks, I'm saying don't regulate intellectual propertybanks when it comes to the internet. The internet should remain completely free, uncensored, and unregulated

 

[Crezth]

A regulation of banks in general would include its felicity in otherwise posting valuable and private user information online.

Again, I contend this bill would do more harm than good, and much of the internet agrees with me. I've posted links to other articles that outline exactly how. Are you telling me that they're wrong, flat-out? Between the two of you, who is "correct?"

 

[JollyRoger]

A regulation of banks in general would include its felicity in otherwise posting valuable and private user information online.

Yet there are specific regulations in dealing with how banks handle information on the internet. Just like there is a general obligation not to infringe upon intellectual property rights, what is wrong with regulations aimed specifically at such infringment online?

My point is, that if we take this non-regulation of the internet at face value, then we should all expect to be stripped of our property via the internet, not just leave intellectual property owners to that fate.

 

[woody60707]

Why do Democrats hate freedom?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show

tl;dr:

Gives the DOJ the authority to seek a court order against a foreign website.

Sets up a two-step process for rightsholders to seek enforcement. First step - provide notification that will make its way to the site owner and gives the site-owner a right to counter notification that it is not infringing. Step two allows the right holder to seek a court order for limited injunctive relief against the website.

Frankly, I don't see the problem.

You know i'm going to blatantly copy/paste this on other sites I post to as my own.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I agree that the 5 days is a bit short but it is only for a relativity simple counter-notification, not a fully developed defense.

Fair enough, in that case.

I'd be moreso worried about rights holders getting excessive with their claims, to the point every form of social media is paralysed with fear.

 

[Commodore]

So the internet should not be regulated to protect your private information? Your bank should be able to post everything a thief would need to access your account?

Except there are already laws in place that don't specifically deal with the internet that still covers issues like that. If my bank posted my information, whether in the local newspaper or on the internet, it would be a violation of the Privacy Act. Now the Privacy Act was passed before the internet was even made available for public use.

The point I am trying to make is that internet crimes can be dealt with using current legislation. No new legislation is needed to specifically regulate the internet; especially any legislation that gives the government or any other entity even the slightest ability to tell me what websites I can and can't visit.

 

[Crezth]

Yet there are specific regulations in dealing with how banks handle information on the internet. Just like there is a general obligation not to infringe upon intellectual property rights, what is wrong with regulations aimed specifically at such infringment online?

My point is, that if we take this non-regulation of the internet at face value, then we should all expect to be stripped of our property via the internet, not just leave intellectual property owners to that fate.

And I'm arguing that it doesn't seem like an actual problem and this bill doesn't change anything except give the government more tools and justifications for shutting websites down. The reasons don't matter, nor do the "limitations" thereof: all that matters is the government will have a new toy, and with the right nod from this or that special agent, will use it freely.

After all, who is to stop the government from using it to block seditious websites? Or websites with dissenting opinions - on the bill or on the government?

EDIT: @woody67...

It always seems to me like Republicans are the ones who like to pass big bad laws to make more stuff illegal. What is it with the Right Wing's love affair with making illegal and murdering people for breaking the law?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It really doesn't seem fair to lump intellectual property in with other sorts of property. Intellectual property is merely a legal monopoly granted for limited periods of time [a decade was originally considered a fairly long duration] in order to promote the progress of science [knowledge] and useful arts [technology]. I find the notion that most copyrights actually meet this constitutional criteria to be rather dubious.

 

[GoodGame]

It really doesn't seem fair to lump intellectual property in with other sorts of property. Intellectual property is merely a legal monopoly granted for limited periods of time [a decade was originally considered a fairly long duration] in order to promote the progress of science [knowledge] and useful arts [technology]. I find the notion that most copyrights actually meet this constitutional criteria to be rather dubious.

Your "isn't fair" is someone else's "it's fair". Really. It requires labor to generate IP. Sounds like being against IP is anti-labor. Really.



I see it like this way: if the law doesn't protect a sector of the economy, then the sector will pass the business costs onto the consumer one way or another. The effect will be unfair raising of prices against honest consumers, more complicated/intrusive distribution mechanisms (e.g. worse DRM), or the goods will just no longer be offered for mass media distribution.

 

[aelf]

Your "isn't fair" is someone else's "it's fair". Really. It requires labor to generate IP. Sounds like being against IP is anti-labor. Really.

I'd support IP if it isn't frequently and overwhelmingly used to protect the interests of people who don't actually produce the things protected by IP.

 

[Crezth]

Your "isn't fair" is someone else's "it's fair". Really. It requires labor to generate IP. Sounds like being against IP is anti-labor. Really.



I see it like this way: if the law doesn't protect a sector of the economy, then the sector will pass the business costs onto the consumer one way or another. The effect will be unfair raising of prices against honest consumers, more complicated/intrusive distribution mechanisms (e.g. worse DRM), or the goods will just no longer be offered for mass media distribution.

Again, though, this bill doesn't really offer any change except new censorship measures. Piracy will remain alive and well.

You can argue that it's just a toolbox for the government and entertainment industry, but the weapons in that toolbox - unilateral censorship at the whim of a judge - are what people are up in arms about.

Also it requires no labor to maintain IP and most copyrights held by corporations today have little (if any) connection to the original creators of that IP.

 

[illram]

It's DMCA 2.0. Same procedure, going one link up the chain of commerce to the advertisers. Which means, in practice, notice to advertisers will 99.99% of the time operate to kill the content in question. That was a problem with the DMCA, and it remains an issue with bills like this. Functionally, you will rarely if ever see a Judge reviewing anything since no one will want to risk losing immunity from liability for not "voluntarily" cutting off services to the alleged offender. One step closer to self-executing copyright, which is were everything is headed.

To me this looks targeted at these free internet TV sites that link to pirated TV shows, but try to avoid liability by saying they simply provide links and don't host anything. Although non-lazy IP rights holders had plenty of tools in the toolset to eliminate these sites before, and they were doing so. If I had to guess, lobbyists saw the whole Wikileaks scandal as an excellent opportunity to get back into their Congressman's office to talk shop. Going after the money is how they eventually shut that whole thing down.

 

[woody60707]

EDIT: @woody67...

It always seems to me like Republicans are the ones who like to pass big bad laws to make more stuff illegal. What is it with the Right Wing's love affair with making illegal and murdering people for breaking the law?

You know the bill was introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT], and most of the sponsors are Democrats. Maybe the Dems were feeling out done by the Repubs. Wanted to show Repubs how it's done 21st century style (with Bling!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67985_Page2.html

 

[choxorn]

In the Senate. The House bill was introduced by Lamar Smith, a Republican, and has more Republican co-sponsors that Democratic ones.

This isn't a partisan thing, lots of politicans from both parties support it. Lots from both parties are also against it.

 

[Crezth]

You know the bill was introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT], and most of the sponsors are Democrats. Maybe the Dems were feeling out done by the Repubs. Wanted to show Repubs how it's done 21st century style (with Bling!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67985_Page2.html

Whoops you're right IT WAS ALL DEMOCRATS I-

In the Senate. The House bill was introduced by Lamar Smith, a Republican, and has more Republican co-sponsors that Democratic ones.

This isn't a partisan thing, lots of politicans from both parties support it. Lots from both parties are also against it.

huh. Maybe the world isn't so black and white after al-

Nah. Obama is a Kenyan! Democrats hate freedom! Say "no" to taxes and murder your neighbor for a quick profit!