Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Legislation Would Crack Down On Online Piracy

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-guess-campaign-funding-is-ramping-up-for-the-elections dept.

Government 350

GovTechGuy writes "Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee unveiled new legislation to combat online piracy on Monday that gives the Department of Justice more power to shut down websites trafficking in pirated movies, films or counterfeit goods. The new bill would give the government the authority to shut down the sites with a court order; the site owner would have to petition the court to have it lifted. The judge would have final say over whether a site should be shut down or not. Business groups including the US Chamber of Commerce hailed the legislation as a huge step forward."

cancel ×

350 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bye Bye EBAY (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642150)

shut down websites trafficking in ... counterfeit goods

Bye Bye EBAY, and good riddance

Re:Bye Bye EBAY (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642204)

The government isnt going to shut down sites backed by the almighty $$$

But your movie blog is gone the first time you give a bad review.

Your political forum is shut down the first time some kid quotes 1984.

Etc, etc..

Re:Bye Bye EBAY (2, Insightful)

sarx (1905268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642554)

But your movie blog is gone the first time you give a bad review.

Your political forum is shut down the first time some kid quotes 1984.

Etc, etc..

Do you have any evidence of this? I don't see how it follows from the article, so it sounds like paranoia, and I'll regard it as such until I have any evidence at all to back it up.

Re:Bye Bye EBAY (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642762)

Since it's not even a law, obviously, there is no evidence to support any of the GP's claims. And yes, it's just paranoia. You can trust the government. It has never let you down, right? Any dissenters should be put in jail anyways.

Re:Bye Bye EBAY (4, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642602)

Yes.......... but how?

When a website is "taken down" on a U.S based server that does not mean it is dead. Far from it. What happened was the hosting company shut it down due the court order. There are some hosting companies that will refuse based on principles.

Now let's say that the site owner is risking contempt of court if they move the website out of the U.S jurisdiction. Maybe they will get the site started up under somebody else? Sell all the corporate assets to a foreign company for $1.

I guess what I am getting at, is that shutting down a website has not been incredibly effective when the principles involved and hosting is not inside the U.S. Just how long will it take before the Justice Department can get a court order to interfere with the DNS records of allegedly infringing websites?

Manipulation and control over the DNS is what is ultimately required to do anything effective. This law will just drive all the businesses outside of the U.S, just like the DMCA has driven a lot of businesses outside as well.

It will be DNS too, since the Great Firewall of Freedom will be more expensive then the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined and even less effective.

Talk about a wonderful day for hosting providers huh?

Re:Bye Bye EBAY (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642968)

A court order only happens if a judge signs off on it. Unless they tell the judge outright lies, what (American) judge on the face of the Earth would shut down a political forum?

Re:Bye Bye EBAY (2, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642546)

No, they will just move overseas like everyone else. Get used to changing .com to .se or .es over the next few years...

Governmental Takeover? (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642170)

Ever notice the same people who call Net Neutrality a government takeover of the internet are usually pretty quiet whenever somebody in Congress proposes a law that'd allow them to block or shut websites down?

Re:Governmental Takeover? (1, Insightful)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642258)

No, I hadn't noticed that at all. I think any sort of government regulation of the Internet is a bad thing.

Re:Governmental Takeover? (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642472)

Cool, so I can break into your website and deface it? Start a smear campaign against you claiming you are an ex Nazi who likes having sex with dead relatives? Break into your online bank account and steal your money? Admit it, you want at least some government regulation of the Internet. Unless, I don't know, maybe you want a lawless old west where groups like Anonymous can wreak havoc unmolested by evil government types.

Re:Governmental Takeover? (4, Funny)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642624)

Just plant child porn. He'll be sharing a cell quicker than you can say "club fed".

Re:Governmental Takeover? (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642730)

Cool, so I can break into your website and deface it?

That's what securing your systems is for. The toughest possible law in the USA against unauthorized entry/access won't stop someone outside your jurisdiction doing this as the Internet is a global network. You take resonable steps to secure your systems or you're an irresponsible admin, it really is that simple. For better or for worse, no law is going to change that.

Start a smear campaign against you claiming you are an ex Nazi who likes having sex with dead relatives?

Supposing the person is within jurisdiction, existing libel laws would already cover this. The medium (newspaper, TV, Web site) should be irrelevant. If they are out of your jurisdiction, what were you going to do about that anyway?

Break into your online bank account and steal your money?

That's fraud and/or theft. The medium should be irrelevant.

Admit it, you want at least some government regulation of the Internet.

No discrimination on the basis of destination or origin sounds good to me. For the reactionary types out there who like to knee-jerk, traffic shaping that prioritizes traffic type such as VOIP does not need to consider the destination or origin.

Unless, I don't know, maybe you want a lawless old west where groups like Anonymous can wreak havoc unmolested by evil government types.

I like that better than excessive government control. I'm not going to say that such things are perfectly fine. They aren't. They just aren't as bad as the immense distrust the federal government has soundly earned.

Incidentally, if you refer to an attack Anonymous made against a certain "church" then it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people. While I don't agree with the methods used, some groups seem to think they're untouchable and an occasional reminder that they aren't isn't a completely bad thing.

Re:Governmental Takeover? (1)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642886)

Man if I had mod points I would totally give you one, I was going to say the exact same thing. Current laws already protect us, and you have to secure your site because these laws only cover the US.

Re:Governmental Takeover? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642900)

While it is certainly nice to know that existing libel law regulates the Internet, it is not a good argument for an unregulated Internet.

Also, good to know that existing laws against fraud and theft also regulate the Internet. It wouldn't be very safe without those, now would it?

I also agree that we should, in addition to the regulations that are already present, regulate traffic shaping.

Funny how "Excessive" is so often a synonym for "Things I don't like."

We may cheer when mob violence is turned against targets we think deserve it (and I certainly think Scientology deserves some sort of consequences for their actions), but there is a reason mob violence has been replaced by the rule of law in most parts of the world.

I'm not arguing for this new law. I am arguing against the idea that all regulation is bad. Nobody actually thinks that, but they say it anyway. People just don't think of regulation they like as "regulation."

Re:Governmental Takeover? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33643026)

moron.

just admit it.

you're a two fucking bit moron.

Re:Governmental Takeover? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642474)

I don't really notice anyone calling net neutrality a government takeover. Maybe because I don't watch cable news.

Resistance is futile? (5, Informative)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642818)

All the more reason to move over to I2P, or other general darknets, which can provide application-agnostic anonymous networking with end-to-end encryption. Why wait for the inevitable when we can build a secure internet on top of the old one?

With I2P, there are no central DNS servers and, the ISP / IP-address of a specific service is ideally not knowable, neither are the ISP / IP-addresses of visitors to e.g. a political website. I2P being p2p, no authority has the power to shut down a site, prevent visitors using services in the I2P "darkcloud" or even snoop on the network activities (without using leaking honeypots, assimilating keys somehow or perform (D)DOS attacks). I2P uses random ports, so it's not as simple to block as blocking a portrange either. Being based on p2p coupled with encrypted tunnels, I2P resists most common attacks, even by formidable adversaries such as governments. You can run any website, any type of application, over I2P, however care must of course be taken to eliminate "identity leaks" in the application layer, even though the network-layer takes care of most anonymity, encryption and p2p.

So if you are to host "objectionable" content, whatever that may mean across the globe, I'd suggest taking a peek at I2P, as the "normal" internuts seems to be screwed in the short/mid-term. Heck, we should probably start using I2P for any and all purposes, so that I2P content is "legitimate" and equally protected from being censored and snooped upon in the first place.

I2P main site as a start. It's java and open source, so easily cross-platform and performs well (for a Java app anyway):
http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de]

Checks and Balances are soooo 1900's (4, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642184)

What's wrong with getting a court order?

Every time we drop court orders out of the mix, we wind up with abusive crap (see FBI and National Security Letters).

Just suck it up, deal with the paper work, and live in a nation governed by three equal branches of government that each work to ensure the other branches are not overstepping their bounds.

-Rrick

Re:Checks and Balances are soooo 1900's (5, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642240)

The Justice department would still have to get a court order, as they do now. The issue is that they could do so for a civil infraction, as opposed to a criminal infraction. Why the government is involved at all in civil justice is beyond me? Isn't that the job of the plaintiff?

You don't understand a thing. (4, Funny)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642364)

The MPAA, RIAA, and DMA have bought laws.

Don't you think that they have a right to expect a fair value for the legislators that they buy?

What good is buying a congressperson if you can't get the laws you want written the way you want?

Re:You don't understand a thing. (4, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642460)

Your question is rhetorical, but let me bite.

This is happening because enforcing civil law on behalf of the Hungry Artists is a costly and difficult exercise in the US.

Especially so since you have evil commies like our resident slashdotter lawyer, who is destroying business value by promoting socialist ideas like fair use, copyright limits and the like on his blog.

Dumping the enforcement on the government has benefits for all involved.

It is good for the companies -- they get to save some extra buck on prosecution and enforcement, and face significantly lower legal risks while protecting their valuable business model (which benefits the shareholders, and our great capitalist society).

It is good for the government -- with little cooperation from the interested parties, they get a nice tool for shooting things on the web they don't like.

It is good for the consumer -- for access to unapproved, and potentially dangerous and unlawful content is restricted.

Finally, since this will obviously help combat child porn and drug abuse, it is good for the future of this great nation. Why don't you think of the children?

No matter how I look at it, this is a beneficial measure for everyone except the few Communist slashdotters who abuse the internet to steal from our creative industry.

Re:You don't understand a thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642510)

You're just jealous. Oh well, haters gonna hate!

Sincerely,
Your Local Media Conglomerate

Re:You don't understand a thing. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642636)

The MPAA, RIAA, and DMA have bought laws.

Don't you think that they have a right to expect a fair value for the legislators that they buy?

What good is buying a congressperson if you can't get the laws you want written the way you want?

Ever notice with party the MAFIAA goes to in order to purchase their laws?

Look here [opensecrets.org] and here [opensecrets.org]

Re:You don't understand a thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33643006)

Uh, both of them? When you're bribing, or lobbying, or whatever they call it now, you give to the party that's winning, and for Congress that's been the Dems for the past few years. Soon it will be the Republicans stuffing their pockets, but until then why give to the losers?

Why the government is involved (3, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642974)

So the plaintiff doesn't have to pony up the cash to do it, and can now accuse at will, without any regard to potential returns. However, keeping it in civil court keeps the accused at a disadvantage as they have to effectively prove their innocence, at their expense.

Buying laws is fun.

Re:Checks and Balances are soooo 1900's (2, Informative)

Alanbly (1433229) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642264)

The legislation still requires a court order...

The new bill would give the government the authority to shut down the sites with a court order; the site owner would have to petition the court to have it lifted.

Re:Checks and Balances are soooo 1900's (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642320)

"What's wrong with getting a court order?"

When the person requesting it is a government official acting on behalf of a 3rd party's interest when really it should be between the 1st and 3rd parties, not the government. Basically this is just another way that the **AA and member companies are going to foot taxpayers with the bill for propping up their outdated and inflexible business models. If their business model can't survive change, it should die. Isn't that the entire fucking point of capitalism? Compete or die.

Re:Checks and Balances are soooo 1900's (1, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642458)

I tend to agree....

But I think people feel that since the government and corporations are one, and considering how corrupt our government is.... that its a bit of the old kettle and tea pot. In most situations concerning the people, corporations, and wealth are favored over what the people want. I think the little guy likes to know that he too deserves to fuck over the corporations and government who use law to fuck over the little guy constantly.

So here you have what probably makes sense and is fair in terms of law... but in the big picture of things.... Its just another oppressing law handed down by the wealthy elite who always get their way.

three equal branches (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642926)

I disagree, in reality the supreme court holds more power, since they can pick and choose what cases/issues they take.

I agree the founders never meant for it to be that way however.

No kidding (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642192)

Leahy said in a statement. "Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority -- it is a bipartisan priority."

In other words, if you believe in Copyright reform, you have no choices at the polls.

Re:No kidding (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642228)

Of course, both US parties are Corporatist. Any differences are just to make it look like you have a choice.

Re:No kidding (2, Informative)

youngone (975102) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642702)

Quite right, here's another word for Corporatist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [wikipedia.org] Have a look at the first couple of lines.

Re:No kidding (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642934)

big oil and big media, take your pick because either way your getting shafted...

Re:No kidding (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642304)

Which is why it is important to either have a very limited government that wouldn't let these abuses happen or allow for party-list based proportional representation in order to get people involved in politics and generate good government. Our current electoral system is great with very limited government and an even more limited federal government, but it isn't the 1830s anymore, the federal government is huge and this duopoly of parties only encourages political apathy. Party-list proportional representation means that everyone at least has -someone- representing their beliefs in congress, rather than people simply voting for the "lesser evil".

Re:No kidding (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33643056)

Which is why it is important to either have a very limited government that wouldn't let these abuses happen...

Let's think for a second about what a very limited, practically powerless government will be able to do to prevent any abuse the corporate world wants to impose. Will it be empowered to at least write a sternly-worded letter? Because a sternly-worded letter will at least make them think twice before doing what they were going to do anyway, won't it?

... or allow for party-list based proportional representation in order to get people involved in politics and generate good government.

I guarantee making voting more complicated is not the answer. You need an educated, informed electorate first. But if you have that, playing silly games with the ballot won't be necessary.

Re:No kidding (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642572)

That's not the only part of that quote I would want to question. Why is this a priority?

We have all kinds of problems in this country, so why is it a big priority for the government to help a handful of industries deal with petty civil disputes? I bet golf courses all over this country have problems with trespassing, but we don't make it a "bipartisan priority" in Congress to have law enforcement respond to trespassing complaints more quickly.

One step forward, two steps back (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642196)

Business groups including the US Chamber of Commerce hailed the legislation as a huge step forward.

Yeah, a step forward for keeping their business models from dying off, thus preventing them from having to actually work to come up with new ones.

Meanwhile, this COULD be used to stamp out any site the US Government or the MAFIAA dislike. WikiLeaks? "Piracy." BAM, blocked. YouTube? "Piracy." BAM, blocked.

A step forward for government protectionism of failing business models, two steps back for free speech on the Internet.

Re:One step forward, two steps back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642334)

Business groups including the US Chamber of Commerce hailed the legislation as a huge step forward.

Yeah, a step forward for keeping their business models from dying off, thus preventing them from having to actually work to come up with new ones.

Meanwhile, this COULD be used to stamp out any site the US Government or the MAFIAA dislike. WikiLeaks? "Piracy." BAM, blocked. YouTube? "Piracy." BAM, blocked.

A step forward for government protectionism of failing business models, two steps back for free speech on the Internet.

so right

Re:One step forward, two steps back (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642946)

Yeah, a step forward for keeping their business models from dying off, thus preventing them from having to actually work to come up with new ones.

I keep reading about "failed business models" and "finding new ones" but nobody ever suggests what such a new business model might actually be and how it would work.

What ever happened to... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642212)

The new bill would give the government the authority to shut down the sites with a court order; the site owner would have to petition the court to have it lifted

What ever happened to being innocent before guilty? In a free society, courts have to prove -you- guilty, not you have to prove your innocence.

Isn't it time that we realized that property is not property unless it is limited and move on?

Re:What ever happened to... (3, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642422)

"Assumed innocent until found guilty" is criminal law. Civil issues are different.

But what I worry about the most is its use for political censorship. Look what the church that rhymes with Pie Ontology has done using copyright laws. I hope there are added protections against that kind of abuse. The little guy can't afford boatloads of lawyers.

Re:What ever happened to... (3, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642466)

What ever happened to being innocent before guilty? In a free society, courts have to prove -you- guilty, not you have to prove your innocence.

Ah, you haven't heard of the glories of civil law. It is, for example, how most drug law forfeitures are done [fear.org] - you have to prove your innocence to get the seized assets back. (I am not a lawyer, and if you have assets seized, you had better get one and not rely on /. for legal advice.)

Why the US Court system bought into this theory is beyond me; I think that they should be ashamed of themselves (but, then, they don't ask for my opinion).

Re:What ever happened to... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642788)

The US Courts don't buy, so much as get bought.

Re:What ever happened to... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642524)

I'm afraid you're going to have to define 'limited'. While you're at it, can you think of any kind of property that isn't limited in some way? (the very nature of property itself has limits).

Re:What ever happened to... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642630)

Property by nature, and property law is filled with the assumption that property is limited. For example, if I have a plow and give it to you, I no longer have a plow. But lets say I have the plans to make a plow, that no longer is limited. If I tell you how to build a plow, I can still make a plow and you can make a plow. Those plans, provided they weren't written on anything and were simply verbal plans, were not property.

Property law would be needless if everything was like those plans, food would be infinite, water would be infinite, etc. But they are limited, thus why we need property laws.

Re:What ever happened to... (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642970)

In patent infringement cases a judge can order an injunction to force the accused infringer to stop making the product in question early on in the case*. Given the similarity of patent and copyright infringement, it makes sense that a similar policy would be used here. Of course, I doubt the requirements to get a site shut down are as high as the equivalent in patent cases, so in practice this won't be the same.

*IANAL so I apologize for poor wording.

Re:What ever happened to... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#33643004)

Presumed innocence only works in criminal court and they are trying very hard to keep these cases in the the 'civil' arena.

re (1)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642232)

Is it piracy if you NEVER would have bought it to begin with
If it is free i might download it but at $30 to $50 i would NEVER even think of buying it
If there was NO loss of cash is it piracy

Re:re (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642506)

Yes, it is.

Good question (3, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642550)

Is it piracy if you NEVER would have bought it to begin with
If it is free i might download it but at $30 to $50 i would NEVER even think of buying it
If there was NO loss of cash is it piracy

Is it piracy if you board another ship at sea while hoisting the jolly roger, wearing a wooden leg, sporting a parrot on one shoulder and demanding chests full of gold doubloons?
Is it piracy if they don't have any doubloons?
Is it piracy if you then ravish their women? What if you don't exactly ravish them, but merely rip their bodices, accidentally exposing their heaving bosoms?
How fast must a bosom be moving in order to be considered "heaving?"

Re:re (1, Flamebait)

greghodg (1453715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642556)

Ha! I said the same thing back in the 80's when I was a 13 year old pirating apple 2 games. Turns out I was just an immature little kid that didn't think the rules applied to me.

If I were American... (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642234)

Is there any 'politically correct' way to tell the government to screw off?
If not, let me be the first to just say, "Screw off."

Re:If I were American... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642418)

There is, give a large enough donation to the politic hack, and then you can tell em to screw off, and guess what they will... screw off on someone that that hasn't donated to them.

Re:If I were American... (1)

sarx (1905268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642584)

Well, you have every right to write angry letters to congressmen, or complain in the newspaper, or for that matter on slashdot. But "the government" is not a unitary entity, so I'm not sure whether any of the people getting your message are the bad guy that you want to reach.

yes, there is (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642690)

"I refer the honorable (?!?) legislators to the response [wikipedia.org] given in Arkell vs. Pressdram."

it is cute.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642238)

..that they actually have the nerve saying it will benefit consumers, because piracy is holding IP holders hands from innovating. Cute.. really cute..

Why the U.S. shouldn't control DNS (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642252)

The only point to having a new law for this, is to make it hard to access web servers that aren't in the U.S. by messing with DNS, regardless of whether the material was legally hosted where the servers were located. (If the problem was with U.S. hosted servers, existing law would be plenty good enough.)

The Fools Never Learn (1)

Ragnar Bocephus (323806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642290)

All this legislation would do is drive piracy more underground and more distributed and more encrypted. Bring it on you political dinosaurs. 8P

What impact would this actually have? (2, Interesting)

pyrocam (1219228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642306)

Will this actually have an impact though? what piracy sites are run from the US? I assume this court order will only be effective for servers hosted in the states...

Re:What impact would this actually have? (1)

Xerolooper (1247258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642356)

Somehow I doubt they thought it through that much. They probably pictured going downtown and busting the perps in their den of inequity. Perhaps someone tried to explain how the Internets worked to them but I doubt that as well. Anyone who tried would probably just frighten them into thinking they were a hacker/pirate.

Re:What impact would this actually have? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642382)

I would expect just the opposite. It will be used to make the U.S. based DNS registrars break DNS for servers hosted in other countries. If the servers were in the U.S., existing laws could be used to shut them down.

Re:What impact would this actually have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642480)

There goes the NNTP protocol.

guilty until proven innocent? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642322)

The new bill would give the government the authority to shut down the sites with a court order; the site owner would have to petition the court to have it lifted.

Did I read that right, that they can get the site yanked, and then you have to get to work to prove your innocence before you can have your site back up?

Re:guilty until proven innocent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642352)

Evidently Constitutional issues cannot be addressed when dealing with something as important as Internet piracy.

Re:guilty until proven innocent? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642404)

Did I read that right, that they can get the site yanked,

They do have to actually convince a judge there is a legitimate reason first. Its not a rubber stamp process... or at least it shouldn't be. In any case would you be happier if they could yank your site without a court order?

and then you have to get to work to prove your innocence before you can have your site back up?

That is how all injunctions work.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the "idea" of this legislation. How abuseable / abused it will be is an entirely different question.

Re:guilty until proven innocent? (1)

horatio (127595) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642410)

yes, yes you did. which was exactly my reaction. The government, at the behest of a private party, shuts down a legitimately operated business, whom the RIAA bots have decided are infringers. It turns out, the guy is selling his own music. Or, he has obtained the rights to use the music. But his business is closed until he can prove he didn't do anything wrong. By the time he convinces a judge the slick $500/hr RIAA/MPAA lawyers are wrong, his small operation which he sunk his life savings into, and which was feeding his family with, has gone under. No one will compensate him. He's just fucked.

Re:guilty until proven innocent? (1, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642454)

Yes...

Some legislators don't really care about Constitutionality. Such as Nancy Pelosi, who when asked where the Constitution gave Congress the power, simply asked if the reporter was serious, and moved on. It's on youtube, etc.

Re:guilty until proven innocent? (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642656)

Duh. Everyone knows that the answer is always "the interstate commerce clause". No matter what the power is.

Another law makes the US less competitive (5, Interesting)

mkawick (190367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642336)

The DCMA notoriously was touted as solving the online piracy problem. The cold reality is that almost ten thousand small companies have shuttered their doors in the last almost 15 years. New startups are forced to prove that they are not infringing and while waiting they must cease all development. This can take months and cost upwards of 100K meaning that most tech startups must simply shutter their doors. Microsoft alone has filed DCMA takedown notices almost 500 times and is successful at shuttering the company nearly every time.

Now, media sites can be shut down for being "copyright infringing" with very little evidence to the contrary. A small company cannot fight the likes of MS, IBM, Apple, Sun, or the host of other awful DCMA bastards and now they'll need to worry about Bartlesman, Dreamworks, Pixar, and the like. This simply makes it impossible to start a new media company because all that the media conglomerates have to do is claim that someone is stealing and without your company being informed, you can be shut down. The DCMA shuts down software and this new rule will shutdown new media.

The DCMA is one of the main reasons that more and more companies are successfully competing in software development overseas and why more and more software is coming from Russia, China, Norway, and so on. It is becoming impossible to create a new software startup. And now in the land of unintended consequences, we just shipped all of our movie, music, and game production overseas.

There have been no new Googles for over a decade and we wonder where all of the jobs are going.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642442)

Exactly. The US has gotten really good at making sure that people don't want to work here. News flash, its not 1950 anymore, Europe is just as developed if not more developed than the US, most of Asia has lots of cheap labor and good talent. If I was starting up a business I'd start it almost anywhere other than the US.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (1)

sarx (1905268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642614)

Most of the 300 million-or-so residents of the US do want to work here, and not a small number of people from other countries also come here to study, start a new life, and - yes - do business. A lot of us actually like our country (which doesn't mean we have to think that Europe or Asia are bad). But if living here is not your cup of tea, you have the freedom to leave.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642864)

Gee, maybe that's one of the reasons our economy is in the toilet right now.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (3, Insightful)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642542)

I personally think this is more idiocy, but do you mind citing one or two actual companies "shut down" by DMCA? Just to show you're not making this up *entirely* ?

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642590)

Just fucking google it, you lazy schmuck

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (1)

mkawick (190367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642964)

Unfortunately, those companies who disappear can't be googled... because they no longer exist.

When I lived in Dallas, I personally witnessed two startups shut down by DMCA. One was a company my friend started doing security software for the Palm and WinCE.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642560)

Well written, could hardly be any better. Please mod parent up +5!

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642598)

There have been no new Googles for over a decade and we wonder where all of the jobs are going.

Every empire throughout history (whether military or economic) has eventually failed. It's inevitable. Now, sometimes another empire with more on the ball rolls over them. That happens. In most cases, though, it's because they shot themselves in the foot. In other words, their own governments failed to perform their duties under the law, became corrupt, sold out their own citizens and caused the entire house of cards to collapse. Fact is, Uncle Sam's feet are stumps at this point. Yeah, it will suck to be an American when the lights finally go out, but that's the way it's going. I'm trying to decide if I should get out before it's too late. Where to, that's the question. I want good food and fast broadband. Cool smartphones would be a plus.

See, this is why the media cartels are so evil. It's not just because they want to protect their movies and music ... it's that they're willing to throw the entire country, all of us in fact, to the wolves, under the train, under the bus, into the fire, in order to get what they want. Worse, it's the naked corruption and malfeasance in office (if not outright treason) of Federal officials that is allowing to happen.

I hate them all.

DCMA? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642726)

Re:DCMA? (1)

mkawick (190367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642940)

My mistake... DMCA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642790)

There have been no new Googles for over a decade and we wonder where all of the jobs are going.

500 million Facebook users would disagree, as would the billion a day tweeters. Granted, they may not be as useful as a decent search engine, but when a sizable portion of the planet is using them, they clearly have something people want.

Google is already stuck for ideas, and their search results are getting worse thanks you link farms and crap like cnet flooding results with placeholders. Bing has overtaken yahoo, people are moving.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (2, Interesting)

mkawick (190367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33643032)

In fact, the only important new software companies in the last 12 years have been Facebook and Twitter and they are often cited as a counter example to those who hate the DMCA.

Ignoring their insignificance, can you think of one other...?

These companies succeeded because MS, Sun, and their ilk ignored these startup companies until they were large largely because the conglomerates didn't understand them or their significance. Now, MS tries to pay attn to all startups and we haven't seen a single company in 5 years (Twitter is 2006) since.

On a positive note...shutdowns have slowed as the conglomerates are seeing that their efforts in DMCA notices are "killing the golden goose" that they can later buyout and remain competitive.

Re:Another law makes the US less competitive (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642908)

There are a few Chinese companies that are outsourcing manufacturing to the US... why? Better infrastructure. Things like electricity are more reliable and cheaper in the US. http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/news/international/china_america_full.fortune/index.htm [cnn.com]

Rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642340)

The judge would have final say over whether a site should be shut down or not.

No anyone can shut down the site, and by the time you make your way though the horrible court system here the site would never recover if allowed to re-open

you cant kill something then decide after the fact that it is okay if it continues to live

Damn those evil Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642368)

If the Democrats who really care about the people had any real power, we'd never seen these kind of power grabs

Land of the free !!!! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642416)

if, youre stupid enough to believe !!

Why not death sentences then? (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642450)

This is completely circumventing the notion of due process and the ideal of innocent until proven guilty. So if this is okay, then let's just have the judges hand down an order for execution of suspected murderers and then make the defendant file a motion for a stay of execution pending a trial.

DAMN ANNOYING (2, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642468)

The internet is such an amazing, useful and indispensable tool... yet I keep seeing a bunch of retards from a bygone age trying to subdue and control it using petty excuses such as copyright. This is seriously over "entertainment", like movies and music? Are we seriously expected to stand aside and let them take the the internet with such a lame excuse? Fuck the entertainment industries, they should either figure out a more consumer-friendly way to operate, or POAD because they are completely useless and their products are pure shite. Fuck the pirates who are giving those asshats an excuse to screw everyone over, and then don't have the balls to vote for the Pirate Parties to mitigate some of the damage. And most of all, fuck the douchebag politicians who are colluding with the "entertainers" to introduce anti-consumer, anti-democratic, anti-civil-rights laws like this, and who have no business being in office.

Have we... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642492)

... reached the point where dealing in copyright violations are prosecuted worse than, say, dealing in hard drugs?

Re:Have we... (2, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642530)

Oh, no, we passed that point about a decade ago.

Lump much? (3, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642500)

"online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods costs American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs"

Much the way national defense and senators' salaries cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars each year.

Here is the actual Bill (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642504)

For those who like getting their news from the source, here [wired.com] is the current (PDF) draft of the bill.

Color me surprised... (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642514)

... that they actually mention piracy as the reason to implement this. Here in the Netherlands, similar legislation is being prepared, which by the way will require no court order whatsoever to have a site shut down, the public prosecutor can decide on a whim. The reason? You guessed it, "saving the children", or shutting down kiddie porn sites. As the minister stated: "Not to worry, but this is just for kiddie porn. Oh, and for other illegal stuff (like online piracy). Oh, and that includes hate speech too. Probably certain elements of a particular party we don't like much as well. But we'll exercise proper care" No checks, balances or even limits placed on this awesome power given to the prosecutors office... already famous for exercising proper care in sending a 10-man police force to do a nighttime raid on the home of an apparently extremely dangerous cartoonist making "hate-instigating" (i.e. subversive) cartoons. Or allowing cities to do door-to-door searches of homes looking for indoor weed plantations... but sending along municipal guys to check you're not claiming unemployment benefits while living it large, or having a dog without paying the tax. Oh and these are proper searches: fail to be home when they drop by a few times, and they will take a crowbar to your door.

Do not ever give in to pleas to relax controls to make life for the prosecutor a little easier "to catch more criminals". It's never about criminals nor child-molesters. We let them do it here, and allowed the government to thoroughly politicise the prosecutors' office, then took away the judiciary branch' power to check and balance. The result is not pretty... All these so called inconvenient controls exist for a reason.

CommanderTaco: Was that Piracy post censored? (1)

Ellie K (1804464) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642526)

I just returned to the story and noticed that it doesn't link to the pdf file of the actual Senate Bill. When I first viewed the story as it appeared, a few hours ago, it linked straight to the full draft Bill from the U.S. Senate. The link's source (for the pdf document) was Wired. It might not have been attributed perfectly, but it was attributed well enough that I was able to go to the Wired story without any question, so I didn't think that was the issue.

Just curious why Slashdot (or the story submitter, not necessarily Commander Taco's doing, that was a probably futile attempt at humor) edited the initial story link.

Regulate BANKS, not downloads!! (3, Interesting)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642544)

Seriously. The US government is 100% committed to spending a fortune regulating and enforcing use of the internet due to 'online piracy'. As a result the US government is directly providing law enforcement, judicial, and legislative staff to protect the video and music industry..... and yet they openly claim REGULATING BANKS and stock market (NOTE: the Republican party is almost 100% against regulating the banking industry) is bad???

Am I the only one who is concerned with this criminally insane paradox?

Is it just me (2, Insightful)

KillaGouge (973562) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642582)

Is it just me, or will this do nothing to stop downloading? After reading, it appears they will only go after sites selling things. I thought that downloading was the largest threat to "the industry", or are they just getting to the point they want to bring everything down that they don't make money off of?

10% Unemployment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33642592)

and this is what they are working on. Seriously, this is the best they could do...something that helps movie studios rake in more money. At the very least they could be going after the corporate scum that wrecked the economy in the first place.

Yes, We can... (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642646)

Because every pirate site is within US jurisdiction, of course!

Hooray! (2, Funny)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642752)

Finally we'll again get good movies and music, just like it used to be before the market collapsed due to piracy.

What are trying to shutdown? (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642848)

Newspapers? Saying that there is a torrent from a movie is not so different from saying that i.e. John Doe robbed that bank.
Search engines? Directly or indirectly search engines links to movies and pirated material
Web 2.0? Everything with user participation have potential to be used to "exchange links"
Mail? Mailing lists?
At most they should be going against the people that put them online at the first place

Wonder how fast will be censored all post that names the Great Firewall of America, but probably that is what they really should do if they don't want that americans download so easily pirated movies.

a huge step forward (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#33642894)

To a totalitarian country as private speech is squelched under the guise of 'anti piracy' ( or 'hate speech' or several other forms of free speech that is under attack ).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>