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!

PROTECT IP Act Follows In COICA's Footsteps

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-come-up-with-a-dumb-acronym dept.

United States 162

Last fall, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which was dubbed the "internet blacklist" by opponents worried about its broad provisions for allowing the removal of websites based on vague criteria. COICA stalled in Congress, but now Leahy has proposed a new, similar piece of legislation called the PROTECT IP Act (PDF). "Like COICA, Protect IP expands the web of enforcement techniques by requiring advertising networks and financial transaction providers to cut ties to domains found to violate the law. But the new version now adds search engines and others to the list of providers who can be conscripted into complying with court orders. Protect IP would require 'information location tools' to 'take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible,' to remove or disable access to the site associated with a condemned domain, including blocking hypertext links to the site. ... Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party, like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant does not have a US address. That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order effectively shutting the site down."

cancel ×

162 comments

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

Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117128)

Because we know they need welfare to profit. They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics in their favor but never in the favor of consumers.

Immoral corporations, they don't age, they don't die, but the powers that be expect us to accept them as persons.

Imaginary property, that is to be treated as physical objects when it's 1s and 0s, copying is equated with stealing, but the powers that be expect us to believe in it.

So in order for them to profit, we have to go schizophrenic and believe in imaginary shit which defies the laws of physics? The basis for their beliefs is unscientific at the foundation, and they don't care. They'll tell us that the earth is flat and make it true by court ruling, and then charge us to walk across the flat surface which they'll claim to own. But that doesn't change the fact that the earth is round, that they don't actually own it except on paper. They might hijack the government to protect their profits militarily, the government might believe that corporations are persons, the government might believe in their concept of intellectual property, and the government might invade privacy, abuse human rights and diminish civil rights to protect their profits, but it's all about the money right?

So get some money or suffer.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (5, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117172)

Leahy is beyond corrupt and firmly in the pockets [opensecrets.org] of the MafiAA - essentially he's the new RIAA hand-puppet in Congress.

He's actually worse than Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) [linux.com] was.

What we need is major campaign finance reform to get rid of all the backdoor contribution scams going on. But good luck getting that to happen - especially with the 5 senile delinquent conservatives on the Supreme Court having struck down the last few attempts at campaign finance reform!

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (4, Informative)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117782)

Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.

We can get a lot of things done without messing with the first amendment:

1. Term limits to reduce the amassing of power and favors.
2. End of plurality voting so that we end the power sharing duopoloy that continues to favor corporatism.
3. Much stronger restrictions on the ability of government officials to do favors for corporations and then take jobs with them as lobbyists and executives.
4. Transparency transparency transparency! Government officials should be required to keep extensive records online declaring every source of income or benefit they receive. We should be able to know who is using commercial airlines, whether or not they're flying first class, where they're going, who's paying for their hotel rooms, dinners, trips, doing their home remodeling, etc.
5. Stronger ethical training and rules enforcement. The self-policing of congress is pathetic. Every congressman and staffer should have to take one of those ethical IQ tests, similar to the one they make you take to get a retail job; but much much more detailed. Any difficulties with the test should result in extensive ethics training. All test results should be posted online for every citizen to examine.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117964)

Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.

Which is a colossal joke, because it hands the lobbyists the ultimate in corrupting power.

All your various "reforms" are meaningless when all the lobbyists have to do is show up with one of the two following statements:
#1 - Do it our way and we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars to help your next reelection run.
#2 - Do it our way or else we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars against you in your next reelection run.

Presto, corruption. And "Untraceable" corruption since it never "touches" their bank account.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (2)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118418)

- Where are all these powerful lobbyists going to come from if we get rid of the quid pro quo of having government officials become lobbyists with huge salaries?
- Which political organizations will lobbyists target if we reduce the power of those organizations by allowing other parties to be voted in?
- Which politicians will lobbyists target when term limits prevents them from buying a senator for 20 to 30 years? Fresh blood in congress means a reduction in strings.

Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.

Lobbyists only have real power because we've allowed them to be incestuously intertwined with government. Those ties should be broken, but not by curtailing free speech.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (2, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118684)

Where are all these powerful lobbyists going to come from if we get rid of the quid pro quo of having government officials become lobbyists with huge salaries?

They'll be former party officials who were never officially "government officials."
Or they'll be people who put together a firm simply for the purpose of being lobbyists from the industry themselves.
It's not the "who", it's the fact that they can make the threats and promises that in any other setting would amount to bribery.

Which political organizations will lobbyists target if we reduce the power of those organizations by allowing other parties to be voted in?

There will still be political parties.
There will still be individual representatives to target.

Which politicians will lobbyists target when term limits prevents them from buying a senator for 20 to 30 years? Fresh blood in congress means a reduction in strings.

Sons, daughters, neices, nephews... you forget how incestuous Congress really is.
For that matter, say (just pulling a name here) Boeing is in need of some new law to help them out. You don't think Boeing's staff can't come up with a list of "possibly sympathetic" and "Need to stop them from speaking against us" representatives within an hour?

Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.

You say that as if they are not one and the same.

Lobbyists only have real power because we've allowed them to be incestuously intertwined with government. Those ties should be broken, but not by curtailing free speech.

That was the whole point of campaign finance laws:
- Banning coordinated issue ads
- Banning coordinated "sneaky soft money" right next to an election

If you can't do those two things, even if some corrupt asstard in a black robe [washingtonpost.com] wrongly conflates them with "free speech", then you can NEVER break the incestuous ties of lobbyists and government representatives.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36119202)

Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.

Which is a colossal joke, because it hands the lobbyists the ultimate in corrupting power.

All your various "reforms" are meaningless when all the lobbyists have to do is show up with one of the two following statements:
#1 - Do it our way and we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars to help your next reelection run.
#2 - Do it our way or else we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars against you in your next reelection run.

Presto, corruption. And "Untraceable" corruption since it never "touches" their bank account.

Except for the fact that *if* (and that's a monster if) Term Limits ever gets passed both your statements then become meaningless. If we limit the Senate to one or two terms that pretty much eliminates any "issue ad" buys as the Congress crittter is out anyway. The lobbyist may get 1 re-election and then they have to start all over with a new one. That really leaves very little time for them to actually get their corruption rolling. Same goes with the House except make theirs 3 terms. If we take away their repeated reelections they will not care what these special interests do since they can't run again anyway. It might even bleed some of these lobbyists dry of money. Corruption normally doesn't happen overnight. It's when those in Congress are there for decades that it becomes a problem.

Do I think this will ever happen? Doubtful, but I am hopeful. More and more states are passing this law themselves since they realize Congress will never do it.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118298)

You know people keep calling for campaign finance reform, yet every time they have passed a campaign finance "reform" law, the problems of corporate influence over elections have gotten worse.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118904)

The Koch Brothers have a nice set of governors sitting on their mantel, bought and paid for through front groups like the "Tea Party."

How's that make you feel?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119090)

What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of the U.S..

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117184)

We're not *consumers.* We are citizens.

Don't let them dictate the terms of discourse and label us as cattle from the very beginning.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117680)

I think we went from people to citizens to workers to voters to taxpayers to consumers. But, I may be missing a few steps in there.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117750)

When discussing "citizens" and their relation to a content producer, it is legitimate and sensible to say consumer, or potential consumer. Would "customer" perhaps be better?

You might as well say "we are not citizens, we are human beings". Then "we are not human beings, we are mammals", blah blah. It's useful to have specific words for specific situations.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117866)

Read more Orwell. "Consumer" strips people of their responsibilities and turns them into products.

A citizen is more than a person. A consumer is less than a person.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118432)

Perhaps not all fiction should be taken as scripture?

It sounds more like the situation that you find offensive, and that you'd be annoyed no matter the semantics. I like the word consumer much better than "citizen", which just makes me think of movies and computer games where people are being oppressed. They're all being referred to as citizens, but they're being treated very differently to consumers/customers, who are generally pampered by anything but monopoly groups. The words make no difference, it's how people are being treated, and how they respond to that treatment, that is important.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119440)

I can agree to reasonable forms of popyright, patents and trademark but IP is intellectual poverty.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117612)

god what pathetic whining.

I love the way that stuff liek software is so 'imaginery' the minute you need to justify taking it for free, but its as concrete as fuck the minute you are being denied the opportunity to have it.
if its so imaginery why the hell do retards likr you constantly risk jail sentences to help yourself to it? Maybe its got some value after all eh?

Fucking anti-copyright morons.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119238)

Shill.

New media strategies? Your job sucks and you are a pathetic person. You're the cause for many of our societies' problems.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (2)

Target Drone (546651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117642)

They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics in their favor but never in the favor of consumers.

You can't seriously be advocating abolishing corporations and IP. You probably take it for granted that the computer you're using was created by a bunch of investors who pooled millions of dollars through a corporation and funded the very expensive CPU development knowing that their investment would be protected by patents. They used very complicated software to design the CPU which is protected by copyright. They marketed the CPU under a brand name protected by a trademark so consumers wouldn't get ripped off buying a fake hunk of plastic.

Corporations, patents and copyright have a lot of problems (particularly in the US as laws have slowly changed over the last few decades) but getting rid of them is like getting rid of our legal system because our drug laws don't make sense.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36119400)

No, you're wrong. See Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine [ucla.edu] . Abolishing imaginary property is exactly what we should be doing.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. (3, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117736)

They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics

I know I'm being pedantic here, but the laws of physics say nothing about either of those concepts. The rest of your rant degenerates from there, but admittedly is perfectly aimed at the majority of the slashdot readership.

Hey Assholes! (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119042)

We're sick of you encouraging the erosion of our liberties, the corruption of our government, and the persecution of true music/movie lovers everywhere. Go fuck your respective selves. You sit there, confident in your position outside the law's grasp, feeding off the misery of others for your own benefit. You make me sick. You're the scum-suckers of society, and you have the unabashed nerve to claim that you're actually being wronged! What is totally, completely wrong is that you guys exist in the first place.

OK, that takes care of the pirates. Where are the **AA? I'm not too fond of them either.

Re:Hey Assholes! (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119266)

Have you no self-respect?

If first.... (2)

TimeElf1 (781120) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117140)

If first you don't succeed try try again.

Keep trying until they stop fighting (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117316)

Just keep trying to push through the same law, eventually the other side will stop bothering to fight it and you'll get it to pass.

That sucks (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117162)

Seriously - that sucks.

Damn Republicans! (3)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117168)

Boy, howdy.

Those damn Republicans are always trying to steal our freedom!

Re:Damn Republicans! (1, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117228)

No see... the difference here is that the democrat just wanted the sites de-linked and "hidden".
but the republican wants the sites de-linked, hidden, and hard to get to. All the while allowing for law suits in an already overworked law suit court system.
One just wants people to do their best, the other just wants people sued until they dont exist anymore.
One promotes competition, the other doesnt.
etc etc.

Re:Damn Republicans! (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117268)

No see... the difference here is that the democrat just wanted the sites de-linked and "hidden".
but the republican wants the sites de-linked, hidden, and hard to get to.

Speech that can't be heard is speech that can't be heard.

I fail to see any important difference in the two "categories" you list above on that basis.

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117402)

Whoosh

Re:Damn Republicans! (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117288)

All the while allowing for law suits in an already overworked law suit court system.

...As opposed to the Democrats, who pushed through the DMCA?

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118434)

Did you miss that Patrick Leahy is a Democrat and intorduced both the COICA and the ProtectIP Act?

Re:Damn Republicans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36119192)

Did you miss that Patrick Leahy is a Democrat and intorduced both the COICA and the ProtectIP Act?

The definition of a Republican: Crook

The definition of a Democrat: Crook

The definition of an Independant: Crook that ain't gotta chance
All politicians should serve five terms:
2 in office.
2 in prison, twice as long as in office.
And 1 term as biomass.

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

Darkenole (149792) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117240)

You might take note that Leahy is a Democrat.

Re:Damn Republicans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117282)

You might take note that ... WHOOOOOOOOOSH!

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117306)

Looks like it's time for your Sarcasm Meter maintenance checkup.

Re:Damn Republicans! (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117322)

Actually, in this case it's safe to say this is probably bipartisan. Anytime the question at hand involves oppressing ordinary people, particularly at the behest of corporations, both parties are generally happy to go along with that. Google and Yahoo may complain about the cost to comply, so I'd expect some sort of amendment to compensate whichever third party is having to make changes to get rid of the links, but other than that I wouldn't be surprised if this went right through without too much debate.

The reason it got stalled the last time was that a few Senate Republicans were basically holding up all Senate business until they got what they wanted on a few specific and completely unrelated issues.

Re:Damn Republicans! (4, Informative)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117448)

With the duly noted sarcasm meter note, it is sad that NEITHER of the major political parties are one whit interested in this little thing known as the preservation of civil rights as much as they are about the seizing and holding of the political power of the purse for their own ends. If that meets kowtowing to corporate and monied interests, so be it.

What is more disturbing is the lack of public and news outlet reaction. Of course, most news outlets now being owned by extremely large corporate interests is in this case, no help at all...

Re:Damn Republicans! (2)

alexo (9335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117694)

it is sad that NEITHER of the major political parties are one whit interested in this little thing known as the preservation of civil rights

it is even sadder that over 99% of your citizens are not one whit interested in this little thing known as the preservation of civil rights (based on the voting trends).

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119398)

Honestly "most people" aren't interested in civil rights unless it hits them in the wallet and never were. Like the US revolution was mostly because of British taxes, that was what fueled the common man. That's what the Romans said too with their "bread and circus", if you have money for that you won't be unhappy enough to rebel. The Soviet Union too was mostly an economic collapse, it was the endless lines to empty shops to buy things with worthless rubles that caved them in not the Iron Curtain and Pravda. In the Civil War, was the south that much more racist than the north or did they have a much greater economic interest in slavery? No doubt they rationalized. Same with the civil rights movement it was also a lot about economic equality, black people couldn't get the same education, same jobs at the same pay as white people.

You can see the tendencies already in some of the economies that pretty much have failed, like in Greece. It's a full on democracy and all that but facing collapse, massive unemployment and massive public cutbacks there's tons of strikes and riots. A hundred years ago that's what would have triggered a socialist revolution, now hopefully not that bad. Iceland is now rebelling with the people refusing to pay UK and the Netherlands after the bank collapse, despite the parliament approving it twice but the president forcing a referendum. The pessimist in me is saying it could so far as revolutions and countries saying they won't pay for the old corrupt regime.

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118920)

What is more disturbing is the lack of public and news outlet reaction. Of course, most news outlets now being owned by extremely large corporate interests is in this case, no help at all...

The FCC clearly studied and pointed out that corporate mergers of content and distribution is best for consumers. So much so that key members of the FCC believed they should merge themselves with these same corporations.

I can't see how merging the interests of the RIAA, the MPAA, Congress, the FCC, Content, and Distribution companies all together would be a bad thing. Around here we call that "synergy".

Why would anyone need to look up anything from an illegal domain anyway? Shouldn't everyone be happy with what Congress and Big Content believes is in our best interest? That is why we elect them...right?

Re:Damn Republicans! (1)

Maeslin (1739760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117504)

You have to wonder if a possibility would be for the big internet and software firms (Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, etc.) who are most negatively affected by this to just pack up, leave the US and move their headquarters and main operations to another country. Obviously such a process could not be done overnight and would have very unpleasant short-term repercussions for said companies but it would definitely send a message to the elected officials.

Time to ditch DNS (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117188)

For something less centralized

Re:Time to ditch DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117252)

Problem with a p2p DNS is that before too long, everyone's /etc/hosts will redirect every website to goatse.

Re:Time to ditch DNS (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117506)

Problem with a p2p DNS is that before too long, everyone's /etc/hosts will redirect every website to goatse.

No problem... We'll just set up a centralized database with all the true ip addresses, so that the p2p stuff can be validated.

Re:Time to ditch DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117572)

Better yet, it will be crowdsourced and have a voting button saying "this was not the site I was looking for..." when it screws up. Enough votes and the originator of the bad info is banned from the network.

Wasn't there talk about this? (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117266)

I recall discussion a while back - I think it was when wikileaks had their domain names shut down - of how such a system would work: Some sort of peer-to-peer network that took the control away from any government anywhere in the world.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this? (2)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117352)

The problem is fundamentally how do you have a a single coherent addressing scheme without a central authority to enforce it?
If you have a single authority then that will always be open to attack/enforcement by governments. If you have no authorities then that's as bad as no addressing scheme. Even worse is you have multiple authorities all competing for the smae address space then you have arguments over who claims an address first.

Now one might argue that in the days of google and other effective search engines why bother with dns at all. Which may be a valid question, after all dns is only a convenience not a necessity. (Actually that's not quite true, you want a level of abstraction between an service - e.g. wikipedia - and the server's address.) Maybe the anarchists approach would be to give up on dns as such and just rely on url shortening services...

Re:Wasn't there talk about this? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117886)

The problem is fundamentally how do you have a a single coherent addressing scheme without a central authority to enforce it?

You don't; you sometimes sacrifice coherence. That's the least-bad compromise.

It's really not so bad. Imagine: You put out the request to the p2p system for the name boycott-example.org, and you get back several "competing" answers. Some of those answers are 3rd party testaments that as of [timestamp] that names resolves to

  • 1.1.1.1, signed/asserted by a keyid associated with someone named viagradude to whom you can't even find a trust path through the WoT, nor whose assertions you have used and rated before, nor for whom you can find any ratings by anyone you know through recursively asking the same question
  • 2.2.2.2, asserted by verisign whose keyid-to-identity is very well known to be accurate (you're sure that really is verisign, so you would happily use it as a fully-trusted introducer if you ever needed to call verisign tech support), but even though you're sure it's their key, you also know verisign is routinely subject to coercion by governments so their reputation is only moderately trusted
  • 2.2.2.2, as asserted by a keyid published by the Turkish Intelligence Service
  • 3.3.3.3, signed by a keyid for whom you also don't know who that really is but you have used that identity's assertions in the past and it always seemed to give good results
  • 3.3.3.3, signed by a different keyid but for which you have a similar personal history
  • 3.3.3.3, signed by a yet another keyid but for which you have a similar history

and your browser connects to 3.3.3.3. Someone else's browser which came preloaded with defaults different than what you're currently using, connects to 2.2.2.2. Don't panic. This is ok. It merely becomes necessary to make some decisions about who you trust and how/why, in order to train your computer to use the internet most accurately.

That's the key: stop thinking in terms of correct/incorrect and think in terms of degrees of confidence, also acknowledging that confidence in an assertion will be subjective. Subjective trust is ok, because real life works exactly the same way and we've all gotten this far. When you think about how current DNS trust works and map that onto real life, the silliness should leap out at you.

There will be some unfortunate consequences of this; I'm not saying this avoids all harm. But it's better than letting governments interfere with naming, and it lets/encourages us to build up and leverage the giant WoT to which mainstream non-hacker people are part of, which is something we ultimately need anyway, for many other things (e.g. making phone calls, filtering spam, reviewing consumer products, loading the most interesting consensual imagery into your wearable HUD, and hundreds of other applications that I can't begin to imagine).

Re:Wasn't there talk about this? (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118456)

While I like the idea in general that you lay out I think it smacks of an "If only everyone followed the rules then the world would be a better place."
I think it's biggest flaw is the idea that those people who maintain the 3.3.3.3 in your example will exist. While I believe in the adage that the best way to get something done is to tell an engineer that it can't be done, I believe that in the real world while you might start out with many trustworthy and trusted sources then simple human nature will cause fragmentation amoungst them, partially due to personal interest, partly to malice, but mostly due to laziness, after all "the distributed system works, i don't have time to patch on the latest updates I need to get $other_project working" When the proverbial really does hit the fan the redundancy designed into the system just isn't there because it has been partially engineered out in the interest of cost saving, and partially in the lament of laziness.
We've seen this before in intranet infrastructure that there are a few scary bottlenecks in the physical infrastructure and while database contents may not have a direct cost associated with them I fear the complexity of such a distributed system would be beyond human comprehension.(While at least with physical infrastructure it is possible to partition the problem.)
If you can make it work then great, but it sounds to me like the arguments for anarchy in any form, they sound great provided most people play by the rules, in real life it often seems that people try and game the system. It seems like some people don't like other people to have anything nice so the fundamental state of the world has to be one of brokenness.
Sorry for wandering off topic a bit there but I really don't see how this p2p dns could stand up to abuse. You only have to look at the number of idiots posting goatse links to see that script kiddies could easily flood the system with rubbish. Fine you say, you don't trust those flooded sources, but how is trust built up in the first place on dns? By conforming to the original standard? How are new domains introduced? (If I want to introduce a new domain I may get it out to all the people I trust but I don't know everyone that everyone trusts, so like you have domain squatters and patenet trolls now you could imagine someone who waits to see a new domain being registered and propogates it to several highly trusted dns servers and therefore steals the trust for that address for most of the web from you unless you pay a fee)
In any system I can think of you could imagine a boycott of $multinational meaning that they have no recognisable place on the web and while that might be an effective method of protest I don't think it would be fair or desirable.

I'd rather fight this government problem at the law maker level that at the technology level because it doesn't matter what technology you use to protect yourself or the architecture they'll make it illegal and throw you in jail, or force you to follow their rules for use of that technology thus negating the protection you gain from it.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118036)

Someone needs to adapt BitTorrent protocols to handle all general internet traffic.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118316)

Or we could take another look at distributed P2P systems like Gnutella, so that no single server can be blocked. The whole point of the Internet was to be peer-to-peer.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this? (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118864)

You've missed the point, or maybe I have but...
Let me take an example I already own rufty.org.uk. This is registered on the main dns server. If a p2p dns was setup tomorrow almost everyone would have that entry in their records.
But some joker decides he wants that address, so he changes his dns entry for that to point to his server and instructs his dns server to share that with the rest of the network. Those who trust his dns server go to his address. Those who trust the old records go to mine.
Fine, you may decide this is desirable in some situations, but if i visit www.mybank.com how do I know it is my bank? I have to trust verisign, fine then you've just replaced dns with verisign. Fine you'll always have that problem but how do you build the web of trust that you need. In the final implementation it would probably end up that I trust who installed the software on my computer trusts plus any specific additions needed along the way for specific sites (such as wikileaks). Or if I built the computer myself I trust who built the last computer/whoever edited mozilla's web of trust last.
Maybe you'd have something like wikipedia (wikitrust?) following a similar notion, but fundamentally that leaves you as a user either building your own map of the internet yourself (in which case why have dns at all) or having a single regulated address space. In which case why go p2p.

Re:Time to ditch DNS (1)

jimktrains (838227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118494)

##dns-p2p and #namecoin on freenode

Time to move search engine companies (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117232)

out of the USA. In fact, it is time for many businesses to threaten to leave. Seriously, CONgress has gotten out of hand. We have neo-cons that run up massive debt during good economic times, totally corruption, and playing games to get keep their jobs, rather than doing their jobs.
Now, you have dems continuing their assault against anything sane WRT IP.

Re:Time to move search engine companies (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117360)

Exactly. Why should a non-american trying to search a access *outside* the U.S., limited to a list of sites approved by the U.S. law? Just because he's using an american search engine?

This sucks. It seems it wasn't enough for the U.S. to destroy the global economy, they want to destroy the internet, too?

Re:Time to move search engine companies (1)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117502)

It seems it wasn't enough for the U.S. to destroy the global economy, they want to destroy the internet, too?

Yep, that seems to be the plan. Talk about killing the goose that lays golden eggs!

discount mac cosmetics wholesale (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117348)

We are professional MAC makeup manufacturer and offering one-step trade services to international buyers who are interested in purchasing directly from our site. The mac cosmetics [outlet-maccosmetics.com] on outlet-maccosmetics.com include mac foundation,mac powder,mac lipgloss,mac brush ,mac colors mac eyeshadow [outlet-maccosmetics.com] , mac Lip Gloss,etc.As an online Wholesale business platform, we provide our buyers with an efficient and manageable procurement process covering every phase of the international supply chain, Drop Shipping and streamlining trade channels.If you are searching for mac makeup online outlets or stores,pls feel free to contact us,we will always offer you excellent quality and discount mac cosmetics [outlet-maccosmetics.com] , Mac cosmetics wholesale [outlet-maccosmetics.com] lot,waiting for your visiting.
 
  wholesale cosmetics [outlet-maccosmetics.com] now!

Congressional Term Limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117364)

We need term limits now. Imagine how less effective lobbying would be if our representatives didn't make a career out of making profitable connections. It was always supposed to be ordinary folk who volunteered to serve their country for a time- not a class of elite who consider themselves above the law and the people who elected them.

Re:Congressional Term Limits (1)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117454)

Why do these dinosaurs get our votes anyway? None of them know what the're talking about. They just read the talking points given to them by their handlers. Like my congress critter raging about "wiki links". Don't vote for morons.

Re:Congressional Term Limits (3, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117522)

This is so very naive. If legislators were term-limited, their unelected staff would take their place as the career-oriented power brokers of Washington, with the party's latest nominee serving a term as chief fund-raiser and public-relations face for the office. And if you term-limited the staff as well, that revolving door of new legislators and new staff every X years would lead to a greater reliance on.... that's right: lobbyists. Make no mistake about it: in a large republic, the job of legislating will be done by professionals. The only question is whether they'll be professional representatives you can fire at the ballot box, professional staffers you can try to fire through civil-service regulations, or professional lobbyists you can only fire by (heh) legislating against them. I'll opt for the first.

Re:Congressional Term Limits (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118182)

Lobbyists should be outlawed. The only voice Congressional representatives should be hearing are their direct constituents.

Also the Member States should be given power, via a 50% vote, to nullify any act of Congress. After all, the congress is a creation of, and a servant to, the States. (See Amendment 10 and constitutional conventions.)

Re:Congressional Term Limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118936)

Um.... the US Congress is not a creation of the states. It is elected directly by the voters, by district.

And anyone who capitalizes words like States, and is not 1) a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson, or 2) a native Germanophone (because they do that in German), is probably insane and not to be listened to. Seriously, dude, you seem really confused about how the US Constitution works.

Re:Congressional Term Limits (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119596)

Longer term limits can help focus on long term goals without pandering to short term fads, as they don't have to worry about being elected every two years. That's why we have a mix of long and short term congresscritters. Somewhat the same with the houses of lords/commons in the UK.

Orly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117384)

lol, take my sites down and ill take yours down

apparently congress is confused and thinks the only way to prevent access is with a court order

Holy crap .... (3)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117394)

Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party, like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant does not have a US address. That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order effectively shutting the site down.

So, the US has more or less decided to pass an extra-territorial law?

If a domain is registered in another country, and not with a US owned TLD, what gives the US standing for this? Because they say so? WTF does it mean to sue a domain name?

And what will happen when someone in Iran decides to sue a US based organization for some form of defamation or violating their beliefs/hurting their feelings? Lawmakers need to realize they can't just go around passing laws that reach outside of their borders and jurisdiction ... otherwise, everyone will be guilty of breaking laws in every other country.

This is quite sad, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of either the technical or jurisdictional issues of the internet.

Re:Holy crap .... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117704)

If the National Defense Authorization Act passes the term "another country" becomes history.
If your server is found to be hurting the US tax system at a time of worldwide war by reducing sales ( ~supporting terrorism), a diplomat will have words with your federal government.
If that fails to get your server off the net, military force to capture terrorism suspects becomes an option.
The owner, admin ect face been captured on a battlefield. A charge or offer to face trial might come up one day.

Re:Holy crap .... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117844)

People sue people in (or break the laws of) other countries all the time. The problem is enforcement.

Just don't visit that country (or do something that falls within the remit of an extradition treaty or covert extraction/assassination team) and you're fine.

Re:Holy crap .... (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118792)

This is quite sad, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of either the technical or jurisdictional issues of the internet.

Al Gore invented the internet when he was in congress. I think they would know what is best for the tubes. Those tubes aren't free, you know.

S.968 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117408)

Information on the bill at ThomasLOC here:
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s968

Odd that the title of the bill "Protect IP Act" is not listed. Instead the description is listed as its title:"A bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes."

That "for other purposes" is, uh, worrying...as if the other part wasn't bad enough.

Also, Co-sponsors listed:
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 5/12/2011
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Franken, Al [D-MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] - 5/12/2011
Sen Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [D-FL-MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Kohl, Herb [D-WI] - 5/12/2011
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 5/12/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] - 5/12/2011

It's the usual cadre of Maafia owned Senators .

Re:S.968 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117632)

The internet was better off when only techies knew about it.

Letting congress have even the smallest say was a huge tactical mistake.

Re:S.968 (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117698)

Well shit, I just went and sent off a very polite letter to my senator who is on that list. I doubt it'll come to anything, but I can hope!

Re:S.968 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117710)

is that a list of American politicians or a bar mitzvah invitation list ?

Re:S.968 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118406)

Shhhh... You're not supposed to notice things like that.

Re:S.968 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117738)

Damn, I mispelled Mafiaa and I forgot to add the party affiliations for Coons and Blumenthal (both D's). I suck.

The fine gentleman from Vermont (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117434)

...swaps spit with Orrin Hatch.

Orrin is also a friend to the media companies. They needed a replacement for Senator Hollings (aka Senator Disney) so now Pat's been bought.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and this shit sucks. The thing is that there's nobody on the other side worth a damn either. It's all a bunch of rich white guys who think they know best for everyone, even if it means breaking the Internet.

Fuckers.

Not even Ron Paul is worth a damn, because maybe he's for individual rights, he's a corporatist to the bone and would sell out the entire US public, including his mom, to the corporations and would be just fine with this. That's because libertarianism is just like communism - looks fucking great on paper, but it doesn't take into account reality.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (3, Insightful)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117564)

because maybe he's for individual rights

Sure, if you are white.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117646)

Yeah, I know all about that too.

Ron Paul used to make sense when I heard him in an interview on WBZ with David Brudnoy back in the early 90's. But then I was younger and more idealistic. He has disappointed me greatly of late.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118096)

>>>>>Paul's for individual rights
>>
>>Sure, if you are white.

Accusing (or implying) Ron Paul of being racist is a SERIOUS accusation. How about backing it up, otherwise we'll just ignore your comment as equally worthless as Alex Jones' or Bin Laden's rantings.

If you bothered to read their platforms, it is clear that Paul and other libertarians don't give a damn what color you are. You are a human being and deserve *equal* rights as given to you by your Creator (god or Nature depending upon your beliefs).

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118958)

I am pretty sure that he is not personally racist, but the libertarian philosophy as it stands lets racism run unabated.

The libertarian philosophy says that freedom of association and trade are *absolute* and that means any systemic racism in the society must be unopposed. Blacks may not sit at the lunch counter if you do not wish to serve them. Blacks (or anyone of any race) may not buy houses from you if you do not wish to sell them mortgages. Dealing fairly in business to all comers regardless of race is only if you wish to do it, as a business owner. If you hate "them niggers" then according to the libertarian philosophy, you may discriminate.

The libertarian philosophy drags society back to before the 60s and Jim Crow "separate but equal."

Ron Paul may not be overtly racist, but libertarianism sure attracts a lot of racists.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36119304)

How about the fact that he published a racist newsletter, which bore his name, and warned how to survive the upcoming war with blacks?

He played it off as "i didnt write it, and i didnt know what was being published in the newsletter that I started and is named after me", but you really have to have your head far, far up your ass to believe that.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

Foolhardly (1773982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117568)

So what's your solution? The way you paint it, we're screwed if we're allowed to make decisions for ourselves and we're screwed if the rich white guys make 'em for us. Who is supposed to make the decisions?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117758)

The way I'm painting it is that Ron Paul would just hand us all over to a different (sortof) set of old rich white guys.

Either way you cut it, it's the current set of old rich white guys, or the corporate set of old rich white guys. One might say that they are all the same set.

Solution?

Don't rightly know. The soapbox hasn't worked. The voting box hasn't worked either. The ammo box solution seems a bit messy and the US military has the bestest ways evar to kill people in massive numbers, last I looked.

Gaspee Days are almost upon us here, and it seems like it was so much easier back then.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117948)

>>>That's because libertarianism is just like communism - looks fucking great on paper, but it doesn't take into account reality.

It seemed to work just fine from 1789 to circa 1900 (when the US government, minus a few exceptions, was basically libertarian (i.e. small and nonintrusive)).

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118186)

>It seemed to work just fine from 1789 to circa 1900

Not for people like you and me.

Not for miners, not for railroad workers, not for anyone who had to work for a living. I suggest you read up on the Banana wars. I suggest reading about how people died while putting in rails as the robber barons of the age built their cottages 20 miles from me in Newport RI. The Breakers (Cornelius Vanderbilt - Rails and shipping) alone, if rebuilt from scratch, would require half a billion dollars of modern money. Living the life on the literal blood of the people who worked for him.

That's what laissez-faire gets you.

Yeah, it was so magical back then. You're not romanticizing /at all/.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118254)

>>>That's because libertarianism is just like communism - looks fucking great on paper, but it doesn't take into account reality.

It seemed to work just fine from 1789 to circa 1900 (when the US government, minus a few exceptions, was basically libertarian (i.e. small and nonintrusive)).

Yes, we all miss the days of slavery, voting restricted to white male property owners, robber barrons, and an unregulated banking system that created decades long recessions.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (2)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118262)

Isn't it funny how most people don't recognize the libertarian roots in the US that were a beacon and the envy of the world? Instead, we've destroyed our libertarian heritage by dramatically growing government while managing to confuse capitalism for corporatism. Thomas Jefferson was so prescient in this regard.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
      -- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

It's so dreadfully sad that everyone these days is looking for the government to solve their problems. Oh, if we just get the right new program in place. If we just spent a little more money on MY pet project... If we just gave a little more authority to MY candidate...

We've managed to do exactly what Jefferson warned us not to. We've created a government-corporate monster by giving away all our liberty and money for the illusion of safety and being taken care of. Now, rather than hacking away at the monster, we think that we can add to it and manipulate it in the direction that we want. Utter foolishness.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118066)

I'm a lifelong Democrat

At least you're honest about your main problem there. I have no clue why anyone gives allegiance to a political party. Political parties are no more logical, ethical, or relevant to good policy than football teams - especially in the US where you can only choose between two of them. Political party affiliation clouds your judgment and is the cause of the allowance of so much government shenanigans in this country.

Not even Ron Paul is worth a damn, because maybe he's for individual rights, he's a corporatist to the bone and would sell out the entire US public,

Complete and utter bullshit.

Ron Paul is as anti-corporatist as they come. Corporatists enact legislation to favor corporations. Corporatists are in favor of heavy manipulation of the tax code, industry subsidies, protectionism, etc. Ron Paul is against those things.

Ron Paul is a Capitalist. He speaks out against Corporatism, and he's definitely not a hypocrite.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118358)

>Ron Paul is as anti-corporatist as they come.

He is anti-Sherman Antitrust Act.

And that's all I really need to know.

By the way, the free market, even completely devoid of regulation, is a myth. Just so you know.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118504)

He is anti-Sherman Antitrust Act.

I definitely don't like that - but monopolies aren't our worst problem right now. It's corporations buying influence and laws. That's the first giant that we have to slay. The pendulum has swung so irrevocably far toward the big government nanny state side of the spectrum that someone like Paul is needed just to move us back toward sanity.

By the way, the free market, even completely devoid of regulation, is a myth. Just so you know.

So you think that we're in danger of accidentally falling into unregulated capitalism after someone like Paul would have a term or two in the President's chair? Really?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119134)

>So you think that we're in danger of accidentally falling into unregulated capitalism

Sure am.

Repealing of Glass-Steagall was the gate letting the horses loose. Say what you will about Clinton signing it - it was going to be repealed with or without signature since there were enough Republican and Blue Dog votes to overturn any veto. It was pushed by laissez-faire capitalists and we've only seen laissez-faire capitalism gather more steam.

>monopolies are not a problem

I beg to differ. I am a t-mobile customer.

>nanny state

Wedge issue to distract you from what's really going on. Just like abortion, gay marriage, and all that other horse-shit.

--
BMO

Asinine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36119488)

I find it asinine how Mainstream Joe views libertarianism with nothing less than absolute seething hatred, the kind you'd normally reserve for the man who murdered your wife, when libertarianism has approximately 0.01% net impact on Mainstream Joe's life.

Mainstream Joe, listen up. The people who run the business of government are the polar opposite of libertarianism. This is proven by the fact that the US federal government of today absolutely dwarfs the US federal government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue per population AND power over the people. Every year, the US federal government continues to spend more, borrow more, and assume more power over the people.

The notion of libertarianism gaining mainstream acceptance -- and consequently government shrinking to 1/10 its size measured both in revenue and power over the people -- is literally the last thing you will ever need to "worry" about.

Companies (2)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117486)

When a company has been found to violate the law, do all other companies have to 'cut ties' with them, too? I mean, that would destroy SO many companies right this week.

This is ridiculous.

we need more (1)

gblfxt (931709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117498)

yes, what we need more to improve american innovation is it kill it from the get go. who needs bin laden to kill america when we got IP?

What's in a name (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117554)

I predict that PROTECT IP will get farther than COICA because it sounds more wholesome and less naughty.

Damn Republicans are Corporate Lackeys (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117672)

Corporate puppets. Sellouts. That's all I have to say.

"But he's a democrat."

Oh.

Google never allow Protect IP to be implimented (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117726)

Wrong target, MafiAA. Google's got more money than the MafiAA. They're not going to allow search engines to involved in MafiAA cash shakedowns. They won't pay one thin dime to the record companies now, especially after the way the record companies treated them on the Google Music launch this week.

Google will hire all the lawyers in DC and California to make sure Protect IP is never implemented, and Google's got the money to hire all lawyers in DC and California if forced to.

The "PROTECT IP Act", huh? (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117806)

Guess "PATRIOT Act" was already taken.

Letter (1)

jimktrains (838227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118544)

I wish I had the time and knowledge to write a well-worded letter I could print and mail to my rep and senators.

American Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36119224)

Does somebody care to explain what the (R) and (D) after a Senators name refers to? To an outside observer, we can only assume it means (R)IAA or (D)isney

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?