×

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!

Law Professors vs the PROTECT IP Act

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the clean-up-your-act dept.

Government 212

Freddybear writes "Along with 90 (and still counting) other Internet law and IP law professors, David Post of the Volokh Conspiracy law blog has drafted and signed a letter in opposition to Senator Leahy's 'PROTECT IP Act.' Quoting: 'The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. It requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers "dedicated to infringing activities." But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

212 comments

F1rst Fuck1n P0st! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656716)

Niggers! Lots of niggers with big niggerdicks! Up your ass, mods!

LOL! American Freedom! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656724)

LOL, is this the "American Freedom" I heard so much about as a youth growing up in Hungary during the Cold War?

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656736)

Yep. We're as bad as China. Just in different ways. Difference is, here in the US, we're fucking hypocrites about it.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656882)

No, you're not as bad as China. You still have free political speech, which is the most basic thing - thanks to it, these professors can publish materials explaining just how bad this law is, and campaign for getting it repealed. Whereas in China, no matter what goes wrong, you can't really complain.

This isn't to say that "PROTECT IP" act is not bad - it is - but limitations on political speech are infinitely worse in comparison.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

gullevek (174152) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656978)

They can still complain, because we can still read it online. But no one will listen to them, and then one day you cannot read of them anymore, because they get silently censored.

So much for free speak in america.

The internet is just too scary for the people in power. They see their control slipping away, so they will slowly turn it into a consume only medium like TV is.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (5, Insightful)

zblack_eagle (971870) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657226)

I think the "Freedom of Speech" became freedom to make noise some time ago. There's a lot more noise going on than speech these days, or at least that's what gets the attention of people. Bread and Circuses and Two Minutes' Hate for everybody!

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657922)

And your point is? Still plenty of traditional one-way-only media without noise and another kind of Bread and Circuses. Just go there and leave the tubes as they are.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657166)

No, you're not as bad as China. You still have free political speech, which is the most basic thing

Until your political opponents accuse you of infringement on questionable grounds and get your domain blocked.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657338)

And then you sue them for libel and get it unblocked - in the meantime, setting up a website on a different domain to get your point across.

I mean, let's be serious here. There's no comparison between freedom of speech in US and China, which is obvious to anyone who bothers to check the fact. And there's no need for hyperbole and other cheap propaganda tricks when pointing out bad things. Whether it's better or worse than China is completely irrelevant - what you should care about is whether it's good or bad for your own country.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657700)

Sounds great on paper. But now you need to spend thousands of dollars to sue someone for a $5 website that you did in your spare time. And you have to take off from work and the most you'll get out of losing a half-years and getting fired for missing so much work, is your web-site is eventually brought back up after it's no longer useful and can no longer afford the $5/month because you no longer have a job.

yeah... great system. Any other great ideas?

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657982)

And then you sue them for libel and get it unblocked

Haven't you heard of being swiftboated? A number of liars got up and lied in order to directly harm John Kerry by calling him a coward who lied to get a medal. You do that close enough to a vote, and the truth doesn't matter. By the time you've sorted out the mess, you've lost. And if you prosecute them after, then you are a sore loser.

Or is it only a bad thing if the Democrats do something but when the Republicans engage in a conspiracy to rob the Democratic office in some hotel or commit fraudulent libel, that's OK because the Democrats deserve it?

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657750)

I think you don't really get it. The law professors don't give a crap an about music linking sites, they care about political speech sites.

Don't think it affects political speech, please wait 6 months after a complaint is filed, after spending thousands on lawyers and legal fees, to prove in court that you web site did not have infringing music, a paragraph from a book, plagiarised, shared an idea etc. etc and was only about politics and is original work. Oh yes, than rinse and repeat was the case is dropped as the new case is filed. You think for a second that corrupt corporations via insane right wing politics wont seek to pull that crap on every popular web site that challenges their bull shit.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657976)

I'm sure the Church of Scientology loves the idea, given their history of suing their critics for copyright infringement.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657798)

No, you're not as bad as China. You still have free political speech, which is the most basic thing - thanks to it, these professors can publish materials explaining just how bad this law is, and campaign for getting it repealed. Whereas in China, no matter what goes wrong, you can't really complain.

This isn't to say that "PROTECT IP" act is not bad - it is - but limitations on political speech are infinitely worse in comparison.

The thing is , they would be able to block a website, for 'infringing activities' . How certain are you , that you are allowed to say whatever you want , without facing persecution.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657886)

> Whereas in China, no matter what goes wrong, you can't really complain.

People in China often travel thousands of miles to petition the Government in Beijing. Do some research.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Decessus (835669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656972)

The bill isn't law quite yet. Stupid bills wanting to become stupid laws get introduced all the time and most of them don't go anywhere.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Interesting)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657010)

However, if we ignore it, it might get quietly slipped through - One might argue that the strategy is to make sure there are so many stupid bills which never get anywhere that the senators(and others) start ignoring them. At which point one might manage to slip through.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657266)

Stupid bills that want to become stupid laws, but are defeated, are just reintroduced in the following legislative session, usually as a rider on some other, far more important bill. Or, possibly even worse, the bill is defeated repeatedly, until something like ACTA is signed as a treaty.

Stupid bills never just go away, their authors just get sneaky about pushing the thing through the legislative body in some other fashion.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657432)

The bill isn't law quite yet. Stupid bills wanting to become stupid laws get introduced all the time and most of them don't go anywhere.

That's just what people were saying when the DMCA was still a bill. The time to speak up is before a law is passed, not after.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657780)

The DMCA was an international treaty before it was a bill or a law. The entire reason why it went through was because no one paid attention to that detail and allowed congress to ratify the WIPO- WPPT and WTC.

Many other nations signed onto that those treaties too which is why they are all getting DMCA style laws that they need to fend off all the time. If people would realize that it's because of a treaty, then maybe the treaty can be changed and the DMCA can go good bye or become something sane.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657370)

Couple differences: People hating the government here are free to say so.

In China, it means the complainer and their family will "wake up in pieces" since dissidents make great organ donors. The prison factories also need labor too, so the more people incarcerated, the better, and it really doesn't take much to be jailed in China for a long time.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Informative)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657774)

Couple differences: People hating the government here are free to say so.

In China, it means the complainer and their family will "wake up in pieces" since dissidents make great organ donors. The prison factories also need labor too, so the more people incarcerated, the better, and it really doesn't take much to be jailed in China for a long time.

Hate to say it but a lot of American imports here are manufactured in the American prison system. It doesn't take much to get jailed in America for a long time either and the prison industry has good lobbyists.
You are right about being allowed to bitch about the government though.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657046)

LOL, is this the "American Freedom" I heard so much about as a youth growing up in Hungary during the Cold War?

May the fleas, ticks, lice and herpes of a thousand niggers on welfare infest your armpits, sir!

That's Freedom of Speech, baby!

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (2)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657278)

Yes, pretty much. The Soviets lied to you, and so did we. Big surprise.

This particular law is hardly worth protesting, though, as it will be declared unconstitutional as soon as it its the courts. The US Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint, as the saying goes, and that's what this is.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657514)

In other parts of the world we would rather just keep working and doing whatever it is we do rather than have to spend time in court getting obviously unconstitutional shit declared unconstitutional by a judge. Do you not see the bigger problem?

I guess you believe the system will sort bad stuff out and justice is served, even when such efforts didn't need to occur in the first place. Apathy much?

I'm no longer conerced about it (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656758)

The law will provide great incentive to develop new technologies to work around it.

Re:I'm no longer conerced about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656762)

I've never been conerced about it. It's as if I was around in a state of olbivion.

Re:I'm no longer conerced about it (2, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657014)

I've never been conerced about it. It's as if I was around in a state of olbivion.

C'mon, it was an obvious typo - don't be a sas about it.

Re:I'm no longer conerced about it (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657820)

I've never been conerced about it. It's as if I was around in a state of olbivion.

Conerced to be conned and coerced..... describes our system of government quite well. Kudos to you AC

Re:I'm no longer conerced about it (4, Interesting)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656814)

That's all well and good, but at the same time it's going to cause a *huge* hassle for ISPs, a *huge* hassle for content providers, and a *huge* hassle for end users. Sure, the bleeding edge geeks will have workarounds (the simplest being to set up your own name server).

But it's going to make deploying DNSSEC a nightmare, because now we're going to have court orders requiring ISPs to break DNSSEC. Ultimately every customer router box will have to be a DNSSEC resolver, and will have to go to the root to get correct information. Home router vendors have not covered themselves in glory with previous DNS work they've done; there's no reason to expect that they'll do a good job this time either. The bottom line is that if this passes, the result will be:

  • an added degree of flakiness in the network which will be completely inexplicable to the average end user.
  • huge cost increase for ISPs
  • substantially increased load on root and TLD servers
  • more DNS traffic on the network (this one probably isn't a big deal, except...)
  • Increased DNS query latency

Re:I'm no longer conerced about it (2)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657978)

I don't think it will be a huge cost for the ISP, as far as I can tell, we have something like that in Denmark. The ISPs have court orders to block e.g. piratebay and allofmp3.com. The ISPs do this by removing the entries in their DNSes. In stead, it redirects to a page saying what a bad place you just tried to access. The ISPs have not been up in arms over it, so I don't think it is that expensive.

It is censorship, though. These pages host many things that is definitely legal, and that is blocked as well. Of course, circumventing the block is as easy as pointing your computer or router to a DNS working correctly, but how many people know how to do that?

Re:I'm no longer conerced about it (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656860)

No need to develop new technologies. Just steer clear of domain registries, registrars and hosting companies in U.S. jurisdictions or any jurisdictions the U.S. coerces into going along with them.

I guess they could still block the IP address. Maybe they could license China's "Great Firewall" but people already found ways around it.

In the end, the only thing this law will accomplish is to drive internet business out of the country.

Slashdot Masturbation Fantasies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657102)

In the end, the only thing this law will accomplish is to drive internet business out of the country.

Do you hear yourself?

No. No, it won't. This law will do absolutely nothing of the sort, and you damned well know that.

"Internet death penalty" (0, Flamebait)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656776)

blocking websites vs killing people. That comparison is a little over the top.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (4, Insightful)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656798)

How is it going over the top?
You're totally stripping due process out of the equation.
If someone makes a living from their website, and you kill that website, you are basically killing someone.

The metaphor is fair.
Doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (0)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656844)

How is it going over the top?

Nobody is being put to death when a website is blocked.

If someone makes a living from their website, and you kill that website, you are basically killing someone.

So its basically murder anytime someone gets fired form their job? come on man...

This law is total bullshit, but the GP is right, that metaphor is the definition of sensationalism.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (4, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656896)

Once you establish the precedent, you're on a slippery slope. This has been coming for a long time. A black person driving from Florida carrying a lot of cash is assumed to be a drug runner. Their car and cash are confiscated without a trial and they have to fight to get it back.

A Hispanic person in Arizona must show ID to prove s/he is a citizen, otherwise they're assumed to be illegal.

Now your website and your business can be taken away just on the accusation of violating some copyright somewhere.

Ever read any of Niven's sci-fi? We're just about there. Next step, organ banks.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657386)

whoa whoa whoa, slow down buddy, where talking about this:

If someone makes a living from their website, and you kill that website, you are basically killing someone.

You find no problems with that statement?

Once you establish the precedent, you're on a slippery slope. This has been coming for a long time. A black person driving from Florida carrying a lot of cash is assumed to be a drug runner. Their car and cash are confiscated without a trial and they have to fight to get it back.

Your missing the point, I already agree the PROTECT IP law is stupid, I'm just saying that metaphor was sensational. All the slippery slope examples you provided(which I also agree are disturbing) still aren't equatable to murder anyways. I find it pretty sad how slashdot readers seem so ready to defend a sensationalist statement when it happen to agree with them, but a similar statement made from a source like fox news would be torn to shreds(and rightfully so). Double standard much though?

Re:"Internet death penalty" (5, Informative)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656956)

Refusing to route traffic to a site is a death-knell to it no matter how you slice it. The term "death" has many different and perfectly reasonable contexts. Only one of those is biological death.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657442)

Rather a person with no Social Security ID, but still with a driving license. Cannot receive legal benefits, but is still able to drive.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657458)

The term "death" has many different and perfectly reasonable contexts. Only one of those is biological death.

Yes, but when someone says "death penalty" the first thing most people would think of is capitol punishment, which is the biological type of death.

Please don't think I am defending PROTECT IP, I'm not. But sensational statements should be called out even if it's supporting something I agree with.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657550)

Even as used here, I doubt many will jump to linking it with actual death. It's simply ridiculous to do so. A site without traffic is dead, so cutting it off is clearly a death sentence for the site. The terminology is commonly used to relate non-biological death in many different circumstances. This is nothing new. Sans other sensationalist wording, this is perfectly applicable to the matter at hand.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656802)

Since that's what they've been calling it in regards to blacklists (Spamhaus et al) for thousands of Internet years now, perhaps it's simply a phrase-of-art and you should relax.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656842)

The difference is that blacklists are entirely voluntary.

Also...

Spammer spotted.

--
BMO - Lumber Cartel membership # 2501

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656822)

The comparison is over the top, and it's very much in line with a lot of current political and academic discourse, which is disturbing. For example, a number of academics have redefined "violence" to mean not the use of force (like the Latin vi- root would imply) but, well, anything that means disapproval of someone or something else: excerpting a book is "doing violence to the text" because it ignores the remainder of the book. Bernard Henri-Levy, the French columnist who calls himself a philosopher, referred to coverage of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn proceedings and to statements of the accuser's physical evidence as "pornographic," apparently meaning "something that could damage Strauss-Kahn." The Republicans call Obama a new Hitler for wanting to change the way health care is paid for: that's so far over the top that it's practically a convergence of Godwin's and Poe's laws. The world needs to settle down and discuss issues for what they are and find real solutions to them, not indulge in adolescent, verbal para-masturbatory fantasies that satisfy some deep inner lust for pathos.

Oh, wait.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657006)

The Republicans call Obama a new Hitler for wanting to change the way health care is paid for.

Damn Republicans. Don't they know only Democrats can compare someone to Hitler and get away with it? A liberal who compares someone with Hitler is insightful and informed. A conservative who compares someone to Hitler is a racist and hateful.

BTW, Leahy is a Democrat, but I'm certain the posters here at /. will be able to find a way to blame this bill on Republicans. I have faith in that. Don't let the damn conservatives try and make this look like the liberal's fault. We know it's not true.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (2)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656856)

I dunno, it seems pretty accurate in the context of a website. You're essentially stopping anyone from viewing it (at least in theory) therefore killing the site's ability to perform its intended function. Its true that the comparison is a bit sensationalist, but in the context of a website, its pretty accurate at the same time.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656878)

Who was it that said "where one burns books, one ultimately burns people"? What is the internet but a great giant book that everyone can write a chapter in? The comparison between censorship and murder is older than both of us.

Re:"Internet death penalty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656996)

Well yes. That's the strategy: They go over the top all the time. If we don't also go over the top, of course the balance will go in their direction.

I personally think, we can't get over the top enough. Example:

The terror cells of the MAFIAA group of mind-hackers regularly rape thousands small children, cut them into pieces, and eat them alive.. slowly... while they have to watch. All AT THE SAME TIME.
"3 guys 1 hammer"* is a joke compared to their mental weapons of mass destruction.

If we don't immediately nuke them from orbit, everyone will die a horrible horrible nightmarish death, like sliding down a tube water slide... which doesn't sound very scary, except that it ends in the mouth of a SHARK ON SPEED, the water is a mix or EBOLA AND ACID, and the insides of the tube are COVERED IN CHAINSAWS! ;)
___
* Please don't watch it if you haven't. I can stomach very sick shit, but this one still haunts me to this day. It left some actual mental damage. Just this time, it's not worth it. Really. Really, really, really!!

Re:"Internet death penalty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657064)

Sure, if you ignore the word "internet" in that phrase and also take completely out of the context in which it was used, it is over the top. But the phrase is "internet death penalty". The site becomes dead to the internet. The full context of the phrase was "wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty". There is no implication that any person would be killed, the subject is a web site, which is no longer visible to the rest of the world - a dead site. The way it was used is completely accurate and apropos.

Comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656804)

How fast does an owner of a warehouse get a notice of a police raid with court order targeting one of the clients of the warehouse?

Re:Comparison (1, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656936)

How fast does an owner of a warehouse get a notice of a police raid with court order targeting one of the clients of the warehouse?

Am I the only one who read "whorehouse."

Welcome to the two-tier internet. (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656830)

Real Internet for those of us who know what we're doing.

Censored internet for the proles.

And we can lord it over them.

Good times to be had by all.

--
BMO

routing around the damage (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656858)

I suspect the US is on a long term slide to being an internet 3rd world country.

The rest of the world will learn to simply route around the damage zone known as the USA. Bad US laws seem like a long term giveaway to aspirants like China and the BRIC.

Re:routing around the damage (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657218)

The rest of the world will learn to simply route around the damage zone known as the USA.

But... But... But... Slashdot is hosted in the US!

Re:routing around the damage (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657616)

But... But... But... Slashdot is hosted in the US!

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...

Copyright is Socialism... (5, Interesting)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656886)

The PROTECT IP act is a freebie given to Big Content because it is too expensive for them to police the use of their own content. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Copyright, this is a clear example of leveraging government to enforce artificial restrictions on the use of content in favor of the companies that seek to monetize said content.

We have laws already in place for companies to lodge complaints with websites when their content is being used without license. But the content companies complain that it is too hard for them to find unlicensed use of their content. The solution via this act is to take down content on **possible** unlicensed use by the government and by other companies on a simple complaint.

IF the PROTECT IP provided heavy penalties for false or inflated complaints, then okay. But it doesn't.

IF the PROTECT IP provided for possible criminal charges should it be used to violate free speech as opposed to taking down infringing content, then okay. But it doesn't.

IF the PROTECT IP provided fees and taxes on Big Content to cover the public expense of implementing the act, then okay. But it doesn't.

ANY Government granted system of monopolies granted out to privileged parties, where such monopolies do not and in fact cannot exist without Government intervention, this is socialism. It is bad enough that we have copyrights that last over a hundred years, and that we cannot upload birthday videos because a song written in the 1800's is (most would say falsely) under copyright. That we have extend copyright terms without compensation to the public.

But why should the public pick up the bill to enforce copyright?

Make Big Content to pay for it, and make Big Content liable for misuse of it, and throw anyone in jail if they use it to inhibit free speech, then okay.

But that won't fly. Because this is about making money, and Big Content can't make money if they are at risk, or have to pay for the enforcement of their own (supposed) rights.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656970)

But why should the public pick up the bill to enforce copyright?

Maybe because copyright is a governmental (ie public) concept? And if there were laws that made the enforcement of these laws up to the copyright holder you'd be on here bitching up a storm about how it makes the small copyright holder a target of rich corporations and going off on other tangents. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, as they say.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (3, Informative)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657048)

This law DOES put the enforcement of these laws in the hands of the copyright holder. And I will bet (if it passes) that I will be complaining about how Rich Corporations are abusing this bill by bullying small companies (small copyright holders).

My point is that (without changing any other part of this bill) Big Content should fund the bill if you are going to pass it. If they are not going to pay fees or taxes to cover the cost of implementation, then it is a gift to Big Content.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36656980)

The parent post is why people with STEM degrees should stick to being human calculators and leave debates over policy to people educated to fully understand them.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657068)

Right. Because the Media, the Lawyers and the Politicians have done **such*** a great job debating and selecting the policies we have now in this country!

Besides, what use is Math and Science when it comes to understanding the world anyway?

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657016)

Well done, sir! You have described the situation perfectly.

Unfortunately, you will be eventually modded down mercilessly, for your use of the word "Socialism" as if it were a bad thing.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (2)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657154)

The comment was a troll, but aimed at those that might think this bill promotes capitalism. It does not, but rather copyright is about building artificial markets. Most Americans view socialism as the opposite of capitalism, and so I used the term loosely along those lines.

I understand that economic models are more complex than that, but hey! It was a post written on a whim!

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657028)

I have NO idea, where you Americans get your definition of "socialism" from. FOX "News"?

Because it couldn't be more wrong.

What it actually resembles, is a fascist dictatorship. Which is what the GDR, and other so-called "socialist" states *actually* were.

So PROTIP: Just because those countries called themselves "socialist" or "communist", doesn't mean they were.
Just like if someone called the USA (or many, many other countries) "democratic". You would laugh at him for being so delusional.

It's fascism. The merger of industry and government. Resulting in the law of the jungle. Aka. the "free market".

Why can 300 million people (or 500 in the EU) not crush a few thousand (yes, it's not more, no matter how bit they make themselves look) terrorists? (I mean the MAFIAA aka. "Big Content". They are terrorizing people for their own gains. Which is the actual definition of "terrorism".)

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (3, Informative)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657110)

I used the term as a troll. I can be honest and I can admit my faults. I haven't anything against socialism myself. But you have to understand that in the U.S. it is an awful insult to the Republicans among us. And if you look at the implementation of Copyright from a certain perspective, it is clear that this is a Government imposed right for a few being imposed upon the people. In the U.S. we usually call that socialism. It really isn't socialism, but that is what most people walking down the street would call it (when it is described in these terms).

But I haven't any problem with considering copyright as being fascist. I have no problem considering copyright as terrorism.

You know, you write a post and you take an angle and you go with it.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657320)

Socialism: giving taxpayer money to the poor. Capitalism: giving taxpayer money to the rich.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657532)

Okay, you win. This is capitalism assuming we don't give any significant portion of the copyright money to content creators.... And since they don't get more than a few percent of what is collected from copyright, I guess you win.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657676)

I like the option where I get to keep my money.

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 2 years ago | (#36658012)

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657178)

"socialism/sSHlizm/
Noun: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

The government is not the community. This is what it has always been: oligarchism.

"An oligarchy (Greek , Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious hegemony."

Re:Copyright is Socialism... (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657582)

Okay, not socialism..... But copyright certainly isn't about competition either.

Absolute power yields the obvious (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656926)

This is just the latest example of what happens when you invest the kind of power that we have in government. Those levers will be used to attain the ends of whoever brings the most money to the table to coopt the people controlling it.
 

Re:Absolute power yields the obvious (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656954)

This is the same government people want to invest regulatory power in to enforce "net neutrality" - even though nothing that the government has proposed actually fits with what they themselves would actually call "net neutrality"

Stop listening and start watching, folks. They are telling you one thing but doing another.

anyone really surpriced? (2)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656960)

Democrats are married to Hollywood. Anyone really surprised that they would try for a law which would let Hollywood to punish people as soon as they are accused of "piracy"?

Re:anyone really surpriced? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656990)

>Democrats are married to Hollywood.

Protip: Hollywood is an equal opportunity bribe^W campaign contribution machine.

--
BMO

Re:anyone really surpriced? (5, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657020)

No, not really. Their contributions to Democrats dwarf their contributions to Republicans. When was the last time LA traffic was stopped because GW Bush went to Hollywood for a fundraiser? Never. It already happened twice in the 2.5 years of Obama's administration.

Re:anyone really surpriced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657350)

That could also be because he was, you know... W. How about comparing stats with Obama and Reagan?

Re:anyone really surpriced? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657440)

Reagan comparison wouldn't be a fair comparison for 3 reasons: (1) he was a California politician (he was a governor of California); (2) he was a President too long ago so the Secret Service procedures were probably different; (3) he was a member of the Academy (in fact served as the head of SAG before getting into an elected office). Basically, Reagan was a Hollywood insider. But even a modern Hollywood insider such Thompson received less in Hollywood money than most Democratic candidates did during the primaries.

I am not sure why you would think that there is something special about Bush which made him less likely to receive Hollywood money. He enjoyed higher popularity ratings during the same period of his administration than Obama does now.

Re:anyone really surpriced? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657024)

Unfortunately, while Democrats have a hard-on for Hollywood, 'Hollywood', in the sense that we are using here, consists largely of influential and rather parasitic multinational corporations, so they can be assured of Republican support.

98 Percent Oppose the bill in Texas (4, Informative)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36656994)

I know that U.S. Senator John Cornyn doesn't read Slashdot, but hey! it is interesting...

Nation: 90 percent oppose.
Texas: 98 oppose.

  https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968/report#nation [popvox.com]

Re:98 Percent Oppose the bill in Texas (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657030)

Is this because they know something about it, or because it is something that Congress is considering?

Re:98 Percent Oppose the bill in Texas (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657162)

Most likely because the polling site is self selecting for Internet Political Junkies.

Re:98 Percent Oppose the bill in Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657512)

98 % of the population may oppose perhaps, but Lamar Smith (TX-21) as chairman of the house Judiciary Committee both pours and drinks whatever the latest the kool-aid the industry wants. He'll smile and nod sympathetically when a clueful constituent engages him, but at vote time he tows the line as if he were bought and paid for by Hollywood. ACTA, Son-of-DMCA, or the latest patent folly, he's right there. He apparently believes that no IP grab, no matter how egregious, would be important enough for his district to unset him.

Who likes/dislikes the PROTECT IP act? (5, Informative)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657004)

ORGS ENDORSING
Graphic Artists Guild
Independent Film & Television Alliance
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

ORGS OPPOSING
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
Center for Democracy and Technology
Demand Progress
Don't Censor the Net!
Fractured Atlas
Public Knowledge
Reporters Without Borders

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968/report#nation [popvox.com]

Re:Who likes/dislikes the PROTECT IP act? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657460)

A small nit. Maybe I'm missing something, but six of the nine organizations on your "opposing" list appear to be left-leaning lobbyist/advocacy groups who could be expected to oppose this type of bill (even without reading it, though I'm sure they did). The other three are librarian groups.

In short, the list does not produce the overwhelming sense of "all the good guys are on one side" that may have been intended.

Re:Who likes/dislikes the PROTECT IP act? (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657558)

The list wasn't provided with the intention to prove where the good guys and the bad guys stand on this fight. The list comes verbatim from the link provided. There are several notable organizations missing from the list, including the ACLU, EFF, and FSF, among others. I thought that was also interesting.

Re:Who likes/dislikes the PROTECT IP act? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657574)

So basically the people that actually create the stuff want the law - the people who simply leech it for free don't. What a surprise.

It doesn't matter (4, Funny)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657040)

You can have all the letters you want. You can roll sick kids in wheel chairs in to give speeches. If you didn't pay for the law, you don't get it's benefits. That's the way our new corporatist free enterprise system works.

What do you expect for free?

If you want a law, you hire a lobbyist. They will give you a quote, just like getting your driveway seal coated. You pay. You get what you want.

Who do you think your congressmen and senators are working for anyway? You? Not likely.

Re:It doesn't matter (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657210)

Dude (or Dudette), let you not forget that unions, who, for exampe, pushed for Obama care and now have promptly petitioned to not be included in the provisions foisted upon everyone else.

Lobbyists are the problem. ALL Lobbyists.

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657968)

Dude (or Dudette), let you not forget that unions, who, for exampe, pushed for Obama care and now have promptly petitioned to not be included in the provisions foisted upon everyone else.

Apparently not, after all. [investors.com]

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657962)

You would expect that in a country with free journalism the support of an impopular but bought law would be political suicide?

$&%# dns just go back to host files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36657092)

Just use host files, no need to be at the mercy of these tightwads and DNS. It was a bad idea to begin with.

Constitution? (4, Insightful)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657334)

I believe there is a section of the US constitution that prohibits punishing people without a trial. I realize that's a depreciated api but it's still worth noting that prior versions of us gov allowed such functions.

First target: Wikileaks (2)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36657912)

One of the most obvious targets of this kind of "copyright protection", applied to political speech, is Wikileaks. In many cases, the document owners did not consent for those documents to be published, so under the strictest interpretations of copyright law, without the political exceptions applied, they've already had their contribution funds siezed indefinitely by the relevant credit agencies. This would be just another spike in their destruction, much to the pleasure of corporate or government organizations whose secrets are exposed there.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...