Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the making-it-rain-in-washington dept.

Government 115

angry tapir writes "An upcoming version [PDF] of U.S. legislation designed to combat copyright infringement on the Web may include provisions that hold online services such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube legally responsible for infringing material posted by users, according to one group opposed to the bill. 'If Demand Progress is correct about the House version of PROTECT IP, the bill would overturn parts of the 13-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect websites and ISPs from copyright lawsuits for the infringing activity of their users.'"

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

Good (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842654)

Let the RIAA and MPAA start suing Google and then we might see some real reform...

Re:Good (3)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842732)

I'd like to see what they do when Google use the "We only make a list of list" defence. Pirate bay will be looking with interest thinking - this will be good.

Re:Good (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842784)

We won't see reform, we will only see Google lose. The recording industry spends an insane amount of money in all kinds of lobbying and has shifted the general "common sense" to its side. It is reaching the point when lawmakers, judges and the general population always side with the powerful recording companies, no matter how insane their claim.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843168)

I'd like to know where the hell the recording industry is getting its money to do this stupid lobbying shit anymore. CD sales have been on the decline since the turn of the millennium. Digital sales aren't making up for it. Radio listenership is declining. MTV is but a drop in a sea of the thousands of reality-show based channels on cable these days. Would seem to me that the days of their political clout should be on the decline as well.

Re:Good (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843216)

I'd like to know where the hell the recording industry is getting its money to do this stupid lobbying shit anymore.

Lucrative lawsuits, maybe?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843362)

Too bad picking on the little guy only grants a few thousand per pop at most. That's only on the ones where people don't file bankruptcy as well.

Whereas their lawsuits are easily in the tens of thousands. You do the math.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843754)

Google's annual profit is bigger than the recording industry's entire revenue

RIAA: Lawsuit time, fuckers!
Google: I crap bigger than you.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844174)

I'm glad you post this, as some on here actually think the reverse, without posting the financial sheets or other proof other than just mouthing off.
Either post some proof that the RIAA would win (they won't) or get back on the special needs short bus.

Re:Good (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846926)

It's not just about money though. The various entertainment industry representative groups are some of the most skilled legal and lobbying groups around today. They are just really good at it, far more skilled than even the giant of the tech industry. They may not have as much money, but they can make it count.

Re:Good (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847080)

Yup, when all the blockbuster movies are making fun of a political party they find it a lot harder to get elected. So, political parties try not to tick off Hollywood/etc too much.

Oh, and the same basic circles own all the news media, and get to pick the questions asked during the presidential debates/etc. They have considerable influence on what people think.

Re:Good (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847234)

They even get to pick who is invited to those debates.

Re:Good (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845144)

Google's annual profit is bigger than the recording industry's entire revenue

You're absolutely right. The MAFIA can't outspend Google on this one.

Re:Good (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842812)

Youtube is Google.

Re:Good (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843010)

Youtube is Google.

And that is why the poster said Google, no YouTube.

Re:Good (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842842)

I am somewhat less confident that Google's money will necessarily prevail. Between the arrogance of the mafiAA, the ignorance of congress, and the depth of their affair together, I wouldn't put it past them to torch the tech industry in a misguided moral stand to preserve what they see as the last stand of art. I'd really like to hear any non-feeling-based arguments about who is likely to actually prevail here. Got any?

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843198)

Lots of people use youtube. Google could get massive numbers of people hopping mad at the MAFIAA if they spin it right. Also, Google is bigger and has a lot more money and internet control than the music industry. They could do it. Remains to be seen if they will.

Re:Good (1)

dhall (1252) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843742)

Unfortunately Google's ability to spin doctor is about as good as their attention span. Which is to say neither is anything to write home about...

Re:Good (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845364)

Google could put an ad about *AA abuse on every search results page. They could even pay for ad time on Bing.

Re:Good (2)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845668)

On on every YouTube page, at the end of every YouTube video, etc..

As well as on every TV and Radio station and probably pioneer beaming it straight into your eyes when you walk down the Mall in D.C.

Re:Good (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846114)

Lots of people use youtube. Google could get massive numbers of people hopping mad at the MAFIAA if they spin it right.

They don't have to spin it at all. All Google must do to ensure that this bill never sees the light of day is to send one letter, signed by its CEO, to every single member of Congress that says:

This bill requires a level of administrative overhead that is infeasible, both technically and financially. Therefore, if you pass this bill, Google will be forced to shut down access to YouTube for all connections originating within the United States and its territories.

Then follow up with a phone call to Al Franken and ask him to leak the memo to the press. Boom. This bill is dead on arrival. No senator or representative wants to be one of the ones who voted (on public record) to kill YouTube.

Re:Good (2)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846570)

Good point. Why don't we think a little bigger?

This could (could!) effectively hamper, or even shut down, people's ability to talk about/self-advertise media content to each other on the internet.

The **AA seem hell bent on stopping anyone from viewing their content, they're being completely self-destructive. Let's LET this through!

Why are we fighting this!? Are we SO worried about TV shows that we will spend millions/billions of dollars on this stuff? Let them win, see their revenue shrivel to nothing.

Giving someone exactly what they want is the surest way to their destruction.

Re:torch the tech industry (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843240)

Really, this article is interesting because we might see a real risk of corrupt stuff flying everywhere. So far the Copyright War has involved "third tier sites" that the public doesn't really care about. However, taking the theory in the summary as is, if we lost Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, would that in fact be enough to end "Web 2.0" and kick us over into some kind of Walled Garden Web 3.0?

The other possibility I see is a "differently-horrible" possibility of a site buying a "waiver" for insane amounts of money, so everyone's favorite top 100 companies are all there, but then it falls off a cliff because no one else can afford one.

This I. P. stuff really seems to be accelerating on the fastest track that the players think they can get away with short of just throwing the entire world in jail. It's also exposing a fatal flaw in the legislative process, because it only takes some ten bills to just get it all over with and introduce Big Brother and this bill is one of them.

Re:torch the tech industry (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845970)

I imagine Facebook wouldn't go down easy.... Think about all the dirt they probably have on senators.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843498)

I'd really like to hear any non-feeling-based arguments about who is likely to actually prevail here. Got any?

Well we could always try some good old logic. The moment this becomes law it means anybody can unleash legal DoS against any and all websites. If they host the slightest form of user-posted content, you can post something that infringes someone's copyright: text, images, clips etc.

Well, those sites that fall under some form of US jurisdiction. Which, if they try to exert over ICANN, DNS registries and so on... I think you can see how many cans of worms this will open.

So, seriously, I don't understand how any non-imbecile can consider this seriously for even a moment. I mean, being ignorant of technology is one thing, being a complete dumbfuck is quite another.

Re:Good (2)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843572)

So, seriously, I don't understand how any non-imbecile can consider this seriously for even a moment. I mean, being ignorant of technology is one thing, being a complete dumbfuck is quite another.

Witness the power of greed and entitlement.

Re:Good (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842986)

No we wont.

Nothing gives politicians a hardon more than hanging round with a rock star or hollywood star whilst they think about what it'll do for their ratings.

Hanging round with Larry and Sergei? Not so much.

Until tech starts giving politicians what they want, be it improved ratings, bribes, a signed copy of some famous twat's guitar, that sort of thing, then it'll always come second place to the likes of hollywood which absolutely excels in corrupt practices.

Re:Good (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843236)

You know what politicians lile even more? Getting elected. Google could probably name names of people responsible, pointing out they are responsible for youtube no longer being youtube, and make sure they never get elected again. They have the presence, if they choose to use it.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843370)

Google won't name names of people responsible, hoping they don't get re-elected.

Google will out-bribe the RIAA and MPAA to get the Congressscum to not pass the law in the first place.

Re:Good (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843506)

Google could probably name names of people responsible

Quick: Who was responsible for the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998? We don't know because both bills were passed in both houses by a unanimous consent procedure.

Re:Good (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844854)

Ah, but who introduced and sponsored those bills? Google can point to those. Also, simply getting people aware of these laws (most people know little to nothing about the DMCA) could have a huge impact. Google could do that easily.

Re:Good (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843232)

Google, Facebook, Twitter. You can be damned sure they already paid their campaign contributions. And they will continue to do so. Reform, my ass!

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843938)

Yep, this is America, alright. Where an ordinary citizen can't legally assert and defend their rights. Instead, we have to hope that one company or the government crosses another company with huge resources and some balls to fight for the same rights that happen to benefit them and, indirectly, help citizens. Uh... hurrah. I guess.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844060)

I'm all for this, it would be a good day to see the RIAA and the MPAA get crushed like never before in court, against the sheer power of the Google lawyers.

Re:Good (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844106)

They are too sensible to sue Google. They'll save their lawyers for the startup companies that might be a threat in future years.

Re:Good (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844400)

Its funny. My knee jerk reaction to this is that like the bedroom, the goverment has no right on the internet. However that might not be entirely right....maybe....still thinking.

Re:Good (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845120)

I would love to see the MAFIAA sue Google. Yahoo and MS/Bing would join in with amicus briefs because they know they would be next on the list. While the court case proceeded, there would be LOTS of lobbying dollars getting the law changed.

Which points out one of the flaws of allowing corporations to make campaign contributions and lobby congress. Money should not make law. But for now, that's what we have to deal with, so use it until we can change the system.

Re:Good (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845664)

This law isn't about civil lawsuits. It's about granting private entities police authority. It is the promotion and extension of fascism.

Legislatures need to understand that not all laws need to be passed and that not all even need to be considered. They also need to understand that they are inept at the law governing intellectual property. I'm sayind that they are clueless about intellectual property, copyright, etc. I'm saying that it takes years of experience and special courses covering IP for attorney's to work in that area of law.

Protect IP is bad law and it should never see the pen of the President. He would be a fool to sign it. But hey, he's signed ACTA which is unconstitutional as it restricts Congress from making law and creating treaties with foreign countries. Obama was my choice for President but I would never vote for him knowing this awful stuff he's been doing.

Don't worry, a Democrat is proposing this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842656)

We'll all be fine. Hooray liberty!

Going for gold (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842666)

This will be great for IP trolls that are tired of nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now they can go after the corps with big bucks.

Going for Gold (2)

lennonpaul (2493992) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842694)

This will be great for IP trolls who have been nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now all they have to do is hit the big corps for a major payday

Going for GOLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842786)

This will be great for IP trolls who have been nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now the only thing they have to do is tap themselves a few good old big corps and they can retire to Malibu.

Going for GOLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843650)

This will be great for IP trolls who have been nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now they can just sue the big guys and exert control from the top down.

Re:Going for Gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37845090)

And the big corps will pass the cost along to the general public, yaaaaaay! The ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiife

Re:Going for Gold (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847360)

The ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiife

Oi, that's mine! Right, that it's, I'm suing Slashdot.

Yours sincerely,

Mr W. Disney (deceased).

PS. My pal Joseph McCarthy (also deceased) says that anyone disagreeing with this law is a filthy stinking commie.

This one at least has a chance of not passing (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842708)

The tech companies such as Google will probably be against it, so they'll be at least some campaign cash to be had by voting Nay. Up until now, it had always been a matter of corporations with cash versus citizens without cash.

Infringement of Copyright (-1)

vishal dogra (2439174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842750)

The US's proclaimed policy of punishing websites [infosphaira.com] is a strange but well devised step for infringing copyrights of others. They have to be now more careful and take steps to stop others from infringing. They will in fact contribute in stopping infringement of copyrights. http://www.infosphaira.com/ [infosphaira.com] http://hellopoetry.com/poem/if-sun-again-set/ [hellopoetry.com] http://hellopoetry.com/book/radiance-4/ [hellopoetry.com]

Let them have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842758)

that will finally catalyze our great exodus toward decentralized, anonymous web. GO PROTECT-IP!

who's still angry about YouTube? (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842766)

I thought most of the big copyright players had more or less agreed with the de facto settlement of a mixture of takedowns (for cases they particularly object to) and slapping ads on YouTube videos so they can profit via Google's revenue-sharing thing (for cases where they'll just take some cash compensation).

Re:who's still angry about YouTube? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843152)

The recording industry is going bankrupt right now. I doubt it'll even exist in 20 years. They're like a lost explorer trapped in quicksand desperately trying to grab vines that keep snapping.

Re:who's still angry about YouTube? (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843190)

Those vines happen to be the crucial irrigation lines used by society.

Re:who's still angry about YouTube? (2)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844112)

2013 (35 years since 1978) will be especially interesting because that's when first artists can take their copyright assignments back and walk away from their record label with their music back in their own hands. Not only the recording industry is running out of money, it'll also run out of music classics pretty soon.

That's not going to happen (2)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845592)

They already pulled back Disney's copyrights when they were about to expire. They already tried to make recording artists' work a "work for hire" with the copyright going to the label. Before the labels lose this revenue they will try, and may succeed, in having another law passed that will extend the period.

ugh (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842780)

I'm very surprised by this new information.

Please explain this. (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842832)

So as I understand it some little group, Demand Progress, has released a press release with some made up idea and gossip that an unknown bill designed to matched a known bill will contain some restrictions that may or may not cause youtube and facebook to shutdown. The restrictions to shutdown those sites not being in the know bill
I guess this is one way to get traffic and raise money. Also explains why they are calling for the bills release to be delayed since they could not profit from a known bill.

Re:Please explain this. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842880)

Yeah, I saw the alert tweeted out and read their petition. They are claiming that there are rumors that a bill might be introduced that would make sites liable for the content people post on them. They then claim that this bill would outlaw Twitter and Facebook (along with all other websites that allow comments, of course). The bill that they themselves admitted hasn't been introduced yet and is only a rumor.

While I would definitely oppose such a bill, I'm not going to go chasing away rumors. Once an actual bill like this has been introduced, then I'll protest it (as will every ISP or company that allows comments on their website).

Re:Please explain this. (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842916)

The time to complain is before the bill is introduced. Once the ball is rolling and it's been introduced and through committee and on the floor, it will be passed by every senate member who has been bought.

That is all of them.

Attacking the messenger does nothing.

--
BMO

Re:Please explain this. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847774)

Technically Congressmen are also Senators. I take exception with something though, no lobbyist goes to Ron Paul, there is no reason, it's useless.

Someone was watching? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842846)

They are going to try this until somebody falls to sleep and they get it done or run out of money. I fear the day nobody spots it or i gets folded into another bill.

occupy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842990)

Occupy your local now. Take back democracy. Throw the corporates out of power.

Sorry citizen (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842996)

All websites must be submitted to Sony for inspection before they can be posted to the Internet. This message brought to you by Carl's, Jr.

Links (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843034)

So are they talking about links to copyrighted material again, because the only possible illegal thing you could post directly on facebook or twitter is possibly a book spread over hundreds of posts.

Re:Links (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844134)

A particually large JPEG file could easily be used to hide a novel or a few minutes of music inside.

Re:Links (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846186)

But then how would they know? You could just say "yes that's a strange looking image. I felt like drawing something abstract involving random dots of color everywhere".

Re:Links (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846912)

Preagrement. You can tag data onto the end of a jpeg easily.
1. Take really-high-resolution photo.
2. Compress the hell out of it, so it's only 100k. It'll look horrible, but that's ok. It only has to be good enough to pass a quick inspection.
3. Add symmetrically encrypted music file. I hope Vorbis, because MP3 sucks.
4. Post.

Now all you need is for your friends to know what it is. Easiest way is to just tell your trusted followers the key, give the the extraction program and tell them to feed any large images you post into it.

Re:Links (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847034)

No I'm not talking about how the people you WANT to get the file, I'm talking about the people who you want to hide it from. I think I may have misunderstood what OP and GGP were talking about.

Google and others should welcome this... (2)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843038)

and use every tool in their arsenal to make filing a take down notice a matter of strict liability on accuracy with the legal damages calculated as the combined man hours needed to service the request times the number of requests plus treble damages if a "preponderance of evidence" shows that the notices were sent via an automated process.

Re:Google and others should welcome this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843334)

Why should anybody have to calculate damages? The copyright industry is allowed to collect huge civil damages for infringement without demonstrating any harm at all.

Statutory damages. Say $250K a pop. Trebles on THAT for mass notices, automated or otherwise.

What, you say, that's an attempt at back-door criminal punishment with an unconstitutionally low standard of proof? Sorry, citizen, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

No way this is going to pass. (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843056)

Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.

Re:No way this is going to pass. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843476)

No, Google and Facebook are going to request additions to the law that make it infeasible for anyone else to enter the same area they're in. They'll add something such that companies are off the hook completely if they have a "copyright compliance system" or something like that. YouTube's Content ID system will allow YouTube to continue to exist, but new video sites will be fucked because they won't be able to create such a system without help from the studios.

Don't forget, companies aren't there to look out for our rights. They're there to ensure that the laws are written in such a way that they favor them and help to ensure that the current big players continue to be the only players.

Re:No way this is going to pass. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845004)

Don't forget, companies aren't there to look out for our rights. They're there to ensure that the laws are written in such a way that they favor them and help to ensure that the current big players continue to be the only players.

The funny part is that so many slashdot posters demand more laws to PUNISH THE EVIL CORPORATIONS and the corporations get to rewrite those laws to punish anyone new who tries to take over their market. If big government apologists didn't exist, big business would have to create them.

Re:No way this is going to pass. (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843528)

And I suppose we have to side with them just to stick it to THE MAN.

Re:No way this is going to pass. (4, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843850)

Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.

Why should they? They're far too large to attack, even if the law is against them. They could just sit back and let the Content Middleman Industry destroy after any newer, smaller competitors that happen to pop up, while sitting safe and secure behind their nuclear arsenal of lawyers...

Re:No way this is going to pass. (1)

ArtFart (578813) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846402)

I wouldn't be so sure. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and Google et al don't really care what happens to we little people as long as they make a lot of money one way or another. There's a potential here for a rerun of the under-the-counter deal Mark Cuban made with the RIAA that almost killed off webcasting ten years ago.

Never expected to see this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843058)

Who would have ever expected the day would come when we would rather have the DMCA.

Re:Never expected to see this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843258)

Those who used the words "slippery slope" and were told to stop whining.

Welcome to the slope. Ain't it slippery?

slippery slope misunderstanding (0)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844818)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!

I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but obviously something else since apparently most wouldn't get the slippery slope joke.)

Sad that the fallacy itself has become a popular label for advocating the use of it in arguments.

Sure, one can characterize the opposition to claim they want to progressively go to some extreme and they quite possibly intend to do so; however, logically each step is separate and not connected to the other steps without a valid linking argument. (sadly, slippery slope is used to link them all in 1 move despite its purpose is to say that move is illegal.)

Re:slippery slope misunderstanding (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845036)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument.

Meanwhile, in the real world, groups who can't get their preferred law passed compromise on a lesser version instead, knowing that it will soon slide down the slope far beyond their wildest dreams. Laws which don't follow the slippery slope are the rare exceptions, not the rule.

Re:slippery slope misunderstanding (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845218)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!

I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but obviously something else since apparently most wouldn't get the slippery slope joke.)

Sad that the fallacy itself has become a popular label for advocating the use of it in arguments.

Sure, one can characterize the opposition to claim they want to progressively go to some extreme and they quite possibly intend to do so; however, logically each step is separate and not connected to the other steps without a valid linking argument. (sadly, slippery slope is used to link them all in 1 move despite its purpose is to say that move is illegal.)

"Slippery slope" might be a "logical fallacy," but that is how things work in the real world. That's how change happens in the law.

If a judge who desires a certain result faces a smooth logical wall, he's not going to try to make up law on his own. But if there is one logical 'hook' in there, it gives him an opportunity to make a little change and to add a new 'hook' into the wall. Pretty soon there are enough 'logical' 'hooks' in the wall so that anybody can climb over the once smooth wall.

Pardon me for mixing my metaphors.

Re:slippery slope misunderstanding (2)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846630)

you asked for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [wikipedia.org]

The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).

Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

so listen up nerd, because nobody should have to tell you this: other people are never referring to the fallacy, they are always referring to the metaphor that if you give in to temptation it can take you over. the one called classical form above. the metaphor doesn't claim that you will slide, as the fallacy does. it just says that staying on solid footing while making the choice in question is difficult because it's slippery (too easy to continue making bad decisions). smoking crack your first time doesn't mean you'll wind up sucking dick for it, but the addiction factor makes it a slippery slope. get it?

the fallacy was invented by a moron just like yourself simply for the purpose of derailing a conversation on points of minutiae and irrelevance (much like grammar nazis) instead of bothering to pay attention to the conversation. any ability you had to comprehend the conversation was eroded by your analysis paralysis.

This may voilate 1ST amendment rights as to be (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843286)

This may violate 1ST amendment rights as to be safe all forums, blogs, or any place where some is free to post stuff may have to be shut down or be come a place where only admins can post.

Re:This may voilate 1ST amendment rights as to be (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846234)

Do you really think lawmakers are gonna care? They've been edging in on first amendment rights for years now. Someone will say "It's to stop all those nasty pirates" and someone else will say "it's for the children" and it will be passed.

Corporations getting the laws they paid for (5, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843654)

The DMCA was almost entirely bought by the MAFIAA and so served their interests. The major exception was that the ISPs fought to have safe harbor included to protect their interests. Now the MAFIAA is going for round two, trying to eliminate the major part of the DMCA that didn't get written to their liking.

Next up: The triennial exemption rule. They're tired of fighting exemptions every three years, so this won't last long.

Notice nothing in this has a "for the people" ring to it.

Re:Corporations getting the laws they paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844414)

Good points on each. Are we now at the time where we are seeing directly and indirectly Greed on a scale unheard of in the history of the human race?

Greed for life, greed for property, greed for wealth, greed for resources. If you have something then they will demand it and try to claim it as theirs. At the rate we are going we will only have the shirt on our backs and then they will demand to control the very air we breath? Water purity is a serious issue now and so I assume air is next...

We recently hit 7 BILLION people. As an organism we have exceeded our space and we have nowhere to go. What usually happens at this point is a reset, a massive scale wipe out of said organism so the balance is restored.

I really do not want to be around for that one as its normally VERY painful and there is lots of collateral damage. : /

 

Re:Corporations getting the laws they paid for (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844756)

Mod up for great justice. Most of the important laws are now mud fights between major corporations, with citizens having an input only by voting for who gets to receive the corporate money. The only times our congress critters seem to worry about laws that impact citizens are when it comes to "Think of the Children", "Thar be Terrorists" and "Here's some money for bread and circus".

Meh. I fully expect this abomination to pass.

Whoever thought we would be rallying for the DMCA (2)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843822)

While we might have hated the DMCA, the "Safe harbor" provision is something most of us can live with and the public can understand.

  Instead of talking about free speech which is an abstraction that most people and politicians don't understand. We should talk about the fact that the so called Protect IP act will encourage frivolous lawsuits, send high paying american jobs overseas, and kill youtube, facebook and twitter and blogging while making trial lawyers rich and clogging up the court system.

Re:Whoever thought we would be rallying for the DM (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845738)

DMCA was a big law that did several different, only tenuously-related, things. It had stuff in it very specifically worded to address issues with, and I am not making this up, boat hull designs. Nobody would really claim to hate all of DMCA, unless their objection is systemic (i.e. that law like almost every other law, was passed without public input). I don't even have an opinion on the boat hull design part; like the people who enacted it, I've never bothered to read it. :-)

The anti-circumvention parts of DMCA were unambiguously evil with no redeeming virtues to even partially mitigate them, with no pretense of serving the interests of the public (and nothing but a false pretense of serving the interests of copyright holders; this law was bad for everyone except professional pirates and DRM snakeoil salesmen). I think that when most people bitch about "DMCA" as shorthand, they're talking about this part of it.

But sometimes people are talking about the notice-counternotice stuff, whose basic intention is to establish rules for who is liable for something, by creating a mechanic that lets you always point at someone and say "the buck stops there." While there are controversies about this part of DMCA, they're usually (but not always, there are subtleties) related to hosting services who take a default behavior of immediately folding when presented with a DMCA notice. (And youtube happens to be one of those.) People can always solve that problem by dumping a hosting service for a more customer-friendly one (or self-hosting if necessary), so this part of DMCA isn't nearly as flame worthy as the anti-circumvention part.

And within the notice-counternotice part of DMCA, is the safe harbor provision. This isn't so much something to be thankful for, though, as it is integral to the notice-counternotice mechanism having any point at all. Without safe harbor, you're practically back to a pre-DMCA situation with regard to hosting liability.

That would be both good and bad; it's complicated. It's particularly bad for services whose value lies in user participation, but possibly good in a very long view, as it would encourage a return to self-hosting -- distribution of power with fewer social bottlenecks the network effects stemming from that. But naturally, companies like Google and Facebook would hate that.

Re:Whoever thought we would be rallying for the DM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37847296)

except there's one thing the public can't understand, why does the safe harbor only apply to google and few chosen big isp's?

A message (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844766)

A message for the nanny state and it's Mafiaa backers: You need us more than we need you. You want to impose draconian measures to ensure protection of your IP but there will come a day when we are not interested in your property.

Re:A message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37846028)

If that day comes, they will claim people pirate just because they don't consume any of their valueable content. Remember you're guilty until proven innocent, they may just alter this to get rid of the second half, so you're just guilty, simple as that.

Once upon a time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844872)

... America was all about freedom for its people... These days it seems that its people are there to act as a buffer to keep failing businesses and business models profitable by passing laws and handing out "loans" to whomever is willing to pay the largest bribes... Of course, those are called "political contributions" and the little indoctrination camps are called "schools"... Talk about 1984's "Think-Speak"....

Obvious workaround (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845102)

It's interesting that a law about IP never mentions blocking IP, only blocking DNS. It also assumes that the registration process doesn't change much.

If one were to use an alternative DNS, this whole thing becomes irrelevant.

Re:Obvious workaround (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846966)

I can think of two explanations for this. Firstly, it might be that the authors know that DNS blocking is trivially easy to bypass via hosts file. Secondly, and in my cynical oppinion far more likely, the authors don't actually know what DNS does.

problem and solution aren't linked (1)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845154)

and that is why these things never do as intended.. well that and our stupid system that makes a law about taxes on gas include something for kids wearing bicycle helmets.

this isn't that hard, but we have people pretending to be idiots to get it skewed WAY too far to one side or another.

#1 Ip should be purchased as a license, regardless of media or representation
1a. This license uses a version system as in software. "upgrading" from vhs to blueray quality has a cost, around 30 bucks per disk at present, using that model we can say v1 = vhs quality, v2 = dvd quality, v3 = hd quality v4 = 3d v5 = holographic.. yadda yadda
1b. traversing up this license list = 10 dollar increments
#2. Lending of these licenses legally should remove your rights to these licenses for a set term. (if you lend someone a cd.. you can't then listen to that cd yourself, deal with it)
2a. increments of license versions should allow multiple "shared copies" at $x per "share"
2b. if you break the law, you pay damages = to $x per share x estimated # of observable downloads
2c. The provider of the ip is required to have in place or join a system to enforce the above or no damages will be awarded

that covers the legal side of things for the most part... here come the arguments "that'll never work! no one will listen! it's not enforceable! the system can never work!"

the "system" should be some form of device or application you have that can be used to facilitate this sort of usage. and before the screams of "they're gonna track me!" start.. go buy a cd with cash and get off my internets. they were tracking you when you downloaded it/bought it with a card/check/whatever electronic form of not cash you used, it's just a matter of WHO you let track you. o noes! they are going to show me ads!

but the stalemate will continue because you have the side that doesn't want to pay, the side that wants you to pay, and the side that wants the digital equivalent of a cabin in the montana wilderness in the digital equivalent of grand central station.

Thin edge of the wedge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37845388)

Americans let crap like the DMCA in. They thought it was draconian, they railed against it, but they learned to cope with it. Just like your average German when the Nazis took power in 1935. Sure things were bad, but you could adapt, you could cope. You could learn to live with all the nonsense. But then it got worse, they started running around with guns, beating people up, shaking them down and worse. Then it got much worse, they took over everything and people started to disappear. The DMCA is exactly like that. Its the thin edge of the wedge. They are NAZIS. Americans let them in, and the poison is spreading. This is one of those points in time: lets call it Kristallnacht, when things gets worse. And there is no end to it. At some point in the future, everything, books you already own, movies you already own, the newspaper, songs your kids sing, will all be subject to taxes and fines, even in the privacy of your own home. And here I thought Americans were a gun-toting lot. What a bunch of sheep.

This is not about IP (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37845972)

This is about killing the Internet as a medium for free speech.

Just great. (2)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846342)

So now, we take the one thing in the DMCA that is arguably good (when the rest of the DMCA is taken into context) and they want to gut that?

Why are we so worried about this? (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846656)

Why don't we just stop fighting?

What's the big deal about needing media? Give it a break for a year or two, let them take over completely to see their revenue shrivel to nothing. Let them die whining and crying about not having anyone to buy or advertise their products.

I'll go back to my books (I have a bunch that I haven't read), I have so much music that I could easily spend the next few years exploring it. What we're addicted to is new stuff.

Let's take a break for a while and let these overpumped dickweeds have their kingdom of dust. Because at the end of the day that's all they have: Our obssession for media. We kick our habit (like tobacco) and they lose their empire.

Tech industry response (1)

Lexx Greatrex (1160847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37846712)

Your search - US Government - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

Protest NOW! (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847132)

If anyone wonders why we have the 99% protesting right now it is just this type of law. Holding a third party responsible for the actions of another person is lame, wrong, and about as un American as any concept can be. It is the equivalent of owning a building and having someone write a death threat on the side of the building without your permission or knowledge and instead of finding the person who did the graffiti they put the building owner on trial. Or maybe they charge him with failure to paint over the graffiti. But the ideas that the city failed to protect the building and failed to locate the criminal somehow don't count as a reality because the city doesn't want to spend money when they fail at their job. For all of those that scream about responsibility how is it that they never gripe about group and collective responsibility but always want to lash out at individuals. It's time to take over the parks and bridges again.

Rogue websites? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37847722)

SEC. 3.
ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.

(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.â"
(1) IN
PERSONAM.â"The Attorney General may commence an in personam action againstâ"

7 (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to in-fringing activities; or
10 (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.

13 (2) IN REM.â"If through due diligence the At-torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.

- etc.etc.etc.

I love it. Not only this bill (like EVERY government bill) is going to destroy more freedoms and jobs everywhere, I just LOVE IT how they call anything they don't like 'ROGUE' nowadays.

It's only one step away from being labeled a TERRORIST and then of-course, what are all those unmanned killer drones for, right?

The US government just murdered a 16 year old US citizen - the son of Anwar Awlaki, killed just a little while ago by another drone strike. [go.com]

Be warned, the USA has long ceased to be a nation of laws, it is now a nation of terrorists.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?