Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

PROTECT-IP Makes Its Way To the Floors of Congress

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the they-call-him-bill dept.

Government 145

New submitter trunicated writes "Everyone on Slashdot seems to know about PROTECT-IP Act — how it will push responsibility for the contents of the internet onto the search engines that index it, how it will give even more power to the *IAA industries, and, worst of all, how it will provide the U.S. government with a kill switch they can use at their discretion. However, this write up may provide you with a bit more information and help you explain the issues to those that won't be able to get around the poisoned DNS entries that this bill will allow."

cancel ×

145 comments

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

Popularity in the single digits (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914088)

How low can they go?

Re:Popularity in the single digits (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914194)

Low enough to bring about the wrath of the community they are oppressing. Did you know the piratebay is actually not the piratebay, but rather 194.71.107.15?

Re:Popularity in the single digits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914256)

How about IPv6? Might as well be prepared.

Re:Popularity in the single digits (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914334)

How about IPv6? Might as well be prepared.

Won't work. The *IAA, et al, must be salivating at the thought of foisting new purchases of IP-Spy-O-Lux network appliances on carriers and the hardware industry (yet another wolf lurking in the shadows) must be positively writhing at the prospect of big sales of those IP-Spy-O-Lux appliances.

Re:Popularity in the single digits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915110)

Sorry, I don't follow you. What's your point?

Re:Popularity in the single digits (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915206)

The point is that DNS poisoning doesn't affect IP addresses, I presume.

Re:Popularity in the single digits (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914198)

How low can they go?

You have to ask? Sometimes they make me feel like we really missed a golden opportunity to join the Communists.

Re:Popularity in the single digits (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914488)

How low can they go?

You have to ask? Sometimes they make me feel like we really missed a golden opportunity to join the Communists.

[sarcasm on]

No, we should have payed Osama to drop some airplanes on the RIAA and MPAA headquarters, planes full of MPAA and RIAA layers of course. He could have done a great favor to humankind, instead look what a selfish prick he was.

[sarcasm off]

its a limit problem actually (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914606)

They can go really, really close to zero, but not quite since the money they make off passing this act is represented as 1 / (public support) . They can get the amount of public support to a number arbitrarily close to zero, but not zero.

Re:its a limit problem actually (3, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914938)

They don't even have to do that. Just blame it all on the [other party], and point out how much more the [other party] is, and the public is sure to avoid voting for any third party, because it might mean the [wrong party] gets elected.

So much for the internet. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914148)

It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.

Re:So much for the internet. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914212)

It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.

Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.

A pretty general statement, but certainly applicable here.

More accurately... (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914246)

Nothing ever improves when corporations and the governments team up to screw the populace.

Re:More accurately... (5, Insightful)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914352)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. ~P.J. O'Rourke

Re:More accurately... (1)

thenewt (1974712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914460)

Did P.J. O'Rourke have a corresponding snappy witticism for an unregulated market?

Re:More accurately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914892)

I think that WAS one.

Re:More accurately... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914724)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. ~P.J. O'Rourke

P.J. O'Rourke is a tool.

If he said water was wet, I'd want a second opinion.

You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago.

Re:More accurately... (2)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914836)

"You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago."

Right. That's why California, New York, Illinois and many other states are near bankruptcy.

Re:More accurately... (1)

Mattcelt (454751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915074)

...and why Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, and Bank of America aren't.

Re:More accurately... (2)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915284)

California Near Bankruptcy, still #8 or #9 economy in the world.

If that doesn't paint a bleak picture, I don't know what will.

Re:More accurately... (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914988)

You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago.

Riiiiight. That's because of all the enforcement of corporate policies by armed bureaucracies, the IRS, autonomous drones and legions of ... rent-a-cops?

Strings are more powerful than guns, now?

If only the government had MORE power (to beat MORE heads), everything would be okay, right? Then they would only protect the people that spend their days working and have limited funds for lobbying and media time, right?

Re:More accurately... (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915230)

Strings are more powerful then guns if the strings decide who gets shot. And I've said it before, will say it again. I'll take my chances with the gov't, because at least I HAVE a chance. Corporations stated goal is profit, not matter what the cost. The gov't at least has the potential to be "By the people, for the people". A corporation will never be anything but what it is: A replacement for the apparatus of the Divine Right of Kings.

Re:More accurately... (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915286)

Strings are more powerful then guns if the strings decide who gets shot. And I've said it before, will say it again. I'll take my chances with the gov't, because at least I HAVE a chance. Corporations stated goal is profit, not matter what the cost. The gov't at least has the potential to be "By the people, for the people". A corporation will never be anything but what it is: A replacement for the apparatus of the Divine Right of Kings.

The "Divine Right of Kings" IS, a form of government. Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do. They have no powers of coercion, they require government for that. Government retains a monopoly on violence - all over violence is unlawful. A government "By the people" does nothing to protect the rights of its people, unless it is constrained from doing so - that's the purpose of the US Constitution - to constrain the powers of the government to its primary purpose: protecting the individual rights of its people.

The US Federal government does not really prioritize on that anymore - they are powerful enough not to. They don't respond to the people very much anymore, they are powerful enough not to. And with a government that powerful, with that much influence over all commerce and the ability to interject rules into every private transaction, of course there are entities looking to influence the government to favor them with their rules. Companies that do NOT invest in lobbying and influencing legislators are at a disadvantage, and if they manage to grow successful in such a situation, eventually the government will come after them for daring to ignore the government's power. Microsoft learned that lesson, and now has one of the largest lobbying budgets of any US company. Gibson Guitar is learning that lesson right now.

Re:More accurately... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915492)

Strings are more powerful then guns if the strings decide who gets shot. And I've said it before, will say it again. I'll take my chances with the gov't, because at least I HAVE a chance. Corporations stated goal is profit, not matter what the cost. The gov't at least has the potential to be "By the people, for the people". A corporation will never be anything but what it is: A replacement for the apparatus of the Divine Right of Kings.

The "Divine Right of Kings" IS, a form of government. Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do. They have no powers of coercion, they require government for that. Government retains a monopoly on violence - all over violence is unlawful. A government "By the people" does nothing to protect the rights of its people, unless it is constrained from doing so - that's the purpose of the US Constitution - to constrain the powers of the government to its primary purpose: protecting the individual rights of its people.

Except, as you pointed out, the corporations have bought the government. Then, it devolves down to 'all personages are equal, but some ore more equal than others', since corporations are personages by law...

Re:More accurately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915510)

Corporations have no power in a free market

Except when they have lots of money, monopolies, and the method which they use to screw consumers over is small enough that consumers won't shop elsewhere.

Re:More accurately... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915790)

Corporations have no power in a free market

Except when they have lots of money, monopolies, and the method which they use to screw consumers over is small enough that consumers won't shop elsewhere.

If the "screwing" is "small enough" that consumers won't shop elsewhere, it pretty much sounds like that's a functional market. Small-dicked corporations don't really seem like much of a threat.

Re:More accurately... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915552)

Actually - government does need more power. Whatever happened to that "for the people, by the people, and of the people" thing? I guess that got shitcanned sometime around Grant's day. The Teapot scandal was all about making rich men richer, and I can't see that much has changed since then.

Today, there are people protesting in the streets, trying to get government's attention, and the response is to make those protests illegal, and to jail the protesters. Didn't they do the same thing in the '60's and '70's?

Re:More accurately... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915912)

You do realize it's government that's shutting down the protests and jailing the protesters, right? How does it make sense, then, to make them more powerful? So they can arrest protesters even faster?

Don't be naieve... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915890)

It's only a matter of time until the corporate-government corruption begins passing some tipping points (like here [killercoke.org] , for example).

Distinction without a difference (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915812)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. ~P.J. O'Rourke

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomas Jefferson

Looks like Jefferson didn't get his wish.

Re:More accurately... (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914422)

When has the government ever not teamed up with corporations?

Re:More accurately... (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914854)

Corporations? What about the little guy? Those small businesses and indies that have their stuff on those thieves bazaar sites? Who will help them?

Re:More accurately... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915014)

When has the government ever not teamed up with corporations?

Well there was that brief period in America between 1775 and 1789.

Re:More accurately... (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915412)

As much as I admire them Jefferson and Washington were both 1%'ers who wanted among other things relief from taxes on their businesses.

Re:More accurately... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915770)

As much as I admire them Jefferson and Washington were both 1%'ers who wanted among other things relief from taxes on their businesses.

That explains the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn't explain the Constitutional Convention, and the results of it, which vastly expanded the power of the central government.

Re:More accurately... (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915278)

It's like every fucking corporation has turned into Weyland-Yutani Corp. [wikia.com] overnight or something, complete with hordes of Carter Burke's running around leaving slime trails on everything they get close too...

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914274)

It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.

Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.

A pretty general statement, but certainly applicable here.

I'd say its the MAFIAA more than the government here.

Re:So much for the internet. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915050)

It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.

Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.

A pretty general statement, but certainly applicable here.

I'd say its the MAFIAA more than the government here.

Actually, they are failing in the free market, because they no longer serve their customers and should be left to die and rot. But, in the US, a little government intervention goes a long way toward keeping the slaves from having any power like that.

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915588)

So this would be one example where Government intervention can actually be a Good Thing

Re:So much for the internet. (2)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914302)

Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.

Government involvement in this case is kind of ridiculous. This is completely a defense of corporations thing and corporations should have to deal with it themselves. Protect their own content or change their business model. If the government wants to help out, have an Arts Fund where a portion of everyone's taxes goes to struggling artists (and I think that's about 99% of them, no pun intended). Don't spend time or taxpayer dollars taking away the arts from people just to put money in the middle-man's hand.

Hire someone to professionally record your CD.
Market yourself on MySpace, your local radio station, Facebook.
Wiggle your way onto iTunes indie list.
Profit.

The RIAA is the marketing part which is the key to getting rich. But the Internet, and a lot of your own work, lets you skip them and still get your music out there and maybe even eat. And it'll just keep getting easier. The RIAA should work harder on concerts and forget the royalties for recording. They'll shrink considerably, but that's probably a good thing at this point.

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914634)

Your local radio station? The only ones who would even consider playing a hand-delivered CD are the ones that no one listens to.

Re:So much for the internet. (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915308)

Goddamn right. Clear Channel owns over half of the stations in the United States, and they only play what they're told (paid) to by the same ass clowns behind this bullshit.

It boggles the fucking mind that shit like Payola [wikipedia.org] and Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] is still going on openly. Was our government EVER not totally corrupt? I want to build a time machine and go back to that time period I think...

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914786)

And you thought government was by the people, for the people?

Only if you define "the people" as the top 1% who run the corporations.

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915134)

Democratic governments are always 'by the people', but they are only 'for the people' if it is a socialist government. If you have a government that is not socialist (or worse, is scared of using the term), you automatically have a government that is not for the people. Rather, you have a government that is for various power blocks, to which some people may belong.

Re:So much for the internet. (2)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915086)

From Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash

When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
music
movies
microcode (software)
high-speed pizza delivery

Sort of prescient, although software is feeling the outsourcing pinch. While it might be nice to think that Congress is finally doing something to protect American jobs (kind of hard to outsource singing if you can't understand the lyrics), we all know this is just another piece of legislation paid for by the giant corps who are bleeding us dry, and as such, like the numerous trade deals with 3d world economies, will be of no actual benefit to Americans.

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915298)

When was the last time you heard a programmer say anything good about outsourced code?

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914450)

LOL /. libertarians.

Blaming the Government for having too much power when you should be blaming the people that get elected to it.

The government protects you from this getting worse without government laws and regulation the ISPs and IAAs would achieve a far greater level of extortion.

The problem is your government should be regulating this in your interests and not the industries.

Re:So much for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914708)

Government can only ruin the internet since no government meddling has ever produced anything good! Next thing you know the government will be trying to mess with medicare! They have to be stopped!

Re:So much for the internet. (5, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915474)

I wonder what would happen if say Google would go dark for a day, US only: replace the standard search page with a page "this is what you will see if the PROTECT-IP act becomes law". It seems, from the face of it, that this is basically the only thing Google can do to survive under such an act. Let the country feel how it would be, to do without their favourite search engine. Have Bing and Yahoo cooperate in this - all out for a day in the US, not a holiday or so, no a normal weekday - and the outcry should be sufficient. And it would give a good idea on the economic losses this bill could cause.

And in the meantime of course they would continue to provide services as usual in jurisdictions that are not affected, i.e. the rest of the world.

If that doesn't get the message home, nothing would, and the US is doomed.

You ain't seen nothin' yet (2)

JamesonLewis3rd (1035172) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914228)

Complete control over everything is their goal.
I'm not young but I would not be surprised if, one day, my wife and I find ourselves living in a tent somewhere, eating what we can catch or forage.

Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914288)

Hehehehehe.
I have bad news for you about the likelihood of there being anything alive for you to catch or forage.

Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914904)

You read too far, I stopped at "my wife and I", ha ha, like a slashdotter would ever have a wife.

Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914290)

Complete control over everything is their goal.

I'm not young but I would not be surprised if, one day, my wife and I find ourselves living in a tent somewhere, eating what we can catch or forage.

So ... that'll be one camping pass ... and one hunting/fishing permit, unless you plan to eat only plants, then you'll run afoul of the regulations on havesting plants, which are protected, on public lands.

The way to beat the system is to become part of it and then force change from within.

Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet (1)

JamesonLewis3rd (1035172) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914474)

No, I mean there will be nothing for anybody.
People will be fighting over cats and dogs and sunflowers.
Dismantling their homes for fuel.
Et cetera.

Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914536)

The way to beat the system is to become part of it and then force change from within.

Which is precisely why there are so many ex-*IAAs in key government positions. They're smart people pushing smart policies - for their own betterment, nobody else's.

Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915084)

So ... that'll be one camping pass ... and one hunting/fishing permit, unless you plan to eat only plants, then you'll run afoul of the regulations on havesting plants, which are protected, on public lands.

Well, I'm a hunter, and back home in Pennsylvania, one needs not an extra permit to hunt on state game land, just the $20 or so license. Even without that, you can hunt and eat nuisance animals (coyote, crows, starlings, perhaps bobcats) on any day of the week, without limit, even Sunday when no other hunting is permitted. A license to fish is only required for public waters, and only if you're over, IIRC, 16.

Self Healing & Self Explanatory (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914294)

help you explain the issues to those that won't be able to get around the poisoned DNS entries that this bill will allow

When Pakistan screwed up, according to their own internal policies, and altered the routing (BGP) and effectively caused youtube.com to be /dev/null'd for a half a day, the rest of the world responded. They fixed the routes, and Pakistan lost a lot of credibility and respect from other IT people. Were Pakistan to continue affecting the rest of the world with its internal policies, the rest of the world would respond more and more stringently, to the point that Pakistan would not have access to such systems anymore.

This is no different. If the US decides to mess around with DNS in accordance with its own internal policies, the rest of the world will respond by taking that control away. Either through a EU sanctioned DNS infrastructure, or some sort of p2p infrastructure.

The alternative is the rest of the world dealing with clearly incorrect DNS entries and businesses having to deal with US control.

This problem does not need to be further explained, and the ones that do understand it, will work around it. This is a good thing. It will push DNS beyond US control, and might actually start a decentralized/fractured DNS system where those that care can resolve host names the way they see fit.

In short, this only provides more motivation to "solving" our problem of a monitored Internet. Create a secondary Internet on top of it that is not monitored and cannot be interfered with. Several projects in the works, and this only puts more fuel on the fire so to speak.

Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory (2)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914744)

(regarding the Internet) "Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring"

-- Sir Tim Berners-Lee

Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915232)

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but it does not apply to a secondary layer or DNS.

DNS is just name resolution. It does not imply splitting into many pieces at all, and in fact, would more than likely be redundant. I can see DNS resolution becoming more granular, and its set up and operation more than just a few dialog boxes in a control interface.

You can have DNS networks that forward their questions to other networks. That's not new. Using it in a way to create a separate infrastructure and preferred resolution with other networks depending on the TLDs, etc. would be. I don't see that as far fetched either.

As for the secondary layer, that is not affecting the primary layer at all as far as divisions, peer and transit agreements, etc. There could be multiple secondary layers, which is highly likely, and would be more like protected communities. The secondary layer that delivers the most popular features with the highest level of service will win.

In any case, I don't think it will have an outcome as dreary as the one you portray. It's going to happen eventually, and some people might get left behind for awhile. Right now we live in a idealistic paradise compared to what content companies, carriers, and governments want us to have. Even if it is like you say, we are headed for it.

The Internet will fork. That's my post 2012 prediction.

Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915882)

My dad's been calling for a fork in the internet for years, and he doesn't even use computers.

"FORK the internet!", he'd say...

Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915370)

(regarding the Internet) "Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring"

-- Sir Tim Berners-Lee

That is essentially the point. Censorship is intentionally trying to create a boring environment where nothing strange or gross exists so that everyone can live in a bubble echo chamber.

Once someone starts cutting things up, repairing it is the only option and, unfortunately, DNS is centralised (unlike routing) so isn't self-healing.

Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory (3, Insightful)

prowler1 (458133) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915668)

What you will end up seeing is that the internet in America is going to end up looking and working a lot like the internet in China does but instead of being controlled by the government, it will be controlled by corporations. In this case, *IAA will be initially in charge but if the bill is passed and goes into effect, how long will it be until other corporations start to jump onto the band wagon and start to control/block things they don't like.

Lets also be honest, how many other governments/corporations out there would love to do something similar in their country of choice and how many have already started to bring out watered down control laws, look at Australia with its internet filter as a start.

Tech industry (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914298)

Please buy the media industries already. They have way too much power over your business in comparison to their economic weight.

Re:Tech industry (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914682)

Please buy the media industries already. They have way too much power over your business in comparison to their economic weight.

Be careful what you wish for. Look what happened to Sony.

Re:Tech industry (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914806)

We already have Sony who are both a tech company AND a media company and the media side clearly rules the roost there.

Remember when Sony was cool and made things like the Walkman, the Betamax video player (famous because of the victory by Sony in "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc" that found recording of TV to watch later to be legal) and the 3 & 1/2 inch floppy disk.

That was before they bought CBS Records & Columbia Pictures (and later BMG records and a stake in MGM) and became a media company that happens to make consumer electronics.

Re:Tech industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914980)

Please buy the media industries already. They have way too much power over your business in comparison to their economic weight.

Ha ha ha it would be 1000 times worse. Look at how fucked up Sony is since they grabbed Columbia Pictures.
The last thing you want is for hardware companies to buy up the media industry. Thats the fastest way to vertical integration and locked down devices. Somehow people never learn from history.
No what we need is for legislation (short of a full blown revolution) to scale back the insane amount of power this tiny tiny industry has gained during the last 2 decades.

It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (5, Informative)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914320)

It's now known as the E-PARASITE Act. Normally I wouldn't bother posting over something so trivial, but the new name is so poetically apt that I have to mention it.

Rob

Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (4, Informative)

mrquagmire (2326560) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914462)

Sign the white house petition here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55 [whitehouse.gov]

Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (1)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914556)

I'll save you the effort.
Here's their reply:

Dear concerned citizens,
We appreciate you taking the time and effort to file a petition,
but we don't care what you think, so kindly go fuck yourselves.
Regards,

Write your congressman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914972)

Your congressman/senators are your lawmakers (unless they have been bought). Write to them and tell them not to vote for it. People always overstate the power of the executive branch and seem to try to understate the power of congress. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Even better. Somebody with more resources and experience than I should try to croudsource a bill to update the DCMA and Regan era internet regulations.

Re:Write your congressman (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915192)

... Regan era internet regulations.

There's no such thing. Unless you're referring to the Acceptable Use Policies written by the government agencies universities that wholly owned the entire network.

Re:Write your congressman (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915604)

Your congressman/senators are your lawmakers (unless they have been bought). Write to them and tell them not to vote for it. People always overstate the power of the executive branch and seem to try to understate the power of congress. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml [house.gov]

Too late, they're already bought. The technical term for this is 'campaign contributions'.

Even better. Somebody with more resources and experience than I should try to croudsource a bill to update the DCMA and Regan era internet regulations.

Until you can field a wad of cash greater than the *IAAs can, you can do all the crowdsourcing you want, it won't mean a thing. As has been noted several times over the last several years, 'If voting ever really changed anything, they'd make it illegal'.

The more paranoid among us of course will theorise that attempts like this are a way for the *IAAs are doing this to scrape every possible dime from the consumer to prevent any attempt by the public to outbuy their influence.

Re:Write your congressman (1)

flonker (526111) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915868)

I tried that. The reply was rather discouraging. I'm attempting to figure out what to say in return, and whether it would have any effect.

Subject: RE: Your response from Senator Bill Nelson
From: Bill @billnelson.senate.gov
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:27:50 -0400

Dear [....]:

        Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. Introduced by Senator Leahy, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 26, 2011.

        This legislation would authorize the Attorney General or an intellectual property right owner to take action against a registrant, owner, or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities. It also provides guidelines for preventative measures to be taken by operators of nonauthoritative domain name system servers, financial transaction providers, Internet advertising services, and information location tools, with respect to nondomestic or domestic domain names.

        I appreciate the time you have taken to express your thoughts on this issue, and I will be sure to keep them in mind should the bill come to the full Senate for a vote. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future.

                                                        Sincerely,
                                                        Bill Nelson

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm [senate.gov]

Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (3, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915048)

In order to sign that petition, you have to have an account at whitehouse.gov. If you click on the "WHY," it tells you that you have to have an account there in order to sign petitions. So much for a "transparent administration."

Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915166)

I actually went over and signed it. How naive I am. But then I read the "responses" to the other petitions.

They actually do a lot of bullcrap spin before politely saying "screw you".

Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915980)

I actually went over and signed it. How naive I am.

Welcome to the no-fly list.

Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914616)

E-PARASITE is the House of Representatives version. The article is talking about the Senate version S.968 which is still PROTECT-IP

Scum floats to the top, so does crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914406)

Corporate America is spitting into the face of the occupywallstreet effort! It's beginning to look like the 99% are going to get screwed again. Max Weber was right, modernity is the end.

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914468)

How long till they use this crap to take down the OWS related websites?

Re:so... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914530)

Why would you want to shutup an idiot? The more they talk the better. (Para: Ben Franklin)

The ones idiots you want to shutup are the ones that claim to be on your side. (Me) If anybody is going to shutdown it will be the Democrat party. The fleabaggers are making them all look like equal fools.

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914564)

So, how did you make it into the 1% with such poor language skills? Or are you just a useful idiot?

Re:so... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915362)

Partisan politics are retarded, as are people that think that there is any real difference between the Republicans and Democrats. You're rooting for much the same team one way or another...

technical solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37914584)

Why don't we just block the US IP space?
Enough of their threats and bullshit.

People who want access to the world-wide Internet can always figure out a way to get a tunnel, be it ssh, freenet, or some other way of getting out of the Public Democratic Republic of the US of A.

We don't need their rules imposed on us.

Thanks.

hmmm (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914792)

As I read about the poisoned DNS entries, I pause to edit /etc/hosts

Re:hmmm (3, Informative)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914960)

As I read about the poisoned DNS entries, I pause to edit /etc/hosts

Yeah, a while ago (3 months and a day, my comment shows) I stopped Facebook's ability to monitor me, at least from this computer. Added to /etc/hosts:

# screw facebook 2011-07-31
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com

I'll likely do the same once the details of this are known...

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915742)

As I read about the poisoned DNS entries, I pause to edit /etc/hosts

Yeah, a while ago (3 months and a day, my comment shows) I stopped Facebook's ability to monitor me, at least from this computer. Added to /etc/hosts:

# screw facebook 2011-07-31

127.0.0.1 facebook.com

127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com

I'll likely do the same once the details of this are known...

Great, you've accomplished nothing. You know that Facebook tracks you via the Like buttons on various sites right? Can you still see the Facebook Like button? (Slashdot has one at the bottom of the summary, can you see it?)

You should, since those are served by Facebook's CDN (fbcdn.net and fbcdn.com), not facebook.com.

Re:hmmm (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915798)

Great, you've accomplished nothing. [...] (fbcdn.net and fbcdn.com)

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in a typical open source manner. I will fix my /etc/hosts. Are there any other Facebook sites that I should be bit-bucketing? Thanks in advance.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915976)

You're only stopping yourself from getting to facebook. Try -

127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.www.www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.www.www.www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
  127.0.0.1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
  127.0.0.1 www.login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.com
  127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com

And I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that they were using.

Do we even have to worry? (2)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915068)

Does this even have much of a chance of passing? Considering how hard it's been lately to get IMPORTANT laws passed... do we even have to worry?

Our government can't seem to get much of anything done lately; how is this different?

Re:Do we even have to worry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915152)

it will be passed because both sides have been well waxed with crisp $100 bills. This will be one of the few things they will agree on.

Re:Do we even have to worry? (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915208)

Does this even have much of a chance of passing? Considering how hard it's been lately to get IMPORTANT laws passed... do we even have to worry?

Our government can't seem to get much of anything done lately; how is this different?

Like all laws that benefit only the government and their corporate buddies, it will be passed as a "bi-partisan effort", and sold as "an important innovation to protect the American people."

Wrote to my senator, and... (3, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915184)

I wrote to my senator (Mike Johanns, R-NE) to urge him to oppose the Hollywood Welfare Act [1] which helps a tiny (but vocal) cartel at the expense of everyone else. His office replied to say he agreed that it was crucial legislation to protect America's creative industries. So much for letter writing. :-/

In fairness, the last time I wrote him on a completely unrelated subject, he called me himself. I got home to an answering message: "Hi Kirk, this is Mike Johanns and I wanted to talk to you about your letter. Sorry I missed you! Give me a call back if you'd like." We never managed to meet up, but I respect that he personally went of out his way to address a constituent. I just hate that he's firmly on the wrong side (in my opinion) of this issue.

[1] I called it by its official name in my letter, but call it by its real name elsewhere.

Re:Wrote to my senator, and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915678)

Who are you defending? See you when your stuff gets 'uploaded'. We have written to those Torrent sites, begging them kindly to pull our stuff, never an answer came. It is not only about big corporations and big media, independenst and small artists alike need this badly. Theft is theft.

Re:Wrote to my senator, and... (3, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915862)

See you when your stuff gets 'uploaded'.

You can download my stuff - legally - in a lot of places. Share and enjoy!

It is not only about big corporations and big media, independenst and small artists alike need this badly.

Bullshit. Independents and small artists will never have the resources to wield these sticks. This is a Hollywood power grab and there's simply no other reasonable way to describe it.

This quote may be relevant. (-1, Offtopic)

RandomAvatar (2487198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915186)

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:This quote may be relevant. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915216)

As much as I love ol' Ben, I'm having trouble finding a way to twist his quote to this situation.

The Wall (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37915818)

Throw away everything you've ever been taught about copyright, neighboring rights, moral rights, etc.

Treat copyright the same as patents: allow exclusive rights for a limited time to earn back investments made. Art in the mainstream is and has been treated as products/merchandise, so we might as well let the legislative side reflect that fact and forget about that small world of a few publishers and creators, and a huge world of consumers. The public are still consumers but at the same time are creators and publishers, too. Inventors that spend years to develop their inventions get 20 years of protection, why shouldn't suffice for creators?

Can you imagine a world where every work (including "orphaned works") published before 1990 is Public Domain and free for everyone to use, modify and do whatever they please? This will break the power of the RIAA/MPAA. Right now there is no Public Domain, other than some very old literature. Every commercially released DVD-Audio, SACD, CD-Audio, 33rpm vinyl LP, 45rpm single, and even a significant fraction of old 78 rpm recordings are still kept behind the Copyright Wall which is what gives the *AA their power.

President Obama, Tear Down That Wall!

Anyone read the current version? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37915934)

IANAL, but it seems to me the latest version of the bill gives this power only to the attorney general, and gives it only for "nondomestic" sites "dedicated" to infringing activities. Now I have no idea what the burden of proof is for "dedicated", but it seems like this is pretty squarely targeted at foreign video sharing sites that are outside of US laws. So they want to blackhole them.
I guess I'm not against that if the burden of proof is set high ( yes I know it probably won't be )

Maybe the MPAA should just start offering their own censored DNS service that if you use it, you get "movie points!"

*sigh* keep paddling upstream MPAA, maybe you'll get there someday and make us all go back to watching movies only in the theater.

It was Just a matter of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37916082)

As far as I can see this type of control was always going to come. If you look across the board with how corporate interests are crippling western society and so called democracy, it was only a matter of time before the last bastion of free speech was muffled and squeezed closed. Sadly Australia seems to follow the US in some of its more foolish endeavours i home this isnt one of them. Good luck USA, you're gonna need it! :(

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>