Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

DNS Provision Pulled From SOPA

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the time-to-double-down,-protesters dept.

Government 232

New submitter crvtec sends this excerpt from CNet: "Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one of the biggest backers of the Stop Online Piracy Act, today said he plans to remove the Domain Name System blocking provision. 'After consultation with industry groups across the country,' Smith said in a statement released by his office, 'I feel we should remove (DNS) blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [U.S. House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision.'"

cancel ×

232 comments

No, he didn't (5, Interesting)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692666)

He said he'd postpone it until further research had been done... In other words, pass the bill now and then shove it down our throats later.

Re:No, he didn't (4)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692682)

My bad. That was the ProtectIP one, even though this still sounds like the same thing.

Re:No, he didn't (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692814)

I'd just like to point out to any meta-mods out there that the parent "my bad" comment was posted *before* the "informative" mods to the GP.

Re:No, he didn't (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692866)

I'd just like to point out to any meta-mods out there that the parent "my bad" comment was posted *before* the "informative" mods to the GP.

What difference doest that make?

Re:No, he didn't (5, Interesting)

Ouchie (1386333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692928)

The research is whether congressional hipocracy is exempt. It appears that under the law the congressman's website would have been permanently shut down for copyright infringment.

The background image on Chairman Lamar Smith [texansforlamarsmith.com] own website was being used without the consent of the photographer.

Re:No, he didn't (4, Interesting)

Ouchie (1386333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693138)

Update

The background image is now gone.

Re:Update The background image is now gone. (4, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693654)

Wait, who cares that it's gone! He used the offending image, right?

Pull his site!

Oh wait - so if a Govt site "just pulls the image" it's okay, but when Joe Small does it we pull his entire site?

How did you let him past that double standard?!

Re:Update The background image is now gone. (5, Interesting)

Marillion (33728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694058)

Actually, that's a perfect example of how it should be done. A copyright owner notifies the infringer of a violation. The infringer says, "Sorry, my bad, I didn't know. I'll address that immediately." The infringing material is removed. Both parties go on their merry way.

Because infringement is very easy to do unintentionally, as Representative Smith found out, I feel there needs to be a safe-harbor course of action. If infringement is removed within (picks a number from thin air) seven days, then the infringement should be presumed to be unintentional and not liable for any damages. Furthermore, there should be a process where an alleged infringer can say to an accuser, "No, you've got it all wrong. I have a right to use this because of [insert reason here]." The matter would be settled either inside or outside of courts, using well-established procedures from Civil Law, but the matter would eventually be settled.

Anyway, that's my fantasy world. It's happy there. I only wish it could actually happen.

Re:No, he didn't (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693400)

Or maybe GoDaddy called him and said they were losing customers so they would have to cut jobs if they lost more share of the market. So they filled his back pocket with some cash and called it a day?

Re:No, he didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693544)

He said he'd postpone it until further research had been done... In other words, pass the bill now and then shove it down our throats later.

Yes, but at that time Lamar Smith will have replaced Cary Sherman as President and CEO of the RIAA, so you can't blame him then.

Hm. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692668)

Just a little better but what about the IP-blocking part or deep packet inspection?

Re:Hm. (4, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693012)

Honestly, I think that if Lamar would get a few deep packet inspections he'd probably be less of a useless asshole.

Re:Hm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693318)

I dunno... I rekon after a few too many deep packet inspections his asshole might be a little more useless....

Re:Hm. (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693946)

In that case he'd probably wind up with a santorum.

Re:Hm. (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693856)

lol +1

Re:Hm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693030)

If you RTFA, you'd see he didn't say anything about the other parts of the bill.

so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692670)

See subject.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692752)

The idea is to back-pedal a little bit on this bill so we heave a sigh of relief over the DNS part and don't notice what they left in.

Next time around they do DNS thing plus something far worse. We protest the "worse", they back-pedal a bit on that and DNS blocking gets passed amidst all the sighs of relief.

Rinse, repeat until they get everything they want.

Bottom line: Unless we defeat the WHOLE of this bill and get a few morons kicked out of office then we might as well just hand the keys of the Internet over to the MAFIAA. They'll get them eventually if we don't.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Insightful)

Apothem (1921856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692788)

Honestly, I dont think anyone can breathe any sighs of relief until all the current politicians are either replaced by people who are younger and know what's going on, or are heavily educated in the ways that this shit works,

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692874)

It's not enough to change the people. We have to change the system. We need publicly financed elections, some form of preference voting, and a "no confidence" option with actual teeth on every ballot.

Which will mean (2, Insightful)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692910)

that the government will be run by the public employee unions. Just like it is in California.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (-1, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693148)

We need publicly financed elections

No. I do not want to wake up and work part of every day to provide campaign cash to someone who says I'm evil for thinking that it's not government's role to make sure everyone gets the same stuff regardless of whether or how they work. I do not want to be forced to support a candidate that says I'm inherently wrong for being, say, male. Or that I'm evil for thinking that people who break the law by sneaking into the country and lying on federal paperwork should get free stuff that I spend other parts of my day working to pay for. You're welcome to give such people campaign cash, but don't force me to.

some form of preference voting

We have it. It's called "voting."

a "no confidence" option

Also called "voting." You get to participate in such events every couple of years.

You may want to run your state or your country like a PTA meeting, but the founders had a much better grip on the tyrrany and foolishness of the simple majority and capricious elections. You do sound like someone who would like California, though. That's working out really well, isn't it?

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693200)

We have it. It's called "voting."

Gee, I wonder if "preference voting" might be a specific term [wikipedia.org] for something which allows votes to express more nuanced opinions than first-past-the-post plurality votes do and could lead to better outcomes, more viable third parties, and other beneficial features?

Nah, it must just be a synonym for voting.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (-1, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693528)

Nah, it must just be a synonym for voting.

Nah, it's the name for something that runs directly counter to the constitution, and is called for by people who cannot persuade their fellow citizens to vote for their own pet single-cause crusades. You know, because people actually are more nuanced than that.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694028)

why is preferential voting, per se, unconstitutional?

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (4, Insightful)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694136)

It's not in any way. It's an abused stretch of the concept of "one man, one vote," though it doesn't actually change that. You don't actually get more than one vote counted, but for people who are mathematically illiterate it's trotted out as an excuse for why any change to the way votes are held is bad.

First past the post is about the worst method for choosing a palatable leader, and its failure is more clear as elections become more partisan. For having accurate minority representation it fails entirely for any minority which is not at least close in size to the majority party.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694190)

leader ... minority representation

Are you even listening to yourself, and did you sleep through 2008?

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694132)

I'm not sure if you've been awake through the last several elections... Most politicians pick a single cause crusade and ride that all the way through. That works because most people don't want to put forth the effort to find the right candidate - they want an issue they can stand behind or against.

Perhaps you would also recall some history on what the world was like when the constitution was written - and how much of our current electoral system has changed since the constitution was written.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693234)

No. I do not want to wake up and work part of every day to provide campaign cash to someone who says I'm evil for thinking that it's not government's role to make sure everyone gets the same stuff regardless of whether or how they work. I do not want to be forced to support a candidate that says I'm inherently wrong for being, say, male. Or that I'm evil for thinking that people who break the law by sneaking into the country and lying on federal paperwork should get free stuff that I spend other parts of my day working to pay for. You're welcome to give such people campaign cash, but don't force me to.

All of those have nothing to do with what he was talking about...

I have nothing to say about the voting part, but

You do sound like someone who would like California, though. That's working out really well, isn't it?

I'm getting the feeling that you're calling Northern California all of California. They do end up with a lot of say on some things up, but you would probably like Southern California, actually (which is the reason for Prop 8 among several other policies).

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693368)

voteing?

VOTING?

really - is that the best you got?

cause you aint got much if that's the old sloan you're dragging out.

quick: kang or kodos? which one? WHICH ONE? come on, pick. you vote counts!

oh be serious. are you really that dumb or just trolling?

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693486)

you vote counts! ... oh be serious

You're right. No votes are actually involved in picking city, county, and state legislators, muncipal, county, and state executives, congresssional representatives and senators, and president. When we count them, they're all fake, and aren't actually related to humans casting votes. Your congressman is actually picked by secret members of the Trilateral Commission as they fly over in black helicopters deploying mind-control devices made by Haliburton on specs from the Rothschilds.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693590)

In Canada, the public financing of the political parties is divided on a vote % basis.

So you work to pay for the candidate you voted for. Quite reasonable.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (3, Informative)

complete loony (663508) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694066)

In Australia, everybody votes and (obviously) everybody pays taxes. The candidates that you actually vote for, get paid $2.31191 (+CPI) per vote that they get, and only if they get at least 4% of the total votes (eg Final 2010 federal election payment to political parties and candidates [aec.gov.au] .
Would you really complain if $2 of your taxes went to the candidate that you actually voted for?

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694206)

No. I do not want to wake up and work part of every day to provide campaign cash to someone who says I'm evil for thinking that it's not government's role to make sure everyone gets the same stuff regardless of whether or how they work. I do not want to be forced to support a candidate that says I'm inherently wrong for being, say, male. Or that I'm evil for thinking that people who break the law by sneaking into the country and lying on federal paperwork should get free stuff that I spend other parts of my day working to pay for. You're welcome to give such people campaign cash, but don't force me to.

The problem is that there's really no other choice that preserves democracy. Either you spend taxpayer dollars to ensure that everyone who meets some reasonable set of criteria (e.g. getting n signatures) is funded equally from the public treasury or you have elections in which the politicians are inherently for sale.

This is one of the few issues that is absolutely black and white. Giving money to a politician is a bribe, and those who give the most money will inherently have more influence. There's just no good way to prevent that. Public funding prevents corruption precisely because you are forced to support not just your candidate, but also everyone else, thus ensuring that politicians have no incentive to try to raise more money than their competitor. Without that built-in leveling, you cannot have a truly free election.

You may want to run your state or your country like a PTA meeting, but the founders had a much better grip on the tyrrany and foolishness of the simple majority and capricious elections. You do sound like someone who would like California, though. That's working out really well, isn't it?

The founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned a world in which the cost to run for President would be equal to an average person's salary over eleven thousand years (based on 2011 U.S. median income). They did their best to make sure that we would not end up in a plutocracy, but we managed to end up there anyway. So clearly, those founding fathers you so are so enamored with didn't know everything....

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Insightful)

ChaoticCoyote (195677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692918)

Excuse me, sonny boy, but "younger" isn't the problem. Some of us old folk (aka, fifty in my case) know what the hell is going on here: We're all being frelled by morons and ignorati with this bill and other pieces of stupid legisilation.

I don't give a damn about who's on my lawn (literally, kids walk thru my yard all the time) -- I want these damned politicians out of my head, thank you very much.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693190)

I'm 50ish too.

and we are young, by politician years.

or dog years? I'm not sure, anymore. (woof!)

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

Rozzin (9910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693284)

Excuse me, sonny boy, but "younger" isn't the problem. Some of us old folk (aka, fifty in my case) know what the hell is going on here: We're all being frelled by morons and ignorati with this bill and other pieces of stupid legisilation.

"frelled"? I guess you are old--still using Farscape slang? The kids have moved on to Battlestar (`reimagined'), and the preferred euphemism for "fuck" is now "frak"....

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693342)

Fra(c)k is not from the reimagined version. It's from the original.

1979 vintage.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694144)

Gorrammit, there's more to life than ruttin' sci-fi slang.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693502)

Fifty is quite young in Congress.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693828)

"or are heavily educated in the ways that this shit works"

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Interesting)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692954)

That statement assumes that those elected officials currently in office and favor such legislation do so out of ignorance. As has been noted, it's not technological ignorance that motivates the push for SOPA: it's money. We're talking LOTS of money, offered by the entertainment industry lobbyists.

Everyone needs to wake up and realize that we don't live in a representative system of government. We live in a plutocracy, in which government policy is shaped solely by those who have the money and power to buy it. The Citizens United SCOTUS decision was not so much evidence of such bribery as it was a reflection of the brazen impunity with which corporations now feel they may act. Same thing with SOPA and Protect-IP. The government knows EXACTLY what it's doing. Don't think for one second that they're just clueless, doddering old fools who barely understand email. They know full well the consequences of their actions--they just don't care, because they're being paid off. Most Americans in their place would do the exact same thing.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693270)

I did not know this kind of thing growing up. that was the 70's and some of the 80's and there was no mass communication other than the boob tube, for us. it spoke and we watched. at school, the approved textbooks gave us the 'view' on things. we really didn't know any better! the disney view of life they rammed down our throats (cops are trustable good guys, politicians care about us, judges and lawyers are honest. ok, the last one was never ever taught, lol) is mostly what we knew. dissent was not allowed and effectively was filtered.

but NOW, its really different. kids at school can hear the bullshit preaching by the teachers who are paid to carry the company line and not really tell things how they are - then they can come home, login and read the real truth by people, totally unfiltered and make up their own minds! the info is NOW THERE for them. it wasn't for me when I was growing up.

this is a huge difference from now compared to ALL of mankind's past. ALL of it. for the first time in earth history, people can directly exchange ideas even if they are not approved ideas by their current state. that's HUGE. and its hugely scary to those in usual old-style control positions.

my point is that there is hope for the future because the next generation will be at least potentially informed about how the world really runs. they can possibly make it different. if they do not, they have a LOT of blame on their hands. we have half the blame (us older guys) but the new ones can see how bad the architecture is and try to correct it when they get power, when they grow up.

I don't see change in my generation or lifetime. but I would hope for it for the next one.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693700)

Well, they're doddering old fools who barely understand email but they have a finely honed sense of Big Brother and all the fun that flows from there.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693034)

If Obama is any indicator, it might move us ever so slightly but not fully in that direction. Nevermind tech. He's eased up a bit on drug laws; but he hasn't radicly overturned them the way some people hoped. I'm waiting for somebody to stand up at one of those "town hall" meetings and ask him, "Mr. President, how do you think your life would have turned out if you actually got a criminal record for your cocaine use, and how does that influence your stand on drug policy?". The first part is rhetorical. We all know what would have happened to his career if he had actually served time. There was a guy from my HS (White, BTW) who did time for a very small ammount. I'd like to see him run for office.

It's corruption, not ignorance (4, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693090)

The bill was drawn up by lobbyists. Congress don't know, and don't want to know what the bill is about. All a matter of who pays for the campaign contributions.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (3, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693130)

"Democracy is always 10-20 years behind technology."

I'd quote the guy's name but you probably wouldn't know who he is, so no point. He's one of Canada's leading expert witnesses, in both handling physical and electronic evidence. That includes wire taps, electronic communication, and so forth. The cold reality is, government is always playing catch up, the problem is, in this case they're seeing the internet as a "printing press" moment. If you go back, you'll see similar panicking over the masses having the ability to print whatever they want.

The difference this time is that people can slow them down and rap their knuckles over it. Otherwise you get a mishmash of laws that do nobody any good or go too far in what they're supposed to do, and give overly broad powers, instead of 'just enough' to law, and in other cases "idiots".

Holograms (1)

lopaka1998 (1352441) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693300)

No shit. A third of them aren't even alive anymore anyway. They simply exist as a hologram. Anyone see Nancy Pelosi lately? Don't tell me someone can naturally be that ugly! Oh no - it's just our computer hardware and software can't project a good looking person just yet. So if you were wondering why there were do many old, ugly people in congress, here's why!

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693498)

We threw out the worse where I live, Rick Santrum. We voted in a co-sponsor of PIPA instead. The worse is now a presidential candidate.

Sometimes voting them out backfires.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

cloakedpegasus (1761746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692882)

I like the tone of your comment. However I would have to continue it with something along the lines of: What are you nerds doing to keep this cycle from continuing? It feels like the slashdot crowd has the right feeling about this, if only we did some follow through...

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693136)

Sorry to be cliche... but they need to be hit where it hurts. Primarily their wallets and as a secondary, their ego's and pride. They need to be shown just who the fuck runs this internet. No one and everyone. The weak shall perish, or in this case, the stupidly ignorant and greedy old bastards. This IS evolution. Make Darwin proud.

They want to squeeze the net for every last dollar, don't let them. DDoS any and every commercial site owned by them. Compromise any and every database to deter anyone from doing business with them. Get every single occurrence of "hollywood accounting" and equivalent dirty deeds made FULLY public. SPAM THAT SHIT IF NEED BE! Sue them for any and every reason both legit and non. In addition to those last two items, make stuff up. Lies suit them just fine. It's time for them to be the victims of their own favorite tricks for a change. Get trigger happy. There is no easy solution, no quick kill, rather they should die from a thousand cuts. Slow and painful, it's only fitting. That's how they roll. No mercy.

Of course, I suggest this as a last resort. Give those in power a chance to kill these bills, a chance to redeem themselves, but if not........Doom.

(captcha: advice) ;)

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693164)

They'll just tack it on the next military expense authorization bill that comes along. No one dares to stand in the way of those.

Re:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693902)

Lamar the despicable needs to be REMOVED from office... along with Patrick Leahy, Howard Berman, Orin Hatch and Joe BIden. I am sure I am missing some others. All these clowns are agents of the RIAA?MPAA. They don't give a DAMN about the artists. All they care about are campaign contributions form big money.

this is were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692712)

so now that we've lost the 7th amendment there going for the 1st...great...

He's a known copyright infringer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692728)

... why should we listen to him?

Translation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692732)

We'll slip this back into some other bill later on when you sheeple are not paying attention.

Bad laws never go away forever in america. They just keep comming back until they stick.

Re:Translation (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692758)

Or international law. Someone at one of several international organizations is bound to bring it up.

Re:Translation (1, Insightful)

ChaoticCoyote (195677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692956)

We'll slip this back into some other bill later on when you sheeple are not paying attention.

Bad laws never go away forever in america. They just keep comming back until they stick.

Ignore the sheeple. They've been around since humans first evolved, and aren't going away anytime soon.

Bad laws do go away, but only with great effort, struggle, and sometimes societal collapse and rebirth. Humanity is due for a good colonic, IMNSHO.

Big Red X (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693434)

The sheeple are asleep beneath blankets of bureaucracy. It is considered normal to not understand tax forms, medical insurance paperwork, and so forth. The bureaucracy is growing to meet the growing needs of the bureaucracy. No amount of smart can keep up!

Seriously Suggest: Take a big red crayon, X the form, and write, "I have above average intelligence and cannot understand this, nor sign it in good faith. Send me a simpler form, please."

If the politicians who vote for SOPA also admitted when they were baffled, admitted the red tape is overwhelming and they cannot in good conscience vote on something so complicated...

Sony (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692744)

The bill should contain a provision for a national holiday any time anyone performs a public cracking of Sony's network.

remember how lobbying ALWAYS works (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692762)

(1) Expect A;

(2) Ask for something else A+B+C, where B and C are even more insane-sounding things and C is pratically unworkable;

(3) Make concessions to get people onside by suggesting that you're prepared to renegotiate on C;

(4) Wait for objections to be made to much of B and a near complete elimination of C;

(5) End up with all of A and a few scraps from B and C.

Notice this pattern in every jurisdiction with every proposed law. Always tackle the principles, which will be in A - you'll probably find that you want to eliminate the bill entirely. (That's at the second reading at the latest, if you're looking at the UK Parliament. Beyond that it's too late unless the increasingly castrated Lords throw up a fuss.)

Re:remember how lobbying ALWAYS works (4, Interesting)

ChaoticCoyote (195677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692996)

(1) Expect A;

(2) Ask for something else A+B+C, where B and C are even more insane-sounding things and C is pratically unworkable;

(3) Make concessions to get people onside by suggesting that you're prepared to renegotiate on C;

(4) Wait for objections to be made to much of B and a near complete elimination of C;

(5) End up with all of A and a few scraps from B and C.

Notice this pattern in every jurisdiction with every proposed law. Always tackle the principles, which will be in A - you'll probably find that you want to eliminate the bill entirely. (That's at the second reading at the latest, if you're looking at the UK Parliament. Beyond that it's too late unless the increasingly castrated Lords throw up a fuss.)

Congratulations on codifying reality succinctly. Hell, this is how most projects work, political or otherwise: Shoot for the moon, settle for what you need.

Which makes me wonder -- why doesn;t the opposition do this? We need to demand freedom, push for flory, and expect to get bits back incrementally. Hell, we aren't goign to repeal the Federal Code, but we might just take a few bites out of it and start something positive.

Often, the best way to defeat someone is to use their own tactics against them. Vote, demonstrate, get involved, fight. Anythign else is just posturing.

Re:remember how lobbying ALWAYS works (2)

BadPirate (1572721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693074)

Clearly put. It seems that the job of a politician is to compromise every value (on either side). Therefore if your opponent asks for something that is odious, as long as you can get that odiousness halved it looks like you have made a success.

The Politician equation is:

(Approved Change) = (Opponents Requested Change) / 2 = (Perceived victory)

Thus the Lobbiest equation is:

(Requested Change) = (Desired Change) * 2

Re:remember how lobbying ALWAYS works (1, Offtopic)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693170)

tl;dr version: "hey, I got this on sale!"

seriously, its how america relates to things.

isn't it interesting (4, Interesting)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692790)

that this would come out just days after Comcast Announced that they've implemented DNSSEC which is not compatable with the DNS blocking provision of SOPA.

Re:isn't it interesting (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693002)

DNSSEC which is not compatable with the DNS blocking provision of SOPA.

I keep seeing this assertion, but there is nothing about DNSSEC which prevents ISPs from blocking domain lookups. What DNSSEC mainly prevents is the forging of DNS responses to redirect users to another server. ISPs can still block the domain resolution by either allowing the request to time out or responding with an error (other than No Such Domain).

Re:isn't it interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693050)

There is, actually. Unsigned SOA records on a signed TLD = invalid.

Re:isn't it interesting (4, Informative)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693080)

What DNSSEC mainly prevents is the forging of DNS responses to redirect users to another server.

Which SOPA/ProtectIP, as written, would require.

By ”consultation with industry gro“ he (1, Redundant)

microbee (682094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692806)

Behind-door meetings with corporate sponsors who brought this bill to his table and deciding what to give up to pass the rest of it.

slashdot tagged it republican because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692848)

... it was actually done by ron paul, and we know on slashdot that good can come only from ron paul. anything that does not come form lord ron paul is automatically bad.

Re:slashdot tagged it republican because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693038)

Right, because nobody on slashdot ever disagrees with Ron Paul about anything. Or you're an idiot. One of the two.

Re:slashdot tagged it republican because ... (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693346)

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain, a Biography

Suppose you were a greedy, power hungry corporate shill. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. --FTF Mr. Clemens

Re:slashdot tagged it republican because ... (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693266)

Hello, 'ronpaulisanidiot'. Posting anonymously today?

What I like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692850)

What I like about the law system, especially in america, is that if you pay to get the law on your side after the facts, you are a dirty criminal, but if you pay to get the law on your side before the facts, and thus push a law down everybody throat, you are a campaign sponsor.

Just like the NDAA 2012 (5, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692872)

First it was not for US citizens, then it was to be changed to exclude US citizens, then .....
All you have now is a signing statement about values to protect you from indefinite detention :)
As for US law enforcement and the inter tubes, recall the 84,000 "a domain" website efforts:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/17533013176/ice-finally-admits-it-totally-screwed-up-next-time-perhaps-itll-try-due-process.shtml [techdirt.com]
Ignore the pre committee PR and follow the bills :) Even the 2 page ones like S. 1698 the Enemy Expatriation Act

NDAA is okay because Obama approved (4, Funny)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693122)

Everybody knows that democrats can do no wrong when it comes to civil rights. Only republicans are bad.

Re:Just like the NDAA 2012 (2, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693258)

Re: NDAA

First it was not for US citizens, then it was to be changed to exclude US citizens, then

And then the version actually signed by the President specifically excluded US Citizens, US Resident Aliens, and ANYONE actually caught inside the USA.

Remember that Obama didn't issue a signing statement because the NDAA allowed indefinite detention of US Citizens, he did that because he thought he ALREADY had the power to detain someone captured outside the USA indefinitely, and didn't like Congress suggesting he needed their permisssion.

DNS changes are meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692934)

Dropping the DNS provisions is meaningless if the "cut off funding" provisions remain.

Classical way of pushing law through.... (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692976)

A law like this can only be pushed through by making it Draconian at first, then filtering a little bit when protest comes in, to end up with a still draconian version with most people feeling that the stinger was removed from the law. It's a simple means of wagging the dog, and it works most of the time.

Re:Classical way of pushing law through.... (3, Funny)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693070)

A law like this can only be pushed through by making it Draconian at first,

I've been playing too much D&D and Skryim the last couple of days, because I completely misinterpreted your post on the first read through.

Stuff Still In (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693018)

The stuff that is still in the bill is still completely unacceptable. It still gives the MAFIAA the power to shut down the revenue of a company based merely on accusations, and removes any liability for payment processors or advertising programs for refusing to do business with a company based exclusively on a hit list written by the MAFIAA.

Between the MAFIAA shutting down the MegaUpload song and Warner's admission in court that checking whether they actually own some copyright is too much trouble, they cannot be trusted with that kind of authority.

Moreover, we have already given them law after law after law for more than a decade. They keep saying, "We need this to stop copyright infringement, even though it is going to be costly, intrusive, and strain the bounds of civil liberties." And it keeps not working, and they keep abusing what we do grant them, and they keep asking for more.

We have given them more than we have given any other industry except maybe the investment banks, and they are still telling us they need more.

It does not make sense for us to keep going to more and more extreme lengths to protect this business model. Either it works in the Internet age, or they need to come up with some ideas for funding their production that does not rely entirely on heavy-handed interference in the marketplace. Centralized enforcement is a blunt and expensive weapon. If this particular government-granted monopoly is no longer a cost efficient means to channel revenue into science and the useful arts, we need to try some new approaches instead of just plugging holes in the failing levee.

Re:Stuff Still In (5, Insightful)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693208)

Lets not forget the part of the law that makes infringement a FELONY eligible for serious prison time. Thats the part that seems the most draconian to me. Lets make an example out of Susie Homemaker by making her do some hard time for downloading a Kenny G song. Seriously??? Haven't they ruined enough lives already by suing everybody in sight?

What other serious flaws might it contain? (3, Interesting)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693026)

Given that the DNS provisions were seriously flawed, so much that they're simultaneously ineffective and would break many things on the internet, what other serious flaws are in the bill? If something that major "slipped past" all the sponsors and people promoting the bill, I have no faith that the rest of it is any better. Until the whole thing has been thoroughly reviewed for technical feasibility and constitutionality, the whole bill needs to be put on indefinite hold.

Anything that bypasses or takes shortcuts on due process is absolutely unacceptable. And, there must be severe civil penalties and recourse, and possibly criminal penalties for false allegations.

"On second thought, North Korea is doing it wrong" (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693054)

Nice to see that our lawmakers are happy to modify a extremely ludicrous law and exchange it for a very ludicrous one.

I believe I speak for everyone here... (4, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693114)

When I quote the first post from last night's thread on PIPA:

Fuck you. We still don't want it.

Republicans love Big Government when it suits them (4, Interesting)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693120)

Notice how the Republicans are fine with Big Government, as long it is to the benefit of corporate interests.

Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (5, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693286)

Notice how the Democrats have the exact same problem?

Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693680)

The Democrats have plenty of their own problems, but they're not the ones always yelling about small government while voting up laws that make the government bigger and more intrusive.

Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (1)

MechaStreisand (585905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694086)

Nope, they just vote up laws that make the government bigger and more intrusive without yelling about small government at all. That's much better.

Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694148)

At least it's honest.

Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693302)

Republicans want government out of the board room, but don't care if they are in your bedroom.

Democrats want the same things republicans want, but they don't care about your bedroom as much.

Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693456)

Tad blind are you?

People in both parties are in on the power/money bandwagon.

That most reviled amorphous demographic, the tea party, is actually against this. They're not really racist.

Occupy and the tea party are next door neighbors.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693184)

"We will continue to look for ways," Smith continued, "to ensure that foreign Web sites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers."

As are many "geeks", I'm very glad to see this. And i appreciate the way he's redirecting the issue to preventing US residents from being courted by those who sell stolen material and counterfeit goods, while working within the laws of foreign nations to pursue the guilty under their own nation's laws.

It's all I could ask for. Thank you, sir.

Re:Thank you, Mr. Smith. (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693312)

Downloading isn't theft, but when you convert the download to physical media and sell it, or otherwise distribute the content for a fee, it BECOMES theft because you've applied a monetary value to the content you downloaded.

Re:Thank you, Mr. Smith. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693864)

aren't you proud that US citizens are now referred to as consumers instead, Mr. Astroturf?

Day Late Dollar Short Big Govt Reply (4, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693232)

Just pull the plug on SOPA and nobody gets hurt.

This means you too, EA.

I've given you tens of thousands of dollars over the decades, but my checkbook and credit card is shut if you don't back down.

Lamar Smith needs to lose his job over this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693376)

Smith is up for re-election in this cycle, and if the SOPA-hating world united as one against him being re-elected, it would start to send the type of message that Congress needs to hear every day.

If I had found out about his support of SOPA before the cutoff to get my name on the primary ballot, I would have run against him myself.

We Need a Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693602)

Assuming that governments all over the world will try to dominate the open and free internet, what technical solutions exist today (or can we develop) to prevent this governmental censorship. Are there open DNS servers where I can point my resolv.conf at, that aren't under the control of my ISP and/or my government?

Oh, and BTW, FU Lamar Smith.

Captcha: Paranoia -- no shit.

What's left in SOPA minus DNS blocking? (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693844)

I thought that was most of it. What is left now?

Piracy was already illegal... how does the law change without the DNS issue?

NOPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693976)

NOPE NOPE NOPE! Still don't want it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...