Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Censorship Government Your Rights Online

PROTECT IP Act Follows In COICA's Footsteps 162

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-come-up-with-a-dumb-acronym dept.
Last fall, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which was dubbed the "internet blacklist" by opponents worried about its broad provisions for allowing the removal of websites based on vague criteria. COICA stalled in Congress, but now Leahy has proposed a new, similar piece of legislation called the PROTECT IP Act (PDF). "Like COICA, Protect IP expands the web of enforcement techniques by requiring advertising networks and financial transaction providers to cut ties to domains found to violate the law. But the new version now adds search engines and others to the list of providers who can be conscripted into complying with court orders. Protect IP would require 'information location tools' to 'take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible,' to remove or disable access to the site associated with a condemned domain, including blocking hypertext links to the site. ... Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party, like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant does not have a US address. That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order effectively shutting the site down."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PROTECT IP Act Follows In COICA's Footsteps

Comments Filter:
  • by elucido (870205) * on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:22AM (#36117128)

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

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

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

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

    So get some money or suffer.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:27AM (#36117184)

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

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

  • Time to ditch DNS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:28AM (#36117188)

    For something less centralized

  • by jhoegl (638955) on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:35AM (#36117228)
    No see... the difference here is that the democrat just wanted the sites de-linked and "hidden".
    but the republican wants the sites de-linked, hidden, and hard to get to. All the while allowing for law suits in an already overworked law suit court system.
    One just wants people to do their best, the other just wants people sued until they dont exist anymore.
    One promotes competition, the other doesnt.
    etc etc.
  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:46AM (#36117316)
    Just keep trying to push through the same law, eventually the other side will stop bothering to fight it and you'll get it to pass.
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:47AM (#36117322) Homepage

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

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

  • by bmo (77928) on Friday May 13, 2011 @10:01AM (#36117434)

    ...swaps spit with Orrin Hatch.

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

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

    Fuckers.

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

    --
    BMO

  • by PhreakOfTime (588141) on Friday May 13, 2011 @10:15AM (#36117564) Homepage

    because maybe he's for individual rights

    Sure, if you are white.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Friday May 13, 2011 @10:27AM (#36117672)

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

    "But he's a democrat."

    Oh.

  • by somersault (912633) on Friday May 13, 2011 @10:35AM (#36117750) Homepage Journal

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

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

  • by bmo (77928) on Friday May 13, 2011 @11:23AM (#36118358)

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

    He is anti-Sherman Antitrust Act.

    And that's all I really need to know.

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

    --
    BMO

  • by somersault (912633) on Friday May 13, 2011 @11:26AM (#36118432) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps not all fiction should be taken as scripture?

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

  • Re:Holy crap .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Friday May 13, 2011 @12:52PM (#36119616) Homepage

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

    And, jurisdiction.

    If I go out into my backyard and do something that would be illegal in some random country ... that doesn't mean I've broken any of that country's laws. That means I've done something which would be illegal if I did it in there. But, I'm not in there, so they can go get stuffed. Nothing I did was on their soil, and wasn't under their jurisdiction.

    If America is going to start violating the sovereignty of foreign countries by going in under cover of night and ... oh, crap, they've already done this.

    Well, then I guess it's time for Iran to start sending in extraction teams to pull out any Americans who have insulted their great, glorious leader who happens to be totally insane, or draw pictures of certain people, or take the lord's name in vain or whatever myriad offenses they can dream up.

    After all, if it's OK for the US, it should be OK for everyone else, right?

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp

Working...