New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites 115
angry tapir writes "An upcoming version [PDF] of U.S. legislation designed to combat copyright infringement on the Web may include provisions that hold online services such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube legally responsible for infringing material posted by users, according to one group opposed to the bill. 'If Demand Progress is correct about the House version of PROTECT IP, the bill would overturn parts of the 13-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect websites and ISPs from copyright lawsuits for the infringing activity of their users.'"
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We won't see reform, we will only see Google lose. The recording industry spends an insane amount of money in all kinds of lobbying and has shifted the general "common sense" to its side. It is reaching the point when lawmakers, judges and the general population always side with the powerful recording companies, no matter how insane their claim.
Re: (Score:1)
Lucrative lawsuits, maybe?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's annual profit is bigger than the recording industry's entire revenue
RIAA: Lawsuit time, fuckers!
Google: I crap bigger than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, when all the blockbuster movies are making fun of a political party they find it a lot harder to get elected. So, political parties try not to tick off Hollywood/etc too much.
Oh, and the same basic circles own all the news media, and get to pick the questions asked during the presidential debates/etc. They have considerable influence on what people think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are just really good at it, far more skilled than even the giant of the tech industry.
RIAA: "I'll give you some money to vote for this bill."
Google: "Vote against this bill or I will ensure your name is nowhere to be found on the entire Internet, and attempts to search for you will deliver your opponent's web site instead."
You don't have to be skilled, if you are God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's annual profit is bigger than the recording industry's entire revenue
You're absolutely right. The MAFIA can't outspend Google on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is Google.
And that is why the poster said Google, no YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately Google's ability to spin doctor is about as good as their attention span. Which is to say neither is anything to write home about...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
On on every YouTube page, at the end of every YouTube video, etc..
As well as on every TV and Radio station and probably pioneer beaming it straight into your eyes when you walk down the Mall in D.C.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have to spin it at all. All Google must do to ensure that this bill never sees the light of day is to send one letter, signed by its CEO, to every single member of Congress that says:
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Why don't we think a little bigger?
This could (could!) effectively hamper, or even shut down, people's ability to talk about/self-advertise media content to each other on the internet.
The **AA seem hell bent on stopping anyone from viewing their content, they're being completely self-destructive. Let's LET this through!
Why are we fighting this!? Are we SO worried about TV shows that we will spend millions/billions of dollars on this stuff? Let them win, see their revenue shrivel to nothing.
Givin
Re: (Score:1)
This may be exactly what our government wants!
People are not happy. The "occupy wall street" movement is alive. Traditional (i.e. controllable) news sources are now competing with citizen's cellphone reports. People are demanding acco
Re:torch the tech industry (Score:3)
Really, this article is interesting because we might see a real risk of corrupt stuff flying everywhere. So far the Copyright War has involved "third tier sites" that the public doesn't really care about. However, taking the theory in the summary as is, if we lost Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, would that in fact be enough to end "Web 2.0" and kick us over into some kind of Walled Garden Web 3.0?
The other possibility I see is a "differently-horrible" possibility of a site buying a "waiver" for insane amoun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, seriously, I don't understand how any non-imbecile can consider this seriously for even a moment. I mean, being ignorant of technology is one thing, being a complete dumbfuck is quite another.
Witness the power of greed and entitlement.
Re: (Score:2)
No we wont.
Nothing gives politicians a hardon more than hanging round with a rock star or hollywood star whilst they think about what it'll do for their ratings.
Hanging round with Larry and Sergei? Not so much.
Until tech starts giving politicians what they want, be it improved ratings, bribes, a signed copy of some famous twat's guitar, that sort of thing, then it'll always come second place to the likes of hollywood which absolutely excels in corrupt practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Google could probably name names of people responsible
Quick: Who was responsible for the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998? We don't know because both bills were passed in both houses by a unanimous consent procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who was responsible?
Sonny Bono - or the tree. Take your pick.
In all fairness, if he would have managed to miss it they would not have a nice name to hang on the bill, possibly making a bit harder to pass without the sympathy votes as cover.
Yes, it still would have passed. Disney demanded it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see the MAFIAA sue Google. Yahoo and MS/Bing would join in with amicus briefs because they know they would be next on the list. While the court case proceeded, there would be LOTS of lobbying dollars getting the law changed.
Which points out one of the flaws of allowing corporations to make campaign contributions and lobby congress. Money should not make law. But for now, that's what we have to deal with, so use it until we can change the system.
Re: (Score:2)
This law isn't about civil lawsuits. It's about granting private entities police authority. It is the promotion and extension of fascism.
Legislatures need to understand that not all laws need to be passed and that not all even need to be considered. They also need to understand that they are inept at the law governing intellectual property. I'm sayind that they are clueless about intellectual property, copyright, etc. I'm saying that it takes years of experience and special courses covering IP for atto
Going for gold (Score:1)
This will be great for IP trolls that are tired of nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now they can go after the corps with big bucks.
Going for Gold (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiife
Oi, that's mine! Right, that it's, I'm suing Slashdot.
Yours sincerely,
Mr W. Disney (deceased).
PS. My pal Joseph McCarthy (also deceased) says that anyone disagreeing with this law is a filthy stinking commie.
This one at least has a chance of not passing (Score:4, Insightful)
The tech companies such as Google will probably be against it, so they'll be at least some campaign cash to be had by voting Nay. Up until now, it had always been a matter of corporations with cash versus citizens without cash.
who's still angry about YouTube? (Score:3)
I thought most of the big copyright players had more or less agreed with the de facto settlement of a mixture of takedowns (for cases they particularly object to) and slapping ads on YouTube videos so they can profit via Google's revenue-sharing thing (for cases where they'll just take some cash compensation).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not going to happen (Score:3)
They already pulled back Disney's copyrights when they were about to expire. They already tried to make recording artists' work a "work for hire" with the copyright going to the label. Before the labels lose this revenue they will try, and may succeed, in having another law passed that will extend the period.
ugh (Score:2)
Please explain this. (Score:2)
I guess this is one way to get traffic and raise money. Also explains why they are calling for the bills release to be delayed since they could not profit from a known bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I saw the alert tweeted out and read their petition. They are claiming that there are rumors that a bill might be introduced that would make sites liable for the content people post on them. They then claim that this bill would outlaw Twitter and Facebook (along with all other websites that allow comments, of course). The bill that they themselves admitted hasn't been introduced yet and is only a rumor.
While I would definitely oppose such a bill, I'm not going to go chasing away rumors. Once an ac
Re:Please explain this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The time to complain is before the bill is introduced. Once the ball is rolling and it's been introduced and through committee and on the floor, it will be passed by every senate member who has been bought.
That is all of them.
Attacking the messenger does nothing.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Technically Congressmen are also Senators. I take exception with something though, no lobbyist goes to Ron Paul, there is no reason, it's useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically Congressmen are also Senators.
Just as:
Re: (Score:1)
beautiful, and has nothing to do with anything. Good job. Carry on.
Someone was watching? (Score:2)
They are going to try this until somebody falls to sleep and they get it done or run out of money. I fear the day nobody spots it or i gets folded into another bill.
Sorry citizen (Score:2)
All websites must be submitted to Sony for inspection before they can be posted to the Internet. This message brought to you by Carl's, Jr.
Links (Score:2)
So are they talking about links to copyrighted material again, because the only possible illegal thing you could post directly on facebook or twitter is possibly a book spread over hundreds of posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Take really-high-resolution photo.
2. Compress the hell out of it, so it's only 100k. It'll look horrible, but that's ok. It only has to be good enough to pass a quick inspection.
3. Add symmetrically encrypted music file. I hope Vorbis, because MP3 sucks.
4. Post.
Now all you need is for your friends to know what it is. Easiest way is to just tell your trusted followers the key, give the the extraction program and tell them to feed any large i
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
No way this is going to pass. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
No, Google and Facebook are going to request additions to the law that make it infeasible for anyone else to enter the same area they're in. They'll add something such that companies are off the hook completely if they have a "copyright compliance system" or something like that. YouTube's Content ID system will allow YouTube to continue to exist, but new video sites will be fucked because they won't be able to create such a system without help from the studios.
Don't forget, companies aren't there to look ou
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, companies aren't there to look out for our rights. They're there to ensure that the laws are written in such a way that they favor them and help to ensure that the current big players continue to be the only players.
The funny part is that so many slashdot posters demand more laws to PUNISH THE EVIL CORPORATIONS and the corporations get to rewrite those laws to punish anyone new who tries to take over their market. If big government apologists didn't exist, big business would have to create them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No way this is going to pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.
Why should they? They're far too large to attack, even if the law is against them. They could just sit back and let the Content Middleman Industry destroy after any newer, smaller competitors that happen to pop up, while sitting safe and secure behind their nuclear arsenal of lawyers...
Never expected to see this (Score:1)
Who would have ever expected the day would come when we would rather have the DMCA.
slippery slope misunderstanding (Score:1)
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!
I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but ob
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument.
Meanwhile, in the real world, groups who can't get their preferred law passed compromise on a lesser version instead, knowing that it will soon slide down the slope far beyond their wildest dreams. Laws which don't follow the slippery slope are the rare exceptions, not the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!
I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but obvi
Re: (Score:2)
The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:
In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.
so listen up nerd, because nobody should have to tell you this: other people are never referring to the fallacy, they are always referring to the metaphor that if you give in to temptation it can take you over. the one called classical form above. the metaphor doesn't claim that you will slide, as the fallacy does. it just says that staying on solid footing while making the choice in question is difficult because it's slippery (too easy to contin
This may voilate 1ST amendment rights as to be (Score:2)
This may violate 1ST amendment rights as to be safe all forums, blogs, or any place where some is free to post stuff may have to be shut down or be come a place where only admins can post.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations getting the laws they paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA was almost entirely bought by the MAFIAA and so served their interests. The major exception was that the ISPs fought to have safe harbor included to protect their interests. Now the MAFIAA is going for round two, trying to eliminate the major part of the DMCA that didn't get written to their liking.
Next up: The triennial exemption rule. They're tired of fighting exemptions every three years, so this won't last long.
Notice nothing in this has a "for the people" ring to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up for great justice. Most of the important laws are now mud fights between major corporations, with citizens having an input only by voting for who gets to receive the corporate money. The only times our congress critters seem to worry about laws that impact citizens are when it comes to "Think of the Children", "Thar be Terrorists" and "Here's some money for bread and circus".
Meh. I fully expect this abomination to pass.
Re: (Score:1)
laws that impact citizens are when it comes to "Think of the Children", "Thar be Terrorists" and "Here's some money for bread and circus".
reelection, cash income from "security companies", reelection (and/or stock market boost for retail companies)
Whoever thought we would be rallying for the DMCA (Score:3)
While we might have hated the DMCA, the "Safe harbor" provision is something most of us can live with and the public can understand.
Instead of talking about free speech which is an abstraction that most people and politicians don't understand. We should talk about the fact that the so called Protect IP act will encourage frivolous lawsuits, send high paying american jobs overseas, and kill youtube, facebook and twitter and blogging while making trial lawyers rich and clogging up the court system.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA was a big law that did several different, only tenuously-related, things. It had stuff in it very specifically worded to address issues with, and I am not making this up, boat hull designs. Nobody would really claim to hate all of DMCA, unless their objection is systemic (i.e. that law like almost every other law, was passed without public input). I don't even have an opinion on the boat hull design part; like the people who enacted it, I've never bothered to read it. :-)
The anti-circumvention parts
A message (Score:2)
Obvious workaround (Score:2)
It's interesting that a law about IP never mentions blocking IP, only blocking DNS. It also assumes that the registration process doesn't change much.
If one were to use an alternative DNS, this whole thing becomes irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
problem and solution aren't linked (Score:1)
and that is why these things never do as intended.. well that and our stupid system that makes a law about taxes on gas include something for kids wearing bicycle helmets.
this isn't that hard, but we have people pretending to be idiots to get it skewed WAY too far to one side or another.
#1 Ip should be purchased as a license, regardless of media or representation
1a. This license uses a version system as in software. "upgrading" from vhs to blueray quality has a cost, around 30 bucks per disk at present, usi
This is not about IP (Score:2)
This is about killing the Internet as a medium for free speech.
Just great. (Score:3)
So now, we take the one thing in the DMCA that is arguably good (when the rest of the DMCA is taken into context) and they want to gut that?
Why are we so worried about this? (Score:1)
Why don't we just stop fighting?
What's the big deal about needing media? Give it a break for a year or two, let them take over completely to see their revenue shrivel to nothing. Let them die whining and crying about not having anyone to buy or advertise their products.
I'll go back to my books (I have a bunch that I haven't read), I have so much music that I could easily spend the next few years exploring it. What we're addicted to is new stuff.
Let's take a break for a while and let these overpumped dickwe
Tech industry response (Score:1)
Your search - US Government - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Rogue websites? (Score:2)
SEC. 3.
ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.
(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.â"
(1) IN
PERSONAM.â"The Attorney General may commence an in personam action againstâ"
7 (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to in-fringing activities; or
10 (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.
13 (2) IN REM.â"If through due diligence the At-torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
- etc.etc.etc.
I love it. Not only this bill (like EVERY government bill) is going to destroy more freedoms and jobs everywhere, I just LOVE IT how they call anything they don't like 'ROGUE' nowadays.
It's only one step away from being labeled a TERRORIST and then of-course, what are all those unmanned killer drones for, right?
The US government just murdered a 16 year old US citizen - the son of Anwar Awlaki, killed just a little while ago by another drone strike. [go.com]
Be warned, the USA has long ceased to be a n