Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Your Rights Online

PROTECT IP Renamed To the E-PARASITE Act 373

Posted by samzenpus
from the a-rose-by-any-other-name dept.
bs0d3 writes "The U.S. House has drafted their version of Protect IP today. They have renamed the bill to 'the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act' or the E-PARASITE Act. The new house version of Protect IP is far worse than the Senate bill s.968 and it massively expands the sites that will be covered by the law. While the Senate bill limited its focus to sites that were 'dedicated to infringing activities,' the house bill targets 'foreign infringing sites' and 'has only limited purpose or use other than infringement.' They're also including an 'inducement' claim, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be 'inducing' infringement, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. The bill can be read here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PROTECT IP Renamed To the E-PARASITE Act

Comments Filter:
  • American rights? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bucky24 (1943328) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:03PM (#37850018)
    I guess they're really going all the way with "Corporations are people".
    • by elashish14 (1302231) <profcalc4&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:08PM (#37850064)

      The only people, from the sound of it. Copyright harms far more real people than it helps.

      • by andresa (2485876) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:21PM (#37850192)
        It's a good sign of a failing country. US fucked up their economy and many Asian countries took advantage of that by providing real, actual goods to people. The only thing US still has is entertainment industry, so it's not a surprise they're trying to protect that. But eventually it's a lost game, just because people got lazy and spend a lot more than they can, while other people (banks) tried to sell sell sell all those people loans. In the process many people got really rich, but it's not something you can do endlessly.
        • china copys us stuff and pass it off as there own

          • by Luckyo (1726890)

            The main sign of failure in pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 Europe has been copyright crackdown, while New World has been blatantly copying and pirating everything.

            Look at how that story ended up. Truly history keeps repeating itself, and every time we do not learn.

            • by slick7 (1703596) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:14PM (#37850686)

              The main sign of failure in pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 Europe has been copyright crackdown, while New World has been blatantly copying and pirating everything.

              Look at how that story ended up. Truly history keeps repeating itself, and every time we do not learn.

              The true parasites are the corporate banksters and their bought dog lackeys in government. It is said of the mafia that it is like an artichoke, attack any part and the whole will continue to grow. However, salt the whole ground and the plant will die.
              The time to make the environment between corporate and state so toxic that it can no longer flourish is fast approaching.The 99% have a voice, yet, the ears that need to listen only hear the jingling of thirty pieces of silver.

              • by lennier (44736)

                The true parasites are... banksters... dog lackeys... like an artichoke... ears that need to listen... jingling of thirty pieces of silver.

                I for one salute our dog-artichoke-gangster-ear mutant chimera underlords, as long as they don't leak too many toxic fluids onto the carpet.

    • Corporations have been considered legal persons for hundreds of years in jurisdictions based on British law. I don't understand why there's this meme that the Citizens United decision created that...
      • Re:American rights? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nimey (114278) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:16PM (#37850144) Homepage Journal

        That's not even wrong. Nobody said that CU caused that.

        They're saying that CU gave corporations more rights to pour money into politics, thereby giving them more "speech" than natural people. This happens to be true.

      • by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:25PM (#37850228) Homepage

        No. They have not. The Supreme Court decision happened in 1892, IIANM, when a former railroad lobbyist turned clerk of a Supreme Court Justice inserted it into an unrelated decision. The corporate lawyers ran with it, and it became impossible to call back. The trusts and tycoons had been try, without success, for decades to have the SCOTUS declare corporations people. One pro-corp lobbyist in a powerful position did the trick when law and reason wouldn't.

        In 1992, the SCOTUS declared money to be speech.

        In 2010, the SCOTUS removed all limits to corporate spending on lobbying, citing 1992.

        Result: corps, government licensed creatures, now have become the government, cuckoo-like, replacing the substance while the shell remains.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:44PM (#37850382)

          Welcome to the corporatocracy. It looks a lot like the oligarchies that were thrown out in revolutions in the 1700s and 1800s in the Americas and in Europe (like the French Revolution). The only difference is that the "official government" is a sham, while the "real government" - the corporate plutocrats - are holding on to power by telling a bunch of deluded fucking rednecks called "tea partiers" that anyone wise to the corporatocracy is a "socialist" or a "communist."

          • by Grishnakh (216268) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:55PM (#37851030)

            There's a little more to it than that. The corporate plutocrats have effectively used the old maxim "divide and conquer", by having a system where there's only two parties, and there's really no difference between them (when you look at their actions, not their words). They get popular support by pandering to different groups; one panders to religious extremists and "deluded fucking rednecks" as you call them, the other panders to "liberals", "progressives", etc. They tell their target groups what they want to hear, whether it's "hope and change!", or "we need to ban contraception", or "we need to eliminate income taxes" or whatever. Then when they get elected, they simply continue the same policies with little or no change, while distracting the voters with "terrorists", or "the other party is being obstructionist", or "we can't allow this big corporations to fail or else the economy will be destroyed, so we're going to give them a no-strings bailout package", or any other excuse they can come up with.

        • by inviolet (797804)

          No. They have not. The Supreme Court decision happened in 1892, IIANM, when a former railroad lobbyist turned clerk of a Supreme Court Justice inserted it into an unrelated decision. The corporate lawyers ran with it, and it became impossible to call back. The trusts and tycoons had been try, without success, for decades to have the SCOTUS declare corporations people. One pro-corp lobbyist in a powerful position did the trick when law and reason wouldn't.

          Looks like it happened in 1886, in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific [wikipedia.org]. The skullduggery occurred in the case's headnote as published in subsequent law journals. It was perpetrated by former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis.

        • Re:American rights? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by moj0joj0 (1119977) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:51PM (#37851006)

          Please allow me to expand upon this a little bit:

          As early as the mid-1800's the trusts and tycoons had been trying, without success, for decades to have the SCOTUS declare corporations people. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

          In 2003, the SCOTUS declared corporate funding cannot be limited under the First Amendment, in 2010 SCOTUS declared money to be speech and removed all limits to corporate spending on lobbying.

          The corporate person-hood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

          Result: corporations, government licensed creatures, now have become the government, by using their wealth to "unfairly influence elections." This lead to the first stirrings of unrest in the civil populous, most notably the 'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrations, citing no faith in their elected officials because of the undue power wielded by corporations and special interest groups to influence law makers.

          Now, protected by the very institutions that had been in place to protect people, citizens of the United States are denied at least two of the traditional corner stones of a democracy. Those foundations stones being the Ballot and Jury box.

          Timeline: -Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporate political contributions to national campaigns. -Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, landmark campaign financing legislation. -Buckley v. Valeo (1976) upheld limits on campaign contributions, but held that spending money to influence elections is protected speech as in the first amendment. -First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) upheld the rights of corporations to spend money in non-candidate elections (i.e. ballot initiatives and referendums). -Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting that "[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections." -Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain–Feingold), banned corporate funding of issue advocacy ads that mentioned candidates close to an election. -McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), substantially upheld McCain–Feingold. -Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) weakened McCain–Feingold, but upheld core of McConnell. -Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

        • by lexsird (1208192) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:45PM (#37851380)

          I have been pondering how to remove the SCOTUS without just putting a noose around their necks and giving them a good stretch. I think a Constitutional Amendment would do the trick just fine. Is there any other way to eject these seriously deluded people out of these positions of demigods of our State? There has to be a way to remove one if they go bad. If not then our founding fathers seriously dropped the ball on this one.

          Those two acts, one of of declaring money speech and removing all limits to corporate spending to lobbying, are blatant acts of treason against the State. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves like gyroscopes on that. Hasn't it been said, that once the law becomes unlawful, the people themselves will become a law of their own? Or something like that?

          Effectively with the SCOTUS declaring this, has effectively removed all voice from the people in their government. Only the corporations will be served, and our country as we known it has been rendered extinct. You no longer have representation, because those elected will serve those who can dump mountains of cash in their pockets. Because it's free speech and corporations are free to speak because they are people.

          Wow, that is so fucked in the head it's surreal. If you look at the history of corporations, you will see how they were only allowed with control, but they have been struggling to gain more and more power until at last they have it all. Sweet Jesus, we are seriously fucked. Someone tell the OWS people to pack it in and go home, the SCOTUS has sold us out, we can't change the laws now even if we wanted to.

          Lets consider this big shit sandwich for a second before we all have to take a bite. Corporations are multinational entities. This means that we now have unknown foreign entities with unlimited influence upon our State. Do you think we will now have a prayer of stopping our labor/industry from being exported to whatever third world country that works for next to nothing? Nope, so give a big kiss and a wave goodbye to American jobs. Without American jobs, the 99% become quickly vagrants, no home, no vote.

          This is now the land of the corporations. They will thin the herd. They don't need us any more. They are setting on their money, just waiting for us to starve out, die off, while their political lackeys will cut off any help to the bottom end. They will then proceed to shove everyone not in their service down through the meat grinder, no safety nets, just whirling blades of homelessness, no medical, no food, no voice. Say hello to the American Gulags, the concentration camps, and if you are lucky prison. If you are extra special, you can have the treat to serve in their jackbooted enforcement corps or as a thug putting their thumbscrews on the last of the free world.

          The sad thing is, we deserve it. We have been stupid enough to just let them get by with creeping up on us. We watch "sports" when we should be watching these criminals against humanity and beating their asses down when they stick they heads out of whatever hole from Hell they crawl out of. We have fucked around with our own indulgences, while our slavery chains have been forged loudly right on our hands and feet. Forget "Bread and Circuses", we are mesmerized by Hollywood, fast food, cable TV, all the indulgences of the Internet. We have been reduced to gutless, spineless cowards who will just bow down and take whatever our Overlords decide for us.

          Watch now as these foolish protestors who are a decade too late, are made examples of. They will be crushed, and you will set on your fat asses and make excuses for those who destroy them or why "you can't get involved". That sickly feeling you will experience in your gut, that is the soul of your once great nation dying, and the shame will be overbearing. How ironic! The great American, taken down, not with an epic fight or struggle, but handed over by a bunch of simpering, ignorant pussies, not worthy of being the descendents of the forefathers who bled and sacrificed, only so that their heirs could just piss their freedoms away.

          R.I.P America

          You deserved going out a more glorious and dignified way.

        • by westlake (615356)

          No. They have not. The Supreme Court decision happened in 1892, IIANM, when a former railroad lobbyist turned clerk of a Supreme Court Justice inserted it into an unrelated decision. The corporate lawyers ran with it, and it became impossible to call back.

          American law has treated the corporation as a person from the beginning.

          Seven years after the Dartmouth College opinion the Supreme Court decided Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet, (1823) ...Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons. Seven years later, Chief Justice Marshall stated that, "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."

          Corporate personhood. [wikipedia.org]

          Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [wikipedia.org] (1886) is of interest only for its headnote:

          The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

          "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

          In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.

          Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

          Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

          Waite replied:

          I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report in as much as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

          And that is that.

          Davis was 64 years old in 1886, a retired judge and career diplomat. He was not a clerk and he was not a lobbyist.

          It is dishonest to try to demonize him.

          The Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States is the official charged with editing and publishing the Court's opinions both when announced and when they are published in permanent bound volumes of the United States Reports.

          Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States [wikipedia.org]

          Newburgh is on the Hudson River 60 miles north of New York City.

          Population 17,000 in 18

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Corporations have been considered legal persons for hundreds of years in jurisdictions based on British law. I don't understand why there's this meme that the Citizens United decision created that...

        Read up on the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad to see how the modern concept of corporate personhood got started. Prior to that, there was a long standing concept of "natural person" and "artificial person".

  • Land of the free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:04PM (#37850034)

    Enjoy your police state.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kbg (241421)
      It seems USA is becoming more and more a police state with total disregard for human rights and law. People are being tortured and locked up indefinitely with no trial or jury and no one seems to think there is anything wrong with that, including the president or congress.
  • inducement? (Score:5, Funny)

    by click2005 (921437) * on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:05PM (#37850038)

    Wouldn't that cover any site that ever mentions copyright infringement in a non-negative light?

    Copy movies, games & music!!!!!

    bye slashdot!

  • House v Senate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:07PM (#37850058) Homepage Journal
    The conservative democrats in charge of the senate drafted a scary but not terrifying bill. The conservative republicans in charge of the house responded by making a terrifying bill to rectify it with. That is what we get when we keep pushing all of our politicians further to the right. Next, President Lawnchair will proclaim this bill to be a great victory for the American people and sign it into law to show how he can work with his fellow conservative politicians in Washington DC.
    • Re:House v Senate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:46PM (#37850392)
      This has nothing to do with left and right. It has to do with the inevitable road to subservience that government control of social policy always leads to.
      • Re:House v Senate (Score:4, Insightful)

        by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:11PM (#37850658) Homepage Journal

        This has nothing to do with left and right. It has to do with the inevitable road to subservience that government control of social policy always leads to.

        Sure looks like another case of government selling out to corporate interests to me. The government has shown for some time that they care very little what the people have to say, as long as their sponsors are happy. This bill is yet another act aimed at pleasing the sponsors.

        If we elected politicians from more than one party in this country we might have less of this and more governance of substance.

        • Re:House v Senate (Score:4, Insightful)

          by 7-Vodka (195504) on Thursday October 27, 2011 @12:33AM (#37852530) Journal
          Government ALWAYS turns into a tool of oppression for those with power, be they corporatti, clergy, royalty, gangsters or ambitious politicians.

          This is why the american constitution was written explicitly to make sure that the government is granted limited powers by the people; not that the people are granted rights by the government.

  • chill out, guys (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is a House bill. The President can always veto it, and that's assuming it gets past the Senate. Call your Congressman, call your Senators, write the White House. There's still a chance for the people to lobby against this.

    • by click2005 (921437) *

      Veto it? With a media-cartel funded puppet as the V.P?

    • by Nimey (114278)

      Yes, but Obama's a moderate Republican and the Senate Dems are either useless, in the corps' pockets themselves, or both.

      There's always a chance, but in this case it's probably not a good one.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      You also have to keep in mind that with stuff like this they ask for the entire universe so they have room for 'negotiation', and they only wanted the moon in the first place...

      Still bad tho

    • A veto doesn't help when a bipartisan bill clears both houses by unanimous consent; they'll just go right ahead and unanimously override the veto.
  • by orphiuchus (1146483) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:12PM (#37850102)

    When you're response to garbage like this changes from outrage, and a motivation to act, to a sigh and a slump of the shoulders.

    You know what? Fuck it. The majority in this country doesn't understand or care whats going on in Washington, and the corporations now run both political parties, but at least I get to keep my guns. Well, I cant use them in self defense anymore, but they sure do look neat.

    • by Nimey (114278) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:19PM (#37850160) Homepage Journal

      We sure manage to make western Europe look good, don't we?

    • by Carewolf (581105)

      They even name the act PARASITE now, just to mock you. They know IP is parasitic, and they are telling you they know, and they will still pass it while laughing at you at the same time.

      Actually that some pretty high-class douche-baggery.. I am both impressed and slightly scared.

    • by Sipper (462582)

      You can either scorn apathy, or become apathetic yourself, but somehow you've done both. Interesting dichotomy.

      I think the acronym "E-PARASITE" makes it clear that the bill is a big "fuck you". This is good, because it gives us something obvious to hate, rather than calling the bill something like "PROTECT " and making it seem as if we're supposed to like the shit sandwich that it is. However my concern is that with all of this trying to "protect IP", there doesn't seem to be any recognition within gover

  • by ejtttje (673126) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:17PM (#37850152) Homepage
    For all those who argued against net neutrality as promoting "regulation", see how little help that was, they will try to regulate anyway. We might as well get the useful consumer protections against corporate manipulations while they are/were available, otherwise we'll just get stuck with regulation at both gov't and corporate levels.
  • The internet is becoming cable TV, monitored by the most complete surveillance state imaginable. Congrats. Told you so ten years ago.

    • So you like to remind us every once in a while (earlier today?), not counting all the other things that happened 10 years ago or the general notion in other posts that the shape of the internet is changing into something used for surveillance and stifling in freedom.
      ( Though your comment record doesn't go back 10 years.. curse you, Slashdot :) )

      There's two observations to be made there, though...
      1. You don't need to be a prophet to reach that conclusion.
      Information (and money) is power. Governments want po

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:19PM (#37850172)

    Infringing on (RIAA's) Copyright & Profitability - Pirate Bay
    Infringing on (RIAA's) Copyright & Profitability - Weird Al, cover tunes on YouTube, fair use, time shifting (all unlicensed DVRs)
    Infringing on (Microsoft's) Patents & Profitability - Ubuntu & Android (and All Linux)
    Infringing on (Apple's) Patents & Profitability - RIM (darned Canadians Eh?)
    Infringing on (Fox New's) 'Truth' & Profitability - BBC, CBC, Al Jezeera
    Infringing on (Catholic Church's) 'Truth' & Profitability - Scientific Publications, Tax-Free Status (and, well, reality)
    Infringing on (Corporate 1%) 'Truth' & Profitability - Government Regulation, Democrats, 'Occupy Everywhere'
    Infringing on (Government & Corporate) 'Truth' & Profitability - Anonymous, Occupy Everywhere, 'Free Thinkers'
    Infringing on (Corporate) 'Truth' & Profitability - Google (by providing access to views that challenge 'Everything is fine')

    Expect some harsh censorship in this 'Land of Free' (copyright used without permission)

    • Infringing on (RIAA's) Copyright & Profitability - Pirate Bay Infringing on (RIAA's) Copyright & Profitability - Weird Al, cover tunes on YouTube, fair use, time shifting (all unlicensed DVRs) Infringing on (Microsoft's) Patents & Profitability - Ubuntu & Android (and All Linux) Infringing on (Apple's) Patents & Profitability - RIM (darned Canadians Eh?) Infringing on (Fox New's) 'Truth' & Profitability - BBC, CBC, Al Jezeera Infringing on (Catholic Church's) 'Truth' & Profitability - Scientific Publications, Tax-Free Status (and, well, reality) Infringing on (Corporate 1%) 'Truth' & Profitability - Government Regulation, Democrats, 'Occupy Everywhere' Infringing on (Government & Corporate) 'Truth' & Profitability - Anonymous, Occupy Everywhere, 'Free Thinkers' Infringing on (Corporate) 'Truth' & Profitability - Google (by providing access to views that challenge 'Everything is fine')

      Expect some harsh censorship in this 'Land of Free' (copyright used without permission)

      My kingdom for a mod point.

  • Bring it on (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:20PM (#37850176) Homepage Journal

    The internet will go darknet so fast it will make their heads spin.

    • Yeah? How well do you think that's gonna work with deep packet inspection? And please, save your breath about encryption. That too, will be restricted...

      • by Bucky24 (1943328)
        I imagine someone clever will find a way to do encryption without being apparent that it's encryption.
    • I was just doing some darknet browsing and there is a healthy amount of stuff on there. About half of it is child porn, but still, the number of sites is encouraging.

  • Implementing a nationwide Internet filter is not an easy task. I'm not sure they are serious about actually enforcing the bill. But if they do, it will be funny watching Google and Facebook and the like move out.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      Not hard at all to do since there are so few ISP's left in the country, and they all feed back to the same backbone anyway.

      Sure, hard core people can get around it, but not 99% of the citizens who can barely turn their PC on. And besides, if you don't know its out there, they wont even look for it. ( assuming that search engines will be soon forced to remove any search results or be faced with blockage themselves )

      • by Joe U (443617)

        So, make it accessible.

        Find some way to build a program that people want and bury in the terms of agreement that you are a node on a vpn darknet.

        • by Bucky24 (1943328)
          Hmmmm use the corporations own weapon, obfuscation of the EULA, against them. Clever, very clever.
    • by Dynedain (141758)

      Hmmm.... convince AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, Covad, Sprint, and TMobile to all participate in "voluntary" filtering on all their services (including backhauls and wholesale services) and you've effectively implemented censorship for 90%+ of US consumer internent access.

      Once you consider the vested interest those same major ISPs have in content generation or delivery (TV service offerings, production studios, etc) it's pretty obvious why they'd get on board with this kind of plan.

  • by hipp5 (1635263) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:22PM (#37850198)
    E-PARASITE? Really? I fucking hate forced acronyms. At my undergrad university there was a group called DREAM - Discovering the Reality of Educating All Minds. Their goal was good (building schools in developing countries) but I refused to ever donate to them because I hated their acronym.
    • by mattventura (1408229) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:41PM (#37850362) Homepage
      I think its a great acronym. The RIAA, MPAA, and the other groups behind this bill are complete parasites, and I think they deserve to have a bill named after them.
    • Their goal was good (building schools in developing countries) but I refused to ever donate to them because I hated their acronym.

      So, do you have any nose left or are you still angry at your face?

  • I must say, rarely in the history of bullshit-acronymed bills do you see one so honestly named...

    It's just the minor matter that the name refers to the bill's friends, and not to their enemies. A pity, that.
  • by Jethro (14165)

    Does someone get paid specifically to come up with these names? I can't decide if they should be paid a lot more or be tarred and feathered.

    • They should be paid way more. Thousands of times more.

      And prohibited to work to any cause worth supporting.

  • What is wrong with the US?

    What ever happened to free speech and the land of the free?

    • What ever happened to free speech and the land of the free?

      It was lacking some profit optimization.

    • by Bucky24 (1943328)
      As improbable as it may seem, the US is still not as bad as China. But we're headed there.
  • It's kind of hypocritical to preach about copyrights providing the teeth to software licensing, while ignoring the demands of other copyright holders.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      I will no longer feed my OCD-like compulsion to collect media. It's not like I watch what I download, anyhow. I just archive it for later, but later never seems to come.

  • I sometimes wonder if there is any sense of irony in those who name those bills. For second I figured it cannot possibly be real. Back to earth..

    I skimmed through the text and found a nice little nugget stating search engines have to make sure the offending sites cannot be found. That will be fun.

    I also find it especially heart warming that our leaders have time to draft this while the country is literally falling apart. Sigh, time for another letter to my, supposed, representative.

  • On Piracy... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sasayaki (1096761) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:43PM (#37850376)

    I'm in the process of writing a book, called Lacuna: Demons of the Void, seen here [lacunaverse.com]. I'm just in the final review and cleanup pass now.

    The first three chapters are available for free, and are CC-BY-SA-NC; this means that you can legally and safely write whatever fanfiction you want, or pass the sample chapters around, or change and remix them or do whatever you want basically as long as you don't sell it, don't change the licence and credit me appropriately.

    I did this because if the book (and subsequent sequels if any) gets popular, I didn't want to get old and fat and retarded and turn into the next George Lucas, grabbing hold of my precious precious IP and never letting go.

    Anyway. This law is basically insane.

    I've never understood musicians, writers and artists who get all messed up about digital piracy. It just strikes me as entirely retarded, especially if they're not in full compliance with every piece of software, hardware, music and movies they've ever seen or owned. I'm sure their $2,000 copy of Adobe Photoshop is fully legitimate now and was when they were 14, and I'm sure they've never downloaded an MP3 in their life.

    I see this crap everywhere. I see rap artists thumbing their nose at society, waxing lyrical about sticking it to the man, pimping hoes, glorifying robbery, murder and pushing drugs, while at the same time appearing bereaved that their latest forgettable album appeared on The Pirate Bay the day after it appeared in iTunes. I see armies of cocaine huffing, hooker bashing, Harvard educated RIAA trust-fund babies who've never wanted for anything in their life but a full head of hair, going on about how Limewire costs them the GDP of the entire world ($75,000,000,000,000 dollars) in lost revenue and also, simultaneously, claiming to have had one of their most profitable years ever. How do you even rationalize that kind of blatant, intrinsic wrongness?

    Fuck those guys.

    • by microbox (704317)

      Fuck those guys.

      Hypocrites indeed. Happiness doesn't come from their crap anyway. Not being able to download something is nothing to get bent out of shape about. If this law is ever enforced, then we'll just see a sharp contraction in MAFIAA profits, and it will serve them right. Nothing of real value will have been lost.

  • by jpapon (1877296) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @06:53PM (#37850464) Journal
    A long, long time ago...

    I can still remember

    How that music used to make me smile.

    And I knew if I had my chance

    That I could make those people dance

    And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.

    But legislation made me shiver

    With every takedown I’d deliver.

    Bad news on the doorstep;

    I couldn’t take one more step.

    I can’t remember if I cried

    When I read about their lawless crime

    But something touched me deep inside

    The day the freedom died.

  • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:07PM (#37850608) Homepage

    In the United States, people accused of a crime are guaranteed a trial and presumed innocent until proved guilty. Under the E-PARASITE Act, a website is presumed to be infringing unless and until the affected party can, if allowed to do so by the government, prove to the government that the website is perfectly legal. What a shameful perversion of a justice system that prides itself in being a model of justice.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:07PM (#37851900)

      In the United States, people accused of a crime are guaranteed a trial and presumed innocent until proved guilty.

      Tell that to the people in Guantanamo Bay...

  • Sometimes the only way to get something fixed is to break it all the way.
  • You mean, senators named the bill after themselves ? with a hip, trendy 'e' prefix in compliance with digital age ?
  • by gstrickler (920733) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:10PM (#37851140)

    Egregiously Purloining Anyone's Rights by Arbitrarily Stifling Information Transfer for Enterprises.

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante

Working...