DNS Provision Pulled From SOPA 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.'"
No, he didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
isn't it interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No, he didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
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:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:remember how lobbying ALWAYS works (Score:5, Interesting)
(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.
What other serious flaws might it contain? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It's corruption, not ignorance (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Republicans love Big Government when it suits them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No, he didn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Update
The background image is now gone.
Re:Republicans love Big Government when it suits t (Score:5, Interesting)
Big Red X (Score:1, Interesting)
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...
Re:Update The background image is now gone. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:so what obnoxious bullshit did they leave in? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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....
Smith's Robots.txt allows him to backpedal anon (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like the game companies are in on the fight (Score:5, Interesting)
While we wait for Wikimedia to do their committee thing it looks like about a dozen game companies and communities are going completely dark in sync with Reddit. I see a couple rumors that Google's having internal talks about how to get involved - but it's a very tricky thing. We like other websites, but many of us actually need Google. If enough small fry get involved it could become a big enough deal.
I forget... where were we on shutting down /. for the day?