Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Social Networks United States Your Rights Online

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:20AM (#37842654) Journal
    Let the RIAA and MPAA start suing Google and then we might see some real reform...
    • by ciderbrew ( 1860166 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:32AM (#37842732)
      I'd like to see what they do when Google use the "We only make a list of list" defence. Pirate bay will be looking with interest thinking - this will be good.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fned ( 43219 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:21AM (#37843754) Journal

        Google's annual profit is bigger than the recording industry's entire revenue

        RIAA: Lawsuit time, fuckers!
        Google: I crap bigger than you.

        • 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.

    • by dbet ( 1607261 )
      Youtube is Google.
    • I am somewhat less confident that Google's money will necessarily prevail. Between the arrogance of the mafiAA, the ignorance of congress, and the depth of their affair together, I wouldn't put it past them to torch the tech industry in a misguided moral stand to preserve what they see as the last stand of art. I'd really like to hear any non-feeling-based arguments about who is likely to actually prevail here. Got any?
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @09:31AM (#37843198)
        Lots of people use youtube. Google could get massive numbers of people hopping mad at the MAFIAA if they spin it right. Also, Google is bigger and has a lot more money and internet control than the music industry. They could do it. Remains to be seen if they will.
        • by dhall ( 1252 )

          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...

          • Google could put an ad about *AA abuse on every search results page. They could even pay for ad time on Bing.
            • by Lifyre ( 960576 )

              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.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Lots of people use youtube. Google could get massive numbers of people hopping mad at the MAFIAA if they spin it right.

          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:

          This bill requires a level of administrative overhead that is infeasible, both technically and financially. Therefore, if you pass this bill, Google will be forced to shut down access to YouTube fo

          • 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.


          • by anubi ( 640541 )

            This bill requires a level of administrative overhead that is infeasible, both technically and financially. Therefore, if you pass this bill, Google will be forced to shut down access to YouTube for all connections originating within the United States and its territories.

            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

      • 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

        • I imagine Facebook wouldn't go down easy.... Think about all the dirt they probably have on senators.
    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      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.

      • You know what politicians lile even more? Getting elected. Google could probably name names of people responsible, pointing out they are responsible for youtube no longer being youtube, and make sure they never get elected again. They have the presence, if they choose to use it.
        • by tepples ( 727027 )

          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.

          • Ah, but who introduced and sponsored those bills? Google can point to those. Also, simply getting people aware of these laws (most people know little to nothing about the DMCA) could have a huge impact. Google could do that easily.
          • by rworne ( 538610 )

            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.

    • Google, Facebook, Twitter. You can be damned sure they already paid their campaign contributions. And they will continue to do so. Reform, my ass!

    • Its funny. My knee jerk reaction to this is that like the bedroom, the goverment has no right on the internet. However that might not be entirely right....maybe....still thinking.
    • 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.

    • 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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • This will be great for IP trolls who have been nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now all they have to do is hit the big corps for a major payday
  • by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:28AM (#37842708) Homepage

    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.

  • 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).

    • The recording industry is going bankrupt right now. I doubt it'll even exist in 20 years. They're like a lost explorer trapped in quicksand desperately trying to grab vines that keep snapping.
      • by AdamJS ( 2466928 )
        Those vines happen to be the crucial irrigation lines used by society.
      • 2013 (35 years since 1978) will be especially interesting because that's when first artists can take their copyright assignments back and walk away from their record label with their music back in their own hands. Not only the recording industry is running out of money, it'll also run out of music classics pretty soon.
        • 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.

  • I'm very surprised by this new information.
  • So as I understand it some little group, Demand Progress, has released a press release with some made up idea and gossip that an unknown bill designed to matched a known bill will contain some restrictions that may or may not cause youtube and facebook to shutdown. The restrictions to shutdown those sites not being in the know bill
    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.
    • 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

    • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:59AM (#37842916)

      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.


      • Technically Congressmen are also Senators. I take exception with something though, no lobbyist goes to Ron Paul, there is no reason, it's useless.

        • Technically Congressmen are also Senators.

          Just as:

          • Technically, Computers are also laptops.
          • Technicallly, mammals are also cats.
          • Technicallly, a sport is also a type of baseball.
          • Technicallly, Europe is also part of the UK.
          • Technicallly, video games are a type of first person shooter.
          • Technicallly, motorized vehicles are also a type of motorcycle.
          • Technicallly, a natural resource is a type of oil.
          • Technicallly, members of the Dominion are also Jem'Hadar.
          • Technicallly, a tablet is a type of iPad.
          • Technicallly, a deciduous tree is a type of maple.
          • Technica
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • A particually large JPEG file could easily be used to hide a novel or a few minutes of music inside.
      • But then how would they know? You could just say "yes that's a strange looking image. I felt like drawing something abstract involving random dots of color everywhere".
        • Preagrement. You can tag data onto the end of a jpeg easily.
          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
          • No I'm not talking about how the people you WANT to get the file, I'm talking about the people who you want to hide it from. I think I may have misunderstood what OP and GGP were talking about.
  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @09:14AM (#37843038)

    and use every tool in their arsenal to make filing a take down notice a matter of strict liability on accuracy with the legal damages calculated as the combined man hours needed to service the request times the number of requests plus treble damages if a "preponderance of evidence" shows that the notices were sent via an automated process.

  • by JustAnotherIdiot ( 1980292 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @09:16AM (#37843056)
    Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        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.

    • by dskzero ( 960168 )
      And I suppose we have to side with them just to stick it to THE MAN.
    • by Fned ( 43219 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:30AM (#37843850) Journal

      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...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Who would have ever expected the day would come when we would rather have the DMCA.

  • 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.

    • Do you really think lawmakers are gonna care? They've been edging in on first amendment rights for years now. Someone will say "It's to stop all those nasty pirates" and someone else will say "it's for the children" and it will be passed.
  • by Quila ( 201335 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:13AM (#37843654)

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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)

  • by voss ( 52565 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:28AM (#37843822)

    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.

    • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      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 for the nanny state and it's Mafiaa backers: You need us more than we need you. You want to impose draconian measures to ensure protection of your IP but there will come a day when we are not interested in your property.
  • 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.

    • I can think of two explanations for this. Firstly, it might be that the authors know that DNS blocking is trivially easy to bypass via hosts file. Secondly, and in my cynical oppinion far more likely, the authors don't actually know what DNS does.
  • 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 about killing the Internet as a medium for free speech.

  • by LocalH ( 28506 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @01:34PM (#37846342) Homepage

    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 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

  • Your search - US Government - did not match any documents.


    Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    Try different keywords.
    Try more general keywords.
    Try fewer keywords.

  • SEC. 3.

    (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

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury