Internet Blacklist Bill

[hotatlboi]

And that's where you lose the crowd...For most of the artists out there, we try to get some profit from our work, but arguments like this really don't encourage creative works.

How do you figure that?

Nowhere did I express support for copyright infringement or piracy.

I merely stated that the loss figures many companies report are grossly inflated.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with most of which you say, except this. Because there is the need for an actual court order (just like a warrant it needs to go through a judge), someone is going to act as a breaker for it. That is, you can't just wake up and decide to ban a dozen or so sites because you want to; there needs to be an actual legal reason for banning the site.

Also, how precisely is this censorship? You are banning a site because it is breaking an actual law, not because it bothers your ethics. Okay, technically it is, but that's not a legitimate reason to ban the site. It has to be violating copyright/trademark law. The site, as per its summary, must be encouraging or providing the means for others to pirate IP's. Please explain...

Except...

they're already arresting people for content that just passes through their sites -- not on it at all.

And the Supreme Court just approved warrantless searches.
Like they've already approved cops lying creatively to seek information and trick people. And declared cops can search your property without permission if the only barrier can be stepped over. And they can question you without reading you your rights.

The DoJ will take this law and farm out authority, and they'll stretch it just like they're stretching laws already in existence -- stretching to the point of not even resembling them. And when one of those cases, from someone rich enough to be able to afford something resembling justice, makes it to the Supreme Court, by then they'll have thousands of cases of precedent -- accumulated by attacking poor people who can't mount a defense -- and SCOTUS will decide that so long as they have suspicion of seeming misdoing, they can shut down the site, jail the owner, seize all the equipment... and never have to give anything back even if the person, years later and penniless, is found innocent.

And just like on the show COPS, where people have gotten used to seeing police brutality, and taking it for granted, the mere existence of the law will immunize the public against ever-wider application. And if there's another terrorist attack, some future president could pull a Bush and ignore the Constitution, declaring the law to be what he wants it to be, and tens of thousands of sites will be shut down because they can, for any reason that seems "patriotic" to them.

RG

Yeah, it does. That court order acts as a check on the DOJ.

Oh. I see. Conspiracy theories replace actual logic. Neat!
RG

A "check on the DoJ"? Talk about naive -- they have tame judges. And after a while, they'll start arguing that it's necessary to act without judges, and they'll wait till the get just the right case, and SCOTUS will decide they don't actually need a court order if they have "strong suspicions".

And that's no conspiracy theory, it's the history of SCOTUS.

And that's where you lose the crowd...For most of the artists out there, we try to get some profit from our work, but arguments like this really don't encourage creative works. Weird, isn't it: People bitch and moan about the lack of unique and creative works of art, but aren't interested in supporting it. Download the free pirated version of it, GREAT! Actually pay for a copy? Nah. Bad artist! Must only do things for free!

On the other hand, legislation comes along that can actual support the artist by helping protect his rights to his creation, allowing him to get paid for his efforts, and people scream censorship. Aren't the real censors here, the ones preventing art from going forward, the bootleggers and pirates?

RG

There are artists who make some of their work free anyway -- and have been making more money that way.

 

[Corny]

Oh noes. Generic Defense 97, GO!

nothing generic about this one. maybe you are too young, or maybe you just ignored what i mention in an earlier post.

look at the history of the DMCA, look at how the recording industry had to obtain IP address data before, afterwards and today.

 

[White Eagle]

I got this in an email this AM. How does this affect your discussion. Curious.

Great news: We don't always see eye-to-eye with Google, but we're on the same team this time. Google CEO Eric Schmidt just came out swinging against PROTECT IP, saying, "I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems." And then he went even further. From the LA Times:

"If there is a law that requires DNSs, to do X and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it,"

We're making a lot of noise, and the chorus is growing. Will you make sure your friends know about this noxious bill by using these links or forwarding the email below?

The links are to facebook and twitter.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

I'm torn on this issue.

Artists deserve to get paid for their work, and ensuring that they do encourages more original art out there. Pirates are nothing more than petty thieves.

On the other hand, I don't trust the government to not abuse this new power it gives itself.

 

[Corny]

see .. you can replicate art by a lot of things.

for example you can just burn the CDs and mail them.

would you approve of the government going through your mail? or maybe just your e-mail?

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Exactly.

I've had people pirate my signal when I'm legitimately downloading some music -- at least I think that's what "additional recording device activated on remote machine" means when it pops up.

Kids around here swap tunes all the time with thumb drives, too.

This is just a new step in a series of radical changes in the ability to disseminate information. Movable type produced thousands of unauthorized editions -- and that was just the start.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

A "check on the DoJ"? Talk about naive -- they have tame judges. And after a while, they'll start arguing that it's necessary to act without judges, and they'll wait till the get just the right case, and SCOTUS will decide they don't actually need a court order if they have "strong suspicions".

Explains why court orders are no longer required for anything. Oh. Wait. They are still required for just about anything....

And that's no conspiracy theory, it's the history of SCOTUS.

Yeah, as long as you ignore that SCOTUS and DOJ tend to have an almost adversial relationship. The DOJ has been able to get a few things through, but SCOTUS has been able to force the DOJ to back down. A lot.

There are artists who make some of their work free anyway -- and have been making more money that way.

The problem is that the artists need to be immensely popular in order for this to work...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

nothing generic about this one. maybe you are too young, or maybe you just ignored what i mention in an earlier post.

Actually, I'd argue you to be the youngster in this case. I see that defense a lot.

look at the history of the DMCA, look at how the recording industry had to obtain IP address data before, afterwards and today.

The problem with having geek friends, and looking at my statistical data. If you have ever hit one a site, or have ever posted on a forum, your IP information is available to the owner of the site. All I need is to then hit a button, and your IP info is right there. Combined with whois, and I can get a lot more information on you. Its not that mysterious of a process...And that's without a court order.

RG

 

[vforvendetta]

Here's a little known fact: The government isn't actually able to block out a site - the internet sees censorship as damage and reroutes around it. Not my quote, but a memorable expression nonetheless.

 

[Corny]

The problem with having geek friends, and looking at my statistical data. If you have ever hit one a site, or have ever posted on a forum, your IP information is available to the owner of the site. All I need is to then hit a button, and your IP info is right there. Combined with whois, and I can get a lot more information on you. Its not that mysterious of a process...And that's without a court order.

the problem is that i AM a geek and actually and admin of a quite big forum.
i do have access to YOUR ip .. for example. but a whois won't help much.
also this is absolutely not what we are arguing about. they may look at my IP as much as they want - i don't care about that. this is not what the articles are talking about.

and for those who think that a judge will protect you from unwarranted searches .. think again:

http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2011/05/19/riaa-v-the-4th-amendment/

 

[BostonPirate]

There ARE private IP addresses.

 

[Corny]

i am not sure what you are talking about.

private IP addresses are for private use. you cannot use them on the internet, they will not be routed. the 192.168.0.0/16 range for example is a private ip range.

but this is totally offtopic here ..

 

[BostonPirate]

unfortunately I am one of those people that have no idea what this means.

There are alot of us. We get washed away in the technology and dismissed by the techies.

So we just sit back and let things happen as they happen, failing to get interested even though it affects us to a great degree.

Sad to say, this thread furthers that process.

No one has laid down in simple terms what the change IS and how it would negatively impact me. If any attempt to get some sort of information is met with dismissal, well...

the few that understand this will be controlled by dismissed and then disinterested masses.

 

[Corny]

In simple terms: they are trying to install something similar to the "great chinese firewall", they are trying to erect a censorship infrastructure for the internet.

this will "of course" only be used to stop unlawful websites/activities.

this opens a huge pandora's box and there is a long list of reasons what else one could do with such an infrastructure. protocol all your internet habits would be just one of those things.

 

[BostonPirate]

that does not sound good.

I have never seen a good idea that a politician hasn't been able to abuse.

When the very idea seems shaky, its reasonable to assume it will be abused.

 

[Corny]

this is an article that explains why google is against the bill. i believe it is pretty readable, even for non-techs:

http://torrentfreak.com/google-boss-well-fight-anti-piracy-blocking-laws-110519/

 

[Kulindahr]

this is an article that explains why google is against the bill. i believe it is pretty readable, even for non-techs:

http://torrentfreak.com/google-boss-well-fight-anti-piracy-blocking-laws-110519/

Good read.

But the conclusion, given the content of the article, is silly: google is interested in its bottom line, but also heavily interested in free speech.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

In simple terms: they are trying to install something similar to the "great chinese firewall", they are trying to erect a censorship infrastructure for the internet.

Not quite. What this bill does is to allow the DOJ to ask a judge for a court order in order to shut down a site that is engaging in pirating.

In other words, the site has to be engaged in the specific illegal activity of allowing others access to copyrighted material, i.e., illegal downloads. This law, if enacted, will NOT establish some sort of blacklist (such as that established by HUAC in the 1950's so that people engaging in controversial but still legal activities can not engage in those activities) nor censorship (as long as the site is not engaged in pirating activities the site cannot be blocked).

The confusion is because past laws have allowed the restricting agency to do slap down sites on that agency's say so. This allowed agents to do disallow access to sites based on whatever that agent's criteria was rather than the actual laws. This leads to the agency censoring sites.

However, with the necessity of a judge's signature, however, the DOJ is going to need to show how the site is actually breaking the law before the judge can sign off on it. The DOJ is therefore unable to censor site for its content. Not as good for a soundbite, but it limits the actions of the agency requiring the court order.

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

Is "willingly and knowingly" in the wording of the law? If not, it's a wide invitation to abuse. As I pointed out earlier, they're already arresting people and shutting down sites because of things users of the sites do, not the owners; this law will allow them to go even farther. And with tame judges... unless the site owners are allowed to face their accusers, this is tyranny.