S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

[White Eagle]

I received an email surprise this AM. My Rep, Blake Farenthold, R-TX told me he would oppose it. This is unlike him, he is one of those baggers who vote against anything liberal.

Just a quote from the email:

The PROTECT IP Act, however, is an oversimplified solution to a complex problem. As a former computer consultant and web designer, I understand the power and possibilities of a free internet. Blocking access to internet sites at a DNS level (internet addressing) is a form of censorship that is way too broad and probably unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. It is reminiscent of China's efforts to censor the internet. Artists have numerous other avenues they can pursue to protect their intellectual property.

 

[ManLicker]

I worked on his grandmother's gubernatorial campaign in school. She should've spanked him.

 

[construct]

I don't have a clue what you mean.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Leahy. It is cosponsored by 29 senators who look to me to be all over the map politically. So I don't know whether you think the bill is conservative or liberal.

Nor do I know whether it was a surprise that a tea party senator would vote against it or that he emailed you about it.

Let's start with something basic. Do you support the bill?

Why or why not?

 

[White Eagle]

I don't have a clue what you mean.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Leahy. It is cosponsored by 29 senators who look to me to be all over the map politically. So I don't know whether you think the bill is conservative or liberal.

Nor do I know whether it was a surprise that a tea party senator would vote against it or that he emailed you about it.

Let's start with something basic. Do you support the bill?

Why or why not?

Well, now I'll have to look into it further. I thought it was a bill to allow anyone to contact your ISP and get info about what you are downloading. The copyright stuff. I think it's important to save the copyright stuff from being stolen, but the Congress could look into your dealings about anything. just another big brother thing.
I'll see what I can find about it. I looked on Farenthold's congress site but didn't see anything about him opposing it. Be back later!!

 

[White Eagle]

construct: I found this:
Apparently I was told something different. I wasn't aware of the Medical side of it. I usually save a link of what I post so I'll see what I can find that made me think differently. In this article it mentions sensoring free speach.

http://pharmacycheckerblog.com/the-...ty-act-s-968-will-prevent-access-to-medicines

The Protect Intellectual Property Act – S.968 Will Prevent Access To Medicines
On May 31, 2011, in Drug Importation, Online Pharmacies, by Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com

Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed S. 968, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, also known as the Protect IP Act. Its passage represents a real threat to Americans’ access to safe and affordable medications online and we hope that as the bill makes its way through the legislative process it will be amended appropriately.

 

[White Eagle]

Apparently I have confused this bill with another. I got an email from Demand Progress:

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica
"Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act"
Imagine you're the successful owner of a heavily trafficked website. Your income and that of those with whom you work depends entirely on the advertising revenue and payments provided by visitors to your site. One day, without warning, your site no longer appears at its domain, your advertisers have backed out, and you can't even find your site on Google. You've been disappeared – blacklisted by new regulations set by Congress in the PROTECT IP Act.

But reading it again I see this sentence "Protect IP ACT " are they talking about 2 bills in this link?

 

[construct]

Apparently I have confused this bill with another. I got an email from Demand Progress:

But reading it again I see this sentence "Protect IP ACT " are they talking about 2 bills in this link?

No, they are the same thing. "PROTECT" is an acronym.

There may be some problems with the bill. I just don't know. But I don't see a first amendment problem. The bill provides a tool for the Justice Department or a copyright or patent holder to use to maintain the value of intellectual property. If a website is not being used primarily to traffic in counterfeit or pirated goods or isn't designed for that purpose, then I don't think that website would be implicated.

Unless there is some tech issue that would make the law unworkable, I don't see a problem here.

 

[Stardreamer]

I'm getting confused at first I thought we were talking Internet Protocol (IP) addressing which is what DNS addressing would involve, but now we're talking Intellectual Property which is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[construct]

I'm getting confused at first I thought we were talking Internet Protocol (IP) addressing which is what DNS addressing would involve, but now we're talking Intellectual Property which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Well, if there was ever any talk about Internet Protocol, I guess it may be peripheral. The bill calls for identification of a website to the second level. For example in "justusboys . com," "com" would be the first level, and "justusboys" would be the second level.

The purpose of the bill, however, is to protect the value of Intellectual Property by allowing easier hindrance of internet purveyors of pirated and counterfeit goods.

 

[Kulindahr]

According to email I've gotten, artists are actually opposed to the bill while the recording industry is fighting for it.

That makes me suspicious: if the people supposedly being protected oppose a thing, but the ones who make money off those people favor it, it sounds to me like what it's really about is control.

 

[construct]

According to email I've gotten, artists are actually opposed to the bill while the recording industry is fighting for it.

That makes me suspicious: if the people supposedly being protected oppose a thing, but the ones who make money off those people favor it, it sounds to me like what it's really about is control.

Here is an interesting webpage about the money trail.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money

A couple of snippets:

Top recipients for ALL supporting interest groups

Name Amount Received Vote On Passage Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $849,265
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $651,770
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $534,725
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $532,684
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $404,000
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $345,656
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $335,775
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO] $332,100
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] $272,550
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $262,500
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] $375,600
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] $268,350
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] $219,250
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] $180,932
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8] $171,850
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] $161,950
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] $153,000
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] $149,350
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] $148,000
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] $130,550

Top recipients for ALL opposing interest groups
Name Amount Received
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $1,272,629
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $289,715
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE] $203,600
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $202,399
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $194,599
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $190,615
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $151,600
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT] $140,699
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] $124,150
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $98,400

Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] $296,959
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] $203,450
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] $181,920
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] $129,950
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] $107,464
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] $102,750
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] $70,313
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] $68,650
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6] $67,150
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11] $61,480

Now compare the list of co-sponsors from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@P:

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 5/25/2011
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] - 6/27/2011
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 7/25/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] - 5/23/2011
Sen Boozman, John [AR] - 6/15/2011
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 7/13/2011
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 9/7/2011
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 6/23/2011
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 5/12/2011
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 6/9/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 6/30/2011
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 9/7/2011
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Franken, Al [MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 5/26/2011
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 5/12/2011
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] - 7/5/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 5/12/2011
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 7/7/2011
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 7/26/2011
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] - 5/26/2011
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 5/12/2011
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] - 6/30/2011
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] - 7/7/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 5/12/2011

I'd particularly notice those sponsors who received a lot of money from groups opposed to the bill--Bennett, Blumenthal, Coons, Gillibrand, Leahy, and Schumer. It may just be coincidence, but they're all Democrats.

The first link also provides information about what interests support and oppose the bill.

 

[construct]

It's also interesting that Bennett, Gillibrand, Leahy, and Schumer appear on both the contribution lists.

Bennett got more money from those opposing the bill.

Gillibrand, Leahy, and Schumer got more money from those supporting the bill.

But then, it looks like the supporters of the bill generally made larger contributions than those opposed anyway. So that comparison may not mean much.

 

[Kulindahr]

Interesting that Reid is high on both lists.

 

[construct]

According to email I've gotten, artists are actually opposed to the bill while the recording industry is fighting for it.

That makes me suspicious: if the people supposedly being protected oppose a thing, but the ones who make money off those people favor it, it sounds to me like what it's really about is control.

It might also be interesting to know who sent the email and which artists oppose it.

(Of course, the bill would apply to web purveyors of knock-off Bulova watches and Gucci handbags, too, dontcha know.)

 

[Kulindahr]

It might also be interesting to know who sent the email and which artists oppose it.

(Of course, the bill would apply to web purveyors of knock-off Bulova watches and Gucci handbags, too, dontcha know.)

Yeah, they added to the new version, after consumer screaming got the last one killed.

I wonder how eBay feels about it.

 

[mygaybuffet]

I Am So Glad I'm Not Alone In Fighting This Atrocity

 

[construct]

Yeah, they added to the new version, after consumer screaming got the last one killed.

I wonder how eBay feels about it.

Ebay wouldn't have a problem because it wasn't designed and hasn't been used primarily as a venue for infringement of intellectual property. As far as I can tell, even a single page on Ebay would not create a problem for Ebay.

The bill is really aimed at sites that are set up to do business almost exclusively in counterfeit and pirated goods. It seems to be particularly interested in sites outside the U.S. that infringe on American intellectual property. Think Korean or Russian bootleg DVDs (or Chinese fake Trade Dollars). Some P2P and filesharing sites also might have a problem.

 

[construct]

I Am So Glad I'm Not Alone In Fighting This Atrocity

I knew nothing about this bill until White Eagle called it to my attention. The more I look at the bill, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Now why is it an atrocity?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

And here we go again....

Assuming it's the same bill, the quicky version of the bill is that it would allow the Justice Dept. (and only the AG's office) to block the DNS of any site that was being investigated for piracy or equivalent until the site had been cleaned up.

Most of the artists that are against it are also against anti-piracy statutes as they see piracy as a way to gain free advertising for their project and/or a slap against The Man. The Big Companies are for it because it slows piracy down. The Idiot Fringe (which is what I'm including Demand Progress due to the Harvard Incident) is against it because any kind of blocking internet access is automatically censorship in their book.

I'm for it, personally. It slaps down the more obvious pirates while at the same time allowing for some oversight.

RG

 

[Centexfarmer]

Leave to our elected Representatives in the United States Senate to confuse the shit out of themselves, and those of us who pay attention to what they're doing.

IP = Intellectual Property.

Not

IP = Internet Protocol which is a number assigned to each of our Internet Service providers, our accounts; email, and websites.

IF that is the case, and this bill is cleverly disguised to hide that fact, THEN all of us should have something to be concerned about.