Full Text Of The PROTECT IP Act Released: The Good, The Bad And The Horribly Ugly
from the and-here-we-go dept
Yesterday, we got our hands on a leaked copy of the "summary" document put together by those writing the new version of COICA, now renamed the much more media friendly PROTECT IP Act. It looked bad, but some people complained that we were jumping ahead without the actual text of the bill, even if the summary document was pretty straightforward and was put together by the same people creating the bill. Thankfully, the folks over at Don't Censor the Internet have the full text of the PROTECT IP Act, which I've embedded below as well. Let's break it down into the good, the bad and the horribly ugly.The Good:
It looks like the drafters clearly heard some of the complaints that many have raised concerning the attacks on due process and free speech and have scaled some of them back (though, not as much as they want you to believe -- but we'll get to that). Officially, the bill limits the "definition" of what constitutes a site dedicated to infringing activities. While COICA clearly focused on the domain names as the party, PROTECT IP also recognizes that regular lawsuits should be brought against those responsible, rather than just focusing on taking down the site (in legal terms, it requires an "in personam action" -- against the person -- be filed before an "in rem action" -- against the property). This could, in theory, provide more due process for those running such sites.
The bill also attempts to make it clear that, officially, PROTECT IP does not expand secondary liability. In addition, the bill would require that the Attorney General (or the copyright holder) send notice to those impacted "upon commencement" of such actions. This is an improvement. Today, with domain seizures, it takes weeks or sometimes months for site owners to be given notice. On top of that, PROTECT IP no longer includes the ability to go to domain registers and registrars and require them to remove domains or hand them over to the government. Finally, it attempts to narrow the scope of what qualifies as being covered by the act under the phrase "dedicated to infringing material."
The Bad:
When you dig into the actual text, nearly all of these "good" changes are either not really true, or are greatly limited by other aspects. On the "limit" to the definition of what sites qualify, it's still incredibly broad:
The term "Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" means an Internet site accessed through a specific domain name that has no [substantial/significant] use other than, or is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator persons operating in concert with the operator, [and is in fact,] primarily as a means for --That's somewhat narrower than COICA's terminology, which is here:[provided that there is no objectively reasonable interpretation of an express license between the owner or operator of such Internet site and the copyright owner or trademark owner or an agent thereof that authorizes the activities;]
- enabling or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or performance of copyright works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, or offering goods or services in violation of section 1201 of title 17; or
- enabling or facilitating sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services or materials bearing a counterfeit market, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act;
For purposes of this section, an Internet site is 'dedicated to infringing activities' if such site-Narrower? Sorta... but still quite open and vague. Under the new definition, it seems you could still claim that a service like YouTube (especially in its early days) could have run afoul of this law. If this had been in effect a decade ago, we might not have a YouTube today. Think about that for a second... It also seems like nearly all music blogs are illegal under this definition. That doesn't seem good.
‘‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or
‘‘(2) is--
‘‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--‘‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or‘‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.
‘‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and
As for requiring an in personam action, which in theory would allow for a court hearing and the individuals or companies who operate sites targeted by this bill to get a fair hearing before the site is taken down or otherwise blocked or limited, there's a pretty big loophole there. It says that if either the Attorney General or the copyright holder "was not able to find" the registrant or owner of the site or "no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States," then they can skip the whole in personam action and jump straight to the in rem action, against the website itself. That's a pretty big loophole.
As for the promise that it doesn't expand secondary liability, that's nice to say but it's simply untrue. By its very nature, the entire purpose of the bill is to extend secondary liability to third parties that had previously been almost entirely immune from such liability: ad networks, payment processors, search engines and ISPs now face liability if they do not disconnect service from certain websites. That is, without a doubt, a pretty massive expansion of secondary liability, no matter how many times the drafters of this Act insist it's not.
The whole thing about no longer going directly after domains via registrars and registers is a red herring. As is clearly noted in the summary, the whole reason for this is because the drafters figure this is redundant, since ICE has already shown with Operation In Our Sites that it can already seize such domains. So, it can "give this up" without really giving it up at all (though, potentially this leaves the government open to a loss in court on this issue).
Also bad is that the bill clearly encourages service providers to take "voluntary" action against sites that those providers deem to be infringing. The bill provides specific liability protection, so that if these providers cut off service to a site under the incorrect belief that it was dedicated to infringing activities, there's no remedy for those sites.
The Horribly Ugly:
The PROTECT IP Act includes, as mentioned, a "private right of action," which COICA did not contain. This lets copyright holders make use of some of the aspects of the Act, which are completely unnecessary, considering they already have reasonable options under existing laws. This is yet another case of regulatory capture, in which a private industry is being granted additional, extraordinary and unnecessary powers to stifle new technologies and innovation, because in their estimation it infringes on their copyrights. Remember the long list of new innovations that the entertainment industry has so deemed, including (but not limited to): player pianos, radio, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the DVR, the MP3 player, YouTube, etc.
Haven't we learned by now that every time the industry screams that it's being harmed by infringement, the reality is almost always something entirely different?
Also on the "horribly ugly" side of things is the extension of this bill to cover search engines. That is, when the Attorney General uses the law, one of the things that can be done is obtaining an order saying search engines must no longer link to certain sites. This seems like a massive form of meddling in how a search engine operates. I also can't see how it could survive First Amendment scrutiny. It's a blatant case of the government telling a search engine what it can and cannot link to in its index.
Similarly, remember that part in "the bad" section about voluntary actions? In the section on such voluntary actions in the bill, not only does it include search engines (i.e., this is the government urging search engines to censor on the copyright industry's behalf), but it also includes domain registers and registrars -- who, you may recall, had been left out of the other parts of the bill. So despite most of the bill not applying to them, domain registers and registrars are now encouraged to simply take down sites on a voluntary basis, if they believe they're dedicated to infringement. And if they do so, they are immune from liability for damages caused. In other words, pretty much any domain can be disappeared by its register or registrar with little real recourse, and, in fact, there is encouragement for this to happen.
All in all, it's clear that the drafters of this bill sought to cut off some of the biggest criticisms that were raised last time, in hopes of appeasing enough critics to get this passed, but left in plenty of loopholes and added some even worse parts to the bill as well. It's a bad bill by any measure and should not become a law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, coica, copyright, due process, free speech, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The internet routes around all obstructions ...
The things I see happening as a result of the PRO IP act are, the US government losing all control over DNS, distributed web sites, more anonymity for infringers, and a backlash from the tech sector.
The backlash from the tech sector should concern politicians now that any corporation can spend as much money as they want to de-elect them.
The content industry should be seriously concerned, it is now almost a certainty that, that one "Hit Application" will occur that is totally anonymous, encrypted, and can be used for infringement.
All in all, a couple million of them push, and a couple of billion of us shove back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
> of the government that I am speachless.
That means government action is interfering with your free speech.
Therefore government stupidity should be stopped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All correct thinking individuals know that protecting IP is far more important than other matters such as robbery, rape, murder, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The department of homeland security - supposed to protect us against terrorists - wasting time protecting corporations against infringement (if anything shouldn't that be the USPTO's job or something?).
The FBI - Supposed to be protecting us against real criminals, wasting resources protecting corporations against infringement.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1725249183.shtml
The DOJ, supposed to be about ensuring justice, but instead they're about protecting corporations and continuing to help enforce their government imposed monopolies (GIMs).
Attorney General, supposed to be about protecting citizens, but now they're about protecting big industry instead.
FDA, supposed to be about protecting consumers, but they're more about protecting big corporations from competition.
FCC, supposed to be about wrongfully granting corporations monopoly use of public airwaves at public expense, and that's what they do.
When does the U.S. start to resemble Russia enough for us to be named the United States of Russia?
Our government spends so much effort passing and enforcing so many wrongful GIMs on just about everything that it's no wonder why our economy is struggling and income inequality is only getting worse. Monopolies on their own reduce aggregate output, they cost jobs, and they cause income inequality. Add to that the taxpayers cost of enforcing all these wrongful monopolies and you can see why our economy is in such a mess, because all that money that could be better spent on increasing aggregate output is being spent on pointless law enforcement and going after victimless criminals instead.
and why do we need a Department of Homeland Security, a Department of Defense, an FBI, a CIA, etc... with all pretty much having about the same purpose, go after terrorists/criminals (Oh, but the DOD and the DOHS goes after 'terrorists' while the FBI goes after 'criminals', and the CIA .... , we need to make such a distinction because one expensive department costing tons of tax dollars is too incompetent to go after both at once). We waste all this money on these people and, by and large, their collective effort doesn't catch very many real terrorists or real criminals at all. Easier for them to go after victimless criminals, like copy protection infringers, I guess.
You want this problem fixed, vote for Ron Paul. He advocates abolishing the department of homeland security and I, for one, agree. We already have the department of Defense and all these departments with about the same purpose (the distinctions are pretty minor, it's perfectly possible and more efficient for one agency to go after a wider variety of criminals) and this creates conflict and confusion and unnecessarily expensive redundancy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rights taken away
Gone or delayed.
Right to face your accuser?
Hidden behind this long EULA.
Right to Life, Liberty, or pursuit of happiness?
All pending on how much you pay for that privilege.
Right to privacy?
Taken away by your IP address and automatic takedown.
Yeah, I don't see this ending well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Released or leaked?
If leaked, why isn't this stuff being officially released to the public (not just the corporations)? Why must we rely on leaked information to participate in the democratic process. Corporations get a longer time to consider new legislature than the citizens, apparently.
This stuff should be officially released. This isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
I won't buy another computing device with my own money without this capability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Good point. Leaked....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The only way to avoid having to change would be to either destroy all digital communications or put in place a global totalitarian police state. We can conclude that the actions of companies in this situation will, intentionally or not, tend toward one or both of those ends
It looks like they're well on their way to both and I expect they won't ever stop trying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
To me, that's borderline unconstitutional. The founding fathers tried to separate those who wrote the law from those who enforced them for very good reason and for the government to simply circumvent that through these federal agencies is, IMO, nonsense.
Sure, the judicial branch still gets to interpret the law, but the FDA has been known to try and ignore various rulings (only to be dragged back to court again).
The reason why those who write the law and those who enforce it should be separate is to better give power to those who interpret the law to stop a law from being enforced. If any one entity can gain two of these powers then that one entity could potentially become a tyrant. If an entity can both write and interpret its own laws then the enforcement agency simply enforces whatever that entity says and that entity becomes a dictator. If an entity can write and enforce its own laws then that entity can simply ignore the rulings of the entity that interprets the law. If an entity can interpret and enforce its own laws then it can interpret any written laws how it likes and enforce its own interpretation of them. The judicial branch can't enforce its own decisions because a system that allows the executive branch the ability not to enforce a bad interpretation serves as a check to any bad interpretation made.
Allowing separation of enforcement from law creation also helps ensure that only good laws are enforced. The idea is that if a law is a good law then law enforcement agencies will enforce it. If it's a bad law, then they will tend not to. Enforcement can only enforce so many laws and they will carefully select what laws to enforce. This will also help limit the number of laws enforced to the more important ones which cuts costs as well.
But if you can write and enforce your own laws then you can make sure that every tiny bad law you write is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In what way does this address the speed at which illegal content can move or appear, or migrate to another service? Answer:It doesn't.
In what way does suppressing American Search engines make an effective way to protect your content? Answer: It won't.
Look at the edonkey network. As it stands now, this act would do zero to remove any content from that IP infringing network. There are hundreds of networks and technologies like edonkey, and growing.
It enrages me that we pay taxes for legislation like this, that I am a part of a country that would even bother with such silly legislation that doesn't have technical and legal loopholes.
It isn't clever even from the perspective of an IP Protectionist standpoint!
It will fail, it will produce far more methods of infringement than currently exist. Mike is correct that opportunity is passing these industries quicker than they suspect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Search engines already screen for child porn. Does that pass your First Amendment muster? And domain name registrars seem to have taken actions on child porn too. Free speech issue?
The bottom line here is that freeloading (which really is what the debate is about) is going to become incrementally more difficult. Dedicated infringers may have little trouble, but casual ones who just do it because it's easy and riskless will do far less. The foreign pirates who steal and monetize other's content for personal profit will have a much harder time. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
We've been hearing about such vaporware for a few years now, but the reality is that piracy tech hit a brick wall last decade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They are going after other "real criminals"- as well as people like you that are trying to ruin several of the US' primary export industries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Look, you might as well face reality. You're just not going to be able to make as much money doing what your doing anymore. It's okay. It happens to people in a lot of industries all the time. What makes movies and music so special?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Innovation leaving the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or it can simply write the laws in such a way that they will get interpreted how they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
We already have TOR. But to date it is a lack of motivation that prevented this sort of software from being written. Recently we saw a person create MafiaaFire to route around the ICE domain seizures. It only took a week to write. Then DHS tried to get Mozilla to remove the plug in. It shows just how ineffective these moves by government actually are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Innovation leaving the US
It only takes a few random reports, threats of economic sanctions, and a GDP fueled on enslavement to old business models, to get it going. And if anyone has a better idea?
Sue em all, destroy their way of life, and "make" them understand that you're in charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*domain taken down*
"WHAT? Where'd my domain go?!"
"Oh, sorry, we thought it was infringing. You can pay us to bring it back online."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Amazing. You just got here and already you're pulling the "if you're not against child porn, you're a sick freak" card?
Have you ever heard of a Well intentioned extremist? Better yet, have you ever looked to respond to the issues involved than creating false dichotomies?
"freeloading "
Is not for YOU, or anyone else to magically decide. The ones that have figure this out:
Valve Software - Games
Humble Indie Bundle - Games
Kevin Smith - Movies
Objectivism - Movies
Trent Reznor - Music. Wait, hold on... Mike has said more about him:
Trent Reznor
Trent Reznor and Trent Reznor
Yeah, Mike should marry Trent Reznor cuz he likes what he does so much. But he's sure doing a helluva lot more with his time creating than this god forsaken bill that you seem to support. He's giving his fans something to like. What does this bill do other than put the rest of the internet on the offensive in fighting against BS?
And there is no distinction in those foreign pirates. You're just not recognizing that they actually like American TV more than American politics.
I'll say to you again. The market has changed. It's time for all of these big companies to change along with it. Sneaky bills like this that are BAD, BAD, BAD, aren't going to change behaviors. Neither is not understanding what your customers want. If you go against your market, less money for you. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Its actually going to go the other way, with less ability to track infringers, and easier access to content.
"The foreign pirates who steal and monetize other's content for personal profit will have a much harder time."
LOL ... U R 2 Funny ... what profit? From ads, the music industry constantly complains that ads don't make enough money, and are not a business model they want to try.
buck that entire post was a Fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why piracy should be protected at all costs!
LOL.
Life without YouTube would hardly be life at all. You might as well ask a person to live without water.
Kudos, TechDirt. I'm glad we got to the bottom of this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No longer just .com names
And since the holders of those names probably don't have American addresses, the government can bypass the whole notification thing.
Even if what the site is doing is perfectly legal in their country, they could get nailed by this unless they can show that they block access from the US, don't ship anything to the US, and don't accept US dollars for any of their services. (Even if they take these steps, the site can fall victim to the shoot-first, ask questions later. Scratch that, it's not shoot first, ask questions later. It's shoot first and then let the person you just shot ask questions later.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Innovation leaving the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Innovation leaving the US
Of course. And by that logic, they won't be in the European Union (who are debating similar laws), or China (who already has laws like this) either.
Clearly, they will be headquartered in Nairobi. Or maybe Columbia. I hear all that lawlessness has given Columbia a booming tech industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
1) You can't imply censorship is inherently bad if you support it for certain purposes that are morally reprehensible to you.
2) Your "free and lawless" Internet is going the way of the dodo. Hope you had fun while it lasted.
Just remember, you brought this on yourselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
IP is probably the most important economic contributor to growth in 1st world countries.
You figure it out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
Good luck with that.
Increased use of Tor will only usher in proxy law faster than is already inevitable. Proxies will be reclassified as ISPs, and thus subject to the same restrictions as those in this bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Trent Reznor had millions of fans and millions of dollars in sold out stadium tours before piracy. Even a 40% cut in his revenues still maintains him as a multi-millionaire.
*Yawn*
Show me someone who's accomplished the same WITHOUT selling their IP and WITHOUT going through a major label.
If the famous Mike Masnick recipe is correct, surely there should be too many equally impressive stories of success to count.
I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
Glad to know that piracy is no longer an issue - maybe we can move on with the advancement of technology and society now!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Oh, you were serious?
Ummm...
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA roflmao...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
"think I'll rip off a movie. I'll come back in a week when it's done downloading."
And the people that facillitate TOR have no interest in letting dumbass pirates wreck their system; it's to help people communicate in situations where they otherwise can't. They openly say that they boot pirates whenever they find them.
Try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
We've already covered the 'but that only works if their big' followed by the 'but that only works if their small' followed by the 'well, maybe that works if their really big or really small, but not for the general artist' and every time we've seen example after example after example of artists all over the place making it work and work well.
I'd rather you just hold your breath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And Mike has done this countless times. Any more evidence you care not to be informed about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No longer just .com names
Financial providers have to only block transactions involving the US, but advertisers and search engines have to stop all advertising/links for the website, not just stop serving links/ads to Americans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sell music. Sell merchandise. Sell concert tickets.
Exactly as it's always been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I asked for all the bands who have, without selling music or using major label infrastructure, become household names and made A SOLID INCOME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Still pretending you can be invisible to the government on the internet? You're so two thousand and late...
And um, yeah, if it's easier to access, it's easier to track. duh. You didn't really think that through, did you?
the music industry constantly complains that ads don't make enough money, and are not a business model they want to try.
The music industry has to pay for the production of the content. Pirate sites don't. Once again, duh, and once again you didn't really think that through.
You jokers are seriously out of bullets...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why piracy should be protected at all costs!
YouTube's goal was to be bought out quickly, not build a long term business.
They used infringement to get get popular fast, and thus facilitate a fast payday.
They could (and would) have started out without infringing videos no problem if they had wished.
But they were greedy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did it all off of Youtube videos.
Amanda Palmer - Dropped from label, free music, touring as she pleases
Joss Stone - hates the music business, which involves really bad contracts catered to labels. Believes that filesharing hasn't hurt her while she makes a ton of money in concerts. And because you don't believe it: Watch and learn bucko
Grateful Dead - If you don't know them, study up.
KendraSpringer - has been number 1 on Jamendo for MONTHS. I think she just lost that title recently. Oh well, her music is damn good.
Deadmau5 - Dj that's learned how not to be a bully and to have fun with fans. Oh, a few other things about him:
He dates a Playboy bunny.
He wears a giant Mickey Mouse head.
He makes a mean grilled cheese sandwich.
Girltalk - release music online, sell concerts. Had a job in the chemical field and decided to focus on his music because of copyright and patent law interfering with innovation.
Need more examples? I'm sure that the "without selling music" was meant to be a challenge, but all of the people here (save maybe Joss Stone) made money in other avenues. Oh, without major labels. *thumbs up*
If you want to learn about how music has begun to unbridle please do so. And give me a challenge next time. These people are fun to listen to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
It took 4 hours :)
Also you got:
StealthNet, Share, GNUNet all operational and anonymous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
New tools will be made available that are better at hidding things, heck people could start embedding secondary video and audio on Youtube videos and you will never know what is in there.
Also unless you outlaw encryption for emails good luck with your dreams of unlimited power LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pretending no people know they can, if they couldn't the U.S. army would have a problem too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why piracy should be protected at all costs!
The entertainment industry started in the exact same way LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I could go on about distributed encrypted file systems, distributed proxy networks, and onion routing but that would fall on deaf ears and would be a waste of my time.
the music industry constantly complains that ads don't make enough money
"Once again, duh, and once again you didn't really think that through."
I was actually talking about the record labels and streaming sites, free download sites, not infringing sites. The advertising doesn't make anywhere near the amount the record labels would like. Also they say it devalues their music.
People that do not truely understand technology, trying to pass laws about technology to prevent a business inevitability. Not a good idea, there are to many inevitable and unforeseen consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rest? Never heard of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As has been said a million times recently, piracy is going back to sneakernet.
Big whoop. Have fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why piracy should be protected at all costs!
Guided bone and tissue regeneration in dental implantology, 2 implants Giesse Logos.
Those people are actually using Youtube for medical purposes.
But those are doctors, all other professions also use Youtube to transfer knowledge and promote things.
Vertical Gardening (i.e. production of food in small spaces)
Also is the source for all the stories Hollywood have transformed into movies to this day, conspiracy nuts go wild there and if you pay attention to what they say and what Hollywood produces you will see an striking resemblance. Hollywood have been stealing the ideas from the nutt jobs for decades know.
Ancient aliens, Atlantis stories, snake people, Nibiru.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government have no control over all the pieces of the network.
Did you get your pirate box already?
http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
Have you got your pirate box already?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
According to Thompson's, no such bill has as yet been presented during this session of Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Leeches: "Please stop trying to take away my ability to rip off movies and music."
Senators: "No."
Next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://gigaom.com/video/ok-go-interview-youtube-partner-program/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"LOL ... U R 2 Funny ... what profit? From ads, the music industry constantly complains that ads don't make enough money, and are not a business model they want to try. "
That was the most breathtakingly stupid thing I've ever heard. Rogue sites costs are nearly zero. What does it cost to steal creative output and offer it for sale on a website? Almost every dime a rogue site takes in is pure profit. Are you really so desperate that you advance a cockamamie argument like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wayne
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Market share? future sales? potential sales?
The only rogue people inside society is a small group of people trying to end freedoms and liberties for their own personal gain, despite being told by everybody on earth that if they do it they will pay dearly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
To how this work search for "Koizumi Children" and "Tea Party".
Senators: We need to pay attention to those folks or we are out of the house!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Here is just one example of government imposed monopolies costing jobs.
"Research by the US Department of Transportation shows that regulations locking up the taxi trade rob the public of $ 800 million a year -- and prevent the creation of 38,000 new jobs."
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5805/break-open-the-taxicab-monopoly
Government imposed monopolies (and that includes IP) costs jobs. The problem with our economy is that there are way way way too many government imposed monopolies everywhere you turn. That's what's costing us jobs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.technoologyworld.com/?p=384
People can create their own networks that can't be traced from a couch, you will need to put legs on the ground scoring the neighborhoods.
Want to see sneakernets in action just go to any workplace in America. Everyone is exchanging files all the time.
Not to mention that people can create their on internet overlay that will sit on top of the internet but be a total self contained network and internet overlays are infinite you can create one for each day of the year, for every year till the end of time.
Tech people already know the obvious, filesharing is not going away anytime soon. Which is bad, people should migrate to other forms of entertainment that are free as in freedom, but because it is so easy to ignore those laws and you people, this probably will never happen.
But who cares I don't LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sounds like you're communist. You think job security is the governments job. It's the governments job to ensure jobs and protect industry. Almost like Russia. You're obviously not a free market capitalist at all.
Guess what. Communism doesn't work. Government imposed monopolies don't work (at least not for the public. Sure what Russia does works for the elite, but not for the public).
"IP is probably the most important economic contributor to growth in 1st world countries."
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The record and music studios have been eliminated, they just haven't figured it out yet. It's over for them and their shills. I must admit, they're death throes have been impressive, but they are just that: death throes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are already encrypted, anonymized p2p software like OneSwarm (http://www.oneswarm.org/) and actual darknets like FreeNet (http://freenetproject.org/). There are also models for distributed DNS systems in the works (http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/). They just havent grown big enough to be adopted on a large scale (and thus gain web-equivalent performance).
Yet.
The problem is, once darknets are as easy to use as todays torrents, more serious crimes (like child pornography) will make use of it as well.
The only recourse the governements will have is to outlaw encryption, and thats when we know we live in 1984.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bieber and Lady Gaga.
Their success happened on the internet with free distribution, only later they signed with big labels and only God knows why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So... perhaps you can explain to us why those countries which have largely abandoned intrest in manufacturing and are pursuing an IP economy have trade deficits, while those countries which are aggressively pursuing manufacturing (and are usually more casual about enforcing IP ) are running trade surplusses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Blocking voluntarily is not a free speech issue. Having the government tell them to block is. And, yes, even if it's a child porn site, if there hasn't been a legal ruling against them (see: CDT vs. Pappert).
The bottom line here is that freeloading (which really is what the debate is about) is going to become incrementally more difficult.
I would suggest that the only people who believe this don't understand technology.
Dedicated infringers may have little trouble, but casual ones who just do it because it's easy and riskless will do far less. The foreign pirates who steal and monetize other's content for personal profit will have a much harder time. Tough shit
And the issues about free speech and due process? Tough shit too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mike Masnick: ignorant of obscenity caselaw, and apostle for child porn sites.
Truly rad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
the key to this, as in all things, is balance. just keep in mind that the balance point is rarely the absolute center.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. Point me to the case law that proves me wrong.
And, seriously, if you think I support child porn sites, you're more clueless than already established. I do not. I am merely pointing out -- accurately -- that the law does not require third parties to censor such sites. I'm quite happy when the government goes after those responsible and gets the sites taken down through legal means. But that's got nothing to do with ordering search engines to block them.
And you know it.
And yet you lie, because you're scared, and deep down inside, in the part of your soul that you don't access much consciously... you know I'm right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
when it changes landmasses and is inhabited primaraly by those who's national identity is russian. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Innovation leaving the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Market system that works
Heck most of the movies I've watched in the last year have been produced by folks I know, with the capabilities that they have on their home computer.
I wonder, if this bill gets passed, if my friend, who is in a lawsuit with one of the big movie-producers, for stealing his idea, and is currently going bankrupt under the snow of lawyers, can get all their domains taken down for violation of his IP? Get all the movie-houses to stop taking credit-cards, if they have anything to do with this big theater? I can't say anything more about it, because one of the pieces of laywer-snow is a gag-order ... apparently big movie-houses don't want you to know that they steal other people's IP ... go figure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You continue to attempt to make this an emotional issue, and it is not. It is an economic one, and basic economics continues to show (as others continue to point out with citations) that infringement at the individual level does not harm IP, and in fact increases their economic advantage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go read some more back issues, and see what else you can dredge up and repeat ad nauseum. You'll go blue before people believe it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Met that requirement (one exception)
"become household names"
requirement met
" made A SOLID INCOME."
Me: but all of the people here (save maybe Joss Stone) made money in other avenues
You're trying to argue semantics. It's not whether you've heard about them or not. The fact is, they all have their own fans who enjoy what they do enough that they're supported by filesharing, touring, twittering, among other avenues of making their names bigger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
American freedom is GONE
I know Britain has bad laws, but I am SO glad I live here. I'm moving everything I have out of American hands, and right back onto Swedish, British and Dutch servers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When are you going to pay the MusiCares charity the $500 you owe them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PROTECT IP ?
Real
Tools to
Enable
Censorship
To
Increase
Profits
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. So you have no factual responses, so instead you resort to defamation.
I do not lie. I am not a sociopath and I do not defend, nor support, music piracy.
Why must you lie?
When are you going to pay the MusiCares charity the $500 you owe them?
If the terms of the bet are met, and you know quite well that they have not been, then I will happily donate money to MusiCares. Frankly, I'm tempted to do that anyway, because I think they're a good charity.
I find it odd that you keep bringing this up when you know the terms have not been met.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the terms of the bet have been met: you said the ICE seizures would be ruled unconstitutional. They weren't. They weren't challenged. They aren't going to be challenged. Now pay up, you pathetic asshat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can keep saying that as many times as you want, doesn't make it true.
And the terms of the bet have been met: you said the ICE seizures would be ruled unconstitutional. They weren't. They weren't challenged. They aren't going to be challenged. Now pay up, you pathetic asshat
*Sigh*. Let's go to the actual agreement, shall we:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-dom ain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml?threaded=true#c1601
"If the seizure itself is challenged and at a final level it's deemed legal (i.e., Supreme Court, or at whatever court level this case ends), I'll gladly donate $500 to MusiCares, which is a good charity.
However, if it's deemed that the seizures were not in accordance with the law, then you donate $500 to the EFF."
The terms have not been met.
They weren't challenged. They aren't going to be challenged. Now pay up, you pathetic asshat
I am aware of at least three separate sites that are still working on challenges. The reason no challenge has been officially filed is that they are all currently in discussions with the Justice Department. So, perhaps we should wait, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Problems in the selective reading of the proposed law
"The bill provides specific liability protection, so that if these providers cut off service to a site under the incorrect belief that it was dedicated to infringing activities, there's no remedy for those sites. "
Actually no, there is a remedy for providers cut off under an incorrect belief. ISP's can only voluntarily cut off service if there is a [b]reasonable belief[/b] and [b]credible evidence[/b] of infringing activities. In other words if the ISP voluntarily shut off sites without a good reason they not only sour relationships with their customers, they can also make themselves potentially liable for damages based on that denial of service.
"It says that if either the Attorney General or the copyright holder "was not able to find" the registrant or owner of the site or "no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States," then they can skip the whole in personam action and jump straight to the in rem action, against the website itself"
It seems that the part requiring the due diligence of the AG in procuring the address, so this option presents a risk if used frivolously. If they fail to do so, the AG face a huge risk of getting the entire order thrown out when challenged for lack of process. Even if the defendant is outside the US the remedies that can be sought under in rem are much more limited than remedies are in personam jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Somewhat perplexed
If the PROTECT IP Act is implemented in its desired form, I will happily sit back and watch the casualties pile up from its unintended consequences. After all, if the presumption of innocence is a concept in a criminal prosecution of a corporation by the Government – this Act would give exclusive civil rights to an exclusive minority with executive protection from 'we the people'.
I am sure that the corporate proponents (and the drafters) of the (strike-patriot act-strike) PROTECT IP Act will attempt to ensure that certain corporate civil claims do not involve the Justice Department ('the Government') – but I am sure that would be for "Just" reasons :)
*The USSC has determined that a corporation is a individual
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Somewhat perplexed
I'm not exactly sure where your argument regarding presumption of innocence plays in. The AG is required to establish the elements of the cause of action before the order can be given similarly to that of any other injunction or restraining order. Just as a court may issue a restraining order or injunction based on establishing the elements of fraud, it stands to reason that it should be able to issue an order regarding infringement after establishing the existence of infringement under the requirements of the law.
The idea of an exclusive minority means that it is an inherently defined group, however since anyone can become a copyright holder arguing that this concept applies to copyright does not connect.
I see a lot of pejorative concepts such as censorship, "we the people" and freedom of speech being thrown around but frankly there's a fatal disconnect in the reasoning. It also seems to overlook the fact that the inherent idea of protecting the rights to a creation is explicitly protected by the constitution.
The inherent problem is not in the concept of intellectual property itself but rather as to how the courts fine tune its analysis of fair use and similar exemptions from infringement. However, as shown in the Righthaven rulings, MDY v. Blizzard and other such cases this is already being done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True: you can't run an economy based on slave labor in a first world nation, but you also can't supply two cars in every garage and a plasma tv in every bedroom in any country indefinitely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corporations are a person, just an overrepresented one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1. Judiciary determined that corporations are a person;
2. Corporations may provide unlimited funding to political groups;
3. Political groups lobby/enact legislation to ensure their unlimited funding; return to point 2 and repeat;
A more basic universal principle that makes data copyright pointless is quantum physics. However that is something potential members of Congress don’t need to know about to get elected, and often need to know even less about if elected.
Here is an example copyright protected quote:
“Speech should be free, and forever free it shall be”.
Here is the exact same quote (copyright protected because the original quote is copyright protected):
“J/NJVRMZeQY50kKD82/knbEJjRlNuuvltplVSdoPdyBx1sn/+2+Tu6VEJO4PjWdB+
WCQYgl6vJgAM6/eRV7J83ybogKT3 0ukMCeNvG2p2CqJLBrO0BgRLjoLzEawVsgrdD
olksx7qa+2C2y7HXdCyoPDzXwcsn3YBOJl0L1OKinLoHltV3lIRG672a3XGBM r5nv
DBU4T/RQE6Fej03Vao80x/nHE/Cs9356WiXfYGzJaRL7JLAKKKvmw9QzOZY2eJH3x
KfSqdmMtloVULVqIGOEi3lfRzcL UxR7J43RPeVhKlLxHU9eeLLLowMSXOW3y8xRzJ
FHb1q+dFMCY4CDrDA”
The two above examples may look very different, but according to copyright law they are identical. Free speech is in the hands of the corporations now; not the Judiciary and not Congress; refer to above points one, two and three.
The up side is copyrights have an expiry date, the down side is that in order to be free to copy a copy protected speech you simply need to live long enough to see its copy protection expire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: George OilWell, 1984
Multilogging is not possible, maybe we could have a circle or helical chat with participants (their pictures or movies and voices), 4 dimensional.
Or organize locally, face-to-face, and keep the artifically chartered "person" given the "privilege" of human persons under the US Constitution.
The Bill of Right is "We the People", Corportions are the Robots, it is in our interests to make them indistinguishable in context and friendly.
Science Fiction and Fantasy helps us, monetizing commodities is supposed to eliminate only one variable, but life is more complex, money only now cotton paper Federal Reverse Notes. Try the mathematics of finance.
Best, rm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
the american citizen is so screwed right now we may never see the light of day again.
and people don't even realize it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF people
Sadly, it would probably end the same way here...government shooting at nonviolent protestors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHAT ARE TAKING ABOUT?
First of all, YouTube now has a technology that automatically finds the song that a user is uploading illegally and tracks the view count on that video and pays up to the artist accordingly. Now I do thank you for mentioning "specially in it's early days" so I assume you know about this. Having said that, I'm sure some videos on YouTube are going to be deleted.. so what? Now you can't listen to Adele's full album, for example. If that tears anyone up that much, maybe they should consider buying the album. This leads me to my next point..
"This is yet another case of regulatory capture, in which a private industry is being granted additional, extraordinary and unnecessary powers to stifle new technologies and innovation, because in their estimation it infringes on their copyrights. Remember the long list of new innovations that the entertainment industry has so deemed, including (but not limited to): player pianos, radio, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the DVR, the MP3 player, YouTube, etc. "
Let's just say this Act was horrible and everything in it was wrong and unjust.. HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS AN ACT AGAINST NEW INNOVATION? Everything on the Internet that we are ALL worried about is already out in the market with a price tag on it. If anything, not having enough interesting video or music free on the net will open up a whole new batch of creative content.
The only thing that hurts creativity is creative people not getting money for their works, in turn not being able to commit to their talent.
Nothing personal to the author (uncredited), but I don't think he/she has ever made anything creative of his/her own. Creativity does not have a limit.. it's not a day job where you go home at 6pm. It's not part-time. If you're creative, it's everything and ALL you ever do or want to be doing. The only thing that will stop it is if the creator has no money to live a descent life so that they can create without having to worry about the months rent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McCarthyism
But really, if you're the government, you don't even have to go to court to get websites put on this list. The DOJ can add whomever they feel like and "encourage" people to enforce it. By encourage we do, in fact, mean do it or you're a communist. Because if you're not blocking the people the DOJ says might be infringing copyrights, then you are aiding those infringements and therefore are infringing yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
too bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eric Vermote
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In Vain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UGH!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That of course is assuming that the person who wrote this isn't in the pocket of big business.
but so far i've seen nothing to prove that thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not stupid at all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not stupid at all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
always the same
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are we getting somewhere?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
illuminating discussion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and the question remains
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sizegenetics extender
[ link to this | view in thread ]