NYTimes & LA Times Come Out Against PROTECT IP Act As Written
from the good-for-them dept
Well this is a surprise. The NY Times, which had generally (but not entirely) aligned itself with those who seek greater enforcement of copyright laws, has just put out an editorial arguing against passing the PROTECT IP Act, noting that its "broad definitions" are a serious problem and very likely to be abused -- especially since the bill includes a private right to action:The broadness of the definition is particularly worrisome because private companies are given a right to take action under the bill. In one notorious case, a record label demanded that YouTube take down a home video of a toddler jiggling in the kitchen to a tune by Prince, claiming it violated copyright law. Allowing firms to go after a Web site that “facilitates” intellectual property theft might encourage that kind of overreaching -- and allow the government to black out a site.The NY Times suggests that a rewrite of the bill might make it okay, and does support the general idea of the bill, but worries greatly about the broadness of the bill today.
Some of the remedies are problematic. A group of Internet safety experts cautioned that the procedure to redirect Internet traffic from offending Web sites would mimic what hackers do when they take over a domain. If it occurred on a large enough scale it could impair efforts to enhance the safety of the domain name system.
This kind of blocking is unlikely to be very effective. Users could reach offending Web sites simply by writing the numerical I.P. address in the navigator box, rather than the URL. The Web sites could distribute free plug-ins to translate addresses into numbers automatically.
They're not the only one. The LA Times -- who almost always supports everything that Hollywood supports, on the legislative front -- has published a similar editorial, warning that PROTECT IP goes too far and could break the internet. It also advises that the bill not pass as is, and that serious changes should be made.
The main problem with the bill is in its effort to render sites invisible as well as unprofitable. Once a court determines that a site is dedicated to infringing, the measure would require the companies that operate domain-name servers to steer Internet users away from it. This misdirection, however, wouldn't stop people from going to the site, because it would still be accessible via its underlying numerical address or through overseas domain-name servers.I have to admit I'm pretty surprised by this. By every indication, the PROTECT IP bill had pretty broad support, especially in the media. Hopefully this will at least cause some of those supporting the bill to rethink it.A group of leading Internet engineers has warned that the bill's attempt to hide piracy-oriented sites could hurt some legitimate sites because of the way domain names can be shared or have unpredictable mutual dependencies. And by encouraging Web consumers to use foreign or underground servers, the measure could undermine efforts to create a more reliable and fraud-resistant domain-name system. These risks argue for Congress to take a more measured approach to the problem of overseas rogue sites.
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: protect ip
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I just dont see it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just dont see it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tide may be turning against draconian and simplistic remedies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The tide may be turning against draconian and simplistic remedies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The tide may be turning against draconian and simplistic remedies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foreign pirate websites should not be allowed in the US. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isolationism ftw!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure it's dark wherever you are but, when you pull your head out of your ass, you too can enjoy the light of day!
Bad troll - get back under the bridge, your day is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like a cool way to accelerate IPv4 exhaustion but it wouldn't stop piracy.
Site owners can get a new IP address almost as easily as they can get a new domain name.
And it will be even easier when IPv6 comes around.
You're propping up an enforcement system that would be a complete failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It wouldn't be a failure in the least. It makes it a huge PIA for pirates.
All law enforcement is whack a mole. Always has been, always will be.
Get a life. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Due to censorship concerns there is already talk about building something like MafiaaFire into firefox. Basically people won't even notice if the administrator of the site has this set up in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theoretically NYTimes and others domain could be seized without due process if MAFIAA thought they were violating some moronic copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sentence first, verdict afterwards
(Off with their heads!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect this will change once the items are... "explained" to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROTECT IP will take away access to affordable meds
RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is encouraging consumers to take action now by sending letters to President Obama and their representatives on Capitol Hill to protect their right to safe, affordable medications. Americans need to state their opposition to the PROTECT IP Act. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source:http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]