US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement
from the disgusting dept
The more I end up learning about the US Chamber of Commerce and their blatantly dishonest lobbying campaigns, the worse and worse that organization looks. They seem to have no limits in the depths to which they'll stoop to pass bad legislation that favors some of their biggest supporters. We've pointed out in the past how one of the favorite tactics of supporters of PROTECT IP is to conflate counterfeit drugs with copyright infringement despite the two things being completely different and unrelated. But, as long as supporters of stricter copyright laws can toss in some claims about how "without this, people die!" they can get what they want. So, here's the US Chamber of Commerce putting out a propaganda video about someone who died from bad counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and using that as a reason to support PROTECT IP.I've said all along that I agree that counterfeit drugs are a real problem (though, it should also be noted that I'm only talking about actual counterfeit drugs, not grey market or parallel import situations -- even though many wrongly lump these together). And I would have no problem with actual efforts to go after real counterfeit drugs. But the fight against real counterfeit drugs is totally unrelated to the issue of copyright infringement, and it's not just cynical, but disgustingly exploitative of the US Chamber of Commerce to use victims of counterfeit drugs to helps pass a law that is really meant to deal with copyright infringement. It's like saying to the woman in the propaganda video, "hey, your friend died to protect Hollywood from having to deal with online innovation." Disgusting.
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: copyright, counterfeits, drugs, protect ip, rogue sites
Companies: us chamber of commerce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FightOnlineTheft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real question is, what can we do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
tl;dr don't buy pills from china
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We already have safeguards in place to combat fake drugs. (FDA, hello?) The FDA should be ordering drugs from these online pharmacies and then testing them. Then you can sue (and then seize the sites legally). You need to shut these operations down, just taking away the domain name isn't enough.
This is a summary of the case talked about in the video.
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/07_30/4_policy_politics_13.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said I cant help but harbor a hope that others will pick up on this and use it to turn the general public against PROTECT IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like someone had an upper/downer issue, and an un-sypathetic doctor..
Perhaps someone can the world a favour and force feed the arsenic,lead and titanium dosed drugs to her girlfriend.
What a load of crap..
small print: This video was brought to you by big pharma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I started looking into the case, and while she died from the toxic materials in her medications, its what medications they were that was interesting.
She had Alprazolam (RX only: US (C - IV) and Canada), Acetominophen (Tylenol), and Zolpidem (RX only: US (C - IV), Not approved in Canada).
So, she was ordering controlled prescription medication from the internet, and not only that, one she couldn't possible have a prescription for. Sounds like she was self medicating
PROTECT IP isn't going to save us from stupidity, people.
That story didn't even pass the sniff test.
Remember, only doctors and licensed personnel (nurses, pharmacists in some areas) are allowed to prescribe medication. No reputable one would do so online with no medical history or ever seeing a patient. Online pharmacies offering drugs without prescriptions are illegal, and probably counterfeit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterfeit drugs
Take a look at a list of domain names seized by ICE.
Guess how many were selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals?
The correct answer is not a single one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Counterfeit drugs
http://www.dotweekly.com/ice-seizes-more-domains-whois-changed-on-one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.reinbeck.org/govt/officials.html
I started a google docs letter. Post your gmail username here and I will share with you.
PS: I swear, if you go off and prank/lulz her you are a counterproductive idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.reinbeckcourier.com/page/content.detail/id/503646/Letter-to-the-editor.html?nav =5003
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further, SIK has been ordering overseas meds for several years. Trust them when they say that these operations want repeat business and to put heavy metals and other shit that kills the user is counterproductive to say the least. They're not stupid.
This ad reminds me of the old BS story of some neighborhood maniac putting razor blades in apples on Halloween. I guarantee that a few major pieces of this story were omitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A California diet supplement maker that promises its ExtenZe pills increase penis size is paying $1.75 million in penalties to settle consumer protection law violations."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/22/20110722california-penis-enlargement -settlement.html
These laws don't apply to the internet?
Looks like they sold less than 24 pills. Pill and song have same cost. $1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But notice how she states she bought drugs off the internet and goes on to explain how she ordered everything using the internet. Im curious about what she's not telling us. What drug was it...benzos...painkillers...
And the sad part is that sheeple eat this stuff up all day long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I never said the bill doesn't target these sites. It does. But if you want to target these sites write a bill that JUST targets these sites, rather than lumping everything else in with it.
And, seriously, give up this bullshit line of attack. Of course I read the bill, and you know damn well what it's designed to do and how sneaky and underhanded this line of propaganda is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are such a slimy loser, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps now you understand how some people feel about using specious free speech and due process claims as a Trojan horse for freeloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike Masnick: the internet's biggest piracy apologist.
But still too ashamed to admit it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uses Draconian Unfathomable Measures, But Spun As Protection act.
or the U DUMB SAP act for short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
PROtect Consumers UNder Threat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What you miss is that the USCoC represents all kinds of businesses victimized by rogue site operators."
Rogue site operators is a misnomer. The stated position of most pharmaceutical companies is to find ways to limit foreign (read: cheaper) drugs from entering into the US.
Canada had cheaper drugs. Guess what? They'll be labeled a rogue site. Brazil tries to make a pharmaceutical company. Not only will they be blackballed by the USTR on the 301 watchlist, but they'll have to watch out for Protect IP stopping any funding from helping them. They aren't victimized, the US companies don't want to compete.
"They have to consider all of the member companies issues and don't just pimp for content companies."
The do it anyway. They just have extra paradox absorbing crumple zones in stock.
" Fact is, content companies are victimized too, but nobody dies. "
Nope, see above.
"The non-content companies probably represent a larger constituency of the CoC so I doubt that they are running the show."
Misnomer, and misleading. The CoC does all it can to buy judges in state courts, work for mandatory arbitration laws, or do many other shady business dealings in order to have their agenda manifest in a variety of ways. It's not about just the "non-content" industry, it's about pushing everything to benefit all constituents with the least amount of resistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chamber of Lobbyists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chamber of Lobbyists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because (1) only an idiot or a lobbyist would classify all of the problems as "rogue sites." It's not. In some cases they're facing competition. In some cases they're dealing with counterfeiters. In some cases they're dealing with technological innovation these companies don't like. It's just a creation of you and your buddies that you can lump them all together as "rogue sites." I love how you refuse to deal with the fact that Universal Music considers one of its top selling artists' own site as a "rogue site." (2) The way to deal with each of the issues these companies deal with is very, very different.
Pharma, hard goods and content all share a common problem with these sites, I don't think anyone is trying to pull a fast one by including content.
Bullshit. The problems they face are totally different.
The problem for the content industries is a business model problem. It's not a health problem at all.
It's sick and disgustingly dishonest to lump one industry's failure to adapt to a changing business model in with the actual issue of fake drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps. But a large part of a solution; putting foreign-based rogue sites out of business, seems totally similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so I guess even though the crimes are done by different types of people, for different reasons, and doing different types of harm to different sections of society (most of which are not the public), the "solution" is exactly the same.
Sounds good. So, why don't we try that on, let's say, child pornography?
Oh, wait - because it's unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The vehicle is rogue sites. The issue is intellectual property. But, yes the harm can be greater, as in the case of the woman who died. Most of the companies are "public" as in owned by shareholders so I don't know what the "not the public" comment is about. But the law protects IP owners whether an individual or corporation equally.
Sounds good. So, why don't we try that on, let's say, child pornography?
Oh, wait - because it's unconstitutional.
Read the bill Karl. It allows an order to be served on US-based payment processors, ad networks and search engines to stop rendering service to rogue sites. No constitutional issues there. Those sites will still exist, can still operate and be accessed. Just not enabled by those US based assets listed above. The case you cited had absolutely nothing to do with the remedies proposed by Protect IP. Other than that, you're spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Poorly defined.
"The issue is intellectual property."
Broadly defined to mean drugs, music, and movies.
" Most of the companies are "public" as in owned by shareholders so I don't know what the "not the public" comment is about."
Ah, so you're going to involve those that represent the public such as KEI to the meetings from now on. Oh, no? Then there's a problem where the public is underrepresented.
"But the law protects IP owners whether an individual or corporation equally."
That's funny, because it did a bang up job with Andy Baio, the recipients of DMCA requests, and all the little people it crushes and turns into "pirates" for using legally owned music, movies, and games.
" It allows an order to be served on US-based payment processors, ad networks and search engines to stop rendering service to rogue sites. No constitutional issues there. "
And yet, Rojadirecta disagrees, and before the NET act made statutory penalties so egregious, Jammie-Thomas would have been charged with a misdemeanor. Has that stopped those "pirates?" Have the high statutory damages acted like any sort of deterrent as the RIAA/MPAA or anyone else expected them to act?
And by the way, all you're doing is making Bitcoin that much more valuable along with Flattr. It's weakening the American services, not strengthening them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Familiarize yourself with the Protect IP Act and the facts of the Rojadirecta case.
Rojadirecta didn't have payment processors, advertising denied them. It's OK to be hysterical but you should at least know what you should be hysterical over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seeing as how Karl has a better write up that you've yet to respond to, I'll take it that you're just trying to be misleading about PIPA and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you lump together sites selling counterfeit controlled substances; sites selling counterfeit consumer products; music promotion blogs; forum sites where users share and discuss music and movies; and search engines - well, then, your definition of "rogue site" is so broad, it could cover any site on the internet.
Each kind of website has different First Amendment issues. Each kind of website is guilty of violating different kinds of laws (some of which are not criminal, but civil). Most of these sites are not making money directly from infringement.
The issue is intellectual property.
Not in this story. Here, the issue is public safety. Drugs are a controlled substance, unlike most things under trademark or copyright. You don't need FDA approval to make a handbag or write a song. And as with all controlled substances, the safety issues are entirely separate from the IP issues.
The medication didn't kill her because it infringed on Big Pharma's IP; it killed her because it was unregulated. The woman would have died, even if she took counterfeit generic medication. In fact, if it was counterfeit generic medication, PROTECT IP would have had no effect whatsoever on the site that sold it.
And not only do you act like all products covered by IP are the same, you act like all types of IP are the same. It is not. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are governed by completely separate laws, with different reasons for existing. Trademark infringement, for example, does not arise from the Constitution. And patent infringement, unlike copyright or trademark infringement, is never criminal.
Lumping them all together is a huge mistake.
Most of the companies are "public" as in owned by shareholders so I don't know what the "not the public" comment is about.
"Public" means "the general public," i.e. "all citizens, IP holders or not." You know, the people who are the only stakeholders in copyright and patent law. IP is designed to serve the general public, not a company's shareholders. If you want to look at it in terms of "consumers" and "producers," IP laws are designed to serve consumers.
It has the same meaning, for example, as in "public health and safety." The thing that is not affected by fake handbags or musc blogs, but is affected by unregulated medication.
Read the bill Karl. It allows an order to be served on US-based payment processors, ad networks and search engines to stop rendering service to rogue sites. No constitutional issues there. Those sites will still exist, can still operate and be accessed.
I have read the bill. Apparently, you have not. Yes, it allows everything you just mentioned - and it allows those actions to be taken by any IP holder, not just the Attorney General.
It also encourages ad networks and search engines to take these actions against sites they suspect might be an infringing site, without ever being notified by the Attorney General or any IP holder. They face no liability if they're wrong.
Additionally, the Attorney General can force DNS's to stop resolving the domain name, blocking the website worldwide. In essence, it's encouraging the kind of "seizures" that ICE have been doing lately, which have a huge amount of First Amendment concerns.
It is this part of PROTECT IP that is likely unconstitutional under CDT v. Pappert.
And even if this was not it the bill, there would hardly be "no constitutional issues there." Since this law targets websites, which are specifically an instrument of free expression, the law would have to pass the O'Brien test to be constitutional. The fact that it would pass with some categories of sites (e.g. "commercial speech" sites) and not others (e.g. user forums) speaks to how broadly, and uselessly, a "rogue site" is defined.
Furthermore, it's only after these actions have been taken, that accused sites are allowed to defend themselves. If they are innocent, then tough shit for them. The can be "unblocked" after a court hearing (which takes many months, if the seizures are any indication), but they must suffer any lost income, or loss of speech rights, that happen in the meantime. In no case are innocent sites allowed to get a single penny in damages.
This raises the additional spectre of lack of due process.
There might also be "restraint of trade" issues, especially since the affected sites were not actually found guilty under any court before being blocked by ad networks and search engines. That's not my general interest, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You have a vastly distorted of the power of the content industry within the CoC. Content likes the bill, but ain't driving the bus. The bill is seen as having a positive impact many member businesses of the CoC. Do some benefit more than others? Sure. But that's the way with virtually any bill supported by the Chamber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And 50 cents' site IS rouge; his forum was a cesspool of people illegally uploading leaks and then providing links to them.
You are the most shameless piracy apologist on the net, but too much of a little man to admit it; that much is obvious to anyone that can read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a bit of deception
"The worst part is that Marcia�s death could have been prevented had the government been given the tools to root out online counterfeiters. That is exactly why I support the efforts in Washington to enact legislation to cut off these sites from the U.S. market, such as the PROTECT IP Act (S. 968), that was introduced last May."
Well, Marcia Mooty was living in Canada at the time, so how would a U.S. law have prevented her death? If Glenda was truly conscientious about preventing this again she would have mentioned what this article did"
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a16c39c9-0cc7-468f-a3d0-c1fe022649c3
"Marshall Moleschi, registrar of the College of Pharmacists of B.C., said any B.C. pharmacy selling drugs online must publish its name and address on its site -- and the college's phone number, which people can call to verify the site is legitimate."
I imagine their might be a similar way to do this in the U.S., or is there? At any rate since it appears that most online pharmacies used by Americans are Canadian, the same method of calling to verify can be used by Americans.
"The biggest customers for online Canadian pharmacies are Americans, who pay high prices for many drugs."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110520/02012914349/senator-leahy-supports-bringing-drug s-canada-also-banning-such-sites-internet.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the major payment processors, ad networks and search engines are based in the US, then US laws ordering these companies to stop rendering service would starve these websites out of business. What good would a Canadian law do to shut down the rogue sites unless they're located in Canada?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only to the extent that they can be starved out by being denied US payment processors and ad network revenue. Also removal from US search engines will help. None of these steps will necessarily eliminate these predators but will help. I don't know Canada law, but assume they have ways to deal with these companies with .ca domain names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, interesting that. I posted a comment there not an hour ago, pointing out the fact that none of the sites seized by ICE were for selling counterfeit drugs. I also called them using a personal tragedy in this way "sickening."
I'm guessing that I'm not the only one. As it turns out, rating is also disabled for the video, and it wasn't before. Perhaps that was because out of all the votes it got, not a single one was a "Like" vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm guessing that the woman who died order a medication by trade name. That would be an IP issue I believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hardly any followers, fresh profile....
that does say enough does it not ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USCoC is so FFOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, I'm against this bill that's anticompetitive just because major entertainment companies don't want to put out products to serve customers. It expands copyright law based on allegations of copyright infringement. It expands the Attorney General's office and that of ISPs and service providers into copyright cops. It destroys communities while ignoring the very fact that pirates make good secondary products consumers.
"Sorry if you will have to pay to watch movies or listen to music. "
And this is why I watch Youtube for music. Free. Of charge. Along with Netflix or ebay for movies cheaper than $20.
"If you despise the content industry and what they stand for, you should boycott them, not steal from them."
That's just it. No one is stealing anything from them. They don't want to make their own streaming service, it's their fault. The more legal services they make, the less piracy comes into play. That's a well known fact with all of the reports. If you gave people Napster and licensed (instead of sued people for) content for a decent price, people would use it. Same with Spotify. It's not stealing. They can make a copy. Nothing in the rules books of economics says that a digital copy equates to a lost sale. The industry still has potential profits, if they would look for it. Instead, they pay people to conflate the infringement/theft angle so people continue not to understand the problems of copyright, patent, and trademark issues in the digital era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This video conflates public safety issues with IP issues, and exploits a personal tragedy in order to push through legislation that will be used to shutter music blogs and user forums (whether commercial or not).
It can't get much more pathetic than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It exploits a personal tragedy to prevent further personal tragedies. The fact that it makes stealing music harder is not exactly a reason to not try to prevent further deaths like this. Is getting free content so important that you'd oppose a law that could also save lives? That is truly pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My issue is not about "getting free content." It's about doing away with due process and free speech. And no, I'm not about to give up either of these things willingly, even if it would "save lives."
Which it likely wouldn't. As the ICE seizures show, the "rogue sites" would likely be about copyright infringement or counterfeit consumer goods. Not one of the "rogue sites" seized by ICE were a threat to public safety.
Furthermore, "infringing medication" does not always mean "fake medication." It could also apply to e.g. generic drugs, or "parallel imports" of perfectly legitimate drugs. Far from saving lives, this aspect of PROTECT IP would harm lives, by blocking access to safe and affordable drugs.
See this article in Yahoo! news for details about that.
PROTECT IP has nothing to do with public safety. It would likely not have prevented the tragedy in this video. But the CoC trots out this story, in a cynical attempt to play at the heartstrings, to get a law passed that will protect its business interests at the expense of the general public.
That is pathetic. It is exactly the definition of FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And, I just went to the website - FightOnlineTheft.com.
They lay out even more FUD than this. Example:
From fake pharmaceuticals that kill, to the theft of movies and music that put people out of work, to identity theft and malicious viruses, these sites break the law and prey on unsuspecting consumers.
Not only are they conflating public safety issues with "theft" of movies and music, but they also conflate it with "identity theft and malicious viruses."
Despite the fact that neither identity theft, nor computer viruses, have anything whatsoever to do with intellectual property.
And neither could be classified as "rogue sites" under PROTECT IP - which says nothing at all about either identity theft or malicious viruses.
The whole site is FUD, FUD, and nothing but FUD. It is truly sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? You don't think that illegal music sites also provide a side order of virus with your music? And that these sites in Russia that take your credit card info ever sell it to identity thieves? Goober, you are a rube of the first order. Whatever you do, don't venture beyond farm.net. You'll be eaten alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me put it this way: none of the sites ICE seized were even accused of hosting viruses or malware.
The sites that "distribute" infringing content are not sites that distribute malware. Why would they? Most "pirate" sites are community-driven.
On the other hand, entities that distribute viruses and malware target any type of software that is popular at the moment. You can just as easily catch them by using Word, Outlook, or Adobe Reader as you can from The Pirate Bay. The latest trend is malware that poses as "security" software. (Of course, the software is not "counterfeit," but wholly fictitious, so no IP violations occurred, and PROTECT IP will do nothing to stop them.)
And it's not as if IP holders are innocent, either. Remember the Sony XCP DRM? That was malware - and as it happens, it was also an IP violation (since they used GPL code).
You could say the same for many "copy protection" schemes as well - for example, in the mid-2000's Waves' audio plugin software required DRM that would freeze your computer and result in BSOD's. It got so bad, that the prevailing opinion among commercial audio engineers was "buy the software, use the crack."
In fact, to the average consumer, "copy protection" is not much more desirable than a virus. That is part of the reason people pirate: the pirated copy is often superior to the commercial product.
And that these sites in Russia that take your credit card info ever sell it to identity thieves?
99.9% of infringing websites do not sell content. For example: none of the sites ICE seized for copyright infringement actually sold music or movies. As far as I can tell, none asked for any credit card information for any reason whatsoever.
And none of those sites - not even the ones that sold counterfeit goods - were even accused of giving credit card info to identity thieves. Not in the affidavits that I've been able to read, at least.
Even if they did, that wouldn't be an IP violation, it would be fraud. Fraud is not even addressed in PROTECT IP, and sites that commit it would not be considered "rogue sites" under that bill.
So, if you want to go after identity thieves, then write a bill going after identity theft. If you want to go after distributors of viruses or malware, write a bill that goes after viruses or malware.
None of that is even addressed in PROTECT IP, because that's not the purpose of PROTECT IP. The purpose of PROTECT IP is solely to go after IP violations, which - I cannot stress enough - have nothing to do with credit card fraud, viruses, or public safety.
Whether you know it or not (and I suspect you do), you are doing nothing but spreading FUD. It is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try to get past the divide by zero error in your head and you may be able to understand this simple concept. I know you're likely paid not to, but some things are worth risking your job over, and a job like what you have - being a paid shill - isn't one worth keeping. Clear your conscience and risk believing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it does. This is not how copyright works right now. Even preliminary injunctions against infringers can only happen after a hearing, where affirmative defenses can be raised. To do otherwise is prior restraint.
Furthermore, the outright blocking of all financial transactions has never been meted out as punishment for copyright infringment.
Things work slightly differently in regards to criminal (rather than civil) infringement - but this bill is not about criminal infringement.
Also, pay close attention to 6(c):
Translation: 17 USC 512 is now an affirmative defense that can only be raised after the site has been blocked and blacklisted. In essence, PROTECT IP renders 512 toothless, since a site that is in full compliance with 512 can still be considered a "rogue site."
Under the current law, if websites qualify, 512 prohibits any actions that are not covered in 512(j). That section limits injunctions to disabling user accounts and access to infringing works; and it completely prohibits ex parte injunctions.
Of course, PROTECT IP also does away with due process, since the allegedly "rogue sites" have no chance to present a defence before their domains are seized and the finances are blocked. Because web sites are, by definition, primarily engaging in speech activities, it also means that this is possibly prior restraint.
So, yeah, I'd say it "expands" copyright law quite a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thjere
If PROTECT IP is enacted, Americans could lose access to safe, affordable prescription drugs from Canadian and other international pharmacies. 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 Congress and President Obama urging them to oppose the PROTECT IP Act in order to protect access to affordable medicine. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't, if you want your patient to live, put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. You only do that if you want to support a big business like Johnson & Johnson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Protect
No one orders medicine from a website without having to send a RX and believes that they might not get what they are paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]