What Can Bring Together Opposites On The Traditional Political Spectrum? A Fear Of Censorship Due To PROTECT IP

from the speaking-out dept

Wed, Aug 31st 2011 11:54am — Mike Masnick

If you follow the political world these days, you'd think that there was nothing out there that a "bleeding-heart liberal" and a "Tea Party conservative" might agree on. But it appears that the hugely problematic PROTECT IP Act is bringing together such diverse interests. David Segal and Patrick Ruffini -- who probably don't agree on very much at all politically -- teamed up to write an editorial about the problems of PROTECT IP, for OregonLive. The editorial notes the massive unintended consequences likely to come from the bill, and highlights how this is an issue outside of any standard political spectrum. This isn't an issue about political viewpoints. It's an issue about fundamental values and the belief that censorship is wrong.

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, conservatives, liberals, protect ip

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

anonymous, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:01pm

i applaud their joining over this matter. unfortunately, it will make not an iota of difference. the amount of 'lobbying' and 'incentives' that have been forthcoming from the entertainment industries means that anything and everything will be ignored, the bill will become law, the internet will buckle badly, if not break completely and then all the moaning will start. on top of which will come all the denials from the thick pricks that voted for it, trying to say they didn't! typical politicians attitude!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:04pm

oh please
everyone knows the Tea Party just wants free tea!

Teatards!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:15pm

Hugely problematic in that it addresses piracy.

Pirate Mike is so funny. He actually believes people buy the bullshit he slings. That's known as mental illness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:17pm

Protect IP's best hope of passage was that no one noticed. Protect IP won't withstand the scrutiny that would come with public attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:17pm

Re:
You forgot to call him a freetard, too.

Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:26pm

Re:
Too much trolling today, don't you think? He doesn't believe, ppl buy because there is value in it and it is hardly bs. Your continuous denial that he has good points (regardless of you agreeing or not) and your non-stop personal attacks are known as mental illness.

Your illness is so deep rooted in your brain that you fail to see what even the ones that proposed the Protect IP Act saw: that there MAY BE unintended consequences. But the supporters say the Govt will be a good guy and not ever distort the act once it comes to law. Ah, the BART.

We should make home raiding and seizures completely free and remove the need of judicial orders since it'll address drug dealing. Collateral damage is collateral.

Shut up troll. Go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:27pm

I have a sneaking suspicion that the "unintended consequences" are actually intentional in that the government wants to broaden their censorship powers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:27pm

Re:
Hopefully. HADOPI passed despite public rejection.

The AC above, puppet of the media and the Govt, seems to support it without second thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re:
Hugely problematic in that it addresses piracy.

It may try to but it will fail - and do a lot of collateral damage in the process.

Please wake up and enter the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re:
There may be unintended consequences. What a nice, wide, blanket statement that could be used for anything.

By that logic, we should stop the sale of guns, because there could be unintended consequences of the sale, as an example. For that matter, putting up an extra stop sign on a street might have unintended consequences for other streets, so let's just not bother.

It's a FUD statement, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:30pm

Re:
Mike addresses piracy nearly every day, but you would call that problematic, wouldn't you? There are ways to address piracy without criminalizing a nation and trampling human rights (or as you would call it, the PROTECT IP Act) and those solutions are discussed on this very blog along with many other media outlets. Too bad your industry is too dumb to adapt to changing markets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
Guns, and someone might die. Signs, and someone might die. Copyright infringement, and someone might die.

Exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
Except in this case it's actually a direct reference to the sheer number of specific issues that have already been raised as opposed to just a vaguely worded warning. The fact that you've willfully ignored such warnings does not make any reference to them 'FUD statement, nothing more.' It really doesn't to anything but belie your own bias or willful ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:44pm

Re:
Not if the comments on the original article are anything to go by. It could just be troll/shill comments, but most seemed to say that since this bill targets websites doing illegal things (copyright infringement in this case) that it's ok. They totally ignore the fact that the trial comes after the shutdown, they completely miss the fact the "private right of action" that allows anyone to shut down anyone else (including business competitors, ex-spouses, etc), and they don't even think about the legality of sites in other countries (e.g., TVShack, Rojadirecta). It appears that they don't even consider the scale of the infringement. The comments indicate that they must be thinking that a site targeted by PROTECT IP will be some massive infringing site making, rather than just some guy's blog that has a lot of his own content but also includes one small infringing file (perhaps a picture he liked).

It's like the whole "First they came for..." quote. Nobody cares about the rise in power by the federal government because their toes aren't being stepped on right now. They ignore that that same rise in power allows them to step on their toes later. They ignore that people like them are having their toes stepped on right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Incoherent One (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re:
You are lending to much credibility to the French, and their government which you know does not give a shit. HADOPI was Sarkozy's baby and he treated it as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
Fail.

Stop selling guns and ppl who want to kill will use knives. But you'll surely feed an illegal black market and prevent ppl who practice shooting as a sport from having their fun.

As for the stop sign yes, an extra stop sign can turn traffic into hell if badly placed. Point is, anything done may have unintended consequences that should be weighted.

Which takes us to my previous comment. A system or a law that can be abused by the power to censor and control WILL BE USED for those ends. Sooner or later as the US has shown us by putting their Constitution to shame with the unintended consequences of the Patriot Act.

Please, shut up and leave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
That was my point. This lunacy called "Protect IP Act" would be tossed down upon public scrutiny just like HADOPI would. But it still passed. Point is, I wouldn't be surprised if it passes DESPITE public scrutiny and outrage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:54pm

Re:
> anything and everything will be ignored,
> the bill will become law, the internet will
> buckle badly, if not break completely

I agree with you up to a point. Yes, the legislators have been bought and paid for and will pass it anyway, even if every single one of their constituents asks them not to, and yes, it will be signed into law.

However, that's where I think it stops. Even now, rights groups across the political spectrum, along with business alliances of every kind are all preparing legal challenges to PROTECT IP so that the lawsuits will be ready to file immediately in the event PROTECT IP becomes law. Before the ink in Obama's signature is dry on the paper, dozens of challenges will be filed in courts in every circuit, resulting in at least one judge issuing injunctive relief against enforcement of PROTECT IP until the suits can be consolidated and the far-reaching constitutional issues adjudicated.

This has happened before. When Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996, it was in effect less than three hours after Clinton signed it, before it was challenged and enforcement suspended by the federal courts, pending litigation. The CDA was later overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment in Reno v. ACLU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 12:58pm

Re:
Satan's best trick was convincing the world He didn't exist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re:
He doesn't. Human being is the origin of its own problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re:
How do I get a sweet nickname like "Pirate Mike"? I figure a guy with the name Pirate Mike doesn't pay for drinks in bars, at the very least...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:12pm

Re: Re: Re:
see how well it worked!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re:
Thats quote does more to highlight the inherent hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, in that, if he had convinced them he didn't exist, the quote wouldn't either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
Right. So instead of just throwing your hands up in the air and pretending the law is perfect, maybe you could actually support changing it to reduce the chance of those "unintended consequences."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL! No really, even from Christian perspective it's a lie. Hell itself means absence of God. But God is omnipresent so Hell can't exist. I do believe in stray evil spirits but not in one great evil spirit opposed to God that would do harm to others. We harm ourselves and that's our "purgatory" if you will. I might buy the existence of 'evil' spirits but I don't buy that they cause whatever evil except by using already evil human beings. And the world is full of such ppl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
Oh, all kinds of actions have unintended consequences. Fox recently put up restrictions on their shows that encouraged more people to download unlicensed copies than otherwise would have, for example.

You can never predict all possible unintended consequences, but you can mitigate or avoid many by properly analyzing the intended action before you make it. That includes getting input from other sources and seriously considering them.

What doesn't work is only listening to people whose opinions agree with your own and dismissing those who disagree. Which is what's happening here, apparently. Several very smart and very high-profile people have weighed in with carefully considered and explained analyses and they've all fallen on deaf ears.

Though to be honest I assume that those lawmakers ignoring the opposing viewpoints are actually quite aware of the negative consequences and either don't care (because they're being paid not to) or are counting on it (because they're interested in unfettered power).

Simply claiming it's FUD is just another way of dismissing the arguments unconsidered. It likely either puts you in the "willfully ignorant" camp or in the "I'm paid not to care" camp. Unless you're in the "too stupid to understand" camp.

Life is full of unintended consequences. Writing vague laws with power of censorship built in is a lighting rod for negative consequences, intended or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:30pm

Could someone please explain exactly what happens to my internet experience after it "breaks" as a result of this law? I hear it all the time, but don't think I ever caught the full explanation. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:36pm

From the editorial:

Even worse, PROTECT IP also includes a "private right of action" that would allow rights holders to obtain a temporary restraining order against a domain in civil court. Instead, big content providers like the RIAA can target websites at their whim, urging courts to shut down anyone they accuse of violating U.S. copyright law.

No, it's much much worse than that. It's not just "big content providers" who could target any website on a whim, it's fricken anyone! Any pissed off reader, any nutcase with time on his hands, any government, any competitor to your business, anyone!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re:
so the story goes. she caught him frigging around with another woman and only agreed to stay married to him, saving his political career and position, if he agreed to back Hadopi. as she has associations with the entertainment industries through her modeling and singing career, she pleased her former bosses in case she needs them at a later date. the fact that she had been frigging around as well was irrelevant!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
You forgot, the results of such a law will be minimum if any on the supposed object of attention "piracy", but the repercussions for democracy will be dramatic.

So I have to say FUD is your BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:57pm

Re:
So it isn't for the artists,. Shocker.

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:04pm

Re:
You go back to typing IP numbers directly into your browser, and hoping that others didn't issue the same IP's to different people inside their own countries.

Without a single unified IP system is like every company inside a country that sells phones had the ability to issue their own phone numbers and only their own phones would know who was who, that means you loose access to other people who are in other companies networks, this is more or less what PROTECT IP would do.

It breaks the confidence of other countries in that system and they start trying their own solutions, eventually everyone will restart using the same system again but the US will never again hold any power over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:07pm

Actually, Protect IP Act seems to have the same uniting effect on the mainstream Republicans and Democrats as it has on the extremists on the far right and far left. The list of co-sponsors is quite bipartisan.

Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
Added May 25, 2011
Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R, NH]
Added June 27, 2011
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Added July 25, 2011
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO]
Added May 23, 2011
Sen. John Boozman [R, AR]
Added June 15, 2011
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Added July 13, 2011
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Added June 23, 2011
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN]
Added June 09, 2011
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
Added June 30, 2011
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Al Franken [D, MN]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
Added May 26, 2011
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Kay Hagan [D, NC]
Added July 05, 2011
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
Added July 07, 2011
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Added July 26, 2011
Sen. Jerry Moran [R, KS]
Added June 23, 2011
Wthdrawn June 27, 2011
Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]
Added May 26, 2011
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY]
Added May 12, 2011
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Added June 30, 2011
Sen. Tom Udall [D, NM]
Added July 07, 2011
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Added May 12, 2011
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:08pm

Re:
The most ambiguous law ever devised and people want to give powers to hyper greedy people who proved they would lie and cheat to achieve any goal they want. That really will work well I can see now LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:08pm

Re:
Sure. You won't quite know how to get to the domains you want.

What will happen is that unofficial DNS systems will sprout up to be used in place of the official ones, as the official ones will no longer be reliable as more and more websites get blacklisted (and it won't be just a few pirate websites, it will be a wide variety, both with legal content and not.)

This will cause the DNS system to fragment, making domain names themselves less useful because you won't know where to look to resolve them.

It's like if there were a phone book covering all of your city, but then it started omitting phone numbers. Other phone books sprout up to cover the missing information. Before long, you won't know which phone book to look in when you want to find a phone number.

The fun fact is that this bill won't stop or even slow down infringment sites at all, it will only harm legal ones. Infringement sites will just have their own DNS system, or distribute the IP addresses of their servers directly and bypass DNS completely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:12pm

Re: Re:
You go back to typing IP numbers directly into your browser, and hoping that others didn't issue the same IP's to different people inside their own countries.

Without a single unified IP system is like every company inside a country that sells phones had the ability to issue their own phone numbers and only their own phones would know who was who, that means you loose access to other people who are in other companies networks, this is more or less what PROTECT IP would do.

It breaks the confidence of other countries in that system and they start trying their own solutions, eventually everyone will restart using the same system again but the US will never again hold any power over it.

So from the sound of it, I'd only be typing in 10 digit numbers in the event that I want to access a site that's been de-listed. I don't see why countries would necessarily start issuing duplicate IP addresses. Why would they do that? Simply to facilitate a site that has been blocked? It sounds like it might break the internet for those who wish to continue to visit sites tat were targeted for enforcement, but I'm not hearing how it will effect an average user.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re:
You know, the bank bailouts we're bipartisan as well. proving shit.

A government douchebag is government douchebag, regardless of the color of his tie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:21pm

Re:
Please read:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/08/26/protect_ip_threatens_the_future_of_dns _security

in which Paul Vixie rather elegantly explains the issue. That article also references a whitepaper on the subject which is mandatory reading for anyone wishing to discuss the technical details.

(Who is Paul Vixie? One of the guys that *built* the Internet and, incidentally, wrote a piece of software that every single person reading this uses every time they're online. He understands the technical issues involved at a level that most people don't even realize exists.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Incoherent One (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
My bad, I was reading another troll while crafting that response. I did not mean to come off in such a curt manner. You did (very clearly) express that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because protecting our rights to free speech is perfectly equatable to killing someone. Let's see... The first is not only legal, but morally justified. The second is neither legal nor morally justified... Yeah.. Crawl back under your rock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re:
But a coalition of extremists from the far right and far left somehow are different? Interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:17pm

Re:
it's fricken anyone! Any pissed off reader, any nutcase with time on his hands, any government, any competitor to your business, anyone!

There's this principle called a "standing to sue". That basically means I have to have some skin in the game in order to initiate a civil suit. So it's not any "nutcase with time on his hands". Moreover, litigation is expensive. It would take a pretty rich nutcase to bring a case before a judge and convincing that judge that the website was dedicated to infringing activities and had no other significant commercial purpose. Perhaps you can lay out the scenario you envisioned when you claimed that "Any pissed off reader... any nutcase... any government... anyone" can bring an action.

As for a competitor, unless that competitor was also a copyright holder I don't see how Netflix files an action against Hulu Plus. Maybe a more thorough examination of that would be in order as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:37pm

| :-D
{Cherleader Mode: ON}
"We are Tea Partiers and bleeding-heart liberals, we are artists and investment bankers, we represent the left and the right, and we support Senator Wyden as he comes forward, yet again, as a stalwart champion for First Amendment rights, innovation and digital security.

The problem at hand is a bill called the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act" (PROTECT IP) and it aims to permanently change our digital landscape � that's why we're calling it what it is: The Internet Blacklist Bill."
Yay Wyden! Oregon FTW!
{Cherleader Mode: OFF}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 8:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am quite seriously trying to understand just what free speech rights you are being denied because of proposed legislation directed to websites having no meaningful purpose other than the promotion of infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 9:41pm

From what I've seen.. "liberals", "conservatives", "left", "right"... They're all basically the same. This left/right nonsense is taught to us in our schools and constantly force fed to us again by all our mainstream politicians.

Obama, Bush, & Clinton are practically brothers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 9:59pm

Re:
You can't be serious after 10 years it did nothing to stop piracy, but it had a lot of collateral damage to freedom in America.

You got to be a troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:00pm

Re:
If you doubt, please go to the near Pirate Bay and see for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re:
Mike addresses piracy the same way a new inmate in jail addresses Bubba on night one: he bends over and takes it. His solutions tend to be "go with the flow". I guess it keeps a guy from getting a shiv in his spine in jail, but it seems to a be a pretty horrible business choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:06pm

Re: Re:
They don't need to go through a trial, they just need to file and ask the judge for blocking, that doesn't seem expensive when you can cause harm to your competitors.

Looking at how others laws where used(Looking at you DMCA) it is clear to anyone with half a brain what will happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334

Try remembering that then.

IPv4 is dead, we are in a transitional phase to IPv6.
http://test-ipv6.com/ipv6day.html

Also try to convince the Chinese government that the USA have good reason to seize the domains of Chinese business because they break American law and see what it will happen, you think the Europeans will allow that too?

Only stupid countries would accept that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:41pm

Re:
Yes they are all united by one color, the green color and it has nothing to do with the green color of the islamic faith.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It says that but we all know it won't be used for that purpose only.

Since it is a exclusion tool it will be used to exclude people and companies, just like the majority of the DMCA's is target against competitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
Unlike the industry pinned down on the floor screaming and taking like a man?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:47pm

Re:
Don't know why but the use of the word "brothers" triggered my mind to see those 3 rapping together.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Sep 2011 @ 1:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am quite seriously trying to understand just what free speech rights you are being denied because of proposed legislation directed to websites having no meaningful purpose other than the promotion of infringement.

Perhaps you are completely unaware of some of the blogs and forums that have been seized by the US gov't, despite tons of non-infringing protected speech.

Or, perhaps you are unaware of the industry created list of sites they decided were "dedicated to piracy" that included the Internet Archive, 50 Cent's personal website, Vimeo and the Vibe.

Or, perhaps, you are unfamiliar with the history of copyright law and innovation, in which every new innovation is declared to have "no meaningful purpose other than the promotion of infringement." That includes the player piano, the radio, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the DVR, the mp3 player and YouTube.

If you can't see how a broadly defined law like this will be abused, you're really not paying attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2011 @ 7:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You misunderstand my point. If the poster's free speech rights are being denied then he should be able as an individual to go to court claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights. To do this, of course, he would have to demonstrate that the has standing to bring suit.

My question is basically directed to standing, and from his post it is not at all clear what arguments he would raise to demonstrate that the standing requirement is satisfied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Rife, 1 Sep 2011 @ 8:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, what you're saying is that it is OK to have a law that silences a lot of protected speech as long as the people being silenced have the ability to file a lawsuit to get their free speech right back?

What part of "inalienable rights" do you not understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2011 @ 8:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Mike's been been told hundreds of times about how the SC ruling on Cloud Books works, but he just stomps and screams 'no, no. no!"

2. All those sites participated in infringement. But we already know that's ok with you.

3. Hyperbolic lies and FUD that are just Mike trying his usual strategy of changing the subject.

You've failed miserably again, Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Sep 2011 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Mike's been been told hundreds of times about how the SC ruling on Cloud Books works, but he just stomps and screams 'no, no. no!"

I don't scream "no, no, no." I point to the actual text of the ruling, which says (and I'll quote for those in denial), which states (pretty clearly -- though you have to read it) that it only applies to "nonexpressive activity." Are you claiming that blog posts and forums are nonexpressive activity? Or did you not actually read the decision?

The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of the closure statute against respondents' bookstore. United States v. O'Brien, supra, has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive activity, and the sexual activities carried on in this case manifest absolutely no element of protected expression.

2. All those sites participated in infringement. But we already know that's ok with you.

Bullshit. First, in at least one case, all of the files the government used to show infringement were sent by authorized parties. Second, define "participated." The problem is that you seem to think that if someone in a forum points to an infringing link, the site itself participated. It did not. The user may have. But under your definition of "participated" Google would be shut down.

3. Hyperbolic lies and FUD that are just Mike trying his usual strategy of changing the subject.

Notice how our ignorant friend here did not actually contradict any of the points. That's because he can't. My statements were accurate. Each of those technologies and services was first accused of being dedicated to piracy. But our friend thinks we'd be in a better world without them.

You've failed miserably again, Pirate Mike.

And, once again, I've never "pirated" anything, so I wish you'd stop engaging in defamation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
in what? we're not in government positions nor asking for governmental monopolies and protection money, you are you authoritarian douchebag
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 1 Sep 2011 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: Re:
but it seems to a be a pretty horrible business choice.

Until you look at the alternative!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 1 Sep 2011 @ 1:54pm

Re: Re:
There's this principle called a "standing to sue". That basically means I have to have some skin in the game in order to initiate a civil suit.

Tell that to Righthaven!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 1 Sep 2011 @ 10:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
Right, becaus the business choices of the industry paying to unload your BS on this blog made intelligent choices over the last 15 or so years? That's hillarious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]