Wyden: PROTECT IP Act Is About Letting The Content Sector Attack The Innovation Sector
from the don't-let-that-happen dept
For years we've seen Silicon Valley basically ignore what's happening in Washington DC, and this has allowed certain other industries to take advantage of that policy. Hopefully, more people are beginning to realize that this is a problem and that speaking out and doing something may have an impact. Thankfully, some in Congress are helping to spread that word as well. Senator Wyden, who we've obviously mentioned a bunch due to his willingness to actually fight against attacks on free speech and innovation, showed up in San Francisco earlier this week to speak at the Web 2.0 conference, where he laid out the issues behind PROTECT IP clearly. You can see the full interview below:Let me go right to the question of the PROTECT IP Act... What this is, at its heart, is a question of whether one part of our economy -- the content sector -- can use government as a club to go after another part of our economy -- which is the innovation sector and everything that the internet represents.My only issue with this characterization is that it's a little broad. For example, Techdirt is, very much, a part of "the content sector." But we're quite worried about PROTECT IP. I recognize that the Senator was using shorthand, but it's helpful to distinguish the legacy content sector from the next generation content players who don't want to rely on the government to prop up our business models. Either way, the overall point is absolutely true, and it's too bad that almost no one else in Congress is willing to address the reality of the situation. It has everything to do with a small group of companies -- who are unwilling to adapt -- trying to lash out at the industries they need most.
The PROTECT IP, when you really strip it down, is about whether or not you're going to have arbitrary seizure of domains. Whether or not you're going to have these vague standards for going in and seizing a domain. And then, and something I think is particularly ominous, ceding a significant portion of the authority over the internet to private companies, in effect, allowing them to bring private rights of action.... This legislation, in its current form, would take a significant toll on both freedom and innovation. And particularly now, when the digital space is one of the most exciting parts of an economy, where we've had some tough times.The rest of the interview is equally interesting as well, touching on his efforts to make sure the 4th Amendment applies to the GPS info associated with your mobile phone, his efforts to press the Obama administration to reveal its secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, and a variety of other subjects that we talk about here all the time -- including the idea that people here need to pay attention to what our government is doing and speak out when lobbyists and politicians are trying to hold back civil liberties or innovation.
I know it feels like we mention Senator Wyden pretty frequently, but there are two reasons for that: (1) So much of the things he gets involved in are the issues that we normally discuss here and (2) he's one of the only people in Congress who seems to really be interested in these things. It's good to see him come to Silicon Valley and spread that message directly to folks here.
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, innovation, patriot act, protect ip, ron wyden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Actually, he is the only one in congress who buys into the whole freetard mentality. Let's be fair here, there is plenty of interest in PROTECT IP, but it is mostly from people who can see the benefits to society in taking a stand against pirates, knock off artists, and scammers.
You wouldn't want to talk about them, except to belittle their point of view. That's okay, we all know where Techdirt stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep practicing! I know you can do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm tired of store owners calling the police to try and stop shoplifters.
They shouldn't be able to use government as a club.
/sarc
Wyden is a complete fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're confusing shoplifting with copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As if you care.
Over and over again, IP maximists don't care about the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're a psychopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your opinions are purely self serving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know how people can write this kind of stuff and not know how dumb it sounds. Don't label me an industry shill! You're all a bunch of pirates! Don't you dare call me names you freetards!
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, Marcus. But we all know that IP proponents couldn't possibly be stupid enough to believe that every snarky remark made on Techdirt belongs to you.
...Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since you just stereotyped me and labeled me with things that I am not, my response is this:
You are a dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it was real, my original statement stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I was real busy being a sycophantic pirate parasite in Masnick's echo chamber for the Utopia seeking freetardian masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, I heard you were the cabin boy on a Greek vaseline freighter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, where's Roger the Cabin Boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm for justice, but you seem to forget that justice is a two way street. It's not just about punishing the guilty, but most importantly not punishing the innocent. When laws come out that are based on accusation and takes out the trial of peers, it throws justice out the window. To be for these laws is to be against the United Stats and civilized people everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe it was a pre-emptive troll of the trolls who troll trolls.
Isn't it the new freetardian way to psuedo-troll and then call anyone with dissenting opinion a troll. And anyone who doesn't worship Mike and spit at the media industry is accused of being an industry shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm so confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
0/10. No definition of successful troll involves failing that hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
Look, "The Logician", you don't even /have/ an argument, just some fake pompous rambling. You ain't convincing anyone even that you're a pompous twit, let alone a detached and objective observer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
It is fascinating how defensive trolls become when confronted with simple logic. Their own behavior condemns them. Hence why I seek to provide such logic. It exposes them for what they are, much as their own behavior does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tech-innovation industry dwarfs the legacy content industry by at least an order of magnitude, if not more. Maybe I'm dense, but I cannot recall anytime in our (American) history where we willingly allowed a smaller industry dictate the terms for another whole industry.
It seems to me the TD community had a discussion several months ago about Google (1 tech company) being able to afford to outright purchase most of the music studios. I realize that the people at Google are smart enough to resist the temptation of investing in a sinking industry, but at what point does Google say "enough" and just purchase them to shut them up? This just doesn't make any sense - its as if the orange growers are trying to dictate the terms of business to the auto industry... am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am afraid that they will say "this is where it ended." Or perhaps they will say nothing because speech that might be interpreted as criticizing the government/industrial complex is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for Google "buying all the music companies", I would consider that a blockage that would be worked around. Quite simply, Google knows so little about dealing with the public on any level that they would make the record execs look like the smartest guys in town.
Google (and many others) make at least part of their livings off the backs of the content producers. They aren't going to set them up to fail, you can't bleed them nearly dry otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So where would that leave you Mr. ANONYMOUS coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So where would that leave you Mr. ANONYMOUS coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, I would say the tech revolution has prolonged the life of the legacy content industry for *far* too long. We tech geeks have given them enormous tools to promote, and distribute their works; securely, transparently, and in an astonishing array of formats. Yet they cling to their outmoded way of distributing their "art", ultimately frustrating their customer who then chooses the path of least frustration (be it legal or not). The geeks of the world will not suffer the legacy content industry pissing on their work of the last half century or more. The legacy industry is at a crossroad - will they choose to continue frustrating and alienating their customer base, or will they adapt? Signs aren't encouraging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Realistically, the "live date" for the internet for commercial purposes really started with the development of Netscape, late 1994 if I remember. That would make the "modern" internet as we know it 17 years old.
As for "e tech geeks have given them enormous tools to promote, and distribute their works; securely, transparently, and in an astonishing array of formats. " This is true. But just like SMTP, you geeks forgot to include things like security, tracking, and proper user identification, rending the technology all but useless as the net has expanded.
Further, if someone wants to use those tools to promote their work, they are more than entitled to do so. The problem is when they use it to "promote" the works of others by giving them away for free. That isn't productive, it is destructive.
If you have a better model, work it and use it and prove it's better. But if your "better model" can't compete without using, tagging along, and eventually sucking the blood out of the existing business, then you have failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And of course you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that giving away anything on the internet isn't productive right?
Because if it isn't why do record labels, TV studios and film producers give things for free in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess Hulu has failed by your logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Check out all these FREE movies that can be watched on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So this begs a question: Can I torrent those listings marked "Free"?
If not than why not?
If so than what signal might that send to "big media" a.k.a mega copyright "*holders*"?
Perhaps that their new revenue model is what cable's used to be (going down that - I'd say) and what every other website's currently is? As in providing a service other than the crooked gangster powder pushing chick flinging trash dumping thug thumping shake down services?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And here we arrive at the crux of your argument, that existing businesses need to be preserved a priori.
Existing businesses die all the time. This is not a bad thing. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The tech industry would be gone in less than a year without the content that comes from the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only a deluded person would think that without the entertainment industry, the tech industry would fail. Because we all know, technology would NEVER have come as far as it has were it not strictly for the entertainment industry. [rolls eyes]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Internet is a global communications network. It ain't T.V.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
The key word here is obviously interactive. Traditional television (including cable) is a broadcast medium, they transmit we receive, the end. The internet however is inherently interactive, we can have a discussion (e.g. email, instant messaging, or the comments on a blog), we can respond in kind to a broadcast (e.g. video responses on YouTube), or hundreds of other ways to communicate. Some broadcast companies are attempting to bridge the gap, but the majority seem to want to go back to the way things were (they talk we listen, the end).
This problem is that in life you can not go back, only forwards, you can make decisions to try to shape your future, but you can't roll back the clock. This I believe is the key element of "information wants to be free" that many (most?) people fail to grasp. It is not about price, or value at all; it is about the idea that you cant put the genie back in the bottle, you can not reverse the entropy of a closed system. Thus information (& ideas) always flow in the direction of least restriction (like current following the path of least resistance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to think much less say. Utter nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I beg to differ... in 2003 I was introduced to one of my favorite bands via a website called Project-J. This website showcased many then un-known Japanese music artists, had pictures of them and one singular mp3 download for each.
I happened upon a band called Dir en grey and became very interested in them. Enough to want to seek out more of their music, which I did via P2P. Because of the "nasty evil file sharers" their fanbase expanded -outside- of Japan in an age when CDJapan and YesAsia were pretty much unheard of (and who the hell would want to spend $40 on an imported Audio CD besides collectionist weeaboos anyway?) people were able to consume this band's music and eventually the band began re-releasing albums in the states at affordable U.S. prices.
They were invited by Johnathen Davis to play on Family Values Tour in 2006 and their fanbase has grown to include more countries besides just the U.S. They just recently had shows in Peru, Argentina and Mexico. None of this would have happened if not for some "free-tard" sharing their music with other people on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
Disclaimer: YES, I recognize that problems with "PROTECT IP" will affect ME, but I have to put the blame for that on pirates and the leveraging grifters who facilitate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
You are welcome to blame people who commit copyright infringement, but when innocent people get affected by stupid laws, I tend to blame the idiots who push for, enact, and enforce stupid laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
You are welcome to blame people who commit copyright infringement, but when innocent people get affected by stupid laws, I tend to blame the idiots who push for, enact, and enforce stupid laws.
What sort of pantywaist carries emotional scars from junior high over some trivial shit like this? I'd suggest getting some help but I doubt you could locate a therapist who wouldn't burst out laughing in your face when you started blubbering about the unjust junior high detention and all of the "kick me" signs you endured. Man up, you sniveling milquetoast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
If one can make money linking to pirated content, then why don't the owners of said content do the same thing? It would be easy for them to provide the content faster, better, and legally (despite what you may think, legally is a selling point).
As for your disclaimer, put credit where credit is due. Responding to piracy with Protect IP is just like responding to an insult with an RPG; over the top and will take out the innocent around your target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.
The problem with the content sector is that it sees anything that reduces their bottom line, legal or not, as a threat and therefor constitutes 'people getting their products without paying.' Like the overzealous home defender they want wide reaching tools (shotguns) with which to attack over and over any group or individual they feel is assaulting them and, even if you assume their intended target deserves it which is far from always true, in so doing often damage innocent third parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's been things like this for, such as with farmers and landowners. There used to be a time when a lot of people in some areas were farmers who rented land from a rich landowner, and grew crops on that land, and gave the land owner half their revenue in rent. The landowner was not a farmer, they were just making a living off real estate investments.
The problem started when the government was stepping in to stop food prices from spiraling even farther downhill (because too many people were farmers for a living, making it harder and harder to get by as a farmer). As part of those price control attempts the government would order farmers at times to destroy their entire years worth of crops, and pay them a bunch of money to compensate for the lost crops.
That's where the landowner came in to screw with the system. The landowners had the law written so that the check would go to their pocket, rather than the farmer, since they own the land, rather than the farmer renting the land. Then the landowner would usually kick the farmer off their land for not paying them, and rent the land to someone else.
I'm 99% sure that the rules were eventually changed on this to give the check to the farmers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know when you've arrived... the attacks begin to get intense and personal. Congratulations for hitting the rascals where it hurts.
Keep up the good work! America needs more people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know when you've arrived... the attacks begin to get intense and personal. Congratulations for hitting the rascals where it hurts.
Keep up the good work! America needs more people like you.
Maybe you two should get a room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, this guy is so fucking stupid he doesn't realize that there is NO SEIZURE PROVISIONS WHATSOEVER in the proposed Act. How can that be? He makes the same false, unfounded assumptions as Techdirtbag Nation. Then on top of that (like the Techdirtbags) he totally ignores the judicial component in any action taken against a website. It is truly unbelievable that a US Senator can be as uninformed as this on a bill he placed a hold on. The son of a bitch simply could not have read the bill to be making statements like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"(i) IN GENERAL- An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address" - PROTECT IP 3(d)(2)(A)(i)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's a very insightful set of insults. It's so nice that, when presented with actual facts, you double down on the name calling. It makes you very easy to dismiss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
domain names to include non-domestic domain names as well (because what is the US government going to do to coerce the registrars in, say, Libiya?). Keep pretending it's not the same thing even though the result was literally designed to be the same.
So, basically, your position is completely ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a suggestion - have your client license their shit for what it's worth and not for what they think it's worth thereby rendering our already grossly overweight legal burden one item lighter. We are everywhere, now. No schedules, no countries and could pretty much care less about you and your interpretation and justification for PROTECT-IP at this point. So, get it passed fuck-twat, you'll spur yet more innovation that you can cry about in the next round.
Perhaps, in the future, you could direct your misguided ass reamings to where they truly belong and get them out of my garden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I had a point, I'm sure of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"(d) Required Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may, serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2), which have been identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, pursuant to subsection (a). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection:
(A) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDERS- A financial transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order.
(B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES- An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to or for such site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to--
(i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
(ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or placements that provide access to the domain name.
(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS- An entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine how to communicate such action to the entity’s users or customers.
(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of an action commenced under this section, the obligations of an entity described in this subsection shall be limited to the actions set out in each paragraph or subparagraph applicable to such entity, and no order issued pursuant to this section shall impose any additional obligations on, or require additional actions by, such entity.
(5) ACTIONS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER-
(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT- No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
(B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY- Any entity receiving an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"(d) Required Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may, serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2), which have been identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, pursuant to subsection (a). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
That's a bit different then what Ron Wyden (D-Google) said:
"And then, and something I think is particularly ominous, ceding a significant portion of the authority over the internet to private companies, in effect, allowing them to bring private rights of action...."
There's no acknowledgement that there is a judicial proceeding standing in between the private companies and an action against intermediaries. Moreover, the remedy Wyden apparently misconstrues as "seizure"- the de-listing from search engines and ISP's is ONLY available to DOJ and NOT to private companies. It's like this stupid fuck uses only Techdirt to get his information and form his opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not misconstrued as seizure, it's designed to do what a domestic domain seizure does to non-domestic domains. That's literally what it was written to do. Keep harping on how different they are in implementation though because that's the important part, not the intended result. I mean it's not really an unlawful search if we use robot intermediaries, not our hands, to go through all your shit right?
Hilariously you point to the requirement for DOJ involvement as if ICE and the recent messages revealed by FOIA request from the copyright czar and other administration officials hasn't amply demonstrated the regulatory capture prevalent in the copyright enforcement arm of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Consistent pseudo name would be nice. But, of course, we won't get that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
facts
Let's have a discussion based on facts, not fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: facts
Hey Pot, your black is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: facts
It's more likely than you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facts
You do have a point being that seizures and whatnot currently take place under some mystery, wobbly and distorted interpretation of current laws where any significant challenge requires vast resources.
So I wonder what truths the text of this law will discover?
What are the facts? What I'd like to know is who, in fact, wants this new law and why? Where did it come from? Is there really a mystery pool of money that has not been bled into hands already full?
On another vein I'd like to know when we're going to get a fucking law that does something to help all of us, one besides funding the government for another quarter or two?
When are we going to get a ruling from the bench that benefits the lot of us?
When does that shit trickle down? Because this inverted gravity on rights thing is beginning to become intolerably uncomfortable?
Basically, PROTECT-IP is yet another little fucking annoying god damn edict from people with means whose brunt is borne by those with little.
Senator Wyden appears to be but one of an alarmingly small handful of folks charged with steering this US ship that seems to understand their task from the basest of levels.
There's not much to discuss really. Semantics?
Yes, we could definitely do with some truths right about now, let's leave the fantasy for future judgments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]