Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

from the not-an-easy-task dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2011 4:22pm — Mike Masnick

While most of the attention over the past few weeks was given to SOPA and the House side of Congress in this debate on censoring the internet, the Senate side is becoming increasingly important. One of the ridiculous side effects of SOPA being so ridiculously bad is that PROTECT IP (the Senate version, also called PIPA) being just slightly less bad, means that some think that it can be seen as a "compromise." That's ridiculous, but it's part of the angle that supporters are using to try to rush that bill through the Senate in the near future. That's why the three Senators who stood up last week and spoke out against PIPA for the first time, Senators Rand Paul, Maria Cantwell and Jerry Moran deserve extra kudos. There's been massive lobbying support in favor of PIPA, and lots going on behind the scenes while the public was focused on SOPA on the House side. Having three Senators willing to stand up on principle, recognizing that the broad definitions and consequences of PIPA would hurt jobs, the economy and innovation, is something we don't see enough of these days. If one of these is your Senator, you should reach out and thank them for standing up for the benefit of society, rather than the benefit of big time corporate lobbyists.

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, jerry moran, maria cantwell, pipa, principles, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa

102 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 4:41pm

the broad definitions and consequences of PIPA would hurt jobs, the economy and innovation

Let's be honest, you just hate it because you hate copyright. You'll be against the next copyright law no matter what it actually states.

Instead of being the biggest SOPA whiner on the internet, why don't you actually suggest how to change the text to get rid of the problems you perceive?

Seriously, Mike, why aren't you suggesting ways to make it better?

You don't want to be a part of the solution, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 4:50pm
  
  Re:
  The solution is not more legislation. The solution is to get rid of the DMCA and the way that copyright has become a crutch for many industries that keep trying to hold progress back.
  
  Remember, copyright is not a natural right. If you show a kid a drawing, they don't automatically think it's wrong to copy it. Copyright wasn't really even conceived of until about 300 years ago, and EVEN THEN it was to benefit everyone by giving creators LIMITED rights. Not automatic and in perpetuity as we effectively have now. Copyright is a tax on society, one that we're not getting any returns for. It seemingly only exists to centralize money into the hands of management organizations, because there are a lot of people that still create things without copyright protection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Total bullshit.
    
    As Bob Ohlsson put so succinctly:
    
    "What amazes me is how many people fail to comprehend that when you weaken copyright, you empower others to completely misuse your words.
    
    Copyright is probably the single most important tool available to the individual for defending the meaning of what one says.
    
    Calling protecting the integrity of personal expression "censorship" is a specious charge that is right out of Orwell's 1984. Be VERY afraid of anybody trying to sell you that notion!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is false. If someone twists your meaning, there are plenty of better ways to deal with it than simply using copyright to remove the thing you don't like. You can publicly explain exactly what the other person has gotten wrong, and you can disown whatever this new thing is as being not your work. If they claim that it is an accurate representation of your work, there are other laws for this including Trademark law. The solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech.
      With reference to 1984, I would think that a law that allows for easy censorship *without due process* is much more Orwellian than being misquoted or taken out of context.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What in the world are you talking about? How about an example to go along with the rant?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copyright is probably the single most important tool available to the individual for defending the meaning of what one says.
      
      No, it's not.
      
      Exceptions to copyright lead to more growth than copyright does.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps you should go reread Orwell's 1984. I think you missed large parts of it. Or read it as a how-to.
      
      Censorship is when the government keeps people from having the right to speak freely. This bill's stated purpose is not censorship, but it's side-effects most certainly are. It allows mass shutdowns of legal content at the private insinuation that there might be protected content (which I contend shouldn't be protected to the degree it is, but that's a separate discussion). If you can't see that, there's no amount of anyone saying anything that will change your mind because you've obviously closed it to facts.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      'Protecting the integrity of personal expression' should not be the intent of copy protection laws. Their only intent should be to promote the progress of the science and the arts (as stated in the constitution) and to advance the public domain. If their intent is anything else then I say we abolish them. Since their intent is clearly not about promoting the progress nor advancing the public domain, as you yourself even seem to admit, then I say we abolish them. ABOLISH IP!!!!
      
      You don't defend the meaning of what one says by prohibiting anyone from copying his text. There are better ways, and perhaps better laws that can be used, to do so, ones that more specifically target intentional and directed misrepresentation (perhaps like defamation laws). Your 'solution' to preventing misrepresentation is akin to banning swimming pools in order to prevent anyone from drowning (though I'm sure someone else can think of a better analogy), only your solution doesn't even target the problem and probably contributes towards causing confusion over the positions of others than preventing it (since an exact copy of someone's words will likely better represent their position than someone else's summary or than what someone else will paraphrase). So your solution actually does the opposite of what it claims.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And besides, anything anyone ever says is subject to misinterpretation. The solution? Ban communication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copyright is probably the single most important tool available to the individual for defending the meaning of what one says.
      
      That is bullshit.
      
      Social mores and direct evidence of what someone says protect against that. In other words, the way to combat false speech is with more speech (and evidence).
      
      I will concede your point IF you can give some kind of rational explanation in why shutting down a peer2peer site has even the slightest link to protecting the "integrity" of something you said/wrote.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I will concede your point IF you can give some kind of rational explanation in why shutting down a peer2peer site has even the slightest link to protecting the "integrity" of something you said/wrote.
        
        Sure:
        
        http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2011/11/should-we-move-from-copyright-to.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only thing from that post that is close:
        
        "I want to argue that unauthorized publication amounts to forcing another to speak. Unauthorized publication is wrongful because it is compelled speech."
        
        When it comes to a p2p site, this doesn't apply. You've already put your speech out in (at least) one form. You wrote a book, recorded a video or music. Someone else is repeating something you have already said. And that is not "compelled speech."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope. P2P is not repeating something someone else already said. That would be quoting. Or in the case of music, covering a song. You're completely conflating 2 different things.
        
        But I understand why you need to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then please define what you think P2P is, because you seem to be living in a completely different world than the rest of us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I know Mike thinks no copyright law is the answer. But that's not what's happening. There is copyright law, and there will be the next copyright law. Why not embrace that fact and work to make it better?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'd much rather see you go belly up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re:
  Indeed.
  
  To Masnick, the problem with PIPA is that it punishes those engaged in trafficking illegal goods.
  
  He's just too much of a little man to admit it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 4:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Electrons are illegal?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not yet, but he is hoping to make it so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I thought the wild west days of the Internet were over, shill. Any comment on that now that your precious little bill has sunk to the bottom of the Potomac Trench?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When is to become a law, it starts in the House, which is where SOPA is. SOPA will get redrafted and then sent to the Senate.
      
      Thing is, the Senate already have their own bill, PIPA, which has over 40 co-sponsors. All it takes is 60 of the 100 Senators to vote for it and it destroys any filibuster or hold, and goes to the President to sign. SOPA becomes irrelevant; unless parts of it are merged with PIPA.
      
      Either way, a new law is coming soon and I'd suggest you cope with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Butcherer79 (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Either way, a new law is coming soon and I'd suggest you cope with that.
        
        Unfortunately you may be right about the law coming in in some shape or form, doesn't make it right in it's current form though, does it?
        Just because something would work, doesn't mean something else couldn't work < \/>better.
        Throwing all criminals into the middle of the ocean with concrete boots on would certainly stop them reoffending, does that mean it's right, or is it better that the crimes are judged as to how serious they are in a court of law and set punishments/rehabilitation orders put in place?
        
        As far as I'm aware, SOPA proposes to bypass courts and will basically have the right to take down entire domains at the allegation of a single site within that domain linking to infringing material.
        There is no measure as to how much content has to be infringing, whether money is being made/lost from the infringing content, nothing in place to protect the 'clean' sites within that domain or the 'clean' content within the sites.
        It seems like an incredibly oppresive, over zealous and all powerful (with no consequences) bill. What compensation is available after they get it wrong, and they will? After months of appeals, what can the domain that's been exonorated expect? What's to stop that same domain being shut down again a day after reemerging?
        In other words, who polices the police?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Either way, a new law is coming soon and I'd suggest you cope with that.
        
        Sure. As soon as you cope with piracy continuing unabated. But I guess you'll just come here and whine again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All it takes is 60 of the 100 Senators to vote for it and it destroys any filibuster or hold, and goes to the President to sign.
        
        Are you the same person who made this mistake earlire or a different one? If a bill starts in the Senate, if they pass it it then goes to the House, not to the President. Regardless of where a bill starts, it must pass both chambers before going to the President. I thought this was 7th grade stuff...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You know, I've found when people stoop to name-calling it's because they don't have anything else.
    
    I'm sure PIPA punishes those engaging in trafficking illegal goods. That's not the question. The question is whether it unduly punishes those engaging in trafficking LEGAL goods and content, and it certainly will.
    
    When did America forget that "innocent until proven guilty" used to be a cornerstone of our justice system, a differentiation from the rest of the world?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not name calling it's a fact. If you want to be willfully blind to it, that's your problem.
      
      The current landscape is a mockery of copyright law, and therefore a mockery of all of society's laws.
      
      If you want to repeal copyright, then there would be no issue.
      
      But copyright isn't going to be repealed, so there will be new laws to protect it.
      
      Once again, I suggest you cope with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Saying Mike is a "little man" is certainly name-calling. I'm not sure there's any other way to take that, unless Mike happens to be abnormally short. And even if he were, it's not germane to the discussion.
        
        As for your second assertion, that the current landscape is a "mockery" of copyright law, that's BLATANTLY false. Bordering on maliciously so, so that you could add on that rider about a mockery of all of society's laws to make it seem like more than it is. It almost sounds like you're a lobbyist, and even worse, you believe your own bullshit.
        
        Copyright law has been religiously extended since 1976, with nary a push back from Congress... how can you, with a straight face, claim that in it's current form it still "promote[s] the progress of the sciences and useful arts"? Current copyright law is it's own mockery. It needs no external influences to add to that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry dude, but if loopholes in the DMCA allow for mass copyright infringement, then that is a mockery of copyright law. That's the current landscape.
        
        As far as length, you're changing the subject. But I agree with you, it is too long. But if it was half that, people would still try to come up with some other excuse to rationalize ripping off that which they do not have permission to rip off.
        
        Either copyright is repealed, or it is enforced. Period. Anything else is a mockery of the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See the problem here is that you're just being obtuse. You're asking for more rights above and beyond copyright. Copyright holders have very, VERY strong rights under the current system. To say so otherwise is a blatant lie.
        
        The DMCA, PIPA, SOPA, those are all WAY above and beyond copyright, and they're effectively shutting off huge swaths of legitimate technology because an industry is seeing their stranglehold of being broken. If I LICENSE a movie (as I've been told I do), I want the ability to use my licensed content for private consumption as I see fit. The problem is that shit like the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA take away that right. It's currently illegal for me to take my movies and copy them to my hard drive to watch, thereby keeping the discs out of my kid's hands and making the media much easier to access. Tell me... how is that promoting the progress of sciences or useful arts? If anything, it's just holding them back.
        
        Go ahead and sue someone who misrepresents themselves as the author of your work. Or someone who makes copies of your work and sells them. Or even gives them away for free. None of that takes SOPA, PIPA or the DMCA. If that's too hard for you to do, well... that's your problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have no idea what you're talking about; backing up your personal copies isn't illegal.
        
        Your post reads like pure FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just John (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        TEXT: Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.
        
        So, did you, the individual, get permission from the studio to copy those DVDs you own?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 9:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try to keep with up the law if you want to discuss it.
        
        Making a copy for your own use is not illegal.
        
        Making copies for distribution is illegal, and rightfully so.
        
        You do not have the right to distribute what is someone else's, unless they give you permission.
        
        That's the law. Deal with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just John (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Definition of REPRODUCTION
        
        1
        : the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
        2
        : something reproduced : copy
        3
        : young seedling trees in a forest
        
        Try to keep up with the language if you want to discuss it.
        
        Making a copy for your own use, as stated in that "Warning", is illegal.
        
        It does not say "Reproduce and distribute", it says, quite clearly, OR, which could also include multiple items, such as reproducing and distributing.
        
        It's the language. Deal with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Post an example of any medium that says "Making a copy for your own use is illegal".
        
        Post it right here:
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just John (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It appears pitabred below already did, so why are you asking me to give what you have already been given?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then explain why there is no difference between noncommercial and commercial infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Making a copy for your own use is not illegal.
        
        False.
        
        That's the law. Deal with it.
        
        Why is it defenders of the law seem to know so little about the actual law. There are a few very narrow exceptions where a personal copy is not breaking copyright law, but for the most part, it is still very much a violation of the reproduction rights under copyright law, which makes no distinction on the civil side for commercial and non-commercial use.
        
        If you're such a big defender of the law, it helps to actually know the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can not believe you could be so wrong about this.
        
        Actually, if it suited your temporary propaganda needs, of course I'd believe it.
        
        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1008
        
        "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Butcherer79 (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        � 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
        
        No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
        
        So actually, if you don't make money directly from copying and distributing, you're dandy-o to copy and distribute all you want? It doesn't say 'only for personal use' in there.
        
        You could interpret this to mean that if Mike wanted to, he could set up a page on TD with no advertising on it, full of copied audio files and no-one could do anything about it.
        Then, surely, if SOPA wanted to block the entire TechDirt domain, they'd be in for a hefty compensation claim as the page with the content cannot be making money from it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pitabred (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's copyright law. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA, which actually outlaw that. Just because it's legal under Copyright to do it doesn't mean it's legal to actually do it.
        
        Grow a clue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can not believe you could be so wrong about this.
        
        Heh. You just want to keep digging.
        
        You are wrong.
        
        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1008
        
        "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
        
        Heh. A small, often misunderstood part of the AHRA which doesn't actually say what you think it says? That statement is device dependent. It does not say that anyone can make a copy for personal use. It says that it's okay to use *certain* (limited) devices for making such a copy in certain circumstances.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "heh", and what devices are those?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please explain to the world how PERSONAL USE can be defined as commercial.
        
        C'mon Masnick, do it.
        
        You've been hiding from debate in the comments section of your blog recently, so let's see you start anew and explain that for everyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies"
        
        Perfect ruling by Patel. Of course trafficking should be illegal.
        
        But it is fair use "for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual's computer".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pitabred (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's illegal to sell a device to do the backup for you, but it's legal to do the backup?
        
        The problem is the encryption that they insist on putting on the media. Between the encryption and these new anti-circumvention laws, the industry has created a legal gate completely around personal backups without explicitly outlawing them. Talk about loopholes...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, it is. From the DMCA:
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#United_States
        
        Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states:
        No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
        The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):
        (3) As used in this subsection�
        
        (A) to 「circumvent a technological measure」 means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
        
        (B) a technological measure 「effectively controls access to a work」 if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
        
        There are some exceptions in section 1201, but they are limited to interoperability and educational or law enforcement use, and since ripping and transcoding movies to a hard drive isn't for interoperability but a derivative use, it's still illegal under the DMCA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When did America forget that "innocent until proven guilty" used to be a cornerstone of our justice system, a differentiation from the rest of the world?
      
      Criminal justice system, dope.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, because when it comes to the civil justice system, it's guilty until proven innocent?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pitabred (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA certainly includes criminal components, and PIPA and SOPA both enshrine seizure of assets without any judicial oversight, which is generally the kind of thing you do to criminals. Not a hallmark of civil action.
        
        Really... do you have any idea what you're talking about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    the problem with PIPA is that it punishes those engaged in trafficking illegal goods.
    
    Too bad for your argument that trafficking in illegal goods is already against the law and there are quite hefty punishments for it.
    
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
    US Code, Title 18, Section 2320:
    (1) In general.� Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      the problem with PIPA is that it punishes those engaged in trafficking illegal goods.
      
      Too bad for your argument that trafficking in illegal goods is already against the law and there are quite hefty punishments for it.
      
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
      US Code, Title 18, Section 2320:
      (1) In general.� Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000.
      
      Thank you Professor Numbnuts. Now tell us how you will enforce that on a website hosted in Belieze.
      
      If nothing else, your abject stupidity makes me happy to be on the opposite side of the issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL +1
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't. Nor can foreign nations take down US sites they don't like. That's a good thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now tell us how you will enforce that on a website hosted in Belieze.
        
        First, if you're talking about the small country in Central America, its Belize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize
        
        Second, that's obvious. You check to see if the person is breaking any laws in Belize. If they have broken a law there, take it up with the authorities there. If they are not breaking a law there, then again, it is obvious that you need to adjust your distribution model to account for the competition from another country.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, this is why the bill will pass. All of the piracy apologists will oppose any measure that will impede infringing. That's no longer an option. Even the opponents in Congress and the corporate world understand that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All of the piracy apologists will oppose any measure that will impede infringing.
        
        When the entire idea behind the law is wrong, and provably wrong, opposition is the only rational choice.
        
        I've given my suggestions many times on how to fix copyright law. I've admitted that my view is not mainstream, but where I can compromise to find common ground.
        
        For instance, I start at zero year for copyright length, and you start at 100 years. I offer a compromise to 5 years. If your next offer would be 120 years, plus shutting down competing distribution methods and throwing people behind them in jail - then you're not compromising.
        
        Start rolling the completely unsupportable position back, and we can find options.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For instance, I start at zero year for copyright length, and you start at 100 years. I offer a compromise to 5 years. If your next offer would be 120 years, plus shutting down competing distribution methods and throwing people behind them in jail - then you're not compromising.
        
        You're out of your fucking mind. What percentage of the content that is being looted is 5 years old? I don't disagree that the interval before content passes to the public domain is too long, but if you think people will wait five years to see "Twilight" for free you're nuts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What percentage of the content that is being looted is 5 years old?
        
        So you're admitting that even a 5 year copyright term is too long to make any difference in the bottom line for content companies?
        
        Thank you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what, I don't care.
        
        Bring down the system, if IP is to be either enforced or abolished, your side should have the chance to bring on the final endgame.
        
        Total victory or total defeat.
        
        What's your next "plan" after all the warez sites shift to encrypted tunnels like I2P?
        
        Are you going to outlaw unlicensed encryption?
        
        Bring it on, no police state has ever last forever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL
        
        That's not how law works, pal.
        
        It's the law in Saudi Arabia that women have to wear veils.
        
        So are we supposed respect their law here in the US?
        
        No.
        
        Belize can do whatever it wants. In Belize. Not here.
        
        The idiocy on this blog never ceases to astound me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:15pm
        
        : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then you'll have no problem with China blocking Amnesty International's American website.
        
        After all, it's China's right to enforce its own law within its own borders, right.
        
        No difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 9:39pm
        
        Re: : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I might not agree with China's laws, but so what?
        
        I don't live in China.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:59pm
        
        Re: Re: : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So why do you wish to extend US law's reach to China, if you don't want to respect their laws?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 9:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Richard O' Dwyer should go free based on the laws of the UK? Glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 11:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So America want to have a War on Communication? Good luck with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now tell us how you will enforce that on a website hosted in Belieze.
        
        You won't. Not now and not after SOPA. No matter how hard you dream about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:18pm
  
  Re:
  Though I can't speak for Mike, I'm not interested in being part of "the solution".
  
  I'm interested in killing this bill so dead and making such a political example of its' sponsors come election time next year that 100 years from now those who try to censor or otherwise mess with the Internet remember the fate of the sponsors of SOPA and cry.
  
  I'm interested in turning the the Global IP Center at the Chamber of Commerce and the RIAA/MPAA into the biggest lobbyist laughingstock that Washington has ever seen.
  
  That is what I propose, boot. Sound like a plan?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    +1
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Though I can't speak for Mike, I'm not interested in being part of "the solution".
    
    I'm interested in killing this bill so dead and making such a political example of its' sponsors come election time next year that 100 years from now those who try to censor or otherwise mess with the Internet remember the fate of the sponsors of SOPA and cry.
    
    I'm interested in turning the the Global IP Center at the Chamber of Commerce and the RIAA/MPAA into the biggest lobbyist laughingstock that Washington has ever seen.
    
    That is what I propose, boot. Sound like a plan?
    
    Sounds great. Then you can wake up and have breakfast.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    I am all in favor of not only killing this bill so hard that the very mention of it makes politicians wince.
    
    And you bet I'll vote against every single one of them that voted for this unforgiving mess.
    
    Also, I'll make sure that all of my friends and family and even my Ex's families know why they should vote against any politician that supported PIPA/SOPA, etc.
    
    So, lets name names! Let those that vote for this mess stand tall and face not only the American public but the opinion of the world too!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bigpicture, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:34pm
  
  Re: Monopoly
  Explain your logic where there is a legal system that grants certain parties extra rights or monopolies so that they can use technologies that they did not invent, to derive income without having to work every day like everyone else.
  
  Just because someone titles themselves an author, or a musician they have rights to control copying technology? WHY? Before there was copying technology there were scribes who hand wrote copies of all documents. Musicians had to perform each song over and over again. Now that there is coping technology that they didn't invent, they want to legally monopolize that so they don't have to work?
  
  What would they do if copying technology was never invented? Still hand writing their own books and singing their own songs, and people would pay for that value, because it would be paying for someone's time. Personal time and continuous effort equates to value, not monopolizing someone else's technologies.
  
  You got to understand that copying (easy reproduction) makes things less expensive, that is why Henry Ford used the assembly line, with the objective of $100.00 car. Get real and live in today's world, and not last century. You are brainwashed into believing their scam, that in today's world of easy reproduction that copies have any perceived or real value.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re:
  SHUT UP!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:36am
  
  Re:
  The solution is not to open the door of Censorshipa crack.We are the FREE COU*NTRY and we PUT DOWN Countries who do Censor.Worse these PIPA/SOPA will eventually give this Government full and total control of the Internet USA.Just take a look at government controlled China as that is what will happen.First they get their dream laws in place then they wait another year and start up wit the protect the kids or something and they open up that door a little more and eventually we are living in a 1984 type Country.
  Every one of these bozos should be thrown out of office as they are walking a traitorous path.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:40pm
  
  Re:
  Let's be honest, you just hate it because you hate capitalism. You'll be against the next bullshit regulatory capture law no matter what it actually states.
  
  Instead of being the biggest I don't recognize opportunity when i see it whiner on the internet, why don't you actually suggest how to change the text to get rid of the stupid laws which destroy innovation you perceive?
  
  Seriously, you whoever you are (i.e. industry shill), why aren't you suggesting ways to make it better?
  
  You don't want to be a part of the solution, I suppose.
  
  Economics and capitalizm rulz! When you try to introduce inefficiency into a market, the market corrects itself around you (I seriously don't know what the hell crap they are teaching in business school).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re:
  Instead of being the biggest SOPA whiner on the internet, why don't you actually suggest how to change the text to get rid of the problems you perceive?
  
  I'm not Mike, but here's my suggested text:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:28pm

As I've stated before, given the tremendous backlash to these bills, they could very well become election issues (especially if they pass and some of the more negative potential really start to manifest). Any opposition at this point is highly suspect, as much of that "opposition" is most likely going to be attempts to hedge their bets in efforts to ensure their continued seats of power.

Anyone truly against this legislation should have come out against it well before the public outcry began.

One could always counter-argue some of these politicians are just now becoming aware of the ramifications of these bills, but I don't really accept that argument either. That is their job. It is why they were elected and why they earn their salary. To be aware of, and deal with, such issues so the general population doesn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:35am
  
  Re:
  I'm sure the lure of the Entertainment Industry's cash overwhelmed the weak and greedy politicians.
  
  Lets just keep score of who voted for what. Every, single, one of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:11pm

Principle?? Don't make me laugh. Jerry Moran was a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act until this:

"Kansas City, KS Wins Google's 1 Gig Network
Internet giant Google has selected Kansas City, KS as the location for which it will build a fiber-optic network that will provide Internet access speeds as fast as 1 gigabit of data per second, more than 100 times faster than the U.S. average.

Google officials joined KC Mayor Joe Reardon at Wyandotte High School today to announce the selection. Kansas City, KS vied with more than a 1,000 other locations across the nation in a yearlong competition that saw another city in Kansas�Topeka�briefly change its name to �Google, Kansas� in order to get a leg up in the contest (read BF blog post).

Google announced early last year that it wanted to build a fiber-optic, high-speed Internet network for a community of up to 500,000 residents that would provide as much as 1 gigabit of data per second, far exceeding the 10 megabit-per-second speeds available on the best cable modem or DSL lines. Nearly 1,100 communities throughout the country�including Kansas City, MO, Topeka and Overland Park, KS�responded to the announcement.

Google issued the following statement in making the announcement:

�As part of our overall goal to make the web better for users, last year we announced a new project: to provide a community with Internet access more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have today. The response was overwhelming�nearly 1,100 cities felt the need for speed�and we were thrilled by the enthusiasm we saw across the country for better and faster web connections. Thank you to every community and individual that submitted a response, joined a rally, starred in a YouTube video or otherwise participated.

After a careful review, today we�re very happy to announce that we will build our ultra high-speed network in Kansas City, Kansas. We�ve signed a development agreement with the city, and we�ll be working closely with local organizations, businesses and universities to bring a next-generation web experience to the community.

Later this morning we�ll join Mayor Reardon at Wyandotte High School in Kansas City, Kansas. In selecting a city, our goal was to find a location where we could build efficiently, make an impact on the community and develop relationships with local government and community organizations. We�ve found this in Kansas City. We�ll be working closely with local organizations including the Kauffman Foundation, KCNext and the University of Kansas Medical to help develop the gigabit applications of the future.

Pending approval from the city�s Board of Commissioners, we plan to offer service beginning in 2012. We�ll also be looking closely at ways to bring ultra high-speed Internet to other cities across the country.

Over the past decade, the jump from dial-up to broadband has led to streaming online video, digital music sales, video conferencing over the web and countless other innovations that have transformed communication and commerce. We can�t wait to see what new products ands services will emerge as Kansas City moves from traditional broadband to ultra high-speed fiber optic connections.�

Kansas City, KS officials said the investment ultimately could put the region on the map with tech meccas such as California�s Silicon Valley and North Carolina�s Research Triangle Park."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re:
  So Google bought off Jerry Moran? Ouch.
  
  I love all the anti-corporatism on this blog when Google is plainly a giant corporate vampire squid. LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So Google bought off Jerry Moran? Ouch.
    
    Nope. Check the timeline.
    
    I love all the anti-corporatism on this blog when Google is plainly a giant corporate vampire squid. LOL
    
    If there were evidence of such, we'd note it. There is not, as noted in my previous comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Check the timeline? Why? An announcement is hardly the same as actually following through with the project. Moran was told that his position "jeopardized" the planned project and he folded. He didn't have some sort of epiphany, Google threatened him with the loss of the data center and he caved.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 1:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Check the timeline? Why? An announcement is hardly the same as actually following through with the project. Moran was told that his position "jeopardized" the planned project and he folded. He didn't have some sort of epiphany, Google threatened him with the loss of the data center and he caved.
        
        I'm sorry, but that's the dumbest conspiracy theory I've heard yet. There was a HUGE public announcement back in March, after months of looking for the right community. They can't back out. You originally falsely claimed that he backed out when they announced this. You were totally wrong.
        
        Seriously: can't your employers hire someone competent? I mean, hell if *I* can so easily debunk your conspiracy theories, someone's not getting their money's worth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There was a HUGE public announcement back in March, after months of looking for the right community. They can't back out.
        
        They can't back out? Bullshit. What do you think? That Kansas can sue them for damages if they decide to pick their number 2 location instead?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
      hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
      hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
      hahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pitabred (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 11:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This blog and most commenters aren't against corporations. They're against corporate abuses of the legal system, regulatory capture, and other unfair, unjust and unscrupulous practices.
    
    It's really sad yet enlightening to learn that you can't tell the difference between the two.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 10:39pm
  
  Re:
  Principle?? Don't make me laugh. Jerry Moran was a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act until this:
  
  "Kansas City, KS Wins Google's 1 Gig Network
  Internet giant Google has selected Kansas City, KS as the location for which it will build a fiber-optic network that will provide Internet access speeds as fast as 1 gigabit of data per second, more than 100 times faster than the U.S. average.
  
  Date of the report above: March 30, 2011
  Date that PROTECT IP was released: May 10, 2011
  Date Jerry Moran dropped his sponsorship of PROTECT IP: June 27, 2011
  
  To argue that he was a co-sponsor "until" an event that happened before the bill even existed is pretty underhanded even for someone like you.
  
  Why must you lie?
  
  Separately, why is it always the folks pushing for stronger copyright law who post full articles in our comments?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just John (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 11:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry, I was just trying to make an interesting (original creation given freely) short story up about life with an IP provider regulated internet to help bring a creative way of showing what some of us worry about, not argue for copyright law!
    
    Wait, this isn't about my long post. Nevermind.
    
    Carry on.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Separately, why is it always the folks pushing for stronger copyright law who post full articles in our comments?"
    
    Trying to set you up for a SOPAn'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    The announcement was made, Moran came on as a co-sponsor, Google threatened to move the data center due to his co-sponsorship and he withdrew his co-sponsorship. Now Google is really holding his feet to the fire turning him into a foot soldier. How do you think the guy went from co-sponsor to opponent? Google threatening to move a planned data center out of Kansas, that's how.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what, your argument just reinforces the widely held view that Washington is out of touch, and doesn't have the public's best interests in mind. Not a good argument IMHO.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just John (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:50pm

Story Time
Good afternoon. It appears, according to our records, you have attempted to access sites outside your current service subscription.
You are not currently subscribed to the category /gemstones/.
The cursor silently blinked at him, awaiting his input should he decide to answer the telecom customer service agent.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
His mouse hovered over the options. Should he even bother clicking? Did it even matter? It would not stop them from penalizing him for going to websites outside his subscription plan.
Finally, in frustration, he clicked yes.
Thank you for your support. Please feel free to review your subscription sites at the customer portal.
It was all so frustrating. He only wanted to visit a site for engagement rings, but since he had not bought that package, the company would not allow him to go to sites selling them.
Well, it appeared he had no choice left. He would need to add the /gemstones/ category to his current subscription plan.
Please enter the new subscription details.
Gemstones.
Processing.
The new subscription category /gemstones/ has been added to your plan.
Thank you for using our service.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
Good afternoon. It appears, according to our records, you have attempted to access sites outside your current service subscription.
You are not currently subscribed to the category /precious metals/.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
He clicked yes, and, unwilling to be defeated, subscribed to the /precious metals/ category.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
The rings rolled across his screen, searching for the perfect one for his soon to be fianc�.
Finally, the perfect one was found...
Disheartened, the young man rose from his terminal and walked away, no longer having the money now to buy the ring anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jdbpogo, 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:52am

sopa was never supposed to pass. it is just a way over the top smokescreen to distract while pipa sails through with a much lower profile than it would have had if sopa had never existed. its like a wonderfully amazing magic trick. look at this hand while the other gets things done.

and all of this ip protectionism bs is just a tool for the gov to completely control the internet. they (the u.s. gov) are using big content to get all of the power it wants (not the other way around). the u.s. along with almost every other gov on earth is realizing that if you don't control the information you don't control shit. the entertainment industry is happy to comply 'cause they get more out of this than they ever dreamed possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jdbpogo, 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:37am

i hit submit before i was finished.

understand that it starts with ip enforcement, but it won't end there. next is dpi, site blacklists and registration of vpn to business only. tor and other dark/grey nets will be next. with the eventual disappearance of "paper" money all monetary transactions will be tracked. there will always be ways to circumvent but thats not the point. it will require more time and effort than most people would be willing to put in to learn and implement. and that's the point. with our lives so entangled in the electronic mesh there will be absolutely nothing that they won't be able to track and log. that's the end game for the govs. THEY will know and control ALL information.

the end game for entertainment is to turn the internet into their distribution channel. like cable tv. read tim wu's "the master switch" and you'll see how this has happened to ALL communication tech in the past.

the u.s. is in the formative stages of a fascist oligarchy and there is absolutely nothing short of absolute monetary revolt that will change this path. so just shut up and be good consumers or stop buying everything and let the whole malignant system implode upon itself. it'll be the end of the world as we know it but i for one think that is the lesser evil of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:56am

Those who support the pending bills are lambasted as being unprincipled individuals who are under the spell of corporate interests.

Those who do not support the pending bills are lauded as principled individuals who are not under the spell of corporate interests.

I must ask the question why it is that no one here has ever questioned the subjective motives of those who do not support the bills. This does not mean that they are wrong, but only that perhaps they are being influenced by other corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  No shit. Of course it's about money.
  
  Masnick is a greedy slobbering leech just like all of his idiot followers here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:00pm
  
  Re:
  Those who support the pending bills are lambasted as being unprincipled individuals who are under the spell of corporate interests."
  
  "I must ask the question why it is that no one here has ever questioned the subjective motives of those who do not support the bills."
  
  What the hell are you talking about. From what I've seen, the techdirt community is mostly interested in what benefits the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rxrightsadvocate, 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:09am

Important to recognize SOPA's implications for public health
Cheers to Senators Rand Paul, Maria Cantwell and Jerry Moran for standing up against PROTECT IP and speaking out for the millions of Americans in opposition to the bill. There has been much discussion on the technological implications of this bill, but Congress and the media have overlooked PROTECT IP�s major health implications�it would take away Americans� access to safe, affordable prescription medications from licensed, legitimate Canadian and other international online pharmacies.

SOPA inappropriately groups together real pharmacies�licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor�s prescription and sell brand-name medications�with the rogues who sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.

Americans, especially those without insurance and seniors living on fixed incomes, should not have to choose between filling their prescriptions or buying groceries for the week. Everyone, including those in the tech community with whom we agree on the overall negative impact of SOPA, should bear in mind the severe health implications of this bill, which would affect the well-being of patients across the U.S.

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 asking consumers to take action now by sending letters to Capitol Hill and the White House encouraging them to oppose this legislation in its current form. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:14am
  
  Re: Important to recognize SOPA's implications for public health
  I have heard this argument numerous times, but as yet have not heard anything about what specific provisions in either bill compels this result.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Important to recognize SOPA's implications for public health
    I have heard this argument many times.
    
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/gao_finds_extraordinary_price.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 2:38am

Seriously: can't your employers hire someone competent?

Seriously, talk about conspiracy theories...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 4:33am
  
  Re:
  Seriously, talk about conspiracy theories...
  
  Not a conspiracy theory at all. That commenter has admitted to being involved in the writing of the bill, and has suggested that he's here to attack us because of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Seriously, talk about conspiracy theories..."
    
    Not a conspiracy theory at all. That commenter has admitted to being involved in the writing of the bill, and has suggested that he's here to attack us because of that.
    
    That is a lie Masnick. As it appears you're stalking me, why don't you cut and paste the comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]