Lamar Smith Proposes New Version Of SOPA, With Just A Few Changes
from the not-much-to-talk-about dept
In preparation for his attempt to rush SOPA through Congress, Rep. Lamar Smith has put forth an updated version of the bill (pdf link and embedded below) as a "manager's amendment," which will be used for the markup, to be held on Thursday. The markup process, in theory, allows for amendments and changes beyond what Smith brings here, but don't expect much. After the marketup, the bill gets voted on by the Judiciary Committee, and assuming it passes (likely) the bill can be voted on at any time on the House floor, once the Speaker decides to bring it to the floor.First up among the "differences," is that this version of the bill changes the language around DNS blocking. But it appears to be more of a chance of style, rather than substance. The old part (in Section 102 (c)2(a)(i)) read:
A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.That language has been marginally tempered such that it now reads:
A service provider shall take such measures as it determines to be the least burdensome, technically feasible, and reasonable means designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible.Making it clear that service providers get to pick the "least burdensome" means is better than what was there before (and not giving a hard five day deadline) is at least a tiny step in the right direction, but still leaves us with the simple fact that this is a censorship bill. While it may not name DNS directly, that's the clear implication here. You have to figure out some way to block websites. The new version does also provide some "safe harbors," saying that if service providers determine what is the least burdensome, technically feasible means, and go with that, then that "shall fully satisfy such service provider's obligation." But... that seems to only apply if that means prevents domains from resolving. In other words, you can use any means you want... as long as you censor.
That doesn't actually fix the problems with censorship and DNS blocking. It just lets the Judiciary Committee try to wash its hands of the complaint and say: okay, service providers, you deal with it. That's not helpful.
Most of the rest of this section seems pretty much the same, though it removes the hard five day deadline, which MasterCard had complained about as being unfeasible. Now it's all about "expeditiously as possible." I guess a judge becomes the final arbiter on what expeditious means.
Also left totally in place: the anti-circumvention clauses that will outlaw all sorts of legal encryption and VPN tools.
Moving on to the really awful Section 103, which allows for the private right of action. Here again, the language has been toned down, but just around the edges. Thankfully, they took out the "enables" or "facilitates" part, which really opened up SOPA to massive abuse by private actors, but it's still a pretty broad definition. They've also, just slightly, modified the section concerning violations of section 501 of copyright law, so that the private right of action doesn't apply to all such cases, but just ones where the infringement is "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, and with respect to infringement of complete or substantially complete works." This seems like a hamfisted attempt to keep some fair use collateral damage from being caught up in SOPA's decapitation blades.
Next up, they've removed one of the most ridiculous sentences from the old bill's 103 a(1)B(ii)I, which had that lovely:
" is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation"Instead, it's been replaced with:
the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.That seems marginally better -- but again, what is "other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation"? Would providing a forum? The ability to upload? The ability to rate? I could easily see this provision just as abused as the previous one.
And... here comes the big change: rather than having a notice and takedown provision first, the new section (similar to PROTECT IP) now lets copyright holders jump straight to court, filing either against the site itself or its owners (if they can be found). The relief there is limited to just an injunction, rather than money, but still... Basically, it looks like they more or less did away with the ability to just send a notice to advertisers/payment processors and at least require a modicum of judicial review before a site is cut off -- though, there's no guarantee that the judge gets to hear both sides, depending on the situation (especially likely for foreign sites).
Update: And here's another bigish change that I'd missed in the read through. While Section 103 still refers to "US-directed sites," the definition of "U.S.-directed sites" has now changed to only include foreign sites. Thus, Section 103 no longer refers to domestic sites, but only to foreign ones. Once again... this brings it more in line with PROTECT IP. But doesn't fix any of PROTECT IP's problems.
Other than that, it looks like there are also some changes to the felony streaming provisions, though I haven't had enough time to dig into them and see what they really mean. All in all, it's about what we expected. A few marginal changes of the worst of the worst of the original bill, but nothing that fixes its major structural problems. What you get is something a little closer to what PROTECT IP is in the Senate. However, it still is a bill that requires censorship of the American internet for the first time, and which still contains broad definitions that will be abused by rightsholders. This isn't a fix. This is getting rid of the parts that were put in to be sacrificed on purpose, and still having a really bad bill.
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, lamar smith, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it me, or are they asking the provider to pick the least technically feasible and least reasonable means to prevent access?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it me, or are they asking the provider to pick the least technically feasible and least reasonable means to prevent access?
It's you. And your eighth grade reading comprehension.
[ 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:
Wrong. The sentence:
"A service provider shall take such measures as it determines to be the least burdensome, technically feasible, and reasonable means designed to prevent access by its subscribers "
is ambiguous and can be parsed either way, being badly written. In drafting law all ambiguity should be ruled out. Whoever wrote this should not be writing law.
It should read
" least burdensome, most technically feasible, and most reasonable means".
Our lawmakers are, sadly, unfit for purpose. In this and many ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let the dance begin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it me?
When you use a comma seperated list like that, you need to be clear where the list starts. If you are not, you suck. Also, any item from your list must be able to be substituted in for the list to make a proper sentence. If that can't be done, your sentence sucks. If the only place you can substitute the list items in to make a proper sentence is after the "least", being not where you intended the list to start and changes the whole meaning of the sentence, you suck even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By not addressing any of their actual concerns? By leaving in DNS blocking? I mean, perhaps you fooled some of them, and I have no doubt that you'll probably be able to rush this abomination through, but it's pretty sad that you'd be proud of building the Great Firewall of America.
Quite a legacy you're leaving there.
[ 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:
I'm guessing you're a lawyer. Do you remember what Shakespeare said about lawyers in Henry VI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of being against child-porn but not against copyright infringement when it comes to site-blocking.
You can't be for one and not the other. A 3rd grader could figure that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, maybe I'm less than a third grader, but I can easily see a difference between the two.
As an aside: If you're cracking down on child porn sites by simply hijacking the domain name, you might as well not waste your time. The damage to some child has already been done at that point, and all the site blocking in the world won't stop it. The idea would be to prevent the CP from being made, not just from being viewed. So, to me, it seems to be a better idea to keep the sites up and catch the sickos uploading the videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement and child pornography however, are.
Nice try at conflating, but you fail once again.
You would think you people would have learned by now, but apparently you still believe you can use willful ignorance as a defense and debate tactic.
You can't.
[ 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:
I don't want to live in any society where you're running things.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh people learned that a long time ago, and they are learning that a granted monopoly of life + 95 years that can stop a guy from earning money in a bar because he may or may not "infringe" on the rights of a guy/gal who wouldn't entertain the people he did by standing there all night is not really fair, nor it is justice to have someone claim rights to other peoples earnings, if I buy a gum I can open a business and sell gum to whomever I want and don't need to pay no stinking gum manufacturers a percentage of what I earn, why do I need to pay labels or studios?
It is time to get rid of copyrights, they harm more society than it does good.
Freedom and democracy are being assaulted by the likes of you and it is because of those legal monopolies, they should end.
And I will do that, proving to you everyday that piracy can't be stopped, I will tell everyone how to do it and show you people every chance I get, I hope the laws keep getting more ridiculous, that is all good since it won't stop me or anybody else I doubt any government will have the balls to put millions in prison, or fine or in any other way punish them severely, not unless they want to end up like Saddam Hussein and Kadaphi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You fall into the alternative version of Godwin's law here.
Anyway:
You raise the issue only because (cynically) you believe that distaste for cp is the one thing that everyone will agree on. (Or no one can afford to be seen to disagree with)
(and btw taking a moral stance on something to which you feel no personal temptation is cheap)
However:
Blocking of such sites has no direct effect on the activity that we actually want to reduce (the actual abuse of children).
The collateral damage that results the witch hunt we now have against cp is at least as bad as the problem. It affects more children because all children are affected by the lack of volunteers to help with their activities. It also results in vigilante action - people have been murdered on the basis of mere accusation - and stupidity has resulted an the targetting of paediatricians by idiot mobs.
So actually your argument is not only distasteful - it also fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just once I'd like to hear a opponent of DNS blocking just answer the fucking question, yes or no? But it never happens because to answer would reveal the fundamental hypocrisy of your position. So meanwhile, I'll endure the crickets while Masnick scurries on to the next argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How will DNS blocking of child porn sites help the children who are being exploited and abused?
Does DNS blocking actually locate the perpetrators and stop the abuse or just shove the child porn under the proverbial carpet?
If you want to write an anti-child porn bill and propose it in Congress, one that does legitimate good towards helping the children affected instead of just forcing the child pornographers to go deeper under ground, but that also has strict stipulations that the bill can't be used for unrelated issues such as copyright enforcement, I say, more power to you. I will support such a bill.
[ 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:
DNS blocking in the US doesn't stop a website from existing or stop child pornographers from abusing and exploiting children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Err - no . A website consisting of images that already exist does not constitute exploitation in itself. It may be argued that allowing such websites may in some way enable or encourage further exploitation - but that is not an argument you can successfully make in general. Oddly enough copyright enforcers usually make exactly the opposite point when trying to push their agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What on earth prevents me from setting up a site called "www.holyfatherchurch.com" and host child porn in it? Nothing except that some1 might find it. And if you permanently filter it you might prevent some legitimate religious person from using (thus my opinion that seized DNS should be returned for usage after the process is concluded). So why instead I don't form an underground network and set up a protected ftp on the ip xxx.xxx.xxx (insert random numbers there)? Or even better, I set up private trackers (again with no domain name, just the ip) and allow the access of specific trusted ppl to torrents containing CP? You see, DNS filtering is just a damn excuse for censoring free speech. It doesn't make a dent in the CP market and it doesn't prevent children from being abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's an answer for you.. No!
Blocking the DNS of CP just forces it underground and makes it harder for the authorities to track the perpetrators..
I know your government's good at hiding things, but that doesn't often actually help the problem.. Go after the sicko's you lazy fucks!
Happy now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
CDT vs. Pappert. DNS blocking is not actually part of the law. Care to try again.
And I don't think have a blog or discussion board as adjunct should immunize the site with a bulletproof free speech vest.
No one has said it immunizes everything. But it does immunize legal, protected content, as it should under the First Amendment.
Why are you so quick to sell out the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly you conflate DNS blocking with blocking in general. One might approve of blocking but disapprove of DNS blocking for technical reasons. I disappove of DNS blocking because it causes technical problems.
As far and blocking in general goes I don't believe it is ever appropriate for "authority" to block because of the "quis custodiet custodiens ?" problem. I prefer a crowdsourced approach. Youtube blocks pornographic material effectively using this approach.
However I am prepared to tolerate authority based blocking it in this case because:
1) CP is easy to identify and there is a consensus across the vast majority of the public that they do not want to view such material. In these circumstances the crowd is probably glad to be relieved of this duty.
2) As a consequence of 1) the amount of CP on the internet is miniscule in relative terms and hence the impact of (even) DNS blocking is not significant.
3) The kind of thing that is blocked (images only - note that text is not affected) does not constitute a freedom of speech issue - and the perpetrators remain free to post their protected speech elsewhere.
4) CP is illegal of itself - not as a result of a state mandated monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it is never appropriate. Are you happy? Are you glad? Since the question you are asking is a trap, and you are going to come up with some twisting of my words.
Before you do ...
Blocking the DNS does nothing to shut a web site down. All it does is make it a little more difficult to get to. The only way to shut down a web site is to shut down the physical server, or the VM (virtual machine) it is running on. So, I repeat what I said, DNS blocking is always inappropriate and also ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Amazing... Simply amazing. Rick was right in 2007
Care to explain how CP suddenly came up as a topic here, such that you want to take away civil liberties for the sake of false security?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to explain the imaginary nuance in the law that says it's ok to block child porn on the internet but not other illegal acts on the internet?
You have no ground to argue on.
Do yourself a favor: fold up your tent, go home, and try to become a productive member of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... All laws inherently must be enforced regardless of problems they won't provably solved. Is that your argument?
Care to explain the imaginary nuance in the law that says it's ok to block child porn on the internet but not other illegal acts on the internet?
I find it funny how you insist on censorship and hide behind the strawman argument of CP. So let's ask this:
If Mogis, an organization helping adult people who were abused as children, is outspoken about censorship, why should I believe your assertion that we need to have copyright or CP police?
Here's some better questions for you:
How are you helping the ones abused by putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Na na na, can't hear or see you?"
How will this catch the criminals that upload CP?
How will this pay for the emotional damages of those that have been abused?
How will DNS blocking actually do anything that you believe it can achieve?
Go ahead, I await your disingenuous statement believing DNS blocking will accomplish anything other than scurrying the abusers like roaches to do this again and again while supporting censorship that will be ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/lolatmyself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When failing at you own argument reach for another as a distraction no matter how ridiculous.
You can't defend the Great Firewall of America on it's merit so you bundle up kiddie porn into your cannon load and fire.
How very Mythbusterish of you. Let loose your cannon ball and watch as it bounces around hither and you all while declaring "it's for the children, can't you see THAT"???
It's been said you're a lawyer. The past time of most legislators. With that remark I clearly see you running for office come November.
Jackass.
At least they apologized for their misfire and are paying for the damages. I doubt you're all that willing to or much less see any damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't, you're nothing but a hypocritical douchebag that thinks copyright infringement is ok.
So man up and admit you do. And when you do, please go die in a fire.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
DNS blocking, at the behest of the government is not legal and has never been legal. CDT vs. Pappert covered this territory for child porn.
And, personally, using DNS blocking for child porn is a really stupid way to fight child porn. THe way to actually fight child porn is to actually identify and go after the pornographers and the one's distributing it. Using DNS blocking only makes it more difficult for law enforcement to find those responsible.
Do you really support creating such a system to hide child pornographers from law enforcement? You make me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, we've seen pro-children NGOs speaking against this kind of filtering. It doesn't fix the problem and doesn't help push for better awareness. Instead, pushes pedos underground making it harder to track them and punishes legitimate material (such as lolicon).
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Other things that will soon be free:
The thousands of man hours that every internet geek around the world will invest to fix the internet after you break it. This fix will be done in such a way that you won't be able break it again no matter how hard you huff and puff, although I'm certain it won't stop you from blowing...
A whole new collection of open source software covering everything from anonymizing internet browsing with 2 clicks or less, to encryption, to dark nets made easy.
Oh, can't forget this one... Foodstamps for all the congressmen and senators who will be voted out of office for making their legacy the censorship of the American internet. Hoped they saved those bribes... er... lobbying dollars.
This ones free now, but will still be free afterwards so it's worth mentioning: Every piece of digital content ever.
"Good work, Johnson. Now sprinkle some crack on him and let's get out of here."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Workarounds are covered. Read the bill. And while this bill is no silver bullet, I'd venture the soft middle of opportunistic infringers will be sitting on the sidelines. No one thinks this measure will do much damage to dedicated, hardcore freeloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because it goes after piracy.
When are you going to man up and admit what we all know about you, instead of using inference and weasel words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I bloody *wish* they would recommend something that actually "goes after piracy" instead of just using that as an excuse to screw people over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps I was too generous with the eighth grade reading level assessment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
whatevs!
Least I'm not drafting a legal document with bad grammar.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
I'll say it again. Infringement doesn't happen in a vacuum. Real people in the US are consuming pirated music, movies, coach bags. Why not go after them?
I remember now, it's because personal accountability does not exist anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
No. That is a lie. There has to be infringing content or counterfeit goods at the core. Not simply a comments section or blog.
You must be truly desperate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
In whose judgement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
Leaving the hard work to a piracy lover like Mike Masnick is pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
Leaving the hard work to a piracy lover like Mike Masnick is pathetic.
Don't you recognise a rhetorical question when you see it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
Why don't content industries go after people infringing in the US, where they actually have jurisdiction over the infringers? If they brought suit, the conviction is almost certainly a slam dunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
Why don't content industries go after people infringing in the US, where they actually have jurisdiction over the infringers? If they brought suit, the conviction is almost certainly a slam dunk.
God, you're stupid. Given the choice between suing millions of individual infringers versus suing the 3-4 sources of infringing material- which would you choose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
oh wait...
You couldn't keep your hand out of the cookie jar, and thus brought this bill on yourself.
Grow up and accept the consequences of your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
See the RIAA "educational campaign" and the very real financial consequences it brought to labels.
See HADOPI and how the French government is holding hundreds of thousands of second letters waiting for it to decrease in numbers because they are afraid of sending out all of those letters at once.
See South Korea that passed those same laws but don't enforce them because they know they would have a problem if they did.
See Japan where every Japanese is a pirate but they only manage to prosecute a dozen of people a year, despite it being one of the countries that have some of the most stringent copyright interpretations on earth.
I know there are no consequences, I can rip a DVD or Bluray right now and the only thing you could do is moan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
You mean like pricary continuing unabated? Good job, sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
They don't have a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 12th, 2011 @ 3:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pirates loot booty not Kanye.
Kanye should be givin his shit away for free anyways. Why pay for garbage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kinda like prohibition went after alcohol. It missed. So will this.
One was horrible law and the world is living with the consequences of that. One will be horrible law and, sorry, bub, this time those of us in the rest of the world want you to keep the consequences at home and to yourself.
Maybe the Great Firewall of America will do the rest of us some good by keeping such babble in the United States away from the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8KOFVLMAo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If these rogue website operators want to offer blogs and discussion boards without illegal content, go for it. But we all know it's not the "free speech" they're interested in protecting- it's free content that is of concern. That's what drives traffic to their sites, that's how they make money.
Don't cry "censorship" when its really just a naked attempt to pervert the First Amendment into a shield of immunity for illegal behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, why do you talk about child pr0n so much? You bring it up an awful lot. I mean, a LOT. You must be thinking about it almost all the time!
Does that mean we get to block you from the internet? You know, for the kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2nd: I'm offended that you would throw out protected speech so easily.
3rd: Why would you use child porn as an example? Perv.
4th: I doubt you have any clue as to what infringing content should or shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bullshit.
Every US site I've ever seen already polices their forums themselves as part of their DMCA compliance.
Your willful blindness is stale and completely ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how Youtube polices new content being uploaded every minute with a fine toothed comb. How are there enough man hours to figure out what's infringing and what isn't infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As well of course, about a hundred other things in life.
[ 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:
Only the infringing part/materiel should be blocked/taken down....something like we already have with the DMCA provisions.
Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thus requiring a new law. You brought this on yourself.
Grow up, be a man, and accept the consequences of your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why should we have to accept the consequences of actions we didn't commit?
Or are you claiming that everyone who uses the Internet - by your definition - is a filthy pirate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do the US comply with Chinese law? Iranian law? Russian law?
Swiss law? German law? Japanese law?
So it will be only fair that if foreigners are being target they target American interests in return don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updated
Basically, they've turned SOPA into PIPA. Which, of course, was the strategy all along. Ignore all the complaints about PIPA, come out with something much worse, and then fall back to PIPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Updated
Basically, they've turned SOPA into PIPA. Which, of course, was the strategy all along. Ignore all the complaints about PIPA, come out with something much worse, and then fall back to PIPA.
Oops. There goes all the arguments about how YouTube and Ebay are going to get shut down. Now the bill is properly focused on those nasty foreigners who are stealing American content and American jobs. And now what about the first amendment? Do you have the same case arguing for US Constitutional protections for foreign criminal operators of foreign criminal websites? I understand the flip side of the coin, but the most compelling case is for the right to create, utter or distribute protected speech- not necessarily receive it, though that's clearly a component.
Clearly Chairman Smith took a good account of the helpful suggestions of opponents and has gone the extra mile to address those concerns and bring a strong, fair bipartisan bill to the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Updated
Lemme see now. American content. Snow White, a European folk tale, heavily sanitized, beautifully animated (at least I'll admit that part) and almost completely changed from the original tale though Disney now claims ownership not only of their film but has been known to claim ownership of the original folk tale. There are a whack of other examples of such things but time, space and the need to pay the price for renting coffee will prevent me from listing them all.
American jobs. The entertainment industry employs less than 1/10th of 1 percent of Americans and contributes not much more to the GDP. The tech industry which has far more to lose from copyright infringement employs several hundreds of magnitudes more Americans and several thousands of magnitudes more to the US economy but is opposed to the bill(s).
Something is wrong there. Something makes no sense there. Something smells there, other than the usual scent of bought members of the House of Representatives and Senators,
Rotting flesh, perhaps or the death of the ideals of the American Revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Updated
Who's stealing American jobs exactly? Did you read our earlier post? Movie industry is thriving.
Again, all that's happened here is you changed SOPA into PIPA. PIPA still involves censorship of foreign sites. Do you really want to be known as the guy who convinced the US to censor the internet? No wonder you're anonymous.
Clearly Chairman Smith took a good account of the helpful suggestions of opponents and has gone the extra mile to address those concerns and bring a strong, fair bipartisan bill to the floor.
Don't make me laugh. He hasn't addressed most of the concerns at all. DNS blocking? Still there. Private right of action? Still there? Overly broad definitions? Still there.
The compliance cost on American innovators? Still there.
First Great Wall of America blacklist? Still there.
It's really sad that you've been reduced to supporting blatant censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Updated
Who's stealing American jobs exactly? Did you read our earlier post? Movie industry is thriving.
Again, all that's happened here is you changed SOPA into PIPA. PIPA still involves censorship of foreign sites. Do you really want to be known as the guy who convinced the US to censor the internet? No wonder you're anonymous.
Clearly Chairman Smith took a good account of the helpful suggestions of opponents and has gone the extra mile to address those concerns and bring a strong, fair bipartisan bill to the floor.
Don't make me laugh. He hasn't addressed most of the concerns at all. DNS blocking? Still there. Private right of action? Still there? Overly broad definitions? Still there.
The compliance cost on American innovators? Still there.
First Great Wall of America blacklist? Still there.
It's really sad that you've been reduced to supporting blatant censorship
As a show of good faith, I'm still willing to hook you up a towel manufacturer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess we're getting lucky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course. that's why these bits were there. try for much more than you expect to get, appear to sacrifice a bit at the last minute the bits you know are way over the top and had no chance of being included in the final Bill, then hope that the other thick fuckers in government are fooled into thinking that the Bill is now much less likely to raise Constitutional issues, and therefore acceptable. if more sacrifices do have to be made, you end up with a Bill worded how it was wanted in the first place! that gives a starting point for the next round of law ramping!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try reading it again, numb nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's rather amusing to play with the trolls, they'll systematically ignore the fact that most major players outside the MAFIAA see and point the issues in these bills as if Mike and his syncophants (troll word of last month?) were the only ones against it. That considering Mike has quite a degree of knowledge and influence himself. I guess the more your opinions attract trolls more successful you are. Mike is going stellar lmao.
Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Record 64% Rate Honesty, Ethics of Members of Congress Low
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this new text require DNS Blocking or something else?
Besides wishing Rep. Smith had reversed the list to read "technically feasible, reasonable, and least burdensome means", I wonder if this requires or allows more than simple DNS resolution blocking, if you understand that a DNS block is quite easy to overcome. This language might open up a complying ISP to using an IP block instead if it determines that is the least burdensome means. (I believe burdensome would apply in reference to the ISP, not the user).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you do have a VPN subscription, it might be a good idea to change your subscription from annual to monthly, so you are not out the cost of annual subscription if your VPN provider is taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Felony streaming provisions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is mostly for this reason that we need our lawmakers either to be highly knowledgeable and logical themselves, or to accept and implement detailed advice from those who are.
From observing Thursdays hearing, I conclude that none of these criteria are met. And that this particular law will give rise to a torrent of unintended consequences of an appalling nature. In addition to failure to achieve the intended consequences.
Unless, of course, they are smarter than I think, and actually intend the really bad stuff which I assume will arise from accidental ignorance. ie the ignorance is wilful, and the naivety a pretence.
Which is it better to believe, that our lawmakers are tools of pressure groups because they are stupid; or that they are deviously in cahoots with them whilst pretending stupidity; or that the whole thing is just stupidity by everyone concerned, imagining they are being smart ?
I really don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]