The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US

from the um,-really? dept

Mon, Dec 19th 2011 11:43am — Mike Masnick

As we continue the fight over SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA), the MPAA and the politicians supporting these bills are ratcheting up the ridiculousness. You may recall that we recently highlighted the absolutely ridiculous paper by Daniel Castro for the shill shop ITIF, supposedly responding to SOPA/PIPA critics, but really showing just how weak and ridiculous the arguments on the pro-censorship side are. One of the points Castro raises is that DNS filtering "works." How does he know? Because, he points out, thirteen countries already do DNS filtering and research from Harvard suggests not too many people try to get around the filters.

Of course, Castro doesn't happen to name those thirteen countries, so you have to go digging for them, which is how you come up with the following list:

China
Iran
United Arab Emirates
Armenia
Ethiopia
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Bahrain
Burma (Myanmar)
Syria
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam

Yes, it's a sort of a who's who of the most repressive regimes on the planet. I think the only reason North Korea didn't make the list is because no one has internet access there. So this raises two key points. Perhaps the reason the filtering has worked in those countries, and not too many people try to get around the filters, is because they know if they're caught, they might get locked up or killed.

But, more to the point: is this really the list of countries that Lamar Smith, Patrick Leahy, the MPAA and Daniel Castro think that the US ought to go about emulating? Really?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, china, copyright, countries, daniel castro, examples, iran, pipa, protect ip, sopa

142 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:57am

But, more to the point: is this really the list of countries that Lamar Smith, Patrick Leahy, the MPAA and Daniel Castro think that the US ought to go about emulating? Really?

Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic. You obviously have no shame, Mike. Nonetheless, shame on you for continuing with the over-the-top rhetorical nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re:
  Wow, I can't tell if you are pre-trolling or not. As someone else said ...
  
  The troll is strong with this one. 9/10
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No. average_joe really does feel this way. I am not sure what Mike did or what average_joe believes Mike did, but this is the result.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_ioe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If AJ took the time to read more than the last line and glance at the list of countries then he wouldn't get to post first.
      
      thirteen countries already do DNS filtering
      
      Is what the text was about, "governmental blocking of speech" is what you inferred when you read the list, as you should have. And that you make the link in your head immediately and comment on it is more telling than any propaganda Mike may be putting forth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, "average_Ioe"
        
        I'm happy to talk about these issues with you, but you need to drop the copycat persona first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Trails (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously, he won't recognize your speech until you stop infringing his copyrights. You should have all your commentary suppressed and ignored for infringing his rights!
        
        But don't worry, SOPA won't censor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 1:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you like...eight years old, or something?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Law nerds vs. actual nerds. Wonder which will win?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kevin H (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Never doubt the power of a group of nerds with free time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually law nerds and actual nerds are onside on this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re:
  How exactly is it idiotic? Do you really don't think it's possible that laws like SOPA could be abused to suppress normally protected speech?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How exactly is it idiotic? Do you really don't think it's possible that laws like SOPA could be abused to suppress normally protected speech?
    
    It is idiotic. SOPA only addresses foreign sites. US law allows remedies against domestic sites already. The absurd notion that the US will engage in political censorship is beyond idiotic. The tools are there already. But aren't being used. Those countries listed above are using blocking to stifle political speech. Castro's point is that the same set of tools can be used to stop infringing. Just like a gun can be used to hunt deer or kill people. The tool is not inherently good or bad, only its usage. Nice try linking the bills to dictatorships. But no one buys it, and everyone realizes it another act of futile desperation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      des�per�ate
      [des-per-it, -prit
      adjective
      1. reckless or dangerous because of despair or urgency: a desperate killer.
      2. having an urgent need, desire, etc.: desperate for attention.
      3. leaving little or no hope; very serious or dangerous: a desperate illness.
      4. extremely bad; intolerable or shocking: clothes in desperate taste.
      5. extreme or excessive.
      
      Yes, those opposing SOPA are desperate. We wish to avoid reckless, dangerous, extremely bad, intolerable, excessive legislation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The bill links itself to dictatorships, evens it's supporters bring the link up, don't blame Mike for it.
      
      The tools they have in place now are indeed already being used, and if they get China's stronger censorship tools, they will be used too. They will use them in any way that they want, since they have control of them. You're right, a gun by itself isn't evil. That doesn't mean we need the mafiaa and their stooge government reps pointing them at us.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Also, when you talking about legislation, you have the option of making a gun that can only kill animals, or one that can shoot our own people too. And they seem to want to insist on choosing the one that kills people just in case they need it someday.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > The absurd notion that the US will engage in
      > political censorship is beyond idiotic
      
      Yeah, 'cause that hasn't already happened with the DMCA.
      
      Oh, wait...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Loki, 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The absurd notion that the US will engage in political censorship is beyond idiotic. The tools are there already. But aren't being used.
      
      You must not pay a lot of attention to the outside world. They are used all the time. Some of those abuses have get posted to Youtube all the time. Some of them have even been written about on this site.
      
      Those countries listed above are using blocking to stifle political speech. Castro's point is that the same set of tools can be used to stop infringing. Just like a gun can be used to hunt deer or kill people.
      
      The tools only "work" because of the very real fear of possible torture or death. Without that fear, those tools would be effectively useless.
      
      Just like a gun can be used to hunt deer or kill people. The tool is not inherently good or bad, only its usage.
      
      Willfully ignoring that some people actually use guns to kill people. Every tool ever invented has been abused by someone. Every law ever crafted has been abused by someone. So when people point out the numerous ways this bill might be abused, or misinterpreted, and we hear "nobody would ever do that" pardon the rest of us if we don't believe them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The absurd notion that the US will engage in political censorship is beyond idiotic."
      
      Says you. Me, I say that we can gauge what corporations will do with this power by looking at what they've done when given too much power in the past. And what they've done in the past is remarkably consistent: they've abused it for their financial gain. It's hardly idiotic to expect such behavior this time around too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, AC, when given the chance to amend the bill to specifically say that only foreign sites were to be affected, Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said that the intent is that foreign sites were going to be affected and they didn't need further clarification. So if the bill doesn't specifically say it, how easy will it be for it to start coming after domestic users? Just as easy as it is to use the Patriot Act, which is to say, a lot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re:
  This has to be sarcasm, has to be. Ether that or Average_Joe is so full of shit he didn't see that Daniel Castro made the comparison and Mike said it's stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin H (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He is a true believer Chronno. Like the followers of Al Qaeda or someone who dances with snakes. He believes it to be true cause someone told him it is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  Are you really saying that censorship in response to copyright infringement is more noble an endeavor than censorship to protect the state's interests?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is going to be used for both, copyright infringement, and to protect the state's interests over the interests of the people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ricebowl (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  In what way is Mike being shameful? It appears that some senators, and chief executives, believe that DNS filtering is possible/achievable because of implementation of the same by repressive regimes.
  
  This is true, regardless of the impetus behind that filtering by those regimes.
  
  I, personally, would not want my elected representatives aligning my country with such regimes, rather that they should set a higher standard for us, we should aim to be the best (for a given value of 'best'), rather than look to the morass for the sake of easy fund-raising, and the potential for a future job as lobbyist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  
  Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed,
  
  Clearly intellectual property enforcement overlaps political censorship - as numerous abuses of the DMCA (most recently by UMG wrt Megaupload - but also on many occasions by the so called "Church" of Scientology) have demonstrated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_ioe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re:
  Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic.
  
  Exactly, the MPAA shill piece was idiotic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If the government gives power to idiots like you, God have mercy on our souls.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_ioe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      im going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one...
      
      read slower.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *cough*average_joe=shill*cough*average_ioe=trollbaiter*cough*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Moron in a hurry pwned!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  And you are quite cute if you think that giving our government the ability to censor material at the request of someone will not be abused in any way, shape, or form. You must think the NDAA was a great idea too. I sincerely hope you are not the "average joe", because you represent the people that are ignorantly letting our freedom die at the hands of money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This pretty well sums up the issue.
    
    Speaking only for myself, I have no (Zero) faith that this and other forthcoming laws wont erode the freedoms granted by the constitution.
    
    All to protect some failing business practice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  Idiotic is you trying to defend that piece of BS legislation and the congress people trying to pass it.
  
  UMG just proved how they pretend to use it, ICE just show everybody how they pretend to use it and the legislators responsible for it know exactly how it will be used, they just don't care selling out freedom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pho3nixf1re (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, there is nothing over-the-top about it. Creating a government controlled system of 'censoring' anything, legal or not, puts it at their fingertips. All that would be stopping them is their self-control, which is proven to be less than reliable lately. It's best if we don't touch this with a proverbial 10-foot pole, the potential for current, more or less future, abuse is very real and very threatening.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re:
  "You obviously have no shame, Mike. Nonetheless, shame on you for continuing with the over-the-top rhetorical nonsense."
  
  Agreed. Mike, you have reached a point where not only are you trying to hard, but you are actually starting to hurt your cause.
  
  Even a simple minded person can understand that SOPA doesn't make the US repressive like China. Why you even try to go there is beyond me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Becuas,e more and more, your rights are being stolen by corporations. There's and rPG called Shadowrun. That will be America by the next Presidential speech (less the cyberpunk aspect)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What rights exactly are being "stolen"? Your right to pirate? your rights to their work? Your rights to not pay for anything?
      
      Sorry, I missed something - what rights are being taken away? Don't say "free speech" because trafficking in pirated and counterfeit goods isn't protected speech, sorry!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ricebowl (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        One would presume that the right to free speech on a platform to which another, unrelated user, has posted potentially infringing materials (since innocence must be proven, 'fair use' seems to be disregarded, until proven).
        
        So...free speech on any platform not owned by the person speaking (since all other platforms, that allow user-submission, may well be blocked because of the scope of action allowed by SOPA and PIPA) is being 'stolen,' or, rather, denied.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your free speech is not protected without limits. When it is used by someone else as a sort of "human shield" for their illegal activities, it will sadly sometimes get taken out when the law steps in. My advice is to use platforms that you feel comfortable in, preferably your own.
        
        There is no legal assurance of free speech at all times, in all places, on all privately owned "platforms". Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And this sort of arrogance is precisely why we are against this sort of broad, over-reaching 'reform.' Why should I give up MY rights because of the actions of someone else?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do realize just because they put "pirate" or "patriot act" in the label doesn't mean that it's some perfect law that will do away with all the nasty pirates without doing anything else.. right?? I hope? please say yes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes. I also know that the courts have long ruled that some protected speech may be hurt in the process of stopping illegal or unprotected speech.
        
        I am a big believer in the idea that you should know where you are posting, where you are hanging out, and not to hang out in an "internet crack house" and expect not to get hassled by the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But under SOPA, you'll have to judge more than whether a site is one that in used for infringing purposes. You'll also have to make sure the site isn't one that a competitor wants to shut down, because regardless of whether a site is used for infringement or not, the law will certainly be used by companies to shut down sites they don't like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And while the real crackers get on with stealing your personal information, we'll just shut down comp[etitiors' websites for "infringing".
        
        Like that's not going to be abused because "trust us, we're moneymen!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except that Chris Dodd already did go there, so why you try to say that he's the one going there is beyond me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - yeah, 20 Dec 2011 @ 5:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    he acts like we put send the military to arrest our people and hold them indefinately without trial.
    
    oh wait.
    
    well at least we dont try to charge people with treason for doing things like stopping massacres in far east villiges like that one helicopter pilo-
    
    no we tried to do that too...
    
    hey! we never put civil rights leaders in-
    
    no....
    
    well our politicians have never accepted a-
    
    ......
    
    thats what people think when you open your bribed out the ### mouth.
    
    the artist dont support you.
    
    the people dont support you.
    
    you are an un american shill that loves the hell out of repressive regimes and you even suck at hiding that.
    
    why dont you and below adverage joe go help them? and while your at it take the entire damn political system with you.
    
    i remember when people used to get hanged for doing things like this...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  "Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic. You obviously have no shame, Mike. Nonetheless, shame on you for continuing with the over-the-top rhetorical nonsense."
  
  Then why doesn't Castro list the countries he's referring to, boy?
  Because he doesn't DARE!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re:
  You would be absolutely correct. If it were not for the fact that so far almost every law passed gets interpreted at a later date in exactly the same way that the people passing the law tells us at the time will never happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  > Comparing the United States and its
  > enforcement of intellectual property rights
  > on the internet to those countries that
  > practice actual censorship is idiotic.
  
  It isn't Mike that's making the comparison, genius. It's Castro and his friends at the **AAs.
  
  > You obviously have no shame, Mike.
  
  You mean like the shame you should have for completely misconstruing the article and placing the blame for the comparison on someone who points it out rather than the person who actually made it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't Mike that's making the comparison, genius. It's Castro and his friends at the **AAs.
    
    The part of the article I quoted is Mike asking if we really want to be compared to those countries. I'm tying that statement in with Mike's general position that this is censorship and we're just like China. I wasn't confusing Mike's argument for Castro's, but thanks for recognizing my "genius."
    
    You mean like the shame you should have for completely misconstruing the article and placing the blame for the comparison on someone who points it out rather than the person who actually made it?
    
    The one misconstruing my post is you. Nice try though. Maybe you're "get me" next time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 1:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm tying that statement in with Mike's general position that this is censorship and we're just like China.
      
      Why do you lie? I never said that we're "just like China." I asked if this was really a list that we want to hold ourselves up to as good examples... and if we want to be added to that list.
      
      Elsewhere you have shown that you're a despicable, sad American in saying that you have no problem being on this list. As far as I'm concerned, you are now a complete joke. For the rest of your life, please remember that you advocated that the US fits well on the list of countries above.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, did you not say we're building the Great Firewall of China? Give me a break, Mike. Nobody's more ready in the SOPA/PROTECT IP debate to compare the United States to China than you.
        
        Spare me the rhetoric. I know it works on your pirate friends, but I'm immune. Being on that list doesn't mean a thing if we're on the list for a different purpose. Unlike you, I realize that context matters.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's that Chris Dodd did. Y'know, the CEO of one of the *AAs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I sincerely hope your reading comprehension improves when Chris Dodd first protected Google for making a principled statement about censorship in China, then criticizes them for not blocking four years later.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Almost Anonymous (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        """Being on that list doesn't mean a thing if we're on the list for a different purpose. Unlike you, I realize that context matters."""
        
        Oh wow dude. I didn't realize how truly broken you are. Even though I can see now that nothing said to you by someone with an opposing point of view will ever be allowed to sink in, please allow me to try:
        
        Context can matter, yes. But sometimes it does not. In this case, the context is moot. Censorship is completely anti-American, even a child knows that.
        
        Mike does not compare the U.S. to China in a good "woohoo, we're getting to be more like China" way, but you on the other hand claim that you have no problem with being seen to emulate China and others on that list. You, not Mike, should be truly ashamed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        yeah, 20 Dec 2011 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        actually according to most surveys of people your country is right up there with some of the worst.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  Seems like a good 30 second ad for the next election season though, doesn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Just to be clear, the language in SOPA is too broad and will be abused. The analogy is not without merit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  But Mike *isn't* comparing the United States to those countries. Daniel Castro is.
  
  So...reverse you whole position I guess?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re:
  Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic.
  
  Yes. So we agree that Daniel Castro's paper is idiotic.
  
  You obviously have no shame, Mike. Nonetheless, shame on you for continuing with the over-the-top rhetorical nonsense.
  
  I didn't make the comparison. I think the person you mean to be calling out is Castro.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's your statement at the end where you query whether we want to be listed with those countries that I was responding to, not Castro's position. I have no problem with the U.S. being on that list because I understand the difference between the bad kind of censorship and the kind that SOPA envisions. And the fact is that the internet is already censored in numerous ways. All of this silliness about comparing us to North Korea and such just rings hollow with me. Taking down a few rogue sites is not the demise of the First Amendment. Give me a break.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Child pornography. Terrorism. Copyright infringement.
      
      They all need to be censored.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You think that it will stop at a few "rouge" websites? I see no evidence of that.
      
      I do see evidence of the government gaining new powers through scare words like "terrorism" or "rouge sites" and then abusing their new powers by using them to go after ordinary citizens.
      
      What recourse do the wrongly accused have against those whom do abuse the bill? All I see is a section granting immunity to those who may be accomplices to any first amendment violations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rojadirecta admits that 1/3 of their traffic was lost after their two domain names were taken, even though their websites were put right back up. Looks like it works to me.
        
        What recourse do you think rights holders who are having their rights trampled should have? Apparently you think they should have none and that's it OK to violate other people's rights without penalty. I don't agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 1:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't care what happens to rojadirecta really. The way the justice department treated them in denying due process is troubling however.
        
        I care that the non circumvention provision won't work and seems to outlaw protocols that make the internet work. I especially care that some in our legislature want to pass another broad new power (anti circumvention) that could be selectively applied to practically anyone who has ever used the internet.
        
        The tactic of outlawing everyone and then applying the law selectively is an anathema to liberty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Rojadirecta admits that 1/3 of their traffic was lost after their two domain names were taken, even though their websites were put right back up. Looks like it works to me."
        
        Really? A "rogue site" losing only 1/3 of its traffic (much of which will have been from countries where its actions were completely legal) is a success for you? It doesn't sound like anything's been "stopped" to me, except perhaps activity that is perfectly legal where the site operates from.
        
        "What recourse do you think rights holders who are having their rights trampled should have?"
        
        Any recourse that does not attempt to enforce US law on the entire planet, destroy the rights of innocent parties or undermine legitimate competition. They are welcome to suggest such recourse if they wish - the bills on the table are not it.
        
        "Apparently you think they should have none and that's it OK to violate other people's rights without penalty."
        
        Whereas you apparently think that the rights of a few corporations whose flawed and horribly dated business models are the root of their problems should take precedence over those of both the general public and legitimate competitors to their failing businesses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you imagine making Cyanogen Mod illegal? After all, it's jailbreaking a phone, and it circumvents (technically) the DRM bundled with most stock firmwares.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You think that it will stop at a few "rouge" websites? I see no evidence of that.
        
        I think you're right. It will likely spill over to the "mascara sites" then ultimately hit the "lipstick sites" as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well I'm sure that Chanel would use this against perfume sites. You know, SmelliNet(tm) is the next future. And if a site infringed upon Chanel's scent, it's just cause to take the whole site down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You think that it will stop at a few "rouge" websites? I see no evidence of that.
        
        I think you're right. It will likely spill over to the "mascara sites" then ultimately hit the "lipstick sites" as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you can discover a period anywhere in human history when a law, once enacted, is restricted to the "few" some politican claimed it was aimed at let me know. As far as I know no historian has found such a thing.
      Once bureaucrats get their hands on a shiny new law they immediately go to work expanding its scope. Preferable to infinity. That applies the both genus of bureaucrat -- ones allegedly working for the people (government) and ones working in the private sector (large to too-big-to-fail) private sector ones.
      A bureaucracy, as a parasite, has one goal only. To expand until it swallows its host. Often morphing along the way to resemble the host so much that very few notice the change.
      SOPA anyone?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't worry, he isn't fooling anyone. Everyone knows he just wants to protect piracy. Including Congress.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 1:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't worry, he isn't fooling anyone. Everyone knows he just wants to protect piracy. Including Congress.
        
        Actually, having spoken to dozens of Congressional reps at this point, more and more are recognizing my very legitimate concerns, and the fact that they have nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting piracy." Seriously. Why would I want to "protect piracy"? It makes no sense.
        
        Also of interest is that the contingent within the State Department who recognizes how horrible this bill is is growing. They seem to recognize that this has nothing to do with piracy at all, and that this bill undermines nearly everything they've done on internet freedom.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also of interest is that the contingent within the State Department who recognizes how horrible this bill is is growing. They seem to recognize that this has nothing to do with piracy at all, and that this bill undermines nearly everything they've done on internet freedom.
        
        Too bad the boss lady disagrees. Try reading both Rep Berman's letter to Sec. Clinton her response for a little context.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 12:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      . I have no problem with the U.S. being on that list
      
      And that's why you have no business representing the law in this country.
      
      I understand the difference between the bad kind of censorship and the kind that SOPA envisions
      
      Sad that people like yourselves are unable to comprehend the First Amendment.
      
      All of this silliness about comparing us to North Korea and such just rings hollow with me. Taking down a few rogue sites is not the demise of the First Amendment.
      
      Most respected legal scholars disagree with you.
      
      Give me a break.
      
      No, I will not give you a break, when you are plainly advocating an unconstitutional position that I find abhorrent. It's disgusting frankly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh. I know you can't post unless it's teeming with rhetoric--that's just your silly nature. I care about the First Amendment very much, Mike. So spare me the nonsense.
        
        If there are enough procedural protections in place, then these copyright laws do not violate the First Amendment. Pretending that anything we do to minimize piracy presents a First Amendment violation makes you look silly.
        
        I am ONLY for a solution that completely takes the First Amendment into consideration. Unlike you, I don't pretend that no such solution exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If there are enough procedural protections in place"
        
        Well done, you've inadvertently identified one of the major problems people have with these bills - the lack of due process and accountability for those making false accusations. So far, the Procedural protections" would appear to be "after your domain has been kicked off the internet, you now have to prove your innocence".
        
        "I am ONLY for a solution that completely takes the First Amendment into consideration"
        
        As are the rest of us. Welcome.
        
        "Unlike you, I don't pretend that no such solution exists."
        
        No such solution is part of the proposals currently being discussed, hence the objections.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's disgusting is that people are having their rights violated all over the internet and you guys think that's perfectly OK. I for one don't think it's OK for people to violate other people's rights without an repercussions.
        
        What exactly is the "lack of due process" in these bills? There's notice, there's opportunity for a hearing. That's due process. And that process makes it not a violation of the First Amendment as well. Obviously the government can take down websites devoted to piracy. That's not even debatable. The issue is how much process is necessary to comport with the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. I think these bills have enough process to do just that. If you disagree, then please explain what other process would be necessary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The "lack of due process" is where there's no legal battles before the site is shut down. Only after.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh? Let's look at the actual bills. I'm looking at SOPA 2.0 (the Manager's Amendment).
        
        It says that the Attorney General or a qualifying plaintiff must first attempt to commence an action in personam. Sections 102(b)(1) and 103(b)(1). Of course, that procedure follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for service of process, and in fact SOPA contains detailed rules about serving notice. Sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(3). Those procedures clearly do not violate the Due Process Clause. They afford the defendant adequate notice and a meaningful hearing to take place BEFORE an injunction issues.
        
        Next, only if after due diligence the defendant cannot be found, then an in rem action against the property is commenced. Sections 102(b)(2) and 103(b)(2). The in rem action is similarly governed by the FRCP and the Supplemental Rules (plus the rules in SOPA about notice). And those rules clearly satisfy the Due Process Clause by affording the defendant adequate notice and a meaningful hearing BEFORE the injunction issues.
        
        If the defendant does not show up and defend the case, that's certainly not because there is a lack of process. It's because that defendant chooses not to defend themselves. And when defendants don't show up to defend themselves, the court will still enter a judgment against them. So long as the notice and procedures were adequate--which they are when the FRCP govern as they do here--then that judgment comports with the Due Process Clause.
        
        I'm sorry, but a defaulting under SOPA is not a Due Process violation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "people are having their rights violated all over the internet"
        
        Their supposed right to make obscene amounts of money without having to adjust their business models to the modern world. Sorry, I can't see that one in the bill of rights, maybe you can point it out to me?
        
        "I for one don't think it's OK for people to violate other people's rights without an repercussions."
        
        Good, then as I said, maybe you'll join me in opposing the attempts to violate peoples rights to due process, free speech and access to a free market in order to protect profits by some corporations? Surely, you should at least be against the blatant abuses of the DMCA and actions by ICE that remove rights without any kind of trial or right to defence? The attempts to extort money from people in a "settlement" without any real evidence that they've done anything wrong. Remember, most of these things have happened even without the additional powers granted by SOPA, et al.
        
        "Obviously the government can take down websites devoted to piracy. "
        
        Define "devoted to piracy". Would that be "rogue" websites like archive.org and Megaupload that have hundreds of legitimate uses but have still been labelled otherwise by the legacy industries? Would that be site like Rojadirecta, which are 100% legal in their home countries, but still get sanctioned because they have the audacity to use a $10 .com domain? The laws don't seem to provide a reasonable and binding definition, but provide plenty of wiggle room by corporations who wish to preserve their outdated practices at the expense of competition.
        
        "That's not even debatable."
        
        We disagree on that. What a surprise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which are weasel words worth less that the shit that the words are written in. The law of unintended consequences comes into play. The MAFIAA tried to ramrod this through Congress without even a modicum of respect for the Constitution your once proud nation was created upon - a platform, i might add, that raieled against injustice wherever it was found.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_ioe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unlike you, I don't pretend that no such solution exists.
        
        No it's worse, you pretend that there is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll address the merits of your posts and soon as you drop this copycat persona. Until then, I won't even bother to read your posts. Find someone else to play with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_ioe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 8:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ahem, no.
        
        And because mike engaged your comment, you will continue to masturbate furiously with one hand whilst refreshing the page with the other.
        
        Address the merits of that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Joe, I may disagree with your position. I might not like someone who supports copyright law to abuse it for monetary gain. But when you sit here to say that procedures are more important than certain inalienable rights, that is where I draw the line.
        
        You have no idea what piracy represents. You haven't a clue why people might pirate. You have nothing in regards to a clue about how sopa is damaging to freedoms that people hold dear. You are a morally bankrupt person looking to use copyright as a get rich quick scheme.
        
        That is the most deplorable thing anyone could advocate. Chris Dodd does it for a million a year. Yet, you do it for free. What is your excuse, other than a statutory right, in advocating censorship and going against the Constitution you swore to uphold?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But when you sit here to say that procedures are more important than certain inalienable rights, that is where I draw the line.
        
        Inalienable as they may be, they are not absolute. They never have been since that Amendment was ratified. If it's not absolute, it has limits. It has to make way when it bumps into other people's rights. And where those limits are drawn--where one looks to find out the contours of the First Amendment--is to jurisprudence and doctrine. That's what I'm doing. The idea that enough procedure makes it constitutionally adequate is not mine. My argument is descriptive--meaning I'm simply explaining the law as it currently and actually exists. That's all I ever usually argue. If me explaining Supreme Court doctrine makes me "morally bankrupt," then I can only surmise that you're just clueless. Sorry, dude. Your beef is with two centuries of jurisprudence and doctrine, not with me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My "beef" is in your ignorance hiding in indoctrination. I'm to believe that a corporation has more rights than the people it's supposed to represent? The only "rights holders" complaining about piracy in the negative are those that want control of the internet. The ones using technology for advancing the arts, by speaking up about a movie, by showing a song on a blog, by communicating and showing a game on youtube are doing far more through fair use than enforcement will ever do. Maybe one day, you could actually see the problems of copyright law. However, it remains evident that so long as your career hinges on benefitting from bad (hint: censorship) laws, you'll ignore this detail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re:
  DMCA provisions have already been used to subvert free speech. look at: UMG vs. MegaUpload. SOPA/Protect-IP go even further. Plus, it's pretty much prior restraint: something the supreme court has ruled time and time again as unconstitutional.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    DMCA wasn't abused, umg and youtube have an agreement, did not involve DMCA at all, do you bother to read the stories?, or just spew nonsense?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They didn't have an agreement that UMG claimed they did. That's still an ongoing case, however.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re:
  Nothing particulary rhetorical or nonsensical about it. DNS filtering based on a complaint only without due process IS censorship.
  Kinda like when Boston banned Lady Chatterly's Lover because it might, just might, mind you, offend someone. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, shits like a duck and drops feathers everywhere like a duck it must then be a duck no matter what else you want to call it.
  Add to that the notion that not too many get around the filters, as we found from the demonstrations in Iran recently it doesn't take many to get through or to get the message out or other ones in. Just because it's not often does doesn't mean that it isn't done.
  If it isn't done, say, in China, then a large number of people in Shanghai must be psychic because they know far top much about things The Great Firewall of Chine filters out to be otherwise. Things business people in Shanghai need to know to do business but that bureaucrats in Beijing think might undermine the regime but the business people consider vital for their business. As long as they don't act on that knowledge politically everyone is happy, particularly if they make tons of money which makes other bureaucrats in Beijing very, very happy.
  (Before you ask yes, I'm suggesting that in China you buy bureaucrats to keep you and your business "safe" rather than the western model of buying influential politicians. It all comes out the same in the end.)
  I hope you're enjoying your time off from law school, AJ, and I definitely hope you write papers with better arguments in them than your posts here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nothing particulary rhetorical or nonsensical about it. DNS filtering based on a complaint only without due process IS censorship.
    
    Censorship is not a function of due process. It's censorship whether there's due process or not (under the broad definition of the word). Comparing this to China or North Korea is ridiculous because the kind of censorship that goes on there is different. Pretending for even one second that SOPA brings about that kind of censorship undermines the problems of actual censorship. It's intentional, over-the-top rhetoric from Mike. Apparently he feels he can't get his message across without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a writer for the National Enquirer.
    
    I hope you're enjoying your time off from law school, AJ, and I definitely hope you write papers with better arguments in them than your posts here.
    
    Snore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Agreed. Censorship is not a function of due process. Due process denied can and often does lead to such nasty things as censorship.
      
      When a private person can complain something is "infringing" without notice and notification and a web site is sjhut down and its funding cut off IS a denial of due process whether or not it's dubiously legal because it's in SOPA/PIPA.
      
      And no, I'm not comparing the States to China or North Korea but you've fixated on that. The point of that comparison is to show you, and others, the fine, upstanding select company the United States will be in when it starts DNS filtering should these bills pass and become law.
      
      It doesn't undermine the problems of real censorship. Denial that something could lead to that result undermines it, mind you. Recent history illustrates that well enough (and to me recent is the last 300 years. say, from the beginning of the Enlightenment to the present).
      
      And I'm glad I was able to help you on your way to your nap. At least it got a cogent response from you even if I strongly disagree on every point you raise.
      
      Now, at least we can have a discussion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When a private person can complain something is "infringing" without notice and notification and a web site is sjhut down and its funding cut off IS a denial of due process whether or not it's dubiously legal because it's in SOPA/PIPA.
        
        This statement is simply untrue. Only DOJ can "shut down" a site and that process requires notice (affording a hearing if site owner wishes) and conducted under existing US civil law procedures.
        
        Suspension of payment services also requires a court order and provides another opportunity for a hearing before being invoked. Today, under current US law and the terms of service of every payment processor, a foreign or domestic website can be suspended over allegations of infringing or counterfeiting.
        
        John, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 10:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As the DOJ would be notifying a foreign hosted web site that would then have to appear in an American court would by any stretch of the imagination seen as an attempt by the United States to apply the law extra-territorially which is, at best invalid under intentional law and certainly one, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Untied States would correctly object to and loudly.
        
        If I'm factually wrong on one item I apologize but only by a little. There is no valid process serving on any civil law complaints anywhere internationally that I'm aware of and only rarely in criminal cases. So to that extent I stand on the statement of no notification (valid and legal notification if you prefer) but I stand on that statement. United States civil or criminal courts have no jurisdiction outside of the United States, it's territories and possessions. None. Zero.
        
        As for the company the United States gets to keep in doing DNS filtering, well, you do get judged, rightly or wrongly by the company you keep. And it this case it's not good company for a country founded on and still insistent on freedom and liberty in a large number of those it's now keeping company with.
        
        If you cant' see the disconnect, I can't help you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Read section 102(C) again. There is literally no mention of the words "court order" in it. Everything is at the AG's "discretion". And seeing as all the AGs and potential AGs formerly worked for IP-dependent companies...
        
        I think you can see where this goes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Affording a hearing if site owner wishes". right, "Guilty until proven innocent".
        
        The hearing should be the default, before any action is taken and the accused party given enough time to create a defense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      """Comparing this to China or North Korea is ridiculous because the kind of censorship that goes on there is different. Pretending for even one second that SOPA brings about that kind of censorship undermines the problems of actual censorship."""
      
      Pretending for even one second that, if either of these shitty laws pass, that they won't be abused to censor websites that your lot claims over and over won't be targeted makes you simply a liar. In my opinion you have sunk as low as you can go, and you no longer have anything reasonable to offer to a sane conversation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:07pm
  
  Re:
  Yawn. You came back to spout your usual drivel again? It's gonna end the same: people outsmarting you until you leave quitely again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bud, 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  You don't seem to get it - this is the list of countries Daniel Castro feels should be held as an example of successful DNS filtering.
  
  i.e. these are being held as examples of how DNS filtering can and should work to make the SOPA and PROTECT IP bills viable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tony, 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  Idiotic? I think you are being way too harsh and should pay closer attention to history.
  
  Remember the National Security letters. Remember the debacle when it was discovered that the FBI was using them when they had no justification to do so? Remember the warrantless wiretapping program (where AT&T gave the NSA unlimited access to internet traffic without judicial oversight) that went undiscovered until a whistle blower finally went to the media? More recently our government has begun to seize domains of alleged copyright violators and, in the process, has brought down hundreds of websites that have nothing to do with the alleged infringement. What about the music blog dajaz1.com? It was seized by ICE for over a year. Despite constant attempts to rectify the situation by the owner and his attorney they were never able to get an answer from the government, never went before a judge, never saw a warrant, never got a straight answer as to why the site was seized. A year later the government dropped the case and returned ownership of the site to the original owner with no explanation whatsoever. It never hosted any infringing materials.
  
  My point is this: If you give them power they will abuse it. It doesn't matter what it's intended purpose, if you make it available it will be used and misused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mic, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:41pm
  
  Re: Duh
  He's not the one who made the comparison, he simply pointed it out.
  
  Oh... or did you just read the list itself, not the article, and start criticizing ignorantly?
  Man I'm so proud of the people in this country.
  
  It's called READING. Shut up for a minute and try it sometime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
halley (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am

I'd love to have Penn Jillette make a 30 second video on pretty much exactly this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  He won't do it, unless he gets paid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    stand-up bit then
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mic, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:46pm
    
    Hahaha!
    Exactly. And then he'll say exactly what he's paid to say.
    
    Bullshit may be funny bullshit, but it's still mostly bullshit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarah, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:00pm

Hey, it works.
Quite an intriguing list of countries that are "working." Turns out death/imprisonment/brainwashing is an excellent deterrent to meddling with the filters -- now why didn't the US think of THAT?

Yikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mic, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:47pm
  
  Re: Hey, it works.
  They have, and it just passed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:12pm

China has been trying to get even more oppressive against the Internet lately, by considering a law forcing blogers to use their real names on the Internet, so that they can go after anyone who speaks against the government on the Internet. You see, China didn't like all the criticism they got on the Internet for their poor reaction to a really bad high speed train crash a few months ago.

Also I believe that only the leaders and the really rich can afford Internet access & computers in North Korea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:20pm

I can attest that it doesn't work too well in Vietnam, I was just over there and facebook stopped working for me (not right away, but after a while being in vietnam) and I wasted time troubleshooting only to find that they were (probably) blocking it deliberately. I didn't get any notification or anything, it just kinds stopped refreshing properly after a few days and some things worked and some didn't. It sure wasn't what I would point to as a success story in website blocking. Also, btw, their propoganda is way over the top there to the point of being comical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:34pm

These Bills SOPA & PIPA once Voted in can be used against us.And they will be used against us.The Patriot Act was supposed to be used against Terrorism but it has been used in Domestic Criminal Cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:36pm

My question is
Why would you have want to put yourself up next to Iran and Syria and say "these are my idols."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re: My question is
  Becuase Jesus doesn't like idolatry. Unless it's for a funny white sign.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 1:45am
  
  Re: My question is
  Because the real end game in all of this is control. The **AAs want the control they used to have over marketing and distribution in the pre-internet days, while some politicians like the idea of control over political speech and discourse. Dictatorships and other oppressive regimes are attractive to people who think like that. The question is whether you let them take control of your country.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:50pm

Even a simple minded person can understand that SOPA doesn't make the US repressive like China.

Sopa enables it, that's the problem. By extending the patriot act the government has already shown it won't relinquish power if they get there hands on it and there are several cases where they use it in manners that were not intended by the bill.

If it can be abused, it will be abused. always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  "Sopa enables it, that's the problem. "
  
  SOPA doesn't enable it. BULLSHIT.
  
  [citation needed]., because your post is weak. Nothing is SOPA turns the US into China.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Citations:
    - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-gives-umg-24-hours-to-explain-takedown-spree.a rs
    - https://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/
    - http://medieklipp.torvund.net/2011/04/17/doctors-use-dmca-to-censor-bad-reviews/
    - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/fox-news-censors-political-expression
    - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091103/1839446788.shtml
    - http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/07/dmca-takedown-used-to-try-to-silence-science-blogger-providing- comet-facts/
    
    The DMCA that is weaker than SOPA is already used for censorship purposes and wildly abused, and people contemplate giving more power to morons to abuse it even further?
    
    Unbelievable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Nothing is SOPA turns the US into China."
    
    Nobody said it does. The concern is that it makes it easier for the US to become more repressive, and more repressive is exactly the direction that government & corporations clearly would love the US to go.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ervserver (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:12pm

just another reason for the USA to be loathed...we constantly brag about free speech and rights, invade countries to fight for it. Then we censor our own internet...like Communists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:20pm
  
  Re:
  No, it's not a reason to loathe the United States. It's reason to feel sad and apprehensive. When the country most responsible for our current notions of what democracy, freedom, liberty and free speech start to legislate to remove or reduce those values it won't be long before we all lose it or worse.
  No, this isn't America's first foray into real or probable censorship it is, outside of wartime, the first time it's been supported by the highest offices in the States. Before it was just publisher and motion pictures and recordings that had to dance around certain things and discussions or a temporary aberration like the 1950's witch hunts. (I do miss the train going into the tunnel at full steam at the climax of love scenes though! )
  No, it's a time for sadness and a time to express support for Americans opposed to this kind of erosion. Particularly when the other side of the discussion is carried by people acting on behalf of private commercial gain instead of the public good or by spreading needless fear and anxiety as what is happening now with the Patriot Act.
  You don't defend liberty by taking it away. No matter the excuse for doing so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:49pm

What I want to know is why no one has commented (at least that I noticed) that his name is Castro. So essentially we have a great headline here, and yes I know it isn't THE Castro but hear me out,
"U.S. CONGRESS LISTENS ATTENTIVELY AS CASTRO INSTRUCTS ON NEW LAW"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:12pm

Here's the outline of the coming technical testimony regarding "breaking the internet"

http://www.hightechforum.org/my-dns-filtering-research-before-house-sopa-panel/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re:
  lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  Here's the outline of the coming technical testimony regarding "breaking the internet"
  
  http://www.hightechforum.org/my-dns-filtering-research-before-house-sopa-panel/
  
  From a "policy analyst" who works for an MPAA-sponsored outfit?
  
  No thanks. Let's talk to actual engineers who actually have experience with the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:35pm
  
  Re:
  That paper is so full of muddled logic, factual inaccuracies, wrong assumptions, logical fallacies, presenting opinion as fact, and probable outright lies (as opposed to just being wrong due to ignorance) that I literally don't even know where to start talking about it.
  
  Did you have a seventh grader write that for you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:42pm
  
  Re:
  First Scott Cleland and now George Ou.
  
  This is starting to feel like old home week from the SCO vs Novell, IBM, Linux as a whole, and the rest of the planet where Ou, like Cleland, had awarded SCO a victory long before it died, well, just because what SCO said HAD to be true.
  
  Technically Ou was as out to lunch there than he is in this this article. Ou, like those he accuses of being wrong is acting as much on faith as he does on technical reality.
  
  Kinda like a loosely worded paragraph offered up an an amendment, for example, will have any practical value where DNSSEC is concerned. We know how well that works when we encounter the subspecies of bureaucrat called East Texas patent court judges. Keeping in mind that a bureaucracy's only goal is to grow and expand itself.
  
  Ou's taking to task the very people who wrote DNS and DNSSEC would be amusing except that someone will actually take him seriously. FINALLY, they'll say, a techie that agrees with us! Except that Ou's opinions are for sale to the highest bidder if his track record is any indication.
  
  Oh, and most people landing on at least some of these sites are "victims" is nice turn of events in all of this. Except, except that SOPA won't slow the sales of counterfeit drugs any more than it will slow "infringement" of Hollywood's mostly questionable products. And I say that more with sadness than any sort of smug happiness. Until drug prices come down to earth people will go looking for the best deal they can find and, if desperate enough, even unbelievable deals. What was fairly open will go underground, complete with code words and phrases and the whack a mole game will really start in earnest. Desperate people will still find those drugs, and desperate people will continue to die or be crippled by the effects of those fakes. But it's not gonna stop it.
  Just what part of that reality do you and other supporters of SOPA/PIPA not understand?
  Oh, that now welfare case in a chronic care bed till s/he dies because s/he deserves it cause their a criminal?
  That Hollywood will be back in a year of two wanting more, like any good addict, of a their legislation drug cause their earnings still don't match what they THINK the earnings should be? (All while they continue to move heaven and earth NOT to pay the creative people they constantly say they're representing?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:11pm
  
  Re:
  I marked you as funny for actually thinking anyone would take this BS seriously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:13pm

Its a bit ironic that a bill this dirty is called SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just John (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:20pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, it makes me think of "Soapbox" standing, because that is how they are trying to sell it, by selling to morality, instead of actually showing their true agenda (control).
  
  It also makes me think of a soap party (or a blanket party as it is formally called).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just John (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:14pm

Doesn't work well in China
The ironic part is that they post about how well it works in these other countries.

The fact is, they do not even seem to know what they are talking about.

In China, talk to anyone who uses the computer in a regular basis to find a way to get around the Great Firewall of China.

We use VPNs, proxies, DNS redirects, and other enhancements.

Try this link to see about how they block. It is China's most popular search engine, and it shows how China has blocked speech it doesn't like (In this example, it is a search for "Tankman", which is an illegal topic in China). Similar to the way the US government has attempted to block Wikileaks.

Now, try this link, which is a simple Google search on how to bypass the Great firewall of China. You will notice it is rather easy to do as you delve into it (But warning, if you get caught, you can get in trouble). Here is one of the better articles that goes to show the ultimate futility.

It just goes to show that all of this will ultimately fail. Lets face it, Castro is wrong. It does not work. Maybe our grandparents will not be able to get around it, but I guarantee your kids will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:52pm
  
  Re: Doesn't work well in China
  I think that DNS blocking is less effective in China due to the nature and scope iof what is blocked. Simply blocking infringing and counterfeiting sites will not have the same effect in the US, particularly with the rise of legit streaming sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just John (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Doesn't work well in China
    Please explain how blocking one is different then blocking the other on a technical level, because the methods are exactly the same.
    
    You can claim the blocked material targets are different, but the methods for implementation are the same.
    
    Want me to have our Chinese engineers explain it to you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re: Doesn't work well in China
    Really? What, "wave a magic wand and it'll diappear!"?
    
    Yeah, right! That might work in Vegas, but the Internet knows. And it remembers. When Skynet finally DOES go live, the first thing it'll do is kill those that understand how it works - it'll leave the politicos and the ignorant for ruling over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jj, 20 Dec 2011 @ 10:44am

MPAA is a terrorist!
If they are going to be thinking like these countries, maybe they should move to these countries and setup shop.. Seems they like that type of censorship space anyways.

MPAA LEAVE THE USA, YOUR ANTI USA AND ANTI AMERICAN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPBGirl, 20 Dec 2011 @ 9:07pm

Well Obama always wanted to have a Beerfest with Iran and Joe Biden just said this week that the Taliban is NOT our enemy, so if you listen to our ass backwards, anti-american politicians... the 13 countries listed above are a GREAT examples. lol

Seriously, MPAA has crap for evidence of any damn thing they claim. Its becoming so bad, you just want to reach out and slap the hell out of the idiot who comes up with there arguements, statistics, and studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mic, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:49pm

Wow
So this is apparently where the professional trolls and deniers hang out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
richard trombly, 26 Dec 2011 @ 1:30am

DNS blocking
This blog is blocked in China by DNS filtering. I am in China, reading it and posting to it. I am one of millions with a proxy, TOR or VPN that happily surf the blocked web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas, 31 Oct 2012 @ 3:33am

I travel a lot and I can say that getting past Internet filters is not that difficult. I use a VPN service (http://www.sunvpn.com) that allows me to get on blocked sites. However having to do this from back is another thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Air proxy, 13 Jan 2013 @ 3:43pm

I have a website proxy ! and i have a lot of Iran visitors that eat a lot of bandwith ! i don't how to stop them from surfing on my website ! can anyone help me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ws, 9 Dec 2013 @ 3:34am

surprising south korea isnt on the list, considering their govt is absolute nazis when coming to internet censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]