[SOPA] is shelved. EU voted [ACTA] down; rises from grave as [CETA]

nightmarenny

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/innovation/us-house-considers-copyright-bill

Today there is a hearing regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act. I'm surprised their isn't already a thread about it so I'm posting one.

http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html

The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) builds on the Pro IP Act of 2008 and the Senate's Protect IP Act introduced earlier this year. The bill modernizes our criminal and civil statutes to meet new IP enforcement challenges and protect American jobs. The proposal reflects a bipartisan and bicameral commitment toward ensuring that law enforcement and job creators have the necessary tools to protect American intellectual property from counterfeiting and piracy.

Basically this bill would cause anyone who posted video reviews, cover songs on Youtube ect. to be committing a crime.

Chanus

Hooray for desperately clinging to old ways and causing more harm than good in doing so!

BubbaT

Dr IP Protection: Nurse, scalpel.

Nurse MPAA: Here you go, doctor. /hands doctor a nuclear bomb.

Slider

I don't like it.

When are we moving to Sweden?

DarkPrimus

Slider wrote:

I don't like it.

When are we moving to Sweden?

Didn't know if you heard but the US is big on extradition now.

CptHamilton

I feel like every technology-related bill should have a pre-submission questionnaire that includes:

What portion of the user-base for the technology or technologies impacted by the proposed law would become felons, were the proposed law to be accepted and enforced?
A: None
B: Only ones who doing something that most people think is illegal already
C: ENTIRELY TOO FUCKING MANY
Techno-whatnow? Can I just get some more tax breaks?

ArbitraryDescriptor

I fell I should be drafting a letter comparing this to gun control and big-government solution to a free-market problem.

My rep is a pretty hard-line R.

However, my Senator is a pretty big D, and also a Democrat, so I think I'm going to need two letters.

[e]Pretty infographics from first link in OP's link
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/11/infographic-effects-of-the-int.php

Cokebotle

And apparently the witnesses at the hearings were 5-to-1 in favor of SOPA. Yay!

Vigo327

Good article, thanks for that.

Didn't know if you heard but the US is big on extradition now.

Which raises the point of Sweden's declining credibility regarding censorship.

ArbitraryDescriptor

Cokebotle wrote:

And apparently the witnesses at the hearings were 5-to-1 in favor of SOPA. Yay!

"This argument [that SOPA will harm DNSSEC deployment] conveniently ignores not only the history of the creation of DNSSEC but also the very nature of Internet protocols, which is simply this: when new developments or circumstances require changes to these codes, the codes change," said MPAA's Michael O'Leary.

Yeah, nerds, just change it. What's the big deal?

O'Leary of the MPAA smirkingly took on his (largely absent) opponents by saying that SOPA critics were engaged in hypocritical hyperbole and were pro-piracy

This has been an exhausting read. I can't imagine actually being there and not being able to sew that man's mouth shut.

Houn

I basically just assume that every bad net bill will pass at this point.

dlinfiniti

yaarrrrr

L Ron Howard

Ooooo! Scary! Internets!!!

/bill passes, big business wins and gets more money

override367

CptHamilton wrote:

I feel like every technology-related bill should have a pre-submission questionnaire that includes:

What portion of the user-base for the technology or technologies impacted by the proposed law would become felons, were the proposed law to be accepted and enforced?
A: None
B: Only ones who doing something that most people think is illegal already
C: ENTIRELY TOO FUCKING MANY
Techno-whatnow? Can I just get some more tax breaks?

Best accidental emoticon

Does it make anyone else sad that the only reason the only reason the internet hasn't become a draconian bastion of authoritarianism is because there are at major corporations who share the interests of the public in this regard (in that, Google and the like would suddenly became criminals because someone uploaded a song onto youtube under some of these absurd bills)

nightmarenny

Will they even really make money off of this? There is no way this will stop piracy and most of the people it really will hurt are people who add value to the product. Nothing that sounds like an increase in revenue.

Nice to see Google is on the right side of things.

Sad to see they were treated so terribly for it.

override367

If Comcast gets any more powerful we're all fucked forever in regards to online privacy and freedom

nightmarenny wrote:

Will they even really make money off of this? There is no way this will stop piracy and most of the people it really will hurt are people who add value to the product. Nothing that sounds like an increase in revenue.

Nice to see Google is on the right side of things.

Sad to see they were treated so terribly for it.

Facts are not welcome when lawmakers discuss technology, science, religion, abortion, education, or deficits

Pi-r8

I'll just go ahead and link to http://www.peterfrase.com/2010/12/anti-star-trek-a-theory-of-posterity/, which is one of my favorite economics essays ever.

Basically he argues that, as material goods become cheaper and more readily available, the only way to maintain a profit-based capitalist economy is through paying for intellectual property. But only a small number of people can really benefit from selling intellectual property (because it's so easy for one product to completely dominate its market, like itunes does), and a large portion of society will have no job except to enforce the intellectual property laws, which means a lot of them will just be prison wardens for all of the software pirates that have been sent to jail.

Caedwyr

Micheal Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law had an article about SOPA.

Basically it says that this law is extremely wide reaching and will affect a number of soverign states outside of the USA.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6134/135/

The U.S. Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debated over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that supporters argue is needed combat online infringement, but critics fear would create the "great firewall of the United States." SOPA’s potential impact on the Internet and development of online services is enormous as it cuts across the lifeblood of the Internet and e-commerce in the effort to target websites that are characterized as being "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." This represents a new standard that many experts believe could capture hundreds of legitimate websites and services.

For those caught by the definition, the law envisions requiring Internet providers to block access to the sites, search engines to remove links from search results, payment intermediaries such as credit card companies and Paypal to cut off financial support, and Internet advertising companies to cease placing advertisements. While these measures have unsurprisingly raised concern among Internet companies and civil society groups (letters of concern from Internet companies, members of the US Congress, international civil liberties groups, and law professors), my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the jurisdictional implications demand far more attention. The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as "domestic" for U.S. law purposes.

The long-arm of U.S. law manifests itself in at least five ways in the proposed legislation.

First, it defines a "domestic domain name" as a domain name "that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States." Since every dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain is managed by a domain name registry in the U.S., the law effectively asserts jurisdiction over tens of millions of domain names regardless of where the registrant actually resides.

Second, it defines "domestic Internet protocol addresses" - the numeric strings that constitute the actual address of a website or Internet connection - as "an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States."

Yet IP addresses are allocated by regional organizations, not national ones. The allocation entity located in the U.S. is called ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. Its territory includes the U.S., Canada, and 20 Caribbean nations. This bill treats all IP addresses in this region as domestic for U.S. law purposes.

To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.

Third, the bill grants the U.S. "in rem" jurisdiction over any website that does not have a domestic jurisdictional connection. For those sites, the U.S. grants jurisdiction over the property of the site and opens the door to court orders requiring Internet providers to block the site and Internet search engines to stop linking to it.

Should a website owner wish to challenge the court order, U.S. law asserts itself in a fourth way, since in order for an owner to file a challenge (described as a "counter notification"), the owner must first consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.

If these measures were not enough, the fifth measure makes it a matter of U.S. law to ensure that intellectual property protection is a significant component of U.S. foreign policy and grants more resources to U.S. embassies around the world to increase their involvement in foreign legal reform.

U.S. intellectual property lobbying around the world has been well documented with new Canadian copyright legislation widely viewed as a direct consequence of years of political pressure. The new U.S. proposal takes this aggressive approach to another level by simply asserting jurisdiction over millions of Canadian registered IP addresses and domain names.

either,or

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/16/sopa-condemned-internet-blacklist-bill

Art Bordsky, spokesman for Public Knowledge, a Washington-based public policy group, said Sopa was "the proverbial bull in the proverbial china shop" and that the bill as it stands would have "terrible consequences" for the internet.

"The international aspects alone are very worrying," he said. "It appears that the US is taking control of the entire world. The definitions written in the bill are so broad that any US consumer who uses a website overseas immediately gives the US jurisdiction the power to potentially take action against it."

How is it possible for the US to just create a law that gives them power to pull the plug on companies anywhere in the world, outside of US jurisdiction? I don't mean to sound indignant, I really just don't understand. No other country would even think of drafting such a law.

Cantido

Good to see Mozilla doing their part. Also the EFF, wow. Reminds me of when I used to write articles for dmusic.com! I found the issue of piracy fascinating back then.

Magus`

"Protect American jobs"?

Does that means I can pirate non-American stuff? Does this make me a patriot? OH GOD THE ANIME

BubbaT

Slider wrote:

I don't like it.

When are we moving to Sweden?

Where you move doesn't really matter if the websites are still based in the US, and largely dependent on US-based revenue streams to keep operating.

Marty81

So how soon am I gonna have to take down my AMVs and let's plays I have up on youtube?

Magus`

Hopefully never, assuming Obama and co. aren't stupid about this.

Artereis

I am so sick and tired of these groups trying to push legislation through Congress to protect antiquated business practices.

I watch four hours of programming per week. I don't need or want cable TV in my house. I spent too much time as a kid just sitting in front of a TV flipping channels. Cost has nothing to do with it. Put your shows on readily available streaming services and make me watch ads. That doesn't bother me. Hulu and CBS are perfectly acceptable content delivery methods, and all the data is coming through the same pipe anyway. If you don't want to go through another party, sell me a streaming pass for for each show I want to watch and let me access it directly from you.

I hate being treated like a second class customer. They'd likely make *more* money off me this way than if I was a cable subscriber and they'd be offering me *less* content.

mcdermott

Magus` wrote:

Hopefully never, assuming Obama and co. aren't stupid about this.

So, soon then.

Magus`

Haven't they had similar stuff in the past they've shot down, though?

CptKemzik

from ess ee plus plus:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192349-obama-threatens-to-veto-resolution-repealing-net-neutrality-rules

Obama threatens a veto on the thing.

Cantido

CptKemzik wrote:

from ess ee plus plus:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192349-obama-threatens-to-veto-resolution-repealing-net-neutrality-rules

Obama threatens a veto on the thing.

Oh, snap!

TehSpectre

Fuck yeah, Obama!

Clipse

CptKemzik wrote:

from ess ee plus plus:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192349-obama-threatens-to-veto-resolution-repealing-net-neutrality-rules

Obama threatens a veto threat on the thing.

Pretty sure that's an entirely separate thing.

kildy

Clipse wrote:

CptKemzik wrote:

from ess ee plus plus:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192349-obama-threatens-to-veto-resolution-repealing-net-neutrality-rules

Obama threatens a veto threat on the thing.

Pretty sure that's an entirely separate thing.

It is, and the comments are scary.

Magus`

Just saying, if he does it for that, chances are he'll do it for this. Obama's a smart guy.

MrMister

nightmarenny wrote:

protect American jobs and job creators

Are we just putting that into every law now? So fucking dumb.

Feral

MrMister wrote:

nightmarenny wrote:

protect American jobs and job creators

Are we just putting that into every law now? So fucking dumb.

They hired a guy just to add "job creators" to every government communication.

Magus`

Feral wrote:

MrMister wrote:

nightmarenny wrote:

protect American jobs and job creators

Are we just putting that into every law now? So fucking dumb.

They hired a guy just to add "job creators" to every government communication.

Ironically, he's based in China.

Clipse

kildy wrote:

Clipse wrote:

CptKemzik wrote:

from ess ee plus plus:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192349-obama-threatens-to-veto-resolution-repealing-net-neutrality-rules

Obama threatens a veto threat on the thing.

Pretty sure that's an entirely separate thing.

It is, and the comments are scary.

My phrasing there was just for the sake of politeness, they are two entirely different bills:

S.J. Res. 6
H.R. 3261

They are only related in so far as both would (if passed) have a negative impact on the internet; other than that they are totally separate. The bill from the OP, SOPA, is about getting harsher (to the point of absurdity) punishments for sites that host copyright infringing content, and extrapolating copyright infringing to include countless things (eg covers) that have historically not been considered copyright infringement. The net neutrality bill is a senate attempt to stop the FCC from enforcing net neutrality.

Feral

Magus` wrote:

Feral wrote:

MrMister wrote:

nightmarenny wrote:

protect American jobs and job creators

Are we just putting that into every law now? So fucking dumb.

They hired a guy just to add "job creators" to every government communication.

Ironically, he's based in China.

:^:

Drez

Hahahah oh my god. "Net Neutrality=Big Brother. Only a matter of time, Libs, until someone uses the statute in a way you don't approve. What about the Patriot Act Liberals?" Are these people for real?

Drez

Feral wrote:

Magus` wrote:

Feral wrote:

MrMister wrote:

nightmarenny wrote:

protect American jobs and job creators

Are we just putting that into every law now? So fucking dumb.

They hired a guy just to add "job creators" to every government communication.

Ironically, he's based in China.

:^:

Probably made there too.

DoctorArch

Drez wrote:

Hahahah oh my god. "Net Neutrality=Big Brother. Only a matter of time, Libs, until someone uses the statute in a way you don't approve. What about the Patriot Act Liberals?" Are these people for real?

Yes, they are crazy. It is part of the reason why it has been difficult to do anything in the last several years.