Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

There is a right way and a wrong way to do anything


6 replies to this topic

#1 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,338 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:18 PM

Freedom on the Internet is a precious thing.

One of the problems with freedom is that there are always those who abuse, cheat and steal when given the freedom to do so. The Internet is not unique in this and that kind of criminal behavior is deplorable and ought to be sanctioned. One obvious example is the appropriation of Intellectual property.

The existing laws make those who steal intellectual property subject to sanctions.

But like every other crime, from folks breaking into cars and shoplifting to robbery, there are those who break the law.

Still we're not allowed to act like vigilantes and blow up whole houses of those who pilfer a stick of gum from the grocery store.

The so-called PROTECT IP act, a Senate bill designed to curtail such illegal actions on the Internet, is in the process of becoming law despite the fact that it turns those who claim Intellectual Property rights (really whether they have them or not) into vigilantes with the power to literally blacklist websites into oblivion for so much as a single violation.

The powers granted to those basically corporate intellectual property owners includes the ability to have, on an allegation alone, to have servers turned off, domains blacklisted (made unavailable) and have their accounts on paypal or credit card services frozen literally on the basis of their unchallenged assertion.

Those supporting this new legislation suggest that it would only be used against the baddies out there but the law is written in such broad language and grants such broad powers to corporate legal staff's as to make these kinds of assurance less than convincing.

Let me tell you a bit about intellectual property. A logo is intellectual property. A trademark including a phrase like "where is the beef" is intellectual property. A news story is Intellectual property as is a song as might appear in a youtube. One example is that with the extension of the copyright to 75 years after the death of the author on works created after 1917 or so makes the rendition of a video of a family singing 'happy birthday to you' to a one-year old toddler on video tape and sung by the well wishers an 'infringement.'

The law is loose and vague in the way it is written. A single violation of anyone's Intellectual Property (IP) - a single post on a forum like Pcom's - can allow an institution with IP rights to invoke the full civil and criminal (up to five years in prison) penalties of the law.

Placing the power to police this vague law in the hands of IP owners and presumably licensees, creates for anyone allowing users and members to place things on the NET the possibility they could be shut down for the act(s) of someone who casually places content on the site. Worse still is the opportunity to entrap a site like pcom with dirty tricks. Shut me down and I'm out of business even if I find out later it was a dirty trick. Oh, and the law includes language that protects the entity claiming infringement by giving them immunity from civil recourse if 'a mistake is made.'

Bottom line, if this law passes and someone has licensed the right to play the happy birthday song on their site - say yahoo or AOL - and a member here posts that 'infringing video' of their child's first birthday on PCOM, AOL could literally seek to black list Paulding.com. And, since AOL is in New York, that effort would give me five days to respond to the shutdown notice in a federal court in New York or close.

Seems so ridiculous that it couldn't happen, doesn't it.

Folks may have forgotten the defamation suit filed against a local attorney who copied a law journal article on Paulding.com and so became one of 88 folks nation-wide to be named in a lawsuit in New York based on that single filing. The local attorney chose to set the offending article invisible in order to comply with retraction demand in the filing and avoid litigation. (The article noted how stupid a new law grad was in another case and of course that litigation ultimately went nowhere... but under the terms of this PROPOSED LAW, had intellectual property been involved, the folks at netdepot (where we have our servers) would have had no choice but to shut us down if we didn't answer and challenge their directive in the New York court.

The point is that kind of unintended consequence is what makes this EXCEEDINGLY BAD LAW!

To quote Devin Dewey on the techcrunch blog

PROTECT IP is a lunatic proposal, penned by a dinosauric industry concerned solely with the preservation of its own profits. It will do nothing to curb piracy while at the same time eroding fundamental freedoms of the internet.

The only people who can possibly be in favor of this bill are either ignorant of its implications or stand to gain by its passage. This desperate power grab by a diminishing elite fails to even comprehend the problems it aims to solve, and its blunt force methods are wide open for abuse, and very possibly unconstitutional. Make no mistake about it: this is a kill switch, and if it’s passed, it will revisit us for years to come in ways we never suspected possible. If you think that’s an overstatement, think about it again next time you’re posing naked for the TSA, and ask yourself how that came about.

The full text of the Senate and House versions of the bill can be read here and here, respectively. Can it be fixed? No. The problems it attempts to address are simply not going to be solved by any approach suggested in this bill. Activist groups, law professors, entrepreneurs, CEOs, and many more have already spoken out.Contact your Senator and Representative and urge them to reject S.968.

...snip ...

A blacklist for sites, whatever the intention, is simply an idea that has no place in a free society. This is inarguable. It is censorship, plain and simple, and it is exactly as audacious as banned book lists and other more recent forms of moral, political, and ideological bootheeling. It sounds inflammatory, but this bill is a wedge to be driven over time. Permitting this blacklist would be surrendering an important guarantee of the internet, and opening the door to worse. The slippery slope argument doesn’t always hold up, but with the parties involved, there is precedent in abundance for excess and abuse. And the law is not structured to prevent such abuse.


If it is this stupid a bill, how can Congress even consider passing it?

Well, lobbyists - the same lobbyists who convinced lawmakers in the last 30 years to extend copyright protection from 17 years to potentially 130 or more years (called the Disney law because it was passed just in time to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain) have the stroke, money, power and influence to pass bad laws that benefit them and their special interests.


They are able to do that because they provide big bucks to fuel the money machines needed to get folks re-elected time and time again. And make no mistake, it is expensive to run a re-election campaign for the US Senate and folks like Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss are all ears when they know (and can expect) campaign contributions from media companies, Hollywood and the music recording industry for making laws that will give them a 'cheap way' to screw those who pilfer their movies, videos and songs.

Now I'm no more in favor of people stealing intellectual property than those in those industries are but there is a right way and wrong way to do anything and this proposed law is just the wrong way.

First is vimeo video explaining this issue from fightforthefuture.org/pipa

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.



http://americancensorship.org/ is another key resource.

Please do email Senators Isakson and Chambliss your opposition for this BAD BILL. (these links go to their offical senate.gov pages where they seek email.

You can also call Sen. Chambliss' office toll free at 1-800-234-4208 to express your concern. You can call Isakson's local Atlanta office at (770) 661-0999 or his Washington office at (202) 224-3643. You'll probably talk to an aid or secretary.

Ask them to withdraw their sponsorship of PIPA (S.968)

pubby

PS: This is also not a political topic. Many of the major sponsors of this abomination are Democrats in both the House (the companion bill in the house is HR 3261) as Hollywood (MPAA) and RIAA (music industry) are among the sponsors.

PPS: Here is a quote from yet another website I found enlightening:

It’s important to note that the actual bill stipulates the streaming be for commercial purposes because that’s where the vague side of their equation comes into play. While they always mean to be going after the bad guys, the language of these bills always leaves it open such that it could be applied to any (enormous) number of innocent cases.

In response to S.978, Fight for the Future has taken the most obvious (and seemingly) innocent case in the book. They started the Free Bieber campaign to point out how American’s young singing sensation got his start by streaming his own renditions of popular music on YouTube and therefore would be guilty. And though his lawyers aren’t too happy about the campaign, the Bieber himself has chimed in, suggesting that the sponsor of this bill, Sen. Amy Klobucher (D-MN), be “locked up”. Meanwhile, Demand Progress has a petition for you to sign if you think a five year sentence might be a little too much. While it would be nice to think the federal government has better things to do, their record says they do not.

Sadly that was just the appetizer of this story. Now we get to the real mouthfuls. S.968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT-IP) and the crazier House version, H.R. 3261, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), lay out an incredible expansion of power enabling the government and private parties to effectively create a blacklist of websites found to offend the very broad language used to qualify an infraction.


Basically a few industry hack/lobbyists wrote the law to give them the power to control the net. I don't trust them and you shouldn't either. Our Senators probably don't care; they need the campaign funds that follow from sponsoring a bill to aid the industry and have been told how good it is. It is up to us to tell them how wrong the self-interested hacks are. There is a right way and wrong way to do anything and this bill is just the wrong way.

#2 rednekkhikkchikk

rednekkhikkchikk

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,646 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:39 AM

We have several hundred lunatics in power in America. That needs to change. Immediately.


  • Mrs G likes this
"There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion". - Sir Francis Bacon

"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop". -P. J. O'Rourke

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." ~Frank Zappa

"All persons ought to endeavor to follow what is right, and not what is established." -Aristotle

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -Thomas Jefferson

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority." -Noah Webster

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking". - AA Milne

#3 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:51 AM

I sent letters to Chambliss and Isakson yesterday.......Bad, Bad, Law.
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#4 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,338 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 06:52 PM

Here is a third party report on the above law:

The Stop Online Piracy Act - SOPA

A bill drafted in late October is gaining attention far from Capitol Hill. If you’ve been to Google or Mozilla-Firefox lately, you may have noticed the little icon of a globe with blackout tape across it just below the search window. The message next to the globe reads: “Congress is trying to control the internet.” But while these two giant internet search engines may feel this way, others disagree.

The Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, is the measure that is causing such a rift. It would give copyright owners greater control over how their intellectual property is distributed via the internet. Members of the House Judiciary Committee are now debating SOPA, which is aimed at shutting down websites that distribute pirated intellectual property.

SOPA is the House version of the bill, introduced by Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas. There’s another bill in the Senate called the Protect IP Act, introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont. The aim of the bill is to target websites that peddle illicit movies, counterfeit handbags and knockoff pharmaceuticals. But some say the way the legislation is written it will be far broader than that.

Support from both sides of the aisle suggests that it is not party line that separates voters into two camps on this issue. It is internet use. Those who enjoy YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media say they see nothing wrong with borrowing music and movies for brief interludes. They say these forms of entertainment are part of American culture once they hit the airwaves and they belong to everyone for those brief moments. But copyright holders say no.

Hearings on SOPA began recently, and the chances it will pass are excellent. It’s backed by powerful business lobbies and has bipartisan majority support in both the House and Senate. If it does pass, the President could veto it.

In short, SOPA, if passed, would allow the U.S. government, using DNS filtering techniques, to stop or control access to any website caught with infringing material. But what is “infringing material”? It could be anything deemed in violation of copyright. Some say that could mean even a few posts by users on any social media.

Those against it say it won't stop piracy. But it would threaten social media use. Those in favor say intellectual copyrights must be protected.


note the bolded part above.

pubby

#5 justme2

justme2

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 07:15 PM

if they are planning on using dns filtering this is easily bypassed by using opendns. (opendns.org) this only takes a few seconds to set up, and is what everyone should be using anyway, since they filter out a lot of the phishing\malware sites

and if you go to their website, you really do not need to register. all you need to do is set your dns servers to 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220 to use opendns

Edited by justme2, 29 November 2011 - 07:18 PM.


#6 justme2

justme2

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 07:46 PM

. Our Senators probably don't care; they need the campaign funds


this is the number one thing wrong with america today.

#7 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,338 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 11:54 PM

Here is Saxby Chambliss reply:

Dear Mr. Hughes:



Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011," and H.R. 3261, the "Stop Online Piracy Act." It is good to hear from you.



S. 968 was introduced on May 12, 2011, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 26, S. 968 was reported out of committee and placed on the general legislative calendar. If enacted, S. 968 would amend federal copyright law to authorize the Attorney General to file civil action against violators of copyright infringement law.



H.R. 3261 was introduced on October 26, 2011, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On November 16, H.R. 3261 was considered before the full committee. If enacted, H.R. 3261 would authorize the Attorney General to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy.



I am concerned about the substantial negative impacts that intellectual property theft and the sale of counterfeit goods have on our nation's economy. As Congress reviews potential reforms to our nation's intellectual property laws and enforcement mechanisms in response to technological advances, we must be certain that we do not make changes that encroach on fair and lawful enjoyment of creative works and legitimate websites. However, we must also be aware of the substantial negative impacts that intellectual property violations have on American businesses and our economy.



It is the role of Congress to seek out an appropriate balance between the lawful use and enjoyment of the public while protecting the rights of the rights holder. Should these bills come before the full Senate for consideration, I will keep your thoughts in mind.



If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.


And Johnny Isakson's reply

Dear Mr. Hughes:





Thank you for contacting me regarding intellectual property theft. I appreciate hearing from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.



S.968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011, was introduced by Senator Leahy (D-VT) on May 12, 2011, and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 26, 2011, it was reported out of Committee and is currently pending in the Senate. The bill targets websites, particularly those registered outside of the United States, which are "dedicated to infringing activities." These rogue websites typically offer unauthorized downloading or streaming of copyrighted content or the sale of counterfeit goods including music, movies, and pharmaceutical drugs.



Websites targeted by this bill are foreign owned and outside the reach of U.S. laws despite the fact U.S. intellectual property is being infringed upon and U.S. consumers are the targets. Rogue websites cost American workers jobs and cost businesses millions of dollars in lost revenue. As online technology and commerce advances, we must see to it that injured parties have the ability to stop infringers from profiting from counterfeit products. For example, a victim of infringement will have the authority to file a civil action against the owner or registrant of a rogue site. If an order is granted by the court, third parties will be required to stop processing payments from the infringing sites, therefore, preventing infringers from collecting payments. I will work to ensure that our laws our modernized to protect intellectual property, and will keep your thoughts on this bill in mind should it come before the Senate for a vote.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm. You can also click here to sign up for the eNewsletter


While both replies suggest they would keep my concerns in mind, neither are truly responsive and both emphasize their commitment to protecting intellectual property. Neither acknowledge their co-sponsorship of the law or discuss it in any substantive way.

width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars="">

The Colbert Report
Get More: http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report Full Episodes,http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog,http://www.colbertnation.com/video'>Video Archive





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics