Slashdot Mirror
Internet Blacklist Back In Congress
Adrian Lopez writes "A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission."
Got a site you want to shut down? Just a) post some copyrighted material there, and b) complain. Problem solved.
Gawdlmighty damn, if only once, just once they would make even a token attempt to do something useful. sighhhhhhhhh. Congress is a welfare program for people who can't hold down real jobs.
I've been saying for a long time that the day will come very soon when typing in thepiratebay.org or other torrent site will only get you a "This site has been blocked for illegal material" message. the only question was whether it would happen by government mandate or voluntary ISP decision.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That's all we need, is more lists for the government to maintain. They do a bang up job already with no-fly.
But remember, if you vote for anybody but a Republicrat or Demoblican you're throwing your vote away! So keep rubber-stamping business as usual like good sheep.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
As soon as they pass legislation like this, people will just move to using proxy servers. Proxy servers lists change hourly. And I do not expect this to survive a challenge in court -- it is a restriction of trade and commerce, and it will only be a matter of time before they shut down the wrong site, cost them millions, and are forced to pay restitution.
So let's be clear -- this isn't about piracy. It's about killing free speech. Because no sooner will they pass this, than they'll add a rider saying they can shut down sites which host "terrorist" material as well... and then Greenpeace, PETA, and a lot of other political undesireables will find themselves on the list.
GO AMERICA!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
so wait, HOW exactly are they filtering?
Domain name - I'll change my domain, and out of blacklist/their retardedness
IP address - ISP's are going to get hurt here, unable to use one of their ip addresses (or for shared hosting ?....maybe?) just buy a new one
IP address blocks - ISPs and legal sites going to be hit hard.
on another note, I'd like to say how stupid "COICA" sounds. that is all.
While it's often said that a Lame Duck congress can't get much done, it is the perfect time for them to pass unpopular legislation that powerful lobbies want passed. It's one of the few times congress can get away with it while having very few political repercussions.
I'm a libertarian (small, weak government), not an anarchist (no government), but just stop and think: If there was no government and no congress, then there would be no COICA. And no COICA would mean no way for the Corporations from stealing our stuff. We could pirate books, songs, shows without limit.
instead, your rulers would be the corporations. with their private 'security' divisions.
what you speak of, is basically feudalism. that very environment gave rise to feudalism in early middle ages.
Read radical news here
So is this blacklisting to be done without a proper copyright infringement trial? If so, I'm not sure how it would be legal. If it is to be done via a proper copyright trial and a party is found guilty, I'd think we don't need a special blacklist law. Or I'm completely missing the point. Of course, when it comes to things made by Congresscritters, there doesn't necessarily have to be any logic or reason applied. Sigh.
What, exactly, are these socialist ideas? Who espouses them, exactly? And, if true, why are these socialist ideals bad? The semantic content of your post boils down to "Booga! booga! booga! socialists! Booga booga! Are you scared yet? Should I say the word socialist some more until you are?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, just wait for them to add an amendment here, or on some other bill...making it illegal for a US citizen to use alternate roots.
While I agree with your sentiment...there is real danger letting them set a precedent of this fashion, and we need to stop this kind of shit right in its current tracks.
I applaud current moves to try to get rid of earmark/pork barrel spending.
Lets also try to convince the congress critters to quit fscking with the internet (something they really don't understand to begin with)...and leave it free.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
pray tell me ?
...
EVERYthing in a capitalist society, hinges on money. that includes the potential of getting elected. you need to have enough financial power to be able to even get your voice heard, if you are a candidate. going from town to town with train, doesnt cut it anymore. you need to buy ads, appear in mass media, get your name and opinions heard, to be even considered a candidate. you cant just be a candidate by registering as a candidate in the elections.
and, even financial power doesnt cut it anymore. no mass media outlet will let you on, and speak in their channels, even accept and run your ads, if your views do not support theirs. even more, your interests coincide with theirs. so, basically not even financial power is enough ; you need to be friendly with established hierarchy - no, you actually need to be THEIR puppet candidate, so that you can actually make your voice heard.
and what the average citizen can do ? the only candidates they can see, are the ones, well, they can actually see and hear.
the capitalist system, and its resultant established elite hierarchy, doesnt let anybody but their own puppets to be seen.
and naturally, these share the votes.
im not even going to go into constant brainwashing and 'opinion shaping' that can be affected, by using the power of big established media conglomerates. there is a whole network, sitting on top at #1, by spewing outright lies and hatred, despite they dont legally call themselves 'news' in courts anymore. (while defending against libel).
so in an environment like this, what do you expect citizens to do
Read radical news here
You left out one big fact, Germany one of the most socialist of them all is bailing them out.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with America, it's government and how its constitution before asking such obviously answered questions. How about the socialized health care for one, Obama and the leadership of the democrat party espouses them, and yes they are bad because A: the US federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose systems like that in the constitution's present state, B: there is a way to amend the US constitution in order to give the federal government the authority but for some insane reason, ignoring the US constitution seems to be the route chosen. C: this equals little more then an attempt to destroy the fabric of the US constitution which like it or not, will result in things like the Bill of rights being completely decimated in the process.
It's not necessarily that they are bad ideas, It's that the constitution doesn't allow it and if you think things like the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion- or even the non-existent constitutional separation of church and state, the right to a fair trial and so on are somehow able to survive, you would be wrong. This is because of they can ignore the constitution based around political ideology, then they can ignore the entire constitution based around political ideology. In other words, if they skip the necessary processes required to give the government the power and authority, then they can skip the necessary requirements for the government to take rights away.
And yes, even FDR knew his programs were unconstitutional. In fact, there was a supreme court battle over most of them that ended up ending with FDR ignoring the court and the court invented the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown at the time. The US federal government is not equivalent to parliament or any other country's central government. It is by design only intended to be a state face for foreign diplomacy, an arbitrator for disputes between the states, and an overseer of trade between the states. This is why the country is called the United States of America. -It's a collection of State bound by a common defense. Not some over ridding power structure that controls the people. It retains it's authenticity through the consent of the governed and that consent was given though the US constitution.
"I am with the Government and I want to control everything and I don't give a shit if it hurts someone."
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Nobody bothered to actually ask what kind of "change" he was talking about. D'oh!
I get so tired of hearing this sentiment. I know exactly what kind of "change" he was talking about. He specifically stated he intended to change the way Washington politics worked. He promised to get rid of the partisan bickering, gridlock and blatant disregard for the populace that define Washington politics.
Unfortunately, he got into office and concentrated on his progressive agenda instead. The conservatives stopped trying to actually get anything done, and instead focused on a 24/7 dirty PR campaign. In an inept attempt at fighting the smear attacks, Mr. Obama sank into the same partisan bickering that he had previously railed against.
I liked him and voted for him. Even now, I like him better than anyone likely to run against him. But, he has not lived up to his promises. He's become just another politician, doing what politicians do. That's why the left lost their energy, and the right was able to make some gains in the recent election.
The three strikes laws in Europe emphasize the fact that action is taken without due process. This is essentially the same concept applied at websites (without 3 strikes) rather than at consumers.
The whole idea of fair use is a defense instead of the default (assumed guilty without trial)--and the inconsistent manner that it's applied--and the idea that you can be accused (as with the DMCA) without evidence, shows that anything of this sort is rife with potential abuse.
And, why was this guy elected again to office? He should have the brains to understand what this legislation (written by the lobbyists) is proposing?
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Then how come a significant proportion of the support for libertarian movements is from the lower, weaker classes?
You're right that government is a group of people banding together to protect their interest, but mistaken as to who therefore needs to be protected from whom. A great deal of the Constitution is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority-- that is, domination and control by means of the government. There's always a tug of war, because there are always people under the thumb of other individuals or corporations, who want more government to get out from under this...and there also are always people under the thumb of a dominating government, who want less government for exactly the same reason. Given that government is the biggest, most durable, most powerful entity that can dominate and control, and the hardest to remove once it has established that control, I'd say we should always treat skeptically the request for more of it.
And you might note, too, that your claim as to the useful role of government-- to protect people from one another-- is exactly the primary role libertarians believe the government should have. What they don't agree with is that it should go much beyond this, into what might be termed as "messing around in" the lives of people, or exerting control itself.
Of course, there are plenty of people who think as you say, who want to get what they can get and ride all over everyone else to get it, and they want government control reduced to allow them to do what they want. Except we can't forget those same people are quite ready to use government for the very purpose of giving themselves those advantages when they can get away with it. Both government reduction and government intervention are often covers for people's power plays. I think we'd be wise to understand why so many people truly view government as one of the powers they need protection from, and also need to be wise enough to recognize when an argument couched in libertarian appeals is really just a gambit for being allowed to do things that go altogether against libertarian ideals (run over other people's rights)
"And, why was this guy elected again to office?"
Perhaps because a majority of the population consists both of indoctrinated drones and people who feel that carrying on with their little unimportant activities is more important than defending their freedom and privacy?
"He should have the brains to understand what this legislation (written by the lobbyists) is proposing?"
Of course he does. He just doesn't care because of the money he's getting for doing it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They will gladly settle for blocking the 99.9% of the people in the US with a computer who have no idea what the words you just wrote even mean.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun