PROTECT IP Act Follows In COICA's Footsteps

Last fall, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which was dubbed the "internet blacklist" by opponents worried about its broad provisions for allowing the removal of websites based on vague criteria. COICA stalled in Congress, but now Leahy has proposed a new, similar piece of legislation called the PROTECT IP Act (PDF). "Like COICA, Protect IP expands the web of enforcement techniques by requiring advertising networks and financial transaction providers to cut ties to domains found to violate the law. But the new version now adds search engines and others to the list of providers who can be conscripted into complying with court orders. Protect IP would require 'information location tools' to 'take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible,' to remove or disable access to the site associated with a condemned domain, including blocking hypertext links to the site. ... Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party, like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant does not have a US address. That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order effectively shutting the site down."

Comments

Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[elucido]

Because we know they need welfare to profit. They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics in their favor but never in the favor of consumers.

Immoral corporations, they don't age, they don't die, but the powers that be expect us to accept them as persons.

Imaginary property, that is to be treated as physical objects when it's 1s and 0s, copying is equated with stealing, but the powers that be expect us to believe in it.

So in order for them to profit, we have to go schizophrenic and believe in imaginary shit which defies the laws of physics? The basis for their beliefs is unscientific at the foundation, and they don't care. They'll tell us that the earth is flat and make it true by court ruling, and then charge us to walk across the flat surface which they'll claim to own. But that doesn't change the fact that the earth is round, that they don't actually own it except on paper. They might hijack the government to protect their profits militarily, the government might believe that corporations are persons, the government might believe in their concept of intellectual property, and the government might invade privacy, abuse human rights and diminish civil rights to protect their profits, but it's all about the money right?

So get some money or suffer.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Leahy is beyond corrupt and firmly in the pockets of the MafiAA - essentially he's the new RIAA hand-puppet in Congress.

He's actually worse than Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) was.

What we need is major campaign finance reform to get rid of all the backdoor contribution scams going on. But good luck getting that to happen - especially with the 5 senile delinquent conservatives on the Supreme Court having struck down the last few attempts at campaign finance reform!

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not *consumers.* We are citizens.

Don't let them dictate the terms of discourse and label us as cattle from the very beginning.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

god what pathetic whining.

I love the way that stuff liek software is so 'imaginery' the minute you need to justify taking it for free, but its as concrete as fuck the minute you are being denied the opportunity to have it.
if its so imaginery why the hell do retards likr you constantly risk jail sentences to help yourself to it? Maybe its got some value after all eh?

Fucking anti-copyright morons.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Target Drone]

They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics in their favor but never in the favor of consumers.

You can't seriously be advocating abolishing corporations and IP. You probably take it for granted that the computer you're using was created by a bunch of investors who pooled millions of dollars through a corporation and funded the very expensive CPU development knowing that their investment would be protected by patents. They used very complicated software to design the CPU which is protected by copyright. They marketed the CPU under a brand name protected by a trademark so consumers wouldn't get ripped off buying a fake hunk of plastic.

Corporations, patents and copyright have a lot of problems (particularly in the US as laws have slowly changed over the last few decades) but getting rid of them is like getting rid of our legal system because our drug laws don't make sense.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[CrazyDuke]

I think we went from people to citizens to workers to voters to taxpayers to consumers. But, I may be missing a few steps in there.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Tim C]

They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics

I know I'm being pedantic here, but the laws of physics say nothing about either of those concepts. The rest of your rant degenerates from there, but admittedly is perfectly aimed at the majority of the slashdot readership.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[somersault]

When discussing "citizens" and their relation to a content producer, it is legitimate and sensible to say consumer, or potential consumer. Would "customer" perhaps be better?

You might as well say "we are not citizens, we are human beings". Then "we are not human beings, we are mammals", blah blah. It's useful to have specific words for specific situations.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[osgeek]

Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.

We can get a lot of things done without messing with the first amendment:

1. Term limits to reduce the amassing of power and favors.
2. End of plurality voting so that we end the power sharing duopoloy that continues to favor corporatism.
3. Much stronger restrictions on the ability of government officials to do favors for corporations and then take jobs with them as lobbyists and executives.
4. Transparency transparency transparency! Government officials should be required to keep extensive records online declaring every source of income or benefit they receive. We should be able to know who is using commercial airlines, whether or not they're flying first class, where they're going, who's paying for their hotel rooms, dinners, trips, doing their home remodeling, etc.
5. Stronger ethical training and rules enforcement. The self-policing of congress is pathetic. Every congressman and staffer should have to take one of those ethical IQ tests, similar to the one they make you take to get a retail job; but much much more detailed. Any difficulties with the test should result in extensive ethics training. All test results should be posted online for every citizen to examine.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read more Orwell. "Consumer" strips people of their responsibilities and turns them into products.

A citizen is more than a person. A consumer is less than a person.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.

Which is a colossal joke, because it hands the lobbyists the ultimate in corrupting power.

All your various "reforms" are meaningless when all the lobbyists have to do is show up with one of the two following statements:
#1 - Do it our way and we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars to help your next reelection run.
#2 - Do it our way or else we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars against you in your next reelection run.

Presto, corruption. And "Untraceable" corruption since it never "touches" their bank account.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

You know people keep calling for campaign finance reform, yet every time they have passed a campaign finance "reform" law, the problems of corporate influence over elections have gotten worse.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[osgeek]

- Where are all these powerful lobbyists going to come from if we get rid of the quid pro quo of having government officials become lobbyists with huge salaries?
- Which political organizations will lobbyists target if we reduce the power of those organizations by allowing other parties to be voted in?
- Which politicians will lobbyists target when term limits prevents them from buying a senator for 20 to 30 years? Fresh blood in congress means a reduction in strings.

Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.

Lobbyists only have real power because we've allowed them to be incestuously intertwined with government. Those ties should be broken, but not by curtailing free speech.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[somersault]

Perhaps not all fiction should be taken as scripture?

It sounds more like the situation that you find offensive, and that you'd be annoyed no matter the semantics. I like the word consumer much better than "citizen", which just makes me think of movies and computer games where people are being oppressed. They're all being referred to as citizens, but they're being treated very differently to consumers/customers, who are generally pampered by anything but monopoly groups. The words make no difference, it's how people are being treated, and how they respond to that treatment, that is important.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Where are all these powerful lobbyists going to come from if we get rid of the quid pro quo of having government officials become lobbyists with huge salaries?

They'll be former party officials who were never officially "government officials."
Or they'll be people who put together a firm simply for the purpose of being lobbyists from the industry themselves.
It's not the "who", it's the fact that they can make the threats and promises that in any other setting would amount to bribery.

Which political organizations will lobbyists target if we reduce the power of those organizations by allowing other parties to be voted in?

There will still be political parties.
There will still be individual representatives to target.

Which politicians will lobbyists target when term limits prevents them from buying a senator for 20 to 30 years? Fresh blood in congress means a reduction in strings.

Sons, daughters, neices, nephews... you forget how incestuous Congress really is.
For that matter, say (just pulling a name here) Boeing is in need of some new law to help them out. You don't think Boeing's staff can't come up with a list of "possibly sympathetic" and "Need to stop them from speaking against us" representatives within an hour?

Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.

You say that as if they are not one and the same.

Lobbyists only have real power because we've allowed them to be incestuously intertwined with government. Those ties should be broken, but not by curtailing free speech.

That was the whole point of campaign finance laws:
- Banning coordinated issue ads
- Banning coordinated "sneaky soft money" right next to an election

If you can't do those two things, even if some corrupt asstard in a black robe wrongly conflates them with "free speech", then you can NEVER break the incestuous ties of lobbyists and government representatives.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

The Koch Brothers have a nice set of governors sitting on their mantel, bought and paid for through front groups like the "Tea Party."

How's that make you feel?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of the U.S..

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.

Which is a colossal joke, because it hands the lobbyists the ultimate in corrupting power.

All your various "reforms" are meaningless when all the lobbyists have to do is show up with one of the two following statements:
#1 - Do it our way and we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars to help your next reelection run.
#2 - Do it our way or else we'll coordinate a set of "issue ad" buys to the tune of a couple million dollars against you in your next reelection run.

Presto, corruption. And "Untraceable" corruption since it never "touches" their bank account.

Except for the fact that *if* (and that's a monster if) Term Limits ever gets passed both your statements then become meaningless. If we limit the Senate to one or two terms that pretty much eliminates any "issue ad" buys as the Congress crittter is out anyway. The lobbyist may get 1 re-election and then they have to start all over with a new one. That really leaves very little time for them to actually get their corruption rolling. Same goes with the House except make theirs 3 terms. If we take away their repeated reelections they will not care what these special interests do since they can't run again anyway. It might even bleed some of these lobbyists dry of money. Corruption normally doesn't happen overnight. It's when those in Congress are there for decades that it becomes a problem.

Do I think this will ever happen? Doubtful, but I am hopeful. More and more states are passing this law themselves since they realize Congress will never do it.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[improfane]

Shill.

New media strategies? Your job sucks and you are a pathetic person. You're the cause for many of our societies' problems.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're wrong. See Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. Abolishing imaginary property is exactly what we should be doing.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[arose]

I can agree to reasonable forms of popyright, patents and trademark but IP is intellectual poverty.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

osgeek for President!

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Target Drone]

Abolishing imaginary property is exactly what we should be doing.

They're not advocating abolishing IP. They propose getting rid of Patents and Copyright and replacing it with private contracts between a buyer and seller. With added laws to enforce fair use saying things like a seller can't stop a buyer from loaning or renting.

One interesting quote in the book

If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it.

So whatever we do we should do it slowly and monitor the impact it is having.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[mldi]

Then maybe we should stop treating corporate entities like they have the exact same rights as citizens. They represent something totally different, so totally different rules should apply to them and govern them. Individuals don't stand a chance against mega billions, and thus have no voice by comparison. I'm pretty sure that's not how things were supposed to be.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[osgeek]

Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.

You say that as if they are not one and the same.

Let's see:
    campaign (support and attack ) ads - the feeding of information to voters who can make up their own minds
    corruption - accepting bribes, giving jobs to relatives, redirecting tax money to campaign donors, etc.

Hmm... yeah, I'm going to have to say those aren't the same thing.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[osgeek]

No argument here.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[frank_adrian314159]

Items 2-5 help and I think that most folks here would agree with them. Item 1 simply moves bribery to the cadre of staffers who now start profiting from telling their "ever-newbie" bosses "what they need to do/who they need to see". In addition, it tends to make politicians think "I'll be done with my limited term before anyone catches on to my bribery and, by then, no one will care about what I did in that elected position, as I've moved on to the next."

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of themselves at the expense of the rest of the US and anyone dumb enough to work for them.

FTFY

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Let's see:
        campaign (support and attack ) ads - the feeding of information to voters who can make up their own minds
        corruption - accepting bribes, giving jobs to relatives, redirecting tax money to campaign donors, etc.

Hmm... yeah, I'm going to have to say those aren't the same thing.

Corruption - accepting bribes, including "I will do this for you if you do this for me, I will do this against you if you don't do what I tell you" quid-pro-quo arrangements.

Which is precisely what that "coordinated issue ad" crap is.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of themselves at the expense of the rest of the US and anyone dumb enough to work for them.

FTFY

citation needed. You have yet to answer my first question, which governors are "bought" by the Koch brothers? Or are you one of those people that accept the stuff put out by the Soros machine at face value?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Scott Walker, WI
John Kasich, OH
Rick Snyder, MI
Mitch Daniels, IN
Jan Brewer, AZ
Rick "fuck the poor" Scott, FL
Nathan Deal, GA
Terri Branstad, IA
Chris Christie, NJ

All in the pockets, bought and paid for, of the Koch Bros.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

Scott Walker, you mean the governor who when someone called him claiming to be one of the Koch brothers a) obviously had never talked to the Koch brother in question since he did not recognize that this was not his voice and b) told him the same things he was telling the media?, I'm going to assume that your information on the rest of the governor's on your list is just as reliable (and probably based on what some stooge of George Soros had to say).
You see this bashing politicians because they take money from rich people works both ways. There are just as many Democratic politicians who have taken money from George Soros (either directly or indirectly) as there are Republican politicians who have taken money from the Koch brothers. Yet, you never see the people who complain that the Koch brothers are "buying" politicians complain about George Soros doing the same things.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

So in order for them to profit, we have to go schizophrenic and believe in imaginary shit which defies the laws of physics?

It's not like believing in imaginary shit which defies the laws of physics is a new concept for most Americans...

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Scott Walker, who:

- Took the call from a "Koch" that he wouldn't take from the media
- Received over $43,000 direct from the Kochs in his election campaign
- Received another $3.4 million laundered from the Kochs through the Republican Governors Association for attack ads on his opponent.

BOUGHT.
AND.
PAID.
FOR.

Now kindly stop lying, BITCH.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Anonymous Coward]

And, as usual... it has to be pointed out to those who disagree with your sentiment:

"COPYRIGHT was never intended to be a PROPERTY right." And the also-relevant... "COPYRIGHT does NOT guarantee revenue."

It's simple, really. But even on Slashdot we have a treasure trove of idiots who disagree with this. These aren't my pronouncements. These are economists, lawyers, constitutional scholars, and people with lots of letters behind their names. But, somewhere, sometime, the naysayers drank the *AA Kool-Aid.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

So, when the Koch brothers, who have been American citizens their entire lives and as far as I know have not been involved in any illegal or alleged to be involved in any illegal activities donate to politicians they like, it is bribery. But when George Soros, who assisted the Nazis as a teenager, is wanted for insider trading, and has destroyed several national economies to make a profit, donates money to politicians, he is just a civic minded individual.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

When the Koch Bros buy politicians through what amounts to corrupt bribery for quid-pro-quo arrangements, they are corrupt and should be thrown in jail.

Show me an instance of Soros doing the same and I'll be happy to say he should be thrown in jail soon.

Why is it the Retardican morons' only response is "waaaah but they do it too" as if that means something?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[riondluz]

I used to be a big supporter of Patrick. He was the one person I thought I could trust to stand up for the little guy.
Now, after 8yrs of BushCo and 4+ of hardcore neo-con politics, I suspect he's just working on his exit strategy. Not unlike CDodd. I doubt he'll be running for re-election next term.
I just wish he made a better choice in this regard because he's going to be on the wrong side of history. Sad for someone, who as elder statesman, could have left a better legacy.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

President Obama...U.S. government loan guarantees to Petrobras, which George Soros has a significant stake in. There are more.
What have the Koch brothers gotten from the politicians you say they have bought?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

- Laws passed to benefit their businesses. Specifically, laws to make it difficult/impossible to form a union.
- Public sector utility sell-offs from Walker are going straight to the Kochs.
- $140 Million in tax cut kickback that headed mostly to Koch Industries.

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid that you are not aware of this?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

- Laws passed to benefit their businesses. Specifically, laws to make it difficult/impossible to form a union.

In what ways do these laws make it difficult/impossible to form a union?

- Public sector utility sell-offs from Walker are going straight to the Kochs.

Did other people have the option to bid on these public utilities?

- $140 Million in tax cut kickback that headed mostly to Koch Industries.

What type of tax cut? State? Federal? Who passed these laws (makeup of the legislature)?

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

In what ways do these laws make it difficult/impossible to form a union?

If you can't understand why:
-stripping the public sector of bargaining rights,
- trying to force yearly automatic "vote to dissolve the union" votes along with making the union registration process take a decade or more, and
- trying to force the ballot to be non-secret so that voters can be intimidated and threatened with retaliation if they vote for a union,
would necessarily make it nearly impossible to form a union, then you really are a fucking retard.

Did other people have the option to bid on these public utilities?

No.

What type of tax cut? State?

Yes. Which just so happened to go through a Retardican legislature who had also gotten a large amount of Koch "campaign contributions."

I really don't know why I bother. You're either a complete fucking retard or you are deliberately missing the point over and over again.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

OK, how does reducing the bargaining rights of public sector unions help a private sector company? The law you are referring to has nothing to do with the people who work for the Koch brothers companies forming unions. Based on my experience with other people like you, I am going to bet the other situations will turn out to be much the same--sound very damning when all you know is the Democratic Party talking points, but actually good public policy when you actually know the whole story.
Personally, I don't think the law passed in Wisconsin goes far enough. I think that public sector unions are a bad idea and should be completely gotten rid of.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

OK, how does reducing the bargaining rights of public sector unions help a private sector company?

It is part of a strategy to depress the normal wages earned by most employees. Driving down the wage rates of a large sector - which is what eliminating collective bargaining rights is all about - will have an effect that goes far beyond.

The law you are referring to has nothing to do with the people who work for the Koch brothers companies forming unions.

The Koch Brothers have a larger strategy in play - they bought off legislators to try to push "right to work" and "at-will employment" laws in Maine and several other states recently too. Don't be fooled by the names: the laws they continually have pushed for are designed to make it so that employee unions do not survive and collective bargaining rights vanish.

Based on my experience with other people like you, I am going to bet the other situations will turn out to be much the same--sound very damning when all you know is the Democratic Party talking points, but actually good public policy when you actually know the whole story.

Based on my experience, people like you are mentally deficient.

I bet you're one of those "Reagan-worshiping" clowns who never realizes that Reagan raised taxes more than he reduced them and that Reagan actually spoke in favor of public and private unions alike.

I think that public sector unions are a bad idea and should be completely gotten rid of.

And I'm reminded of prominent people who thought like you who were named Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Adolf, and Castro.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Attila Dimedici]

The people you named all believed in unions...that were controlled by their political party, just like unions in the U.S. are controlled by the Democratic Party.

Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act.

[Moryath]

Yawwwn. You just proved you know nothing of history.

If first....

[TimeElf1]

If first you don't succeed try try again.

Damn Republicans!

[Cpt_Kirks]

Boy, howdy.

Those damn Republicans are always trying to steal our freedom!

Re:Damn Republicans!

[jhoegl]

No see... the difference here is that the democrat just wanted the sites de-linked and "hidden".
but the republican wants the sites de-linked, hidden, and hard to get to. All the while allowing for law suits in an already overworked law suit court system.
One just wants people to do their best, the other just wants people sued until they dont exist anymore.
One promotes competition, the other doesnt.
etc etc.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Darkenole]

You might take note that Leahy is a Democrat.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Moryath]

No see... the difference here is that the democrat just wanted the sites de-linked and "hidden".
but the republican wants the sites de-linked, hidden, and hard to get to.

Speech that can't be heard is speech that can't be heard.

I fail to see any important difference in the two "categories" you list above on that basis.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

You might take note that ... WHOOOOOOOOOSH!

Re:Damn Republicans!

[betterunixthanunix]

All the while allowing for law suits in an already overworked law suit court system.

...As opposed to the Democrats, who pushed through the DMCA?

Re:Damn Republicans!

[FatAlb3rt]

Looks like it's time for your Sarcasm Meter maintenance checkup.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[dkleinsc]

Actually, in this case it's safe to say this is probably bipartisan. Anytime the question at hand involves oppressing ordinary people, particularly at the behest of corporations, both parties are generally happy to go along with that. Google and Yahoo may complain about the cost to comply, so I'd expect some sort of amendment to compensate whichever third party is having to make changes to get rid of the links, but other than that I wouldn't be surprised if this went right through without too much debate.

The reason it got stalled the last time was that a few Senate Republicans were basically holding up all Senate business until they got what they wanted on a few specific and completely unrelated issues.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[mr1911]

Whoosh

Re:Damn Republicans!

[CodeShark]

With the duly noted sarcasm meter note, it is sad that NEITHER of the major political parties are one whit interested in this little thing known as the preservation of civil rights as much as they are about the seizing and holding of the political power of the purse for their own ends. If that meets kowtowing to corporate and monied interests, so be it.

What is more disturbing is the lack of public and news outlet reaction. Of course, most news outlets now being owned by extremely large corporate interests is in this case, no help at all...

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Maeslin]

You have to wonder if a possibility would be for the big internet and software firms (Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, etc.) who are most negatively affected by this to just pack up, leave the US and move their headquarters and main operations to another country. Obviously such a process could not be done overnight and would have very unpleasant short-term repercussions for said companies but it would definitely send a message to the elected officials.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[alexo]

it is sad that NEITHER of the major political parties are one whit interested in this little thing known as the preservation of civil rights

it is even sadder that over 99% of your citizens are not one whit interested in this little thing known as the preservation of civil rights (based on the voting trends).

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Attila Dimedici]

Did you miss that Patrick Leahy is a Democrat and intorduced both the COICA and the ProtectIP Act?

Re:Damn Republicans!

[dnahelicase]

What is more disturbing is the lack of public and news outlet reaction. Of course, most news outlets now being owned by extremely large corporate interests is in this case, no help at all...

The FCC clearly studied and pointed out that corporate mergers of content and distribution is best for consumers. So much so that key members of the FCC believed they should merge themselves with these same corporations.

I can't see how merging the interests of the RIAA, the MPAA, Congress, the FCC, Content, and Distribution companies all together would be a bad thing. Around here we call that "synergy".

Why would anyone need to look up anything from an illegal domain anyway? Shouldn't everyone be happy with what Congress and Big Content believes is in our best interest? That is why we elect them...right?

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss that Patrick Leahy is a Democrat and intorduced both the COICA and the ProtectIP Act?

The definition of a Republican: Crook

The definition of a Democrat: Crook

The definition of an Independant: Crook that ain't gotta chance
All politicians should serve five terms:
2 in office.
2 in prison, twice as long as in office.
And 1 term as biomass.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Kjella]

Honestly "most people" aren't interested in civil rights unless it hits them in the wallet and never were. Like the US revolution was mostly because of British taxes, that was what fueled the common man. That's what the Romans said too with their "bread and circus", if you have money for that you won't be unhappy enough to rebel. The Soviet Union too was mostly an economic collapse, it was the endless lines to empty shops to buy things with worthless rubles that caved them in not the Iron Curtain and Pravda. In the Civil War, was the south that much more racist than the north or did they have a much greater economic interest in slavery? No doubt they rationalized. Same with the civil rights movement it was also a lot about economic equality, black people couldn't get the same education, same jobs at the same pay as white people.

You can see the tendencies already in some of the economies that pretty much have failed, like in Greece. It's a full on democracy and all that but facing collapse, massive unemployment and massive public cutbacks there's tons of strikes and riots. A hundred years ago that's what would have triggered a socialist revolution, now hopefully not that bad. Iceland is now rebelling with the people refusing to pay UK and the Netherlands after the bank collapse, despite the parliament approving it twice but the president forcing a referendum. The pessimist in me is saying it could so far as revolutions and countries saying they won't pay for the old corrupt regime.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Bob9113]

> Google and Yahoo may complain about the cost to comply, so I'd expect some sort of amendment to compensate whichever third party is having to make changes to get rid of the links

GAH! Yeah, I bet you're right, just like the warrantless call monitoring systems. Some corps aren't happy with the laws written to channel more power and money to some other corps? Simple; give the unhappy corps some taxpayer cashflow to keep their mouths shut. And, of course, let those corps know you'll be expecting some of that money back come campaign funding time.

The rate at which we are being turned into vassals of the oligarchy is astonishing. I thought they were supposed to boil the frog slowly.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really? I don't consider that kind of spin beyond the realm of what people regularly come up with to justify the boneheaded actions of their beloved political parties.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[david_thornley]

How can you tell that from voting trends?

Every election at state level and above, I have basically three choices: vote Democrat, vote Republican, vote for somebody who's really not going to be elected so my vote doesn't matter. I've done all three at times, although usually I vote Democrat (or, frequently more accurately, vote against the Republican). I've been inspired by two presidential candidates, and been disappointed in both Carter and Obama. I think my Presidential inspiration receptors need realignment.

Given that I am very interested in keeping civil rights and liberties (not that I have to worry too much personally, being a generally inoffensive person with a Y chromosome and a distinct deficiency of melanin in my skin), how should I vote to show up on trends? I frequently vote for mediocre against worse.

What I'd like to see is preference voting. I'm very happy to have it in my city, and I'd be even more happy to have it in my state. It would be really nice to be able to vote for the person I really want while voting against the person I really want to keep out. I think that would open up third-party candidacies, and perhaps shock the Democrats and Republicans into paying attention to the voters.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[alexo]

Every election at state level and above, I have basically three choices: vote Democrat, vote Republican, vote for somebody who's really not going to be elected so my vote doesn't matter.

Indeed.

Re:Damn Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

You might take note that Leahy is a politician.

Democrat, Republican, Monster Raving Loony, they're all out for themselves.

Time to ditch DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

For something less centralized

Re:Time to ditch DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with a p2p DNS is that before too long, everyone's /etc/hosts will redirect every website to goatse.

Re:Time to ditch DNS

[camperdave]

Problem with a p2p DNS is that before too long, everyone's /etc/hosts will redirect every website to goatse.

No problem... We'll just set up a centralized database with all the true ip addresses, so that the p2p stuff can be validated.

Re:Time to ditch DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, it will be crowdsourced and have a voting button saying "this was not the site I was looking for..." when it screws up. Enough votes and the originator of the bad info is banned from the network.

Re:Time to ditch DNS

[jimktrains]

##dns-p2p and #namecoin on freenode

Time to move search engine companies

[WindBourne]

out of the USA. In fact, it is time for many businesses to threaten to leave. Seriously, CONgress has gotten out of hand. We have neo-cons that run up massive debt during good economic times, totally corruption, and playing games to get keep their jobs, rather than doing their jobs.
Now, you have dems continuing their assault against anything sane WRT IP.

Re:Time to move search engine companies

[Spy der Mann]

Exactly. Why should a non-american trying to search a access *outside* the U.S., limited to a list of sites approved by the U.S. law? Just because he's using an american search engine?

This sucks. It seems it wasn't enough for the U.S. to destroy the global economy, they want to destroy the internet, too?

Re:Time to move search engine companies

[PeterBrett]

It seems it wasn't enough for the U.S. to destroy the global economy, they want to destroy the internet, too?

Yep, that seems to be the plan. Talk about killing the goose that lays golden eggs!

Re:Time to move search engine companies

[dgatwood]

See, they don't see it that way. The folks in power see the Internet as the great equalizer. The last thing someone in power wants is to give the masses comparable power. It is therefore no surprise that Congress is hellbent on screwing up the Internet as much as humanly possible.

Re:Time to move search engine companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, no matter where a company goes, they are subjected to local laws. So, if Google were to move to say France or Brazil, then they will be regulated those nation's governments. And most nations regulate and spy more than US.
And If you think that US's rules on American companies can destroy the internet, well, you do not understand the nature of the net. Do enough regs and businesses simply move away. They can do that now, EASILY. These regulations will only serve to hurt US, not the net. It is similar to what Ireland did with their tax laws. Companies set up under one set of conditions and when Ireland was going to raise taxes, the businesses threatened to leave. So, Ireland is now screwed. The same is true of US. If we decide to put through enough regs, then companies WILL MOVE. Likewise, India's manipulation of rupees to the dollar is currently 50 to 1. However, most economists say that it should be about 30 to 1. When India allowed it to rise to 40 going to the 30 (which helps Indian civilians), all the AMerican nations threatened to leave, so India moved it back to 50.


As to US destroying the global economy, you have to be kidding. It was a combination of items:
1) US AND MOST OF EU's banks over extended.
2) China's, South Korea, and India manipulation the money combined with US's ignoring this.
3) US's AND many EU nations running up massive debt.
4) multiple bubbles were allowed to form because of nation's government that pushed policies that created these. Bush formed the housing bubble in US. But EU had their share as well. That has now been dealt with. However we have multiple bubbles that have formed in China: housing, trains, and infrastructure are but 3 of these. Chinese are working hard to prevent it by trying to regulate it away, which is only making things worse. These dwarf anything that US or EU did. They will create SHEAR CHAOS when they finally go.

Declaring this to be solely US's fault is total BS. That is like blaming the US for why we are in Libya, or even Afghanistan.

Right now, it is government's manipulation of taxes, money, and regs combined with a global economy, that is allowing businesses to manipulate nations. US only manipulated OUR economy relative to OUR NATION. The other nations are manipulating their economies to impact other nations.

Wasn't there talk about this?

[Sparx139]

I recall discussion a while back - I think it was when wikileaks had their domain names shut down - of how such a system would work: Some sort of peer-to-peer network that took the control away from any government anywhere in the world.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[rufty_tufty]

The problem is fundamentally how do you have a a single coherent addressing scheme without a central authority to enforce it?
If you have a single authority then that will always be open to attack/enforcement by governments. If you have no authorities then that's as bad as no addressing scheme. Even worse is you have multiple authorities all competing for the smae address space then you have arguments over who claims an address first.

Now one might argue that in the days of google and other effective search engines why bother with dns at all. Which may be a valid question, after all dns is only a convenience not a necessity. (Actually that's not quite true, you want a level of abstraction between an service - e.g. wikipedia - and the server's address.) Maybe the anarchists approach would be to give up on dns as such and just rely on url shortening services...

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[Sloppy]

The problem is fundamentally how do you have a a single coherent addressing scheme without a central authority to enforce it?

You don't; you sometimes sacrifice coherence. That's the least-bad compromise.

It's really not so bad. Imagine: You put out the request to the p2p system for the name boycott-example.org, and you get back several "competing" answers. Some of those answers are 3rd party testaments that as of [timestamp] that names resolves to

• 1.1.1.1, signed/asserted by a keyid associated with someone named viagradude to whom you can't even find a trust path through the WoT, nor whose assertions you have used and rated before, nor for whom you can find any ratings by anyone you know through recursively asking the same question
• 2.2.2.2, asserted by verisign whose keyid-to-identity is very well known to be accurate (you're sure that really is verisign, so you would happily use it as a fully-trusted introducer if you ever needed to call verisign tech support), but even though you're sure it's their key, you also know verisign is routinely subject to coercion by governments so their reputation is only moderately trusted
• 2.2.2.2, as asserted by a keyid published by the Turkish Intelligence Service
• 3.3.3.3, signed by a keyid for whom you also don't know who that really is but you have used that identity's assertions in the past and it always seemed to give good results
• 3.3.3.3, signed by a different keyid but for which you have a similar personal history
• 3.3.3.3, signed by a yet another keyid but for which you have a similar history

and your browser connects to 3.3.3.3. Someone else's browser which came preloaded with defaults different than what you're currently using, connects to 2.2.2.2. Don't panic. This is ok. It merely becomes necessary to make some decisions about who you trust and how/why, in order to train your computer to use the internet most accurately.

That's the key: stop thinking in terms of correct/incorrect and think in terms of degrees of confidence, also acknowledging that confidence in an assertion will be subjective. Subjective trust is ok, because real life works exactly the same way and we've all gotten this far. When you think about how current DNS trust works and map that onto real life, the silliness should leap out at you.

There will be some unfortunate consequences of this; I'm not saying this avoids all harm. But it's better than letting governments interfere with naming, and it lets/encourages us to build up and leverage the giant WoT to which mainstream non-hacker people are part of, which is something we ultimately need anyway, for many other things (e.g. making phone calls, filtering spam, reviewing consumer products, loading the most interesting consensual imagery into your wearable HUD, and hundreds of other applications that I can't begin to imagine).

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[MacGyver2210]

Someone needs to adapt BitTorrent protocols to handle all general internet traffic.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[betterunixthanunix]

Or we could take another look at distributed P2P systems like Gnutella, so that no single server can be blocked. The whole point of the Internet was to be peer-to-peer.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[rufty_tufty]

While I like the idea in general that you lay out I think it smacks of an "If only everyone followed the rules then the world would be a better place."
I think it's biggest flaw is the idea that those people who maintain the 3.3.3.3 in your example will exist. While I believe in the adage that the best way to get something done is to tell an engineer that it can't be done, I believe that in the real world while you might start out with many trustworthy and trusted sources then simple human nature will cause fragmentation amoungst them, partially due to personal interest, partly to malice, but mostly due to laziness, after all "the distributed system works, i don't have time to patch on the latest updates I need to get $other_project working" When the proverbial really does hit the fan the redundancy designed into the system just isn't there because it has been partially engineered out in the interest of cost saving, and partially in the lament of laziness.
We've seen this before in intranet infrastructure that there are a few scary bottlenecks in the physical infrastructure and while database contents may not have a direct cost associated with them I fear the complexity of such a distributed system would be beyond human comprehension.(While at least with physical infrastructure it is possible to partition the problem.)
If you can make it work then great, but it sounds to me like the arguments for anarchy in any form, they sound great provided most people play by the rules, in real life it often seems that people try and game the system. It seems like some people don't like other people to have anything nice so the fundamental state of the world has to be one of brokenness.
Sorry for wandering off topic a bit there but I really don't see how this p2p dns could stand up to abuse. You only have to look at the number of idiots posting goatse links to see that script kiddies could easily flood the system with rubbish. Fine you say, you don't trust those flooded sources, but how is trust built up in the first place on dns? By conforming to the original standard? How are new domains introduced? (If I want to introduce a new domain I may get it out to all the people I trust but I don't know everyone that everyone trusts, so like you have domain squatters and patenet trolls now you could imagine someone who waits to see a new domain being registered and propogates it to several highly trusted dns servers and therefore steals the trust for that address for most of the web from you unless you pay a fee)
In any system I can think of you could imagine a boycott of $multinational meaning that they have no recognisable place on the web and while that might be an effective method of protest I don't think it would be fair or desirable.

I'd rather fight this government problem at the law maker level that at the technology level because it doesn't matter what technology you use to protect yourself or the architecture they'll make it illegal and throw you in jail, or force you to follow their rules for use of that technology thus negating the protection you gain from it.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[rufty_tufty]

You've missed the point, or maybe I have but...
Let me take an example I already own rufty.org.uk. This is registered on the main dns server. If a p2p dns was setup tomorrow almost everyone would have that entry in their records.
But some joker decides he wants that address, so he changes his dns entry for that to point to his server and instructs his dns server to share that with the rest of the network. Those who trust his dns server go to his address. Those who trust the old records go to mine.
Fine, you may decide this is desirable in some situations, but if i visit www.mybank.com how do I know it is my bank? I have to trust verisign, fine then you've just replaced dns with verisign. Fine you'll always have that problem but how do you build the web of trust that you need. In the final implementation it would probably end up that I trust who installed the software on my computer trusts plus any specific additions needed along the way for specific sites (such as wikileaks). Or if I built the computer myself I trust who built the last computer/whoever edited mozilla's web of trust last.
Maybe you'd have something like wikipedia (wikitrust?) following a similar notion, but fundamentally that leaves you as a user either building your own map of the internet yourself (in which case why have dns at all) or having a single regulated address space. In which case why go p2p.

Re:Wasn't there talk about this?

[GameboyRMH]

Yes unfortunately you really do need a central authority for DNS. But it can be a democratic online community.

Keep trying until they stop fighting

[betterunixthanunix]

Just keep trying to push through the same law, eventually the other side will stop bothering to fight it and you'll get it to pass.

Re:Keep trying until they stop fighting

[EdIII]

All the MORE reason why domains should not be controlled by the US government through fear, intimidation, stupidity (the FBI agent that shutdown a whole datacenter due to a single occupant impacting hundreds of other businesses costing them millions because his level of computer sophistication is just enough to know that the DVD-ROM is not a cupholder), and laws that they create which are so clearly corrupt and blatant pandering to the scared-shitless copyright cartels.

I know we are screwed in the US. The majority is polarized and paralyzed Americans who want to quibble more about what gets spent where, do the recipients deserve it, how much Jesus Christ should be integrated into the government vis-a-vis educational laws and regulations, and how all the dirty Mexicans (their words) are stealing our jobs and running amok committing crimes all over the place. I could give other examples.

Is there really any representation in government for sanity at this point that is not corrupt, retarded, or insane? Anybody actually talking about real reform, protecting our rights, protecting our citizens, and get us towards the other end of the spectrum where we are not owned by a very small percentage of other Americans and foreign nationals through the maze of corporations? Anybody that cares how we are literally falling apart as a country since only 2.5% of GDP is spent on infrastructure that is fast approaching, or exceeded the average life span of an American and its projected life span? That progressively we don't know and don't care how to actually manufacture anything ourselves anymore? Our educational system is a complete joke and we are losing all of the edge we ever had on the rest of the world for technology? None that I can tell. Let's just get more fat, more stupid, more dependent on the rest of world to effectively take our pollution for us, make our meaningless trinkets and crap we consume, and generally..... keep feeding and sending shiny shit to Rome.

So I know, because I have been told so many times, that there are quite a lot of Slashdotters out there that are not American....

Well wake the FUCK UP. I know we can't do it for obvious reasons but the rest of you need to take control over the IP address space and DNS system as a whole so retarded US lawmakers don't own your asses by default. No due process in your country, no respect for your laws, nothing.

Domain Names are the property of the US GOVERNMENT.

By all means, let that continue.

Ohhh, and in case you need a clue out there we are only ~4-5% of the world population. Yet we get to control 100% of the Internet which is turning out to be the very basis upon which entire economies are based. Even agriculture and manufacturing at some point now administratively requires it. In 10-20 more years you will not find a single occupation or field that does not require the Internet to get something done.

So by all means, the other 95% of you out there roll over like bitches and let the US ram you up the poop chute.

I don't want to do it to you. Most Americans don't support it it. I am a patriotic American that grew up his whole life deeply believing in the ideals and philosophy of what it meant to be an American, and that America led the rest of the world be example. We had the moral high ground and were defenders of the weak. We shepherd the weak through the valley of darkness.

I have learned differently and that my cynicism, it kind of shows, is not unfounded.

So don't be too angry with us anymore. We are just a few decades away from being a Totalitarian State, or worse, a Totalitarian State where we all drink so much of the Koolaid that we convince ourselves we are still free.

Save yourselves from us while you still can. That means really really really getting off your asses in the EU and doing something about this shit. You should be angry as hell that we don't even need to participate in your legal system to steal your domains.

I promise

Congressional Term Limits

[Anonymous Coward]

We need term limits now. Imagine how less effective lobbying would be if our representatives didn't make a career out of making profitable connections. It was always supposed to be ordinary folk who volunteered to serve their country for a time- not a class of elite who consider themselves above the law and the people who elected them.

Re:Congressional Term Limits

[Script Cat]

Why do these dinosaurs get our votes anyway? None of them know what the're talking about. They just read the talking points given to them by their handlers. Like my congress critter raging about "wiki links". Don't vote for morons.

Re:Congressional Term Limits

[tverbeek]

This is so very naive. If legislators were term-limited, their unelected staff would take their place as the career-oriented power brokers of Washington, with the party's latest nominee serving a term as chief fund-raiser and public-relations face for the office. And if you term-limited the staff as well, that revolving door of new legislators and new staff every X years would lead to a greater reliance on.... that's right: lobbyists. Make no mistake about it: in a large republic, the job of legislating will be done by professionals. The only question is whether they'll be professional representatives you can fire at the ballot box, professional staffers you can try to fire through civil-service regulations, or professional lobbyists you can only fire by (heh) legislating against them. I'll opt for the first.

Re:Congressional Term Limits

[cpu6502]

Lobbyists should be outlawed. The only voice Congressional representatives should be hearing are their direct constituents.

Also the Member States should be given power, via a 50% vote, to nullify any act of Congress. After all, the congress is a creation of, and a servant to, the States. (See Amendment 10 and constitutional conventions.)

Re:Congressional Term Limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.... the US Congress is not a creation of the states. It is elected directly by the voters, by district.

And anyone who capitalizes words like States, and is not 1) a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson, or 2) a native Germanophone (because they do that in German), is probably insane and not to be listened to. Seriously, dude, you seem really confused about how the US Constitution works.

Re:Congressional Term Limits

[Zerth]

Longer term limits can help focus on long term goals without pandering to short term fads, as they don't have to worry about being elected every two years. That's why we have a mix of long and short term congresscritters. Somewhat the same with the houses of lords/commons in the UK.

Re:Congressional Term Limits

[dgatwood]

The only voice Congressional representatives should be hearing are their direct constituents.

Often, those lobbyists are their direct constituents. What you need to do is outlaw lobbying while on the clock. That's a lot more clear cut. Allow employees of companies to lobby for their employers' interests, but don't allow them to count that as work time, don't allow it to be a part of their job responsibilities, and don't allow the company to punish employees for not doing so.

Orly?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, take my sites down and ill take yours down

apparently congress is confused and thinks the only way to prevent access is with a court order

Holy crap ....

[gstoddart]

Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party, like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant does not have a US address. That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order effectively shutting the site down.

So, the US has more or less decided to pass an extra-territorial law?

If a domain is registered in another country, and not with a US owned TLD, what gives the US standing for this? Because they say so? WTF does it mean to sue a domain name?

And what will happen when someone in Iran decides to sue a US based organization for some form of defamation or violating their beliefs/hurting their feelings? Lawmakers need to realize they can't just go around passing laws that reach outside of their borders and jurisdiction ... otherwise, everyone will be guilty of breaking laws in every other country.

This is quite sad, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of either the technical or jurisdictional issues of the internet.

Re:Holy crap ....

[AHuxley]

If the National Defense Authorization Act passes the term "another country" becomes history.
If your server is found to be hurting the US tax system at a time of worldwide war by reducing sales ( ~supporting terrorism), a diplomat will have words with your federal government.
If that fails to get your server off the net, military force to capture terrorism suspects becomes an option.
The owner, admin ect face been captured on a battlefield. A charge or offer to face trial might come up one day.

Re:Holy crap ....

[Tim C]

People sue people in (or break the laws of) other countries all the time. The problem is enforcement.

Just don't visit that country (or do something that falls within the remit of an extradition treaty or covert extraction/assassination team) and you're fine.

Re:Holy crap ....

[dnahelicase]

This is quite sad, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of either the technical or jurisdictional issues of the internet.

Al Gore invented the internet when he was in congress. I think they would know what is best for the tubes. Those tubes aren't free, you know.

Re:Holy crap ....

[gstoddart]

People sue people in (or break the laws of) other countries all the time. The problem is enforcement.

And, jurisdiction.

If I go out into my backyard and do something that would be illegal in some random country ... that doesn't mean I've broken any of that country's laws. That means I've done something which would be illegal if I did it in there. But, I'm not in there, so they can go get stuffed. Nothing I did was on their soil, and wasn't under their jurisdiction.

If America is going to start violating the sovereignty of foreign countries by going in under cover of night and ... oh, crap, they've already done this.

Well, then I guess it's time for Iran to start sending in extraction teams to pull out any Americans who have insulted their great, glorious leader who happens to be totally insane, or draw pictures of certain people, or take the lord's name in vain or whatever myriad offenses they can dream up.

After all, if it's OK for the US, it should be OK for everyone else, right?

Re:Holy crap ....

[Doctor_Jest]

Let me be the first on the list of the "come and get me, you Persian bastards." :) I love the First Amendment... I really do. :)

Mohammed sucked camel dick for money. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a child-molesting cross-dresser who likes it in the pooper from goats. Oh, and Islam is for fucking retards. Literally. Religion has become the punchline for too many jokes. Because too many fucking idiots think they can tell someone else what to do....

Goddamnit. Fuck Allah in the ass with a big rubber dick. And Mohammed can lick my sack.

But seriously folks. This is the problem right here (you hit the nail on the head)... we get this crap SO out of whack because WE, THE PEOPLE are not being listened to anymore. Nothing changes until every last one of those cocksucking asspiles in Washington are GONE. Nothing changes until the Republicans and Democrats are dissolved and new parties formed with a $1 donation limit of people only (to nix corporations, gotta have a social security number), no ads on TV, newspaper, etc. If you want to get fucking elected... BEAT FEET. Do it like they had to do before mass media. If you don't like doing that, then you don't get to represent us. It should be a CHORE to be politicians, so that only those dedicated to the greater good (and the actual DEFENSE of the Constitution).

Until then, they've won. And all we can do is argue about it online wishing someone would fucking dissolve this shithole government we have now and go back to the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED separation of powers... States Rights. Oh yeah, that got fucked in the ass by Lincoln, and they have done it ever since.

Re:Holy crap ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Act simply proposes that American businesses can be served with an order by an American court to cease rendering service to a non-US website judged to be dedicated to infringing. The order does not target the site at all, simply prevents it from utilizing American assets in furtherance of its infringing commercial activity.

Re:Holy crap ....

[Doctor_Jest]

I'm glad to see we have some Muslims who frequent slashdot. :) But is it wise to give them mod points?

S.968

[Anonymous Coward]

Information on the bill at ThomasLOC here:
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s968

Odd that the title of the bill "Protect IP Act" is not listed. Instead the description is listed as its title:"A bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes."

That "for other purposes" is, uh, worrying...as if the other part wasn't bad enough.

Also, Co-sponsors listed:
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 5/12/2011
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Franken, Al [D-MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] - 5/12/2011
Sen Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] - 5/12/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] - 5/12/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [D-FL-MN] - 5/12/2011
Sen Kohl, Herb [D-WI] - 5/12/2011
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 5/12/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] - 5/12/2011

It's the usual cadre of Maafia owned Senators .

Re:S.968

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet was better off when only techies knew about it.

Letting congress have even the smallest say was a huge tactical mistake.

Re:S.968

[zeroshade]

Well shit, I just went and sent off a very polite letter to my senator who is on that list. I doubt it'll come to anything, but I can hope!

Re:S.968

[Anonymous Coward]

is that a list of American politicians or a bar mitzvah invitation list ?

Re:S.968

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I mispelled Mafiaa and I forgot to add the party affiliations for Coons and Blumenthal (both D's). I suck.

Re:S.968

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh... You're not supposed to notice things like that.

The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

...swaps spit with Orrin Hatch.

Orrin is also a friend to the media companies. They needed a replacement for Senator Hollings (aka Senator Disney) so now Pat's been bought.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and this shit sucks. The thing is that there's nobody on the other side worth a damn either. It's all a bunch of rich white guys who think they know best for everyone, even if it means breaking the Internet.

Fuckers.

Not even Ron Paul is worth a damn, because maybe he's for individual rights, he's a corporatist to the bone and would sell out the entire US public, including his mom, to the corporations and would be just fine with this. That's because libertarianism is just like communism - looks fucking great on paper, but it doesn't take into account reality.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[PhreakOfTime]

because maybe he's for individual rights

Sure, if you are white.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Foolhardly]

So what's your solution? The way you paint it, we're screwed if we're allowed to make decisions for ourselves and we're screwed if the rich white guys make 'em for us. Who is supposed to make the decisions?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

Yeah, I know all about that too.

Ron Paul used to make sense when I heard him in an interview on WBZ with David Brudnoy back in the early 90's. But then I was younger and more idealistic. He has disappointed me greatly of late.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

The way I'm painting it is that Ron Paul would just hand us all over to a different (sortof) set of old rich white guys.

Either way you cut it, it's the current set of old rich white guys, or the corporate set of old rich white guys. One might say that they are all the same set.

Solution?

Don't rightly know. The soapbox hasn't worked. The voting box hasn't worked either. The ammo box solution seems a bit messy and the US military has the bestest ways evar to kill people in massive numbers, last I looked.

Gaspee Days are almost upon us here, and it seems like it was so much easier back then.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[cpu6502]

>>>That's because libertarianism is just like communism - looks fucking great on paper, but it doesn't take into account reality.

It seemed to work just fine from 1789 to circa 1900 (when the US government, minus a few exceptions, was basically libertarian (i.e. small and nonintrusive)).

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[osgeek]

I'm a lifelong Democrat

At least you're honest about your main problem there. I have no clue why anyone gives allegiance to a political party. Political parties are no more logical, ethical, or relevant to good policy than football teams - especially in the US where you can only choose between two of them. Political party affiliation clouds your judgment and is the cause of the allowance of so much government shenanigans in this country.

Not even Ron Paul is worth a damn, because maybe he's for individual rights, he's a corporatist to the bone and would sell out the entire US public,

Complete and utter bullshit.

Ron Paul is as anti-corporatist as they come. Corporatists enact legislation to favor corporations. Corporatists are in favor of heavy manipulation of the tax code, industry subsidies, protectionism, etc. Ron Paul is against those things.

Ron Paul is a Capitalist. He speaks out against Corporatism, and he's definitely not a hypocrite.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[cpu6502]

>>>>>Paul's for individual rights
>>
>>Sure, if you are white.

Accusing (or implying) Ron Paul of being racist is a SERIOUS accusation. How about backing it up, otherwise we'll just ignore your comment as equally worthless as Alex Jones' or Bin Laden's rantings.

If you bothered to read their platforms, it is clear that Paul and other libertarians don't give a damn what color you are. You are a human being and deserve *equal* rights as given to you by your Creator (god or Nature depending upon your beliefs).

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

>It seemed to work just fine from 1789 to circa 1900

Not for people like you and me.

Not for miners, not for railroad workers, not for anyone who had to work for a living. I suggest you read up on the Banana wars. I suggest reading about how people died while putting in rails as the robber barons of the age built their cottages 20 miles from me in Newport RI. The Breakers (Cornelius Vanderbilt - Rails and shipping) alone, if rebuilt from scratch, would require half a billion dollars of modern money. Living the life on the literal blood of the people who worked for him.

That's what laissez-faire gets you.

Yeah, it was so magical back then. You're not romanticizing /at all/.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>That's because libertarianism is just like communism - looks fucking great on paper, but it doesn't take into account reality.

It seemed to work just fine from 1789 to circa 1900 (when the US government, minus a few exceptions, was basically libertarian (i.e. small and nonintrusive)).

Yes, we all miss the days of slavery, voting restricted to white male property owners, robber barrons, and an unregulated banking system that created decades long recessions.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[osgeek]

Isn't it funny how most people don't recognize the libertarian roots in the US that were a beacon and the envy of the world? Instead, we've destroyed our libertarian heritage by dramatically growing government while managing to confuse capitalism for corporatism. Thomas Jefferson was so prescient in this regard.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
      -- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

It's so dreadfully sad that everyone these days is looking for the government to solve their problems. Oh, if we just get the right new program in place. If we just spent a little more money on MY pet project... If we just gave a little more authority to MY candidate...

We've managed to do exactly what Jefferson warned us not to. We've created a government-corporate monster by giving away all our liberty and money for the illusion of safety and being taken care of. Now, rather than hacking away at the monster, we think that we can add to it and manipulate it in the direction that we want. Utter foolishness.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

>Ron Paul is as anti-corporatist as they come.

He is anti-Sherman Antitrust Act.

And that's all I really need to know.

By the way, the free market, even completely devoid of regulation, is a myth. Just so you know.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[osgeek]

He is anti-Sherman Antitrust Act.

I definitely don't like that - but monopolies aren't our worst problem right now. It's corporations buying influence and laws. That's the first giant that we have to slay. The pendulum has swung so irrevocably far toward the big government nanny state side of the spectrum that someone like Paul is needed just to move us back toward sanity.

By the way, the free market, even completely devoid of regulation, is a myth. Just so you know.

So you think that we're in danger of accidentally falling into unregulated capitalism after someone like Paul would have a term or two in the President's chair? Really?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

I am pretty sure that he is not personally racist, but the libertarian philosophy as it stands lets racism run unabated.

The libertarian philosophy says that freedom of association and trade are *absolute* and that means any systemic racism in the society must be unopposed. Blacks may not sit at the lunch counter if you do not wish to serve them. Blacks (or anyone of any race) may not buy houses from you if you do not wish to sell them mortgages. Dealing fairly in business to all comers regardless of race is only if you wish to do it, as a business owner. If you hate "them niggers" then according to the libertarian philosophy, you may discriminate.

The libertarian philosophy drags society back to before the 60s and Jim Crow "separate but equal."

Ron Paul may not be overtly racist, but libertarianism sure attracts a lot of racists.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

>So you think that we're in danger of accidentally falling into unregulated capitalism

Sure am.

Repealing of Glass-Steagall was the gate letting the horses loose. Say what you will about Clinton signing it - it was going to be repealed with or without signature since there were enough Republican and Blue Dog votes to overturn any veto. It was pushed by laissez-faire capitalists and we've only seen laissez-faire capitalism gather more steam.

>monopolies are not a problem

I beg to differ. I am a t-mobile customer.

>nanny state

Wedge issue to distract you from what's really going on. Just like abortion, gay marriage, and all that other horse-shit.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that he published a racist newsletter, which bore his name, and warned how to survive the upcoming war with blacks?

He played it off as "i didnt write it, and i didnt know what was being published in the newsletter that I started and is named after me", but you really have to have your head far, far up your ass to believe that.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't rightly know. The soapbox hasn't worked. The voting box hasn't worked either. The ammo box solution seems a bit messy and the US military has the bestest ways evar to kill people in massive numbers, last I looked.

You forgot the jury box.

You can go the civil disobedience route: ignore/flout the law, and when charged, take a jury trial, and when convicted, serve your time. Even America's jails aren't enough to hold everyone who's downloaded an MP3.

And as a juror, you can consider nullification. Don't lie, just be honest during voir dire, just be honest. "Sir, I don't believe downloading an MP3 is a crime. This law is assinine, and I will not convict. There are plenty of laws for which I'd gladly render a verdict based on the facts of the case, but this isn't one of them." If they can't find 12 people willing to listen to the prosecution's arguments, they can't seat a jury, let alone get a conviction.

I don't claim these are elegant solutions. But as you've correctly observed, they're still a hell of a lot better than opening the fourth box.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[JockTroll]

The ammo box solution seems a bit messy and the US military has the bestest ways evar to kill people in massive numbers, last I looked.

That's why they're still stuck in Afghanistan? Because they're so powerful? Wake up and smell the coffee, the whole of the world is already aware that the US military isn't all it's cracked up to be and Tom Clancy novels are a joke. A civil uprising in the US, if the populace could ever get to it, would be hard to squash because all the firepower in the world isn't going to avail you if you can threaten to destroy the industrial infrastructure that keeps the Powers That Be alive. But of course it's hard and dangerous, better to whine and throw your arms in the air saying that's just impossible. Learn to love your masters and lick their boots when ordered, then.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[osgeek]

Repealing of Glass-Steagall was the gate letting the horses loose.

Well by the same token, the nanny state helped create the toxicity of the assets being traded by forcing banks to make risky loans. Then the government controlled and backed company in charge of the lions' share of the mortgages (more corporatism/socialism) in the country fell asleep at the wheel and let the whole thing go straight into the shitter -- despite the warnings from the Bush administration, I might add. Since the government was very much to blame for the whole mess, no one responsible (Barney Frank) was sued or even relieved of duty.

The financial meltdown was a perfect storm involving a shitload more than just Glass-Steagall.

>monopolies are not a problem

I beg to differ. I am a t-mobile customer.

Woah, misquote much? I didn't say the words you attributed to me.

>nanny state

Wedge issue to distract you from what's really going on. Just like abortion, gay marriage, and all that other horse-shit.

Yeah, you're in a thread talking about how the government is once again overstepping its bounds to help its corporate buddies, and you don't think that the government is too big for its britches? It's just some horse-shit wedge issue to distract from what's really going on? What's really going on? Professional wrestling and American Idol?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[imric]

Bullshit. You want the money for the SAME THINGS to go to corporations instead - you know, organizations that serve their customers with the lowest possible benefit for the highest possible price. You know - because the difference is profit, and that is what business maximizes. And don't give me the old 'competition' saw - competition is temporary in any such system (unless regulated, which is anathema to the libertarian dogma). Competition is all about colluding with or eliminating your competitor so that you can charge even more and serve even less.

You aren't about liberty, you are about changing to far more oppressive masters.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right on the mark. I just wish that these beautiful words did not have to arise within this rather frivolous context.

The founding fathers of American democracy were not psychologists in today's sense, but they understood quite astutely the fundamentals of the human psyche. Without immutable checks and balances human society will imperceptibly descend into tyranny. It is a pity that such perception is absent among comtemporary folk.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[bmo]

>Since the government was very much to blame for the whole mess, no one responsible (Barney Frank)

As much as I dislike Barney Frank, he's not the cause of this shit.

I saw this all happen 20 years ago locally. The vast majority of people responsible for that particular clusterfuck did not go to jail. I know of only one, personally, and that was basically because he couldn't cover his thieving tracks. He was also a terrible forger (if he had actually paid a bill instead of simply forging a receipt, I would have kept my job at a surveying/engineering company). You can throw one hell of a Christmas party with someone else's money.

>I didn't say the words you attributed to me

Not directly, but I summarized your hand-wave. it came off as a hand-wave to me, but if I'm wrong then I'll take it back.

>Yeah, you're in a thread talking about how the government is once again overstepping its bounds to help its corporate buddies

> and you don't think that the government is too big for its britches?

That depends on what you mean. If you actually mean the former with corporate welfare, you bet your ass. If you mean "the government is too fat with business regulations" then no, I do not. I actually wish some of them were enforced. But I'll bet the gang at the FTC is still looking at porn.

--
BMO

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

racist much?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[imric]

See: Bullshit.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

ok.. so we can agree that both are repressive.. so what else can we try? I know, instead of assuming unilateral permanent ideological swapping, we head in a direction for awhile? unfortunately we need to head in a different direction longer than the current system will allow. right now we need to trim government down a bit in some areas while keeping it in others.. it's not an all or nothing proposition.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[marnues]

Yes, it is a wedge issue because "nanny state" is not a real thing. Just like many other wedge issues, it's a term that refers to bad governance without ever defining what that bad governance is. Rather than using a well defined term with real political meaning, it is a pejorative that allows people with disparate political beliefs to group together without cause. We both hate the nanny state, but my nanny state is not your nanny state. Please refer to real terminology with real definitions so there is a real debate.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[sdguero]

Damn dude. Relax. Maybe all that shitty stuff happened because people got all hard line about stupid shit. Leaving them unwilling to see any benefits in another point of view /maybe/.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

Living the life on the literal blood of the people who worked for him.

One of these words does not mean what you think it means....

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[osgeek]

You really think that when people use the term "nanny state" to describe bad governance that they don't have a bundle of issues that directly illustrate the problem?

Am I supposed to define every term in every slashdot thread? How is communication supposed to occur in a meaningful way in your world without abstraction and encapsulation?

I'm kind of surprised to see someone bickering over the term "nanny state" as though they don't know what it means.

You must not have been paying attention. Here, let me wikipedia it for you.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[PhreakOfTime]

How about backing it up

You know, at some point you are going to have to go about the world with your eyes open, and not have to rely on others to point out the obviousness of that reality. I get it, you like Ron Paul. I used to like him too, but then I did my own digging into the background of the man who I was listening to. You know, because I like to find these things out on my own.

If you worked the night shift for the eternity of your life, enjoying every minute of it and not wanting anything to change, you may be unaware that such a thing as the sun really exists. When somebody comes along and makes the obvious statement that the sun rises in the East, asking for 'proof' to back that up is right up there at the height of hilarity.

Ron Paul has said MANY things that often contradict each other, on a regular basis. This isn't a classroom, so you will have to rely on yourself to learn about them. However, if I picked out only the things he said that are consistent, and published them, he would sound like a rather intelligent man. Unfortunately for him, in the larger picture when the sum of his ideas can be seen, he is not that same man.

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a cyclical thing? 19th hundred liberalism/corporatism to 20th century more equal distribution of power to 21st century corporatism? How did the first change from the 19th to the 20th century come about? I'm highly interested in that. What would be a good place to start researching this? Maybe there is a book out there somewhere that you would recommend?

Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont

[Deus.1.01]

If you dig a little deeper in history youll find thats really just a romantic notion.

Companies

[Aladrin]

When a company has been found to violate the law, do all other companies have to 'cut ties' with them, too? I mean, that would destroy SO many companies right this week.

This is ridiculous.

Re:Companies

[Anonymous Coward]

It means that US credit card processors, US ad networks and US search engines would. The companies that may or may not be destroyed are ones "dedicated to infringing" but are free to carry on, just without US based assets

we need more

[gblfxt]

yes, what we need more to improve american innovation is it kill it from the get go. who needs bin laden to kill america when we got IP?

What's in a name

[tverbeek]

I predict that PROTECT IP will get farther than COICA because it sounds more wholesome and less naughty.

Damn Republicans are Corporate Lackeys

[cpu6502]

Corporate puppets. Sellouts. That's all I have to say.

"But he's a democrat."

Oh.

Google never allow Protect IP to be implimented

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong target, MafiAA. Google's got more money than the MafiAA. They're not going to allow search engines to involved in MafiAA cash shakedowns. They won't pay one thin dime to the record companies now, especially after the way the record companies treated them on the Google Music launch this week.

Google will hire all the lawyers in DC and California to make sure Protect IP is never implemented, and Google's got the money to hire all lawyers in DC and California if forced to.

The "PROTECT IP Act", huh?

[airfoobar]

Guess "PATRIOT Act" was already taken.

Letter

[jimktrains]

I wish I had the time and knowledge to write a well-worded letter I could print and mail to my rep and senators.

Hey Assholes!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

We're sick of you encouraging the erosion of our liberties, the corruption of our government, and the persecution of true music/movie lovers everywhere. Go fuck your respective selves. You sit there, confident in your position outside the law's grasp, feeding off the misery of others for your own benefit. You make me sick. You're the scum-suckers of society, and you have the unabashed nerve to claim that you're actually being wronged! What is totally, completely wrong is that you guys exist in the first place.

OK, that takes care of the pirates. Where are the **AA? I'm not too fond of them either.

Re:Hey Assholes!

[improfane]

Have you no self-respect?

American Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Does somebody care to explain what the (R) and (D) after a Senators name refers to? To an outside observer, we can only assume it means (R)IAA or (D)isney

Re:American Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Given what I've seen over the last few years, they stand for Retard and Dickhead.

Asinine

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it asinine how Mainstream Joe views libertarianism with nothing less than absolute seething hatred, the kind you'd normally reserve for the man who murdered your wife, when libertarianism has approximately 0.01% net impact on Mainstream Joe's life.

Mainstream Joe, listen up. The people who run the business of government are the polar opposite of libertarianism. This is proven by the fact that the US federal government of today absolutely dwarfs the US federal government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue per population AND power over the people. Every year, the US federal government continues to spend more, borrow more, and assume more power over the people.

The notion of libertarianism gaining mainstream acceptance -- and consequently government shrinking to 1/10 its size measured both in revenue and power over the people -- is literally the last thing you will ever need to "worry" about.

Ridiculous to thoughtful people.

[Burz]

But many don't think beyond their own personal interest. And that is what the business lore of this country says we're supposed to do.

I mean, that would destroy SO many companies right this week.

Not in actuality. The courts and attorneys general will target individuals, proprietorships, co-ops, unions and 'troublemaker' NGOs over the odd news clipping, HTML links, or audio/video clip. But as usual they will avoid doing this to large corporations unless Congress wants to initiate an ideologically-motivated attack (the kind of ideology that says you play by the rules of Wall Street banks and the empire that advances their interests).

campain against this asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

when is the next election?

This is the same pattern as early radio

[unil_1005]

Once upon a time anybody could build and operate a radio station. People would (more or less) cooperatively select non-interfering frequencies...
...but now it is today.
Tomorrow will be today for the Internet.

Yet another stupid name for a law

[LocalH]

Why do they insist on making names that are acronyms, even when the phrase backing the acronym is convoluted and bent to fit a predetermined word? "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property"? What the flying shit?!?

I propose the next law be called the "Stop the Heist of Information Technology, Hoping to End Anarchy in Data" Act.

corporate vs human protect the IP ACT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for 11 years, America has always belonged to the corporate SENMACE. They run the nation and use the government to arrange the people to work for them as needed. The SENMACE run nation, works a select few humans [the employed] and allows the select few to use their earned bread to buy at the SENMACE company store. TENNESSEE Ernie Ford described it as "sixteen tons, another day older and deeper in debt".

The first amendment is for show.. like the other nine amendments that comprise the bill of rights! If they meant the amendments to be enforceable they wouldn't even propose such legislation as the IP protect ACT

No where in the U. S. Constitution do the words "the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness" appear..check it out!

Those words were intentionally left out of the U. S. Constitution because it was never the intention of the corporations to allow either the "enumerated inalienable rights" or the first ten amendments to have much effect. In spite of the corporate propaganda and their armed British support, the demands that government recognize human rights became the fighting words of the humans who came together in Colonial Corporate British America to overthrow the Banking and Mercantile Interest and the fictitious person corporations[SENMACE] then running America [as they do now] in what we "Americans" today celebrate as the American Revolution.

It only took 11 years for the corporations to reimpose their top down non human control, no longer as a collecton of British Colonial Charters, but in a unified corporate form: the U. S. Constitution. The resistance of the rebels to ratification of the constitution was so strong the corporations and founders had to agree to include the first ten Amendments, called the bill of rights, in order to get enough people to ratify their "power sweeping" constitution. That constitution retrieved "political and economic decision control" from the "successful post-colonial Americans, and transfered it to the banksters and tradesters who could once again use the power of government to regulate and control all of the resources and to organize all of the humanity in America in ways that would make the super corporations even richer. Check that out too.
BTW see this interesting link==> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?page=1