Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
If first you don't succeed try try again.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
Boy, howdy.
Those damn Republicans are always trying to steal our freedom!
For something less centralized
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.
Palm trees and 8
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...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
...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
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Corporate puppets. Sellouts. That's all I have to say.
"But he's a democrat."
Oh.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"