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."

19 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!

    2. Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by osgeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Protect RIAA/MPAA profits act. by Target+Drone · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. Damn Republicans! by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 3

    Boy, howdy.

    Those damn Republicans are always trying to steal our freedom!

    1. Re:Damn Republicans! by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Damn Republicans! by CodeShark · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

      --
      ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  3. Keep trying until they stop fighting by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Holy crap .... by gstoddart · · Score: 3

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Holy crap .... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. The fine gentleman from Vermont by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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

    1. Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because maybe he's for individual rights

      Sure, if you are white.

    2. Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      >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

    3. Re:The fine gentleman from Vermont by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >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

  6. Re:Congressional Term Limits by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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/
  7. Damn Republicans are Corporate Lackeys by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"