Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Senate Committee Passes PROTECT IP Act

Posted by timothy on from the kill-first-ask-questions-later dept.

angry tapir writes "A US Senate committee has unanimously approved a controversial bill that would allow the US Department of Justice to seek court orders requiring search engines and Internet service providers to stop sending traffic to websites accused of infringing copyright."

75 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. Instead of complaints, we need answers by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) How do we route around this damage?

    2) How do we protect our natural rights from a majority that votes them away?

    Let's stop focusing on the distractions of greed and corruption and the psychopaths in positions of power and get to finding real solutions to render all of that irrelevant.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by beringreenbear · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Rules say that the only thing you can do is to ceaselessly lobby your Senator and get your friends, relatives, and that weird guy who asks you for change for a dollar every time you go into Dunkin' Donuts to do the same.

      See my comment below, as the damage has been halted by the same person that halted a similar bill last year, a Senator from Oregon. The only way to stop this is the raise money to buy off enough Senators to keep the bill stopped.

    2. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by lxs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bye bye Google, hello search engines based outside of the US.

    3. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by The+Moof · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1) How do we route around this damage?

      The same way we always have: proxies, tor, etc.

      2) How do we protect our natural rights from a majority that votes them away?

      That's the multimillion dollar question. Quite literally, since you need a huge amount of money to either lobby your representatives, or run against them. Otherwise, they just send you a nice boilerplate response letter to any of your inquiries, concerns, and so on.

    4. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) How do we route around this damage?

      Although it's been some time since I last looked at the project, Freenet still seems like a good bet.

    5. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by ThePangolino · · Score: 2

      YaCy

      --
      My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
    6. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by kokojie · · Score: 2

      you forgot the /s tag, the google Chinese arm had a message in the bottom of their page when you search censored material. "Some search results maybe censored due to local laws and regulations"

    7. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by thej1nx · · Score: 2

      I wonder. Will it be illegal to start a group like Anonymous, near election time?

      I mean declaring that we have had enough of this government and that come election, ALL of the group members vote for the specific list of guys(and against certain guys). The lobbyists have subverted the democracy anyways, so why not jump aboard? Get everyone, their grandma, cousins and who not to jump in. I mean mob flash events do work, don't they? So if we basically decided to collaborate over punishing certain guys at election time, it should automatically teach them a lesson. If you agreed to vote as per the dictates of the group(since you agreed with the principle behind it) it just might make a difference?

      Or at the very least, a group that starts counter-propaganda during election to ensure that those who sold-out never get elected again. Would that actually work? Just wondering.

    8. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      It won't.. It will get to the point that if the ISP can't decipher your packets, they will simply be dropped.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by jank1887 · · Score: 2

      such a group would be a blip on the radar compared to the general mass of voters voting the same way they always do.

    10. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Well, if it's just DNS then make another - when Denmark blocked it jesperbay.org and if they'd tried a game of whack-a-mole just use a URL redirection service to the IP. Want to take down bit.ly? Or perhaps starting to /dev/null traffic going to those IPs? This is like firing a pellet gun and declaring war on a fleet of battleships, good luck with that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      get other religious leaders to understand and see is as an effort to oppress and control people

      "Hi Pot, have you met my friend Kettle?"

    12. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So why didn't Google "make it rain"? It's not like they don't have resources to start a massive lobbying campaign of their own?

      There are lots of possibilities. Shall we play this game?

      1. Google wants this legislation.
      2. Google doesn't want this legislation, but knew it was a fait accompli and elected not to waste time fighting it.
      3. Google believes this legislation will prove to be unworkable, and that it will crash and burn, leading to a backlash which they can use.
      4. Google has some other goal it considers to be more important, and lobbying against PROTECT IP would compromise it.

        1. any more credible options?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      I can assure you I give very little, but that's all irrelevant when I consider that we all constitute maybe two percent of the economy that doesn't even amount to a tick bite.. At this point going underground is the only way, but we are still tethered to their wire.. We are sitting ducks...This is the first thing that must be dealt with (Well, actually the first thing is to be aware that we are dealing with psychopathic authority. Forget about applying 'pressure' to that).. And then fill the system with noise to avoid raising suspicion by our absence (ie: 'what are you trying to hide?').. Comparatively speaking, the rest will be cake (but but but the cake is a lie!)

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    14. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by soupforare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly the actions of a "Lone Wolf," that needs to be investigated.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    15. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by somersault · · Score: 2

      There is no requirement to make anything you create public. You still technically have copyright on it even if nobody else knows it exists.

      does that not imply that the copyrighted information is available from the source that copyrighted the information in the first place

      There are cases such as old computer games that are still in copyright, but no longer on sale, where it's not possible to get the originals without breaking copyright. And again, nobody has to register for copyright anything, it's implicitly granted when you create a work. It's not like a patent.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Voting libertarian is not the answer. The libertarian party is only an experiment by the owning class to use the desire for freedom to disenfranchise the masses for personal gain. Government needs a certain amount of strength to protect people from economic predation and the return to a class based society where most people are virtual or actual slaves.

      There are no parties that actually represent the people and seek to empower their freedom. We need a party that believes in personal liberty but also promotes policy to the benefit of the people instead of corporate entities that serve as the proxies of power for the elite ruling class. Democrats fail. Libertarians fail. Republicans OMG WTF fail. Greens fail just as hard as republicans, but in a different direction.

    17. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by b0bby · · Score: 2

      Most ebook torrents that I've seen contain hundreds of books; people may well be "stealing" your book but it's likely that a) they wouldn't have bought it, even for $.99, and b) they'll probably never read it. I'm sure it's annoying for you, but it's just the way it is. And if your book is one of the few that's in demand enough that people are downloading it deliberately, then hopefully a fair number are also buying it. I remember having this discussion about mp3s 10+ years ago with a friend who is a professional musician - I was of the opinion that he needed to go with the new reality, because the cat was out of the bag. I think it's the same with publishing.

    18. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      1. Create a "pirate search engine," hosted outside the US and create/use an alternate DNS system.

      2. Move away from the offending jurisdiction to a more desirable one.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      they are too busy paying their employees 6 figures

      Those dirty commie bastards! How dare they not put all their money into CXO pay!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Forking the Internet is the answer. The new Internet should be community-run, decentralized, actively resist censorship, selfishness and sabotage (karma system similar to what Bittorrent has), minimize the requirement for centralized authorities, and make any centralized authorities that are absolutely necessary (such as in the case of DNS) democratic online communities.

      It can start with wireless mesh networks (look at HSMM-MESH) using TOR over corporate lines and progress from there until the entire infrastructure is managed by the community, except for some corporate lines operating undersea and satellite links, over which only encrypted and onion-routed traffic flows. And it should only require changes in network equipment. This is all technically possible today.

      Here's a post I made with some details last year:

      http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1634334&cid=32019410

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The ammo box option only works if you have enough popular support. Otherwise, instead of a "freedom fighter", you're a "terrorist".

      Look at the founding of the USA. Those people were basically terrorists. However, they had plenty of popular support for their cause (liberation from England), so they were able to achieve it, though they experienced significant losses in battle with the English troops and Hessian mercenaries.

      A small number of disgruntled people with guns isn't sufficient to take down a government, because the government has plenty of guns and troops of its own.

    22. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Google is fighting it. Take 2 seconds to pull your head out of your ass and look around.
      Also, Yahoo!, Ebay, American Express, and Paypal are aginst it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      I am not confusing them. I just believe that libertarians are pawns being groomed to aid in the path back to serfdom. You are seeking personal liberty by dismantling the social structures that limit the ability of the extremely wealthy from taking your liberty for profit.

      We do need a strong central government (one that is also strongly constitutionally limited). The government needs to be BETTER, not larger or smaller. I agree with many libertarian ideals, but the agenda should not be to dismantle the government. We need to take our freedoms back, but the agenda of the libertarian movement trades one master and infringement of liberty for another.

    24. Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Develop a decentralized P2P app for BT links? The way this is supposed to "work" is by blocking websites with P2P links (but of course as any government power I'm sure they'll abuse the shit out of it to say try to kill wikileaks and other whistleblowers) by the thought that if you can't get the link you can't get the torrent.

      So the way to go around it, at least with regards to torrents, is to simply use a decentralized P2P app to distribute torrent links. A specialized P2P app designed to give you JUST torrent files, complete with user ratings, would kill this from blocking torrents dead, since you wouldn't need TPB or any other torrent site to find torrents. As for getting rid of whistleblower sites the only answer I have to that would be something like Freenet, but the catch with that is so far nobody has tried their "plausible deniability" theory in court and considering a CP charge can net you 60 year that is a hell of a risk to take on an untested legal theory.

      Now please ignore if the situation has changed since I last looked at it, but last I checked you still needed websites for torrent links. By going decentralized P2P tp spread said links that would make blocking sites such as TPB useless, since you wouldn't need them to get the links. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if their next move would be to force search engines like Google to remove ALL torrent links that haven't been given to some committee for approval first.

      Of course in the end I have a feeling we'll just have a "great firewall of corporatist Amerika" and we'll have to take lessons from our Chinese friends on how to run a VPN and risk being labeled a "terrorist/pedo" or whatever bogeyman word they use for it this week. Because heaven forbid we don't help entrenched multinationals by using tax dollars to prop up their failing business models and help them keep complete control on what the population hears and sees. God forbid they should have to come up with new business models for a new era, heavens no! If these corrupt bastards would have been in office at the turn of the 20th century we'd all be paying a "buggy tax" on our cars and labeling buggy whip manufacturers as "too big to fail".

      As for protecting our rights, what rights would those be? We don't even have the right to a fair trial anymore as Obama declared, in a case of having even bigger brass balls than Bush, that he has the right to perform assassinations on Americans, even on American soil and if you don't even have the right to life under the "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause of the constitution, how can you possibly have ANY rights at all? After all, how can giving the corps the right to have you thrown in prison for sharing some shitty Hollywood movie even compare to just having you shot? Welcome to Amerika, where the only freedoms are reserved for the top 1%ers.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Fear Not, Citizens of The Free World! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlike the Nefarious 'Great Firewall of China', a hated symbol of communist repression, the "PROTECT-IP" act will be entirely in English, and promises to be a tool of crony-capitalist repression!

    1. Re:Fear Not, Citizens of The Free World! by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apples and Oranges. In China the government decides who gets blocked. In the U.S., the government AND the corporations will decide.

      So see, that's a lot better...right?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Fear Not, Citizens of The Free World! by pipatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, in China, the government owns the corporations. In the US it's the other way around.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  3. Rubber stamp by markdavis · · Score: 2

    Well, at least it requires a COURT ORDER, instead of just letting some department do whatever the hell they want.

    But it still sounds ripe for abuse, and confusion, and possibly being expensive to implement and maintain.

    1. Re:Rubber stamp by scharkalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should require MORE than a court order. It should require a conviction in the traffic of copyrighted material in violation of the copyright act before a site can be black listed. Being accused of such should NOT be enough.

    2. Re:Rubber stamp by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      Well, at least it requires a COURT ORDER, instead of just letting some department do whatever the hell they want.

      Care to guess what the ratio of requested to granted is on those "court orders"? 100%. Well, guess we can finally add the Judicial Branch to the Executive and Legislative to the "bought off" list...sad.

    3. Re:Rubber stamp by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      Exactly, otherwise you've set aside the entire premises of "innocent until proven guilty."

      Although there do have to be provisions to prevent harm while the decision is made by the courts (the whole idea behind setting bail or denying bail). The courts have decided that in the event that you'll do a runner or whack off another person, they can keep you in jail ("presumed innocent" of course...) until the jury hears the case out.

      In the case of IP on the 'net: if you've got a new artist who's just had something start selling but is really on the brink of feeding her family - the length of a court case could force her out of the creation business and back to the supermarket checkout business. On the other hand, if a website has some legit (but borderline not-quite-infringing) business, with the way traffic and trends are set on the internet a blackout during a court case could equally tank that business.

      In theory, this is where the court order will come in with an IP case. My preference is that the Judge would issue a decision based at least on part of the survivability of an artist vs a host (such that an order to suspend will occur more often in small content rather than big content cases). There should also be an automatic time-out on the suspension if legal actions do not proceed (e.g. you can't simply accuse someone of being a communist, or a witch, or an IP infringer and then leave town leaving the burden of setting the bonfire alight with the public (because defense is the burden of the right holder)). In cases of obvious infringement I'm sure the judge will make the obvious decision.

      What gets interesting is the question of jurisdiction. But I'll let someone else take a stab at that one.

  4. Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by beringreenbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    The damage has been halted for now. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put a hold on the bill, meaning that the Senate leadership is on notice that he will filibusterer it if the bill moves to full debate and vote.

    1. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by lennier1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A politician who acts based on common sense???

      I get the feeling this 2012 armageddon stuff isn't completely bogus after all.

    2. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by CriminalNerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly, it'll probably just get paperclipped with a budget-related bill to bypass the filibuster like they did with the Patriot Act extensions.

      It'd be nice if the rest of the Senate decides that it's actually a terrible bill and vote to kill it.

    3. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      A politician who acts based on common sense???

      Hahahahaha. Good joke. Wyden supports something similar to what this bill does just in a more limited scope. If you thought he did this because he was against the whole idea you are sadly mistaken.

    4. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      When is Ron Wyden up for reelection? I can't vote for him (I'm on the opposite coast) but we should let Slashdotters in Oregon know when they should vote to keep this guy in.

      Also, who voted *FOR* this bill and when are they up for reelection so we can vote them out?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd love to see this happen. It would force real compromise and talks. You couldn't buy votes with promises to send some $$$ to the senator/representative's district via a rider. (Thus, less pork.) You also couldn't try to torpedo a bill by adding an unreasonable rider that you know nobody would vote for. Instead, you would need to craft a bill that enough people would vote for. You would need to work *WITH* the minority and the excesses of each party could be counter-balanced.

      If we can't do this, I'd at least like to see the President have the ability to line item veto things. So he could approve Very-Important-Spending-Bill without approving Rider-That-Restricts-Freedom-Of-Speech. To provide counterbalance, the vetoed riders could be individually voted on by Congress to override the line item veto. (Of course, if the rider has that much support, it should be its own bill, not a rider.)

      Of course, none of this will ever happen because it would actually reduce Congress' power. No longer would they be able to funnel money to their districts by holding their votes for ransom and no longer would they be able to just stick any old text to a bill and have it pass because the bill *HAD* to be approved.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by jdfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wyden has also publicly criticized what he calls the US government's secret interpretation of the "Patriot Act".

    7. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2

      S.968 via Thomas

      Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]

      Co-Sponsors:
      Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN]
      Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT]
      Sen Blunt, Roy [MO]
      Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE]
      Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA]
      Sen Franken, Al [MN] (Say it ain't so, Franky!)
      Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY]
      Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
      Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA]
      Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
      Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN]
      Sen Kohl, Herb [WI]
      Sen Rubio, Marco [FL]
      Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY]
      Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI]

      However, the vote was merely to put it on the Senate calendar. I don't believe there's records for how that proceeded in the Judiciary Committee. If your interested in the individuals currently on this Committee and how it functions, I suggest this wikipedia article.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    8. Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is why I would like to introduce a bill with no provisions, which would make it illegal to piggyback bills. They are what they are, take it or leave it. No? Next subject.

      If anyone needs me, I'll be hanging out in my own utopia.

      Interesting historical fact: Section 9 of the Confederate States Constitutionincluded exactly such a provision:

      Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

      Personally, I'd also like to see something requiring that each new law or regulation passed for a period of 12 years require that two laws be repealed. That would perhaps clear out some of the old cruft...

  5. Goodbye thepiratebay.org by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've said for a long time that a U.S. great firewall was coming. I'm frankly just surprised it took so long. Sadly, this will now begin a big chase game of "change our IP" "IP blocked, change it again" for all the torrent/controversial sites that the government doesn't like. No more typing "wikileaks.org" into our browsers' URL field. Now we have to find a (hopefully) updated IP address from some site that will probably itself be blocked shortly after it starts offering a list.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org by lennier1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a reason why we have addons like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/ to automate that process.

    2. Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org by johanw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This may also explain why Google and Mozilla plan on removing the browser URL field. It prevents more people from being able to go anywhere where the mighty Google or it's countries junta doesn's point us to.

    3. Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org by forand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting? Really? The changes to Chrome's UI do remove the URL bar but do not remove the URL field. When the user highlights the tab they see the URL field, when they don't they get more screen real estate for content. By and large this is a great UI design change. I don't need to see the huge URL telling me Nth directory the site I am visiting stores their HTML in (look at Slashdot do you type in the link to this story?). But good on you for making it sound like some nefarious plan between Google and oppressive regimes to not let people browse to non approved sites, don't let reality stand in your way.

    4. Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      Easy. Just adapt this addon for Chrome, wait until they try to do the same to Google and don't forget to keep plenty of popcorn within reach.

  6. Guilty without trial by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The sites merely have to be ACCUSED of being copyright infringers. Remember when Homeland Security yanked thousands of websites off the net, including several that were merely personal blogs or news sites?

    This is no good. We have courts for a reason - to protect the citizenry from overzealous leaders assuming guilt and enacting punishment against innocent persons.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. the internet and the govt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internet was better off before the legal and judicial systems were even aware of it.

    The boffins at DARPA came up with it, and for decades, all was well - from the 70's up until the mid 90's at least. It succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams *because* no one was in control of it. It was an anarchy. If you don't want to see something, don't look, and if you do, then do.

    It will die in practice because of people who, for one reason or another, think they have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

  8. Relax, the bill is on HOLD thanks to Senator Wyden by gti_guy · · Score: 2

    check out http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2011/05/senate-committee-passes-protect-ip-act-but-wyden-issues-quick-halt/

  9. Re:NOT the PATRIOT act by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not really.. Both are grievous offenses against our rights, just in different areas. Resistance to both, and all the others that are on the books are equally important. The idea is to fight infringement by the authorities and make them ineffective.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  10. Upgrade network infrastructure by Gannimo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this calls for decentralized DNS and some tor like network overlay...

  11. Prohibition by KillaGouge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does the government not remember how well prohibition went? Have they not learned that by making something illegal they are only going to push more people to to figure out ways around it.

    --
    GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    1. Re:Prohibition by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It worked so well for drugs they decided to try it on personal freedom that you now get groped and you can't say shit.

      This goes after online communications.

      Soon they will be tapping every phone and steaming open every letter and parcel.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:Prohibition by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does the government not remember how well prohibition went?

      Went? We still have loads of it. And it's working exactly as designed... it keeps those privatized prisons for profit stuffed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Possible missuse by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Informative

    So if I hack the republicans website to host copyrighted material then the entire republican party gets banned from the internet?

  13. Only accused??? by Grand+Facade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What happened to innocent til proven guilty?

    Who will be doing the accusing?

    No I did not read the article, but this is a fair reaction to the OP

    --
    Rick B.
  14. I hope anonymous steps up! by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    Hopefully anonymous will DDOS these senators re-election sites off the web!

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  15. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I sense a Streisand effect in the making here...

    How long will it be before we see bumper stickers and tshirts with open DNS ip addresses on them?

    Not to mention the explosion in Eastern European based search engines?

    Our elected officials are so freaking stupid...

  16. Official answer: thoughtcrime by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Under DMCA, freenet and tor are probably "circumvention devices". So you are guilty of wanting free speech.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  17. Re:Funny by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sponsored by the Ministry of Truth (tm).

  18. ^^^^^^^ This! by imric · · Score: 2

    Indirect actions that do not materially affect these guys' quest for power will be ignored.

    --
    Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  19. Not a problem by troll+-1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The bill would create a list of blocked Internet sites, added Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group.

    . Users who want content will find a way around this. There's already a firefox add-on to circumvent Department of Homeland Security seized domains like torrent-finder.com. Thanks to Streisand effect of government domain seizures I found some great torrent sites I never before knew existed.

  20. The Invisible Internet Project is running by Burz · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.geti2p.net/

    I've been using it for over a year and it works very well. It has email, web sites, bittorrent, and emule among other things (they are working on bitcoin too). Your public key is the same as your address, and routing is highly decentralized (everyone internally routes for the network by default) so even blocking people by IP or their key address is not really possible.

  21. Search engine over HTTPS without logs of any kind by thijsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Search engine over HTTPS without logs of any kind (like Duckduckgo). This way they can't prove the search engine sent the user to the "worst of the worst" site... You still need alternate DNS and/or proxy/VPN to get to the site, but at least sites can still be found with search engines.

    What surprises me here is that they want to block the "worst of the worst" and they haven't even mentioned the tired old kiddie porn angle... that is certainly worse than anything! The only way they could surprise me more is by being so honest as naming the future targets: all sites opposing corporations in any way and all sites that spread generic 'anti-american' messages (a.k.a. terrorists). Wikileaks will be one of the first of the sites we know that will be blocked like this... all such sites after that will not even be known to anyone when they are blocked, not listed in searches and not mentioned in media.

    Doubleplus goodmove Minitrue!!!

  22. What about pages that link to pages that link to.. by 01101010001010001010 · · Score: 2

    What if CNN had a single link to a page with some content alleged to be pirated IP, would Google block all access to CNN? If I spot someone has infringed my copyright by quoting more than the legally-allowed fair use amounts of something I wrote, can I just get them dumped off Google? Cool! Where's the site that lists the sites that Google isn't allowed to link to? Can Google link to that site? I wish the US Govt the best of luck with this whole 'legislate your way out of a changing market' thing. Interesting experiment (unless you happen to be in the US, of course). P

  23. For once I'd like to see lobbyists... by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 2

    This would definitely hurt the traffic of Google, Bing, and Yahoo to name a few.
    Being based off of advertisements, I would think that Google would most definitely lobby against this, and quite heavily.

    I'm not one for corporate lobbyists, but then again, 99/100 times it is something to screw over Joe Consumer. This may be the 1/100...

    --
    Something witty.
  24. Protecting IP is like protecting Oil by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is what we have seen of the oil industry. We have seen the oil industry defended, protected, supported and subsidized in every way imaginable (including militarily) by the US government. We have known for a very long time that world oil supplies are not limitless and that the demand for it is still rising and the price of it is also ratcheting upwards. Although the efforts for alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels are only now seemingly becoming more aggressive (I'm not yet convinced that there is any effort that I would call a serious commitment on the part of the government) it is generally agreed that it is long over due and most would even say it is too late in coming as many actions have resulted in directly or indirectly suppressing any competing technologies to the use of fossil fuels for energy.

    But the US recognizes that in a fairly short time [* in relative terms], the oil business will be dead. But how is this like intellectual property?

    The US's shift in production economy has been shifting from agriculture to manufacturing to services and now to intellectual property. The US was a leader in each of these things in their day and over time, all of these have been reduced, minimalized and concentrated in ways that make these activities profitable for only a small group of companies and individuals where many of these things are actually sent over-seas. Intellectual property is just about the last thing the US has to export and in order to maintain its profitability, we have to ensure that all other world players honor our IP by adopting laws and policies which support the US desire to remain dominant.

    Over the years, we have witnessed all sorts of measures and activities pushed by the US such as the DMCA, copyright police proposals, pressuring [bullying] other countries into creating draconian law [which doesn't yet exist here in the US because it would be amazingly unpopular] and even influencing other nations into violating their own laws and procedures to satisfy the agenda of the IP business interests here in the U.S. (You know, like the illegal seizure and take down of the piratebay.)

    I expect to see much worse in the near future INCLUDING military action. Sure, it's hard to justify military action for copying music, music and more, but it's not hard to imagine... you know "funding terrorism," "being run by terrorists," or even "harboring known terrorists" as cause for sending in a SEAL team or something like that. But what is "wrong" with this?

    Turns out that media wants to be free and increasingly, we are seeing independent artists and groups pushing their way to the front lines of popularity thanks to emerging technologies and media. This is resulting in "old media" and other IP industry struggling for ways to compete and they are resorting to bribing... err, I mean, influencing government into defending, protecting, supporting and subsidizing their business models in every way imaginable. In the end, it is easy to see how and why "old media" and other IP industry are going away and their their days are numbered. But since the rest of the US has essentially been sold out, it is the second to the last massive resource the US has going for it.

    Yes, I said "second to the last." What's that last? In case you didn't guess, it's PEOPLE. Already we have seen massive privatization of the prison industry. It's not widely spoken of or even cared about because "criminals are bad people" and we don't care about them right? In these privatized prisons, there are massive labor and services being performed by prisoners at wages below "minimum wage" and under conditions which rival the sweatshops of the 18th and 19th century. And with the massive criminalization of just about everything imaginable, it's easy to see what's coming and for whom it comes... the non-citizens, ex-citizens and non-voting-felons of the US... a class of people which is accelerating and growing in ways that are simply being ignored by the media and others at the moment.

    I kn

    1. Re:Protecting IP is like protecting Oil by Terwin · · Score: 2

      IP licensing revenue is estimated between $100B and $200B annually
      http://dcipattorney.com/2010/12/the-us173-4b-global-intellectual-property-marketplace/

      US Manufacturing was _Measured_ at just under 1.7T in 2009
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41349653/ns/business-us_business/t/despite-chinas-might-us-factories-maintain-edge/

      Sure IP is important, but by no means the last thing the US has to export.

      IP just shows up disproportionately in the news because it is a sizable revenue stream based on an artificial scarcity that is rapidly evaporating, so if they spend 80% of their revenue on laws to slow that evaporation, that is still profitable for the owners.(or at least their lawyers)

  25. It applies to patents and DRM too by AmElder · · Score: 2

    It's not just about copyright. Sites whose only function (or just about) is related to trademark violations or is about helping people get around DRM would be targeted by this law too, if it passes. Look at the definitions section (Sec. 2, par. 7.a.ii and ii).

  26. Litmus Test by WillgasM · · Score: 2

    I propose an easy way for senators to decide whether they should back a bill: When legislation is applauded by the MPAA and supported by ISPs, it's probably a STUPID FUCKING IDEA! When the corrupt are cheering you on in your actions, it's probably time to start moving in the opposite direction.

  27. The best parts by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The best parts of the bill seem to be subsections d and e of the bill. (IANAL and encourage correction or confirmation of my interpretation) :
    • No matter what harm is caused in pursuing action under this legislation, the companies and individuals initiating the action are completely immune from suit. So damages cannot be recovered (possibly even if it's later proven that the original action was erroneous.)
    • Section e: Unlike DMCA, there is no defense permitted prior to compliance. The site first must be taken offline, then and only then can the owner/registrar/operator file to modify/suspend/vacate the order. No provision is made for the timeliness of any related follow up, so it could get stuck in the court system for as long as any other request.

    We can all sit and complain about it here, or we can contact the offices of our senators; and try to spread the word for others to do the same. (No, e-petitions don't count and form letters seem rarely to be effective. Take five minutes and at least compose an original email.) If you want this to get some more mainstream coverage that's in your power too - you will find that "letters to the editor" of your local newspaper still has a surprisingly high readership.

  28. You forgot one by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Googe did. They have been opposed to this the whole way.

    People don't want to believe that because it goes against their incorrect belief that corporation can buy any legislatation they want.

    Had that been true, this would never have been passed.

    "Several large corporations such as Google, Yahoo!, Ebay, American Express and Paypal have all opposed the bill. At an earlier hearing on the act, Google opposed the act saying that it will have very negative ramifications.'

    http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2011/05/senate-committee-passes-protect-ip-act-but-wyden-issues-quick-halt/

    http://www.ghacks.net/2011/05/19/google-stands-against-protect-ip/

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20063963-261.html

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:You forgot one by petsounds · · Score: 2

      Oh, no. It's a correct belief. It's just that corporate interests with better lobbyists (RIAA, MPAA, et al) won the day here.

  29. An improvement! by Repossessed · · Score: 2

    At least they'll need a freaking court order with this bill.

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  30. They will work around it by helios17 · · Score: 2

    The RNC will just insert tags in the html - SARAH PALIN NUDE....

    --
    Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.