Slashdot Mirror
Law Professors vs the PROTECT IP Act
Freddybear writes "Along with 90 (and still counting) other Internet law and IP law professors, David Post of the Volokh Conspiracy law blog has drafted and signed a letter in opposition to Senator Leahy's 'PROTECT IP Act.' Quoting: 'The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. It requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers "dedicated to infringing activities." But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all.'"
LOL, is this the "American Freedom" I heard so much about as a youth growing up in Hungary during the Cold War?
The law will provide great incentive to develop new technologies to work around it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
How is it going over the top?
You're totally stripping due process out of the equation.
If someone makes a living from their website, and you kill that website, you are basically killing someone.
The metaphor is fair.
Doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Since that's what they've been calling it in regards to blacklists (Spamhaus et al) for thousands of Internet years now, perhaps it's simply a phrase-of-art and you should relax.
The comparison is over the top, and it's very much in line with a lot of current political and academic discourse, which is disturbing. For example, a number of academics have redefined "violence" to mean not the use of force (like the Latin vi- root would imply) but, well, anything that means disapproval of someone or something else: excerpting a book is "doing violence to the text" because it ignores the remainder of the book. Bernard Henri-Levy, the French columnist who calls himself a philosopher, referred to coverage of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn proceedings and to statements of the accuser's physical evidence as "pornographic," apparently meaning "something that could damage Strauss-Kahn." The Republicans call Obama a new Hitler for wanting to change the way health care is paid for: that's so far over the top that it's practically a convergence of Godwin's and Poe's laws. The world needs to settle down and discuss issues for what they are and find real solutions to them, not indulge in adolescent, verbal para-masturbatory fantasies that satisfy some deep inner lust for pathos.
Oh, wait.
Real Internet for those of us who know what we're doing.
Censored internet for the proles.
And we can lord it over them.
Good times to be had by all.
--
BMO
The difference is that blacklists are entirely voluntary.
Also...
Spammer spotted.
--
BMO - Lumber Cartel membership # 2501
I dunno, it seems pretty accurate in the context of a website. You're essentially stopping anyone from viewing it (at least in theory) therefore killing the site's ability to perform its intended function. Its true that the comparison is a bit sensationalist, but in the context of a website, its pretty accurate at the same time.
I suspect the US is on a long term slide to being an internet 3rd world country.
The rest of the world will learn to simply route around the damage zone known as the USA. Bad US laws seem like a long term giveaway to aspirants like China and the BRIC.
Who was it that said "where one burns books, one ultimately burns people"? What is the internet but a great giant book that everyone can write a chapter in? The comparison between censorship and murder is older than both of us.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The PROTECT IP act is a freebie given to Big Content because it is too expensive for them to police the use of their own content. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Copyright, this is a clear example of leveraging government to enforce artificial restrictions on the use of content in favor of the companies that seek to monetize said content.
We have laws already in place for companies to lodge complaints with websites when their content is being used without license. But the content companies complain that it is too hard for them to find unlicensed use of their content. The solution via this act is to take down content on **possible** unlicensed use by the government and by other companies on a simple complaint.
IF the PROTECT IP provided heavy penalties for false or inflated complaints, then okay. But it doesn't.
IF the PROTECT IP provided for possible criminal charges should it be used to violate free speech as opposed to taking down infringing content, then okay. But it doesn't.
IF the PROTECT IP provided fees and taxes on Big Content to cover the public expense of implementing the act, then okay. But it doesn't.
ANY Government granted system of monopolies granted out to privileged parties, where such monopolies do not and in fact cannot exist without Government intervention, this is socialism. It is bad enough that we have copyrights that last over a hundred years, and that we cannot upload birthday videos because a song written in the 1800's is (most would say falsely) under copyright. That we have extend copyright terms without compensation to the public.
But why should the public pick up the bill to enforce copyright?
Make Big Content to pay for it, and make Big Content liable for misuse of it, and throw anyone in jail if they use it to inhibit free speech, then okay.
But that won't fly. Because this is about making money, and Big Content can't make money if they are at risk, or have to pay for the enforcement of their own (supposed) rights.
Once you establish the precedent, you're on a slippery slope. This has been coming for a long time. A black person driving from Florida carrying a lot of cash is assumed to be a drug runner. Their car and cash are confiscated without a trial and they have to fight to get it back.
A Hispanic person in Arizona must show ID to prove s/he is a citizen, otherwise they're assumed to be illegal.
Now your website and your business can be taken away just on the accusation of violating some copyright somewhere.
Ever read any of Niven's sci-fi? We're just about there. Next step, organ banks.
This is just the latest example of what happens when you invest the kind of power that we have in government. Those levers will be used to attain the ends of whoever brings the most money to the table to coopt the people controlling it.
How fast does an owner of a warehouse get a notice of a police raid with court order targeting one of the clients of the warehouse?
Am I the only one who read "whorehouse."
Refusing to route traffic to a site is a death-knell to it no matter how you slice it. The term "death" has many different and perfectly reasonable contexts. Only one of those is biological death.
Democrats are married to Hollywood. Anyone really surprised that they would try for a law which would let Hollywood to punish people as soon as they are accused of "piracy"?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I know that U.S. Senator John Cornyn doesn't read Slashdot, but hey! it is interesting...
Nation: 90 percent oppose.
Texas: 98 oppose.
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968/report#nation
ORGS ENDORSING
Graphic Artists Guild
Independent Film & Television Alliance
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
ORGS OPPOSING
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
Center for Democracy and Technology
Demand Progress
Don't Censor the Net!
Fractured Atlas
Public Knowledge
Reporters Without Borders
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968/report#nation
The Republicans call Obama a new Hitler for wanting to change the way health care is paid for.
Damn Republicans. Don't they know only Democrats can compare someone to Hitler and get away with it? A liberal who compares someone with Hitler is insightful and informed. A conservative who compares someone to Hitler is a racist and hateful.
BTW, Leahy is a Democrat, but I'm certain the posters here at /. will be able to find a way to blame this bill on Republicans. I have faith in that. Don't let the damn conservatives try and make this look like the liberal's fault. We know it's not true.
they tend not to shut the warehouse down to do it though, the warehouse can still operate.
You can have all the letters you want. You can roll sick kids in wheel chairs in to give speeches. If you didn't pay for the law, you don't get it's benefits. That's the way our new corporatist free enterprise system works.
What do you expect for free?
If you want a law, you hire a lobbyist. They will give you a quote, just like getting your driveway seal coated. You pay. You get what you want.
Who do you think your congressmen and senators are working for anyway? You? Not likely.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I believe there is a section of the US constitution that prohibits punishing people without a trial. I realize that's a depreciated api but it's still worth noting that prior versions of us gov allowed such functions.
whoa whoa whoa, slow down buddy, where talking about this:
If someone makes a living from their website, and you kill that website, you are basically killing someone.
You find no problems with that statement?
Once you establish the precedent, you're on a slippery slope. This has been coming for a long time. A black person driving from Florida carrying a lot of cash is assumed to be a drug runner. Their car and cash are confiscated without a trial and they have to fight to get it back.
Your missing the point, I already agree the PROTECT IP law is stupid, I'm just saying that metaphor was sensational. All the slippery slope examples you provided(which I also agree are disturbing) still aren't equatable to murder anyways. I find it pretty sad how slashdot readers seem so ready to defend a sensationalist statement when it happen to agree with them, but a similar statement made from a source like fox news would be torn to shreds(and rightfully so). Double standard much though?
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
Rather a person with no Social Security ID, but still with a driving license. Cannot receive legal benefits, but is still able to drive.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The term "death" has many different and perfectly reasonable contexts. Only one of those is biological death.
Yes, but when someone says "death penalty" the first thing most people would think of is capitol punishment, which is the biological type of death.
Please don't think I am defending PROTECT IP, I'm not. But sensational statements should be called out even if it's supporting something I agree with.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
http://english.falundafamuseum.org/b5/05/02/20/1304.html
http://falunhr.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1495
Even as used here, I doubt many will jump to linking it with actual death. It's simply ridiculous to do so. A site without traffic is dead, so cutting it off is clearly a death sentence for the site. The terminology is commonly used to relate non-biological death in many different circumstances. This is nothing new. Sans other sensationalist wording, this is perfectly applicable to the matter at hand.
One of the most obvious targets of this kind of "copyright protection", applied to political speech, is Wikileaks. In many cases, the document owners did not consent for those documents to be published, so under the strictest interpretations of copyright law, without the political exceptions applied, they've already had their contribution funds siezed indefinitely by the relevant credit agencies. This would be just another spike in their destruction, much to the pleasure of corporate or government organizations whose secrets are exposed there.
Nah, this ain't Plateau far from it.
We are voting and paying attention. The TEA Party is legion and we are changing the conversation away from "Ask not what your Government must do for you" to "Ask instead how you can help to prune it's branches before they shadow every aspect of your life..."
Queue the TEAbagger name calling.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
That would be great if the Tea Party were really about overseeing the government and ensuring that it acts appropriately. However the tea party is more about napalming the whole forest than doing some pruning, and "government is always bad" is as idiotic a statement as "government is always good". The tea party is letting the Republican party gut every even remotely good thing that government does while doing absolutely nothing at all about anything like this.
This is a wedge in the door, the biggest so far, to allow the government to control the internet. This bill effectively allows government to close down any website they like almost on whim long before they get around to bringing the case to core, if ever. It is a continuance of precedent from the civil forfeiture laws in drug and other cases. Property is held to be guilty until proved innocent and is seized or shut down without any sort of due process.
Don't just snigger sadly in year beer on this one. Fight for all you are worth as if your relatively free internet life depended on it.
Yes, yes you are.
The rest of us can read without issue.
Who keeps modding this crap up? It's not funny; it's childish.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
It was Herman Hesse, and he lived to see it come true.
I am trolling
Then why are the teabaggers supporting the continuation of huge gov't subsidies to oil companies? Why are they supporting tax laws that exempt the wealthiest companies and shift the burden onto small business and individuals?
The whole tea party is based on a failed premise that an individual can stand up to a multinational corporation and win. Maybe in a redneck shotgun fantasy; in reality the individual gets milked for every dime they have and thrown away in the end when they can no longer pay.
A Hispanic person in Arizona must show ID to prove s/he is a citizen, otherwise they're assumed to be illegal.
First, they only have to produce evidence that they are legally in the U.S. and second, only if the police are interacting with them because of some other illegal action on thier part. Finally, it is not only Hispanics who are subject to this law (I fully expect that if someone from Norway was stopped for a traffic violation and spoke very poor english, the police would demand evidence of legal residence).
That being said, this Protect IP would be a bad law and should not be passed. I, also, agree that the forfeiture laws are bad laws that should be repealed/overturned.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Time to make our own p2p DNS system. Government wants to interfere? No problem, we can make sure DNS stays in the hands of "we the people".
There it is right on queue, and woefully uninformed. Too bad for you that you are dead wrong cptdondo. Sarah Palin, a very prominent TEA partier, has proposed ending all energy subsidies.
As for some imaginary "failed premise" of individual empowerment, I believe the results of the last election and the things that are happening because prove the ignorance of your statement.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Having seen a blonde-haird russian girl being lectured at a checkpoint in Texas for not having her proper immigration papers, I suspect Hispanics aren't the target of the law - illegal immigrants are.
I'm surprised to see Al Franken on the sponsors list ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968 ). He appears to champion net neutrality, and I would think fighting this kind of thing would be on the same agenda.
Not if you compare blocking websites to burning books.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.