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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.