Slashdot Mirror
New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites
angry tapir writes "An upcoming version [PDF] of U.S. legislation designed to combat copyright infringement on the Web may include provisions that hold online services such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube legally responsible for infringing material posted by users, according to one group opposed to the bill. 'If Demand Progress is correct about the House version of PROTECT IP, the bill would overturn parts of the 13-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect websites and ISPs from copyright lawsuits for the infringing activity of their users.'"
Let the RIAA and MPAA start suing Google and then we might see some real reform...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This will be great for IP trolls that are tired of nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now they can go after the corps with big bucks.
This will be great for IP trolls who have been nickle and diming the general public with thousands of lawsuits. Now all they have to do is hit the big corps for a major payday
The tech companies such as Google will probably be against it, so they'll be at least some campaign cash to be had by voting Nay. Up until now, it had always been a matter of corporations with cash versus citizens without cash.
I am officially gone from
I thought most of the big copyright players had more or less agreed with the de facto settlement of a mixture of takedowns (for cases they particularly object to) and slapping ads on YouTube videos so they can profit via Google's revenue-sharing thing (for cases where they'll just take some cash compensation).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm very surprised by this new information.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
So as I understand it some little group, Demand Progress, has released a press release with some made up idea and gossip that an unknown bill designed to matched a known bill will contain some restrictions that may or may not cause youtube and facebook to shutdown. The restrictions to shutdown those sites not being in the know bill
I guess this is one way to get traffic and raise money. Also explains why they are calling for the bills release to be delayed since they could not profit from a known bill.
They are going to try this until somebody falls to sleep and they get it done or run out of money. I fear the day nobody spots it or i gets folded into another bill.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
All websites must be submitted to Sony for inspection before they can be posted to the Internet. This message brought to you by Carl's, Jr.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So are they talking about links to copyrighted material again, because the only possible illegal thing you could post directly on facebook or twitter is possibly a book spread over hundreds of posts.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
and use every tool in their arsenal to make filing a take down notice a matter of strict liability on accuracy with the legal damages calculated as the combined man hours needed to service the request times the number of requests plus treble damages if a "preponderance of evidence" shows that the notices were sent via an automated process.
Google and Facebook are, no doubt, going to send mountains of lawyers to stop this one.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Who would have ever expected the day would come when we would rather have the DMCA.
Really, this article is interesting because we might see a real risk of corrupt stuff flying everywhere. So far the Copyright War has involved "third tier sites" that the public doesn't really care about. However, taking the theory in the summary as is, if we lost Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, would that in fact be enough to end "Web 2.0" and kick us over into some kind of Walled Garden Web 3.0?
The other possibility I see is a "differently-horrible" possibility of a site buying a "waiver" for insane amounts of money, so everyone's favorite top 100 companies are all there, but then it falls off a cliff because no one else can afford one.
This I. P. stuff really seems to be accelerating on the fastest track that the players think they can get away with short of just throwing the entire world in jail. It's also exposing a fatal flaw in the legislative process, because it only takes some ten bills to just get it all over with and introduce Big Brother and this bill is one of them.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
This may violate 1ST amendment rights as to be safe all forums, blogs, or any place where some is free to post stuff may have to be shut down or be come a place where only admins can post.
The DMCA was almost entirely bought by the MAFIAA and so served their interests. The major exception was that the ISPs fought to have safe harbor included to protect their interests. Now the MAFIAA is going for round two, trying to eliminate the major part of the DMCA that didn't get written to their liking.
Next up: The triennial exemption rule. They're tired of fighting exemptions every three years, so this won't last long.
Notice nothing in this has a "for the people" ring to it.
While we might have hated the DMCA, the "Safe harbor" provision is something most of us can live with and the public can understand.
Instead of talking about free speech which is an abstraction that most people and politicians don't understand. We should talk about the fact that the so called Protect IP act will encourage frivolous lawsuits, send high paying american jobs overseas, and kill youtube, facebook and twitter and blogging while making trial lawyers rich and clogging up the court system.
A message for the nanny state and it's Mafiaa backers: You need us more than we need you. You want to impose draconian measures to ensure protection of your IP but there will come a day when we are not interested in your property.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument.
Meanwhile, in the real world, groups who can't get their preferred law passed compromise on a lesser version instead, knowing that it will soon slide down the slope far beyond their wildest dreams. Laws which don't follow the slippery slope are the rare exceptions, not the rule.
It's interesting that a law about IP never mentions blocking IP, only blocking DNS. It also assumes that the registration process doesn't change much.
If one were to use an alternative DNS, this whole thing becomes irrelevant.
and that is why these things never do as intended.. well that and our stupid system that makes a law about taxes on gas include something for kids wearing bicycle helmets.
this isn't that hard, but we have people pretending to be idiots to get it skewed WAY too far to one side or another.
#1 Ip should be purchased as a license, regardless of media or representation
1a. This license uses a version system as in software. "upgrading" from vhs to blueray quality has a cost, around 30 bucks per disk at present, using that model we can say v1 = vhs quality, v2 = dvd quality, v3 = hd quality v4 = 3d v5 = holographic.. yadda yadda
1b. traversing up this license list = 10 dollar increments
#2. Lending of these licenses legally should remove your rights to these licenses for a set term. (if you lend someone a cd.. you can't then listen to that cd yourself, deal with it)
2a. increments of license versions should allow multiple "shared copies" at $x per "share"
2b. if you break the law, you pay damages = to $x per share x estimated # of observable downloads
2c. The provider of the ip is required to have in place or join a system to enforce the above or no damages will be awarded
that covers the legal side of things for the most part... here come the arguments "that'll never work! no one will listen! it's not enforceable! the system can never work!"
the "system" should be some form of device or application you have that can be used to facilitate this sort of usage. and before the screams of "they're gonna track me!" start.. go buy a cd with cash and get off my internets. they were tracking you when you downloaded it/bought it with a card/check/whatever electronic form of not cash you used, it's just a matter of WHO you let track you. o noes! they are going to show me ads!
but the stalemate will continue because you have the side that doesn't want to pay, the side that wants you to pay, and the side that wants the digital equivalent of a cabin in the montana wilderness in the digital equivalent of grand central station.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!
I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but obviously something else since apparently most wouldn't get the slippery slope joke.)
Sad that the fallacy itself has become a popular label for advocating the use of it in arguments.
Sure, one can characterize the opposition to claim they want to progressively go to some extreme and they quite possibly intend to do so; however, logically each step is separate and not connected to the other steps without a valid linking argument. (sadly, slippery slope is used to link them all in 1 move despite its purpose is to say that move is illegal.)
They already pulled back Disney's copyrights when they were about to expire. They already tried to make recording artists' work a "work for hire" with the copyright going to the label. Before the labels lose this revenue they will try, and may succeed, in having another law passed that will extend the period.
DMCA was a big law that did several different, only tenuously-related, things. It had stuff in it very specifically worded to address issues with, and I am not making this up, boat hull designs. Nobody would really claim to hate all of DMCA, unless their objection is systemic (i.e. that law like almost every other law, was passed without public input). I don't even have an opinion on the boat hull design part; like the people who enacted it, I've never bothered to read it. :-)
The anti-circumvention parts of DMCA were unambiguously evil with no redeeming virtues to even partially mitigate them, with no pretense of serving the interests of the public (and nothing but a false pretense of serving the interests of copyright holders; this law was bad for everyone except professional pirates and DRM snakeoil salesmen). I think that when most people bitch about "DMCA" as shorthand, they're talking about this part of it.
But sometimes people are talking about the notice-counternotice stuff, whose basic intention is to establish rules for who is liable for something, by creating a mechanic that lets you always point at someone and say "the buck stops there." While there are controversies about this part of DMCA, they're usually (but not always, there are subtleties) related to hosting services who take a default behavior of immediately folding when presented with a DMCA notice. (And youtube happens to be one of those.) People can always solve that problem by dumping a hosting service for a more customer-friendly one (or self-hosting if necessary), so this part of DMCA isn't nearly as flame worthy as the anti-circumvention part.
And within the notice-counternotice part of DMCA, is the safe harbor provision. This isn't so much something to be thankful for, though, as it is integral to the notice-counternotice mechanism having any point at all. Without safe harbor, you're practically back to a pre-DMCA situation with regard to hosting liability.
That would be both good and bad; it's complicated. It's particularly bad for services whose value lies in user participation, but possibly good in a very long view, as it would encourage a return to self-hosting -- distribution of power with fewer social bottlenecks the network effects stemming from that. But naturally, companies like Google and Facebook would hate that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I imagine Facebook wouldn't go down easy.... Think about all the dirt they probably have on senators.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
This is about killing the Internet as a medium for free speech.
So now, we take the one thing in the DMCA that is arguably good (when the rest of the DMCA is taken into context) and they want to gut that?
FC Closer
The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:
In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.
so listen up nerd, because nobody should have to tell you this: other people are never referring to the fallacy, they are always referring to the metaphor that if you give in to temptation it can take you over. the one called classical form above. the metaphor doesn't claim that you will slide, as the fallacy does. it just says that staying on solid footing while making the choice in question is difficult because it's slippery (too easy to continue making bad decisions). smoking crack your first time doesn't mean you'll wind up sucking dick for it, but the addiction factor makes it a slippery slope. get it?
the fallacy was invented by a moron just like yourself simply for the purpose of derailing a conversation on points of minutiae and irrelevance (much like grammar nazis) instead of bothering to pay attention to the conversation. any ability you had to comprehend the conversation was eroded by your analysis paralysis.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Why don't we just stop fighting?
What's the big deal about needing media? Give it a break for a year or two, let them take over completely to see their revenue shrivel to nothing. Let them die whining and crying about not having anyone to buy or advertise their products.
I'll go back to my books (I have a bunch that I haven't read), I have so much music that I could easily spend the next few years exploring it. What we're addicted to is new stuff.
Let's take a break for a while and let these overpumped dickweeds have their kingdom of dust. Because at the end of the day that's all they have: Our obssession for media. We kick our habit (like tobacco) and they lose their empire.
-
Your search - US Government - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
SEC. 3.
ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.
(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.â"
(1) IN
PERSONAM.â"The Attorney General may commence an in personam action againstâ"
7 (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to in-fringing activities; or
10 (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.
13 (2) IN REM.â"If through due diligence the At-torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
- etc.etc.etc.
I love it. Not only this bill (like EVERY government bill) is going to destroy more freedoms and jobs everywhere, I just LOVE IT how they call anything they don't like 'ROGUE' nowadays.
It's only one step away from being labeled a TERRORIST and then of-course, what are all those unmanned killer drones for, right?
The US government just murdered a 16 year old US citizen - the son of Anwar Awlaki, killed just a little while ago by another drone strike.
Be warned, the USA has long ceased to be a nation of laws, it is now a nation of terrorists.
You can't handle the truth.