PROTECT IP Renamed To the E-PARASITE Act

bs0d3 writes "The U.S. House has drafted their version of Protect IP today. They have renamed the bill to 'the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act' or the E-PARASITE Act. The new house version of Protect IP is far worse than the Senate bill s.968 and it massively expands the sites that will be covered by the law. While the Senate bill limited its focus to sites that were 'dedicated to infringing activities,' the house bill targets 'foreign infringing sites' and 'has only limited purpose or use other than infringement.' They're also including an 'inducement' claim, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be 'inducing' infringement, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. The bill can be read here."

Comments

American rights?

[Bucky24]

I guess they're really going all the way with "Corporations are people".

Re:American rights?

[andresa]

It's a good sign of a failing country. US fucked up their economy and many Asian countries took advantage of that by providing real, actual goods to people. The only thing US still has is entertainment industry, so it's not a surprise they're trying to protect that. But eventually it's a lost game, just because people got lazy and spend a lot more than they can, while other people (banks) tried to sell sell sell all those people loans. In the process many people got really rich, but it's not something you can do endlessly.

Re:American rights?

[Catbeller]

No. They have not. The Supreme Court decision happened in 1892, IIANM, when a former railroad lobbyist turned clerk of a Supreme Court Justice inserted it into an unrelated decision. The corporate lawyers ran with it, and it became impossible to call back. The trusts and tycoons had been try, without success, for decades to have the SCOTUS declare corporations people. One pro-corp lobbyist in a powerful position did the trick when law and reason wouldn't.

In 1992, the SCOTUS declared money to be speech.

In 2010, the SCOTUS removed all limits to corporate spending on lobbying, citing 1992.

Result: corps, government licensed creatures, now have become the government, cuckoo-like, replacing the substance while the shell remains.

Re:American rights?

[Catbeller]

Fine, if the copyright expires. That was the deal, back in the 1780's. But the deal was unilaterally reneged on when copyrights became eternal. You want copyrights? Put a limit on them. Right now, the art and stories of the world are set to be owned by corporations until the end of time. And we are building a world-wide surveillance state to enforce that "property". There will be nowhere you can go, electronically, without the government, thru corporate proxies, looking over your shoulder and logging what you are looking at, what you are reading, what you are copying. Forever.

Re:American rights?

[click2005]

I propose changing it's name again, this time to the

Worldwide Enforcing and Restrictively Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft, Exploitation and Solicitation Act

WE-R-PARASITES Act

Re:American rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the corporatocracy. It looks a lot like the oligarchies that were thrown out in revolutions in the 1700s and 1800s in the Americas and in Europe (like the French Revolution). The only difference is that the "official government" is a sham, while the "real government" - the corporate plutocrats - are holding on to power by telling a bunch of deluded fucking rednecks called "tea partiers" that anyone wise to the corporatocracy is a "socialist" or a "communist."

Re:American rights?

[moj0joj0]

Please allow me to expand upon this a little bit:

As early as the mid-1800's the trusts and tycoons had been trying, without success, for decades to have the SCOTUS declare corporations people. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 2003, the SCOTUS declared corporate funding cannot be limited under the First Amendment, in 2010 SCOTUS declared money to be speech and removed all limits to corporate spending on lobbying.

The corporate person-hood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

Result: corporations, government licensed creatures, now have become the government, by using their wealth to "unfairly influence elections." This lead to the first stirrings of unrest in the civil populous, most notably the 'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrations, citing no faith in their elected officials because of the undue power wielded by corporations and special interest groups to influence law makers.

Now, protected by the very institutions that had been in place to protect people, citizens of the United States are denied at least two of the traditional corner stones of a democracy. Those foundations stones being the Ballot and Jury box.

Timeline: -Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporate political contributions to national campaigns. -Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, landmark campaign financing legislation. -Buckley v. Valeo (1976) upheld limits on campaign contributions, but held that spending money to influence elections is protected speech as in the first amendment. -First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) upheld the rights of corporations to spend money in non-candidate elections (i.e. ballot initiatives and referendums). -Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting that "[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections." -Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain–Feingold), banned corporate funding of issue advocacy ads that mentioned candidates close to an election. -McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), substantially upheld McCain–Feingold. -Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) weakened McCain–Feingold, but upheld core of McConnell. -Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

Re:American rights?

[Grishnakh]

There's a little more to it than that. The corporate plutocrats have effectively used the old maxim "divide and conquer", by having a system where there's only two parties, and there's really no difference between them (when you look at their actions, not their words). They get popular support by pandering to different groups; one panders to religious extremists and "deluded fucking rednecks" as you call them, the other panders to "liberals", "progressives", etc. They tell their target groups what they want to hear, whether it's "hope and change!", or "we need to ban contraception", or "we need to eliminate income taxes" or whatever. Then when they get elected, they simply continue the same policies with little or no change, while distracting the voters with "terrorists", or "the other party is being obstructionist", or "we can't allow this big corporations to fail or else the economy will be destroyed, so we're going to give them a no-strings bailout package", or any other excuse they can come up with.

Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your police state.

You know you've given up on the government when...

[orphiuchus]

When you're response to garbage like this changes from outrage, and a motivation to act, to a sigh and a slump of the shoulders.

You know what? Fuck it. The majority in this country doesn't understand or care whats going on in Washington, and the corporations now run both political parties, but at least I get to keep my guns. Well, I cant use them in self defense anymore, but they sure do look neat.

Re:House v Senate

[Charliemopps]

This has nothing to do with left and right. It has to do with the inevitable road to subservience that government control of social policy always leads to.

Re:China copies U.S. Intellectual Property...

[jd]

Indeed. Didn't the US do this for a longish while, signing up to the International treaties after they'd got the good stuff?

I'm not saying that China is "faultless" or the US is "all bad", but let's face facts - America would not have made the progress it has if it had respected European patent laws and European property rights. If it wants to claim China is in the wrong, then I have nothing against that provided it is NOT for the purpose of maintaining a hegemony obtained solely through the same practices. If China is guilty, then American corporations and the American government owe Europe a percentage of the profits secured through IP theft.

Sure, that might push the US into recession. Isolating China and closing down all counterfeit goods plus genuine goods based on stolen IP would not merely put China into recession, it would bankrupt it. If you're willing to do the latter, you should be man enough to accept the former.

The good news is that 100+ years of compound interest for some of the products and 60+ years of accumulated value in the case of property illegally confiscated from British and other Allied nations during WW2 should cover the combined debts of Italy, Greece, Spain and Ireland, and leave enough left over for the heads of State to put in advance orders for GTA 5.

So bye-bye these American rights

[jpapon]

A long, long time ago...

I can still remember

How that music used to make me smile.

And I knew if I had my chance

That I could make those people dance

And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.

But legislation made me shiver

With every takedown I’d deliver.

Bad news on the doorstep;

I couldn’t take one more step.

I can’t remember if I cried

When I read about their lawless crime

But something touched me deep inside

The day the freedom died.

Re:china copys us stuff and pass it off as there o

[turing_m]

World of Warcraft?

Re:china copys us stuff and pass it off as there o

[waddleman]

For example most microwaves are missing the ability to have constant output with variable power level. Now microwaves duty cycle unless you by the higher end Panasonic with "Inverter Technology". What was once standard component is now a differentiating feature for higher price models.