Slashdot Mirror


Protect IP Act May Be Amended

angry tapir writes "The controversial U.S. copyright enforcement bill called The Protect IP Act may be amended on the Senate floor later this month in response to ongoing concerns about its provisions affecting Internet service providers and the domain-name system, according to the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat."

33 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry, but fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We still don't want it even with an amendments.

    1. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Xanny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know it is drony and hive minded and all that other jazz, but let us be honest: those in congress do not care if you want this bill or not. They just want it passed, so they get their payout by big media for passing it. They barely know how to use email because they are all ancient farts, but they are not ignorant - they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history, and for politicians, it is a bad thing - educated and informed people will decide representatives based on their voting records, rather than talking points, and they want anything but to be held accountable.

      SOPA / PIPA / NDAA all show the true colors of our political system in the USA - paid for by corporations, and always against the interests of the people, because career politicians need ways to keep people ignorant, voting for them, and preferably, not voting at all. The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket. And then they can get paid off day after day by big business to pass laws completely against the spirit of America, freedom, and entrepreneurship (hello hundred year copyright) and sit on their laurels waiting for the next election cycle to talk about abortion, illegal immigrants, and nebulous "jobs" and who is making more "jobs".

      I know I'm extremely hypocritical about saying it, because honestly, I do not want to inconvenience myself to change a broken political system I have inherited from hundreds of years of Americans. I want change to happen without having to make sacrifices for it. I want government to be run the way I want, even though I have no political experience. But we are losing our freedoms and we have lost our representation, so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system, we are just going downhill. And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

    2. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amending an "IP" "protection" bill is like cleaning the engine cylinders of a bomb-rigged Yugo as it hurtles toward a crowded mall--better to just detonate it before it even makes the parking lot.

      --unless, of course, said mall is filled with mindless zombies instead of people. Perhaps the government of this crowded mall looked at our voting record and thinks we are all mindless zombies. I'm not sure I could blame them then.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket

      So you recommend that people grudgingly continue to vote for the fossilized farts who don't represent them just to inconvenience them? Do you understand that by casting a vote you legitimize the system, so whatever corrupt dickhead wins the election can point to the results and say "See, most Americans voted, therefore I'm what the people really want!". Make your displeasure known, it's the only way to show how disillusioned you are with the current "one-party" political system.

    4. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything. The politicians don't care if the people legitimize the system, as long as they get their money and power.

      At least, by casting a vote, you can nudge the system in the right direction. It's a lot more than what you would get by not voting.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Strawser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history

      Not break it as much as control it. I doubt they see that as a bad thing. In the olden day it was difficult for people who don't have access to large amounts of capital to publish information to a large audience, and people with large amounts of capital are already a part of the system. With the intarwebz, anyone has that publishing capability, and the US Government has little control over that. This gives them that control.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    6. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything

      Sad, but true. For Congress Creatures(tm), it's all about obtaining the numbers for re-election. If you're disgusted and inclined to vote against them, they *hope* you *won't* vote. Their strategists will say, "we'll lose support on this one, but after all, we have time before the next election. We have a war chest and can afford $$$$ TV and radio ads. We can get our base back [by opposing the war] / [supporting the war] / [being pro-choice] / [being pro-life] / whatever. We'll run negative ads to attack our opponent. And if we can demoralize the opposition, make them believe that their vote is pointless, so much the better."

      A high turnout ALWAYS sends a message, even if they're re-elected. If your Creature was re-elected by a 10% margin in the previous election, but pulls out a squeaker in this one -- especially if he/she sees a good bit if his/her "base" go for a third party candidate -- it will make him or her think.

      Hopefully, anyway. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    7. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yes, Congressional officials don't care about whether or not YOU want it, because let's face it, you don't have any stake what so ever in monetization or piracy of IP goods. So you really don't give one shit or another.

      We do have a stake in what our laws are and Protect IP will impact every one of us. We have an interest in not being censored.

      Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

      Will you shut up about every topic that doesn't involve how you make your income? I see you've posted on a number of stories with different topics. How dare you comment on things unrelated to your employment?

      The only justification of copyright in US law is the progress of science and useful arts. I don't care how artistic you think you are, you don't get to screw the country over regarding the progress for the sake of your profits. It is more fitting to say that anyone currently working on such "intellectual goods" ipso facto does not require changes to copyright law to provide an incentive as they have demonstrated that the current law is sufficient to motivate them to work in that industry.

    8. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.

      As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.

    9. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that when you vote somebody out, all their garbage laws stay behind.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Informative

      This gives them that control.

      I agree. Taking away advertisement money to sites that post nagative oppionons about candidates because they linked to an article, or snipped some of a "copyrighted" article into theirs, is about an inch down the slope PIPA will take us.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    11. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It goes back further than that. One of the biggest expansions of federal power was actually regarding narcotics. Notice that Prohibition required a constitutional amendment - at the time, the federal government didn't have the authority to prohibit the sale of alcohol with anything less than a constitutional amendment. The closest they could have managed would be to prohibit its transport across state lines under the commerce clause. Today, a few supreme court rulings later, and it doesn't need any such amendment to ban all the currently prohibited narcotics: A simple law will suffice.

    12. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Informative

      record labels are making a LIVING based on how well THEIR art is received, you say ?

      are you a fucking moron ? excuse me, but really, are you a fucking idiot ?

      record labels do NOTHING other than keeping bands perpetually in debt to them, and give just cents over dozens of dollars of album sales, forcing them to go on tours worldwide not to make money, but to be able to pay the 'loans' they got from the record label in the initial contracts.

      http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

      http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/07/13/1737224

      THEY DONT EVEN PAY ARTISTS !

      http://gizmodo.com/5417318/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads

      http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

      you dont know shit about this, yet you are making grandstand statements like 'When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk'.

      LETS talk then. lets talk about how record labels are not paying musicians, keeping them in perpetual debt, dodging taxes and royalties, and gulping 90% of the revenue generated by content sales.

      or alternatively, you can just shut the fuck up, and educate yourself before you make another grandstanding statement for next time. i think that's the better option.

    13. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      The key is not voting for a Democrat instead of a Republican or vice versa. By the time of the general election it's too late.

      The primaries are what matter. In most cases, the reason you only have a choice between an imbecile and a turd sandwich is because the Republican primary chose an imbecile and the Democratic primary chose a turd sandwich. You can pretty well bet that there were candidates running in those primaries that would do you better -- certainly you have a better chance of that with six candidates running in a primary than with two running in the general election. On top of that, because fewer people vote in primaries, your vote counts for more when you do.

    14. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in California, and by the time the primaries come here, the race is already over. I don't get to vote for (D) or (R) Candidates for President, at least I don't have a vote that counts in any meaningful way.

      Primaries do matter, but only for those "early" states. The reason we have a choice between Imbecile and Turd Sandwich is because we don't have meaningful elections.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Someone help me out here - business question by mykos · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

    I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

    1. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

      Capitalism?

    2. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits. I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

      Capitalism.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SOPA could be the leverage to get all the other IP stuff passed. They'll take this to the brink then say, "all right, we won't do SOPA". Everybody will be so relieved they'll overlook all the other laws they just slipped through.

      Next time it will be something SOPA plus something that makes SOPA look mild by comparison. We'll get in such a panic over the other one that we'll let SOPA through with a sigh of relief that we "won".

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Next time? they are already crafting SOPA-II

      It's called the OPEN act. and they are in the initial stages. It's exactly as you describe. but nobody is paying attention to it, exactly as they have it planned.

      http://youtu.be/9TpZJA9EIPY -- On how we got here, and how this fight is not over with. The scumbags in congress have no intention in stopping this behavior.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

      Evil.

      Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties. Say I have a business transporting furniture. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $200 because they're worth more than $200 to me. You sell the horse and buggy whip to me for $200 because they're worth less than $200 to you. In this way, even though the amount of stuff does not change from the transaction, its value increases. With each transaction, items get moved to the hands of people who are better able to make use of them to improve their productivity. Whereas the horse and buggy whip only cost you $190 worth of productivity to make, in my hands it can generate (say) $310 worth of productivity.

      When a company forms a monopoly or subverts the market with laws like the content industry is trying, they break this mechanism. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $300 because it's worth $310 to me. To you they're only worth $190 because that's what they cost you to make. In functioning capitalism, market forces would drive the price down to about $200. But by subverting the free market with your monopoly and eliminating competition, you're able to drive the price the other way and get it near the maximum I'd be willing to pay. I end up paying an extra $100.

      Furthermore, I should be able to buy a horseless carriage for $250 which will give me $500 worth of productivity. But you've gotten a law passed which bans it from the market. So by being forced to buy the horse and buggy whip, I also lose out on $190 worth of productivity.

      The consequence of all this is that I no longer have an extra $100 to spend on something else productive, and my productivity has been lowered by $190 from where it should be. And you, because the extra $100 you made came too easily, you don't fully appreciate its value and are more likely to waste the extra money you make on silly things like gold plated toilet seats. The economy overall is harmed, the rate of technological progress slows down, recessions become more common, and increases in the standard of living slows down or even regresses.

      It's normal to put your needs ahead of those of the single person you're dealing with in a transaction. People who buy high and sell low don't survive for long, and everyone has a personal obligation to look out for themselves. But putting your needs ahead of all of society by subverting free market forces for personal gain is just plain evil.

    6. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hurm. Today I learned the difference between Score2, Insightful and Score 5, Funny all comes down to punctuation.

      That's pretty cool.

      That's pretty cool?

      That's pretty cool!

      iEsta muy frio!

      Kakko ii desu!

      (And now, let's see how the shotgun approach works.)

    7. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by cptdondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That sort of backyard capitalism only works when there's relative parity between the parties. In our current "big business is good, regulation is bad, consumer protection is bad" there is no parity.

      A health insurance company doesn't care if they lose you as a customer. They only want you if you are a net profit to them. And because the companies can legally collude and share information, no other company will want you either. So there's no parity.

      There's parity if you buy a soda; you can always buy Coke, or Pepsi, or RC, or the local brand. But the things that are really critical to us as a society have no parity between the parties.

    8. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where's that Heinlein quote...oh, yes, here it is:

      "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
      that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
      public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
      with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
      circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
      supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
      individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
      of history be stopped, or turned back."

      - Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SOPA, PIPA, whatever will all fail, because by design, they're fatally flawed. When everyone gets their IP protected, it will be impossible to develop something new.

      You seem to believe that's an unintended consequence. The current big players have no desire to see anyone 'develop something new' that might take away their business.

      Obviously it will hasten America's decline into bankruptcy and irrelevance, but so long as they can rake in the money for a few more years they don't care.

  3. put pressure on your congresscritter by MollyB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After reading the earlier Slashdot story, I wrote all three of both our Vermont congressmen and urged them to reconsider support for PIPA and SOPA. The only reply I received was from Sen. Patrick Leahy.

    Here's a snippet from TFA with a relevant notion: contacting your representative can't hurt:

    "[...]However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters."," [Leahy] said.

  4. To elaborate on the summary... by PSVMOrnot · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't so much an amendment, as a plan to think about amending it. From the article:

    "...plans to offer an amendment that would require a study of the impact of the ISP provisions in the bill before they are implemented. If the study found negative impacts, it's likely the ISP provision would be killed."

    The above is pretty much all of the article which is not political filibustering, back patting or stating things which won't change (the payment freezing, and search engine stuff).

    TL;DR version: they're thinking about maybe possibly backing down on one point.

    1. Re:To elaborate on the summary... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is why I believe we need limitations on how fast a bill can be voted for.

      Something like 1 day/page should be a good way to either (a) slow the legislature down and give them time to actually read the bills, or (b) make the laws much, much shorter.

      Oh, and no overlapping. No "March 15th is the day for these three bills". One day per page (with predetermined font and page sizes so there's no loophole here) of a bill.

      "Emergency bills" should have a higher threshold of voting such as 4/5 or 5/6 majority. If there's greater than 1/6 opposition then it probably isn't an emergency.

      Oh look, I just stopped a whole buttload of bad laws coming out every year! Now all we have to do is actually get them to follow these rules. Ha.

  5. Give em enough rope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and let them hang themselves.

    - Increase the length of a copyright to 200 years.
    - Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence, so the MAFIAA can't pick and choose who gets pinged.
    - and make it mandatory to defend your IP in court or lose your rights - similar to trademarks.

    Then see how much the MAFIAA want this fight.

  6. History repeats itself. by VJmes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a pattern to this. Politicians at the behest of self-interest groups and self-appoint moralists, begin to regulate what was a benign social issue. Uninformed, policy gets drafted by these people which gains traction from these self-interest, righteous minorities and soon thanks to ignorant third-parties the very inaccuracies that are used to draft these policies are perpetuated. The use of loaded words like criminal, scourge & terror helps to convince a mostly oblivious public. Before long the regulation comes into effect and pushes the issue underground, initially it's deemed a success. However as it becomes apparent that the matter is thriving underground, a war is declared, harsher penalties combined with the perpetuation of gross-inaccuracies and lies continue to waste your tax dollars.
    It's history repeating itself, and it's always follows a similar pattern. Though the end result is the same; tax dollars are wasted, usage increases unabated and the constant game of cat and mouse continues because those elected to listen to the people who know best, won't.

    If I went about my job with the same level of ignorance, incompetence and sheer corruption as the supposed leaders of the United States, I'd be out of a job very quickly. If the private sector won't tolerate it, why does capital hill seem to be a breeding ground for these bottom-feeders?

    1. Re:History repeats itself. by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where history is actually repeating itself lies in the fact that bought-out politicians are nothing new. This comment is going to sound like it's off at a tangent, but I'm sharing it to maybe calm some people down. To quote someone I heard a while back, "hate is like a deadly poison. YOU'RE the one drinking it, but you hope the OTHER guy dies!"

      Instead of hopeless or mindless rage, channel that into a determined anger that will actually change things. The biggest aid for that is a sense of perspective.

      I like to read alternate history; a good one is Eric Flint's "Rivers of War" series (currently just two books, but I'm gonna give him a noogie if he doesn't produce #3 pretty soon) for a good look at the political situation right after the US was founded. Even then, there were political parties, deals in back rooms, posturing, money and favors ... and (of course) a disastrous war that made some people rich, others poor.

      A lot was said (admittedly, with some justification) about Cheney and Haliburton during W's term, but go back to WWII. Go watch Little Orphan Annie; her benefactor was called "Daddy Warbucks." That was a common joke back then: it was a guy who got rich selling arms during the war. Go back to the Civil War, and you'll find the same thing: there were some people who got ridiculously wealthy off of that conflict. Even in the Revolutionary war, which is the closest you might come to an "ideological" conflict, there were people who stood to lose or gain a great deal on the outcome, and it determined their actions.

      In times of peace, the same thing happens. As Flint points out, some supported a National Bank for noble reasons, but others supported it simply because they thought it was a path to riches. Those who opposed it were equally divided.

      What I've said, in my usual long-winded way, is that politicians have ALWAYS been corrupt. Don't ever give up trying to Fight The Machine(tm), but don't let rage consume you and don't (worst of all) become demoralized if you think your efforts make no difference.

      Usual disclaimer: just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  7. Re:No confidence. by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People have always been disinterested in continuous political engagement. We don't have the time for it. We have jobs. We have personal and local problems. We simply don't have the attention span or energy to manhandle the political powers that be all the time.

    What is supposed to contain that issue is that the government... at least in the US... isn't supposed to be this powerful. It's been out of control for three generations so this is nothing new. But it's really well beyond anything the people can keep in check.

    It's been said that the worst thing that ever happened to Washington DC was air conditioning. There was a time when it was just too hot and nasty to stay in the city throughout much of the year. Might as well add central heating to that as well. Congress just meets too often, passes too many laws, and doesn't particularly think about any of them very deeply.

    Nearly all legislation should be state or city legislation where as the Federal government should be as minimalistic as possible if only because we can't really control or escape federal excesses as easily as state issues. If a state goes crazy we have 50 others. No critical harm if one of them goes broke or does something crazy. But the federal government is another matter.

    Perhaps I'm showing my ideological stripes here, but I think this would be less of an issue if congress AND the presidency got their wings clipped a bit. They're too eager to involve themselves in our lives and too disinterested with doing their traditional jobs.

    I think the president has more then enough to worry about with the economy and foreign policy. He really doesn't need to concern himself with anything else right now. And as to congress, anything that doesn't fix the budget problem should be sidelined. I don't want to hear ANYTHING from congress that doesn't either increase revenue or reduce spending. No new regulation. No new issues. NOTHING. Just balance the stupid budget.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. See, the problem here is by unity100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The top 5% of society is taking 72% of everything.

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    of course, that is an optimistic statistic. since, the bulk of the wealth at the top is undetectable in offshore banks, swiss banks, various fund schemes etc. if you count this unaccounted for wealth in, it really goes towards 1% owning near 90% or more. (the total wealth in swiss banks is assumed to be 7 times or so the value of everything - goods, services, land, everything - in the world, so go figure.).

    now, see, the 1% people on the top, want to keep taking such 70-90% of everything. and the whole story behind laws like this, is that. that is a bigger share of the economy than biggest dukes had in medieval times.

    so life, is 90% more expensive because this 1% segment gets 90% out of the economy and everyone has to work to generate that extra 90%, and give it to them through the system. imagine how life would be, if everything was 90% cheaper ... or 90% more abundant ...

    so, instead of thinking this like 'some law bought by lobby interests', think it as like 'feudal lords trying to keep their hold on peasantry' -> for this is exactly what it is.

    doing this, would break various mental conditionings that were built into your brain through the education and media systems and through conditioning of society at large. and, you would be free to seek any alternatives. the least benefit would be that you would be able to analyze the situation objectively, instead of instinctively skipping by the fact that someone in this society is taking 90% of every effort you spare, away from you through the economy - not even taxes. taxes are calculated after that 90% is taken away from you.

    ( for the naive out there - NO, if you are running your own business, this does not change - you are still spending on a lot of costs to run your business or your life, and ANY cost you spend out of your pocket - or opportunity costs - has that 90% drain on them - for, you cant exist outside economy while being in it, even if you work for yourself )