Originally Posted by ZephyrusX
I think the Attorney General has the power to send stop and desist letters to third parties as well, such as advertising businesses. I'm wondering if that would cause businesses and websites to engage in self-censorship as well or outright blacklisting imposed by advertising firms? There may be no discussion over whether a site violates copyright law. In a bid to keep things operational, advertising firm A might tell website B to remove links and affiliations from this list of websites as they may potentially violate copyright law. It might not be the case if they go to court, but yah, just in case... don't disrupt our advertising business...
I'm pretty sure he doesn't have that power with respect to copy right infringement. That really is the whole point of the bill. Giving the Attorney General the ability to compel ISPs to block non US sites that are affecting US copyright holders. If he had the ability to do that now why don't you think he's using it. Hollywood has deep pockets and they want this pretty bad.
Originally Posted by Beingist
Correct, which is why I said that it was valuable information, and why I could see a proposal to amend the current laws (that protect copyright infringement). But this bill doesn't amend the current code, it proposes an entirely new law,
and one that subverts due process.
As for how it subverts due process, if you still don't understand how the current bill does that, maybe you could visit my blog at The Daily Chronolog
. I explain it there.
Basically, what it does is get ISPs and host sites to participate in shutting down those sites that are merely suspected
of infringement, before it's ever proven that they actually are.
I agree that it is a new law but I am still not seeing the subversion of due process. As far as I can tell this is still a process that requires the Attorney General to work with the court system to get things done. This is a far cry from say the Patriot-Act where no such step is needed. Now that is a true subversion of due process. Really the big add here is how much responsibility do 3 party entities have in assisting with affecting someone who may be using their service for unlawful actions. My understanding of past cases is that basically the ISPs have stood on the ground that they are like highways and you can't hold them responsible for bank robbers who might use their highway to get away. So the courts would not compel them to block the sites. If this bill passes basically its saying that you can't stand there and pretend you have nothing to do with bank robbery if the robbers are using your highway every day.
Originally Posted by Lil Chris
It won't change anything. The sites can still be accessed directly by ip#. It will make it different, in that google will have a more difficult time indexing sites by name, but really. It also will only apply to those sites hosted in the US. So the new law, under their proposed reasoning is misguided to say the least or is not the full truth in their motives. So if their goal is to stop pirating, it's not a very good one as it's ineffective. I think congress just likes to mess stuff up...
I'm pretty sure you will not be able to access the sites by ip#. The ISP will block the ip address. That is not to say it will completely stop piracy. Like Brutha said it will probably go to some kind of i2p service. That would be a pretty satisfactory outcome for Hollywood. If they can turn the torrent sites into a trickle then they are basically getting what they want. You guys are right that you can't really stop a tech savvy pirate, but you can stop masses from easy piracy. I kind of liken this situation to the PS3. Can you copy PS3 games, Yes, but it take a lot more steps than what joe public is willing to do and so Sony is very satisfied this generation on how their anti-piracy measures have panned out.