Free Internet Under Attack!

[Mikennick]

Under this law,sites like Wikileaks will no longer be possible.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Mikennick

Under this law,sites like Wikileaks will no longer be possible.

Except your wrong this law has nothing to do with a site like Wikileaks.

[ZephyrusX]

I worded what I said poorly. I meant that is the type of power that the new laws want to give the Attorney General.

Originally Posted by Spinoza

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.

[Brutha]

Except your wrong this law has nothing to do with a site like Wikileaks.

Of course it has. Wikileaks hosts a bunch of material that isn't from the US government and is therefore theoretically protected by copyright.
Wikileaks makes the argument that it's fair use to publish the material this way.

In a world where an ISP can simple shut down the website when they suspect it of violating copyrights violations it might be easy to get Wikileaks blacklisted.

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.

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.

I think the technical process of hardening software to work decentrally is that difficult.

Making it decentral would be enough. You don't even need the annoymity to evade this law.

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.

That's not really the situation Comcast is for example both an ISP and a party that doesn't want copyright violations to happen.
At the moment Comcast thinks it doesn't have the legal right to go around shutting websites down.
This bill is supposed to give comcast that right. That the point where due process gets removed.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Of course it has. Wikileaks hosts a bunch of material that isn't from the US government and is therefore theoretically protected by copyright.
Wikileaks makes the argument that it's fair use to publish the material this way.

Care to give an example of a document that has copyright that Wikileaks is hosting?

Originally Posted by Brutha

In a world where an ISP can simple shut down the website when they suspect it of violating copyrights violations it might be easy to get Wikileaks blacklisted.

I think the technical process of hardening software to work decentrally is that difficult.

Making it decentral would be enough. You don't even need the annoymity to evade this law.
That's not really the situation Comcast is for example both an ISP and a party that doesn't want copyright violations to happen.
At the moment Comcast thinks it doesn't have the legal right to go around shutting websites down.
This bill is supposed to give comcast that right. That the point where due process gets removed.

As far as I can tell this law doesn't apply to Wikileaks at all. I'm trying to picture the relation you are stating but I just don’t see it. This law is targeted at getting intermediaries involved with protecting copyright. If wikileaks is really publishing copyrighted material why are they not being sued out of existence? Say they published an early copy of the last Harry Potter book. I'm pretty sure the publish company would come after them and rightfully so.

BitTorrent software already works decentrally, so again I'm not really sure what you’re saying with this statement.

Last I'm pretty sure Comcast does have the legal right to shut down websites that it hosts. They can choose not to do business with anyone they want. They and other intermediaries are simply choosing not be involved and have been standing firm on that ground.

[Lil Chris]

The issue is whether corporations & the Attorney General should have the power to expedite these measures. They already have the tools to combat p2p and copyright infringments, so why do they need this?

You should watch the video
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet on Vimeo

I'm pretty sure you will not be able to access the sites by ip#. The ISP will block the ip address.

Only if the ISP is complicit and It's not the ISP's their messing with, it's the DNS registrars and search engines.


RE: you comment on wikileaks
Taken from wikipedia:
Civil liberties issues

Floyd Abrams said “The Protect IP Act neither compels nor prohibits free speech or communication… the bill sets a high bar in defining when a website or domain is eligible for potential actions by the Attorney General…”.[43] The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation likewise supports the PROTECT IP Act and has said that concerns about the domain name remedy in the legislation are undercut by the already ongoing use of that approach to counter spam and malware.[44]
The bill has been criticized by Abigail Phillips of Electronic Frontier Foundation for not being specific about what constitutes an infringing web site. For example, if WikiLeaks were accused of distributing copyrighted content, U.S. search engines could be served a court order to block search results pointing to Wikileaks. Requiring search engines to remove links to an entire website altogether due to an infringing page would raise free speech concerns regarding lawful content hosted elsewhere on the site.[25]
Google chairman Eric Schmidt has stated that the measures called for in the PROTECT IP Act are overly simple solutions to a complex problem, and that the precedent set by pruning DNS entries is bad from the viewpoint of free speech and would be a step toward less permissive Internet environments, such as China's. As chairman of the company that owns the world's largest search engine, Schmidt has declared "if there is a law that requires DNSs to do X and it's passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it."[45]

I agree with the quote from Fred Wilson:
"If we need to amend the DMCA, let's do it with a negotiation between the interested parties, not with a bill written by the content industry's lobbyists and jammed through Congress on a fast track," urged venture capitalist and Business Insider columnist Fred Wilson in an October 29th editorial on the changes that the current House and Senate versions of the proposed legislation would make to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. "Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and startups like Dropbox, Kickstarter, and Twilio are the leading exporters and job creators of this time. They are the golden goose of the economy and we cannot kill the golden goose to protect industries in decline,"

[Lil Chris]

Let's also throw another possible situation out there. You own a business website that is legit, yet unknown to you your site has been hacked and is partaking in copyright infringement or distribution of copyright material. Your site is now being shutdown, paypal has been frozen, ad revenue frozen etc... How easy do you think it will be to have the situation remedied?

The potential for widespread disruption is just to great, to justify this legislative action, IMO

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Let's also throw another possible situation out there. You own a business website that is legit, yet unknown to you your site has been hacked and is partaking in copyright infringement or distribution of copyright material. Your site is now being shutdown, paypal has been frozen, ad revenue frozen etc... How easy do you think it will be to have the situation remedied?

The potential for widespread disruption is just to great, to justify this legislative action, IMO

+1

Well said.

[Beingist]

Some updates...

Overkill on Internet piracy - Right Turn - The Washington Post
Internet piracy bill: A free speech 'kill switch' - The Hill's Congress Blog
Google chairman says online piracy bill would 'criminalize' the Internet - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

[Lil Chris]

Beingist,
in your second link I saw this:
"Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content. Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website."

&

Who’s vulnerable to this legislation?

“Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs,” writes David Sohn, senior policy council at the Center on Democracy and Technology. “(Internet Service Providers) would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior. Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rights-holders allege hasn't done enough to police infringement.”

Yeah, disturbing to say the least. I've got vps on a cloud server and I'm slightly disturbed by this.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Yeah, disturbing to say the least. I've got vps on a cloud server and I'm slightly disturbed by this.

I, myself, am more than slightly disturbed.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I, myself, am more than slightly disturbed.

If I wasn't tech savvy, I might be too. But, yes it's quite bothersome.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Let's also throw another possible situation out there. You own a business website that is legit, yet unknown to you your site has been hacked and is partaking in copyright infringement or distribution of copyright material. Your site is now being shutdown, paypal has been frozen, ad revenue frozen etc... How easy do you think it will be to have the situation remedied?

The potential for widespread disruption is just to great, to justify this legislative action, IMO

I'm curious here what do you think the remedy to the above situation should be. Your site is being used to commit copyright infringement, what would be the appropriate solution to this situation.

[Spinoza]

Google’s, Yahoo’, Microsoft’s, and IP(Internet Provider) companies resistance to this bill basically boils down to it will cost us money. We don’t want to have to go through the motions of having to blocking an IP address because it doesn’t make us any money.

So criticism really comes in two flavors.
It’s just too broad and it’s not specific enough. This can be a legitimate concern for any law but at some point a line has to be drawn and we have to let case law do its thing. You can not write a bill that details every situation. We litigate these matters in court and precedent is setup to more fully detail and incorporate new laws into our existing system. That’s the way our system works.

I want add that this is a legitimate concern about the bill and bills in general but the bill is still a work in progress and this is a know concern. Once the bill emerges from committee one would be able to take seriously if the bill is really too general.

The second criticism basically boils down to it only takes an allegation to stop PayPal support and get Google to block your site..etc. Come on really? First it’s false in the sense that all you have to do is make an accusation. The Attorney general has to pursue the matter through the court system. Our court system is not cheap and does not spin on a dime. There are already countries that have laws like this on the books; the results that happened afterward did not include widespread abuse of false accusations.

So the fear is everyone going to go litigation crazy after this bill passes. Its seems to me that most instances when this happens is when there is a chance for a huge monetary reward for the accusing side since lawyers then have the opportunity to take a portion of that settlement. There is no remedy like that in this bill. Nothing in it makes the potential copy right violator pay back the copy right holder at least not in this bill, so there is no great compulsion for lawyers to grab menial cases.

I would also add that I am still reading about [H.R.2839.IH][PDF] still willing to change my mind about it. Thanks to the previous poster for supplying the link.

[Brutha]

Care to give an example of a document that has copyright that Wikileaks is hosting?

The documents from the Islandic banks would be one example. Most of what Wikileaks released pre-2010 are subject to copyright. All documents that aren't created by the US government are subject to copyrighted.
In the pre-2010 days Wikileaks also lost access to their domain for a few days because of a court injunction that was about reveal intellectual projerty of a bank.

Google’s, Yahoo’, Microsoft’s, and IP(Internet Provider) companies resistance to this bill basically boils down to it will cost us money. We don’t want to have to go through the motions of having to blocking an IP address because it doesn’t make us any money.

In that case they would push for a way to charge a fee for blocking IP addresses.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I'm curious here what do you think the remedy to the above situation should be. Your site is being used to commit copyright infringement, what would be the appropriate solution to this situation.

The appropriate solution is not to pass this law. There are already tools to handle copyright infringement in this country.

This law is not designed for people located in the US. Most US based ISP's have no problem shutting down websites that are in the wrong or are doing illegal things, like copyright infringement. This law is designed to police other countries, to FORCE them to comply (something the US should not be in the business of).

The second criticism basically boils down to it only takes an allegation to stop PayPal support and get Google to block your site..etc. Come on really? First it’s false in the sense that all you have to do is make an accusation. The Attorney general has to pursue the matter through the court system. Our court system is not cheap and does not spin on a dime. There are already countries that have laws like this on the books; the results that happened afterward did not include widespread abuse of false accusations.

If other countries have these laws on the books, why are we even discussing this new law as an option? If our court system is not cheap and is already handling situations like these, why are we discussing this new law as an option? The precedent for abuse is just too high. Look what happens to a teacher when an accusation gets aimed at them for inappropriate behavior?

I have a question for you though... Are you affiliated with the MPAA or the entertainment industry in any facet? You kinda sound like you have a stake in the outcome.

There was a company a few years ago that tried to claim they had patent rights on audio and visual transmissions over the internet (the company was acadia or something like that). This company sent out threatening legal letters to try and get websites to pay them for copyright infringement. I know, I got a letter. It was pretty big. Turns out they didn't have a case. but many companies signed an agreement to pay fees to this company in exchange for not being hauled into court.

All I'm saying is this is not a simple black and white situation, and rushing a bill through those technical idiots in congress is not the correct solution. But, there is also some shadyness to this proposed legislature. Whomever is trying to push it through, is not being totally honest in their intentions.

I read where, in the preliminary discussions or hearing (not sure what it's called) the only outside Representative was a lady lawyer from Google. The rest were for this proposed law, essentially stacking the deck for this new law. There is some shady business going on with this situation... Which is why I don't understand your support behind it.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The documents from the Islandic banks would be one example. Most of what Wikileaks released pre-2010 are subject to copyright. All documents that aren't created by the US government are subject to copyrighted.
In the pre-2010 days Wikileaks also lost access to their domain for a few days because of a court injunction that was about reveal intellectual projerty of a bank.
In that case they would push for a way to charge a fee for blocking IP addresses.

I think you may be confusing trade secrets and intellectual property with copyright. This law does not apply to the fomer two. This is from wikipedia :

Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by jurisdiction, but these can include poems, theses, plays, other literary works, movies, dances, musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts, and industrial designs. Graphic designs and industrial designs may have separate or overlapping laws applied to them in some jurisdictions.[13][14]

Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.[15] For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but doesn't prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they're different enough to not be judged copies of Disney's.[15] In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses (See Fair Use, Fair Dealing). Meanwhile, other laws may impose additional restrictions that copyright does not — such as trademarks and patents.

Copyright laws are standardized somewhat through international conventions such as the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and international organizations such as the European Union or World Trade Organization require their member states to comply with them.


Interesting idea on having some system where blocking an IP address is purchaseable, not sure if I like that idea though.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

The appropriate solution is not to pass this law. There are already tools to handle copyright infringement in this country.

I'm still curious on how you think our current laws should and do handle this situation.

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

This law is not designed for people located in the US. Most US based ISP's have no problem shutting down websites that are in the wrong or are doing illegal things, like copyright infringement. This law is designed to police other countries, to FORCE them to comply (something the US should not be in the business of).

If other countries have these laws on the books, why are we even discussing this new law as an option? If our court system is not cheap and is already handling situations like these, why are we discussing this new law as an option? The precedent for abuse is just too high. Look what happens to a teacher when an accusation gets aimed at them for inappropriate behavior?

I totally agree this law is not meant for situations located here in the US. The point of the law is to give the Attorney General some ability to enforce copyright infringement against torrent sites located outside of the US that are facilitating copyright infringement. There is currently NOTHING the Attorney General can do about this, hence the need for a new law. Also it is not forcing any foreign country to do anything. The best example is the Pirate Bay. If this law passes the MPAA will go to the Attorney General and the Attorney General will request that Google, Microsoft and the ISP companies block access to this site working through the courts before it does this. The site will be free to continue, the only difference is that people who access the internet through ISPs in this country will no longer be able to view the site.

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

I have a question for you though... Are you affiliated with the MPAA or the entertainment industry in any facet? You kinda sound like you have a stake in the outcome.

I am not associated with the MPAA in anyway shape or form nor have I produced and copyrighted material although I do think I may produce some someday. So of course I need to ask you the same thing. Do you download and use copyrighted material from torrent sites. Do you have a stake in the outcome?

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

There was a company a few years ago that tried to claim they had patent rights on audio and visual transmissions over the internet (the company was acadia or something like that). This company sent out threatening legal letters to try and get websites to pay them for copyright infringement. I know, I got a letter. It was pretty big. Turns out they didn't have a case. but many companies signed an agreement to pay fees to this company in exchange for not being hauled into court.

All I'm saying is this is not a simple black and white situation, and rushing a bill through those technical idiots in congress is not the correct solution. But, there is also some shadyness to this proposed legislature. Whomever is trying to push it through, is not being totally honest in their intentions.

I read where, in the preliminary discussions or hearing (not sure what it's called) the only outside Representative was a lady lawyer from Google. The rest were for this proposed law, essentially stacking the deck for this new law. There is some shady business going on with this situation... Which is why I don't understand your support behind it.

I have to say that I only learned about this issue from this thread and originally it was linked to the information for this Bill
PROTECT IP Act of 2011 )[S.968.RS].....this is the bill in the senate and seems fairly reasonable to me, not perfect but what is. Now I realize there is a corresponding bill in the house....... Stop Online Piracy Act )[H.R.3261.IH] which is a lot more heavy handed and your right there are somethings in SOPA that would kill it for me. That being said we do not have a law that remedies this situation, one is needed and I'm sure one will get created someday.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I totally agree this law is not meant for situations located here in the US. The point of the law is to give the Attorney General some ability to enforce copyright infringement against torrent sites located outside of the US that are facilitating copyright infringement.

Have you read the law itself? Can you show us where this law targets only sites outside of U.S. jurisdiction?[/QUOTE]

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Have you read the law itself? Can you show us where this law targets only sites outside of U.S. jurisdiction?

I have read both proposed laws now and they do not distinguish between sites outside of the US or inside of the US. Although like Lil Chris said there are already laws on the books to do something about sites in the US and they aren't just blocked they are shut down. No reason to get Micrsoft and Google involved with those.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I have read both proposed laws now and they do not distinguish between sites outside of the US or inside of the US. Although like Lil Chris said there are already laws on the books to do something about sites in the US and they aren't just blocked they are shut down. No reason to get Micrsoft and Google involved with those.

Such is my point, and signifies the end of due process.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Such is my point, and signifies the end of due process.

Like I said previously the bill does require the Attorney General to work through the court system. Accused parties can address there issues in courts, nothing gets done unless a court approves it...or ie due process is served.

Although there are somethings in the SOPA bill which are a little murky on how it would be handled.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I'm still curious on how you think our current laws should and do handle this situation.

I'm not sure. Typically most times a cease and desist letter from an attorney is enough for simple copyright infringements (not usually enough for torrent site owners). With that said, most torrent sites do not charge for content either, so it's not considered commercial copyright infringement (see image below)

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I totally agree this law is not meant for situations located here in the US. The point of the law is to give the Attorney General some ability to enforce copyright infringement against torrent sites located outside of the US that are facilitating copyright infringement. There is currently NOTHING the Attorney General can do about this, hence the need for a new law. Also it is not forcing any foreign country to do anything. The best example is the Pirate Bay. If this law passes the MPAA will go to the Attorney General and the Attorney General will request that Google, Microsoft and the ISP companies block access to this site working through the courts before it does this. The site will be free to continue, the only difference is that people who access the internet through ISPs in this country will no longer be able to view the site.

Should the attorney general have the power to enforce other countries to comply to our laws? Isn't this what gets us into trouble, messing around with other countries laws. We should not be policing the world, even if they are doing wrong (the line should be drawn at physical damage/violence, not intellectual property IMO). I'm not sad for Hollywood, they are still making HUGE, HUGE profits and are a greedy bunch. They weren't complaining when they got to sell the same content over and over. first 8 track, then records, then tapes, then cd's. Once they went digital the rules changed.

If we've learned anything, stopping people from committing copyright infringement is a very difficult task. Nearly every form of protection has been broken. The only one I know that hasn't is called DigiCipher 2, or simply DCII. This is a complex system of encryption developed by general instruments now owned by Motorola. Used in c-band satellite.

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I am not associated with the MPAA in anyway shape or form nor have I produced and copyrighted material although I do think I may produce some someday. So of course I need to ask you the same thing. Do you download and use copyrighted material from torrent sites. Do you have a stake in the outcome?

LOL, TOUCHE.
No, I do not use torrent sites. I might produce copyrighted material some day as well, so I can see both sides of the issue too. In fact the issue has come up about 8-10 years ago when flash websites were the rage. People would blatantly steal the site and put their name on it, but it's not quite the same issue. But I think this image clears up some confusion...

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

I'm not sure. Typically most times a cease and desist letter from an attorney is enough for simple copyright infringements (not usually enough for torrent site owners). With that said, most torrent sites do not charge for content either, so it's not considered commercial copyright infringement (see image below)

Should the attorney general have the power to enforce other countries to comply to our laws? Isn't this what gets us into trouble, messing around with other countries laws. We should not be policing the world, even if they are doing wrong (the line should be drawn at physical damage/violence, not intellectual property IMO). I'm not sad for Hollywood, they are still making HUGE, HUGE profits and are a greedy bunch. They weren't complaining when they got to sell the same content over and over. first 8 track, then records, then tapes, then cd's. Once they went digital the rules changed.

If we've learned anything, stopping people from committing copyright infringement is a very difficult task. Nearly every form of protection has been broken. The only one I know that hasn't is called DigiCipher 2, or simply DCII. This is a complex system of encryption developed by general instruments now owned by Motorola. Used in c-band satellite.

LOL, TOUCHE.
No, I do not use torrent sites. I might produce copyrighted material some day as well, so I can see both sides of the issue too. In fact the issue has come up about 8-10 years ago when flash websites were the rage. People would blatantly steal the site and put their name on it, but it's not quite the same issue. But I think this image clears up some confusion...

1. ) This law doesn't compel foreign countries to do anything. If they didn't read our news they would be unaware anything is going on. There are no actions we are asking a foreign nation to do because of this law.

2. ) File sharing can be commercial copyright infringement. If it weren't we'd have plenty of torrent sites in this country, as far as I know none are hosted inside the US. The thing your picture ignores is the value of the created property to the owner. Piracy, stealing, file sharing all destroy the value of the created content for the owner thats why they are considered alike.

3. ) This whole it will never work and Hollywood is greedy are silly. If you think they're being to greedy don't watch or listen to their products.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Like I said previously the bill does require the Attorney General to work through the court system. Accused parties can address there issues in courts, nothing gets done unless a court approves it...or ie due process is served.

Although there are somethings in the SOPA bill which are a little murky on how it would be handled.

From Wikipedia:

The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement [...]

Okay, now, where's the due process in this, again? Where does the Attorney General fit into this scenario?

It's precisely in the "murkiness" of which you speak that due process is lost.

[Brutha]

I think you may be confusing trade secrets and intellectual property with copyright. This law does not apply to the fomer two. This is from wikipedia :

Wikileaks publishes source documents. All documents that aren't created by the US government are usually protected by copyright.
There might be some other countries which also releases it's document automatically in the public domain but if a company created a document that document is copyrighted.

If Wikileaks publish that document created by a company you can debate whether Wikileaks can do so under the fair use clause but in general the document is copyrighted. The source documents that Wikileaks publishes are no derivative works. They are copies unchanged comments of the orginal.
You can say that Wikileaks is engaging in fair use. I certainly think so. Other parties however might think differently.
Especially when it's their documents that are published and they are in a position to preventively block the IP address because they have economic control over an ISP.

While we are at the topic there a pretty good chance that this forum also hosts a few copyrighted documents that forum members who don't now US laws posted here. We moderators however don't have an ability to check in every case whether a post is authentic or copyrighted.

Some people uses copyrighted images as avatars. It however to burdensome to check in every case so we instead assume that posters know what they are doing and remove the avatar in question should we get a message by the copyright holder.

Nearly any online forum of a decent size hosts copyrighted content.

For some time \b on 4chan got censored in Australia because some of it's members hosted unlawful content even through they violated forum rules to do so.

I am not associated with the MPAA in anyway shape or form nor have I produced and copyrighted material although I do think I may produce some someday. So of course I need to ask you the same thing. Do you download and use copyrighted material from torrent sites. Do you have a stake in the outcome?

Of course you produce copyrighted material. On this forum you wrote 87 articles on which you own a copyright (and this forum has a license to display the content that you transfered through signing up).

How about JoChem: Biosemantics Group - Erasmus MC / LUMC - The joint chemical dictionary (Jochem)
The American Chemical Society claims they own CAS numbers. Should some ISP be able to preventively shut down JoChem because JoChem freely distributes the CAS numbers?
That would actually block some important scientific research that uses the JoChem dictionary for textmining medical documents. I actually raise my hand on the issue of having used JoChem academically and having to ask myself whether or not I'm in that process violated copyright. I was interning for a sort of public/private entity so I'm not even sure whether the possible copyright violation would have been mine or a violation of the entitiy.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

1. ) This law doesn't compel foreign countries to do anything. If they didn't read our news they would be unaware anything is going on. There are no actions we are asking a foreign nation to do because of this law.

Right, this law removes the choice for other countries to take or not take action by attempting to control the dns registrars.

Originally Posted by Spinoza

2. ) File sharing can be commercial copyright infringement. If it weren't we'd have plenty of torrent sites in this country, as far as I know none are hosted inside the US. The thing your picture ignores is the value of the created property to the owner. Piracy, stealing, file sharing all destroy the value of the created content for the owner that's why they are considered alike.

The picture was intended to be humorous (apparently it wasn't). I can see if your "artist" was not being paid at all, this might be a valid point. If there wasn't value in the created content the files wouldn't be shared anyway. I'll also point out, they have the means to track, verify, and charge people who use these sites as identified by lawsuits published in the news. This is why I sense a rouse to pass these laws.

The majority of citizens choose to purchase these works of art legally, IMO.

Originally Posted by Spinoza

3. ) This whole it will never work and Hollywood is greedy are silly. If you think they're being to greedy don't watch or listen to their products.

Wow, for real?

When it comes to subverting current laws and passing new legislation by means of lobbing to suit their needs at the expense of problematic schemes, it becomes greedy. But, as I stated before, I sense sinister motives that haven't been made clear. Not necessarily by Hollywood, but by government and this is a disguise to pass the law and introduce control of the internet.

Also, While our discussion has mostly been on copyright violations, we have not been discussing "controversial" topics, which could be included in their targeting of websites. For example, Alex Jones has been repeatedly blocked on time warners network, yet is accessible using a proxy. I've called them on it and suddenly I can view his site again. So the concern should extend beyond simple copyright issues and include opinions of what the government deems inappropriate. My issue in this whole proposed law is having the government telling me what's appropriate to be viewing.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Wikileaks publishes source documents. All documents that aren't created by the US government are usually protected by copyright.
There might be some other countries which also releases it's document automatically in the public domain but if a company created a document that document is copyrighted.

If Wikileaks publish that document created by a company you can debate whether Wikileaks can do so under the fair use clause but in general the document is copyrighted. The source documents that Wikileaks publishes are no derivative works. They are copies unchanged comments of the orginal.
You can say that Wikileaks is engaging in fair use. I certainly think so. Other parties however might think differently.
Especially when it's their documents that are published and they are in a position to preventively block the IP address because they have economic control over an ISP.

While we are at the topic there a pretty good chance that this forum also hosts a few copyrighted documents that forum members who don't now US laws posted here. We moderators however don't have an ability to check in every case whether a post is authentic or copyrighted.

Some people uses copyrighted images as avatars. It however to burdensome to check in every case so we instead assume that posters know what they are doing and remove the avatar in question should we get a message by the copyright holder.

Nearly any online forum of a decent size hosts copyrighted content.

For some time \b on 4chan got censored in Australia because some of it's members hosted unlawful content even through they violated forum rules to do so.
Of course you produce copyrighted material. On this forum you wrote 87 articles on which you own a copyright (and this forum has a license to display the content that you transfered through signing up).

How about JoChem: Biosemantics Group - Erasmus MC / LUMC - The joint chemical dictionary (Jochem)
The American Chemical Society claims they own CAS numbers. Should some ISP be able to preventively shut down JoChem because JoChem freely distributes the CAS numbers?
That would actually block some important scientific research that uses the JoChem dictionary for textmining medical documents. I actually raise my hand on the issue of having used JoChem academically and having to ask myself whether or not I'm in that process violated copyright. I was interning for a sort of public/private entity so I'm not even sure whether the possible copyright violation would have been mine or a violation of the entitiy.

I think the wikileaks case would be obvious fair use as well but your avatar example is a good one. I'll bet almost every forum on the internet with the ability to show avatars has atleast one person using a pic against the artist wishes.

So lets say for the sake of arguement that an artist sends the admins of PDfSP forums a email saying you need to remove the images he created. The servers are located in the Cayman Islands and the response from the admins is to ignore the request. How would you like to see this case handled.


PS . I thought your CAS number example was interesting as well. I'm suprised anyone pays for the service since my understanding of copyright is that you can't copyright factual information. You could copy their database and simply change the CAS numbers to some other system. Although I haven't seen what an entry looks like on the CAS database but if its just a chemical formula and it properties that doesn't seem like information that anyone has copyright too.

[Brutha]

So lets say for the sake of arguement that an artist sends the admins of PDfSP forums a email saying you need to remove the images he created.

The law in question doesn't say anything about requiring to sent the owner of a website a notice before it gets taken down.

Under "SEC. 5. VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST WEBSITES STEALING
19 AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY." the law sets out a process in which an ISP can simply block you.

That section is the real problem. Lawsuits are expensive. At the moment the internet is ruled pretty much by anarchy.
If you want to block an IP address that's possible provided you know the right people. It's done at the moment.

Then there's the little thing called the law. Comcast thinks that it could get sued if they simply went and blocked all websites they didn't like.
In this law the want to install the right to simply block websites that violate the Comcast's intellectual property without a chance of getting sued.

At the moment a company like DropBox hosts a lot of copyrighted material that get's shared illigally. They can't do much about it.
If they get a notice for taking down material they do so.

RapidShare would another company that acts similarly.

I wouldn't want to have laws that allow the destruction of either of those company who can't do anything about the fact that their services are partly used for violating copyrights.

While rereading the law it doesn't seem to say anything about blocking IP addresses.
Maybe it should be renamed into NameCoin promotion law.

[Beingist]

Some more opposition to these bills--

Internet architects oppose US online piracy bills

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but it is significant to note that,

But it has come under fire from digital rights and free speech organizations for allegedly paving the way for US authorities to shut down websites accused of online piracy, including foreign sites, without due process.