Dear US Citizens, welcome to the Chinese Internet

[Hayabusa Rider]

Its really the only issue that I feel like this about. It is like the wild west right now. I think in the future there will be order brought to the chaos.

Considering that this allows the government absolute control for any reason it's a pretty huge exception.

 

[Modelworks]

So what is your solution if a website like oh, say, rapidshare, provides a file sharing service and in fact 98.9% of everything uploaded to it is IP theft, and its certain that the propietors fo the website know as much, and they're profiting from it. Since everything the government does is apparently wrong, even when they try to prevent thievery, then what, if anything, is your solution. Lets here how the free market prevents theft on its own.

I have been a victim of rapidshare and similar sites. Had my work stolen and printed without permission. The solution is easy. You prosecute the offender . What laws like this do is to make it easy for a corporation to blanket control entire areas of the internet based on the idea that it contains content they do not condone, without trials, or defense of any kind until after justice they want has been done. It is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[JSt0rm]

Considering that this allows the government absolute control for any reason it's a pretty huge exception.

They have absolute control over the highways and that seems to have worked out ok.

 

[Modelworks]

And I'm sure the aclu would be all over that. We need a BALANCE.

The reason piracy online is so bad is because risk vs reward is too low. Make it a felony to download music without permission of the copyright holder and it will dry up over night.

 

[woolfe9999]

I have been a victim of rapidshare and similar sites. Had my work stolen and printed without permission. The solution is easy. You prosecute the offender . What laws like this do is to make it easy for a corporation to blanket control entire areas of the internet based on the idea that it contains content they do not condone, without trials, or defense of any kind until after justice they want has been done. It is guilty until proven innocent.

Suppose the offender is overseas, what then? It happens all the time. That would be the point of shutting down access: you prevent the theft from occuring when you are unable to prosecute the perpetrators.

Look, if anyone has a better solution to this, I'm all ears. It just seems to me that people are criticizing this on abstract principle and offering no viable alternatives.

 

[Nebor]

Pirates are bad, and our internet freedom is enabling them to do bad things. To sacrifice freedom for security is a wise move that gives you both in the long run.

 

[Lithium381]

Listen, I don't agree with IP Theft, I disagree with the way the government is throwing itself into everything and regulating it with little to no citizen oversight, claiming its for our own good. these agencies are very powerful and I find that they are whittling away at our freedom..... such as the patriot act. they can do whatever they want whenever they want with no repercussions.

 

[Modelworks]

Suppose the offender is overseas, what then? It happens all the time. That would be the point of shutting down access: you prevent the theft from occuring when you are unable to prosecute the perpetrators.

Look, if anyone has a better solution to this, I'm all ears. It just seems to me that people are criticizing this on abstract principle and offering no viable alternatives.

There are alternatives it is just the companies don't want to use them because paying off a few politicians is cheaper and easier.

If you cannot prosecute the person because they are overseas then you have two options.
Prosecute the downloader who is in the USA with heavy laws not a slap on the wrist like it is now.
Prosecute the provider that has the peering arrangement that brings that connection into the USA. This is different from what this bill would do. There are already laws on the books that companies can use to remove sites, they just don't want to go through the process. I have done it myself with malware hosting sites.

Step 1 . Contact the source ISP if it is in another country
Step 2. If ISP refuses to remove content , then contact their peering partner, that usually works if your complaint is legitimate.
Step 3 . Contact the peering partner who resides in the USA that makes the connection possible for the foreign ISP.
Step 4 . Take to court the peering partner in the USA

I have had content removed 4 times and never had to go beyond step 3 and only 1 of the 4 times did I have to do that. These were sites hosting malware in countries like China, Germany, and Thailand. Most of these major providers that bring connections from other countries do not want illegal content on their connections, it is bad PR. When a foreign ISP is notified by their backbone provider that they are going to have their link cut unless they get the kid with the web server off their network, they are quick to respond as that kids money isn't worth losing their connection.

 

[thtadthtshldntbe]

sounds like some gestapo shit to me.

D:

:'''(

You know, I rarely post here, mostly just read through the tech forums and this forum too, though for the laughs I get.

Yet this comment stands out more than anything here but not for their laugh value.

It stands out and sings boldy, "See me and my ignorant comment, see my faux intelligencia in attempting to seem smart by comparing it something that I heard might be related to the Nazi's."

But what it really says about you is "See me and my ignorant comment as am i skating by or have long since skated by with a D- in history, just enough to pass and then let the knowledge that might have been offered to me, run like diarhea down my pants."

Heres a clue. Your statment constitutes a metaphor. A metaphor is a statement that attempts to relate understanding of one thing, by comparing it to another thing.

You seem to be attempting to compare what is in essence another, probably stupid but thats besides the point, intellectual property protection act, with the modus operandi of the Gestapo.

Comparing a copyright protection issue to Gestapo tactics is, to use a more proper analogy, like comparing sorting paper to a supernova in a distant galaxy.

Possiby occasionally shutting down a website due to alleged copyright infringment does not in any way exist in the same realm as rounding up and systemically torturing, sometimes raping and definitely killing over 6 million Jews, over 2 million Polish Catholics and who knows how many more millions as the Nazi war machine rampaged through Europe and Northern Africa. The Gestapo is infamous because they ran the concentration camps and where the body charged with the elimination of undesirables. That is what the term Gestapo tactics refers to.

So no. They don't sound like Gestapo tactics except to the ignorant.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So what is your solution if a website like oh, say, rapidshare, provides a file sharing service and in fact 98.9% of everything uploaded to it is IP theft, and it's all but certain that the propietors of the website know as much, and they're profiting from it. Since everything the government does is apparently wrong, even when they try to prevent thievery, then what, if anything, is your solution? Lets here how the free market prevents theft on its own.

Explain what Rico laws are, the premise for their creation and their application in fact. Then tell us how laws which were supposed to target the mafia are used against abortion clinic protesters. I shouldn't have to explain to you why citing "98.6%" as a justification for a law that can shut down sites that have nothing to do with pirating.

 

[Bateluer]

America uses censorship to prevent copyright infringement.

To protect children.

 

[woolfe9999]

Explain what Rico laws are, the premise for their creation and their application in fact. Then tell us how laws which were supposed to target the mafia are used against abortion clinic protesters. I shouldn't have to explain to you why citing "98.6%" as a justification for a law that can shut down sites that have nothing to do with pirating.

You're ducking my question. What is your solution? Should we allow theft of intellectual property or is there something we should do about it that you find acceptable?

 

[Lithium381]

D:

:'''(

You know, I rarely post here, mostly just read through the tech forums and this forum too, though for the laughs I get.

holy lurker batman!

Anyway, as you said, the Gestapo comment was not literal, it was a reference to getting a beat-down for not conforming to the rigid views of the ruling party/military... Not quite a parallel..... for now. The government might decide the 8th amendment is too restrictive to their ends and get rid of it....... although the patriot act and others have pretty much given them a carte blanche for many activities.

 

[BoberFett]

First off I never brag about money.

Secondly I WORK. I dont "profit off the backs of others"

LOL, you really want me to dig up your old "I eat $400 meals all the time, the rest of you are poor!" threads? You're the worst kind of braggart, the one who pretends he isn't.

 

[thtadthtshldntbe]

holy lurker batman!

Anyway, as you said, the Gestapo comment was not literal, it was a reference to getting a beat-down for not conforming to the rigid views of the ruling party/military... Not quite a parallel..... for now. The government might decide the 8th amendment is too restrictive to their ends and get rid of it....... although the patriot act and others have pretty much given them a carte blanche for many activities.

There are things that you don't compare to Nazi groups and events. If this thread were about something relating to ethinic cleansing, etc or I don't know famine yeah. But legal matters to deal with copyright infringement no.

As to the 8th amendment for example. The US goverment cannot, except with the consent via judicial legislation, ignore an Amendment or other Constitutional provision.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're ducking my question. What is your solution? Should we allow theft of intellectual property or is there something we should do about it that you find acceptable?

You are ignoring obvious problems choosing to give government absolute control (and as an attorney you know just by what means) in return for the RIAA and it's ilk. If there were NO solution then that would be better than providing Mr O'Brien with his bludgeon.

Unlike others who are expert in fields they do not understand I won't claim a definitive fix, however the problem with this bill is the overly broad language which allows those who unintentionally "facilitate" to be targeted for completely unrelated reasons.

It's up to Congress to come up with better means, and if this is as good as it gets then someone is going to be the loser. The RIAA will have to go about it's business suing for trillions. Better them than the ability to speak critically.

 

[JSt0rm]

LOL, you really want me to dig up your old "I eat $400 meals all the time, the rest of you are poor!" threads? You're the worst kind of braggart, the one who pretends he isn't.

I like to eat out. When I talked about eating out it was about the food and wine not about the cost.

I think people were complaining about the obama's going to nyc and spending money on food or some dumb shit. People began to cry about elites spending that much money on food so I was saying you have experienced life until you have experienced that level of dining.

 

[woolfe9999]

You are ignoring obvious problems choosing to give government absolute control (and as an attorney you know just by what means) in return for the RIAA and it's ilk. If there were NO solution then that would be better than providing Mr O'Brien with his bludgeon.

Unlike others who are expert in fields they do not understand I won't claim a definitive fix, however the problem with this bill is the overly broad language which allows those who unintentionally "facilitate" to be targeted for completely unrelated reasons.

It's up to Congress to come up with better means, and if this is as good as it gets then someone is going to be the loser. The RIAA will have to go about it's business suing for trillions. Better them than the ability to speak critically.

I think you're trafficking in cliched generalities like "absolute control" and not really arguing the particulars of the proposed legislation. Obviously when you put the words "absolute control" in any proximity to the word "government" in a sentence it sets off all kinds of red flags in people's minds but isn't that informative.

My understanding is that that there is new bill (mentioned in the OP's article) that has narrowed the definitional criteria for shutting down the websites. Like the old bill, it requires that the site in question be "dedicated to infringing activities,” meaning it has no “demonstrable, commercially significant purpose other than” to facilitate infringing activities. The new bill adds that the site must “no significant use other than” to facilitate infringing activities.

To be clear, this is not some government regulatory agency being given unlimited discretion to shut down websites. The DoJ has to file an action in personum against the proprietors of the site in question, meaning they must be personally served with the papers and given notice and an opportunity to be heard and present evidence that their site does not meet the above criteria. As I read the statute, the site owner will defeat the action if he or she can demonstrate that the website has any significant purpose other than to infringe on IP, or if the DoJ merely fails to meets its burden of proof.

I guess what bothers me about the replies in this thread is that they suggest that people react in a kneejerk fashion based on ideological principles or general opposition to the ebil gubment and in the process they completely short shrift any legal or moral concerns about the outright theft that is occurring every day, by the petabyte, online. This is not like with terrorism and the Patriot Act where there is a credible argument that the threat is overstated. This is rampant.

While you scewer the content providers for lobbying for this sort of legislation, you are ignoring their moral right to be protected from theft. If this was your property being stolen, somehow I think you might want to take a closer look at the legislation and not just condemn it without bothering to offer any alternative, even a broad conceptual alternative. It seems to me that if you disagree with the general premise of this type of legislation, then you should be able to offer an alternative premise for combatting the problem, whereas if you don't disagree with the premise but object to its particulars, then you need to examine the particulars a little more closely.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

D:

:'''(

You know, I rarely post here, mostly just read through the tech forums and this forum too, though for the laughs I get.

Yet this comment stands out more than anything here but not for their laugh value.

It stands out and sings boldy, "See me and my ignorant comment, see my faux intelligencia in attempting to seem smart by comparing it something that I heard might be related to the Nazi's."

But what it really says about you is "See me and my ignorant comment as am i skating by or have long since skated by with a D- in history, just enough to pass and then let the knowledge that might have been offered to me, run like diarhea down my pants."

You make too much sense, Mr. 23 post lurker. Yet why should we engage in rational discussion of anything when instead we can compare everything we don't like to the Nazis? It's so much easier and much more entertaining that way.

 

[woolfe9999]

There are alternatives it is just the companies don't want to use them because paying off a few politicians is cheaper and easier.

If you cannot prosecute the person because they are overseas then you have two options.
Prosecute the downloader who is in the USA with heavy laws not a slap on the wrist like it is now.
Prosecute the provider that has the peering arrangement that brings that connection into the USA. This is different from what this bill would do. There are already laws on the books that companies can use to remove sites, they just don't want to go through the process. I have done it myself with malware hosting sites.

Step 1 . Contact the source ISP if it is in another country
Step 2. If ISP refuses to remove content , then contact their peering partner, that usually works if your complaint is legitimate.
Step 3 . Contact the peering partner who resides in the USA that makes the connection possible for the foreign ISP.
Step 4 . Take to court the peering partner in the USA

I have had content removed 4 times and never had to go beyond step 3 and only 1 of the 4 times did I have to do that. These were sites hosting malware in countries like China, Germany, and Thailand. Most of these major providers that bring connections from other countries do not want illegal content on their connections, it is bad PR. When a foreign ISP is notified by their backbone provider that they are going to have their link cut unless they get the kid with the web server off their network, they are quick to respond as that kids money isn't worth losing their connection.

I appreciate that you at least recognize the problem enough to propose alternatives, however much I doubt their effectivness or their appropriateness. I don't personally like slapping someone with a $300,000 fine for downloading their favorite Britney Spears alblum off Limewire. While that person is guilty and deserves punishment, they are not on the same level as the person who cracked the content or knowingly provides a conduit for its dissemination. Moreover, this has been tried - I think it was a woman in Illinois who was forced into bankruptcy for being 1 person in 100 million who illegally downloaded music and got made an example of. It doesn't seem to have discouraged others from doing it, at least not enough. And while there are other things that can be done, if those things were practical/effective I doubt the problem would have persisted to this extent for as long as it has. The content providers are usually not without resources but to date whatever mechanisms are in place clearly do not work well enough.

 

[frostedflakes]

I do not condone copyright infringement and have no problem with copyright owners going after people who infringe on their IP. What I find very disturbing, however, is how the copyright industry is trying to shift the burden of enforcing their IP to the government and ISPs.

Copyright infringement has traditionally been a civil matter. If I invented and patented a device, for example, and somebody infringed on my patent, it is *my* responsibility to take that person to court and get an injunction, sue for damages, etc. However, large corporations that have the money to lobby Congress are trying to change the laws so that now they get to sit back and let the DOJ go after people who infringe on their copyrights. It's not the responsibility of the DOJ, FBI, or any other government agency to go after people who infringe on copyrights. It is (or at least it *should be*) the responsibility of the party whose copyrights are being infringed. Not only does it give these large corporations an unfair advantage over individuals and smaller companies who actually have to use their own money to enforce their IP, but it's also a waste of taxpayer money. It's essentially subsidies to the music and movie industries.

 

[woolfe9999]

I do not condone copyright infringement and have no problem with copyright owners going after people who infringe on their IP. What I find very disturbing, however, is how the copyright industry is trying to shift the burden of enforcing their IP to the government and ISPs.

Copyright infringement has traditionally been a civil matter. If I invented and patented a device, for example, and somebody infringed on my patent, it is *my* responsibility to take that person to court and get an injunction, sue for damages, etc. However, large corporations that have the money to lobby Congress are trying to change the laws so that now they get to sit back and let the DOJ go after people who infringe on their copyrights. It's not the responsibility of the DOJ, FBI, or any other government agency to go after people who infringe on copyrights. It is (or at least it *should be*) the responsibility of the party whose copyrights are being infringed. Not only does it give these large corporations an unfair advantage over individuals and smaller companies who actually have to use their own money to enforce their IP, but it's also a waste of taxpayer money. It's essentially subsidies to the music and movie industries.

You're somewhat right about how copyright infringement has been "traditionally" enforced, other than the fact that you've missed that copyright infringement has always also been a criminal matter that is prosecuted by the government, where the infringer is profitting from it. But the internet has presented a whole new set of challenges to that traditional model. It's pretty hard to argue otherwise. That doesn't mean we should give the government carte blanche. It does mean that we need to re-examine the traditional system of enforcement or else just let it go on pretty much unabated.

 

[JSt0rm]

I do not condone copyright infringement and have no problem with copyright owners going after people who infringe on their IP. What I find very disturbing, however, is how the copyright industry is trying to shift the burden of enforcing their IP to the government and ISPs.

Copyright infringement has traditionally been a civil matter. If I invented and patented a device, for example, and somebody infringed on my patent, it is *my* responsibility to take that person to court and get an injunction, sue for damages, etc. However, large corporations that have the money to lobby Congress are trying to change the laws so that now they get to sit back and let the DOJ go after people who infringe on their copyrights. It's not the responsibility of the DOJ, FBI, or any other government agency to go after people who infringe on copyrights. It is (or at least it *should be*) the responsibility of the party whose copyrights are being infringed. Not only does it give these large corporations an unfair advantage over individuals and smaller companies who actually have to use their own money to enforce their IP, but it's also a waste of taxpayer money. It's essentially subsidies to the music and movie industries.

What do you mean its not the FBI's job?

Dont you see that at the beginning of everything you see?

 

[frostedflakes]

You're somewhat right about how copyright infringement has been "traditionally" enforced, other than the fact that you've missed that copyright infringement has always also been a criminal matter that is prosecuted by the government, where the infringer is profitting from it. But the internet has presented a whole new set of challenges to that traditional model. It's pretty hard to argue otherwise. That doesn't mean we should give the government carte blanche. It does mean that we need to re-examine the traditional system of enforcement or else just let it go on pretty much unabated.

I thought criminal penalties for infringement were something that were added relatively recently, within the last 50 years or so. I Googled it a bit and couldn't find out exactly when these penalties were added, though.

JSt0rm, obviously I meant it shouldn't be the FBI's responsibility. The copyright industry has succeeded in perverting the law in their favor, though. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain, all they have to do is slip politicians a little money and get copyright terms extended yet again.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

So we're at the trade unionist phase now? Good, I probably got another 40-60 years before they come for me if it keeps up at this rate : p