›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The PROTECT IP Bill: A proposal to allow the US to firewall any "Rogue" website.

WindUpBirdWindUpBird
edited May 2011 in Everything Else
So now the US is pretty much fucked. It's not just Europe, China, and Australia anymore.

What the fuck, man. Time to invest in an IP in a data haven country to funnel all my traffic through and then start an Internet freedom advocacy group.
«1

Comments

  • SailSail
    I'd probably burn a building if this billed passed. How's that for a firewall?
  • ChurbaChurba
    So now the US is pretty much fucked. It's not just Europe, China, and Australia anymore.
    Actually, The labor government finally did something good concerning that, and decided to get rid of the whole idea, which has never made it past the testing phase.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I'd probably burn a building if this billed passed. How's that for a firewall?
    There'd be riots. I am sure of it. Media stores would be looted just to prove a point.
    The labor government finally did something good concerning that, and decided to get rid of the whole idea, which has never made it past the testing phase.
    On one hand, I'm happy that they came to their senses. On the other, I find it saddening that even Australia may be ahead of the US in internet freedom.
  • ChurbaChurba
    On one hand, I'm happy that they came to their senses. On the other, I find it saddening that even Australia may be ahead of the US in internet freedom.
    It's alright, you can still point out that you've got a more sensible system when it comes to rating video games. Because, well, you do.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I'd rather have freedom to pirate than zero censorship in video games. At least then I could download a pirated uncensored version.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    I'd rather have freedom to pirate than zero censorship in video games. At least then I could download a pirated uncensored version.
    So what is the difference between pirating and going into a store and stealing a dvd? Now, I am not saying all pirating is wrong. If something is out of print or not available in the market then I dont see a problem with downloading it. But otherwise. Come one dude, you are complaining about the government from stopping you from stealing.
  • SailSail
    So what is the difference between pirating and going into a store and stealing a dvd?
    image
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I'd rather have freedom to pirate than zero censorship in video games. At least then I could download a pirated uncensored version.
    So what is the difference between pirating and going into a store and stealing a dvd? Now, I am not saying all pirating is wrong. If something is out of print or not available in the market then I dont see a problem with downloading it. But otherwise. Come one dude, you are complaining about the government from stopping you from stealing.
    This doesn't just empower the government to halt infringement. It empowers the government to terminate any site they deem "rogue." Consider that. If the US government doesn't like it, it's gone. It's too broad, it doesn't only apply to infringement.

    Also, it allows private enforcement. Copyright holders themselves can go after US-based sites that they deem "rogue" here. Imagine if you have a review site and you post an image from a movie under fair use with a bad review. Under this bill, the studio could see your bad review, get angry, see the image, and go "Infringement!" and then kill your site without even a court case. Seriously, this is BAD shit.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    True. But that campaign is retarded. I mean if it was possible to download a car and some way in the future it may be possible I am sure there will be people that think they have the right to do so for free. And I do think that media should be free. But so should medical care and food and shelter. But until our society moves beyond such ideas as currency and wealth then these are the laws.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    True. But that campaign is retarded. I mean if it was possible to download a car and some way in the future it may be possible I am sure there will be people that think they have the right to do so for free. And I do think that media should be free. But so should medical care and food and shelter. But until our society moves beyond such ideas as currency and wealth then these are the laws.
    Read what I wrote. Private enforcement. Broad definitions. This bill isn't about piracy, it's about controlling information.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    I posted mine while you were posting yours. I didnt see yours till after I had posted mine. Im against controlling info. I just don't like it when people think they have a right to pirtate anything.
  • SailSail
    But that campaign is retarded. I mean if it was possible to download a car and some way in the future it may be possible I am sure there will be people that think they have the right to do so for free.
    Spoilers: It's not real.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    But that campaign is retarded. I mean if it was possible to download a car and some way in the future it may be possible I am sure there will be people that think they have the right to do so for free.
    Spoilers: It's not real.

    No shit. Really? The tubes are waaaaaayyyyy to small for a full sized car to fit through..
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited May 2011
    I posted mine while you were posting yours. I didnt see yours till after I had posted mine. Im against controlling info. I just don't like it when people think they have a right to pirtate anything.
    I have no rights to piracy. What I have a right to, under the Four Freedoms of the Internet that the FCC originally put down at the advent of broadband, is access to any "legal content" (here meaning "content it is legal to possess") I choose. All the content on TPB is legal to possess: music, movies, software, etc. The means of acquisition (digital piracy facilitated through BT links) may not be legal, but that is not for the government to infringe upon my rights for. The correct and, per most leading IP experts, most efficient way of dealing with that is DMCA takedowns of any site directly serving those links in US territory. That is legal, that is the law. Censorship is illegal, and the government too must play by its rules.

    Consider: You can kill a person with a knife. This does not mean you prevent all individuals from entering knife shops. Rather, you find murderers, and you bring them to justice.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    edited May 2011
    I posted mine while you were posting yours. I didnt see yours till after I had posted mine. Im against controlling info. I just don't like it when people think they have a right to pirtate anything.
    I have no rights to piracy. What I have a right to, under the Four Freedoms of the Internet that the FCC originally put down at the advent of broadband is access to any "legal content" (here meaning "content it is legal to possess") I choose. All the content on TPB is legal to possess: music, movies, software, etc. The means of acquisition (digital piracy facilitated through BT links) may not be legal, but that is not for the government to infringe upon my rights for. The correct and, per most leading IP experts, most efficient way of dealing with that is DMCA takedowns of any site directly serving those links in US territory. That is legal, that is the law. Censorship is illegal, and the government too must play by its rules.

    Consider: You can kill a person with a knife. This does not mean you prevent all individuals from entering knife shops. Rather, you find murderers, and you bring them to justice.
    The laws were written at a time that pirating was not very feasible or perhaps even thought of... When cars first came out there were no laws about speed limits, drinking or driving or anything. As technology advances and times change it is the government's job to change the laws about things..
    Post edited by KapitänTim on
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    As for the knife shop. I agree. But you don't sell a knife to someone who is making it clear they are going out to commit a crime with it..
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    The laws were written at a time that pirating was not very feasible or perhaps even thought of... When cars first came out there were no laws about speed limits, drinking or driving or anything. As technology advances and times change it is the government's job to change the laws about things..
    Speed limits is the most stupid comparison ever, Tim. Speed limits have proven to make the road a less safe place; the safest expressway in the world has none. Also, those Freedoms were drafted three years after Napster was shut down by lawsuits. Piracy was already very feasible and people already knew of it. Drinking and driving was always known to be a bad idea before we had to make laws about it.

    Firewalls are ineffectual and a form of censorship, case closed. The government could allow private companies to enforce their copyrights. You would not even be able to argue your case. These are not the laws the nation was built on, Tim.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    Im just saying that we do not have the right to pirate "just because".
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    This is not the right way to do it, but, something needs to change. I mean it is not illegal for me to know your S.S. number or all of your banking info. But I could use the Internet to obtain it.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Obviously. I agree. One doesn't have a right to crime. But the government doesn't have any right to go after ALL internet users due to the actions of pirates. You need to stop things at their source. Without links to pirated material, there's no piracy. You also need to do that legally, and we have the DMCA for that, which does it without censorship, but with legal (if archaic) copyright enforcement. It also needs to be done in the court of law, not by corporations.

    Open and shut.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    I'd rather have freedom to pirate than zero censorship in video games. At least then I could download a pirated uncensored version.
    Obviously. I agree. One doesn't have a right to crime. But the government doesn't have any right to go after ALL internet users due to the actions of pirates. You need to stop things at their source. Without links to pirated material, there's no piracy. You also need to do that legally, and we have the DMCA for that, which does it without censorship, but with legal (if archaic) copyright enforcement. It also needs to be done in the court of law, not by corporations.

    Open and shut.

    So no pirate bay?
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    So no pirate bay?
    Maybe not. But then something would replace it within hours, maybe even on the same code. And the government would have to fight all the court battles and deal with all the red tape necessary to kill that new site for another decade.

    And that's the way it should be, and that's why the internet is a magnificent thing.
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    The law's wording looks to me like it's trying to go after specific websites by painting broad strokes. It's like they're saying "This law was made to go after PirateBay, but we'll just snag what the fuck ever as we do it." Aside from the dubiousness of making a law to go after a handful of websites, it'd be neigh unenforceable, stupidly expensive, and would cause internal chaos in this country because everyone would be constantly trying to find ways around it.
    This bill won't pass, and if it does, it'll never get funding.
    Honestly, I'm shocked a Democrat presented it. I'm betting some RIAA-type groups gave up some cash to him.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Without copyright law, there would be no piracy.
    Without homicide law, there would still be homicide.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited May 2011
    Doubt it will get passed, and if it does good luck getting it by the supreme court. Nothing to see here.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • Zack PatateZack Patate
    A proposal to allow the US to firewall any "Rogue" website.
    Read "MAFIAA" for every instance of 'US', 'USA', 'government', 'congress', etc.

    Also, they're already doing this. This'll just get the smart people to shut up.
  • DaikunDaikun
    It's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack...
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Doubt it will get passed, and if it does good luck getting it by the supreme court. Nothing to see here.
    Don't take too much solace from that. Sure, the Supreme Court might find it unconstitutional, but I'm sure i don't need to point out that

    1. It could take years for a good case against this to actually get to SCOTUS,

    AND

    2. SCOTUS has become/is becoming packed with pro-business/pro-corporate types (like Alito and Roberts). They could either refuse to hear the case, or hear it and agree with the pro-business interests, as they've shown to be their habit.

    AND

    3. During the time it takes for a good case against this to actually get to SCOTUS, some crazy republican like Rick Perry might make it into the Oval Office and start appointing Justices whose first question would be "Does this law comply with Fundamentalist, Dominionist-type Christian beliefs as currently expressed by the mega-church I attend, i.e. WWJD? Oh, this law makes it easy for the Christian thought police to remove nasty things from the internets and prosecute the sinners who put them up as well as the sinners who read them? That's just what our Christian Founding fathers would have wanted. Sounds constitutional to me."
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Why does politics fill me with so much angrysad?
  • CremlianCremlian
    2. SCOTUS has become/is becoming packed with pro-business/pro-corporate types (like Alito and Roberts).
    Actually while the court has been very pro-business/por-corporate, I remember reading that it's also been very pro-free speech. Soooo. Here's hoping.
Sign In or Register to comment.