Legislation over regulating the internet decided this month.

[NewKid]

Edit: Obama is against both bills (right until he gets re elected, I imagine).

Anonymous take down Department of Justice, RIAA, MPAA, Universal Music (http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-...f-justice-riaa-mpaa-universal-music-19210145/)


Sign the Google petition to stop government censorship of the internet!

No personal info is required!

LINK----->https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/




This has been around for sometime and even posted about on here before, but as we're so close to major changes in how the internet is used and operated for citizens of the US, I wanted to bring this back. For those who don't know the government has two bills, one that will be voted on this month, and another being discussed this month and closing in on a date for voting, that will introduce invasive "security" measures from the government, limit the ability to create and maintain material online, and bring about a completely new way of how the internet works from both a technical and user perspective; with this also serving as a foot-hold for further regulation and a gateway for government controlled internet censorship. The first bill is being voted for on the 24th of this month, while the second is supposed to "continue debate in January 2012".

The first bill is the "PROTECT IP Act" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act):

"the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S."

The second being the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act):

"The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods."

This is a huge deal because, currently, the internet is fair game for all and everyone has the freedom to post what they want, where they want; with copyright laws and personal moderation still intact. I shouldn't really have to explain that this is something that can easily snow-ball out of control as the internet becomes the focus point of our government, where they will begin to regulate and control the internet; these two bills being on the level of the Patriot Act. A major concern for those in opposition to the bill is the future ability for free-flowing information on the internet, and how this can impede it.

Many internet organizations, like Wikimedia, Firefox, etc have openly protested the two bills. Personally, I see the big problem being that the people voting for it are so many generations behind that none of them fully understand what it is they're voting for, or what it will affect.

I HIGHLY recommend reading both Wiki links over the two articles (though you won't be able to tomorrow, as Wikimedia is blacking out the English Wikipedia globally for 24 hours in protest of the two bills).

As convoluted as this is, here's a bit of spice for you:

You like Google? They oppose it.

You like Ford? They support it.

Some important considerations mentioned:

For the Stop Online Piracy Act:

Web-browsing software

The Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed concern that free and open source software (FLOSS) projects found to be aiding online piracy could experience serious problems under SOPA.[57] Of special concern was the web browser Firefox,[25] which has an optional extension, MAFIAAFire Redirector, that redirects users to a new location for domains that were seized by the U.S. government.[58] In May 2011, Mozilla refused a request by the Department of Homeland Security to remove MAFIAAFire from its website, questioning whether the software had ever been declared illegal.

Deep-packet inspection and privacy

According to Markham Erickson, head of NetCoalition, which opposes SOPA, the section of the bill that would allow judges to order internet service providers to block access to infringing websites to customers located in the United States would also allow the checking of those customers' IP address, a method known as IP blocking. Erickson has expressed concerns that such an order might require those providers to engage in "deep packet inspection", which involves analyzing all of the content being transmitted to and from the user, raising new privacy concerns.[63][64]

Policy analysts for New America Foundation say this legislation would "instigate a data obfuscation arms race" whereby by increasingly invasive practices would be required to monitor users' web traffic resulting in a "counterproductive cat-and-mouse game of censorship and circumvention would drive savvy scofflaws to darknets while increasing surveillance of less technically proficient Internet users."[30]

Online freedom of speech

On TIME's Techland blog, Jerry Brito wrote, "Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech?"[21] Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology warned, "If SOPA and PIPA are enacted, the US government must be prepared for other governments to follow suit, in service to whatever social policies they believe are important—whether restricting hate speech, insults to public officials, or political dissent."[22]

Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”

For the PROTECT IP Act:

Concern for user-generated sites

Opponents of the legislation warn that the Protect IP Act would have a negative impact on online communities. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon argued in an op-ed that making companies liable for users' actions could have a chilling effect on user-generated sites like YouTube. "The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar", she says.[citation needed] Policy analysts for New America Foundation say this legislation would enable law enforcement to take down an entire domain due to something posted on a single blog: "Yes, an entire, largely innocent online community could be punished for the actions of a tiny minority."

Companies and organizations

The legislation is opposed by the Mozilla Corporation,[31] Facebook,[31] Electronic Frontier Foundation,[32] Yahoo!, eBay, American Express, reddit, Google,[33] Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch,[34], English Wikipedia[citation needed], and Uncyclopedia[citation needed]. Internet entrepreneurs including Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams, and Foursquare co-founder Dennis Crowley signed a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to the legislation.[35] The Tea Party Patriots have argued that the bill "is bad for consumers".[36] A letter of opposition was signed by 130 technology entrepreneurs and executives and sent to Congress to express their concern that the law in its present form would "hurt economic growth and chill innovation in legitimate services that help people create, communicate, and make money online".[37] English-language Wikipedia sites will be joining other Internet sites on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 in protesting the PIPA and SOPA legislation by staging a "blackout" of service for 24 hours.

"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," wrote venture capitalist and Business Insider columnist Fred Wilson in an October 29 editorial on the changes that the 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," he said.

A group of Law professors, quoting Crocker's whitepaper, say that the PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy acts could have the opposite of the intended impact, driving users to unregulated alternative DNS systems, and hindering the government from conducting legitimate Internet regulation.[39] They question the constitutionality of both bills, believing they could have potentially disastrous technical consequences and would make US Internet law more like those of repressive regimes.[39] They go on to state that both bills provide "nothing more than ex parte proceedings—proceedings at which only one side (the prosecutor or even a private plaintiff) need present evidence and the operator of the allegedly infringing site need not be present nor even made aware that the action was pending against his or her 'property.' This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

I can't stress enough how important this really is, regardless of what your stance on it is, as it really is the start of drastically changing the internet.

 

[chinchilla]

I hate the direction our government is going, it is terrible.

 

[PSUCOBRA96]

like most things in the world, government needs to keep their damn hands outta it, this is free space until they ruin it, and you know they will ruin it. Everything the government touches turns to shit.

 

[thepizz]

Cliffs?

 

[WireEater]

Cliffs?

Government is taking away your porn.

 

[thepizz]

Government is taking away your porn.

Noooooooooooooo!:fm:

 

[thomas91169]

it will just lead to internet v2.0.

 

[Coiled03]

Everything the government touches turns to shit.

That pretty much sums things up right there.

 

[Devious_Snake]

and the global takeover continues....

 

[NewKid]

Cliffs?

The government is one step closer to literately being in control of what you view on the internet and monitoring what you view, download, and post, by way of legislation pertaining to those in the US; though many other countries will soon follow.

The internet is the last frontier we have, but it's about to be gone, because the government would rather spend about $50 million/year on making sure they know what you're doing.

Government is taking away your porn.

Ironically enough, that's actually really accurate (as sites like Pornhub, TnA, etc will be liable for hosting copyrighted material and shut down).

it will just lead to internet v2.0.

The amazing thing about technology is that there's pretty much ALWAYS a work-around, however, there's serious implications with that in this situation. Though, basically you're still kinda right, generally speaking; specifically speaking though you're wrong, as internet 2.0 is still linked back to our government.

 

[vertcobra99]

The government is one step closer to literately being in control of what you view on the internet and monitoring what you view, download, and post, by way of legislation pertaining to those in the US; though many other countries will soon follow.

The internet is the last frontier we have, but it's about to be gone, because the government would rather spend about $50 million/year on making sure they know what you're doing.



Ironically enough, that's actually really accurate (as sites like Pornhub, TnA, etc will be liable for hosting copyrighted material and shut down).



The amazing thing about technology is that there's pretty much ALWAYS a work-around, however, there's serious implications with that in this situation. Though, basically you're still kinda right, generally speaking; specifically speaking though you're wrong, as internet 2.0 is still linked back to our government.

This is horrible... what can I do to save my porn? lol :lol:

 

[LostRacer]

Smells like China..

 

[NewKid]

This is horrible... what can I do to save my porn? lol :lol:

Make your own!:banana:epper:

Smells like China..

Yeah, the Great Firewall of China (a real thing for those that don't know) is closer to home than you think.

 

[01Jes]

Well that's shitty to say the least. Hopefully they stay away from my 3GATT network. Always on the move at work so usually use the 4S to post. I knew it was just a matter of time before they did this though.

Edit: stupid spelling 4S

 

[WireEater]

It's all tied to the internet so it wouldn't matter. Your carrier is just an access point to the internet.

 

[whiplash306]

Conspiracy theorist here....but with the supposed ability of these smart phones to "listen" to you even when not in use as well as their ability to pinpoint your location globally, "black boxes" and various "nanny" devices installed in many newer cars, governmental control of the internet and the requirement of users to have a security code, etc, etc, etc......it seems that our govt is preparing for an all out martial-type law (or worse, one-world governance) where, if they want, will give them the ability to not only track your EVERY move, but COMPLETELY cut off your means of communication to not just the "outside" world, but your family and friends as well.

We have GOT to wake up as a Nation. Things are NOT looking good - the "laws" our own government are proposing (on a now almost daily basis) are NOT intended for the betterment of society. More so, they are meant for total control of society. Our liberty as a free nation/people is being threatened more so now than at any time in our nation's past.

 

[S8ER01Z]

Cliffs?

The RIAA/MPAA are now admitting they control politicians and are publicly shoving it in our faces.

 

[01Jes]

It's all tied to the internet so it wouldn't matter. Your carrier is just an access point to the internet.

Well that's just shitty all together. Can't do nothing!!!

 

[WireEater]

http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa...Mashable+(Mashable)&utm_content=Google+Reader

Section 102(a)(2) permits the attorney general to take action against foreign sites (i.e., sites that do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction) if “the owner or operator of such Internet site is facilitating the commission of [copyright infringement].”

We’ll expand on this further down, but the really scary thing here is that there isn’t any qualification that the site be solely for the purpose of theft, only that it facilitate it. Since copyright violation is ridiculously easy, any site with a comment box or picture upload form is potentially infringing. Furthermore, DMCA Safe Harbor provisions are no defense. You, as a site operator, become liable for copyright infringement committed by your users, even if you comply with DMCA takedown requests.

This isn’t quite as bad as the rest of the bill because the power lies with the attorney general, rather than the copyright holder. But it’s not good, either. The language is so broad that it could be wielded against most any foreign site the AG chooses to target.

If the AG chooses to take action against a site (either against the operator, if they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or against the site itself if no one under U.S. jurisdiction can be found), then a subsequent court order would require the following:

Internet service providers will be required to block your access to the site (section 102(c)(2)(A)(i)) within five days.
Search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.) will be forced to remove all references to the offending sites from their indexes (section 102(c)(2)(B)).
Ad providers (Google AdSense, Federated Media, etc.) will be required to stop providing ad service to the site.
Payment providers (PayPal, Visa, etc.) will be required to terminate service to the site.
Effectively, this bill gives the attorney general the power to fully censor foreign sites that the government does not have jurisdiction to take down directly. The most immediate example is WikiLeaks — under such an order, your ISP would be forced to block your access to Wikileaks. Once the technical means to do this are in place, then it becomes very easy for this power to be extended.

Implementing censorship protocols and giving the keys to the government is a scary, scary thing, and SOPA should be opposed simply based on this provision alone. But that’s not all.

The Sledgehammer

The really unsettling part of the bill is section 103. It is titled “MARKET-BASED SYSTEM TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. FUNDING OF SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.” On a first reading, it doesn’t sound that frightening. Read through section A1.

DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if–
it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and

either

the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates–
a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
the operator of the U.S.-directed site–
is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF- The term `qualifying plaintiff’ means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof.

Wow, now there’s a chunk of legalese that’ll make your eyes gloss over. Let’s cut straight to the nasty bits.

An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if [a portion of the site is US-directed] and is used by users within the United States and is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables or facilitates [copyright violation or circumvention of copyright protection measures].

Still doesn’t sound that bad, but consider this: Any site that allows users to post content is “primarily designed for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables copyright violation.” The site doesn’t have to be clearly designed for the purpose of copyright violation; it only has to provide functionality that can be used to enable copyright violation.

This means that YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Gmail, Dropbox and millions of other sites would be “Internet sites…dedicated to theft of U.S. property,” under SOPA’s definition. Simply providing a feature that would make it possible for someone to commit copyright infringement or circumvention (see: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) is enough to get your entire site branded as an infringing site.

Furthermore, you may be painted as infringing if you, the site owner, “take deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of…the site to carry out acts [of copyright infringement or circumvention].” This means if you deliberately decide that it’s not cost-effective to screen every piece of content and determine whether or not it is copyright-free before it is posted to your site (whether there is infringing content on your site or not), then you are labeled as an “Internet site…dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Simply the act of not actively screening every piece of content makes you a criminal under SOPA.

So, We’re All Infringing, Now What?

Section 103(b) is really hairy, but we’ll attempt to parse through it. I’m not going to copy the whole text here, for the sake of brevity, though I do encourage you to read and understand it. Instead, we’ll discuss the most salient parts.

Payment providers (section (b)(1)) and ad networks ((b)(2)) are required, upon receiving a claim against a site by a copyright holder (section (4)(A)(i)), to cut off all services to the accused site within five days, unless they receive a counter-notification from the operator of the accused site. Note that there is no requirement that the accused be notified of said accusation, and thus, they would have no opportunity to provide a counter-notice. In practice, you’d probably find out about it when you notice that the money stops coming in, maybe a week or two later.

The only way to provide a counter-notice is to agree to submit to U.S. jurisdiction (section (5)(A)(ii)) if you are a foreigner (yikes), and to state under penalty of perjury that your product does not fit the definition of an “Internet site…dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” As we discussed above, it’s nearly impossible to not fit that definition. If you have a comment box, and you state that you aren’t guilty under that definition, you just committed perjury. Enjoy prison. Furthermore:

Any provider of a notification or counter notification who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section…that such site does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property shall be liable for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the person injured by such misrepresentation as a result of the misrepresentation.

So, if you provide that counter-notification that you aren’t an infringing site, but if you can possibly be painted to fit the definition of an infringing site (and again, you will be), you are now liable for all of the attacking party’s attorney fees. By replying, you give them carte blanche to sue you with no cost to themselves.

Now, if you provide a counter-notice, or an ad network or payment provider fails to cut off service within five days, then the accusing party may then serve you (the site owner) with a lawsuit. If they can’t get a hold of you, they may serve an in rem lawsuit against your site. If they win the lawsuit (and they will, if nobody is there to challenge them), then the court will award them ownership of your site (likely, the domain). This is the point where your accuser is required to notify you that they are taking action against you. This is how the situation could play out.

Plantiff accuses your site of infringement and serves notice to PayPal and Google, et al. PayPal and Google must shut off your payment services and ad services in 5 days. You are never notified.
If a service provider fails to shut off service, then the plantiff may may now take you to court for infringement.

Once you become aware that you’ve been accused of infringement, you either a) let your services get cut off by taking no action, or b) serve a counter-notice, which places you under US jurisdiction (if you’re not in the US) and sets you up for a perjury charge.
If you respond with a counter-notice, then Plantiff may now take you to court for infringement.

Plantiff accuses your site of infringement, and you don’t respond. Plantiff files an in rem lawsuit, and seizes control of your domain.
The Bulldozer

Section 201(b)(1) expands criminal copyright infringement to include:

…At least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500.

Now, the way that the value of a work can be computed in court is the very crude (value of the work times number of views).

…Total retail value may be shown by evidence of the total retail price that persons receiving the reproductions, distributions, or public performances constituting the offense would have paid to receive such reproductions, distributions, or public performances lawfully.

This means, for example, if you upload a video to YouTube of you singing a popular song, and that song might sell for $1, and your video gets 2,500 views, you are guilty of felony copyright infringement. Furthermore, you can tack on “willful infringement for commercial gain or valued at more than $1,000.”

This would make you a felon, and if a copyright holder were to bring a suit against you, would give you a criminal record that would make it virtually impossible to gain future employment, and may subject you to up to three years in prison for singing a song. You don’t have to receive any money. You don’t have to gain anything from your video. Simply receiving 2,500 views on a song you sung, which happens to have copyright held by someone else, makes you a felon.

Section 201(c) of SOPA includes a new rule of construction: a person with “a good faith reasonable basis in law to believe that the person’s conduct is lawful shall not be considered to have acted willfully for purposes of the amendments made by this section.” By implication, a person who believed her conduct was protected (e.g., fair use) might be found to have acted “willfully,” if her belief about the law is held to be unreasonable.

SOPA expands “willful infringement” to include those who don’t understand the law, not just those who understand it and choose to ignore it.

To Sum Up

SOPA:

Gives the government the right to unilaterally censor foreign websites.
Gives copyright holders the right to issue economic takedowns and bring lawsuits against website owners and operators, if those websites have features that make it possible to post infringing content.
Makes it a felony offense to post a copyrighted song or video.
This bill turns us all into criminals. If it passes, then you either stop using the Internet, or you simply hope that you never end up in the crosshairs, because if you’re targeted, you will be destroyed by this bill. You don’t have to be a big, mean, nasty criminal — common Internet usage is effectively criminalized under this law. This bill will kill American innovation and development of the Internet, as it will become too risky to do anything of value. It is toxic and dangerous, and should not, under any circumstances, be supported.

I hope that this helps you to more clearly understand why SOPA is bad. Rhetoric is efficient, but you should know what you’re opposing and why you’re opposing it. It’s difficult to read and understand, but if you care about the Internet, free speech and personal freedom at all, you owe it to yourself to understand and oppose SOPA.

Here is a link to the bill.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[NewKid]

Thanks for the links, Wire; good info there.

Being a geek that knows tons of people in the IT industry and as someone who is heavily invested in the internet, these bills scare the hell out of me.

That said, I have this sinking feeling that they'll pass because our government isn't interested in the will of the people, or the betterment thereof, rather they're interested in profit and control, thus the bills will pass.

We are on the edge of an internet revolution, seriously. I know several people that will be launching attacks once this hits, and we've already had a lot of people getting ready for this by setting up work-arounds.

Piracy is going to get pretty hard-core soon.