New Law Would Force Search Engines to Block "Infringing" Sites

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Wake me up when it makes it out of committee, right now it is just a single senator fluffing up his big contributors.

Not to get off topic, but why does this remind me of this VERY old animated clip:

For the record, it's Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill".

Centrophy:
"First, it allows for "private right of action," which means that not only the Attorney General but also "a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement" can pursue action in the courts against "the owner, registrant or internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domestic or foreign," and second, it will also force search engines to censor such sites out of their lists."

whether domestic or foreign
domestic or foreign
or foreign
foreign

Really? Really? You want to try and exert control over not just internet in the US but the rest of the world too? This really needs to get shot down and quickly.

Don't worry, most of the countries out there have no intention of dropping their pants and bending over anytime soon.

Sion_Barzahd:
This screams bad idea to me. Giving government officials the power to essentially control the internet is a bad thing.

I reckon it'd just resort in piracy sites becoming a bit trickier to find at first.

Last i checked USA did not own the internet, has no grounds to police it(ima call da cyber police!), and once again for the sake of repeating myself; America needs to stay the fuck out of shit is nose should not be in! Don't care what they want to do they have no grounds to police the internet.

this has slippery slope written all over it.

BrownGaijin:
Not to get off topic, but why does this remind me of this VERY old animated clip:

For the record, it's Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill".

Except in this case they should murder that quirky little bastard with fire and pitchforks.

Sandytimeman:

However, I do get nervous anytime a government tries and impose censorship and control over the net. It's not so much the intent but how power hungry dictators will use the law to censor and control things that they don't like.

Me too. I think that the intent here is good, but Pandora's Box will be opened very wide with this one.

Oh yay, another means of extortion.

The way the bill is phrased, it seems that websites like The Escapist could even be blocked if even a SINGLE company or copyright owner decided it didn't like the Escapist using it's content or info on this site.

Sion_Barzahd:
This screams bad idea to me. Giving government officials the power to essentially control the internet is a bad thing.

This.

It seems to me like this is just another attempt at the government getting control of the internet with the guise of stopping piracy.
I mean, what's to say that someone didn't like a website, and got the "Copyright infringement" thing slapped on it, crippling it even if they didn't do anything. What's worse is that repealing this blackout on a site would resort to the extremely vague copyright infringement, and thus legal battles, in which whomever can buy the best lawyer wins.

Why does Homeland Security keep getting dragged into copyright battles?

My understanding was HS was founded to fight terrorism, minimize threat, and protect critical infrastructure, which may include internet related assets.

But unless I missed something big lately, IP copyright infringement isn't exactly terrorism.

Xzi:

BrownGaijin:
Not to get off topic, but why does this remind me of this VERY old animated clip:

For the record, it's Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill".

Except in this case they should murder that quirky little bastard with fire and pitchforks.

LOL so true. Well at least we know that they're still at the beginning of video.

Aureliano:
If you don't mind, I'm just gonna put this right here...

"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."
-Martin Niemöller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Shame on you for proving Godwin's law so readily!

On the OP: Does this mean that ad blockers wont show up on google anymore? What about streaming video sites that full length movies often get posted to?

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:

Sion_Barzahd:
This screams bad idea to me. Giving government officials the power to essentially control the internet is a bad thing.

I reckon it'd just resort in piracy sites becoming a bit trickier to find at first.

Last i checked USA did not own the internet, has no grounds to police it(ima call da cyber police!), and once again for the sake of repeating myself; America needs to stay the fuck out of shit is nose should not be in! Don't care what they want to do they have no grounds to police the internet.

Agreed, but it seems that instead of going after the internet, this legislation would try to target the companies that keep the money circulating, and unfortunately they often are at least partially based in the US. I love my country, but I often hate the thugs that govern it.

This seems nice on the packaging, but feels oh so sinister. Good things are not coming from this. Immahope it fails.

HankMan:
I didn't know the Kids Next Door could propose legislation.

This post is made of win. Gah, where are kid's shows like KND nowadays?

On-topic, I see absolutely, positively no way that this bill could possibly be abused [/sarcasm]. Like copyright flagging on Youtube, but government-controlled! Joy.

I do wonder if anonymous will respond to this, it seems to be a bit higher up then hacking companies.

Hurray for internet censorship! Oh wait.. thats a bad thing. Pirate sites and Anonymous are just excuses for cracking down on free speech.

All I hope is that companies realize that this is US law, not an international law. If they try start forcing this on EU companies there is hell to pay. GO sensorship!

Piracy is a response to an untapped market.

It pains me to see such a poor response to this.

There is money to be made in the "problem" and censorship/prohibition is not the way to make the money.

This will end up like the criminalization of drugs. You convince people it is evil and before long they'll be cool with you doing any terrible thing to people who do it.

Just like drugs I don't do it, but the reaction to it is totally wrong.

Edit: Note I don't not do them because I feel they are wrong or evil, just don't have the patience or interest in either.

Canid117:
Shame on you for proving Godwin's law so readily!

Human's love diabolical things, death, destruction, all that. It fascinates them because it connects them immediately with the ultimate uncertainty.

Godwin's law is cute because it contextualized an obvious observation made by anyone who has ever called a small square mustache a "Hitler Stache". The world thinks about him, on some level or another, constantly.

I don't think even Jesus has a hairstyle named after him.

This is the exact same trick the Tokyo gov't pulled with that "protect rights of virtual children" act when it failed. Change the name, change the wording a bit and then run it again.
And the sad thing is that tactic actually worked for the uptight, moral crusading pricks...
Shit like this is one of the reasons why I hate politics.

Aureliano:
If you don't mind, I'm just gonna put this right here...

"First they came for the pirates,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pirate.

Then they came for the activists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a political activist.

Then for some reason they came for the Jews again,
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."
-Moi

Fixed that for you

How is it that the USA's laws are all written by corporations?

bahumat42:
Anything that stops the pirates without effecting regular service is good in my eyes.

It will absolutely affect regular service. (It won't effect regular service either, but that's a different grammatical nuance altogether.)

1. Sites that get used for pirated goods also have legitimate uses!

Sites like YouTube, MegaUpload, RapidShare, and any torrent site you could name. They're used (in varying degrees) to move pirated stuff around, but that's not their primary or inherent purpose. Each of them has legal purposes too.

Medium vs. Content again. If this turns out like the "no new tech regarding DVD copyright-protection" laws, then we're gonna lose legitimate things, just as we've lost some ability to use DVD footage for fair use such as parody or criticism.

2. Think they'll limit this to actual cases of piracy?

A couple months ago my dad called my attention to a case of some political group getting their opposition's Facebook group banned. I'm hazy on the details (was it even Facebook?), but the gist was that Group A filed baseless complaints against Group B just to get them "off the air" as it were.

And since it's easier to kowtow first and research later (if at all), the site (Facebook or whatever) just dumped the "offending" group. A rotten yet effective strategy on the part of Group A.

It's the same stuff that got The Nostalgia Critic banned from YouTube a couple times... same with Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged. Both legitimate uses of footage. Both given the knee-jerk reaction to a fraudulent complaint.

And this ain't gonna slow the pirates much neither.

So Bookface could block Google? Or Google block any other search engine?

I can't see anyway this could be abused...Especially if that site is taken down and then rebuilt, still blocked.

KingsGambit:
How is it that the USA's laws are all written by corporations?

Because they have all the lawyers. God bless Capitalism *spit*.

Let's think of a possible hypotheticals. Microsoft and Sony are rivals, therefore Bink won't show up Station. Safari won't show up Windows Updates. IE won't show up Firefox.

Just amuses me, the acronym they so desperately shoehorned together, is PROTECT really much better than it being the FMT ruling or whatever?

As is, it's mainly to protect people from the boogeyman, or corporations from some ethereal threat that's far bigger looking than it actually is.

I also like the idea that it's to 'protect from threats to economic creativity' - are pirates not being creative economically, by getting content for free via alternative means? I'm not saying it's legal, but it's a creative way of doing it. Probably not the best wording. :)

Still, at least they're trying to update the laws, instead of bending old ones to fit crimes that don't fit any more. To me, if someone finds a way of doing bad things that the law doesn't condemn, the law needs to change, we can't just criminalise people because of a generalised 'bad person' feeling.

Unfortunately, it seems every step they make in trying to combat piracy has wide sweeping repercussions on basic internet freedoms, and anything that goes thru is just going to push sites out of the US and Europe and into less regulatory countries, taking the profits and taxes with it. As ever, if you can't punish the pirates without screwing over the innocent customers, it's probably not worth doing.

As an example, the recent case of trying to criminalise drawings of naked children, the case being that it was still child pornography even if was fictional children. So are the cherubs in old artistic masterpieces now the work of a deviant paedophile? It's very easy to carefully word something to get backing from the masses, but art should not be restrained except for very good reasons, and we already have rules about obscenity. In the same way, our freedoms should not be walked all over, because some people use those freedoms in a bad way.

Guvnorium:
Oh look, my senator is backing this bill. Well, I'm glad I read this article.

Your senator? I wasn't aware that you were a high rolling corporation.

I typically refer to them as "that corrupt bastard I voted for", because they stopped looking out for my interests long before I voted for them.

SenseOfTumour:
Just amuses me, the acronym they so desperately shoehorned together, is PROTECT really much better than it being the FMT ruling or whatever?

As is, it's mainly to protect people from the boogeyman, or corporations from some ethereal threat that's far bigger looking than it actually is.

I also like the idea that it's to 'protect from threats to economic creativity' - are pirates not being creative economically, by getting content for free via alternative means? I'm not saying it's legal, but it's a creative way of doing it. Probably not the best wording. :)

Still, at least they're trying to update the laws, instead of bending old ones to fit crimes that don't fit any more. To me, if someone finds a way of doing bad things that the law doesn't condemn, the law needs to change, we can't just criminalise people because of a generalised 'bad person' feeling.

Unfortunately, it seems every step they make in trying to combat piracy has wide sweeping repercussions on basic internet freedoms, and anything that goes thru is just going to push sites out of the US and Europe and into less regulatory countries, taking the profits and taxes with it. As ever, if you can't punish the pirates without screwing over the innocent customers, it's probably not worth doing.

As an example, the recent case of trying to criminalise drawings of naked children, the case being that it was still child pornography even if was fictional children. So are the cherubs in old artistic masterpieces now the work of a deviant paedophile? It's very easy to carefully word something to get backing from the masses, but art should not be restrained except for very good reasons, and we already have rules about obscenity. In the same way, our freedoms should not be walked all over, because some people use those freedoms in a bad way.

All good points, now where did I put that link about sex almost being illegal in Florida...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/floridas-bestiality-law_n_860836.html

The road to hell and all that.

So users could just remember the sites and use a search engines from countries that aren't effected this
Oops got around another one of these asinine and pointless internet censorship laws. I don't mind the idea of getting rid of pirates but the US is just making itself out to be a giant ass about this whole thing. For example; the amount of laws trying to get, enforcing it on every single country and just how dumb these ideas are.
They won't work
They won't get through
This is not what a government is meant to do

Entirely correct, if you're going to make a law, you CAN'T just rush it thru because someone's waving a big bag of cash at you to get it done, you need to check and double check for loopholes, or crashing tidal waves of fail that cause unintended problems.

I'm personally tired of new laws being rushed thru just to appease either a corporation that feels it's missing out on something, or the masses who've read a headline and have a new 'big thing' to be scared of, whether it's immigrants that take our jobs (and if a guy who just fell off the underside of a lorry and can't speak english can take your job, you weren't trying very hard), or a foreign tree that causes cancer, these things need to be THOUGHT about, and devated with EXPERTS, not just slapped down on paper in crayon thru gut reaction.

Aureliano:
If you don't mind, I'm just gonna put this right here...

"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."
-Martin Niemöller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Overused in this sort of argument, massively so. A line has to be drawn somewhere, because extrapolated not much further than I've seen it extrapolated to prove people should stand up for a certain cause, it ends up 1st they came for the rapists and i didnt speak out becasue I wasnt a rapist. Lines on what you should stand up for need to be drawn, and yes you should stand up for p0eople you arent you, or like you, but you have to have sufficient reason to do so, no defending the indefensible, you just have to have sensible boundires on rgese things.

Sober Thal:
I could get behind an idea like this, but....

I can sense the internet rage coming.

PROTECT IP

you realise basically every site on the internet breaches copyright daily, right? You use an image from google images? Probably copyright infringement. Youtube? Probably more copyright infringement than there are torrent downloads.

The thing that most annoys me is the part where it says "Domestic or FOREIGN". They are trying to create a law that allows them to control foreign websites. What. The. Actual. Fuck?

Kilyle:

bahumat42:
Anything that stops the pirates without effecting regular service is good in my eyes.

It will absolutely affect regular service. (It won't effect regular service either, but that's a different grammatical nuance altogether.)

1. Sites that get used for pirated goods also have legitimate uses!

Sites like YouTube, MegaUpload, RapidShare, and any torrent site you could name. They're used (in varying degrees) to move pirated stuff around, but that's not their primary or inherent purpose. Each of them has legal purposes too.

Medium vs. Content again. If this turns out like the "no new tech regarding DVD copyright-protection" laws, then we're gonna lose legitimate things, just as we've lost some ability to use DVD footage for fair use such as parody or criticism.

2. Think they'll limit this to actual cases of piracy?

A couple months ago my dad called my attention to a case of some political group getting their opposition's Facebook group banned. I'm hazy on the details (was it even Facebook?), but the gist was that Group A filed baseless complaints against Group B just to get them "off the air" as it were.

And since it's easier to kowtow first and research later (if at all), the site (Facebook or whatever) just dumped the "offending" group. A rotten yet effective strategy on the part of Group A.

It's the same stuff that got The Nostalgia Critic banned from YouTube a couple times... same with Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged. Both legitimate uses of footage. Both given the knee-jerk reaction to a fraudulent complaint.

And this ain't gonna slow the pirates much neither.

Im not saying it doesnt need to be monitored properly.
And the youtube argument is that you need an outside tool to do it (ala video2mp3.net which would obv get the shitstorm).

And i dont really torrent things so that would be up to the torrent sites to clean up or not if they wish to stay active in the US. I know they CAN be used for other things, but atm the average is very much against that.

KingsGambit:
How is it that the USA's laws are all written by corporations?

That is because US goverment is made of people being paid off by the corporations?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here