Skip to main content

View Diary: Protect IP author makes significant concession in the face of online pressure (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  correction (0+ / 0-)

    portion of comment was accidentally deleted:

    in targeting copyright infringement, this bill could be misused to silence dissent through the same defacto censorship issues mentioned upthread. all laws have this potential for abuse, and we've had our share of egregious ones recently. that risk, coupled with the general lack of understanding concerning the market behavior and technological workings of such a relatively new industry means that, in the interest of better laws we'll regret less, more discussion about this bill must take place before it gets shoved through congress.
    we are only just now getting real discourse on the substance of the bill.

    hope you enjoyed your LEGAL movie. i watched bridesmaids, from netflix. i thought it was pretty funny.

    We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

    by papa monzano on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:41:05 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So what language in the bill you think can be (0+ / 0-)

      by govt or a third party to silence dissent and how would you fix it?  I have asked this question a dozen times on here and no one can point to anything in the bill except an analysis by some  by a tech blog like Techdirt about the bill.

      Right man, right job and right time

      by Ianb007 on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:41:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  tech dirt's example of defacto censorship (0+ / 0-)

        you dismiss it, just as you dismissed your google example earlier after i asked why the law that fined them wasn't enough, but the accusational censorship against techdirt is enough reason for me to want this bill discussed more carefully by legislators. I don't trust our government to not use this bill to target a whistleblower org like wikileaks, for another.

        i'm not a lawyer, so i won't claim to write ironclad language, but cory doctorow points out some potential problem areas of the bills here:

        and I would like to have someone attached to the government explain how these concerns are addressed in public view. personally, i'm concerned about accusations equaling an immediate takedown of site for a single infringing link.

        we spent a year arguing ever damn bit of the ACA, trying to ensure that as little lobbied bs as possible ended up in it, and still got a half-horrid, half-great law. why is this law above such prolonged scrutiny?
        why must this bill go further than existing law? why must if be put through committee so quickly?

        i don't know the legalese that would make those assurances against doctorow's concerns ironclad, but that's why i'm not legislating...
        i'm am happy that leahy is slowing down his fast-track a little and hoping that we don't rush to passage a gimme to record companies and the MPAA.

        We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

        by papa monzano on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:17:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dismiss Techdirts and other defacto (0+ / 0-)

          censorship because they ultimately lie or mislead in their analysis either intentionally or inadvertently.

          In the link that you provided half way thru his analysis he writes this whopper:

          What’s wrong with SOPA? For starters, SOPA would create a new standard for “intermediary liability,” in other words, liability borne by companies and entities that are in the chain between someone accused of violating copyright and the audiences, such as Web hosts, payment processors, and operators of technical infrastructure, like the Domain Name System. Under SOPA, these intermediaries could be ordered to censor or block access to, and funding for, any site accused of copyright infringement, without due process, without a jury or the right to rebut accusations.

          This is just not true.  Any action brought against a site  has to go thru a judicial process and follow standard civil procedure.  The accused infringing site MUST be informed in writing of the alleged infringement and given an opportunity to reverse the TEMPORARY court order.  The infringing sites do have a recourse to rebut the accusations.

          On page 23:  

          IN GENERAL.—At any time after the
          issuance of an order under subsection (b), a motion  
          to modify, suspend, or vacate the order may be filed  
          (A) any person, or owner or operator of
          property, that is subject to the order;
          (B) any registrant of the domain name, or
          the owner or operator, of the Internet site that  
          is subject to the order;
          (C) any domain name registrar, registry,
          or other domain name registration authority
          that has registered or assigned the domain
          name of the Internet site that is subject to the order;


          I beg you please for the love of God read the bill.  These so called journalists are either too lazy to do it themselves or just too dumb to understand it.

          It is quite shocking and nauseating  that mr doctorow would write such easily disproved claims of what's in the bill.  He is either too lazy to actually read the bill or to dumb to understand it or worst of all, knowingly lying.  Take you pick.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:18:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site