Skip to main content

A bit of an emergency: The rumor all over Capitol Hill is that the House version of the Internet Blacklist Bill (PROTECT IP Act) will be introduced this week -- probably tomorrow -- by congressmembers Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and others.

Our allies on the Hill say the bill's so bad that it could effectively destroy YouTube, Twitter, and other sites that rely on user-generated content by making the sites' owners legally responsible for everything their users post.  Nobody will want to take that risk, so these sites and others could be forced to shut down if it manages to pass as it stands.

Facebook, Myspace, and Google+ would be at risk. The cyberlocker and streaming provisions could affect your iPhone, Android, AmazonCloud, Pandora, Grooveshark and even your email accounts.

Our information is not from bomb-throwing activists, but rather the people who run some of the most established and respected civil liberties and tech freedom outfits, along with lobbyists for a few corporations that oppose the legislation.

The original PROTECT IP Act would give the government new powers to block Americans' access to sites accused of copyright infringement. Its Senate form would enable censorship and generally stifle innovation online. (Which is why civil libertarians, tech activists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and Internet engineers have vocally opposed it.)  It's being pushed by Hollywood, the Recording Artists, Pharma, and the Chamber of Commerce.  It was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and is being blocked by a 'hold' issued by Ron Wyden (D-OR).

This new, even more extreme position might be a negotiating tack, or it might be a manifestation of DC's limited knowledge about the Internet and how most Americans make use of it -- a failing they've demonstrated time and again in recent months.

Either way, all of this is -- surprise -- being driven by a few major corporations that are trying to protect their private profits.  They're combining at least four of their more noxious proposals into this omnibus grab-bag of corporate goodies.

The draft bill would:

1) Give the government and private corporations new powers to block access to sites accused of copyright infringement;

2) Criminalize the streaming of copyrighted content;

3) Restrict cloud-based storage services, music lockers, and the like;

4) Create the aforementioned new liabilities for sites that encourage the posting of user-generated content.

Demand Progress is asking people to urge their congressmembers to refuse to cosponsor the House version of the bill.  You can do so by clicking here.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (364+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, Gooserock, Tracker, Boreal Ecologist, 420 forever, sc kitty, nervousnellie, MKinTN, DRo, blueoasis, cskendrick, kevinpdx, JTinDC, wayoutinthestix, DWG, zerelda, Mary Mike, ColoTim, Sychotic1, aufklaerer, caul, vmibran, Norm in Chicago, Gowrie Gal, millwood, Haningchadus14, eeff, Clarknt67, mconvente, Involuntary Exile, shari, We Won, Lost Left Coaster, concernedamerican, possum, Its a New Day, pcl07, confitesprit, bythesea, martini, anodnhajo, Actbriniel, cooper888, briefer, defluxion10, Marjmar, Marihilda, lineatus, worldlotus, Janeo, psilocynic, zerone, Railfan, zenox, Hayate Yagami, pfiore8, middleagedhousewife, Shockwave, trueblueliberal, tapestry, Catte Nappe, luckydog, real world chick, Shadowmage36, churchylafemme, Unit Zero, surfbird007, gloriana, Mother Mags, ord avg guy, BlueInRedCincy, gecko, markdd, Bule Betawi, Brecht, sodalis, nellgwen, Meteor Blades, Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder, revsue, James Kresnik, DruidQueen, blue aardvark, dark daze, Statusquomustgo, greengemini, katrinka, poligirl, joe shikspack, p gorden lippy, Rosaura, progressivebadger, Flint, peptabysmal, Eddie L, SpecialKinFlag, dalfireplug, MA Liberal, DBunn, llbear, Ky DEM, JDWolverton, Drocket, joanneleon, DampSquid, Treg, freesia, bwintx, dle2GA, makettle, Sun Tzu, CA Nana, AnnieR, allenjo, tgypsy, PeterHug, Amber6541, Xapulin, happymisanthropy, Puddytat, glbTVET, tobendaro, Randtntx, Showman, blue jersey mom, qannabbos, Son of a Cat, Debby, UncleCharlie, adrianrf, blackjackal, cybersaur, Annalize5, voracious, lavaughn, keirdubois, satrap, IL clb, reflectionsv37, glitterscale, SoCaliana, Emerson, Preston S, kurious, haremoor, Sandy on Signal, mikeconwell, catilinus, dwahzon, Russgirl, Tyler R, sherlyle, OpherGopher, petral, smellybeast, SoCalHobbit, Isara, anyname, sunbro, BarackStarObama, DavidW, CJB, nswalls, Gustogirl, RichterScale, TexasTwister, Lujane, Bluesee, Sapere aude, tovan, blueyedace2, too young to give up, Pinko Elephant, EdSF, sb, kyril, chidmf, LWelsch, cybrestrike, dmhlt 66, Joieau, GeorgeXVIII, NearlyNormal, cocinero, KnotIookin, northsylvania, Yellow Canary, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, tristan57, tin woodswoman, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, dkmich, twigg, HamptonRoadsProgressive, TDreamer, Skennet Boch, MartyM, Susan from 29, jeremybloom, prfb, Gay CA Democrat, ER Doc, Seneca Doane, TechBob, journeyman, banjolele, BobBlueMass, Hill Jill, Rogneid, kaliope, i like bbq, david78209, vigilant meerkat, tarheelblue, Dirtandiron, Sarea, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, aerie star, G2geek, freeport beach PA, bula, luvmykona, Jane Lew, Bionic, DiegoUK, tardis10, SeaTurtle, andydoubtless, poorbuster, elziax, Regina in a Sears Kit House, pgm 01, MidwestTreeHugger, no way lack of brain, aliasalias, akeitz, boofdah, tgrshark13, Oaktown Girl, Snud, Fire bad tree pretty, petulans, drofx, Anne was here, CenFlaDem, Ocelopotamus, jcrit, carpunder, jayden, markthshark, Farugia, ATFILLINOIS, Erik the Red, mint julep, Nica24, wiseacre, Floande, JekyllnHyde, 42, smokem2271, history first, Nulwee, marzook, nomandates, LABobsterofAnaheim, xynz, Lefty Coaster, Wreck Smurfy, sunny skies, BigVegan, offred, Seamus D, debedb, Pandoras Box, randomfacts, wader, ginja, sawgrass727, FarWestGirl, kainah, Just One More Dad, out of left field, alnep, Mislead, Habitat Vic, maybeeso in michigan, oxfdblue, Susipsych, Hohenzollern, denise b, dewley notid, rmonroe, BYw, notrouble, Debs2, Clytemnestra, Sylv, vivian darkbloom, ChemBob, Mathazar, TexDem, maf1029, TracieLynn, dirtfarmer, dotsright, rbrockelmann, CatJab, bnasley, Alice Venturi, meg, Cassandra Waites, Oh Mary Oh, pixxer, peachcreek, Crazy like a fox, satanicpanic, Ignacio Magaloni, JesseCW, Nebraskablue, h bridges, ybruti, priceman, greycat, Equal Time Radio, AaronInSanDiego, rebel ga, Lefty Mama, Eileen B, splashy, Yogurt721, kurt, Pohjola, big spoiled baby, Creosote, Missys Brother, chira2, nuclear winter solstice, Julie Waters, Williston Barrett, filkertom, parse this, semiot, jofr, molunkusmol, koNko, Crashing Vor, NBBooks, lostboyjim, Tyto Alba, angelajean, farmerchuck, Matt Z, BigOkie, GoGoGoEverton, Fe, emmasnacker, ferment, HoundDog, Deep Harm, tidalwave1, MJ via Chicago, Tinfoil Hat, terabytes, melo
  •  Odd that I haven't read of any major push... (42+ / 0-)

    ...from Google or Facebook against this bill.

    Both would see significant revenue sources shut down, or find themselves liable for whatever was posted there.

    One would think that they and their multibillion-dollar war chests would be cutting ads, lobbying Congresscritters, etc. about this—but if they are, I've yet to see it.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:33:02 AM PDT

  •  I don't think this will make any headway. (12+ / 0-)

    On the other hand, it couldn't hurt to contact Rep. Blumenauer.

    Strength and dignity are her clothing, she rejoices at the days to come; She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue.

    by loggersbrat on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:40:54 AM PDT

  •  Warren Stephens' Stephens Media (34+ / 0-)

    has been struck down in various courts over supposed copy rights violations which they set up a separate firm to litigate.

    Middlemen are always looking to the law to protect the monopolies they want to milk.  I'm surprised Senator Leahy has been suckered into this.

    There's also a Congressional interest in finding a way to tax internet commerce, as if taxing the communications providers weren't enough. I'm finding I pay more in taxes and fees for my telephone than I pay for the service itself.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:46:56 AM PDT

  •  Good, I hope it passes (26+ / 0-)

    Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple are all extremely large businesses with tons of cash to pay lawyers.  I would love, love, love to see the the Republican led House come to shut them down.

    Nothing would show the public more how the GOP is solidly on the payroll of just a few large industries.  Let the GOP turn away even more from the 99%.  Let them continue to isolate and alienate themselves from every normal sane person in America.

    This won't be shooting themselves in the foot, this is shooting themselves square in the gut.  It's going to hurt and bleed and may well be fatal.  Come on GOP, do it I fucking dare you.

  •  Well, if it will take out (26+ / 0-)

    Twitter, Facebook and Google, we know the 1%rs won't let it pass. Just look Twitter's suppression of #OWS from trending and Google's China policy to let you know where they stand.

    At this point, far more people have now been arrested for protesting Wall Street's mortgage fraud crimes than have been for committing and presiding over them.

    by Scott Wooledge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:19:59 AM PDT

  •  This would also hit dailykos (38+ / 0-)

    If you quote a newspaper or another post, then the "owner" could claim copyright infringement.  Kos would be held responsible for the user generated content.

    Of course, this is just me thinking real quick after glancing at the post.  So, I could be wrong.  But if you quote me, I'm going to SUE SUE SUE!

    ....mmmm....maybe not.  Go ahead and quote me until the cows come home.

  •  Coincidence that it is coming up (36+ / 0-)

    at a time when they are trying to shut down the OWS movement?  I don't believe in coincidences.

    STOP this bill!

    Racism is our national cancer ~ Silence is not an option.

    by Actbriniel on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:42:18 AM PDT

  •  My congressman's a Republican, so (12+ / 0-)

    he's probably all for it. He's also an idiot which would make him even more likely to support it. A recent diary by el torro shows just how much lacking in forsight Georgia Republicans are.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:43:27 AM PDT

  •  The last draft version i saw (7+ / 0-)

    of the bill would only apply to sites whose primary function is copyright violations, so twitter, youtube, etc. wouldn't be that affected.  the bill itself i could take or leave, but the case for alarmism presupposes legislative language doesn't actually already take foreseeable adverse consequences into account.

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:44:14 AM PDT

    •  you keep thinking that (21+ / 0-)

      primary function is slippery crappy language, this bill HAS NO PLACE in the 21st century world.  It can do only one thing,  HARM

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:40:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Primary" isn't slippery at all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Bob, thestructureguy

        It borrows from existing law on contributory infringement, which has extensive case law development (re the Betamax, Napster, and Grokster cases).

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:05:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah sure (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike, G2geek

          Homeland security has already closed sites that wouldnt fit that definition.

          Bad is never good until worse happens

          by dark daze on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:12:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  links? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            forester

            in any event, i don't see where DHS enforces IP law, so i think this is probably apples and oranges (also making the statute moot).

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:27:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

              they are already enforcing the laws.

              Bad is never good until worse happens

              by dark daze on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 07:07:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  here you go (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              http://www.rawstory.com/...

              and you are wrong on both accounts. DHS does enforce, and they have already gone down the slippery slope of blocking search engines.

              Bad is never good until worse happens

              by dark daze on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 07:09:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Customs enforcement, that makes sense (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlueStateRedhead

                There was also reference to a warrant, and i see the bill in question is drafted in such a way to deal with jurisdictional issues that might limit what they can do re infringing sites.  (Ice can seize sites i would gather that distribute infringing files into the U.S., but coica is seemingly about blocking isps that trade infringing files between peopke in say china only but with a domain ame that somehow touches the u.s., even where the files never do, or sites that originate wholly within the us and so never del with the importation issues, though those sites would likely not need remedies for copyright enforcement outside the dmca.)

                In the customs enforcement and in coica as drafted, a judge has to approve a seizure order, and coica is drafted to give an opportunity to contest pending final disposition.  There ould be false positives, but they wont be twitter or youtube because there is no argument they are "dedicated to infringing activity."

                The con argument really wants to make a stronger case against copyright in general but doesnt want to say so, technological changes being sufficient.  The terms are too long, orphan copyright is a problem, but fair use is quite generous.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 07:28:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOL (0+ / 0-)
                  There ould be false positives, but they wont be twitter or youtube because there is no argument they are "dedicated to infringing activity."

                  Don't get out much?

                  Try www.youtube.com

                  You Tube would not be in existence if not for the great amount of copyrighted words illegally posted.

                  Sure they take stuff down and nominally discipline repeat offenders but they don't, apparently, use their own search engine to cull the multitude of copies of any give work that exists.

                  Of course, now that Apple established (and patented) the technology to serve clones for fun and profit, Amazon and Google are trying to jump into the act and who knows what happens to You Tube if Google finally succeeds, in which case I predict You Tube, like other Google cast offs would not be long for this earth in it's present form and it would be then be a "predator" to the cloud thingy.

                  What about my Daughter's future?

                  by koNko on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:02:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As i said, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlueStateRedhead

                    you have to distinguish colloquial understandings of dedicated from how the term is used in the statute.  

                    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                    by Loge on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:31:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                      there first use of their new powers and they have already overstepped, and your big plan is to "trust Them"?  please..

                      This is all just more of the govt acting as the puppets for the 1%, nothing more, nothing less.

                      Bad is never good until worse happens

                      by dark daze on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 12:05:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  perhaps there's middle ground (0+ / 0-)

                        between fascism and anarchy, and that can probably start by reasonably expecting courts, if not the executive branch, to interpret language with reasonably established meaning in accordance with that.  

                        And what makes you so sure ICE overstepped its powers?  All you have is one party, which is not exactly disinterested, saying so.  Or that these powers are new?  Saying "Homeland Security" implies it has something to do with powers post-dating the department's creation, but this was an action by an agency that has long existed, that just was renamed and put in a different place.  Customs has long had the ability to prevent infringing goods from coming into the United States and to exercise "in rem" jurisdiction over assets held in the U.S., which would include domain names.  (The statute in question, as i read it, extends this power to domain names in the U.S. but where the copyrighted content doesn't touch the states.  Relatively minor, all in all.)

                        I don't quite agree that the issue of copyright infringement is 1/99 -- some content creators and companies yes, others no.  Either way, that's not the hill on which I choose to fight.  The connection  to OWS protests is fairly Rube Goldbergian.

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 02:52:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                          there are rules on the books already that allow copyright and patent holders to go after those they believe infringed upon such.

                          All this big brother as an enforcer nonsense is just the 1% making their govt puppets be their goons.

                          As for the 1% ,who the hell do you think is lobbying and pushing this bullshit.

                          Time to open your eyes to the real world.  Its a shithole for a reason.

                          Bad is never good until worse happens

                          by dark daze on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 03:12:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  how precisely (0+ / 0-)

                            does one "go after" an infringer who is not in the U.S. and is in a legal system that doesn't enforce U.S. copyrights?

                            Saying everything is "1% bullshit" sacrifices accuracy for simplicity.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 03:39:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  tough shit (0+ / 0-)

                            its a US copyright,  we dont own the fucking world.  You deal with each country and its laws.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 07:41:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well, i'm sure WIPO and other bodies (0+ / 0-)

                            take a differing view, and the point of the statute is that it's enforcing the law in the U.S. by attaching a property interest of the accused infringer that is located stateside.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 07:54:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but thats not what they are doing (0+ / 0-)

                            and since when does the US government become the errand boy of say Disney?  

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:56:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  fact is (0+ / 0-)

                            the laws are already on the books.  Over reaching government heavy handedness is not the answer, it never is.

                            But hey, why have the internet at all right? its a technology that is perfect for stealing, sharing copyrighted material, best we just shut it all down, right?

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:58:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  substantive law, not this particular, pre-trial (0+ / 0-)

                            procedural remedy.

                            and protecting, say, Disney's property does not make the government their "errand boy."  And a partial answer is because the entertainment industry contributes current account surpluses, when the rest of the world agrees to pay for content.  And you close by going back to the initial wrong point that the bill in anyway allows wholesale shutting down of the Internet.  If it did, there wouldn't be quite so many terms of art in the legislative language.  

                             as long as we can agree the slippery slope objection doesn't really have to do with the actual legislative text, but some perversion of it, the only issue is how it might be applied, which is inherently speculative.  what i see as paranoia (again going back to safeguards in the statute) you see as naivete on my part.  not going to resolve it.  you also see some infringement as a reasonable consequence of having the Internet, with no costs to anyone, but i think it's not a costless problem and it's one that is solvable.  But thanks, you've now convinced me to wholeheartedly support the bill, having now argued it out.  Me and noted DINO Pat Leahy.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 09:17:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yep (0+ / 0-)

                            just as I thought, another person who simply doesnt even understand technology nor what the internet is.

                            You are simply part of the problem.

                            COICA is an example of repeated efforts to fix long-time problems through Internet restrictions, said Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group. The Judiciary Committee pushed through the bill without adequate hearings and input from the public, Black said.

                            "The significance and implications of the legislation I don't think have been well thought through," Black said during the hearing on digital trade. "Sadly, it's an example of what not to do in an important, complicated digital ecosystem."


                              you really should try to get educated on a subject before you debate about it.

                            Here is a good place to start.
                            https:/www.eff.org

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 09:55:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and another person (0+ / 0-)

                            unable to distinguish fact from opinion.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:15:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            all you have is opinion, Im the one who posted facts.  The shutdowns have started, Of course you werent aware of them til I told you about them, and the slippery slope has already begun. A search engine was already seized, a freakin search engine, that is the backbone of the internet.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  read your own block quote (0+ / 0-)

                            and i know what the eff is.  I agree with them about half the time.

                            you also linked to an article saying a p2p network was seized, not a search engine that i recall, which wouldn't have had anything to do with a bill that isn't law.

                            i've also explained that as i don't see this bill by its plain terms affecting websites that only have maybe 50% copyrighted congress, and i have no right to anyone else's coypyrighted content without consent, i don't perceive a threat to rights in this instance.  I think copyright and patent terms should be shortened, so that's an area of agreement with EFF over content creators.   But me an Sen. Leahy pick our battles.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:04:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no (0+ / 0-)

                            not a p2p network, wrong again. A search engine of bit torrent networks.  Bit torrent a totally legal way to share to information. Search engine and , doesnt have ANY copyright infringement.  Yet still seized, if they are already doing this nonsense, crap like this special interest bill will only add to the problems

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  did you actually read that quote? (0+ / 0-)

                            do you not understand that as well?

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:14:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i did read it (0+ / 0-)

                            it was an individual who has a particular point of view expressing a conclusion, and the rest of the argument failed to really analyze the actual proposed language in sufficient detail.  Indeed, the EFF"s issue page misleading implies there's no court supervision, so substantial drop in credibility.  also, when or if the bill passes, they'll come to regret arguing for a broad reading of COICA's powers when in draft stage, as they'd likely argue for exactly the narrow view i see when or if it's abused, or even applied to marginal cases.  

                            seizure of any network or torrent under existing and proposed law requires a threshold factual showing, largely tracking the doctrine in the Grokster case:  "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."  Souter, J.  Sure, he's a luddite, but the language is very careful, and it's a basic error of logic to treat the torrent's rather self-interested position as objective fact.  Even the EFF's effort to lump torrentfreak in with google (or suggestion customs' litigation position threatens to do so) winds up arguing that it's more of a content aggregator than a pure search engine.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:59:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  again, (0+ / 0-)

                            you are just of the mindset that is part of the problem.  You simply dont or cant see the bigger picture.

                            This is nothing more than special interest created law, and it does nothing to help anyone except those very same corps that have brought us to this terrible place in US history.

                            But hey, maybe your just a 1% cheerleader, who knows, your take on this subject is very telling however.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:05:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  FYI (0+ / 0-)

                            no such thing as a pure search engine, once again, you simply dont understand the technology.  But hey Im only a software developer, what would I know.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:08:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well, i wouldn't guess you were a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                            given that all you have done is regurgitate other people's opinions and make ad hominem attacks.  Whatever the technology (and i know a fair bit about local networks by necessity for civil discovery collection), or, rather, terminology, the supreme court announced a standard for contributory infringer liability, and it's not unreasonable to say, based on the ICE's arguments, torrentfreak fell outside of it.  It would be unreasonable to make that case for google.  EFF made that same argument, in fact, without even realizing it had done so.

                            Making this a 1/99 issue is a bit overbroad -- copyright in general?  I'm frequently annoyed that I can't download works by, say, Shostakovich on IMSLP, but as long as people are able to violate copyright with impunity, strengthening copyright terms is a worse response for those of us who try to respect what is legally other peoples' property than finding legal, targeted ways to make the act of infringement more difficult.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:28:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  wrong EFF (0+ / 0-)

                            understood exactly what they were saying,  you still do understand the slippery slope.

                            But hey what possibly could go wrong right? Oh, thats right even the more black and white DMCA laws full of bad consequences, but according to you, who could of foreseen that.

                            Oh brother
                            https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

                            again, your mindset is part of the problem.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:44:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  please (0+ / 0-)
                            Making this a 1/99 issue is a bit overbroad -- copyright in general?
                            who basically wrote this legislation?  who puppets are pushing it?  who looks to gain from it. It the 1%'s, good ole shitty corporate america.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:49:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                            you just keep thinking that big business and their paid stooges in congress have OUR best interest in heart.  My god, how many times do you have to be screwed over til you realize the nature of the game?

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:30:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  n minus 1 (0+ / 0-)

                            as i don't think this is a question of "our best interest," and think only about 2/3ds of one of the parties has my interest at heart.  this is a conflict, as i see it an read the proposed statute and not some statute that's easier to criticize, not between me and copyright holders, but between copyright holders and thieves.  More thieves, the more they'll raise prices or resort to potentially more invasive self-help regimes.  That's temporary overlapping of interests, nothing more.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:07:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                            what a load of shit. If you knew anything about copyright law you know that there is a HUGE grey area, that no one really fully understands.

                            This isnt about thieves, this is about fair use, this is about witch hunts, this is about allowing for user content and sharing.

                            Like I suspected, you havent a clue about what we are talking about.  Just like the Dinosaurs on the hill

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:13:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i apologize for not confirming your ideas (0+ / 0-)

                            i think i read the EFF link if you put it up earlier and simply didn't find it persuasive.  if it's shades of gray, that alone doesn't justify dire predictions, and language in COICA expressly contradicts the idea it's about fair use, specifically the nothing in this article affects substantive rights.  not quite so gray.

                            agree with me or you're ignorant is one way to argue, but i'm not going to play along.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:45:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no actually (0+ / 0-)

                            there is all types of ways to debate, The above just happens to fit this discussion.

                            If you have any appreciation for history, dire predictions have come to pass all to frequently and usually become  the norm, or perhaps you dont live in this same corporate dominated world as the rest of us do.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:02:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes, but divide that by (0+ / 0-)

                            those that didn't, and you'd have made logic.  I'm not sure your predictions are dire enough, come to that . . .

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:30:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and as should be clear, (0+ / 0-)

                            a distinction about what corporations can and will do in general to screw people is not quite on point to whether a particular statute is an effective means of achieving it.  Use of precise language renders it quite ineffective to screw the vast majority of the world.  So I think that leaves you in the position of arguing that copyright infringement is ok as long as it's done in a clever enough manner, or that it's not theft because many (not all) of the copyright holders are rich.  If those aren't your points, I can't really quite figure out why this bill in particular is objectionable.  If they are, I frankly prefer the side of law and order, but that's in spite of their size and power, not because of it.  Being further left is only imperfectly correlated with being more correct.  So, i'm not even going to be insulted when you drop "whose side i'm on" in retaliation, at least not on this discrete, narrow, ticky-tack, de minimis issue.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:44:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  save your lawyer doubletalk (0+ / 0-)

                            its not cute, its not clever, and it not impressing anyone.

                            You dont even grasp what is being discussed here , you have shown as much in your total missed attempt at what EFF was getting at.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:52:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you really have only one way to respond (0+ / 0-)

                            to disagreement, don't you.  I don't see any double-talk, either.  The choice i set up is clearly dependent on the second sentence.  If that sentence is right, the set-up is fair, if it's not, it's not ripe for discussion.  Indeed, the only double-speak I can see is the claim that agreement with EFF is the best evidence of understanding its arguments -- which could go either way.  You can agree because you understand and find it convincing, or you can agree because you don't quite grasp the legal issues but what EFF has to say about dire consequences is appealing for other reasons.  Just as one can disagree with or without understanding their arguments -- i fall squarely in that fourth category, which you won't even concede exists.  As far as the technology goes, much of it i don't understand (at least not from the inside), but a short statute, using language that tracks a recent supreme court opinion on similar issues which i have read and involving technology even David Souter understands, that has a disclaimer clause, and otherwise follows very basic standards for TROs and Preliminary Injunctions -- this i know.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:14:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and (0+ / 0-)

                            again you miss the point, as you even admit, according to the large net now caste, even sites like Google are in a grey area.  Only their size and wealth will protect them of course, with the help of course their fully owned puppets in government.

                            Smaller companies, and individuals of course are rip to be picked on and bullied at the mega corps leisure.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:44:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i did not admit that re google (0+ / 0-)

                            as the supreme court allows quite a bit of contribution towards infringement without it being "contributory infringement."

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:51:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh brother (0+ / 0-)
                            a distinction about what corporations can and will do in general to screw people is not quite on point to whether a particular statute is an effective means of achieving it.
                            it sure is when the special interest get to basically write it.  Do you even live in this country?  if you do, how can you be so clueless as to what is going on?

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:54:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's a concession to you (0+ / 0-)

                            corporations and special interests can and do write all sorts of terrible legislation, but it doesn't follow from that concession that each statute that special interests likely wrote, is similarly awful.  The best evidence of what a statute does is the language of the statute itself, which critics persistently misread.  I went into the discussion believing it might well be the worst law ever written (as the Copyright Term Extension Act is a decent candidate), then I read it, remembered the Grokster case (and the Napster case, and even the Betamax case from law school), and the limiting language, the requirement that any TROs be issued by judges, and decided it was much ado.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:22:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  special interest (0+ / 0-)

                            write the law for a reason, their own interest.  Not your, mine, our anyone elses.

                            Its just number 24174849 of what is wrong with this country.

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:41:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so according to you (0+ / 0-)

                            special interest are pulling all their strings, writing this law,  something they have been drooling over for decades, but in the end, its much a do about nothing.   Yeah, sure..

                            they just did this for kicks I guess...

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:47:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and lets not forget (0+ / 0-)

                            judges are now for sale also..

                            http://www.joplinglobe.com/...

                            You seem to be of the mindset that the status quo in this country is not so bad,  that is where I think we differ.  When 400 people have more money that 160 million, pretty sure its by design.

                            You still have faith in the system it seems,  well whatever lets you sleep at night.

                            anyway, Im off,  Have a great day, Hope I didnt offend you, Im just kinda brash.  South Philly guy whatta gonna do  :)

                            Bad is never good until worse happens

                            by dark daze on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:50:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not in the least (0+ / 0-)

                            the difference is i don't see this particular bill as evidence of all that is very wrong with the status quo.  part of it imay be the DOJ probably wants to retain the right to tell copyright holders to eff off when their claims lack merit.

                            i'm also from philly, by which i mean central bucks county.  Go birds.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:54:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  It could easily apply to YouTube (15+ / 0-)

      especially when you think about the amount of clips that show up from shows like Real Time, Daily Show, Colbert Report and the like. Twitter, you might be right that it wouldn't affect them at the outset, but I could see a future Republican administration/Congress putting through legislation to tighten the screws. Consider it a slippery slope, as it were.

      I know my own Representative will vote against it -- she's been representing Silicon Valley companies for years and if Google's agin it, she's agin it. I just hope that it dies in the Senate, or that Obama has the will to veto it as a horrible overreach by the GOP.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:41:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no it can't (0+ / 0-)

        most clips aren't infringing, but more importantly youtube already complies with copyright notices.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:06:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  copyright notices are already problematic. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, koNko

          Private company sends notice to carrier to censor content, and carrier complies:  censorship without the slightest hint of due process.  

          Can I, as a private party, shut down a restaurant for health code violations if I find a rat turd in my salad?  

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:49:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is it your turd? (0+ / 0-)

            the only reason to comply with a notice is to avoid litigation.  By itself, a notice is a statement of opinion.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:48:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh, avoiding SLAPP suits and the like, by.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ozsea1

              ..... bowing down to our corporate masters with entire legal departments on salary?

              Let me be really clear about whose turd this is:

              I worked in the music industry.  Recording studio and live production.  Including some stuff you have almost certainly heard or listened to.  

              I have NEVER, as in NOT EVEN ONCE, done an illegal download or upload of ANY kind.  I have stuff in my tape library that I could earn enough in bootlegs on to buy a f---ing house.  But what's important to me is the trust in those relationships, so that material will NEVER turn into bootlegs.  

              So NO, that is not MY turd.  

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Slapp suits (0+ / 0-)

                getting a bit ahead of ourselves?  If its a slapp suit, this bill doesnt make it less of one.  

                But if you held the copyright and it was absolutely being infringed, without means to enforce the rights are paper tigers.  I was asking you to put yourself in the position of th copyright holder which, clearly youve done.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 07:12:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the war between ENOUGH and ALL. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mkor7

                  "Maximizing profit" is like "maximizing" any one term on one side of an equation: the only way to do it is by minimizing the other terms on that side of the equation.

                  The record industry didn't object when everyone was making copies of albums on cassettes for their friends.  And that audio was plenty good enough in its day.  In fact the record industry felt it was good publicity & promotion: it sold more albums, which in fact was true, because people wanted the cover art and the liner notes and so on.  

                  But that wasn't enough.  Nothing is enough when the goal is to have it all.

                  And like the other terms in the equation, other values will be minimized along the way.  

                  Now look at Moore's Law.  Do you still use Macintosh System 8, or Windows 98?  So what's this with copyright going in the opposite direction, from 20+20 years, to nearly a century, with the goal of "one day short of forever"?

                  The content industry is clinging to a model where they keep trying to milk yesterday's stuff instead of producing tomorrow's stuff.  A five-year copyright term (Moore's Law applied to copyright) would lead to an absolutely enormous explosion of new content in all media: it's not just "the right thing to do," it's a better business model!  

                  As for the vast costs of producing films and (arguably) music (with video) these days: that's just bloat, it's wholly unnecessary, it would be done away with in an instant under a 5-year copyright term and we would quickly discover that it was unnecessary to begin with.  

                  "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:21:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  as i suspected, the argument has less to do (0+ / 0-)

                    with the details of a statute authorizing pre-trial remedies and a lot to do with big picture stuff on copyright.  I happen to agree that the terms are too long and that creates a problem with orphan copyright.  But once the copyrights are granted, whatever their scope, they should probably be enforced.  Indeed, the likely response to piracy is more legal protection, not the content industry throwing up its hands.  As your equation analogy suggests.

                    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                    by Loge on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:35:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  enforced at the expense of WHAT exactly? (0+ / 0-)

                      How'bout Sony's little remedy, instant enforcement by way of a virus that damages your PC when you try to play the CD you bought, on your PC, because you "might" try to copy it?

                      How far are you willing to take it?  

                      And what else are you willing to bulldoze along the way?

                      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                      by G2geek on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:39:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  what is it i'm bulldozing, here? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BlueStateRedhead

                        you've read a whole lot into a fairly technical point which is, as I read the proposed legislative text, it doesn't purport to do what its critics say it does.  And further that one would try to make a slippery slope out of such nothing indicates that the arguments against what the bill actually would do must be fairly weak.

                        as noted, the bill in question would authorize preliminary remedies for activities that are themselves fairly indefensible ("primary purpose," "dedicated to infringement," etc.).  The argument the bill isn't narrowly tailored rests on the assumption that someday some stakeholder in the future will deliberately misread it.  I'm not particularly worried about that prospect, because if they're going to disregard limitations in legislation, what does it matter whether the legislation passes or not.

                        And i think the whole gist of my argument is that applying and enforcing the bundle or legal rights through courts is better than self-help or lobbying congress for more substantive protections (like an end to fair use), as it's at least an attempt, contrary to the diary's suggestion, to target the most notorious infringers and not twitter or youtube.  Which means that i have no idea why you think your responses have anything to do with anything i've said.

                        I would think what Sony's apparently doing, and this is the first i've heard of that, is probably illegal as long as the computer is connected to a network, probably because of statutes that Sony, itself, lobbied for.  A virus that would erase the CD if it's copied to something other than itunes (for example) might be OK, but that is the likely alternative to this bill, not a supplement to it.

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:56:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  thereby demonstrating lack of essential knowledge (0+ / 0-)

                          "A virus that would erase the CD if it's copied to something other than itunes (for example)...."  CDs by definition are not writeable, much less erasable, once they have been created.

                          Your rationalizations of the law of the jungle would be amusing if they weren't so dangerous coming from someone who doth protest that he is liberal.  

                          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                          by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 02:16:54 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  that wouldn't make it illegal (0+ / 0-)

                            why would i want to erase CDs?  It's not something i've ever given any thought to, and thus not essential knowledge.  

                            how am i rationalizing the law of the jungle, here?  i'm saying quite explicitly that legal remedies are a better way forward, and in their absence, the law of the jungle might prevail.   (see paragraph 3 above).

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 06:26:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  judges do that one too. (0+ / 0-)

                            As do legislators.  All of whom seem to believe that the technical facts about this or that are unimportant, thus leading us down the primrose path to the state of affairs where legal standing is accorded to arguements whose basic premises are wholly disjunct from facts of science (not to mention facts of technology).  

                            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                            by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 08:21:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you enjoy strawman arguments, don't you (0+ / 0-)

                            I reiterate:  I do not believe existing law does or should be amended to allow self-help remedies that would limit the beneficial use of a product a content provider did not provide in connection with the delivery of copyrighted content (so Sony can't, for example, create a bug that fucks up Vaios).  I don't actually even think a bug erasing a CD (or some future devise that would be erasable) would even work for the imagined purpose -- all that one would have to do to avoid erasing it is only ripping it once and then ever after playing it on an ordinary, non-networked CD player.

                            I don't think every technical fact is unimportant -- a technical fact about a counterfactual is unimportant. The point is that unauthorized use of a computer network is generally illegal.  Authorized use of a non-network isn't.  Need I tell you that the CDs in this hypothetical are made of wood?

                            I'm still going to keep magnets away from my CDs, though.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 09:00:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  If Obama Grew A Spine And Some Cojones... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shmuelman

        ...he'd veto it simply because it was introduced by the GOP, even if it was a meritorious bill rather than the piece of crap it actually is. In this world, you either fight fire with fire or you keep getting burned.

        On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

        by stevemb on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:09:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  you're trusting snakes to not bite you. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, stevemb

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:45:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This doesnt affect substantive rights (0+ / 0-)

        and file sharing aside, enjoyable though it may be, one has no right in someone else's ip.  The bill is a solution to a nonproblem, but i do in facg trust the doj to apply fairly well settled copyright law, snakes or no.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:52:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  words that make nests for weasels. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevemb

          "Substantive rights" like the right to petition government for redress of grievances?   Is that all we'll have left of freedom of speech after one site after another gets shut down?

          And if this bill is "a solution to a non-problem," don't you think that on balance it's NOT a good idea to give government additional powers that have every probability of expanding over time?  

          Settled law?  In these times?  

          Like maybe the Supreme Court injecting itself into elections?

          Dude, clean up that stuff in your yard.  To you it only looks like a pile of leaves for the kids to play in.  But it makes great harborage and nesting material for weasels, rats, poisonous snakes, and poisonous spiders: a whole deadly little ecosystem.    

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 06:11:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Im not endorsing the bill, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlueStateRedhead

            merely noting that it does not shut down the internet, nor give anyone the right to shut down the internet.  The whole con argument rests on the assumption the powers will be abused, but any dispute would wind up in court, and judges like youtube as well.  

            The distinction between substance and procedure is admittedly blurry at the margin but important for the functioning of the legal system.  The point is that if  there is legitimate fair use, this bill doesnt affect that.  Indeed, if there is even a question, there is no authorization for a court order blocking the address.  What this has to do with bush v ore is anyone's guess.  That decision is bad because its not what courts do every day -- decide cases that collectively shed meaning on legislative language.  You might be picking this up in a vacuum -- those who enforce or are affected by the law are not.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 07:09:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  powers WILL be abused. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              stevemb

              History shows this time and time again.  

              And yes, disputes will wind up in court.

              Do you trust the Supreme Court that gave us Bush (that's the relevance), and Kelo, and Citizens United, to give us justice vis-a-vis the entire content industry, which has become a huge and powerful part of the economy?

              And would you trust the Supreme Court if all the stay-homes and NOTVs get their way and Obama doesn't get a second term, and we have a Romney/Perry White House packing the court with even more right-winger extremists?  

              This is like handling poisonous snakes: why take the chance?

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:07:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kelo was correctly decided. (0+ / 0-)

                and the Supreme Court is very unlikely to take a case concerning a statute dealing with provisional remedies only.  Saying powers will be abused is an argument against pretty much anything so I'm not going to give it that much weight, especially since the argument is built on the premise that major stakeholders, enforcement and courts both, will simply disregard language that's in there just to prevent the parade of horribles.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:32:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Kelo was correctly decided? Really? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stevemb

                  How'bout spelling that out rather than just making an assertion?

                  "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:37:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  it's off topic, (0+ / 0-)

                    but the 5th amendment says property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.  The fact of compensation was not in dispute, leaving the question of public use and, as an economic determination, it's the type of question best left to legislatures.  Absent allegations of a pretext or discrimination, public use is what the legislature says it is.  So, eminent domain is presumptively constitutional.

                    There is precedent allowing takings where the property was not held by the public but private parties, provided that the public somehow benefited thereby.  Petitioner tried to distinguish those cases on two grounds as I recall, first, uses like stadiums and shopping centers are open to the public, whereas an office park or factory, whatever Pfizer wanted to build, was not.  But there would still otherwise be a benefit to the community from creating jobs, and as long as the decision had a rational foundation, a court is not going to step in and say which projects are open enough, and it doesn't require developers to waste everyone's time by designating some of the land as a public park which is designed not to be used. The overall purpose of eminent domain -- using court proceedings to deal with unreasonable holdouts -- applies just as well regardless of the title-holder of the property.  This probably wouldn't work for private residences or some such (but yes for public housing projects) because there's no argument of a public use, but Kelo doesn't say otherwise.

                    Secondly, that the area wasn't "blighted."  But a ruling that says poor people's houses and not middle class people's houses could be taken for public use is hardly a liberal value and would just prove very difficult to administer (picture endless hearings on what is or is not "blight.")  The just compensation requirement is a sufficient check to make sure that higher-valued, unblighted properties are less likely to be "taken," all things being equal.

                    Anyway, the liberals on the court were in the majority on that one.  Justice Souter wrote the main opinion, so as a criticism of right wingers, it's doubly mistaken.

                    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                    by Loge on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:42:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And So We Come Full Circle Back To The Topic (0+ / 0-)

                      "The fact of compensation was not in dispute, leaving the question of public use and, as an economic determination, it's the type of question best left to legislatures.  Absent allegations of a pretext or discrimination, public use is what the legislature says it is.  So, eminent domain is presumptively constitutional."

                      If legislators are to be permitted to exercise Humpty Dumpty's prerogative of making words mean whatever they want them to mean, then any and all limitations of statutory and constitutional law become null and void.

                      Bringing us back to the topic of this thread, a bill that is supposedly limited to sites that have infringement as a "primary purpose" would, in fact, be a bill that affects sites that have any level of infringing content (e.g. the "primary purpose" of YouTube is to allow people to post videos, some of those videos infringe on other people's copyright, ergo, YouTube is covered because "primary" is, by your reasoning, whatever the legislature says it is).

                      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

                      by stevemb on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:33:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  not even close (0+ / 0-)

                        you'll see for one part that i did say that giving land to someone to build a house wouldn't probably pass muster.  But that's against the backdrop of law saying that "public use" can be met by transferring title to private entities providing there's a public benefit.  The question then becomes who decides what a public benefit is, and, more specifically, whether Ms. Kelo's arguments that New London's showing of a public benefit was insufficient as a matter of law.  That's not changing the meaning of words, but applying them to particular facts.  Similarly, definitions like "primary" and "dedicated" have been construed and defined through practice.  

                        For Youtube to be primary infringing, Congress would have to explicitly repeal the fair use statute.  Keep up with the open market for infringement, and they might just consider it.

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:54:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  exactly right. (0+ / 0-)

                        And Loge is rationalizing the depredations of Bigs against Smalls once again.  
                        That's immoral.  

                        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                        by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 02:10:35 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  it's not rationalization (0+ / 0-)

                          if I believe it.  And when you're saying "it's immoral" you're really not adding any content beyond "i don't agree," so why even bother.

                          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                          by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 07:16:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  that truly speaks volumes. (0+ / 0-)

                            "And when you're saying "it's immoral" you're really not adding any content beyond "i don't agree," so why even bother."

                            Why bother railing at injustices from slavery to the execution of innocent defendants?   Why object to holocausts, especially because they do seem to happen again and again?

                            After all, it would appear that in your world, "moral outrage" is just hyperbole for "difference of opinion," and the sounds of the victims' screams can be drowned out by the drum-beat of rampant pragmatism.  

                            The core error in your thinking appears to be the belief that everything is transaction, interchangeable with everything else.

                            Some day you'll learn this:  It's not.

                            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                            by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 08:17:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it's an argument about the form (0+ / 0-)

                            of argument.  Morality is best kept to one's self for the most part.  In some cases, arguments of the form of moral outrage are justified, even called for.  This was about how you chose to argue this particular point.

                            You will also see that I initially used very careful language.  I did not say Kelo was rightly decided, which has a normative content.  I said it was correctly decided, which means it was a faithful application of existing law.  (But when they came for me there was nobody left to speak, I suppose you'd say . . . yawn.)  At minimum, it wasn't an activist decision, so the initial point of comparison, that it's like a decision overturning 100 years of campaign finance law, is already wrong.

                            The reason why I'm not too concerned about the winners and losers in local New London, Connecticut politics is because in the name of upholding a broader principle -- legislatures should have the right to engage in economic regulation without it being tied up in the courts -- some bad legislative decisions will get upheld.  You see this a lot in the debates about the commerce clause application of the individual mandate.  The mandate is unfair, but a world where the Congress can't write one would be worse.

                            Going all in on the particular morality of one decision versus another misses this and would serve nobody well, when it blows up in your face, and all of a sudden the EPA can't regulate pollution without paying off factory owners.  As I would see that as a bad thing, we've got a way to go before I'm even illiberal, let alone immoral.  (For a lawyer, I am very kind to small children, widows, and animals, and I always tip generously.)  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 08:43:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  regardless of legal justifications... (0+ / 0-)

                      .... the bottom line is, it's immoral and evil.

                      This is not about "public use," which can be justified on the rationale of serving the public good, whereby the harm to some number of private persons can be considered a sacrifice to the greater public good, and both sets of values are "intrinsic" rather than "commodity."

                      This is about "private use," use for private profit, specifically the private profit of the Bigs in their endless quest to have it all.  

                      It's immoral and evil because it creates yet one more in a long series of perverse incentives whereby the Bigs kick the Smalls, the Strongs kick the Weaks, and civilization reverts to a kind of "law of the jungle" with a sugar coating.  

                      How you can call yourself "liberal," or rationalize Kelo because "liberal" members of the Court supported it, is beyond me.  Frankly your moral sensibilities are lacking.

                      And I deliberately waited a couple of days to post this so I could do it in as moderate a tone as possible under the circumstances.

                      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                      by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 02:09:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  it's not immoral or evil (0+ / 0-)

                        greater good for the greatest number.  

                        Eminent Domain certainly isn't by itself immoral or evil, and so the question is just when or how it's applied.  That's only a Constitutional question if you see the arguments raised by Ms. Kelo as having distinctions with a difference -- I do not, as the deeper issue facing the court and explaining the vote allocation was less about eminent domain, per se, than the question of when Courts should overturn economic policy decisions.  Typically, liberals only get activist for other forms of explicit discrimination, as the history of the Courts overturning economic legislation has on net been bad (why many libertarian groups saw this case as a chance as step one in a plan to eventually reverse the line of cases that refused to accept that regulations causing the diminution of property values were io ipso takings).  It can't be "evil," therefore when there's a countervailing liberal principle at stake, not to mention the interest any court system has in promulgating rules that are clear and easy to apply (precisely so it's NOT the law of the jungle out there).  

                        Either way, everyone's still free to vote against politicians supporting such projects.  If Kelo really did lead to a mass land grab  -- and it wouldn't for the simple reason it did little more than affirm existing law -- we'd have seen it by now.  Even the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project has little to do with Kelo because there is unmistakeable public benefit -- stadium construction, construction of subsidized housing, to go along with other aspects of the project.  A contrary ruling on Kelo would throw into doubt the viability of all public/private development partnerships to the extent they need eminent domain to come to fruition.  That has policy implications, but they can be sussed out in the democratic process.  In a way, therefore, the Kelo backlash is the best thing the court could have done to limit eminent domain.  

                        My moral sensibilities are just fine; I just happen to think a particular court decision was correctly decided.  This case was being argued when i was a 1L in property class, learning takings law, so I was all over that shit.  The respondents' arguments were analytically more persuasive, and that trumps morality every time, even if I did accept the outcome was immoral, which i don't.  As morality, per Kant, derives from reason alone, an argument about morality doesn't need to make itself through blunt force bald declarations.

                        And as long as Ms. Kelo did receive just compensation, a fact that was not really in dispute, her downside is all in all quite minimal.  Inconvenient, wouldn't want to be her, but the government would still buy her a new house, which is more than a lot of people who lose their homes due to government policies.  

                        And as I know every argument you could possibly make in opposition to Kelo (see where I devoured the briefs back in law school), I don't actually give a shit about the tone in which you make them, though the ad hominem by itself was something I hadn't considered.   It's true, I failed to take into account my personal venality, though that could go either way, as if I were in Ms. Kelo's position, I don't know if I'd be holding out and refusing to sell for anything like the right reasons.  (While she says she's defending the right to private property, which overstates things a bit, she's also elevating a sentimental attraction to a clapboard house over what might well have been the good of the community.  So, anyone can be selfish is the lesson.)  Then again, none of the parties raised the issue of my personal morality on appeal, so there's an element of waiver that comes into play.

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 07:04:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ever read Bug Jack Barron by Zelazny? (0+ / 0-)

                          Expensive immortality drug.  Great good for society, eh?
                          Then Zelazny springs the plot-trap:
                          The drug is derived from the adrenal glands of tortured black children.

                          Under the "greatest good for greatest number" principle without countervailing checks & balances, you could also approve of human sacrifice if it was shown to bring good fortune to society as a whole.  So how many six-year-old girls would you say are justified to slaughter in order to bring rain to Texas during their desperate drought?  

                          Shall we legalize child pornography due to its "multiplier effect" as it passes through the economy?  After all, one raped kid, potentially tens of thousands of viewers paying "good money" to see it, clearly there is a much greater number who will derive much greater pleasure from it than the pain caused to the kid who got raped.

                          Are you so sure you want to keep asserting "greatest good for greatest number" without checks and balances?

                          BTW, voting the bastards out doesn't put back what was destroyed.  Or if you found a way to do that, please tell it to all the 9/11 victims and service members who made the ultimate sacrifice during Bush's wars.  

                          In any case, building a casino or a WalMart or a stadium after kicking a bunch of poor people out of their houses and paying them enough to maybe afford new houses a few hundred miles away, is NOT sufficient "good" (entertainment?!) to justify the harm, unless you postulate a society that is addicted to its amusements at the expense of all else, and is in deep denial about the problem.

                          As for Kant, treating people as means to other ends is axiomatically immoral.  

                          And I know every arguement that people use to justify the core sins of our culture, which are to confuse things with people, and intrinsic value with commodity value.   I've heard all of them, and they are no more convincing when associated with legal or other scholarly language, than when they are left unstated to save time for those who prefer to go directly to the use of blunt force against persons weaker than themselves.

                          Either way the harsh fact remains, of the strong preying upon the weak.  
                          And there is no camouflaging it.  

                          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                          by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 07:49:32 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  no, i did not read that book (0+ / 0-)

                            seems like bad science.  why would only black children have such glands?

                            obviously in some cases there are countervailing considerations to pure utilitarianism.  Kelo's lawyers didn't compare the issue to slavery, however, and I can't say I blame them.  

                            but a fair reading of my argument -- something you evidently have no interest in doing -- would see that I think the rule of law articulated in the case is the correct one in spite of, not because of, distributional consequences.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 08:23:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  i see you also are arguing (0+ / 0-)

                        that the court should do a very thorough factual examination of the proposed benefit to see if it really would create jobs and so forth.  Part of the case law the liberal Justices are defending is the rule that says economic regulations are examined on rational basis review, which means if there's a plausible reason to think there's a public benefit, there is one.  That's precisely the argument that would open the door to the conservative justices bringing back substantive due process.  You also have a line drawing project -- let's say Pfizer gets 90% of the benefit and the City gets 10%.  Extreme numbers, because of the multiplier effect of jobs or whatever.  Should the 10% be completely disregarded?  What if it were 50/50?  What if it's not an office park but a football stadium.  Probably worse policy, but more constitutional, as more open to the general public.  Perhaps Courts should just leave those types of decisions to the democratic process -- if the democratic process is faulty that's due to a number of supreme court decisions I see as incorrect, but I don't see either CU or even Buckley v. Valeo as immoral -- they're principled applications of premises I don't share.  ALL justices in those cases agreed that there has to be a way to balance the right to speech with the interest in clean elections.  Once the issue is how to balance conflicting principles, morality really has little to do with it.  Morality gives you the principles in the first place, but balancing them is more of a technical problem.  In some cases, there isn't a need for balance, like with segregation, so arguments from morality do come into play.   Or in the death penalty, where the balance is so skewed, it's as if there isn't one.  

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 07:14:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Morality conveniently dispensed with in favor of.. (0+ / 0-)

                          .... a technical balancing exercise, is not morality at all; it is merely lip-service.  

                          The principles are really straightforward, and are ultimately derived from the Kantian categorical imperative.  

                          You do not tear up the relationships among the people who form a community, and you do not tear up the relationships of people to the land on which they live, unless the good to be served has a greater intrinsic value and cannot be served in a manner that causes less harm.  

                          A stadium, shopping mall, office park, etc., that has not yet been built, can be built elsewhere.  What is at stake here is not whether it can or can't be built somewhere, it's whether building it somewhere results in less profit to the developer or other interests involved in the project.

                          This isn't about a hospital with need of road or heli-pad access, or about straightening out a dangerous curve in a road, or about discovering a toxic waste dump under these houses.  This isn't even about a wind farm that needs particular siting in order to produce climate-clean energy, and it isn't about the jobs either.  

                          This is all about someone making more money by evicting people from their homes than they would make by building elsewhere.  Pure abject greed, plain and simple, dressed up with some "affordable housing" (hint: "housing" is to "home" as "fodder" is to "food") to soften the PR image.

                          And postulating scary libertarians blocking a hospital or a wind farm, is just caving in to fear-mongering PR by the same vested interests that will laugh all the way to the bank after bulldozing peoples' homes so they can build their soulless dreck.  

                          As for CU, the issue there is whether immortal corporations that are mandated to run on the reptilian "operating system" of "maximizing" profit, deserve the same rights as mortal humans that have evolved to run on the mammalian "operating system" that includes such applications as "nurturance of one's offspring."

                          The USSC can duck and rationalize all they like, but once again, the reality behind the lofty language is obvious for all to see: class interest plain and simple, the ability of members of the plutocracy to the unlimited imposition of their will upon the will of anyone who gets in their way.  The unlimited right of the strong to prey upon the weak.  

                          The sins of Mammon and Moloch multiply like mice.

                          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                          by G2geek on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 08:11:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

  •  I hope the legislators have more (12+ / 0-)

    knowledge about the Internet than the late Ted Stevens did.

  •  I.e. irony update #132,482 (32+ / 0-)

    on how there are no bigger advocates of big government taking away one's actual freedom than these supposedly freedom-loving anti-big guvmint "conservatives".

    Or, don't piss on me and call it rain. These people hate and fear actual freedom and slapping a "pro-freedom" label on their fascism doesn't make it so.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:57:32 AM PDT

    •  Their true intent is always opposite (13+ / 0-)

      of what they say it is.  Machiavellian manipulation,  propaganda or basic psychological projection: a tactic to muddy the waters, to confuse the opposition, trick low-information voters and conceal true intent.  Just like the "Patriot Act" actually violates constitutional protections, the "Clean Air Act" gives more leeway to polluters, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was a criminal act of aggression against Iraq, "Family Values" Republicans are least concerned with values affecting families (like affordable healthcare), "Compassionate Conservatism" means screwing everyone but the top 1%, etc.  I'm sure we could extend that list forever...

      The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

      by mojo workin on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:13:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right you are. I've been saying "think opposite" (0+ / 0-)

        for 12 years now.

        "Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed." --J. Steinbeck

        by livjack on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:34:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and "family values" gives Newt a pass. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:50:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  doublethink, I think it's been called. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        (while I still can, a quote from WIKI)

        Doublethink is critical in allowing the Party to know what its true goals are without recoiling from them, avoiding the conflation of a regime's egalitarian propaganda with its true purpose.

        and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

        by le sequoit on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 07:40:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's freedom for me not for thee. Classic (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl, sunbro, kyril, TDreamer

      conservativism.

      We have "Nobel Peace Drones" creating terrorists one hellfire missile at a time

      by pathman on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:30:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  kovie, freedom is scary (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, i like bbq, G2geek, dirtfarmer

      to most people, actually, once they get past feeling free to choose between a ford or a chevy, or a coke or a pepsi.

      To have the full benefit of freedom, one must be fully free to accept whatever consequences ensue from one's choices.  That's what makes it scary.  Most folks choose a safe way and limit their freedom accordingly.

      The last time we, as a nation, pushed hard on the limits of freedom, it was the 60s.  It is time to stand up for freedom again.  It might be, or get, a bit scary.  It will be wild, and the young will no longer have to envy those who lived through those last interesting times; you'll have your own to live.

      One thing: when the dust of the 60s settled, we still had to GOTV, and the same will be true this time.  The best outcome for OWS would be 10 million new, educated, voters voting correctly, and the education of the present electorate to vote in their own economic interests and stop getting distracted by all the "Values"  BS. A nationwide teach-in.

      "Mr. Obama needs to put forward a comprehensive plan and fight for it. If he loses to obstructionist Republicans, Americans will know who is to blame."---NYT

      by claude on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:44:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can understand how individuals may choose (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, claude

        to self-limit their own freedom, voluntarily, to make like easier and perhaps even safer. But to impose such limitations on others except in cases of obvious danger and harm, e.g. polluting waters or shooting a gun in public, is quite different, and the exact opposite of the foundational principles of this country.

        A third of the country will likely always be in thrall to this sort of self-contradictory idiocy and will forever be lost to the concepts of true liberty and democratic self-rule, and consistently vote for the most macho-sounding, freedom-lovin', straight-talkin' demagogue who exploits their idiocy, ignorance and infantilism.

        A third of the country will likely always remain thoughtful and informed and vote for the most actually progressive, liberal, intelligent, decent candidate available.

        And a third of the country will always contain elements of both sides and thus be up for grabs, and we will always have to campaign for their attention and votes as if time began anew, because for them, being non-ideological and politically aloof, it effective does. Our fate forever hinges on the attention span of the center.

        Such is freedom's lot.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:06:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the occupy 'name it' gives me hope that pattern (0+ / 0-)

          changes.
          I don't see this Country, or any others experiencing it in a significant degree, ever being the same again. Provided it continues, and considering the fact that our continuing Reaganomics will not magically work this time, it will only get larger.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:35:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I doubt it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            le sequoit, claude

            The financial and economic systems might well end up being reformed for the better in the end, as they were in the 30's. But human nature never changes--ever. Some of the people will always be stupid or crazy, some of the people will always be idealistic, and some of the people will always be detached and self-interested. Most people currently fall into the last group, whether or not they abstractly claim to sympathize with OWS. They might be upset that times are tough and hope for reform, but they're not about to become reformers let alone revolutionaries. History is always made by a determined few, resisted by a determined few, and ultimately accomodated to by the passive many.

            It's our side's turn to make history, I agree, and if we do then the public will go along with it--they always do. But it won't change a thing about human nature. Never does, never will. Effective reform is cognizant of this.

            Optimism is not a strategy.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 06:49:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  "Freedom" to Republikans literally only means... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i like bbq, aliasalias, G2geek

      ...the freedom to make money without government interference.

      We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

      by TheOrchid on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They also like the power thing (0+ / 0-)

        No longer actual lords (their ideological and sometimes even actual ancestors), they still like to lord it over us little people. It's a major perk for them.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:08:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Freedom of Money." (0+ / 0-)

        I think we should introduce it as a Constitutional amendment and see what happens.

        "Congress shall make no law limiting freedom of money, or the ability to invest and profit, or the use of money as a form of speech."  

        Call it the "Freedom of Money Amendment."  

        It would put a huge spotlight on the class war.  

        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:53:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, that's bi-partisan...like this bill. (0+ / 0-)
    •  Patrick Leahy is a conservative? (0+ / 0-)
      •  Effectively, if not in label (0+ / 0-)

        Pretty much all elected politicians become more conservative once in office. The few exceptions like Bernie Sanders just prove the rule.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 08:17:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Intimidation tactic (19+ / 0-)

    It won't work. They do not realize that this is a whole new world. Their old and moldy methods of intimidation will no longer work. Not permanently.

    They can never control what is beyond their wildest imaginations. Today's technology and the minds of the new generation is something they have no idea about.

    They will only further legitimize their irrelevancy. That's all.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:03:15 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're right, (22+ / 0-)

      but I also live by the credo: never underestimate a fascist.

      "Plan for the normal, live with the abnormal." Great gardening advice from Frankenoid (equally applicable to relationships).

      by surfbird007 on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:14:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't underestimate the Corporatist's power (16+ / 0-)

      They may not use Twitter, but they have the money, power and influence to shut it down if they want.  We take them lightly at our own peril.

      •  It MAY become "Whack A Mole" again. (11+ / 0-)

        Remember how shutting down Napster totally ended all illegal file sharing?

        Eventually it's going to come down to either:

        1. Corporate scum realizes that they can't make a profit off things with no intrinsic value any more and stop making it, relegating entertainment back to the people.

        2.  All Internet activities will be subject to 100% keylogged monitoring at central databases, available at all times to the police and interested corporate parties.  Failure to comply will result in criminal charges.

        The Genie's out, folks.  You either shoot the Genie or let him run free.  He Ain't going back in the bottle.

        http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

        by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:35:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Cartoon universe (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          detroitmechworks, kyril, Hohenzollern
          2.  All Internet activities will be subject to 100% keylogged monitoring at central databases, available at all times to the police and interested corporate parties.  Failure to comply will result in criminal charges.

          This is only possible in a cartoon universe, as I am sure you know...;)

          "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

          by zenox on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:52:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did I forget the snark tag on point 2? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril, zenox, Hohenzollern

            Dammit I did.  Add a /snark there...

            http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

            by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:51:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  have I got news for you. (0+ / 0-)

              Notice how all new laptops come equipped with microphones and webcams?  ("While you're watching your screen, it's returning the favor!")

              Recently a "bug" was found in some Adobe Flash software that allowed third parties to turn on the cameras and mics without the permission of the owner of the device.

              Want to bet there are more "bugs" where that one came from?

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:55:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just "corporate scum"... (4+ / 0-)

          ...who are trying to make money from intellectual property.

          1. Corporate scum realizes that they can't make a profit off things with no intrinsic value any more and stop making it, relegating entertainment back to the people.

          My friends in the film or music industry also want to make money from the intellectual property they have a hand in creating.

          As do I someday, once I've finished writing my book.

          Define "intrinsic value" here; does the work of the people who devote their time and livelihood to making music, film, or prose have no "intrinsic value" because it can be digitally copied?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:39:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Film industry and publishing industry (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril, TDreamer, i like bbq, G2geek

            Are dinosaurs trying to tell the giant meteor that it has no legal right to kill them.

            Honestly, I'm all for the artist.  It's the bloated bureaucracy and idiotic corporate morons who thrive off said artists work that I object to.

            In a day when pretty much anybody can self-publish, there's no reason to defend the current paradigm as being for those who create.  In my opinion, IP restricts creativity rather than promoting those who actually do the work.

            http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

            by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You try getting a big movie done... (7+ / 0-)

              ...on a shoestring, home-production budget.

              If I wanted to make a really big movie, that costs money. Lots of money. I'd have to hire a crew who knew what they were doing, paying them the wages their unions have won for them at the collective bargaining table, and I'd have to get good equipment (even prosumer stuff isn't on the level of cinema-quality).

              At the end of the day, the people who light the shot and run the camera and do the script supervising and put makeup on actors and drive trucks and set up the craft-services table deserve to get paid for their work too.

              I don't think the way the industries are currently configured is necessarily optimal, but I do think that suggesting that it's only "corporate scum" who want to make money off of creative work is really out of line. And while I don't necessarily think that the current landscape of IP is all that stellar, I do think it's better than no copyright enforcement at all.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:03:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Think we're gonna have to agree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek

                to disagree here.  

                Now don't get me wrong, there are a lot of hard working people in the industry who do deserve a paycheck for their hard work, but there's so much bloat in the costs for all of those things, due to the cult of celebrity run and inspired by the corporations, that I think it's time.

                The reason it costs so much to make a movie is...  it costs a lot to make a movie.  Unlike everywhere else, the costs for film production equipment keeps going up, as opposed to everywhere else in the electronics and film world, where it keeps going down.  

                Once again, this is a personal belief thing, but I don't feel that the BIG movies are worth the smackdown of thousands of consumers to protect them.  Good artists will do what they love regardless of the money involved.   If we have to sacrifice Michael Bay to see YOUR novel available... That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.  We KNOW Bay's stuff is gonna be crap.

                http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

                by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:11:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actors who get paid 60 Million per pick? ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                detroitmechworks, G2geek, burnt out

                Our values are messed up.  And you bet that many "artists" support this bill, not just the corporate scum.

                •  and so do all of us who buy their products. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  katiec, burnt out

                  If we want to choke them off, we have to VOTE with our DOLLARS and stop buying.

                  I stopped buying when copyright fascism first reared its ugly head.  It's not hard.  There's plenty of indie content out there that's damn good, and most of it has a lot more creative integrity than the pap that's shoveled at us with big marketing push.  

                  "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:13:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  James, you're missing the main point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dirtfarmer

                Nobody here is promoting the idea of no copyright laws or enforcement.

                What we're objecting to is this:

                Take any equation in arithmetic or mathematics.

                Now maximize the value of one variable on one side of the equation.

                Now look at what happens to the values of all the other variables on that side of the equation.  The only way to maximize one is to minimize the others.  

                There's your logical proof that maximizing profits is harmful to every other axis of value in a society.  

                Chances are that there's a level of income from your creative work that you consider to be "enough."  But "enough" is not the same thing as "maximize."  

                The plutocrats don't have an "enough" limit.  They want it ALL, without limit, and regardless of consequences.  

                If slavery hadn't been outlawed, do you think for one moment that these people would refrain from holding slaves just because it's immoral?  

                "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:10:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  "anybody can self publish" (3+ / 0-)

              But what if you don't want to self publish?  What if you like doing what you do best, which is writing, and you don't particularly want to design the cover, develop advertising, book a promotional tour, market the book to sellers, and all that?  What if you prefer leaving that stuff to, well, people who do that stuff for a living and are much better at it than you are?  

              •  Different Paradigm, once again. (0+ / 0-)

                It's the "traditional" way to do it.

                Respectfully, if what you want to do is write, then WRITE.  

                If what you want to do is get rich from just writing, then what you are talking about becomes a problem.

                http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

                by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:24:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  do you also want a secretary to type, answer phone (0+ / 0-)

                  and a guy to pump your gas?

                  how about a milkman?

                  everybody's job responsibilities have changed in the last couple of decades

                  we're not likely to go back to the older way of doing it

                  now take this memo down to the typing pool and have them type it up and route it upstairs

                  •  To quote Robert Heinlein.... (0+ / 0-)

                    A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

                    I'd rather have a hundred skills i can do well than one skill I can do perfect.

                    http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

                    by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Another Heinlein Quote Suited To This Topic (0+ / 0-)

                      There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
                       --"Life-Line"

                      (The quote is from a judge's ruling denying a lawsuit by life insurance companies to suppress the protagonist's invention -- a device that can predict a person's date of death.)

                      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

                      by stevemb on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:39:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  maybe, you just want to have a family, (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cassandra Waites, Bill W, beachmom

                  feed, clothe, and house them, and go on a trip every once in a while. How does that person write a book, or is book writing to be strictly left to twenty-somethings with no responsibilities and the independently wealthy?

                  and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

                  by le sequoit on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 08:00:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  then HIRE THEM. don't let them HIRE YOU. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                koNko

                This is the difference between capital ism and free markets.

                Under capital ism, capital is ownership and labor is rented.

                In a truly free market, there is equal standing for labor to be ownership and capital to be rented.  

                The middlemen love to crow about how they are so essential and everybody would die miserable deaths if they went away.  That is self-serving horse shit.  (In fact it turns out that a band can earn more for its albums by self-producing and self-publishing online, than with a record contract, the only exceptions being huge national/global acts.)

                The way we take back our country is for workers, which includes workers in the creative and intellectual fields, to assert ownership which means taking control of their own work and not letting the middlemen control it.  

                "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:27:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Indeed. (0+ / 0-)

                  Too late for me, but I'm really all for smart kids & start-ups verses assigned patents in cheap black frames in the corridor leading to the toilet.

                  What about my Daughter's future?

                  by koNko on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:10:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Middle man or no, it's easy to pirate a book (0+ / 0-)

                  You are using Big Bad Mean Content as an excuse for people to continue to break the law.  I agree with a lot of the criticism of Big Content, but that has nothing to do with letting people steal with abandon with no consequences.

            •  Indie labels are also for these types of bills (0+ / 0-)

              So, actually, no, you're not "all for the artists".  They actually want to get paid for their work.  Radiohead now self releases their music.  They sell a lot, but also get pirated a lot.  

              See my comment downthread how Grooveshark screws over artists.  Tech is no better than the major record labels.  They're just as prone to screw over artists as the old content industry has.

          •  so which would you choose: (0+ / 0-)

            Make less money in exchange for public policies that support freedom & privacy?

            Or make more money in exchange for public policies that restrict freedom & privacy?

            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 03:59:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What a terrible choice (0+ / 0-)

              And completely ridiculous.  Look, I thought once as you, but if you think about it, if there is a website which is largely devoted to enabling people to steal music, film, and books you think it means a restriction to freedom to shut that website down?  I mean, if it were a physical retail store, wouldn't it be shut down?  Why not if it is a virtual store, even if it is just giving it away for free.  They display ads and it is MAKING MONEY from enabling stealing.

      •  I neither underestimate them or take them lightly. (4+ / 0-)

        I just know that they are peeing against the wind. I am only an observer, of course.  And to the "power, money, and influence"...

        Have you heard of the names of people like Saddam, Bin Laden, Mubarak and Gaddafi?

        What happened to all their "power, money and influence," I wonder...

        Read Shelley's poem "Ozymandias, King of the Kings"

        "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

        by zenox on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is a blatant attempt (13+ / 0-)

    To push back the clock.  

    Entertainment companies like their monopolies, government likes its control of information.

    The real question is whether we are going to let the paradigms of a few wealthy assholes who want to keep their profits dominate or change the dialog to one where creativity is rewarded and the idea of sole ownership of ideas replaced with a less profit driven one.

    http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

    by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24:54 AM PDT

    •  If they really want to push back the clock (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro, kyril, aliasalias, G2geek, Matt Z

      let them bring back 35 cent movie admissions.

      Real plastic here; none of that new synthetic stuff made from chicken feathers. By the morning of 9/12/2001 the people of NYC had won the War on Terror.

      by triplepoint on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:31:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still overpriced. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TDreamer, G2geek, koNko, Matt Z

        I mean have you seen the crap they make nowadays?

        /snark

        http: detroitmechworks.blip.tv My little wiseass review show.

        by detroitmechworks on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:52:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  actually, no, I haven't. (0+ / 0-)

          I stopped buying right about the time that DCMA went into effect.  

          Ferocious EFF supporter here too.  

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:28:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I remember Saturday double features for kids (0+ / 0-)

          in the afternoons back in the early 50's.

          I remember one that included John Wayne in 'The Fighting CB's' and something about the Flying Tigers.  Also had a Flash Gordon serial and a few cartoons.  Those were the days...

          The Fighting CB's was awesome with Wayne lifting his bulldozer blade to deflect Japanese bullets.  I REALLY REALLY wanted to operate heavy machinery, and only 30 years later did I get the chance (but not under enemy fire, thank God).

          Real plastic here; none of that new synthetic stuff made from chicken feathers. By the morning of 9/12/2001 the people of NYC had won the War on Terror.

          by triplepoint on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Our country is becoming more and more like (10+ / 0-)

    China everyday.

    Our Bill of Rights is being eroded before our eyes while new protections for corporations crop up every day.

  •  It's all cool (4+ / 0-)

    I am relieved to see the Republican's remain committed to  free market solutions and remain steadfast in opposition to governmental controls.

  •  That would be like saying your phone (17+ / 0-)

    carrier (wireless or land line) is responsible for what you say over the phone. Ridiculous!

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by MA Liberal on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45:32 AM PDT

    •  sssh!, don't give them any ideas! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal

      And with Google Voice's speech recognition routines, that day may be coming.  

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:29:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gotta crush the rebellion somehow... (7+ / 0-)

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:50:17 AM PDT

  •  Not gonna become law (9+ / 0-)

    Too much power on the other side.

  •  BS (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, kyril, G2geek

    They want several million crazy teenagers? Let 'em try. I don't know a single one that doesnt use You Tube.

    They wont be dealing with OWS they'll have pissed off kids on their hands.

    •  If anything interupts... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ClapClapSnap, Russgirl, kyril, G2geek

      ...the media viewing and listening habits of teens/20-somethings they'll have an enormous backlash on their hands.

      This sort of thing has caused political parties to rise up in other countries. Political parties who then got a significant amount of votes.

      I do believe Hollywood would face a fierce boycott too.

      •  Wouldn't even have to be a boycott. (0+ / 0-)

        Word of mouth would die back.

        People have gotten used to waiting out the first weekend and then seeing what people who aren't paid to review movies think of it before shelling out for the high-priced ticket.

        Take away those reviews, and the box office hits for the week after opening weekend could go down for just about every widely released movie by any production company.

        Prayers and best wishes to those in Japan.

        by Cassandra Waites on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:12:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Bieber" tag??? What? N/T (0+ / 0-)

    The world does not need billionaires.

    by targetdemographic on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:02:04 PM PDT

  •  YouTube (0+ / 0-)

    YouTube already supresses videos that are copyright violoations.  I don't see why this would change anything with them.  

    Try it sometime--put something that is copyrighted up on YouTube.  It will likely be flagged and taken down pretty quickly.

    •  It Won't Impact YouTube (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Ignacio Magaloni

      Certainly not anything to do with their profit, which comes exclusively from videos that DON'T contain copyright violations.

      I don't really understand provision #4 listed either.  Does the bill actually say: "Any site that encourages users to generate content will be subject to ____"... that's kind of oddly worded.

      Bill seems totally unnecessary, even if this reaction sounds a bit ginned up too.

  •  Politicians of both parties would love for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cassandracarolina, peptabysmal, kyril

    things to just go back to the way they were pre-tattertoobz.

    While I doubt this bill can pass, its frightening that it would even be introduced. This furthers my suspicion that the goopers believe their time is now-to go full Gault.

    I assume these affected companies spend lavishly on lobbying in order to kill this kind of over reach.

  •  I say let it pass... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    it seems like until people realize how radical the GOP is...they will continue to buy their bs...

    it is getting sickening...

    I only say that half tongue in cheek...

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:42:54 PM PDT

  •  A lot of individuals are getting hit with CR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    infringements, it would be better if the web hosting companies did not post copyrighted materials.  They are big business too now and they seemed to have shifted the risks (via previosuly enacted legislation) to individuals using perusing their sites, individuals who are not nearly as knowledgeable as web hosters are or should be.

  •  I can count on multi-billion dollar companies... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    ...to defend their interests effectively on Capitol Hill.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:21:35 PM PDT

  •  this is a direct attack on OWS which ignores (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LokiMom, TDreamer, aliasalias, G2geek

    MSM and organizes on twitter and exposes the truth on utube.   funny about this because I hear there is a major group that is about to unvail a NEW opensource stream that does not use any known platform and will directly link the world up sans ANY kind of corp interference :)

    anyway IF this is all shut down the revolution will go back to using the wild wild west of the innertubes IRC..

    congress doesnt get it yet....   so let me repeat it for them

    1) we are the people

    2) we are united

    3) these occupations are NOT going away

    (smile)

    "Orwell was an optimist"

    by KnotIookin on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:21:48 PM PDT

    •  Rah roh (0+ / 0-)

      I've been suspended on twitter already for not doing anything other than spreading the news, progressive that is.

      and my youtube account is loaded with weather stuff, but I post the Fair Use Disclaimer

      however, there are some survivalists that like my weather reports.  So I would be guilty by being followed on youtube

      That's nuts, that's not  constitutional.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 05:17:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  question-what if all these corps just pack up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, mrblifil

    and moved HQ and (like server farms) the like off to say, some foreign countries to avoid this stupid law that is being proposed?

    And what if these companies said a big FU to the USA, canned 80% of the people in the USA offices?

    What then? It will take a while for this to be implemented if is passes, and in that time Google et al could just say, hmmmm....we will pay taxes somewhere else and set up shop in one of our subsidiaries ... where we can rake in more money (or something like that)....thoughts?

    •  then there will be a Great Firewall of the USA. (0+ / 0-)

      Just like China: all that content will be blocked at the borders.

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:31:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On top of that... (0+ / 0-)

      Could a business like Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube start up in an environment like this?  Or are we now ceding this type of innovation and attendant jobs and tax revenue to smarter jurisdictions?

      To say I'm disappointed in the AFL-CIO position is an understatement.  This legislation could wipe out as many jobs as it saves.  Though I suppose not many of the jobs it would destroy are unionized...

      And what's most frustrating is that copyright-related idiocy is typically bipartisan and sails through without comment.  At least this is seeing a smidgen of comment, but guess how thorough the coverage will be on the news?

  •  Wow -- well, we lived through the 20th century (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    once, so I guess we could live through it again, if this passes.  Shame, though.

    Democrats must
    Earn the trust
    Of the 99% --
    That's our intent!

    OCcupy!

    by Seneca Doane on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:47:24 PM PDT

  •  These Idiot Congressmen (0+ / 0-)

    ...don't realize that the Citizens United powers to corporations can work both ways if they step on someone's profits.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:02:04 PM PDT

  •  Move all the corporations to Latvia or Estonia (0+ / 0-)

    The only way around all this bullshit. This country is just careeeeening into fascism.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:11:54 PM PDT

  •  The "Millions more for Yoko Ono" Bill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, G2geek, ferment

    The so-called PROTECT IP act that is about to be introduced in Congress would better be called the Internet Blacklist and Censorship Act.
    Objections to the proposed law are summarized here:
    http://www.oregonlive.com/...

    Congress has been in the pocket of supposed "owners of intellectual property" for too long.  The Constitution empowers Congress to grant patents and copyrights FOR A LIMITED TIME, to promote creeativity.  Lobbyists for the recorded music industry and the motion picture industry have said they want copyrights to last "One day short of for ever."  The current 95 year copyright is outrageous.

    How on earth does it promote creativity for Yoko Ono to be able to bequeath royalty rights to John Lennon's music to her heirs?

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:12:06 PM PDT

    •  instant memes! Excellent! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferment

      The Millions More for Yoko Ono Bill

      One day short of forever.

      Excellent stuff.  I'll spread it around.

      As for Yoko and John's heirs, it ought to work like this:   Whatever money you can earn on a creative work during your lifetime, you should be able to bequeath to whoever you please.  Just like, whatever other money you earn during your lifetime.  Simple & straightforward, eh?

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 04:34:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bye Bye Netflix. (0+ / 0-)

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:23:56 PM PDT

  •  Many unions supports passing Protect IP Act (0+ / 0-)
  •  Perfect. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    barleystraw

    How to turn thousands of ordinary Americans into criminals in one swell foop.  Let the prosecution of college students begin.

    Crimestoppers tip:  If you hear a song you haven't paid for, plug your ears

    Power isn't something you are given. Power is something you TAKE.

    by lonelyutahdem15 on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 02:53:48 PM PDT

  •  IMO, the "copyright" issue is a red herring (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box

    The corporations, or even an astroturf right wing organization, could simply claim a copyright violation and down would come the site because the intermediary would not afford to investigate every such claim.  Thus, a Wall Street Bank could claim violations by Occupy Wall Street social media and down would come those web pages.

    As we have seen with Wikileaks, there's no protection from corporate violations of our civil rights...just government violations.  The only role of the government nowadays is to create laws that let corporations rules the world.

  •  The Right is getting its ass kicked on line (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burnt out, NamelessGenXer, Matt Z

    So we knew this was coming.

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 05:22:01 PM PDT

  •  Censorship.. Home of the free.. bullshit.. NT (0+ / 0-)

    "I reffuse to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

    by hangingchad on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 05:27:30 PM PDT

  •  I don't mean to be paranoid, but.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mrs M

    why is it when I try to share this on my Facebook page, I get an "error on page" message?

  •  Please un-rec this diary -- it's obsolete. (5+ / 0-)

    So far as I can tell, this diary is responding to a web page that is half a year old and obsolete. No bill of the sort that's described is coming up this week, or anytime soon. DemandProgress should have put a date on their page, and/or updated it more recently.

    Facebook users (and maybe others) can get more info here.

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 06:19:35 PM PDT

    •  It's not. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nowhere Man

      It's responding to a rumor that the bill is going to be introduced in the House this week.  

      The last action on the Senate bill was in May, and it's not known how similar the House bill will be.  Demand Progress seems to think it might actually be worse.

      •  Maybe. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferment

        Just about every article I can find about this links directly to the Demand Progress page as its source. That page, in turn, links to another page that is clearly obsolete -- it mentions "Google CEO Eric Schmidt". Schmidt hasn't been Google's CEO since April.

        I did find a story on marketwatch that shows that the beast is not fully dead yet:

        ARLINGTON, Va., Oct 26, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)(R) is bringing 15 venture capitalists specializing in Internet innovation to Washington on October 27, to tell members of Congress first-hand how the PROTECT IP Act would undermine the vital web economy.

        but that page doesn't say anything about the bill actually coming up for a vote. In fact, even some of the more recent articles about the bill refer back to Senator Ron Wyden's hold on it from last May.

        So it's totally unclear to me whether Demand Progress is onto something in saying that this bill was being introduced in Congress "introduced this week, probably on Wednesday." (Hey, it's Wednesday. Anyone hear anything about it?) In any case, it was irresponsible of them not to put a date on that page. These things tend to be harder to kill than zombies, once they go viral.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:42:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Um... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren

    why are we supposed to be in a panic calling everybody under the sun? You realize the Senate would have to pass any bill coming out of the house, right? Why would the Senate support such a bill? Why would Obama sign it? How could the provisions of the bill be allowed to supercede settled constitutional law regarding fair use, and other related issues? Why are you trying to drum up outrage when our powder might actually be best kept dry in this case?

  •  Anything (0+ / 0-)

    to make sure Americans are silenced. The criminal elite hate Americans' freedom of speech.

  •  I don't think their knowledge is "limited" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferment

    I think they look out and see how quickly #OWS becomes #occupytogether and then the next thing you know there's #occupypodunkjunction everywhered yo look.

    They know the uprisings from Iran to Greece to Tunisia to Iceland to NYC have used Twitter, Facebook and YouTube as primary organizing and outreach tools.  They fully intend to slap them out of our hands, and they can always get the big money of the RIAA and MPAA on board by covering it in the rubric of "intellectual property rights."

    The 1% want us isolated, atomized and silenced,they want to make permanent the control of communication and information as a one-way street to which we the 99% are merely passive receptors of the messages carried by their trusted corporate agents.

    And Pat Leahy shows his true colors as loyal soldier for the 1% and Fox News by his sponsorship of this bill.  For the briefest moment, it occurs to me that Dick Cheney may have been right about something once in his life.

    We are the 99%. We are the mob. We areToo Big To Fail.

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:45:13 PM PDT

  •  If youtube (really google) isn't (0+ / 0-)

    trying hard enough to push back against this in Washington, then there's little the rest of us can do.  

    I REALLY rely on Youtube for my Thursday Classical Music series diaries.  I'm screwed without Youtube.

    If the crack down on third-party content and blocking of IPs gets serious enough, I suppose DailyKos and Crooks&Liars could be within the realm of possibility as well.  News clips and CSPAN clips are technically third party copyrighted content.  

  •  More small government hypocrites promoting (0+ / 0-)

    big-government policies.

    Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:57:09 AM PDT

  •  Google, Facebook have billion$ to fight it? Hello? (0+ / 0-)

    Don't see them offering to pay $1M each to every Congressman to vote against it.  It's lunch money to Google and the internet billionaires.  It's how US politics works.  Are Google, Facebook et al THAT politically naive to just let GOP impose Chinese level restrictions on them and kill their business?

    Or do they know they have paid for the votes in the Senate to kill it and don't really care what the radical right wing GOP House does?

  •  Much ado about nothing. It won't pass the Senate (0+ / 0-)

    If at some point we have Repug Congress majority and a Repug  president, then we might have cause to worry.

    Sarah Palin: all pistol and no squint.

    by CanyonWren on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 08:16:51 AM PDT

  •  Grooveshark SCREWS over artists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill W

    Sorry, there are no good guys in this fight.  This is a battle between Big Content and Big Tech.  Clearly, you need to read up on Grooveshark.  Read here e-mails between King Crimson's manager and Grooveshark.  King Crimson has been trying in vain to get their music which was illegally put on Grooveshark off the service.  Still no success.  In the past artists were screwed by record companies.  Now they are getting screwed by Big Tech and tech start ups.

    There is so much ignorance in this diary and thread, I don't know where to begin.  First off, this is not some GOP conspiracy.  It is bipartisan FOR these copyright bills and bipartisan AGAINST these bills depending on which industry is funding their campaign coffers.  I believe a lot of people here like Patrick Leahy on many issues, yet here is this reliable liberal in the Senate the actual author of the bill.  President Obama is also very much for copyright protection.  His Justice Department is loaded with former RIAA lawyers who feel the same way.  Biden said this about internet piracy:

    "But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

    I'm not saying I like the language in this legislation which still feels too broad.  But to pretend that musicians aren't being screwed every single day while Google, Apple, and so many other tech companies are getting richer is to be completely naive.  Look, I don't like the major record labels -- they are greedy, shady, clumsy and stupid.  But it doesn't make the other side right.

    I don't think this legislation will pass.  But I do feel bad that so many creative people are being cheated every day, by big tech companies and, yeah, little guys who think nothing of torrenting the latest movies or albums just because they can.  They are freeloaders, plain and simple.

    I am not convinced this legislation is superceding the DMCA which requires takedown notices for infringing content, not holding the actual site liable.  Please show that language.

Meteor Blades, Sharoney, Renee, JekyllnHyde, shari, MichaelPH, Sylv, northsylvania, RF, CJB, filkertom, thinkdouble, melo, teacherken, slinkerwink, Sparhawk, AaronInSanDiego, glitterscale, Gooserock, kainah, BigOkie, janinsanfran, PeterHug, wytcld, TechBob, Emerson, Shockwave, meg, LEP, rhubarb, GayHillbilly, Earwicker23, akeitz, eeff, xynz, HootieMcBoob, Sandy on Signal, jancw, Creosote, JLFinch, Gustogirl, concernedamerican, cskendrick, fugwb, ask, highacidity, Bionic, mrblifil, otto, ivote2004, someRaven, Ignacio Magaloni, Fe, jalbert, splashy, wader, Janeo, revsue, tidalwave1, dejavu, danthrax, TexDem, lucid, pat bunny, MA Liberal, gmb, bula, churchylafemme, dwahzon, 42, Sychotic1, defluxion10, Catte Nappe, lcrp, Pohjola, Oaktown Girl, bwintx, nswalls, ybruti, lonespark, jcrit, lyvwyr101, vacantlook, environmentalist, Gowrie Gal, Brecht, averageyoungman, Skennet Boch, drofx, G2geek, lavaughn, tovan, Danjuma, marina, 3goldens, Treg, denise b, Unit Zero, UncleCharlie, blueyedace2, caul, OpherGopher, sc kitty, offred, Alice Venturi, Flint, david78209, chidmf, reflectionsv37, ratzo, boofdah, cfk, SaraBeth, Sun Tzu, LABobsterofAnaheim, stevemb, blue jersey mom, markdd, RichterScale, sunbro, ord avg guy, kaliope, Isara, brentut5, Savvy813, peacestpete, Snud, big spoiled baby, Paper Cup, CJnyc, debedb, martini, LeftOverAmerica, Showman, MissInformation, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, Pinko Elephant, myboo, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, Clytemnestra, andydoubtless, Ky DEM, Russgirl, HoundDog, cookseytalbott, liberalconservative, koNko, kestrel9000, Son of a Cat, luckydog, kck, Lefty Coaster, ginja, blueoasis, NBBooks, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, twigg, Rosaura, gooderservice, gatorcog, Crashing Vor, real world chick, katrinka, joe shikspack, myrealname, dirtfarmer, middleagedhousewife, vivian darkbloom, anninla, llbear, IL clb, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, kurt, Statusquomustgo, kurious, bstotts, markthshark, Pandoras Box, pale cold, Evil Betty, Sapere aude, pgm 01, Boreal Ecologist, out of left field, bluicebank, pfiore8, Habitat Vic, wa ma, Haningchadus14, SpecialKinFlag, tgypsy, camlbacker, possum, Debs2, Castine, gloriana, EdSF, FishOutofWater, Trial Lawyer Richard, Mary Mike, Matt Z, DWG, aliasalias, bnasley, Seneca Doane, jayden, SeaTurtle, millwood, Bridge Master, carpunder, Wreck Smurfy, Sarea, GeorgeXVIII, journeyman, LWelsch, i like bbq, janatallow, trueblueliberal, shmuelman, Empower Ink, JDWolverton, 123man, GANJA, revm3up, mconvente, Roger Fox, BobBlueMass, ferment, wayoutinthestix, modulegirl, zerone, poligirl, Sixty Something, bythesea, mikeconwell, Deep Harm, Lujane, tofumagoo, Ocelopotamus, Cassandra Waites, dewley notid, Missys Brother, Thought Crime, alnep, mofembot, Seamus D, liquidman, petulans, makettle, James Kresnik, doppler effect, BYw, psilocynic, priceman, Nica24, tristan57, CatJab, DavidW, watercarrier4diogenes, lostboyjim, dirtdawg, satanicpanic, Bule Betawi, cybrestrike, smellybeast, Dirtandiron, aufklaerer, greengemini, divineorder, Scott Wooledge, iowaworker, carolyn urban, Mislead, Nebraskablue, dark daze, Norm in Chicago, h bridges, BlueInRedCincy, JesseCW, petral, elziax, marzook, COwoman, IreGyre, dalfireplug, haremoor, citisven, catilinus, Railfan, Amber6541, BigVegan, parse this, Christy1947, Broke And Unemployed, TDreamer, Susan Grigsby, freeport beach PA, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, Klaus, samanthab, SoCalHobbit, Puddytat, DeanObama, DiegoUK, Funkygal, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, Floande, cocinero, Oh Mary Oh, Actbriniel, slice, tgrshark13, TheHalfrican, Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder, no way lack of brain, Pakalolo, Onomastic, Jane Lew, MidwestTreeHugger, Lost Left Coaster, nervousnellie, anyname, cooper888, poorbuster, BillyElliott, FarWestGirl, asterkitty, pbgv23, satrap, molunkusmol, dle2GA, Yogurt721, floridablue, createpeace, worldlotus, Fire bad tree pretty, chira2, Tyto Alba, MinistryOfTruth, randomfacts, Marihilda, Oilwellian, MattYellingAtTheMoon, blackjackal, zenox, DRo, Regina in a Sears Kit House, aerie star, PrometheusUnbound, too young to give up, Mathazar, Rejoinder, BlueDragon, HamptonRoadsProgressive, JTinDC, anodnhajo, Williston Barrett, We Won, docrocktex, nellgwen, AnnieR, Joieau, 420 forever, peachcreek, Tyler R, progressivebadger, TBug, radical simplicity, MartyM, qannabbos, Just One More Dad, luddite314, Julie Waters, PerpetualMind, Kinak, history first, George3, Equal Time Radio, Marjmar, katiec, maf1029, Hammerhand, Greatwyrm, Captain Chaos, GoGoGoEverton, nuclear winter solstice, SwedishJewfish, nomandates, rbrockelmann, DampSquid

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site