United States Censorship Bills SOPA PIPA ACTA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelizewski

DONT LISTEN TO ANONYMOUS THEY ARE ACTUALLY A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO FUEL THE PROPAGANDA IT HAS INSTIGATED ITSELF TO CREATE AN INTERNET COLD WAR DONT BE FOOLED THIS IS ONLY TO EXPOSE THE FILE SHARERS

---

Everything looks much more feasible when it's typed or written down in caps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelizewski

DONT LISTEN TO ANONYMOUS THEY ARE ACTUALLY A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO FUEL THE PROPAGANDA IT HAS INSTIGATED ITSELF TO CREATE AN INTERNET COLD WAR DONT BE FOOLED THIS IS ONLY TO EXPOSE THE FILE SHARERS

---

I AGREE EVERYONE IS OBVIOUS TRYING TO KILL ME WAIT ONE SEC I NEED TO GO MAKE SOME DINNER IM THINKING SOME LEFT OVER HAM IN THE FRIDGE OH DAMN IT ITS GONE BAD DAMN YOU ANONYMOUS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelizewski

DONT LISTEN TO ANONYMOUS THEY ARE ACTUALLY A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO FUEL THE PROPAGANDA IT HAS INSTIGATED ITSELF TO CREATE AN INTERNET COLD WAR DONT BE FOOLED THIS IS ONLY TO EXPOSE THE FILE SHARERS

---

Suppose its possible, what proof of this do you have? or are we all meant to take you at your word?

yah, i was sort of just trolling. Thats how easy a meme could be spread, ive this posted over a few websites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuro Kagami

whatever the US equivalent is then...

They (lobbyiest/congress/politicians) deserve to be roasted alive like pigs... or used as human test subjects for science (atleast their existence would have been completely worthless) :wacko:

---

Its called Legislative Branch and they are supposed to know the US Constitution enough to know not to try and pass bills like SOPA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRgeJ...8F1A2D56DD0873

Posting things once is more than enough, this is getting ridiculous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

Posting things once is more than enough, this is getting ridiculous...

---

lol, Yeah, I'm seeing alot of locked threads that deal with the like.

Anyway, ACTA is a global SOPA!
Some info on ACTA:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...you-meet-acta/
http://www.stopacta.info/

Crap. This is like a video game or something. We kill a baddie and then another, more powerful baddie shows up. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

:bigahhh:

I just don't get it. Why is SOPA and PIPA still being considered by congress? Now we have to worry about "OPEN" which in a nutshell isn't as bad as the other two but still a thorn in the side of the interwebs

http://blogs.computerworld.com/19605...ses_from_ashes

My favorite part about this was the protest. Which were heavily supported might I add. If I didn't know any better I bet most of EP's users sent letters to congress or at least signed a petition! Thick head as usual we get this answer as a response.

Spoiler warning:

How does the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) feel about these protests? We wish we were joking when we say this:..They think it’s an “abuse of power.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSXIV

Spoiler warning:

How does the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) feel about these protests? We wish we were joking when we say this:..They think it’s an “abuse of power.”

---

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...se-d392y5h.jpg
my response to these neverending schemes to "kill" the internet.

Hey, isn't that Gregory House from Dr.House? xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majinkura

my response to these neverending schemes to "kill" the internet.

---

The sad part is they don't want to kill it. They want to Control the internet which eventually will lead up to killing it. The thing that makes this situation incredibly lawlzy is the fact that it probably will never happen as long as some people still can muster up some common sense. Why the good ol' Gov expects us to roll over is beyond me, but in the end I don't think its going to happen.

Here is some info about OPEN:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...protect-ip.ars

Spoiler warning:

Quote:

---

The Good

Substantively, some of the things I liked about OPEN:

It situates the discussion about "rogue websites" in foreign trade policy. This fixes SOPA's overinclusive application to both domestic and foreign actors. However, if we really think rogue websites are a transborder enforcement problem, there are many other trade policy solutions that might be better options to consider—the most obvious being transborder enforcement coordination like the FTC does with its foreign counterparts.

OPEN doesn’t touch DNS or search engines. SOPA had the potential to destroy the DNS and to jeopardize search engine functioning. OPEN sidesteps both pitfalls.

OPEN builds in some due process before any formal legal obligations attach. As we've recently seen, due process is actually quite important, and we suffer from its absence. I say “some” due process because I’m not sure how much due process will attach in practice. For example, I have some concerns about the notice provision--not every targeted website will receive notice of the ITC investigation. However, I did like that any website the ITC labels as rogue can correct any identified problems, reapproach the ITC and ask it to remove the “rogue” determination.

The definition of rogue website is tightened up substantially. It requires three elements:
A "non-domestic domain name," which requires that the registry, registrar and registrant all have to be located outside the US (I'm not sure what "located" means in this context). Venkat asked me what happens to a .com registered with a foreign registrar; I believe OPEN does not apply to this domain name.
Conducting business in the US; and
"Has only limited purpose or use other than engaging in infringing activity and whose owner or operator primarily uses the site to willfully engage in infringing activity."

The last element, in particular, is quite restrictive by requiring willful infringement. The meaning of the word "willful" is notoriously murky (see, e.g., the multitudinous Supreme Court cases over the word), so the statute would be improved by using a more detailed synonym. No matter what, though, willful is a high scienter level that should easily exclude most legitimate players. The statute further expressly excludes any sites that:

Follow good notice-and-takedown procedures
Qualify for 17 USC 512 (the DMCA online safe harbors) [this means that the statute sits next to 512 instead of rendering 512 moot like SOPA threatened to do], or
Distribute "copies that were made without infringing a copyright or trademark." I’m not 100% sure what this means. It apparently excludes websites reselling goods covered by the First Sale doctrine. I presume that the exclusion includes sites that sell legitimate knock-off goods, such as replicas of goods that aren’t protected by copyrights or trademarks.

If a PSP or ad network fails to comply with an ITC order, the only consequence is that the DOJ can seek injunctive relief. Rightsowners do not have a private cause of action in those cases. As discussed below, this doesn't eliminate all PSP/ad network exposure to rightsowners, but rightsowners can't introduce evidence of ITC orders in any civil suits they bring against PSPs or ad networks.

On the trademark side, it expressly limits its applicability to counterfeiting (although there is a erroneous cross-reference in the draft). Presumably, dilution or garden-variety trademark infringement disputes don't qualify under the statute.
What's not good

The Bad

OPEN still contemplates reestablishing a "fortress USA." Fortress USA marginally makes sense regarding the shipment of physical goods across geographic borders. It makes zero sense for digital bits zinging around the borderless network.

In particular, because OPEN would burden only US-governed PSPs and ad networks, it may drive websites—including legitimate websites who want to reduce their risk of being mistargeted—to shift their business to foreign-based PSPs and ad networks. If lots of businesses make a switch based on these concerns, OPEN could counterproductively result in net financial losses for the US economy.

Similarly, foreign websites can opt-out entirely of the ITC process by consenting to US judicial jurisdiction. I like the idea of an opt-out, but imagine if other countries offered the same quid-pro-quo of allowing US websites to opt-out of some nasty foreign process so long as the websites consent to jurisdiction in their countries. I think we’d be outraged and insulted; which is how I would expect foreign countries to view this quid-pro-quo. Cf. Venkat's recent post on Facebook v. Faceporn. Then again, other countries might think it’s a pretty good idea, leading to a proliferation of transborder quid-pro-quo jurisdictional offers.

Designating the ITC to conduct the investigations is a little odd. First, the ITC is an administrative agency, not a federal court. I don't fully understand all of the implications of administrative vs. judicial review, but I believe there are substantial procedural differences that could lead to important substantive differences. Second, the ITC has been gamed in the patent world (see, e.g., my colleague Colleen Chien's research on the ITC explaining how the ITC hears many US company vs. US company disputes), so I fear similar gaming will emerge. For example, a rightsowner chasing a rogue website could simultaneously pursue a domestic court action, a foreign court action and an ITC proceeding. How would these types of parallel proceedings play out in practice? We’re still trying to resolve the parallel proceeding problems in patents.

Like SOPA, the bill covers copyright infringement, trademark infringement *and* 1201 circumvention. I don't understand why the circumvention issue is getting equal billing or how often transborder circumventions are a real problem. Seeing how 1201 circumvention lawsuits have devolved into anti-competitive enforcements, picking up the circumvention piece could increase the risk of competitive misuse of the statute.

Again like SOPA, the definitions are vague. Consider, for example, the definition of Internet advertising service: "The term Internet advertising service means a service that serves an online advertisement in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site." Hmm...what does that mean? Notice that the definition doesn't directly distinguish between third-party ad networks and sites that sell their own ads. I think in practice sites that sell their own ads drop out of the statute, so one possible implication is that more sites will ramp up their own ad sales. (This is doubtful, but just throwing the possibility out there). I think the focus on "viewable" is interesting; are audio-only ads excluded? And what does it mean to "serve" content? This contemplates a specific technological interaction that I don't fully understand today and will almost certainly evolve over time

---

.

Quote:

---

OPEN would burden only US-governed PSPs and ad networks, it may drive websites—including legitimate websites who want to reduce their risk of being mistargeted—to shift their business to foreign-based PSPs and ad networks. If lots of businesses make a switch based on these concerns, OPEN could counterproductively result in net financial losses for the US economy.

---

So if I'm reading that right, OPEN would cause job losses?
Even though it has good qualities its still ass nothingly farfetched to the point of being stupid.
Why are they so dead set on making fools of themselves?

What it amounts to is.
Policing the Internet Its stupid and is harming good people with legit jobs.

PLEASE ANYONE CAN SIGN IT ! if we get 100,000 it should be pushed back to the other countries again ! to try

https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta If we don't come together, ACTA will wipe out the internet as we know it BY TOMORROW. ANYONE WORLDWIDE CAN SGN IT WE ARE ON 88,000 SOO CLOSE WE JUST GOT LIKE 10,000 IN THE LAST HALF HOUR COME ON!