Oppose the Internet Blacklist Bill

[gideongallery]

another action group setting up a media campaign to block the bill

[bronco67]

Is every waking moment of you life is spent worrying about things that might infringe on your "right" to get whatever you want from the internet?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Is every waking moment of you life is spent worrying about things that might infringe on your "right" to get whatever you want from the internet?

would you support the bill if the penalty for making a false takedown request was the loss of every copyright your company owned.

if not why would you object to a balance that only effect people who abuse the law.

[blackmonsters]

Use bulldozers to raze the homes of illegal downloaders!

Take back our copyright homeland!

[Redrob]

Thieves should be made to pay for their crimes.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Thieves should be made to pay for their crimes.

and people promoting kiddie porn should be thrown in jail

even if they didn't realize they were sending hits to gallery with under aged girl on it too

right

how many of you guys are turning yourself in for sending traffic to nasty dollars

[Redrob]

No traffic to Nasty dollars from me..... I agree that people who knowingly are involved with child pornography should be prosecuted.

[Bladewire]

I don't like strangers telling me what to do

[iamtam]

if you are taking mike masnick's advice, you are a bigger idiot than i imagined.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

No traffic to Nasty dollars from me..... I agree that people who knowingly are involved with child pornography should be prosecuted.

interesting double standard
you arguing you should get away with promoting kiddie porn just because you claim you didn't know it was kiddie porn

yet you want people to pay if they leave their wifi in the DEFAULT configuration.

why not hold pornographers to the same high standard

drag them off to jail if they didn't thoroughly vet every single gallery they send a single hit to BEFORE they send the traffic.

[raymor]

The video made it sound very bad and I was ready to write my congressman.
After actually READING the bill, I have a different opinion.
I thought these three parts of the bill were interesting:

It applies only to web sites dedicated to nothing but copyright infringement. The court must see that the site has no other use.

It applies only to foreign sites and not to .com or .net sites.
(in other words it's useful against Chinese and Russian thieves.)

It does require a court order.

In other words, it means that just as a court can already shut down a US based site, the sorry could now block Russians and Chinese thievery sites from US access.

It doesn't sound nearly so bad after I read the bill as opposed to believing whatever an opponent said about it.

[DBS.US]

Originally Posted by raymor

The video made it sound very bad and I was ready to write my congressman.
After actually READING the bill, I have a different opinion.
I thought these three parts of the bill were interesting:

It applies only to web sites dedicated to nothing but copyright infringement. The court must see that the site has no other use.

It applies only to foreign sites and not to .com or .net sites.
(in other words it's useful against Chinese and Russian thieves.)

It does require a court order.

In other words, it means that just as a court can already shut down a US based site, the sorry could now block Russians and Chinese thievery sites from US access.

It doesn't sound nearly so bad after I read the bill as opposed to believing whatever an opponent said about it.

It's only a small tax on our tea

[marlboroack]

Fuck em and their bill

[Redrob]

When 99% of the videos on your site are stolen, it's hard not to know it.

When you are paying people to upload stolen content, it's hard not to know it.

When you get hundreds of DMCA notices, it's hard not to know it.

When you are running video scrappers on legit sites, it's hard not to know it.

Get my drift.....

Pornographers in the USA have 2257 to contend with and do vet every image on their sites.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Is this the Bill that you are posting about, or a different one?:

Senate Bill Gives Feds Power to Order Blacklisting of Piracy Sites

Senate antipiracy legislation introduced Thursday would dramatically increase the government?s legal power to disrupt and shutter websites ?dedicated to infringing activities.?

A major feature of the Protect IP Act, introduced by 11 senators of all stripes, would grant the government the authority to bring lawsuits against these websites, and obtain court orders requiring search engines like Google to stop displaying links to them.

?Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products,? said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the bill?s main sponsor.

The proposal is an offshoot to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act introduced last year. It was scrapped by its authors in exchange for the Protect IP Act in a bid to win Senate passage.

Under the old COICA draft, the government was authorized to obtain court orders to seize so-called generic top-level domains ending in .com, .org and .net. The new legislation (.pdf), with the same sponsors, narrows that somewhat.

Instead of allowing for the seizure of domains, it allows the Justice Department to obtain court orders demanding American ISPs stop rendering the DNS for a particular website ? meaning the sites would still be accessible outside the United States.

Either way, though, the legislation amounts to the holy grail of intellectual-property enforcement that the recording industry, movie studios and their union and guild workforces have been clamoring for since the George W. Bush administration.


?As the guilds and unions that represent 400,000 creators, performers and craftspeople who create the multitude of diverse films, television programs and sound recordings that are enjoyed by billions of people around the world, we unequivocally support this bill which, by providing protection for our members? work, clearly shows that our government will not condone or permit the wholesale looting of the American economy and American creativity and ingenuity ? regardless of how that looting is disguised on the internet to fool the American consumer,? (.pdf) a host of unions said Wednesday, including the American Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Directors Guild of America.

The new bill also gives content owners more rights than the old bill. It would allow rights holders to seek court orders instructing online ad services and credit card companies from partnering with the infringing sites ? a power the government is granted in either legislative version.

Only the government gets the DNS blocking powers. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already grants rights holders the ability to demand search engines to stop displaying search results linking to infringing sites.

Despite the new bill watering down the United States? reach, the government has been invoking an asset-forfeiture law to seize generic top-level domains of infringing websites under a program called Operation in Our Sites.? It began last year, and the Department of Homeland Security has targeted 120 sites.

Abigail Phillips, a copyright attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said because of Operation in Our Sites, the DNS changeover ?doesn?t seem all that meaningful.?

Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director at Public Knowledge, noted that the measure does not narrowly define the websites that could be targeted.

?The bill still defines a site as ?dedicated to infringing activities,? if it is designed or marketed as ?enabling or facilitating? actions that are found to be infringing,? he said. ?In other words, even if the site isn?t itself infringing copyright, if its actions ?enable or facilitate? someone else?s infringement, the government can tell ISPs to blacklist your site, and copyright holders can sue to cut your funding.?

- Wired 5/12/11

ADG

[Redrob]

bump for answer.....

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

When 99% of the videos on your site are stolen, it's hard not to know it.

first of all if the fair use of commentary is legitimately extended to "this is the coolest dance routine i have every seen



a lot of shit your pretending to be stolen isn't really stolen it just fair use

When you get hundreds of DMCA notices, it's hard not to know it.

see above 99% of all dmca are actually against fair use

When you are running video scrappers on legit sites, it's hard not to know it.

again depends on what your scrapping, if the source your scrapping is 99% fair use then your 99% fair use too.

When you are paying people to upload stolen content, it's hard not to know it.

and you don't need a new law to handle this, if you have PROOF that is what they are doing the safe harbor provision doesn't apply anyway so you can sue them into oblivion

so this argument is total utter bullshit and you know it.

If the new law required this level of proof before a site could be taken down, then it would be totally useless, because the current laws allow you to not only take the domain but all the assets of the company too.

Get my drift.....

Pornographers in the USA have 2257 to contend with and do vet every image on their sites.

you just made my point for me
if the 2257 does properly vet "every image on their sites" then the guys who downloaded and hosted the gallery of the under-age girl HAD to have know it was kiddie porn when they sent hits.

of course you know that not true, a fake id, trust in the sponsor all created a situation that allowed kiddie porn to be promoted by thousands of "innocent" web masters

the same is true with copyright infringement, in this case, trust in the uploaders, fake declarations of ownership/authorization allows copyright infringement to occur.

That where your inconsistency comes into play, you want you and your friends to be let off if they "unknowingly" promote kiddie porn, but you want to ignore who the same situation exists for all the "pirate" sites out there too.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by raymor

The video made it sound very bad and I was ready to write my congressman.
After actually READING the bill, I have a different opinion.
I thought these three parts of the bill were interesting:

It applies only to web sites dedicated to nothing but copyright infringement. The court must see that the site has no other use.

?The bill still defines a site as ?dedicated to infringing activities,? if it is designed or marketed as ?enabling or facilitating? actions that are found to be infringing,? he said. ?In other words, even if the site isn?t itself infringing copyright, if its actions ?enable or facilitate? someone else?s infringement, the government can tell ISPs to blacklist your site, and copyright holders can sue to cut your funding.?


the definition of "dedicated" to copyright infringement includes "enabling or facilitating actions" too that insanely broad.

Just giving instructions on how to use Bit torrent without mentioning WHAT content you can get is enough to qualify for "dedicated" definition.

It applies only to foreign sites and not to .com or .net sites.
(in other words it's useful against Chinese and Russian thieves.)

and the 25 other countries of the world which have a piracy tax (like Canada) which significantly extends the fair use rights of those citizens regardless where they happen to be surfing the internet from (you don't have a right to take away my piracy tax granted rights just because i am doing a contract in the states)

It does require a court order.

right based on a bogus definition of "Dedicated to copyright infringement" that over rides the solutions of other countries with the US definition of fair use.

it not like that is going to get abused at all

Like i said would you support the bill if the penalty for abusing it (being wrong) was the complete loss of your copyright protection.

Without such a penalty their is no consequence for just bald face misrepresenting any fair use competition as "piracy"

[Redrob]

Fucking thieves trying to redefine the arguments.

Stealing content, reposting the identical content, and enabling mass distribution of the stolen content is piracy. This is not "fair use."

Your argument has more holes than a screen door.

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by Squirtit

I don't like strangers telling me what to do

this cock will pass the bill

[V_RocKs]

Sounds like a good idea

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Fucking thieves trying to redefine the arguments.

Stealing content, reposting the identical content, and enabling mass distribution of the stolen content is piracy. This is not "fair use."

Your argument has more holes than a screen door.

really want to name one

why should me free speech rights to make the commentary "this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen" be censored

[Diomed]

Scary shit.

It's always some tiny little angle that is seized upon before the big take over occurs.

Fuck censorship in any way, shape, or form.

Apparently the sites don't even have to be "proven" to be illegal, all they have to do is point the finger and shut it down. No thanks.

I'm with Gideon on this one.