http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/house-takes-senates-bad-internet-censorship-bill-makes-it-worse.ars (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/house-takes-senates-bad-internet-censorship-bill-makes-it-worse.ars)
QuoteImagine a world in which any intellectual property holder can, without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom, shut down any website's online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The credit card processors and the advertising networks would be required to take quick action against the named website; only the filing of a "counter notification" by the website could get service restored.
It's the world envisioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in today's introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the US House of Representatives. This isn't some off-the-wall piece of legislation with no chance of passing, either; it's the House equivalent to the Senate's PROTECT IP Act, which would officially bring Internet censorship to the US as a matter of law.
Calling its plan a "market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property," the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer.
The scheme is much like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) "takedown notices," in which a copyright holder can demand some piece of content be removed from sites like YouTube with a letter. The content will be removed unless the person who posted the content objects; at that point, the copyright holder can decide if it wants to take the person to court over the issue.
Here, though, the stakes are higher. Rather than requesting the takedown of certain hosted material, intellectual property owners can go directly for the jugular: marketing and revenue for the entire site. So long as the intellectual property holders include some "specific facts" supporting their infringement claim, ad networks and payment processors will have five days to cut off contact with the website in question.
The scheme is largely targeted at foreign websites which do not recognize US law, and which therefore will often refuse to comply with takedown requests. But the potential for abuse—even inadvertent abuse—here is astonishing, given the terrifically outsized stick with which content owners can now beat on suspected infringers.
Blockade
One thing private actors can't do under the new bill is actually block a site from the Internet, though it hardly matters, because the government has agreed to do it for them. The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to "prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site."
The government can also go after anyone who builds a tool designed for the "circumvention or bypassing" of the Internet block. Such tools already exist as a result of the US government's ongoing campaign to seize Internet domain names it believes host infringing content; they can redirect visitors who enter the site's address to its new location. The government has already asked Web browser makers like Mozilla to remove access to these sorts of tools. Mozilla refused, so the new bill just tries to ban such tools completely. (Pointing your computer's browser to a foreign DNS server in order to view a less-censored Internet still appears to be legal.)
Search engines, too, are affected, with the duty to prevent the site in question "from being served as a direct hypertext link." Payment processors and ad networks would also have to cut off the site.
Finally, and for good measure, Internet service providers and payment processors get the green light to simply block access to sites on their own volition—no content owner notification even needed. So long as they believe the site is "dedicated to the theft of US property," Internet providers and payment processors can't be sued.
"Industry norms"
The House bill is shockingly sympathetic to a narrow subsection of business interests. For instance, buried deep in the back of the >70-page document is a requirement that the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator prepare a study for Congress. That study should analyze "notorious foreign infringers" and attempt to quantify the "significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers." (Talk about assuming your conclusions before you start.)
The report, which is specifically charged to give weight to the views of content owners, requests a set of specific policy recommendations that might "encourage foreign businesses to adopt industry norms to promote the protection of intellectual property globally." Should the bill pass, the US government would be explicitly charged with promoting private "industry norms"—not actual laws or treaties—around the world.
In the request for the report, we can also see the IP maximalist lobby preparing for its next move: shutting off access to US capital markets and preventing companies from "offering stock for sale to the public" in the US.
Call it what it is
Not all censorship is bad—but we need to have an honest discussion about when and how to deploy it, rather than wrapping an unprecedented set of censorship tools in meaningless terms like "rogue site," or by calling a key section of the new bill the "E-PARASITE Act."
You don't have to support piracy—and we don't—to see the many problems with this new approach. Just today, the RIAA submitted to the US government a list of "notorious markets." As part of that list, the RIAA included "cyberlockers" like MegaUpload, which are "notorious services" that "thumb their noses at international laws, all while pocketing significant advertising revenues from trafficking in free, unlicensed copyrighted materials."
It's not hard to imagine how long it would take before such sites--which certainly do host plenty of user-uploaded infringing content--are targeted under the new law. Yet they have a host of legal uses, and cyberlockers like RapidShare have been declared legal by both US and European courts.
Not surprisingly, the new bill is getting pushback from groups like NetCoalition, which counts Google, Yahoo, and small ISPs among its members. "As leading brands of the Internet, we strongly oppose offshore 'rogue' websites and share policymakers' goal of combating online infringement of copyrights and trademarks," said executive director Markham Erickson in a statement.
"However, we do not believe that the solution lies in regulating the Internet and comprising its stability and security. We do not believe that it is worth overturning a decade of settled law that has formed the legal foundation for all social media. And finally, we do not believe that it is worth restricting free speech or providing comfort to totalitarian regimes that seek to control and restrict the Internet freedoms of their own citizens."
Dozens of law professors have also claimed the original PROTECT IP Act, which contains most of the same ideas, is unconstitutional. But the drumbeat for some sort of censorship is growing louder.
I for one foresee an even greater decline in CD and DVD sales if this proposal becomes law.
It feels real good. :)
We already had a thread on this BTW.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2011, 06:16:58 PM
It feels real good. :)
We already had a thread on this BTW.
Apologies then, I don't come on often enough here to follow this board anymore, and I couldn't find any thread on the first two pages.
No sweat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2011, 06:16:58 PM
It feels real good. :)
We already had a thread on this BTW.
We do?
How does this make us the new China? Does the law legalize the out right theft of copyright material?
Feels great to have people like Ape quaking in their boots because a Congressman proposes a law.
More like the new Rome than new China, though. China hasn't historically advertised proposed laws well enough to strike fear into the hearts of the hysterical.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2011, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2011, 06:16:58 PM
It feels real good. :)
We already had a thread on this BTW.
We do?
IIRC, it's in the games subforum, not in the main forum.
That wasn't about this law.
Anyway, I'd have to actually look at the law before I get really scared about it.
Brown Wolf posted an article about a week ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2011, 07:17:42 PM
Brown Wolf posted an article about a week ago.
Musta missed it. Oh, well. I'm waiting for the law where pirates and hackers are drawn and quartered. People who create trojans and worms are impaled on spikes, and those who create malware are put inside a brazen bull.
S = { pirates, hackers} ?
Whatever. The difference in motivation and damage are so different that about the only thing in common is that they both use the Internet.
Why do ninjas get a pass?
I didn't realize China was so strict about IP protection.
What difference does it make? No matter what laws they pass, they'll never be able to protect intellectual property. That age has passed. Even if they want to get hardcore about it, the only thing that'll accomplish is to move more of the infrastructure of the Internet out of the US. Still, not really a big deal.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 10, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
S = { pirates, hackers} ?
Whatever. The difference in motivation and damage are so different that about the only thing in common is that they both use the Internet.
What is "S" in this?
Set.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2011, 09:08:49 PM
I didn't realize China was so strict about IP protection.
Goverment-run corporations demanding that other government-run (or otherwise adequately subdued) companies cease and desist using IP? Probably runs smoothly.
How long until any site that suggests that the world is older than 6,000 years gets shut down?
Not really.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 03:18:45 AM
Not really.
Yep. I'm telling you, you went into the wrong business. Me, I'm actually bad at mathematics. I count on my fingers have trouble with simple sums.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 04:20:33 AM
Yep. I'm telling you, you went into the wrong business.
Unfortunately, doing well in high school math doesn't by itself qualify one for any particular career.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 11, 2011, 04:25:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 04:20:33 AM
Yep. I'm telling you, you went into the wrong business.
Unfortunately, doing well in high school math doesn't by itself qualify one for any particular career.
Ide also went to college. Presumably he passed those classes as well. The guy should be an engineer or something.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2011, 07:23:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2011, 07:17:42 PM
Brown Wolf posted an article about a week ago.
Musta missed it. Oh, well. I'm waiting for the law where pirates and hackers are drawn and quartered. People who create trojans and worms are impaled on spikes, and those who create malware are put inside a brazen bull.
I'm not sure congress wants to make a law that will effectively kill the CIA recruitment efforts.
Why would killing script kiddies bother the CIA?
If we have capital punishment for hacking, that makes us much more vulnerable to Russian and Chinese hackers.
Lamar Smith proposes an insane law and this is news? I would be more freaked out by the headline: Lamar Smith proposes sensible and well thought out legislation. I would presume he had been kidnapped and replaced by a double.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 09:09:45 AM
Lamar Smith proposes an insane law and this is news? I would be more freaked out by the headline: Lamar Smith proposes sensible and well thought out legislation. I would presume he had been kidnapped and replaced by a double.
Shush, you! Ape is enjoying his badly twisted knickers. Don't ruin it for him using logic!
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 09:09:45 AM
Lamar Smith proposes an insane law and this is news? I would be more freaked out by the headline: Lamar Smith proposes sensible and well thought out legislation. I would presume he had been kidnapped and replaced by a double.
What's insane about it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
What's insane about it?
The same reason most of his laws are insane: the obvious and glaring unintended consequences that will result. Smith just loves massive power for the Feds and never really thinks thing through.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 11:15:57 AM
The same reason most of his laws are insane: the obvious and glaring unintended consequences that will result. Smith just loves massive power for the Feds and never really thinks thing through.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 11:17:01 AM
Please elaborate.
You have got to be kidding me. How obvious does it need to be? Several other people in this thread have already spelled it out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 11:17:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 11:15:57 AM
The same reason most of his laws are insane: the obvious and glaring unintended consequences that will result. Smith just loves massive power for the Feds and never really thinks thing through.
Please elaborate.
Take a look at the first post in this thread. There is a news article that outlines some of the issues.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
You have got to be kidding me. How obvious does it need to be? Several other people in this thread have already spelled it out.
Neil's comment made some sense, but I'm having a hard time seeing US ISPs and search engines picking up stakes and moving to Piratistan because of this law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 11:25:36 AM
Neil's comment made some sense, but I'm having a hard time seeing US ISPs and search engines picking up stakes and moving to Piratistan because of this law.
The issue isn't ISPs or search engines. Most ISPs actually run on leased DNS entries- the issue is the IANA-regulated root servers; most of them are actually in the United States. Take a look at this (http://root-servers.org) to see just how much infrastructure would probably be relocated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 11:25:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
You have got to be kidding me. How obvious does it need to be? Several other people in this thread have already spelled it out.
Neil's comment made some sense, but I'm having a hard time seeing US ISPs and search engines picking up stakes and moving to Piratistan because of this law.
Why would they move to "Piratistan" when they can move to Europe? Or Australia?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 12, 2011, 11:45:16 AM
The issue isn't ISPs or search engines. Most ISPs actually run on leased DNS entries- the issue is the IANA-regulated root servers; most of them are actually in the United States. Take a look at this (http://root-servers.org) to see just how much infrastructure would probably be relocated.
Why would that stuff move if this law were passed? ISPs and search engines at least have a hypothetical commercial interest in holding on to their pirating customers.
I see little connection with China :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 06:33:15 PM
Why would that stuff move if this law were passed? ISPs and search engines at least have a hypothetical commercial interest in holding on to their pirating customers.
The onus on blocks and the mechanism for blocking would be at the DNS level on organizations in the US; they're the ones whose operations would probably be most heavily disrupted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b85kvxwMgKs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b85kvxwMgKs)