American bill will allow the government to censor Internet domains.

[Racecarlock]

Orrin Hatch. Why do I live in utah? Why couldn't I live in switzerland or amsterdam? Or on a brazilian nude beach?

Remember, this is the same Orrin Hatch that wanted to blow up people's PCs for piracy. He also downloaded a song in Congress while the DMCA was being negotiated. And instead of being sued for the song download, he claims that fair use protected him...

And yet, when people are using fair use (Tenenbaum) as a defense, the courts damn near reject it.

How hypocritical can politicians be?

I uh... never said I trusted or even liked the guy. The fact his name supports the bill just pisses me off. I think that politicians should be sitcom writers or improv sitcom stars or something. Seriously, why do we have these idiots in positions of power? Oh yeah, a bunch of other idiots with voting powers. So again, why couldn't I have lived in amsterdam or switzerland or on a brazilian nude beach?

 

[ribonuge]

Yep. You can argue anything, so I don't know why you're sticking to this argument so stubbornly. People argue in court that spilling coffee on themselves caused mental distress, or that it is negligence of a house owner if a man breaking into the house falls and cuts himself on a discarded knife. Both of those are real court cases. So what? The only thing that matters is the ruling, and the precedent it sets.

You misunderstood the majority of what I was saying. And I really don't think that was my fault. Your argument is solely about the US law and you are ignoring some of my comments about what you said. The only thing I am doing is defending myself, proving what you said about my critical reading skill is false and showing that sites like Youtube could be a potential target if this bill is passed. That is all. I almost regret having referenced Youtube in my OP now.

Unless what you're getting at is that if this law is passed and a lot of Viacom employees are appointed to become Federal justices of the law we'll be in trouble, then I don't see your point.

I noticed you specifically didn't reply to this particular remark.

You're right I didn't, because it is irrelevant and pretty stupid. You are suggesting what I am "getting at" before I even have a chance to reply. I don't think Viacom employees will become federal justices of the law. I think if this bill is passed that companies like Viacom will have a stronger case in a law suit regarding a site like Youtube. Viacom and Youtube are merely examples. The article agrees with me here.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

See? Current US law which may change if this bill is passed, right?

Probably because you didn't realize it's the judiciary system that decides cases, rather than the legislature, which makes laws.

Presupposing someone's ignorance is annoying and condescending. kthxbai

Also, it's funny because I noticed you specifically didn't pay any regard to this remark.

You said in your first post:

The central activity of YouTube is not to post copyright infringing videos: in fact, YouTube does a good job of removing those videos on request (but not without request). This also means that they cannot shut down any site with any kind of infringement.

You see this is my point right here, read it properly now.

You said that "the central activity of YouTube is not to post copyright infringing videos: in fact, YouTube does a good job of removing those videos on request"

The above statement that you made is an opinion. All right then, still with me? Ok.

Spoiler

You stated your opinion above, yet here you say otherwise.

This doesn't prove anything at all. Viacom can say whatever they want. Neither of our opinions matters. I have no opinion. The opinion that I stated, and follow, is the US judiciary's opinion. Viacom argued with the judiciary, they were told to go home.

And hang on one second.

"The opinion that I stated, and follow, is the US judiciary's opinion."

What are you, a parrot? You must be some hardcore right winger with the mind of a peanut to blindly follow the US judiciary system. Dear Gaaawwwd.

Viacom think the central activity of Youtube is the posting of copyright infringing videos.

Think back a little to when you wrote this:

Your argument reinforces my own. Your article says essentially what I said, so I don't see why you should doubt MY reading prowess.

That article doesn't back up what you were saying at all. You said: "the central activity of YouTube is not to post copyright infringing videos: in fact, YouTube does a good job of removing those videos on request." Currently there is nothing companies like Viacom can do about this. But if this bill is passed it is possible that they could be a target and hence shut down. All because they have copyright infringing material on their site. Even if they regulate it, it is still there.

But it's okay. I forgive you. Not everyone can understand US law.

You're right, I know absolutely fucking nothing about intricacies of US law and why would I want to? I live in Ireland and to my limited knowledge the justice system in the US is retarded and hypocritical. But that's a completely separate topic.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the United States works, which is a shame, because the whole 'separation of powers' thing is pretty central to our government.

The legislature passing a new bill about punishing copyright violators will not change the judiciary's mind about who violators are. The judiciary is more likely to look at existing precedent, e.g.: the case in the cited article. The legislature and judiciary are completely different governing bodies, and it is the judiciary who gets to decide who violators are, not Congress (explicitly so, as Congress can make no law that directly punishes a specific entity, company or otherwise, so they essentially can't say "YouTube is a violator").

All of this is irrelevant, Congress are the ones who will be opposing this bill if the petition against it is successful.

But even if you don't buy that argument, you're still forgetting that all of this hinges not on the bill itself, but whether or not the court system changes its mind about the past rulings, so you should be writing your judges, not your congressmen.

Past rulings don't come into effect here. I am talking about sites like Youtube, not Youtube specifically.

If this bill is passed by the Senate judiciary (and they are expected to), they will have no say whatsoever in what the Attorney General and the Department of Justice deems to be copyright infringement. This will be internal and the judiciary system won't have a say anymore. People are signing the petition I linked to present to Congress so that they will oppose the bill.

EDIT: Read this link. The article was quoting from it: http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica

 

[Video Gone]

Jesus. Probably, hopefully, won't go through, but the mere idea is quite ridiculous. No government should attempt control or filter the internet.
That can only ever lead to bad things.

America, land of the free.

remember you can always come to the UK to gain not only a house and money on benefits, but hey we'd love to have Americans over here rather than eastern european illegal immigrants we seemingly get.

Spoiler: VERY off topic

What about the Irish? Can we come? We're quiet as mice, I swear.
Oh, I know this is extremely off topic, but did you say people get a house on benefit? And that's as standard, then?
Nice. Fuck this noise, I'm coming to your country.
Wait... There's a catch, isn't there? To we have to pledge our lives to, and forgive me for the cliché because I'm a bit tired right now and the only other Englishman I can think of is Warwick Davis, Stephen Fry? Because I am there.
Wait, no, there's something else...
...Even your smallest towns are bigger than most, if not all, Ireland could come up with, leading to a much more generally convenient lifestyle, especially for someone from the countryside?
...Your currency is far stronger?
...As someone who was raised almost entirely around English people and grew up absorbing English culture, I'd appreciate the country's works?
...Terry Pratchett?
Oh wait. There is actually a catch.
Chavs, innit blud?

 

[Scout Tactical]

snip

Look, I'm tired of trying to explain US law to someone from Ireland, so I'm just going to sum it up with this, which has been my central point all along:

This bill doesn't change any definitions, and because it doesn't change legal definitions, it cannot have an affect on who is considered in violation of those laws. Your entire argument is based around the assumption that the passage of this bill would paint a target on the backs of sites like YouTube, but because those sites have proved to the US judiciary (not Senate judiciary, but the good ol' federal court system) in the past that their central purpose is not copyright infringement, there is no new case, and lacking a new case, there will not be a successful suit, because legal precedent will take precedence in this case, due to a lack of change in legal definitions.

Simply put: if this bill is passed and Viacom comes after, let's say for example YouTube, they will be laughed out of court on legal precedent, because this law doesn't change any definitions. If the Attorney General challenges YouTube, they will point to the same ruling and be on their way.

But like I said at the beginning of my post, I guess you have to be an American to understand, so I sincerely won't blame you, and I'll finish this thread. I figured you were just some ignorant American who didn't know his own legal system, but I can forgive a European for not understanding.

 

[ribonuge]

snip

-snippeth-

But like I said at the beginning of my post, I guess you have to be an American to understand, so I sincerely won't blame you, and I'll finish this thread. I figured you were just some ignorant American who didn't know his own legal system, but I can forgive a European for not understanding.

Seriously screw arguing on the internet, it's such a damn mess.

What you said there is fair enough. I didn't know you were going under that assumption until now (that I was American). So no hard feelings then, eh?

Really I was just basing all of my knowledge on this link http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica . If you care to read it now.

 

[Free Thinker]

Should our Internet be struck, our retribution will be swift, and our judgement merciless...
We got our petition, but I'm starting to think 4chan might be preparing another operation.

 

[Abanic]

You're "regurgitating" something from the Huffington Post, and yet you complain about Tea Party members "regurgitating" from Fox News? Sounds like the only difference is the source of the "regurgitation". I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or if you truly are that hypocritical.

Whats the huffington post?

The Huffington Post is a news outlet that ran this story (and is regarded by conservatives the same way that Fox News is regarded by liberals). If you go to the initial post on this thread, you will see a link to where the poster got this story entitled: Source. By clicking on this link you will be redirected to the article in the Huffington Post.

 

[Danzaivar]

Look on the bright side, if this happens then maybe the big web companies will move to the UK and give a much needed boost to our economy. Then again that's not much to, say, Americans.

 

[Death God]

This is ridiculous man. America does own the internet and they'd have to have it approved by every country before taking down any site. There's no way america is allowed to do it.

 

[Terminate421]

Thats it, somebody get me my molotovs. Im gonna turn that congress building into ashes.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Wait, if the US doesn't like a site, they can delete it entirely, I though you lot had free speech and shit.

It's a myth. In reality, no one does. Not you, not me. Not that hobo that asks for change on the corner.

Hold on, where is Escapist based?

 

[Kraiiit]

And let the "AAAHHHHHH WE'RE TURNING INTO A DICTATORSHIP GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER!!!" comments flow in...

But seriously, there are retarded proposals like this all the damn time(Does anyone remember ACTA?)And all of them are swatted down like an annoying flies.

This one won't be any different.

What did happen to ACTA, anyways? Has it already been slapped down?

 

[glyphseeker]

I absolutly love how the American economy is in the F***** toilet and the government is worried that someone will copyright something

(so we conserve publisher's ownership but in the process we oppress the people even more than needed)
(just friggin censor everything if that's the direction we're going just to get it over with it, like pulling off a band-aid)

anyway government at the moment is doing very strange motions in the media. Such as video game censorship (how is that doin) and now this. Eh but i digress

 

[Cynical skeptic]

You're "regurgitating" something from the Huffington Post, and yet you complain about Tea Party members "regurgitating" from Fox News? Sounds like the only difference is the source of the "regurgitation". I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or if you truly are that hypocritical.

Whats the huffington post?

The Huffington Post is a news outlet that ran this story (and is regarded by conservatives the same way that Fox News is regarded by liberals). If you go to the initial post on this thread, you will see a link to where the poster got this story entitled: Source. By clicking on this link you will be redirected to the article in the Huffington Post.

... Wow, I didn't even notice that.

Hell, until this exact instant, I thought huffington post was a cheap, unfunny theonion knockoff (not to imply theonion has been all that funny in the last ten years).

As far as the "teaparty," they're ridiculously small group of people funded and handled by the massive corporations who are also attempting to take away their freedoms. They're a very sad, crazy group of people who's continued media presence is simply a testament to the aforementioned.

Basically, US politics, right now, is corporation vs government, with both sides doing everything in their power to, Orwellian style, erase any potential alternatives from the public consciousness. The only time the individual benefits from this retard slapfight is when the focus shifts often enough so that neither side's plans can actually come to fruition or, when they do, inflict any real damage.

A massive problem, right now, is through lobbyists, corporate interest is government interest. This skews the entire precarious balance the US's pathetic two party system has had for many decades. ACTA (and by extension, this) is simply the corporation attempting to get government to do it's job. Copyrights business. They are afforded great powers in protecting them. But because it costs more money to sue random grandmothers and eleven year old girls than to just ignore the problem, they stick money in the hands of lobbyists who stick money in the pockets of your elected officials so they'll draft bills to remove your rights simply because they feel they aren't making as much money as they should.

Not to mention, the biggest flaw in the US's social systemics is there is no way to sensationalize, to drum up support, to start a political wildfire for... "theres nothing wrong with the way things are." As such, you play a political move right and every unheard voice becomes support for your goals. Which is how shit like California vs video games gets to the supreme court.

Personally, I don't really give a shit either way. No matter what happens, it'll be interesting for me to watch. Though I might take up arms in the event of a media blackout. But that will mostly be out of boredom.

Also, as far as "viewed the way fox news is" I didn't realize people viewed fox news as a small, mostly unheard, rarely taken seriously voice of mostly humor. I was under the impression people viewed it as a ridiculously large and successful corruption of journalistic integrity who's goals and ideologies rival paranoid conspiracy theorists for political polarization.

And let the "AAAHHHHHH WE'RE TURNING INTO A DICTATORSHIP GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER!!!" comments flow in...

But seriously, there are retarded proposals like this all the damn time(Does anyone remember ACTA?)And all of them are swatted down like an annoying flies.

This one won't be any different.

What did happen to ACTA, anyways? Has it already been slapped down?

Nothing. Nothing happened to ACTA. Negotiations are on-going. They were shooting for ratification by the end of September, but that wasn't a make or break deadline.

This bill, if passed into law, would be the US submitting to that particular treaty.

If ACTA dies, this bill dies. If ACTA is ratified, the chances of this bill dying all but vanish.

 

[Gindil]

snip

Look, I'm tired of trying to explain US law to someone from Ireland, so I'm just going to sum it up with this, which has been my central point all along:

This bill doesn't change any definitions, and because it doesn't change legal definitions, it cannot have an affect on who is considered in violation of those laws. Your entire argument is based around the assumption that the passage of this bill would paint a target on the backs of sites like YouTube, but because those sites have proved to the US judiciary (not Senate judiciary, but the good ol' federal court system) in the past that their central purpose is not copyright infringement, there is no new case, and lacking a new case, there will not be a successful suit, because legal precedent will take precedence in this case, due to a lack of change in legal definitions.

Simply put: if this bill is passed and Viacom comes after, let's say for example YouTube, they will be laughed out of court on legal precedent, because this law doesn't change any definitions. If the Attorney General challenges YouTube, they will point to the same ruling and be on their way.

But like I said at the beginning of my post, I guess you have to be an American to understand, so I sincerely won't blame you, and I'll finish this thread. I figured you were just some ignorant American who didn't know his own legal system, but I can forgive a European for not understanding.

...

You don't seem to understand what it entails.

Linkage [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/03455311107/how-the-attempted-censorship-of-file-sharing-sites-avoids-due-process.shtml]

The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines -- without judicial review -- are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

So yes, this changes the law considerably. "Pirate" sites, as defined by the AG have NO due process. How you fail to see it as anything less than McCarthyism is a little worrying.

Also, the fact that someone has to be American to discuss US law is needlessly condescending. I haven't read all of your back debates but I don't think that's necessary just because someone has a different viewpoint.

 

[sylekage]

This will never fly. We have the constitution, but hey, the internet wasn't around when they wrote that little document, so hey screw freedom of speech right? /sarcasm.

If this happens, people will riot, and the government will probably start fearing the people for once.

 

[Phoenixlight]

You do realize that if they tried that they would suddenly have the entire FBI, CIA, NSA, Area 51, White House and every other database they have be replaced with kittens and porn, right?

CIA?! White House?! 4chan couldn't pull that off even if they wanted to, it's not that easy.