Stop Internet Censorship!

[marharth]

Wrong. Please show me in the bill where it modifies the meanings of noninfringing uses in copyright law. It doesn't change existing law at all. They couldn't do anything before about the parade of evils you mention, and they won't be able to do anything after.

To be clear, you are aware that this bill gives permission for a court to take down a entire website based on having some copyrighted material on it right? The bill also tells service providers to cut off anyone's internet that is caught with copyrighted material on their site. It also tries to tell search engines to remove those sites (which is stupid.) It can also cut off any advertising for a site simply due to it having copyrighted material.

 

The reason it is a issue is because of the following.

 

1. The court can now take direct action without the copyright holder making a claim.

 

2. If your website has someone that uploads copyrighted material, and the court gets to it before you can remove it, you can have you entire website and advertising cut off. As well as your internet connection.

 

3. This makes streaming of copyrighted material completely illegal. Such as video games and such.

 

4. This would allow the US to take down websites outside of US jurisdiction.

 

 

I would be happy to quote the bill if you don't think that is in the bill.

Edited November 23, 2011 by marharth

[lukertin]

To be clear, you are aware that this bill gives permission for a court to take down a entire website based on having some copyrighted material on it right? The bill also tells service providers to cut off anyone's internet that is caught with copyrighted material on their site. It also tries to tell search engines to remove those sites (which is stupid.) It can also cut off any advertising for a site simply due to it having copyrighted material.

The bill provides for the following in Title 1, Section 102:

 

The US Attorney may, if a foreign online website is engaging in CRIMINAL VIOLATION of the copyright code:

 

bring suit against the owner or operator of the website,

bring suit against the website if the owner cannot be located,

 

in order to get the court to issue an injunction to stop the infringing activity.

 

Now, why shouldn't a search engine or an advertising service be required, under court order, to cease linking to a website engaged in active criminal conduct?

 

1. The court can now take direct action without the copyright holder making a claim.

Actually, it requires the US Attorney to do so. Now, why would the US Attorney act sua sponte? Because it is doing so in response to CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS of the copyright code. :hurr: :hurr: :hurr: :hurr:

 

2. If your website has someone that uploads copyrighted material, and the court gets to it before you can remove it, you can have you entire website and advertising cut off. As well as your internet connection.

Nope. Because if your website has someone who uploads copyrighted material, it probably isn't a criminal violation of the copyrights.

 

3. This makes streaming of copyrighted material completely illegal. Such as video games and such.

Streaming video games is not illegal now, and it won't be illegal after a bill passes that doesn't fundamentally change copyright laws.

 

4. This would allow the US to take down websites outside of US jurisdiction.

So what? If they're committing a crime under US law that affects the rights of persons located within the US, why shouldn't US law enforcement be able to do something about it?

 

I would be happy to quote the bill if you don't think that is in the bill.

No need.

 

For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--

(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

 

Not a single requirement in there deviates from currently accepted International standards for application of a domestic country's criminal code against citizens or residents of a foreign country who have never stepped foot on domestic soil.

Edited November 23, 2011 by lukertin

[marharth]

The bill says criminal violation. That does not cancel out the other parts of the bill somehow. The new things in the bill are still criminal violations.

 

Now if you don't think this is a problem at all, what exactly will this bill change? You have said multiple times it won't change much right?

[lukertin]

The bill says criminal violation. That does not cancel out the other parts of the bill somehow. The new things in the bill are still criminal violations.

They aren't really new things.

 

The only relevant change to the definition of criminal violations is the inclusion of a digital streaming provision as 'distribution', which, under the existing statutory language, conceivably includes, and probably has included, if the court-ordered shut downs of TV streaming sites in the past have anything to say about it. In any case, streaming video content has clearly been seen as a civil infringement of copyright, the new bill barely does anything more than to include judge-made law regarding civil copyright infringement as a basis for criminal infringement.

 

Now if you don't think this is a problem at all, what exactly will this bill change? You have said multiple times it won't change much right?

It gives the US Attorney the power to stop torrent sites like thepiratebay.org, isohunt.com, btjunkie.org, and shut them down, and also streaming sites like vureel, megapixel, etc., from illegally streaming movies, TV shows, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this law was directedly solely at thepiratebay.org

 

Oh god the parade of evils! First Amendment rights, censorship, all these things out the window.

Edited November 23, 2011 by lukertin

[marharth]

Now if you don't think this is a problem at all, what exactly will this bill change? You have said multiple times it won't change much right?

It gives the US Attorney the power to stop torrent sites like thepiratebay.org, isohunt.com, btjunkie.org, and shut them down, and also streaming sites like vureel, megapixel, etc., from illegally streaming movies, TV shows, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this law was directedly solely at thepiratebay.org

 

Oh god the parade of evils! First Amendment rights, censorship, all these things out the window.

How would that bill change that if copyright laws are not being changed?

[ginnyfizz]

4. This would allow the US to take down websites outside of US jurisdiction.

So what? If they're committing a crime under US law that affects the rights of persons located within the US, why shouldn't US law enforcement be able to do something about it?

 

WOW. So the US should have the right to bully every other country then? Isn't that what the US are getting into international hot water about already, interfering with other sovereign states? Let's be quite clear about this, I am actually an admirer of the United States and its' people in so many ways, but not an uncritical admirer. This kind of overstepping of the bounds and attempting to impose US laws even on friendly nations is playing right into the hands of the USA phobic EU, for one.

[SilverDNA]

In clicking on this spoiler you are responsible for your own curiosity and can't hold Robyn Scott responsible for any unwanted effect or me!:tongue:

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1106/censorship-censor-kill-freedom-evil-demotivational-posters-1309425854.jpg

 

Censorship should always be monitored and measured by citizens with good, pronounced common-sense, else it becomes either a tool of oppression and wrong opinion-formation or in the other extreme worthless.

That's why censorship regardless, how it is ruled out is always a double edged blade in my opinion.

In this particular case it is in my little opinion to understand that here fore that under such laws in comparison with the already installed Patriot Act and similar related measures under the deceit of protecting a country's citizens from harm, there is a dangerous development going on in the US. under superficial,one-sided views it stands as legit but in additional comparison with the Patriot Act , it can becomes a tool for oppressive people to bring down any democracy in charge. That is why I believe any Censorship belongs in the hands of citizens of a country. Since this oversteps the boundary's of other countries and their sovereignty, it can also be abused to wage Internet warfare on a country. I see hereby a great danger, for the whole world in this measurement.

Edited November 23, 2011 by SilverDNA

[lukertin]

WOW. So the US should have the right to bully every other country then? Isn't that what the US are getting into international hot water about already, interfering with other sovereign states? Let's be quite clear about this, I am actually an admirer of the United States and its' people in so many ways, but not an uncritical admirer. This kind of overstepping of the bounds and attempting to impose US laws even on friendly nations is playing right into the hands of the USA phobic EU, for one.

 

Let's be clear on something here. International law recognizes the right of any country to pursue legal action against a foreign citizen if that foreign citizen is inducing citizens of the domestic country to break their laws, or that foreign citizen is actively planning to cause harm, or does in fact cause harm, to domestic citizens. e.g., a Mexican drug lord who never sets foot on US soil can be extradited for murder if he sends some gangsters over the border to kill policemen. e.g., Britain has the right to arrest Irish terrorists who plan attacks on British subjects and yet have never left Ireland. This is no different. If the owners of thepiratebay.org, are actively inducing US citizens to violate criminal copyright laws, then those owners have subjected themselves to US law. US law enforcement could indict millions of US citizens who use thepiratebay.org, or they could go after the owners of thepiratebay.org, or they could go a third option (e.g., ask Swedish authorities to deal with it).

 

What they have the power to do, v. what they should do are two entirely different things.

 

In clicking on this spoiler you are responsible for your own curiosity and can't hold Robyn Scott responsible for any unwanted effect or me!

Spoiler

 

Censorship should always be monitored and measured by citizens with good, pronounced common-sense, else it becomes either a tool of oppression and wrong opinion-formation or in the other extreme worthless.

That's why censorship regardless, how it is ruled out is always a double edged blade in my opinion.

In this particular case it is in my little opinion to understand that here fore that under such laws in comparison with the already installed Patriot Act and similar related measures under the deceit of protecting a country's citizens from harm, there is a dangerous development going on in the US.

Do you even know what the Patriot Act actually does?

 

under superficial,one-sided views it stands as legit but in additional comparison with the Patriot Act , it can becomes a tool for oppressive people to bring down any democracy in charge. That is why I believe any Censorship belongs in the hands of citizens of a country. Since this oversteps the boundary's of other countries and their sovereignty, it can also be abused to wage Internet warfare on a country. I see hereby a great danger, for the whole world in this measurement.

It doesn't overstep on anything, except the 'right' of criminals to continue their crimes and inducing law-abiding citizens to commit crimes as well.

 

 

 

How would that bill change that if copyright laws are not being changed?

I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it?

Edited November 23, 2011 by lukertin

[marharth]

You are saying that the bill will give the US Attorney the power to stop torrent sites.

 

That is a fairly large change. Torrents are not illegal under current copyright laws. Torrent sites do not host illegal contents under current copyright laws.

[SilverDNA]

*snip*

In clicking on this spoiler you are responsible for your own curiosity and can't hold Robyn Scott responsible for any unwanted effect or me!

Spoiler

 

Censorship should always be monitored and measured by citizens with good, pronounced common-sense, else it becomes either a tool of oppression and wrong opinion-formation or in the other extreme worthless.

That's why censorship regardless, how it is ruled out is always a double edged blade in my opinion.

In this particular case it is in my little opinion to understand that here fore that under such laws in comparison with the already installed Patriot Act and similar related measures under the deceit of protecting a country's citizens from harm, there is a dangerous development going on in the US.

Do you even know what the Patriot Act actually does?

*snip*

 

Yes I know! And I know how it can be abused as well, because I see the danger of duality in history repeating itself in a most ugly and advanced way here.

In clicking on this spoiler you are responsible for your own curiosity and can't hold Robyn Scott responsible for any unwanted effect or me! This time you might take a lot of your time in viewing this... a rogue who evil thinks on this ...

:whistling:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f0sBA61L0Y&feature=related

 

 

 

Since I have not much faith in American citizens common-sense watching over my cultural background and interests, as well as seeing how opinions of my country that aren't in agreement as well as seeing the possibility of abusing this as tool of very sophisticated very advanced modern warfare, that shouldn't be in the hand of any government. I there fore rather take the red pill and take my chances with an international expert committee that oversees any abuse of such laws than taking the blue pill and let American government decide what I shall think or have the right to know, on their cultural view alone in my country.

Edited November 23, 2011 by SilverDNA