Web censorship coming soon?

Passed the Senate committee? In a lame duck congress in late November?

Check back in 2 years when it passes the same Senate committee again.

.

but it would close down sites that link to newspapers, magazine articles, etc.

Can you point out the section in the bill that says that linking to newspapers, magazines, articles
etc would constitute an infringing activity?

Text is here:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3804/text

I'm talking about the slippery-slope. You think this will stop at only music?

Ah, I see, and agree.

I know the slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy, but it can often be applied legitimately to governmental legislation;
 there is plenty of history where governments have used laws that went way beyond the original (stated) intent.

The UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) is a case in point here. Originally stated by the Blair government to combat terrorism, crime, and other worthy reasons, there were many warnings that it would most likely get mis-used by over-zelous bodies; they all went unheeded. Of course things got out of hand, and local government bodies started using it to spy (covert surveillance is the term used) for purposes such as checking parents lived in the correct school catchment areas, ensuring people were putting the correct trash in the trash cans.

Unfortunately, most people are either unaware of how these laws can be/are misused, or completely approve of them.
Most people I know in 'real' life (he he, I do exist off-line!) actually approve of the idea of governments controlling internet
content and access to that content. The arguments have often gone like this:

Them: Governments should control the internet, that way they can stop crimes such as paedophilia.
Me: I don't approve of governments controling the internet, or access to information.
Them: So you approve of paedophilia.  (Statement, not a question).

This argument is obviously FUBAR, but I do find people think it's powerful, logical, and valid.

BTW I've read most of the bill, but not the counter-arguments, yet


Interesting - and important - discussion.

.

I'm not holding my breath for this bill to become law. Under current and foreseeable conditions, there's just no way this gets signed into law in its current form. I'm not against a law that prohibits illegal file sharing that includes copywright infringement. There are current laws on the books, but they are pretty much unenforceable. A version of this new legislation might be a good thing. It wont mean the end of the internet. It will mean the music business might have a chance of survival though. Long way to go folks, a long way.

Randy 

.

Guitarhacker


This bill like so many others is simply the beginning. The proverbial foot in the door or the camel's nose under the tent..... depending on what metaphor you like better.

Social security was supposed to be capped at 3% when it was first started and to never exceed that 3% number..... now it's over 15% and rumored to be increasing in the future.

Given time, we'll have a Chinese style censorship on the net... "for our own good" of course.

Unfortunately there's some isp's in the US that do that now (or used to). When I was on dial-up years back the isp I was on used to not pass along my NRA emails and emails from the EWTN religious network. Tried to get those white-listed with the isp but they wouldn't budge on the issue.

Now I read somewheres yesterday the US government wants a back door into Google searches and some other stuff. Phooey.

It all boils down to copyright infringement with powers to shutdown sites that are in violation, isn't that what the article (Bill) is based on?

If so, this gives power via the attorney general to provide court orders to shutdown illegal sites; sites that are in violation of copyrights, particularly aimed at 'File Sharing' no matter if the site only provides a 'link to'. and....

....yes I can see this Bill open up a can of worms (cover all forms of copyright infringements)!

I guess if bands want to do cover songs?, make sure to have filed correctly for permission 'license' before uploading online and provide proper notice and credit to the original author(s)!

And... what if a site is shutdown but a year later after the court determined without doubt that NO violation occurred how much compensation will be paid for loss of potential income?

Oh yes! I can see a can of worms open up in all sorts of directions.


-

The world needs to do some kind of decisions concerning free information flow, because it's developed to measures unimaginable twenty years ago.

A simplified basic question could be:

Is the chance to do anonymously all this that is possible, plus, say, prepaid phonecards, used more in a constructive or non constructive way? And how much of the possibilities are used for plain crimes, disinformation and harrasment ?

Haahaa...how do you define it?

It's a known fact that people tend to go badly out of the line when they can do it anonymously.
Even presumably sane people can go totally wacko.

Drawing the line between the acceptable control of the internet and government terror is a tough job.

I wouldn't mind if a certified internet lisence was required ( to confirm the writers identity by authorities in case of misuse) on most sites. A limited number of "anonymity-allowed- sites" should remain still. In addition to limiting serious misuse not being able to operate in the net without a confirmed ID would propably make it possible to stop spamming and some other minor pests of the net.

Then again, the control should be as open and transparent as possible, which is a difficult requirement as well.

As a main rule information flow should be free, but I'm not the only one who regularily gets totally pi***d off by the way the misusers destroy the fun. In most cases hackers should be punished as hard as arsonists, I think.




 

Hey guys,

Check THIS out!

RIAA wants L!me W!re shutdown

Brief info' about L!me Wire; the site offers free P2P File Sharing using the Bit-Torrent protocol.

There's a notice plastered over the site; an 'injunction'. But due to investigations to do with another matter (not just piracy, another highly illegal activity regarding a registered-user) currently the site remains with that particular injunction notice attached.  However,  RIAA wants L!me W!re shutdown NOW! (Read Article Here).  It be interesting to see how this all plays out.

-

Hi,
 
Yeah ... I hope the RIAA goes broke one of these days and take a dip into the big tube in The Magic Christian!
 
After that, let artists handle their own money since God is a better giver than the RIAA will ever be!

It all boils down to copyright infringement with powers to shutdown sites that are in violation, isn't that what the article (Bill) is based on?

 
Bullmerde!
 
It all boils down to copyright infringement for a handful of rich artists that have nothing better to do than use lawyers to threaten their very fans ... sorry Metallica ... you ****in' lose!
 
In the end, the RIAA, does not support and protect the small names and lesser known artists. And the only thing they are trying to protect is their millions, not anything else ... in the name of an illusion!

.

Mike: just stealing from the man

I agree, that's exactly right!

'Stealing' (piracy) should not be tolerated, it's a pity a lot of people can't see past their own ignorance, as they continue to whine and persist with contributing to illegal activity (piracy) which might eventually led to the next step.. Internet Filtering...

....already the Australian government is very serious about plans to roll out the Internet filter, people are upset about that, we don't like our freedom taken from us.  Sadly, this may be the only course of action 'Internet Filter' and 'Report' System setup to 'block' and 'catch' very serious criminal activities such as; child pornography and piracy which of course is often distributed using torrents (file sharing sites)!

However, already there are 'monitoring' of activities ((most countries prefer this method)) the monitoring of ALL users online activities are being logged and there is nothing any of us can do to prevent it. Firewalls, proxy, deleting temp files and blocking cookies will do nothing in preventing the monitoring of all users activities...

...so I say now, anyone stupid enough to register on file sharing sites (torrents) for their so-called free downloads of albums and software (piracy), or for child pornography will land themselves in very deep poop!! Very Big Patootie Poop.


More about music side of things...

A lot of Aussie writers - music artists who have had songs charted in the top 40 need to make up for loss and the stress, the hard work is enormous, the money owing is astronomical, some end up so broke they can barely afford to buy a decent meal after collecting their music award. That is NOT a joke!  I know of a friend; a writer who was a bass player in a hugely popular band that had several 'hits', now he lives the rest of his life 'poorly' in a rusty old caravan at a trailer park.

That said; I'm not surprised that this new bill is primarily targeted at file sharing - torrent sites. I say, shut them down!

For crying out loud, the amount of times I've done a search in Google only to see listed first are; Torrent sites; free downloads, get the serials, the cracks.  Or Free album downloads, get all your favorite songs for free.  This is a major 'piracy' problem!!

Not only do torrent sites hurt writers/musicians, it also hurts software companies. Besides, torrent sites (file sharing) will be under the federal police radar, you can bet a lot of criminals will get caught if not now then eventually.

In regards to Torrent Sites...
Moshkiae; in the process you shut down one of the best ways for things to sell... word of mouth

For crying out loud! There are plenty of sites for bands to get the word out, using torrent sites is not the best answer.

-