Paul Vixie Explains How PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet
from the not-cool-folks dept
It’s pretty difficult to question Paul Vixie’s credibility when it comes to core internet infrastructure. Creator of a variety of key Unix and internet software, he’s still most known for his work on BIND, “the most widely used DNS software on the internet.” So you would think that when he and a few other core internet technologists spoke up about why PROTECT IP would break fundamental parts of the internet, people would pay attention. Tragically, PROTECT IP supporters, like the MPAA, appear to be totally clueless in arguing against Vixie. Their response is basically “it’s fine to break the internet to evil rogue sites.”
That, of course, is missing the point. It’s not that anyone’s worried about breaking the internet for those sites. It’s that it will break fundamental parts of the internet for everyone else as well. And… it will do this in a way that won’t make a dent in online infringement. Afterdawn sat down with Vixie who gave a clear and concise explanation of why PROTECT IP is a problem. The biggest issue is how it will impact DNSSEC, which adds encrypted signatures to DNS records to make sure that the IP address you’re getting is authentic. You want that. Without that, there are significant security risks. But PROTECT IP ignores that.
Explained simply, for DNSSEC to work, it needs to be able to route around errors. But the way PROTECT IP is written, routing around errors will break the law:
Say your browser, when it’s trying to decide whether some web site is or is not your bank’s web site, sees the modifications or hears no response. It has to be able to try some other mechanism like a proxy or a VPN as a backup solution rather than just giving up (or just accepting the modification and saying “who cares?”). Using a proxy or VPN as a backup solution would, under PROTECT IP, break the law.
And, of course, none of these DNS efforts will actually stop infringement. As the Afterdawn article notes: “Bypassing DNS filtering is trivially easy. All you need to do is configure your computer to use DNS servers outside the US which won’t be affected by the law.”
And while supporters of PROTECT IP insist that there’s nothing to worry about because it only impacts those “foreign websites,” that’s misleading in the extreme. PROTECT IP will impact a ton of US-based technology companies. First, if we have a less secure internet, that’s going to be a problem for obvious reasons. Additionally, the way the law works is that it puts a direct burden on US companies to figure out ways to block sites declared rogue (you know, like the Internet Archive and 50 Cent’s personal website), or face liability. This will increase both compliance and legal costs.
In the last few months we’ve been hearing from more folks in the startup world who are really concerned about the excessive burdens PROTECT IP is going to put on them. If you’re an entrepreneur who’s worried about this, we’d like to hear about it. Please contact us.
Filed Under: break the internet, dns, dnssec, paul vixie, protect ip, unintended consequences
Comments on “Paul Vixie Explains How PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet”
Tidal Forces
…and the King passed a law declaring it illegal for the tide to come in.
But lo, the tide came in anyway.
Re: Tidal Forces
The other King says that law will break the sea.
Vixie is truly a great guy, but at this point, I think he is overstating the point.
Re: Re: Tidal Forces
I think he is understating it. Wait until this takes down a 911 service, a hospitals switch board, or a router at a police station.
Who do we hold responsible for the inevitable deaths that will occur?
Waste of time and money
In the end, the internet will end up doing what it was designed to do: route around the damage.
This is basically the U.S. Government’s attempt at assuring that they will eventually have zero control over how the internet works – while at the same time strengthening it to prevent anyone from ever having that control.
Re: Waste of time and money
I wonder then if making “route around the damage” illegal, as this bill does, is de facto making the Internet illegal?
Re: Re: Waste of time and money
There is nothing in this bill that makes using a proxy or VPN to bypass the filtering illegal. I have read the bill, and there is nothing specifically making it illegal for an individual to bypass the filter.
Re: Waste of time and money
>>> In the end, the internet will end up doing what it was designed to do: route around the damage.
And as the loopholes in this law get closed off one by one, this will come to mean routing around the entire USA.
Re: Waste of time and money
So Protect IP will break the internet but it won’t stop the pirates from using the internet to pirate?
It will break the internet in every way except when the internet is used for piracy?
Gotcha. Thoroughly convincing argument you have there.
Re: Re: Waste of time and money
It will break the internet for the less tech savvy. Luckily most pirates are capable of doing a google search, finding out the methods used to stop them are laughable at best, then evading them. So…if you don’t know what you’re doing this breaks the internet. If you use a DNS server that isn’t affected by the law (one outside the US), it doesn’t.
Definitions
Dear MPAA,
Pyrrhic victory Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.],
(a) a victory in which the winning side sustains very
heavy losses.
(b) any act supposedly benefitting the actor, for which
the costs outweight the benefits.
[PJC]
— From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
Savvy?
—
Sincerely, Prashanth
Is it a script that puts it automatically after “rogue” ? Doesn’t work in the comments though :/
Re: Re:
Its to remind people that there have already been LOTS of false positives in terms of ‘rogue’ site lists.
Isn't breaking the Internet the point?
Well?
How to stop all infringement, forever!
pass a law that breaks copyright/IP/patents, bling!! no more infringement! so easy even a MAFIAA shill can do it
“it’s fine to break the internet to evil rogue sites.”
i think you a word.
Re: Re:
by “internet” they mean: “tubes”
Breach of Trust
Mr. Vixie seems to have missed one point. Soon there are going to be two DNS, one for those inside the US, and one for those outside. And pretty soon, two will become several. After that, there will be no more coordination of domain names. Every country or region will assign its own names. The internet just won’t be broken. It’ll be fractured beyond repair.
Re: Breach of Trust
Before that happens people will start using something that is decentralized, because the useful part of the internet is that it connects people its about the connection and so people will find a way to connect.
That “way” will become more and more difficult for any one government to control.
What the US government in fact is doing is accelerating the development of solutions that will take away any future hope of them being able to assert any type of control over the network.
Re: Re: Breach of Trust
The more you squeeze, the more it slips between your fingers…
Re: Re: Breach of Trust
Agreed, and this will end up making the internet less prone to monitoring, less prone to government intervention, and more decentralized. All in all the government is driving the world to a less corporate IP controlled world.
Re: Breach of Trust
This is exactly what he means by “breaking the internet”. This article didn’t mention it, but your point is one that he (and others) have explicitly brought up numerous times.
Re: Re: Breach of Trust
No. Only pirates will want to leave the centralized internet and set up fringe DNS systems.
Which will only make them easier to find and shut down.
Whoops.
Re: Re: Re: Breach of Trust
Making an assumption without backing it up with evidence merely destroys your own argument. As you have just done to yourself. There are more reasons for privacy than just to do acts that have only been declared illegal at the behest of corrupt corporations. And as I have said before, the usage of the word “pirate” is incorrect and inaccurate. “File sharer” is more accurate, because it describes the actual behavior itself, independently of the unethical laws which have been passed to make it illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Breach of Trust
I’m not a pirate, but I will absolutely want to stop using US-based DNS servers should this pass.
Re: Re: Re: Breach of Trust
No. Only pirates and anyone who wants to get stuff from them will want to leave the centralized internet and set up fringe DNS systems.
Two possible scenarios
1) This is only a very small numebr of people.
In which case
Which will only make them easier to find and shut down.
might be true (except for the inevitable encryption and location overseas).
But in that case – why bother – since they can’t be doing any damage.
2 There are many of them. In which case Which will only make them easier to find and shut down.
fails
Whoops
Re: Breach of Trust
At least floppy disk sales will go up.
Re: Breach of Trust
Actually, Mr. Vixie (hey, that’s me!) did predict the fracturing of DNS if things like PROTECT-IP become common around the world. That article is here.
Re: Re: Breach of Trust
Actually, I could see the USA outlawing the use of offshore DNS servers in the next fwe years. After Pakistan outlawed the use of VPNs and proxies, other countries could follow suite.
Oman was the first to ban proxies and VPN, but Pakistan is the first country of any signifigance to do it.
While Oman was the first to outlaw proxies and VPN, they don’t much of a user base, compared to other Arab countries, such as Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia.
I could see a ban on VPNs and proxies introduced, in the USA, in 2013, when the 113th Congress takes office.
I think that the British parliament could introduce a ban on proxies and VPNs after the next Parliamentary elections in 2015.
Because those cards are damn powerful
I love it. Let me rephrase the entire act.
We’ll keep people from reading books by destroying the index cards…that’ll fix it.
Oh, should we make it illegal to bring your own index cards?
waste of time trying to convince those that make the laws. they have already decided what they are going to do ie introduce this bill into law. once the internet is broken and they cant use it themselves, then crap will hit fan. be too late then. and all because a few dinosaurs with more money than brains wont adapt to the 21st century!
The solons’ (tongue in cheek) solution is the equivalent of ripping an entire page from a phone book to rid it of one number. Never mind what happens to those who happen to share the page back or front.
Acceptable collateral damage
As long as we mildly inconvenience a few sites that we assert are guilty, it doesn’t matter how many innocents we mow down in the process of assuring the safety and well-being of all.
Due process be hanged. We are the righteous! And don’t cloud the issue with inconvenient facts.
Proxy or VPN illegal?
(IANAL)
I just read the bill itself (it’s pretty short), and have a hard time seeing where it would make the proxy or VPN bypass illegal.
In fact, the bill states that an affirmative defense against charges on not complying with orders to yank a domain name is if it’s technologically too costly or unfeasible to do so.
As I read this, the best thing that could happen if this bill were to pass is for DNSSEC to be implemented with the proxy/vpn bypass in place. Doing so would certainly bring that positive defense into play for every DNS system.
Am I missing something?
(Note, I still think that this is a terrible bill, but I’m not seeing this particular problem.)
Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
There is nothing in the current draft of the law that makes it illegal for you to use a proxy or VPN.
VPNs could not be outlawed anyway, since businesses use them for secure remote access to their networks.
Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
Using them to route around a blocked “rouge site” would be. Though who is to say that I may or may not have a VPN to my home system that allows me to access my home server and use it as my own cloud drive.
Re: Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
Not for personal use. There is nothing in Protect IP that says I cannot pay $200 a year for an offshore service, such as Perfect Privacy, to acceess any kind of web site.
I could see maybe providers of such services being targeted by the US government, but there is nothing in Protect IP that says that I, as an individual, may not use a VPN for such a purpose. There is no criminal sanction, in the current version that makes it illegal.
Re: Re: Re:2 Proxy or VPN illegal?
Providers of services like the New York Times and the Washington Post?
Or is there a significant difference between someone who publishes a newspaper and someone who publishes a phone book? Perhaps the difference is that a newspaper is filled with opinions, half-truths and outright falsehoods?along with facts. While a phone book publisher limits itself to pretty much facts.
Re: Re: Re:2 Proxy or VPN illegal?
There’s a price to be paid if we let them chase US internet users to using offshore DNS. It’s inefficient and leaves too much opportunity for someone with malicious intentions. Suddenly there’s no need to attack a DNS server to poison its cache for malicious purposes. Now someone can just setup their own server outside the US to provide the false information directly to the end user. You’re essentially ceding any semblance of control over the security of DNS to unknown entities outside your borders.
What Mike didn’t mention was Paul told me DNSSEC wouldn’t be implemented in his organization’s DNS server, BIND, if PROTEC IP becomes law. That means it wouldn’t be available on the majority of DNS servers on the Internet. Even your offshore service won’t get its benefits. You’ve fixed “your” Internet, but they have still effectively outlawed a security feature you should get the advantage of.
Re: Re: Re:3 Proxy or VPN illegal?
However, my “offshore service”, as you put it, is an encrypted VPN proxy, so I have a far more secure connection than you might think. Better than anything DNSSEC could ever do.
Re: Re: Re:4 Proxy or VPN illegal?
Sure it does, but only between you and them. If you are connecting to your bank’s website, you still have to use DNS and it still won’t have DNSSEC capability. Your VPN makes no difference on that.
Re: Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
There’s the thing — I don’t see where the law says that at all.
Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
Do you administer a DNS resolver?
Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
That is the difference right there. Someone offering a DNS revolver, proxy, or VPN service that bypassed the filter might be liable, but inviduals using the service are not breaking the law.
And besides, there would be no way to know what you were doing with a VPN, since the session is encrypted and cannot be monitored.
Re: Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
The class of DNS resolvers does include stub resolvers.
Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
Yes, but that’s irrelevant to the question.
Re: Re: Re: Proxy or VPN illegal?
Do you operate a stub resolver or full-service resolver?
The bill S.968 SEC.2 defines:
(Emphasis added.)
In your opinion, does S.968 make any distinction similar to the RFC 1123 distinction between stub resolvers and full-service resolvers?
Not sure I understand. If a site is delisted and I get some sort of error message what happens next? Is the issue that if I then seek it out on an alternate DNS then the problems start? Thanks for the schooling.
Re: Re:
It depends: Are you a good little boy or girl? Who always does what they’re told?
Or do you believe that an American Congress has no right nor power to suppress the publication of a true fact?absent a truly compelling national security reason.
Look. No one argues that ?the sailing date of a troopship in wartime? may be censored. At least for a limited time. But censorship of true facts is a dangerous venture.
So, are you willing to fight for American ideals?
Re: Re: Re:
Or do you not even think about the censorship issue and only consider whether you have the right to fix the problem? That’s what the people pushing PROTECT IP don’t understand. The attitude most people will likely have is, “I have the right to make my internet work.”
I think the proxy/VPN bypass would only apply to the DNSSSEC servers itself. You, as an individual, would not be breaking the law by bypassing the filter.
Re: Re:
prove it, or disprove it…. The problem is that you can’t.
Re: Re:
Once and for all, there is nothing in Protect IP that makes personal use of a VPN, for bypass the filter, illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No there isn’t. But the provision that makes it illegal for a server means DNSSEC won’t ever see widespread use. If you read the original article Mike linked you’ll understand the point better.
Re: Re: Re:2
There are a lot of people reading things into Protect IP and similar laws that don’t exist. For example, there is a lot of FUD going around saying that the Commercial Felony Streaming Act will making watching a lot of videos illegal. That is incorrect. The CFSA only applies to those who send streams, not those who just watch them, but some articles insist otherwise, generating a lot of FUD about that.
That is one reason I keep repeating on here about using a VPN, under PIPA, not being illegal. I want to keep the kind of FUD that is going on about CFSA from being started about Protect IP.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“There are a lot of people reading things into Protect IP and similar laws that don’t exist. For example, there is a lot of FUD going around saying that the Commercial Felony Streaming Act will making watching a lot of videos illegal. “
Translation: There are a lot of vague and overbroad problems with S978 which could be used to bring litigation against people for watching videos as well as streaming *any* copyrighted material regardless of if it’s fair use or not.
The problem is that S978 is too vague and overbroad. This is why people are writing letters and posting about how it could be used to criminalize what has become accepted behavior online.
Re: Re: Re:4
There is nothing in S978 that makes it illegal to watch videos. Even Klobuchar herself has said that. There is nothing in S978 that specifically makes watching the videos illegal.
It is those who transmit the streams who have to watch it.
But even if they did find a way to prosecute viewers, the viewers would have to have watched at least $2,500 worth of videos, and that would be an awful lot of viewing to reach that sum.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No, by putting the “public performance” into copyright law and specifically putting streaming in there, you are specifically trying to harass someone for putting up copyrighted material of any sort by criminalizing them. The other detriment is if you’ve “made money” from the video watching. Whether it’s in the form of donations or direct sales, doesn’t matter to a prosecutor. What matters is did you do it?
Hell, I’ve seen John Cornyn’s form letter. He says it himself that ” federal prosecutors have little incentive to pursue misdemeanors, and as a result these crimes largely go unpunished.” Now why does a federal prosecutor *NEED* to combat piracy? Why is a prosecutor trying to “protect the internet” when it’s running just fine?
And the final question: Why is streaming being criminalized in the first place? All studies have suggested that people are paying more for tangible products. Netflix was beating piracy (Now, I’m not so sure with the higher licensing fees and crazy price structures). Even the suppressed report of the entertainment industry found that pirates are their best customers.
So why are PIPA, S978, the UK Digital Economy Act, the ACTA, the DMCA, the NET ACT, and all of these rules for more copyright needed?
Re: Re: Re:6
However, regardless of the FUD going aroud, CFSA only applies to those to send strams, and not to those who receive them.
There are valid concerns for those who send streams, but viewers are not under the scope of this law. I have read the bill, and find NOTHING that makes it a crime to WATCH the videos.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
So make it damn hard for Youtube to function by criminalizing any footage not authorized.
I don’t know why you’re going back to the “watching videos” point, when what I’m saying is that the larger points are the ones you’re ignoring.
Re: Re: Re:8
If they try to criminalise YouTube, then YouTube could just simply pull up stakes and leave the country. If YouTube left America, the only thing that the Feds could do them would be to try and block YouTube using PIPA, which, as we know, everybody would easily circumvent. CFSA could not be used on them, if they left the United States.
If they try to hold YouTube, Veetle, Justin, etc, liable, its a sure bet they will leave the country, and take a lot of good paying high tech jobs with them. I think a lot of third-world countries would be happy to have them, as it would bring a lot of jobs and much needed revenue to their countries.
And there are other streaming sites already popping on in Europe and Asia ready to take their place, if CFSA does shut American based sites down. For example, Flintstone episodes once available on YouTube are now popping on one one Romanian site, that is very much like YouTube. Good luck in trying to use CFSA on the propriters of this one Romanian site. The US has no jurisdiction in Romania.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You are aware that Youtube is an American company right? With everything that it invests into the internet, I doubt that it can just pull up quickly and move operations outside of the US. Yes, I believe the same that if the US begins to use more enforcement through CFSA or PIPA, it’s going to slip through their fingers.
The fact remains that the factors for proving criminal infringement are not clearly defined before passing this law. It’s still overcriminalization to no real benefit for the consumer (who is to be jailed), the copyright holder (who still hasn’t made money), nor the state (that has wasted taxpayer money on a civil case)
Re: Re: Re:10
overcriminalization to no real benefit for the consumer
(who is to be jailed)
Sorry to have to sound like a broken records folks, but there is NOTHING in S978 that makes it a crime for consumers to VIEW the content. The law only covers those who SEND the content. Read the bill and see for yourself.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
I wasn’t talking about the viewer. I’m talking about the people that stream or upload media.
Re: Re: Re:12
I know that, but some people might think you are. With all the FUD going around about that, I am merely trying to dissuade people from the idea that viewers will be prosecuted. A number of articles have been disseminating tha FUD, which people need to be dissauded from.
However, one good reason why they will never make it a crime to view illegal streams is becuase of the number of people that would be felons under the law would be incredible.
For example, one stream of a recent Vladimir Klitscko fight had over 400 thousand viewers at its peak, 400 thousand felons if CFSA made viewing it illlegal. With a lot of other major sports events clocking 100 thousand, or more, viewers, that would add up quickly to millions of potential new felons.
The next time a PPV Paquiao, or Mayweather fight takes place. Check out Justin or any of the streaming sites,and you might find several streams with 100 thousand or more viewers. Do you really think that government would attempt to prosecute a million people, for watching a PPV fight for free on an illegal stream? I think not. The court system would take decades to process all of them.
The federal prison system would not have the room to handle them. The Feds would have to build hundreds, maybe thousands, or new prisons just to house people convicted for merely viewing content. And that does not count the cost of hiring and training staff to run them.
The national debt is so high now, and the federal deficit getting way out of hand, the Feds could not come up with anywheres near the sum of money needed to build all these new prisons, without bankrupting the country. Even if they fined every one of them the maximum $250k fine, they still could not come up with the money to build all those prisons, and then hiring and training staff to run them.
And that does not count the incredible number of prosecutors the government would have to hire. I think it would exceed to total number of lawyers in the entire country. And when you figure the cost of salary, plus health and retirment benefits, the costs would be staggering, given that your typical attorney would probably start at about $100k per year or so, right out of law school, then go up exponentially as they gain more experience. The cost to pay the salaries and health benefits of all these new prosecutors would likely make the national debit (about $13.5T right now) go ballistic.
That is why viewers don’t have much to worry about. Going after all the viewers of illegal streams would bankupt the federal government. Even the copyright lobby’s staunchest supporters are not insane.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
There’s at least two problems here:
The closest that the US has gone into fighting an idea would be the War on Drugs. It’s akin to trying to fight copyright because both seem to try to attack the suppliers of an illicit through a hard ban. More than 40 years later the Drug Wars have failed, and so has this idea that more enforcement of copyright. Seriously, it’s been more than 10 years of the DMCA. It’s cost the industry $3 million to fight infringement, for the RIAA to receive $300K. The move to criminal infringement is less of a burden on the industry, but it’s still all about trying to take people’s freedoms away for infringing a copyright.
The ones looking to shove this back will be the judicial system. There is no way in hell that the judges assigned to violent crimes such as murder and arson are going to put away a nonviolent criminal of a copyright infringer in the same place. So for all of the law, that’s where you’ll probably see a major pushback.
” Even the copyright lobby’s staunchest supporters are not insane.”
Uhm… They’re clueless about what it takes to make their business model work. Have you read up on Doug Morrison by chance? How about the game of musical chairs going on with the Big Four? They don’t care about cost, they care about control of the market like they had in the 80s. And they’re all part of the RIAA which supports more draconian laws to curtail consumer freedoms. If you can find a way to talk sense to them, be my guest. But it’s a lot of money being passed around to limit platforms of expression, in a quixotic attempt to limit the market to what makes the industries the most money.
While we can know that more enforcement = more debt, you should note that it is the MPAA and RIAA that are pushing for more criminal infringement laws.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Have you ever looked at how a federal prosecutor calculates something like monetary damages in a ?hacking crime??
Let’s say it’s a 2 hour movie. It cost $100 million to produce.
$100 million / 2 hours =~ $1400 / second.
So, watch 2 seconds of that video and you’ve crossed $2,500.
You can argue that that’s an absurd way to calculate, but that’s the type of insanity we see in ?computer crime? prosecutions.
Re: Re: Re:6
The point is that there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in S978 that makes WATCHING a video illegal. While there are certainly a lot of other valid concerns about S978, all the fears about being prosecuted for watching a video are just all FUD. The law only applies to those to send videos, and NOT those who view them.
And even if they do make watching it a crime, people can start using VPNs and proxies to hide their activities. You can’t prosecute what you can’t trace.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’re not thinking like a scum-bag political lobbiest about how to screw the biggest percentage of the population while making it ‘appear’ that was not the intent….
So your PC is streaming the video from the internet to your PC (lets say this is legal, since it’s not specifically in the bill)… so what does your PC do? It ‘streams’ the content from your PC to your Monitor or TV so you can see it…
And there you go, it doesn’t even take the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, only one step from ‘legally watching’ a video to ‘criminal streaming of copyrighted content’……
Oh that claim about having to watch at least $2,500 worth of videos, who gets to claim the value? Statutory damages on ONE infringement can amount to $150,000… therefore anyone found to be ‘criminally streaming copyrighted content’ is magically in violation of the dollar amount stipulation (and even if this is ‘unreasonable’, the content provider gets to decide what the ‘fair value’ is, and you can bet that the ‘licensing’ fee for streaming anything will suddenly be above $2500 per ‘video’.
No, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night….
These freeshilltards are so annoying….
Re: Re: Re:6
However, there is nothing in S978 that makes viewing the content a felony crime. It only applies to those to send the streams.
Sending the display to your monitor or TV could not possibly be considered streaming. The streaming takes place when the content is going into your PC.
And “public performance” only applies to the person who send the stream, not the one who receives it. Hooking a display to your PC does not make it a “public performance”.
By your logic, it would be illegal to stream movies and music, on my own hard disk, over my own LAN, for my own use. Since I am not sending that video out to anyone else, it cannot be considered a “public performance”
Even if they do find a way to prosecute viewers, viewers can evade getting caught by simply using a VPN to hide their IP address. You cannot prosecute what you cannot trace.
Re: Re: Re:6
By that logic, it would be illegal for me to stream TV over my LAN to another computer in the house. And do have that capability. TVAnts cannot only connect to TVAnts trackers, but you can create your own TVAnts tracker for your LAN.
When I want to watch something in another room, I simply use my own private TVants tracker, accessible only over my LAN, to stream a TV show to a computer in another room. Since the TVAnts tracker I set is is private, and not accessible outside my LAN, it does not fall under S978.
Your idea of “sreaming to a monitor” is no different than that. S978 does not make it illegal to stream TV, movies, or music, from one computer in my room, over my private LAN, to a computer in another room. It does not fall under the definition of “public performance”, becuase I am not making it available to anyone outside my network.
The same thing applies to “streaming” TV to a monitor or TV. It would not all under the definition of “public performance”, becuase I am not sending that stream to anyone else outside my LAN. Even if I watch a stream coming from a pirate, it is still the same. Since that “stream” to my monitor is for my private use, and not being sent out to anyone, the “public performance” does not apply.
In order to be committing a crime, you have to be doing a “public performance”, that is specifically meant to be see outside your LAN, and, under S968, specifically meant to be seen by viewers in the United States, and you have to be making a profit. “Streaming” to your monitor, or streaming movies, music, or TV over your own private network, for your own private use, does fall under this law, becuase it is not a “public performance”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This is why people are writing letters and posting about how it could be used to criminalize what has become accepted behavior online.
Accepted by who? Certainly not the owners of the content. As for overbroad S-978 simply mirrors the existing penalties for commercial downloads which has been on the books for years. It seems the real objection to S978 is that more traffic is moving from downloading to streaming and people object to the loophole being closed. Even without S978 it’s still a crime, the only difference is the level of accountability for the profiteers.
Re: Re: Re:5
S978 also requires that streamers make some a profit. This is why S978 won’t do much of anything to deter streaming. The only ones affected will be the streaming platforms themselves, such as Justin, Veetle, YouTube, and the like.
The average hobbyist streamer, who, say, shares a Premier League soccer match, without making a profit, on intendint to, is not criminally liable under the law, but Justin TV, or whatever streaming platform they use, would be the ones in trouble, because they are making a profit, by covering up the video with a flash ad, for 30 seconds or so, and forcing viewers to look at that ad, before looking at the video the logged on to see.
This is why I believe YouTube, and nearly all streaming sites will just leave the United States.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This is why people are writing letters and posting about how it could be used to criminalize what has become accepted behavior online.
Accepted by who? Certainly not the owners of the content. As for overbroad S-978 simply mirrors the existing penalties for commercial downloads which has been on the books for years. It seems the real objection to S978 is that more traffic is moving from downloading to streaming and people object to the loophole being closed. Even without S978 it’s still a crime, the only difference is the level of accountability for the profiteers.
“Everybody breaks the law.” -ApologetiX
It is evident that our law makers can’t think two steps ahead.
Many countries are already very uneasy over the control the US claims on the internet. That doesn’t mean the internet is going to go away, nor does it mean that the US will continue to control the net through DNSSEC.
Those same countries are considering how important communications are to them within their own governments. Many have went to trying on line voting, record keeping, tax collection, and communications with their own citizens as a way to help their governments work.
Iran has already decided to step away from the standard internet to create their own Arabic version of it, inviting all the other mideast counties of Arabic descent to join them in that. This is the first break that will show it not only possible but will also remove much of the spying done by the US in the process.
About the time the US really tees these other countries off, they too will see the need to protect their own internet connections and will chase the same goal for their own reasons.
Fracturing the net will create a whole new meaning. What was controllable will now become far less as every country will in the end, go for their own security to see the net work for their countries.
While those here in this country are hell bent to slip control on to the net in their own version, that version won’t be acceptable to others in other nationalities.
The US has already broken it’s hands off approach to DNSSEC. That hands off was what made the internet control in the US’s hands acceptable to the rest.
As we have already seen, rouge sites will have an entirely different meaning once this law is in effect than it does now. The government will lump all those it dislikes for various reasons into the list in an attempt to control the pubic perceptions of it’s actions. A good example of that is the no-fly list used by the TSA. Many on the no-fly list are for political reasons other than terroristic leanings. Just disagreeing with the government powers that be is enough to earn you a standing on that list.
This is no different that Australia with it’s internet black list. An uncheckable list by citizens with no oversite to prevent abuse. Already there have been several cases of abuse. I have little hope this will do any good beyond adding expense to the cost of internet service.
These damn dinosaurs can’t die soon enough.
The problem is location, distance, and money.
As for location the US is conveniently between Europe and Asia as represented by this map
http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2006/020306cablemap_550x300.gif
which unfortunately does not show land connection which are few between Asia and Europe with out the US.
Also one may observe that internet connections of South America to the rest of the world in general flow through the US just as connections of Africa in general flow through Europe.
Which brings up the issue of money which is what it takes to make the US irrelevant by the simple means of making connections between the parts of the world which are dead ended like South America and Africa in to loop connections with out the US in the middle. Good luck on that.
If PROTECT IP does pass, can we report http://www.MPAA.org as a rogue site on the grounds it encourages violations of copyright laws?
(it does, after all…most DRM infringes on consumer rights)
One thing I could see streaming providers offering, when PIPA passes, is the option of using GeoBlocking to block US IP addresses.
There is one part of PIPA that effective makes illegal streaming not actionable in any US courts, if “reasonable measures” are taken to block US IP addresses from the content.
YouTube already has the capability to selectively block certain videos from IPs in the USA.
While such geoblocking can be circumvents, neither the DMCA, NET Act, ProIP Act, PIPA, or CFSA make circumvention of geoblocking illegal. Which is why the “reasonable measures” part is added, so that you don’t get prosecuted if someone circumvents your geoblocking using proxy or VPN.
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site is not intended to provide–
(i) such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(ii) access to such goods and services to users located in the United States; and
(iii) delivery of such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site has reasonable measures in place to prevent such goods and services from being accessed from or delivered to the United States;
This would seem to make YouTube not liable, if they blocked infringing videos to users in the USA.
Who cares USA IS BROKE
Like anyone cares about your countries issues anymore , everyone with a brains migrating its businesses out of the USA…..thank your govt.
Start ups? DON’T start in the USA and don’t use controlled DNS domains of the USA. PROBLEM SOLVED
Unconstitutional
It’s unclear whether the US constitution really means anything anymore, but assuming it does, this law would be a gross violation of the 1st Amendment.
Of the posters, only #28 above seems to have noticed this. If a law prohibits allowing one’s DNS server to give out truthful information, obviously there is prior restraint of speech.
Nor is it excusable under any of the tradtional exceptions, such as libel/slander, trade secrets, incitement of violence – or even copyright infringement. The prohibited expression is merely the factual information that a certain domain name has a certain IP.
PROTECT IP will cut off access to affordable meds
PROTECT IP will not only ?break fundamental parts of the internet,? it will also take away Americans? access to safe, affordable prescription medications from legitimate Canadian and other international online pharmacies. This is because the bill?s current definition of what constitutes a ?rogue? doesn?t distinguish between online pharmacies that do not require valid prescriptions and trusted, safe pharmacies that always require a valid doctor?s prescription to purchase medications.
RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is encouraging consumers to take action now by sending letters to Capitol Hill and the White House to state their opposition to the PROTECT IP Act and support for access to affordable meds. For more information or to voice your concern, visit http://www.RxRights.org.
Re: PROTECT IP will cut off access to affordable meds
Online Canadian pharmacies could solve this by simply using Bitcoins as a form of payment. That would get around the requirement of payment processors cutting off payments to them.
There is no possible way to stop such online pharmacies from getting payments through bitcoins.
The advent of bitcoins will make that part of Protect IP useless. Bitcoins are an anonymous for of internet money that would be impossible to stop. That is why the section on payment processors stopping payments to “rogue” sites will be made useless by bitcoins.
Another example of where central planning is totally stupid. It took me decades to finally realize that it is TOTALLY stupid. The king decrees that the price of beans will be so and so much, the merchant finds a way to get the market price elsewhere. The “market” innovates. The Big Bankers fooled us into letting them control the currency by fiat, now we finally have a world-wide dollar bubble.
It’s about controlling every aspect of your lives, people. The cashless society that Wired was cheering will be the death of freedom, because it will inevitably lead to the embedded chip-mark.
More FUD
There is even more FUD going on, about S968 and S978 claiming that businesses outside the United States will be subject to prosecution under either law.
While foreign websites can be blocked under S968, there is not way that that foreign website operators. S978 does not make any foreign websites prosecutable in the United States, and there is nothing in the law to that makes foreign websites liable for any streaming content in violation of S978, yet there is some FUD going around to that effect.
S978 criminal statutes do not apply to website operators or streaming sites outside the United States. While they can be blocked under PIPA, they are not subject to prosecution in the United States under S978.
It seems that S968 and S978 are not the law laws around the world generating a lot of FUD. Somple people claim New Zeland’s piracy law, which creates a civil find of up to NZ$15,000 for file sharing also makes watching pirated videos on YouTube also subject to that find.
Just like the FUD with S978 in America, there is nothing in the New Zealand law that makes viewing such videos illegal. The New Zeland law only covers those who send the videos, and not those who view them. Jeez, the FUD is being spread thicklhy these days. The NZ law only covers file sharing, and the sending of videos, and not the viewing of them.
ban on bitcoins?
I wonder if the next step will not be to outlaw bitcoins. In order to make the cutoff of funds to such sites work, they will have to.
Without such a ban, someone who wanted to make payment to a “rogue” site could use bitcoins, if that site chose to take them, and there would be no possible way to stop it, short of a total ban on bitcoins.