Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?

from the they-should dept

I finally got to listen to a recent episode of Jerry Brito's excellent "Surprisingly Free" podcast, in which Brito spoke with law professor Derek Bambauer on how we could have a more intellectually honest discussion about the appropriateness of PROTECT IP, if its supporters would finally just admit that it's a censorship bill. The talk was based on a new paper from Bambauer, Orwell's Armchair, that compares "soft censorship" of the internet -- using indirect methods, such as pressuring companies to stop working with Wikileaks, and "hard censorship," in which the laws clearly censor content.

Bambauer isn't arguing that PROTECT IP is bad, necessarily. In fact, he argues that "hard censorship" is preferable to soft censorship, in that at least what's happening is upfront and clear, and that there are times when censorship might make sense. His main argument though, is that for there to be a rational and honest discussion about these things, everyone should first be willing to admit that PROTECT IP is absolutely about censorship, and then we can have a direct discussion on whether or not this form of censorship is appropriate.

He notes that supporters are afraid to admit this, and instead insist that it's got nothing to do with censorship, because it's about "stopping copyright infringement." But, as he also notes, pretty much anywhere you see censorship, those who agree with it always couch it in other terms. Thus, South Korea blocking sites about North Korea is about protecting its own people. Various attempts around the world to censor child pornography are seen as reasonable attempts to stop child porn. And China's political censorship has often been framed by the Chinese as protecting its citizens from dangerous ideas. But they're all forms of censorship.

Bambauer, not surprisingly, is not confident that the debate will ever actually move in this direction. It's just not politically expedient to do so. Of course, there's potentially another reason: supporters of the bill know it's about censorship, and they're just embarrassed to admit that. So, denying that it's censorship (and lashing out angrily at those who state the obvious) is just a way of compensating.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    KeithV (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 8:55am

    It's not about censorship

    It's not about censorship. It's about ... ... chocolate chips! ... (Yeah, I like that.) ... It's about chocolate chips and cookies and candies! Who doesn't love that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:01am

    >Various attempts around the world to censor child pornography are seen as reasonable attempts to stop child porn. [...] But they're all forms of censorship.

    I really, really hope that you're not arguing AGAINST the censorship of child pornography.

    Because that sounds dangerously close to the argument you're trying to make there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      A Dan (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:07am

      Re:

      He (Bambauer) is pointing out that, despite this being censorship, not all forms of censorship are seen as inherently bad. I have no idea why you're interpreting it the way you are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:26am

        *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

        "He (Bambauer) is pointing out that, despite this being censorship, not all forms of censorship are seen as inherently bad."

        Censorship of child porn is very, VERY hazardous.

        The fact is, we can't help the victims, we can't find the culprits, nor can we find out an actual way to stop some maximalists from using it to further their own agenda.

        Further, there's problems of how censoring child porn is used in ways unintended. If a 16 year old sends a text message to a 14 year old, that's child porn. So not only is "child porn" an emotionally charged word, but it can be used in dubious ways to convict the kids it's supposed to protect.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:39am

          Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

          Gee thanks for the subject, it now makes my response look like I'm saying I do condone child porn.

          You should not have to say you don't.
          The vast majority don't.
          This trick that idiots pull of making people feel forced to preface any argument with those words are part of what prevents rational debate about how to best protect children and keeps the conversation squarely on how manly a response they would give if they ever came into contact with someone who abused children.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:45am

            Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

            So then you're saying you do condone child porn?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:49am

              Re: Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

              You are a very bad penguin.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

                Since you failed to answer, I'll take that as a yes. Mr.Hansen, you may take him away now...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                chris (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

                why don't you have a seat over there ->

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  doomvox, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

                  LOL, obviously part of the paradigm- you can't even voice an opinion on this subject without getting a Scarlet Letter tatooed on your forehead.

                  It sort of sucks to be *too aware* in this world--- why can't we be ignorant and happy like the majority? :-P

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:14am

            "Gee thanks for the subject, it now makes my response look like I'm saying I do condone child porn."

            I didn't even know you had posted until my post came about. So whatever you had to say was discovered independent of mine.

            "This trick that idiots pull of making people feel forced to preface any argument with those words are part of what prevents rational debate about how to best protect children and keeps the conversation squarely on how manly a response they would give if they ever came into contact with someone who abused children"

            Your first part seems good. But having read your other words, I'm not entirely sure I follow what in the world you're implying here. Sure, if you hurt a child, you deserve to be beaten within an inch of your life. But as I said, CP is emotionally charged and should be approached with caution. Usually, if someone is talking about this subject, the odds are they're trying to sell an idea of how to censor the internet. That's the point I'm making.

            There's very few places that help victims of CP. One that I was made aware of was Mogis. Now think about how many people advocate censorship of CP. Then think about how many organizations are set up to assist victims, run counseling, help children adjust, or get them out of this very bad situation.

            Do you see the problem here?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:42am

              Re:

              Jay, one of the downsides of the internet is that it can create communities and connections that might not otherwise have existed. CP is one of those areas, where people who are interested or lean that way can find others in the same boat, and work from there.

              The production and distribution of CP is at an all time according to every report I see, and worldwide networks exist to distribute the stuff. The free and open distribution of the stuff potentially has the effect to encourage people who were just closet pedos to actually move on to the act. There is plenty of indication that child abuse is on the rise. It is hard to draw a conclusion or a causal effect between the internet and the crimes, but it is clear that these guys can find the CP material much more easily than they could have 20 years ago.

              The point is it would be very easy for people to scream "censorship" when CP sites are shut down, except that most people morally dislike CP enough that they can understand the trade off. Groups like NAMBY complain endlessly about their rights being trampled.

              What they call censorship, most of the rest of us consider good actions by law enforcement. When you are one side, you tell censorship, on the other side you say "good job".

              As for helping the victims of CP, I like to think that shutting down CP sites and breaking up networks of pedos sharing the content is a step towards one or more of them NOT committing an act on an actual child in the future. It is as much about protecting potential victims as it is to protect actual victims.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:28pm

                Re: Re:

                if you only target the sharing of child porn then you are not attacking the source, which is what needs to be stopped to actually help children.

                " The free and open distribution of the stuff potentially has the effect to encourage people who were just closet pedos to actually move on to the act."

                You could certainly argue the opposite as well. Watching child porn satisfies their urge so they don't have to actually perpetrate the act.

                "but it is clear that these guys can find the CP material much more easily than they could have 20 years ago."

                its the internet, you can find anything more easily then you could 20 years ago.

                "As for helping the victims of CP, I like to think that shutting down CP sites and breaking up networks of pedos sharing the content is a step towards one or more of them NOT committing an act on an actual child in the future. It is as much about protecting potential victims as it is to protect actual victims"

                People who watch CP don't necessarily partake in it. As I said above some people could use this as an outlet to their urges. I think it would be better for future victims if they monitored the sites and tried to find the originators and provide help the watchers. Rather than focusing efforts on preventing people from sharing existing porn they should be worried about preventing people from making more of it.

                Certainly you can not allow these networks to flourish because if it becomes a lucrative business that will lead to more CP being made. But right now I think a lot of the discussion revolves around stopping people from watching CP when the real issue is people making CP

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  "You could certainly argue the opposite as well. Watching child porn satisfies their urge so they don't have to actually perpetrate the act. "

                  There are other arguments too, albeit I am prepared to accept that they are problematic.
                  for example, instead of censoring the sites, that may contain images or video of unknown children being abused by unknown people in unknown locations
                  it makes you think that perhaps, everyone should be looking at them, with millions of eyeballs, we may actually identify victims, perpetrators or locations far faster than underfunded police forces can manage on their own.

                  Obviously there are many potential problems with such a scheme, but it's not unthinkable although it would probably be impractical and unworkable.
                  I also know it wouldn't be a task many of us would be too pleased to do, I'd certainly have grave doubts about whether I could bring myself to deal with that kind of thing and feel sorry for those who have to investigate this dark and frankly terrifying world.
                  But despite that we certainly need wider and better thinking than the simplistic idea that censorship resolves anything for the better.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  Jay, why can't you do both? The authorities can download the content, and then make the site inaccessible in the US. We don't have to do "either or" here, Protect-IP doesn't stop law enforcement from doing their job fully.

                  People make CP because people watch it. Those who choose to film and display their acts aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it to prove to others what they did. When they lose their audience, they lose much of their incentive.

                  Further, if making it so others don't see the acts somehow can dissuade them from doing the same, then we have accomplished a lot.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Jay, why can't you do both? The authorities can download the content, and then make the site inaccessible in the US. We don't have to do 'either or' here"

                    Well, let's think, if you become aware of a site distributing child porn, do you leave it up and monitor it and track everyone who uses it etc or do you tip them off that it is being watched by blocking it so no-one in the US can accidentally stumble across it. Admittedly people who still want to access it could, but probably they and the other relatively anonymous people who had been using it would move somewhere else.

                    "Further, if making it so others don't see the acts somehow can dissuade them from doing the same, then we have accomplished a lot."

                    So on the assumption that you don't abuse children are you saying that if you saw images of child abuse you would then be likely to do so?
                    I suspect not, I suspect if it's the kind of thing that turns a person on, then they might either access it online and/or abuse in real life.

                    "Protect-IP doesn't stop law enforcement from doing their job fully"

                    and it has nothing to do with censoring child porn.
                    The reason child porn was brought up at all is that the censoring of it is something that a great many people agree on and do not view as a bad thing and Mike was asking why PROTECT-IP is disguised as one thing when it is in effect censoring legislation. The argument being that as some censorship is acceptable to the majority that they might well be in favour of PROTECT-IP as censorship, but that if you pretend it isn't censorship then you're simply being dishonest with people.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    hothmonster, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    yes like smoking most people who partake in pedophilia are only doing it to look cool in front of their peers.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:54pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Those who choose to film and display their acts aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it to prove to others what they did. When they lose their audience, they lose much of their incentive."

                    as I already stated this is ridiculous but even if you are right they lose incentive to film the act not lose incentive to do the act which is really the problem

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      It is correct that they don't lose their initial incentive to perform the act. However, when you have an audience encouraging you and begging you for more material, perhaps the producers do more, harm more children, harm them more often, etc.

                      Is is truly censorship to shut down the CP website?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:11pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "...perhaps the producers do more, harm more children, harm them more often, etc."

                        Perhaps they do, which is why you want to be able to investigate, identify them, rescue any kids that need rescuing and arrest the perpetrator/s none of which is aided by preventing people from accidentally finding the site on the internet.

                        If you continue to monitor it, you will also quite possibly get people contacting the website to offer to make new content and then you can track them down too, instead of hiding it all away and pretending it isn't there.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:27pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "Perhaps they do, which is why you want to be able to investigate, identify them, rescue any kids that need rescuing and arrest the perpetrator/s none of which is aided by preventing people from accidentally finding the site on the internet."

                          The sad reality is that much of the CP online today has been created in Eastern block countries, where the prosecution of such things is somewhere between rare and non-existent. What western CP does come out is usually chased down and local authorities tend to take swift action.

                          It should be remarkable to anyone on this site that most of the CP is created in the same places that are havens for other illegal acts, like piracy, viruses, software scams, and the like. So blocking access is often the only way to limit the problem. You can call it censorship, I call it a step in the right direction.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:26am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Translation:

                            Blocking CP is the only way to put the dirt under the carpet so people don't see it, we will do nothing to stop and use the old age proven concept of ignoring it because we cannot be bothered to do more.

                            But we will use CP as a cover story to look good to convince others that they need to surrender their civil rights so we can screw them good.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        hothmonster, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Is is truly censorship to shut down the CP website?"

                        Yes it is. Is it good or bad to censor CP is the argument. Certainly the makers of CP should be stopped, as should all people who abuse children, but the focus shouldn't be on the videos or sharing of videos the focus should be on preventing children from being harmed.

                        "However, when you have an audience encouraging you and begging you for more material, perhaps the producers do more, harm more children, harm them more often, etc."

                        Because you think its plausible? This isn't like kids who find an audience for their backyard wrestling troupe this is fucked up shit that takes a very disturbed mind to engage in in the first place. Perhaps having an audience causes them to do more perhaps it doesn't but I don't think either of our unfounded, uneducated ideas about how a pedophiles mind works really helps the discussion.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Jay (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    " The authorities can download the content, and then make the site inaccessible in the US. We don't have to do "either or" here, Protect-IP doesn't stop law enforcement from doing their job fully."

                    How is that taking the camera away from the person that is causing the harm?

                    Better yet, how is that taking the child out of harm's way? You've just tipped off a website that they're transferring acts or, like the links below show, that new people won't get in. Now how are you going to capture them without censoring the site, monitoring the situation, or taking down a domain? The other parts are superfluous to the reason CP was brought up in the first place. That form of censorship does not work and it is a half-assed solution to a difficult problem.

                    "Further, if making it so others don't see the acts somehow can dissuade them from doing the same, then we have accomplished a lot"

                    No, it hasn't. Unless you've taken the child and put them through rehab, taken the scumbag down and arrested him, it's not the full job. All you've caused is for these people to scatter like roaches to a new location, change their tactics, and inflict new harms. That's the problem here.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Jay, I would love to live in your world, where the authorities can just look at a picture, figure out who is in it, and swoop down and pick them up the next day, no matter where they are in the world.

                      You may want to cut back on the wacky tabaccky, it's making you delusional.

                      See my comments posted before: Much of the CP online is produced in eastern block and "third world" level counrties, which have bigger fish to fry (like feeding the masses). You cannot imagine how hard it is to figure out who is in the images, where they were shot, how long ago, etc. It really isn't a simple deal.

                      Further, let's be clear here. "The full job" is rarely accomplished in any field. The point is to do the most possible at each level and in each step, doing what is possible to stop the spread of illegal materials and to make obtaining them harder and less "open" than it currently is. Will PROTECT-IP "save the children"? Not directly. Then again, a speeding ticket doesn't directly save a life either, does it?

                      In the real world, most probably are solved piecemeal. Don't bitch if the first piece being looked at isn't the one you wish.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        nasch (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 10:54am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        See my comments posted before: Much of the CP online is produced in eastern block and "third world" level counrties, which have bigger fish to fry (like feeding the masses). You cannot imagine how hard it is to figure out who is in the images, where they were shot, how long ago, etc. It really isn't a simple deal.

                        I think you're still missing the point: blocking a domain doesn't help. Do you really think if you block a web site from being visible in the US, that the CP producers will give up and stop abusing children? Or will they set up shop in some other place and keep doing it? Censorship doesn't solve the problem, it makes it harder to see.

                        I fear you've fallen into the trap of "something must be done; this is something, therefore it must be done".

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

                Re: Re:

                Except censorship of sites, isn't shutting them down!
                It's just hiding them, that is the point here.

                Most if not all people are in favour of the police investigating, arresting people who abuse children and saving children from bad situations, the people objecting to simple censorship are saying all that does is hide the problem from view and does nothing to help so much as a single child.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Richard (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 3:43pm

                Re: Re:

                @Anonymous Coward

                Child porn - the one bit of sexual morality (or any other kind) that everyone can agree upon - we've abandoned most of the rest of it.

                Before you start even condemning it - let alone censoring it - go fix the beam in your own eye.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 6:15pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  ???

                  Everyone in America and the EU, people in Asia are horrified of what westerners call CP these days.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                doomvox, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:04am

                Re: Re:

                FYI, in the world of "alternative sexuality" CP means Corporal Punishment- some folks get off on being verbally degraded and physically "punished". It might be more useful (and precise) to spell out "Child Porn" if that is what you're referring to.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

          Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

          Leave it to jay to defend child pornography. Classy as always.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            hothmonster, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

            Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

            leave it to you to attack people while misrepresenting them and adding nothing to the conversation. Fucking worthless as always

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 6:16pm

            Re: Re: *NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*

            C'mon pedo we all know you just want to get back at him.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:37am

        Re: Re:

        I do, he's an idiot, who quite possibly thinks he (and it almost certainly will be a he) is one of the few who think child abuse is bad and all something has to do is look vaguely like it is about preventing it, even if it's just about preventing his awareness of it, will be right and anyone who so much as hints otherwise is the same as the child abuser.

        The irony is, it is the kind of hide it away and never analyse your own thoughts or the situation too closely that led to the sexual abuse of children staying hidden and secret for so long.
        The people who opposed censorship, the ones who made sex a major topic of public conversation, tiresomely and endlessly perhaps, they are the ones who are responsible for giving society the kick up its backside that it needed to finally pay attention to what was happening to some children and do something about it.

        It is difficult but somewhat necessary to be hard on these kinds of people, because their hearts are probably in the right place, just such a pity that their brains are not.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:07am

      Re:

      Of course he's not saying we should allow CP, but is simply pointing out that censorship is censorshipc regardless of whether it's justified or not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        doomvox, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:12am

        Re: Re:

        FYI, in the world of "alternative sexuality" CP means Corporal Punishment- some folks get off on being verbally degraded and physically "punished". It might be more useful (and precise) to spell out "Child Porn" if that is what you're referring to.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:08am

      Re:

      "I really, really hope that you're not arguing AGAINST the censorship of child pornography."

      Not advocating for child pornography, however in several countries this is how they get filters put it. Won't someone think of the children. Their goal is not stopping child porn, but stopping file sharing. Take the amazing filter in Australian where no one in the public could know what was on it, until it ended up on wikileaks. Some of the sites that were "damaging" seemed to be added at random and the sites had no bad content, but someone seemed to want to make them disappear for some reason.

      There is no perfect filter that stops child pornography, it can not be done. And filtering most of those sites just forces them to find a new conduit so the authorities can try to play catch up to the new methods they move onto.

      Child porn is a horrible thing, but there is no magic bullet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:12am

      Re:

      There are really good, clear, cogent arguments against censoring child pornography, primarily as all that does is hide it away without doing a thing to protect children, there are plenty of ways to actually deal with people who abuse children, protect children and remove such material without getting into censorship at all.

      But that is not the point of Mike mentioning it in the article.

      The point of the article is to call legislation what it is and let people decide on the basis of what it actually is whether they agree with it or not.
      A lot of people, like you for example, are in favour of censoring child porn, if it was called something else, despite being aimed at censoring child porn but claimed to actually be legislation for the promotion of trademark protections you might be more or less in favour owing to it being purported to being something else entirely.
      For the sake of argument I will assume you are also in favour of actually doing something to protect and rescue children from bad situations and so will refrain from suggesting that you in your rather thoughtless support for censorship are actually in favour of hiding child abuse away and making it more difficult for police to monitor and deal with abusers on active websites for example

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:17am

      Re:

      No, there's a clear difference -- although one that's often overlooked by those who go hysteric over child pornography.

      The goal of any such measures should be to protect the children. That seems to simple that it's a tautology, but it needs to be repeated over and over again, because a lot of the supposed anti-child pornography measures completely miss this point.

      For example, shutting down child porn websites has zero value in protecting children. They've already been exploited. It's too late..

      By contrast, identifying the people who actually did the exploiting and prosecuting them does have value.

      But the former is trivially easy and makes for great press, e.g., "108 child porn sites shut down". The latter is complex and requires intelligence, thinking and hard work.

      And that's why the former gets done (relatively often) and the latter gets done (quite rarely). Those screaming the loudest really don't care about the kids at all: they care about self-promotion, about maintaining the pretense that they're doing something, about furthering their own agendas using this as cover.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:55am

        Re: Re:

        I can't vote this insightful enough!

        Too many people seem to shut off their brains as soon as they hear child porn. "Oh he had child porn on his computer? Throw him in jail! He's obviously guilty! He deserves the worst!"

        Our system is so incredibly messed up right now because we have outlawed the mere possession of child porn. That is nothing but a thought crime. People want these "criminals" to go to jail because they think it's disgusting, not because of any actual offense to another human being.

        The real problem with child porn is the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child. That all happens with the person who produces it in the first place. You can also maybe add culpability to those who distribute it for profit because they can be seen as driving demand for it.

        In fact that is the only reason why possession of child porn is illegal in the US. When the law that outlawed possession went to the Supreme Court they said the only reason this form of censorship was OK under the first amendment is because they thought people who payed for it were creating demand for it. Back then before the internet existed that made a certain amount of sense.

        Now days with the internet you can find anything and everything for free if you know where to look. The world has changed while the law stayed the same. The reasoning for the law doesn't really hold up anymore. But as was pointed out above, you hear stories all the time of some "perv" being busted for x counts of child porn. Now he/she is going to spend the rest of their life in prison even if the only person they ever abused was themselves.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Now days with the internet you can find anything and everything for free if you know where to look. The world has changed while the law stayed the same. The reasoning for the law doesn't really hold up anymore. But as was pointed out above, you hear stories all the time of some "perv" being busted for x counts of child porn. Now he/she is going to spend the rest of their life in prison even if the only person they ever abused was themselves."

          Or the law is stretched to the breaking point by targeting those that don't abuse children. Link

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You can also maybe add culpability to those who distribute it for profit because they can be seen as driving demand for it.
          I hear this bandied about, but it's something I'd love to see more evidence for. As far as I know, in every other endeavor demand drives supply, but when it comes to child porn, somehow it's the supply that drives the demand. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see someone who wasn't interested in child porn to suddenly find it fascinating simply because someone else was peddling it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I totally agree. That's why I added the maybe into that sentence. The only reason I even put that in my comment was because it was the reasoning the Supreme Court used. I can understand the reasoning but like you said, the evidence isn't really there. Definitely something that could really use some more study. Sadly, due to the nature of the whole subject I fear we'll see little to no research on it and things will continue on as they are right now.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:29am

      Re:


      I really, really hope that you're not arguing AGAINST the censorship of child pornography.






      Child pornography is protected speech depending on whether the production is of actual minors, so what's your point?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

      Re:

      I really, really hope that you're not arguing AGAINST the censorship of child pornography.

      Protecting people from "child pornography" is one of the most-used justification for censoring things that are not child pornography. Look at CDT v. Pappert.

      Running a close second is the "think of the children" justification. See Ashcroft v. ACLU.

      No matter what the justification, censorship is censorship.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:28pm

      Re:

      Censoring of anything even child pornography by the government it is almost always unacceptable. That censoring should happen in the public sphere not at the government level.

      The reason is simple, once you set the precedence that something can be censored it is not far behind the day that everything would be, it keeps growing and growing in scope and to take it down afterwards it is a messy job.

      Besides censoring child pornography is like putting things under the rug it doesn't make them go away, for that law enforcement actually has to work and go after the people doing the bad things that actually don't necessitate new laws since raping is criminal whether you are a child or an adult, which brings me to the fact that the definition to child pornography today got expanded to the point where even consensual or beneficial sexual relationships and experiences are being considered hazardous and against the law criminalizing an 18 year old for having sex with his 15 year girlfriend should never happen but here we are sending boys and girls to jail that will have a permanent record and be trashed socially because of those laws.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:20am

    It's about [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], don't [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]. See, concise and to the [REDACTED].

    You'[REDACTED] welcome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:21am

    when was the last time you heard of any politician being embarrassed by what they were doing, particularly when it adversely affected the people and was pro industry/corporation? not going to happen!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JaSon, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:23am

    Everyone agrees

    Everyone does agree with PROTECT IP being about censorship. But the first person who wrote about it claimed Intellectual Property Rights over that comment, and has censored all other agreements to protect their rights over such an important intellectual post. After all, we can't allow others to copy their idea and cause confusion about such an important matter.

    PROTECT IP works for ME...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:24am

    "Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?"

    How about: "because it isn't".

    Mr Bambauer is expressing his opinion, but that doesn't really change the intent of the law or it's targets. The implication of censorship is his, not anyone working to pass the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:30am

      Re:

      Yes, clearly a law to censor websites isn't going to censor them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re:

        I am trying hard to understand how it is going to censor them (at least the legal ones).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Vague definitions of what's legal.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I guess we can ask those 50,000 domains that got censored back when a similar action proposed by this very law took place. But hey, no harm done right?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            tee-hee... 50,000 pages on a single domain. If you are going to launch an attack, at least try to get the stuff right - and some of the pages out of that 50k were apparently illegal.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "If you are going to launch an attack,"

              I guess everything looks like an attack when your position has clear gaping holes in it.

              "and some of the pages out of that 50k were apparently illegal."

              Right, we better arrest everyone at Universal Music and seize all their property and censor their sites then. After all, some of it was apparently illegal

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So, you agree with Keith: many legal pages were censored.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:59am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No, I disagree. I think that a large number of pages on a website were taken down temporarily while illegal ones were removed. It is like innocent people found in a naight club or rave operating illegally or without a license. They may be there in good faith, but it doesn't stop the authorities from shutting down the event until corrections are made to make it legal.

                The people who made the 50k pages could have protected their rights by not putting them up on a single domain that apparently allowed any and all content,legal or not.

                The offending pages were removed, the domain turned back on, and everyones 'rights' were respected, including my right not to have to see illegal material online.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "It is like innocent people found in a naight club or rave operating illegally or without a license."

                  what is this naight club, and why do insist it has a basis in non-Newtonian physics?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You are completely ignorant of what actually happened. 84,000 sites were pulled down for 2 full days (possibly up to 5) and not just pulled down, but accused of distributing child porn all because ICE and the DOJ thought that maybe one or two of the subdomains of mooo.com might have had child porn on it. This would be similar to the feds listing every attendee of a sold out New York Giants game (Met Life stadium capacity 82,566) as child porn distributors to their friends, family, customers, business associates, etc simply because one or two people in the stadium might be guilty. But you would stand their and say that if they didn't want that to happen they shouldn't have gone to a stadium that allows criminals to attend.

                  The DOJ and ICE screwed up badly in that case. They could have easily shutdown the suspect subdomains, but instead decided to label a whole bunch of innocents as child pornographers to the whole world for several days while censoring all their content. You say it's OK that they were all blocked while the few were removed, but that wasn't necessary and flies in the face of prior restraint.

                  But no, go on, continue to claim that it was OK. After all, if you don't want to be associated with child porn, you shouldn't go to places that child porn distributors go, like grocery stores, stadiums, or shared domains.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:25pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "They could have easily shutdown the suspect subdomains"

                    No, they cannot. They don't have control over the subdomains, only the domain holder does. The method used to disable these sites is to disable the domain, mooo.com. Third level domains are not controlled in the same manner.

                    So nice argument, but you lose on the purely technical.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      duffmeister (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I do not think you understand either. There is a thing in the US called prior restraint.
                      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint

                      It does not matter what is easy, only what is just. If we follow your example of taking the easy route there will be many unintended consequences and I am quite sure a great many of even your rights broken.

                      You can indeed control subdomains through existing law. If you were to present the writ from the judge to the mooo.com orders to stop sites dedicated to CP I am quite sure those domains would be down.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        duffmeister (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        mooo.com owners, not orders

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "If you were to present the writ from the judge to the mooo.com orders to stop sites dedicated to CP I am quite sure those domains would be down."

                        That is not clear. The site owners could claim they have no control over content (innocent hosts) and they could point to the overseas operators of the subdomains in question. Can they truly be ordered to take down a customer website in this fashion? Would doing so make them responsible for all of the other content on their domain?

                        See how it works?

                        Prior restraint doesn't excuse illegal conduct. There was apparently CP available on mooo.com domain. They domain was turned off until it was fixed. End.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:40pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "That is not clear."

                          Well we could ask them, naw fuck it lets accuse 84,000 people of being pedos

                          "Prior restraint doesn't excuse illegal conduct."

                          Your right what the government did was inexcusable.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "The site owners could claim they have no control over content (innocent hosts) and they could point to the overseas operators of the subdomains in question."

                          Innocent hosts stop being innocent when they refuse to help stop their users from breaking the law once the act pointed out to them. That is what keeping your safe harbors is all about.

                          "Can they truly be ordered to take down a customer website in this fashion?"

                          Yes

                          "Would doing so make them responsible for all of the other content on their domain?"

                          No

                          "See how it works?"

                          I see your wild unfounded hypothesis, is that how it works the uninformed just make shit up. I didn't realize the DOJ was run just like a internet comment board.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:48pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Look, if you don't understand DNS, that's fine, just admit it. VeriSign and the like operate root name servers, that's how you get to mooo.com. The DOJ and ICE had VeriSign change what mooo.com points to. VeriSign is in no way responsible for what goes up on any domain, but they can control what IP address a domain name points to. mooo.com then controls the subdomains. That is, they have a dns server that tells you that subdomain.mooo.com points to w.x.y.z IP address. Once again, the owners of mooo.com have no control of the content on those subdomains, but that can control that subdomain.mooo.com points to w.x.y.z.

                          ICE and the DOJ could have come to them (instead of VeriSign) and told them to change the DNS entry for whatever subdomains the wanted to affect, but instead they were stupid, and just took out all of mooo.com. In doing so, they took down a huge amount of legitimate speech, and that's where prior restraint comes in.

                          Whatever subdomains they were actually targetting could also have valid claims to prior restraint or not, but regardless, they shut down tons of innocent sites because they were ignorant of how the DNS works.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 1:09pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Reject, I have operated thousand of domain names in almost 20 years on the internet, I understand the DNS system very, very well, and understand the difference between a registered domain and a locally added subdomain. I can also understand that, in legal terms, the only domain of record is the actual registered domain. The subdomains are a local creation of the domain holder, and no caselaw I can find specifically absolves them of responsibility for the content on their domain.

                            So understand something: The only thing that can be turned off at the top level is the domain. The subs are not registered, you cannot do a whois on them. ICANN can only kill moooo.com, they cannot kill childpr0n.mooo.com without taking it all down.

                            Perhaps you want to apologize now.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 16th, 2011 @ 10:08pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              If you understand so much, then why can't you understand that ICANN is not the only person that ICE and the DOJ could have asked. Did they bother asking mooo.com to shutdown anything? No. mooo.com isn't isn't liable for the content of the subdomains, but they could easily turn off subdomains.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          duffmeister (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:50pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Did you give anyone a chance or just assume they were all criminals? Also this does not address the many innocent people who had their speech squelched by over zealous agents following questionable logic and legalities.

                          Due process is a very important part of our rights. If they had actually followed the laws we currently have on the books a more just and correct result would have happened. The infringing/rogue/disagreeable/illegal sites not online and no trampling of anyone's free speech rights.

                          Prior restraint is not as you characterize..... the many thousands of sites taken down wrongly were the problem. You must always consider what your actions create. If your logic were taken to a logical extreme then if a person was murdered in a ball park it would ok to hold everyone with no trial, time before a judge, and no defenses allowed for as long as the authorities felt necessary. This is the opposite of what our laws dictate.

                          I know it was an extreme example but no more out of touch than saying that it is ok to seize the property and prevent the speech of 84,000+ people for the sake of censoring less than one one thousandth of that population.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:31pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Would it really be considered prior restraint to take down mooo.com when there was in (based on the warrant) CP on the domain?

                            Remember, there really isn't much caselaw that suggests that a subdomain is anything significant. It is not clear that there is a legal separation for the domain holder. Can anyone point to caselaw in this area?

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:34am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Yes it would, why people don't seized Facebook then, they have CP in there, all other social networks have that too.

                              It is not upload by Facebook and when they are notified they try to remove it, but with your reasoning notification is not necessary police can just go there and seize everything, stop people from conducting business because of an accusation, that seems just ridiculous of course that won't be used against giants it will be used against the little people who you don't care about.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:36am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Of course there is a subdomain is the service of a domain provider hence they are a INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:38am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Now where are the safeguards for that crappy law people want to pass?

                              It can and will be abused without safeguards what are the dispositives safeguarding the First Amendment or is that not important anymore?

                              Where are the tough penalties for abusing such a law that has the power to violate the constitution?

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        doomvox, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:29am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        FYI, in the world of "alternative sexuality" CP means Corporal Punishment- some folks get off on being verbally degraded and physically "punished". It might be more useful (and precise) to spell out "Child Porn" if that is what you're referring to.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:37pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Nope, ICE scrambled to put the website back online after that blunder.

                  But that is not the only instance, why are websites like archive.org in the list of rogue sites?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yep, doesn't matter how much collateral damage is done, as long as you get one or two bad guys. Granted, we assume they're bad guys. There was no trial or adversarial anything, so according to the constitution, they took down 50,000 innocent websites. Then there are all the other ones that were taken down and the DOJ won't let them do anything about it. And then there are all the innocent websites that will be taken down in the name of ProtectIP.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:50am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                But Archive.org is clearly a rouge site. Can't you see its remotely usable to an artist. We can't have that!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Don't forget this is after the so called throughout investigation and safeguards that they said they had in place that would make it impossible for this type of thing to happen.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gwiz (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ...and some of the pages out of that 50k were apparently illegal.

              Oh. Well. Okay then, so only 49,980 were unjustly censored - so that must mean it's ok.

              tee-hee back at ya - did you see what you wrote there?

              ...were apparently illegal.

              "apparently" does not (by any stretch of the imagination) equate to "found guilty in a court of law" does it?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Tee hee? Are you maniacal? (outside of not comprehending what you are saying)

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name

              First off, a fully qualified domain name has many parts. The first part, to the far right, is the top level domain. .org, .com, .edu etc.

              Second, anything to the left of that UP TO THE NEXT PERIOD is a subdomain. This continues through each iteration of name and period. Each word/name between periods is a subdomain, and there can be many.

              This is very important. Each and every SUBDOMAIN on mooo.com pointed to a different SERVER. It was not "50,000 pages" hosted on the same server, or 84,000 as the case was. it was 84,000 SUBDOMAINS, which can point anywhere, and in this case, they did not all point to "pages" on a mooo.com server.

              You have it confused with geocities or something like that. Anything to the RIGHT of a fully qualified domain name (and the "/") is a resource located on the fully qualified domain name, which you have to read from RIGHT TO LEFT. If you simply stopped parsing the domain name at the example.org part instead of this.is.an.example.org, you would get a page returned from the server that "example.org" points to, and not the server that "this.is.an.example.org" points to. "is.an.example.org" could point to yet another server, and "an.example.org" could point to yet again another server.

              How do I know this? I used a similar service from dyn.org. My server (and my server alone) was pointed to by groovenet.merseine.nu. Other servers, of which I had no association to or knowledge of, were also under the "merseine.nu" domain. Here is one such example: "bandicoot.mersaine.nu" That site is not hosted by me, or has any association to me outside of the fact that we both have/had subdomains under the merseine.nu domain.

              Read up on "Second-level and lower level domains" on the link I provided.

              Also, prior restraint. But someone else already mentioned that.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                What I hate to repeat is that you guys just don't get it.

                A subdomain is only a creation of the domain holder. It isn't registered in any central location, the "subdomain" doesn't have a registered owner, you cannot do a whois to find out the owner of a subdomain. There is only a domain. There is only one party that controls it.

                Your example is perfect. If merseine.nu decides tomorrow to cut your service, you have absolutely no comeback. Why? Because you don't control your domain, you are only on a subdomain that has no real legal standing.

                The differences are huge. If you can't grasp it, well, you fail at the interwebthingie.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:12pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  A subdomain is only a creation of the domain holder. It isn't registered in any central location,

                  Uh. Yes, it is. That central location is on the main domain.

                  the "subdomain" doesn't have a registered owner, you cannot do a whois to find out the owner of a subdomain.

                  But you can ask the domain holder.

                  There is only one party that controls it.

                  And then there are all the people who control the subdomains.

                  We had this conversation before and you were totally wrong last time too. You pretend as if the difference between "registrar:domain" and "domain:subdomain" is some huge thing. It's not. The relationship is identical.

                  The differences are huge. If you can't grasp it, well, you fail at the interwebthingie.


                  Hilarious.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:29am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You what a domain looks inside a server?
                  It is a folder the subdomain is also a folder, you can also assign any owner to any folder.

                  How is that so difficult to understand?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          rubberpants, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And thankfully, Monster Cable decides which sites are legal and which aren't.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The fact that you have to qualify your statement with "(at least the legal ones)" is why Bambauer is correct. He isn't saying censorship is always bad, but he is saying that PORTECT-IP is censorship. It is still censhorship even if you are legally censoring illegal content.

          The common connotation for censorship is that it's negative, but there is potentially good censorship, like censoring someone's speech after finding them guilty of defamation through due process.

          It's like the word 'attitude.' If someone says, "you have an attitude," the connotation is that you have a bad attitude, but everyone has an attitude and the usage of the term to imply the negative connotation has simply become the dominant usage.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:53am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            PORTECT-IP (sic) is about trying to address the issues of the internet at the speed of the internet, not at the speed of standard legal proceeding. It can take years to move a case through the legal system (look at the "rapid" pace of the Rojo deal), all the while the alledged bad acts can continue.

            Contrary to what many thing, the legal system isn't entirely "innocent until proven guilty". You can be locked up (or released on bail) just when you are charged with something. Material goods (such as cars) can be seized and held pending judgement.

            It's also a situation where websites that sell, market, or offer their services into the US are often not in the US and act like they are not subject to US law when they deal with US consumers. There is nothing in current law that directly addresses this in a fashion that allows for action to be taken to protect US consumers and US interests from this sort of thing.

            The internet is fast, and the laws have to adjusted to address that speed, and to address the international nature of the net.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "The internet is fast, and the laws have to adjusted to address that speed, and to address the international nature of the net."

              Are you serious? Then in that case, lets close all courts around the world, they way to slow for the modern fast past society that we live in. Why waste money on them right? From now on its guilty until proven innocent. No objections allowed!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              MrWilson, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 4:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Contrary to what you may thing (sic), all those processes do involve due process. If you are locked up, they have to eventually let you go if they fail to charge you with anything. PROTECT-IP is not about due process. It's about Judge Dredd-style wild west justice where the "good guys" just shoot the "bad guys" because a trial takes too long. That's great for the plot of a movie or a comic book, but in the real world, even counterfeiters and copyright infringers are guaranteed due process.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              PROTECT IP is about censorship, it is a censorship tool that is what it is designed for, and has no safeguards against abuse nor does it have any consequences to those who abuse it, how can you justify that is just appalling.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "The internet is fast, and the laws have to adjusted to address that speed, and to address the international nature of the net."

              LoL

              You can't be serious, everybody have shown that PROTECT IP is useless that purpose.

              Doubt?
              Here is a screenshot of one of many programs that can create forums that reside in other computers and don't depend on DNS or IP's(Internet Protocol) numbers to work, they reside inside somebody else computers and can be searched by anyone who has the program, PROTECT IP can't seize those, it can't censor it.
              http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/pics/retroshareforums.png

              Now explain again how an already law that is already obsolete but could serve the only purpose of censoring legal content be of any help?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          (at least the legal ones)

          Just like to point out that censoring illegal speech is still censorship. It's just not illegal censorship.

          The debate should be around whether this kind of censorship is necessary or beneficial. For example, censoring kiddie porn is certainly legal, necessary, and beneficial; censoring speech that's not kiddie porn, even in order to censor kiddie porn, is not.

          In this case, the speech that is censored would include non-commercial speech that is infringing on copyright. The public may benefit from this censorship (very slightly), but the harm that follows from allowing other speech to be censored, especially without notification or a hearing, far outweighs the harm done to the public by infringement in the first place. The solution is far more damaging than the problem.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            For example, censoring kiddie porn is certainly legal, necessary, and beneficial;

            In case you didn't see it yet, there's a huge debate on that topic up above. Censoring child porn is not certainly necessary nor beneficial.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I have a hard time understanding if the law is to be used only against the criminals why they don't want to put safeguards in it to make it abuse proof.

          Where are the list of rogue sites going to be listed in public?
          What are the mechanism to complain about errors?
          What happens to those who abuse it? The DMCA is a very good example of that law, it has zero accountability provisions and it is widely abused by every business out there to try and censor their competitors.

          How can you say it will not happen with a straight face is being me.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

      Re:

      That means the people working on it don't even know what they are working on?

      God have mercy on our souls.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JaSon, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:30am

    Child Porn

    Please understand, Child pornography/abuse is a serious issue. Just because you are unable to view it, does not mean that it is not happening. I personally believe that the people and government should spend more time trying to stop those from actually doing it. Then waste the time to try and stop those from watching it. Internet filtering/censorship DOES NOT PROTECT our children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:33am

    Child pornography may include minors taking pictures of themselves while engaging in consentual and legal sex.

    So yes, there is actually CP censorship which unjustly infringes on free speech.

    If the act is legal to perform, there can be no justification for censoring the speech describing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      doomvox, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:47am

      Re:

      FYI, in the world of "alternative sexuality" CP means Corporal Punishment- some folks get off on being verbally degraded and physically "punished". It might be more useful (and precise) to spell out "Child Porn" if that is what you're referring to.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:35am

    Honest discussion would backfire on them

    I don't understand why people, when it comes to any agenda, feel they have to lie, cheat and steal to get their agenda through. If they are right and have truth and light on their side, then they wouldn't have to lie about it. If they don't, then why don't they admit they are wrong and get on the right side of the issue?

    Ok, we know the answer; it is greed and power. But the question for the rest of us is; why do we let people get away with obfuscating the reasoning?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ed C., Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:24am

      Re: Honest discussion would backfire on them

      Simple, there's a lot of people who don't think too deeply about what their told, as long as it merely reaffirms what they're conditioned to believe. There's a lot of money and power to be had in spreading the "right" message. The promoters don't have to do any real research, or even tell the truth, the faithful won't even notice that they're being lied to. They never really stop and think about it, or fact check anything, they just nod, or even shake their fist, in agreement. I mean, just look at why Fox News is so popular.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:37am

    Neo-con turning debate to what /degree/ of censorship.

    "Bambauer isn't arguing that PROTECT IP is bad, necessarily. In fact, he argues that "hard censorship" is preferable to soft censorship..."

    Common tactic of political operatives, to boldly state own real goals and limit possble debate to make it either win big or win small. I can't easily unscramble whether this guy is actually for "hard censorship", but Mike writes the above, so I guess so.

    Mike also, to "prove" /his/ supposed points, couches PROTECT IP as other than copyright protection or censorship:
    "Paul Vixie Explains How PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet"
    Why aren't you "willing to admit that PROTECT IP is absolutely about censorship", Mike? Instead of promoting that "break the Internet" bit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:51am

      Re: Neo-con turning debate to what /degree/ of censorship.

      "Why aren't you "willing to admit that PROTECT IP is absolutely about censorship", Mike? Instead of promoting that "break the Internet" bit?"

      Umm...he has, Ootb. Many times. Go on, go to the search box at the top of the screen, and search for Protect IP and censorship.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      hothmonster, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:43pm

      Re: Neo-con turning debate to what /degree/ of censorship.

      "Bambauer isn't arguing that PROTECT IP is bad, necessarily. In fact, he argues that "hard censorship" is preferable to soft censorship..."

      "Common tactic of political operatives, to boldly state own real goals and limit possble debate to make it either win big or win small. I can't easily unscramble whether this guy is actually for "hard censorship", but Mike writes the above, so I guess so."

      Saying that hard censorship is preferential to soft censorship does not mean he supports either. Just that of the two versions of evil one is better then the other.

      Saying "if you are going to fuck me I would prefer if you use the lube" does not mean I am ok with you fucking me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BeeAitch (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:46pm

      Re: Neo-con turning debate to what /degree/ of censorship.

      Why "instead of" when both statements are true?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        BeeAitch (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:53pm

        Re: Re: Neo-con turning debate to what /degree/ of censorship.

        That is, PROTECTIP is censorship and it will break (or more accurately has broken) the internet.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:40am

    snore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:51am

    Here's the simple answer, censorship is never ok, and never a good idea. Censorship is a tool of dictators to brainwash their masses of people by making sure they can only listen to the dictator's propaganda.

    Hiding information does not make it go away, nor does it make the information you hide false. Hiding the information only makes it easier for the side that's hiding it to 'win' and maintain political power over others.

    Censorship also stifles innovation when it's used to censor findings that aren't desired by the censor. For example Galileo discovered and published that the earth orbits the Sun. Rather than try to disprove him the Church put him on trial for being a heretic. What kind of a chilling effect do you think that had on other scientists who may have confirmed and expanded Galileo's work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Any Mouse (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      I'd bet we could come up with MANY scenarios where censorship is a great idea. Want to give it a try?

      Hiding the names of covert agents in the field.
      Hiding the locations of sensitive military installations.
      Hiding the names and locations of eye witnesses to violent crimes.

      Shall we go on?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 9:55am

    Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

    When I take a look at so-called sharing web sites where people can swap copyrighted content, I think, "Gosh, there should be a law." And the Protect IP is addressing that.

    Can it be used for censorship? Perhaps, but it depends upon what your definition of censorship is. This web site seems to enjoy arguing that simply helping someone get content without paying should be protected speech. Somehow the scum running the USENET sites are in the same boat as Martin Luther King or Peter Zenger. Stopping you from distributing someone else's work is not censorship. Stopping you from distributing your own creation is. This site can't make a distinction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:03am

      Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

      "Stopping you from distributing someone else's work is not censorship."

      umm, yes it is censorship. You're preventing communication, the communication is neutral to artificial factors. Hence, you are censoring it.

      "This site can't make a distinction."

      Finally you admit it. Yes, the site allowing communication can't make a distinction.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:56am

        Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

        No. Stopping communication is not censorship. The courts have looked at the First Amendment again and again and carved out many limits that don't hurt anyone's ability to petition the government for redress of grievances or anything else. Get a clue.

        Furthermore, communication is often prosecuted when it's part of a crime. If a mob boss tells an underling to kill someone, the mob boss doesn't cry about his first amendment right to communicate. If a drug dealer tells his underlings how and where to deliver drugs, the dealer doesn't avoid prosecution because he's just communicating.

        Face it. Outside of the weird echo chamber of this blog, communication is prosecuted as an accessory to a crime.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          Actually it is rarely prosecuted at all.
          Legal Blackmail is often attempted.
          The industries want and get sanctions imposed on individuals on the basis of assertion.
          The whole thrust of the multiple new versions of IP legislation is in the main to get certain people paid, or to punish individuals without any kind of adversarial hearing on the basis of claims that may or may not be baseless assertion.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

            You go on believing that it's rarely prosecuted. I found it easy to find examples like this boy who was video taping a fight while allegedly egging them on. It's a First Amendment case squared.

            http://www.dailypaul.com/162011/15-year-old-boy-sentenced-and-convicted-as-adult-for-vid eotaping-a-fight

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 3:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              Wow, you really are just having your own conversation aren't you.

              Everyone else is talking about the censorship issues raised by supposed attempts to stop copyright infringement as in "PROTECT-IP" and you bring up as an example an issue that has nothing to do with copyright infringement or IP in any way, nothing to do with blocking websites, nothing to do with anything that is under discussion here.

              So, tell me, did you know that and have such a low opinion of everyone else that you thought they'd be too stupid to notice or were you the one who did not notice how irrelevant your example was?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              So you accept that free speech has its limitations although it is very, very important to society right?

              So you need to accept that censorship too even if for very good reasons also have its limitations.

              Where are the safeguards in the PROTECT IP law?

              Where are the accountability in the PROTECT IP law?

              How PROTECT IP will deal with forums that don't depend on any ISP to be created or distributed?

              Where are the punishment provisions of the law for abusing the law?

              You surely are not preaching we give authorities all the powers to censor something without any consequences are you?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 3:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          No. Stopping communication is not censorship.

          From Wikipedia

          "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication"

          If you disagree - go edit the article and see how far you get!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

        "Stopping you from distributing someone else's work is not censorship."

        umm, yes it is censorship. You're preventing communication, the communication is neutral to artificial factors. Hence, you are censoring it.

        "This site can't make a distinction."

        Finally you admit it. Yes, the site allowing communication can't make a distinction.

        Infringing on copyrighted content isn't protected by the1st Amendment, jerkoff.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          But it is still censorship. That's the point you keep missing. Not all censorship is necessarily bad, but you cannot ignore that it is properly censorship.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 8:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

            Not all censorship is necessarily bad, but you cannot ignore that it is properly censorship.

            I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that he actually can ignore that. ;-)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 3:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          fuck off, lobbyist asswipe

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:04am

      Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

      When I take a look at so-called sharing web sites where people can swap copyrighted content, I think, "Gosh, there should be a law." And the Protect IP is addressing that.

      Well gosh bob, don't stop there. People use email, snail mail, Fedex, thumb drives, cell phones, CD's, Xerox machines and a thousand other ways to swap things (which may or may not be copyright infringement). Keep that approach going and we will back in the 1800's in no time.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        rubberpants, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:17am

        Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

        That's a good point. People find out about works to pirate from somewhere, maybe even their friends! It should be illegal for people to tell others about copyrighted material. And that isn't about censorship, it's about stopping piracy once and for all.

        /s

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:59am

        Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

        Sorry. We won't need to head back to the 1800s to stop infringement. We just need to be able to prosecute some of the people who are guilty.

        The real target are the large hubs that facilitate infringement while claiming that they know nothing about what's going on. A few people emailing each other is not a critical problem for the information ecosystem. Big hubs that distribute material for free are.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ed C., Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:34am

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          This law is completely unnecessary to do that. What you want to accomplish is already covered by existing laws. Even then, it isn't phrased to only target what you say it does. If it's vague enough to be abused, it will be abused. That's just how law works in this country.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

            Oh really. Then why does this blog keep saying that Rightshaven is making up laws? Why does this blog keep saying that pirate domains can't be shut down because they're not breaking any law.

            Most of the new proposed law is there to plug loopholes abused by infringers. The so-called copyright maximalists aren't just trying to get more laws passed to cover what's already covered.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              "Then why does this blog keep saying that Rightshaven is making up laws?"

              The court said that, this blog covered it before it did. I understand how you would get confused.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              "so-called copyright maximalists aren't just trying to get more laws passed to cover what's already covered"

              Yeah, they pretty much are.
              It is true that they are trying to extend culpability to secondary, tertiary or further removed groups, because while they have nothing to do with the infringement they can be easier targets and definitely richer ones.

              But if your issue is with an individual or company infringing copyright, the laws are already there, the new laws are mainly to avoid having to go to court and/or prove anything at all, while ensuring that get paid extra by as many different people as possible whether it's blogs, isps, server providers, link sites, search engines who or whatever.

              And the worst of it is, there is no evidence that infringement actually causes any problems for the industries at all.
              Most pirated movie of all time, last I checked was Avatar, it was also the movie with one of the largest box office figures of all time and dvd and bluray sales broke all records. If piracy caused a loss of profit, Avatar should have lost money.

              What little evidence there is, suggests that piracy is about neutral in terms of effects on sales with some individual cases where it has unquestionably boosted sales - see
              Go the F**k to sleep as one small example.

              http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/03371114785/author-go-fk-to-sleep-says-piracy- helped-him-he-doesnt-support-it.shtml

              So, most people looking at this situation, lots of infringement totaling appx zero effect on sales and wonder why so much legislation needs to be passed in an unworkable effort with massive collateral damage on individual rights, rule of law, government costs etc, for something that is in no way obviously a meaningful problem to anyone.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:21pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              Right Haven wasn't making up laws so much as it was making up a supposed copy right assignment with several newspapers. What they were attempting to do was against the law and went completely against what copyright is for. The newspapers themselves could've gone out and sued the same people if they really wanted to. They were the ones that had standing to sue not Right Haven.

              As for the "pirate domains", Mike has never said they can't be shut down. What he, and I think most of the Tech Dirt community, wants is due process and fair proceedings applied to these cases. If the government can prove in a court of law that what a particular website is doing is breaking a law, then and only then should that website be taken down or its URL "seized"(redirected by DNS really). What ICE has done over the past few months has shown that what they (RIAA, MPAA, ICE, etc.) think is a "rogue site" varies wildly and in a lot of cases is outright wrong.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                " I think most of the Tech Dirt community, wants is due process and fair proceedings applied to these cases. "

                No, what they want is the internet to go full light speed, and for the consequences to be settled at the snails pace of the legal system.

                Look at the Rojo case. Where are we now, 6+ months and they are still arguing about the basics of the pre-trial about the pre-trial, and not the actual meat and potatoes. The actual case (if it goes all the way) could take a decade to play out.

                What Mike (and many others here) seem to want is for the courts to be handed a fait accomplis at the end of the trial, basically saying "the site was hot, it was popular, and then it was shut down 3 years ago and replaced with something else", so that by the time justice is served, it is no longer relevant.

                PROTECT IP is (like the ICE actions) a step towards bringing the legal system up to the speed of the internet. It's why they hate it so much, and why there is so much FUD being pushed about it here.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  No what the PROTECT IP(crap) is in reality is a censor tool that can erode the first amendment and there are no safeguards in place.

                  If the choice is between the first amendment and the protection of some industry that don't really need it, that is not a choice at all.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 4:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  You can't prove piracy harms artists?
                  Show me one artist banckrupted because of piracy?
                  There are no known cases of it, what we have is record box offices despite piracy, what we get is record earnings by musicians despite piracy.

                  You can't even explain why McDonald's rose to the top without "protections" or how "Coca Cola" did it or how Google did it, so why artists need that again?

                  And why that protection is so damn long?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2011 @ 9:20am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  Thank you for explaining your fascist position of your desire to control our world in every way possible. We here at the internet are working hard to make ProtectIP and similar laws as irrelevant as you are.

                  Have a nice day asshole
                  Love, the internet

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), Oct 15th, 2011 @ 10:21am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  "No, what they want is the internet to go full light speed, and for the consequences to be settled at the snails pace of the legal system."

                  Bullshit.

                  "PROTECT IP is (like the ICE actions) a step towards bringing the legal system up to the speed of the internet. It's why they hate it so much, and why there is so much FUD being pushed about it here."

                  You keep saying that but the concerns of PIPA are ignored for your own FUD. How about before a site is taken, there's a court date set, the FBI says we're eyeing this domain and the person speaks up about why their domain is legal? Is that so hard?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          Sorry. We won't need to head back to the 1800s to stop infringement. We just need to be able to prosecute some of the people who are guilty.

          If that is what you want, then I don't think PROTECT IP is what you are looking for, since it's about punishing sites prior to actually finding them guilty of anything.

          And actually I have no problem with enforcing copyright laws. I have huge problems when enforcement of such laws starts stepping on free speech and due process.

          The Constitution trumps copyright every time in my book.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

            Dude. Get a clue. Copyright is in the constitution and it was put there long before the First Amendment.

            Your point about whether the punishment is given before people are "found guilty". There are plenty of laws that are enforced without endless Lance Ito-grade trials. Parking tickets and speeding tickets only go to trial when there's a question about guilt. Most crimes are plea bargained. Very few people are actually "found guilty" by a jury.

            That's just what would happen here. I'm sure that 99% of the people inconvenienced by this law would be making copies without the appropriate licenses.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gwiz (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              Your point about whether the punishment is given before people are "found guilty". There are plenty of laws that are enforced without endless Lance Ito-grade trials. Parking tickets and speeding tickets only go to trial when there's a question about guilt. Most crimes are plea bargained. Very few people are actually "found guilty" by a jury.

              Well yeah bob, what you said is true except for the part about plea bargains. You realize that plea bargains involve pleading guilty in front of a judge or in other words being found guilty in a court of law.

              PROTECT IP isn't really about bringing anyone to court, it's more about seizing domain names and cutting off monetary transaction avenues prior to an adversarial hearing where both sides could be heard.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                PROTECT IP isn't really about bringing anyone to court, it's more about seizing domain names and cutting off monetary transaction avenues prior to an adversarial hearing where both sides could be heard.

                Well played FUDster. Protect IP targets foreign websites. Being foreign, they are beyond the reach of US law enforcement so seizure isn't on the menu.

                And the targeted website owner DOES have an opportunity to defend himself before any action is taken. Try reading the fucking Act. The problem is that those site owners (unlike the freeloaders here) realize what they're doing is against the law and don't avail themselves of the opportunity to argue their case in court. So a site owner dodges a court hearing- he gets a pass?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Gwiz (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:31pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  Being foreign, they are beyond the reach of US law enforcement so seizure isn't on the menu.

                  Are you saying that PROTECT IP isn't about seizing domain names or cutting off monetary transaction avenues?

                  The problem is that those site owners (unlike the freeloaders here) realize what they're doing is against the law and don't avail themselves of the opportunity to argue their case in court. So a site owner dodges a court hearing- he gets a pass?

                  How exactly do you know that? Magic 8-ball?

                  Rojadirecta certainly believed what it was doing was completely legal in it's home country. (and yes, I know that was under existing laws, not PROTECT IP, but there are a lot of similarities here)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 3:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  Fuck you and your shit laws. American law doesn't apply in the whole world despite your sick twisted fantasies you fascist douchefag.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:59pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  No it doesn't the cost of doing so guarantee that.
                  Further there are no consequences for abusing that law, where are the safeguards, I have been asking this and you never answer why?

                  You don't have a good answer for it?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), Oct 15th, 2011 @ 10:24am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                  And yet, you won't defend the lies you tell because there is no basis that says you're right.

                  If you're going to accuse others of FUD, the LEAST you could do is explain, in detail, how the legislation you support won't cause added liability for sites that Monster and the RIAA deem illegal.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              "Dude. Get a clue. Copyright is in the constitution and it was put there long before the First Amendment. "

              In 1787
              The ratified U.S. Constitution allows a male slave to count as three-fifths of a man in determining representation in the House of Representatives. The Constitution sets 1808 as the earliest date for the national government to ban the slave trade.

              That was also in before the First amendment and the emancipation proclamation took a lot longer to arrive too.

              The reason for the amendments were that really important things had been left out of the constitution and had to be put in, having been in earlier than other parts does not give more validity to a part of the US constitution.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                duffmeister (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                In some cases you can say the last word (closest to present time) in the Constitution is the most correct since it was amending the original document. You don't believe that the correct version of a document is the first draft? No, that is not how it works. An amendment is to add or correct portions of the original document. You could almost look at it as a document in a configuration management system, when you look at the document you see the current version. If you want you may see the way it has changed, this is to promote understanding and explanations of how we got to where we are.

                So to put it simply, first is not the trump card some people want it to be.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Any Mouse (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              Copyright is in the constitution and it was put there long before the First Amendment.

              People keep repeating this. It's a half-truth. The ability to enact copyright was granted to Congress in the Constitution, but Copyright itself is NOT granted in the Constitution. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. It means that copyright is not a Constitutional right.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 4:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              Copyright is in the constitution

              No - there is no requirement for copyright in your constitution. What the constitution does is to assign responsibility for such matters to Congress (as opposed to individual states or the executive). Congress has the power to abolish copyright - without changing the consitution.

              and it was put there long before the First Amendment.
              You do know that later additions trump earlier ones don't you?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 8:48pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

                You are correct that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is a power that resides with Congress, but until 1978 it was a power shared with the states (Congress...post-publication, States...pre-publication).

                Later additions to the Constitution trump earlier ones? Depends upon the subject matter involved.

                Merely FYI, at the time the Constitution was ratified there were two "camps", those who supported the addition of the Bill of Rights to make it more clear that Congress was vested with only the specified enumerated powers, and those who hewed to the line that the limited enumerated powers made the Bill of Rights unnecessary. Some in the latter camp even went so far as to suggest that a consequence of the Bill of Rights would imply that the government was vested with some residum of power over the subject matter addressed in the Bill of Rights. While the former camp won the day, clearly the latter camp had a very good argument as well.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 6:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              You should realize that copyright is not in the constitution, the constitution in America says that congress could grant some form of monopoly to authors.

              That is it, copyright is what came out of it, but it can be totally redone, lets make copyright last 2 days.

              Congress can do it, and it will be constitutional, because limited time was never specified, we could just say copyright should last 30 seconds.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:08am

      Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

      Stopping you from distributing someone else's work is not censorship. Stopping you from distributing your own creation is. This site can't make a distinction.

      Neither can a search engine. Reality is that it is not illegal to tell somebody how to break the law...it is only illegal to break the law? Pointing somebody to a place to get infringing material is not breaking the law and is actually free speech. Would I get thrown in jail for telling an undercover agent that he could go buy drugs from that white house down the street?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:45am

        Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

        You might go to jail for telling the undercover cop. That's called being an accessory to a crime. If a mobster tells an underling to kill someone, the mobster doesn't claim to just be acting like Google. The same goes for drugs. There are plenty of people in jail who are accessories.

        Look at this link. The guy is facing the same jail term as the thief merely for driving a car. By your logic, driving a car isn't a crime so the driver should avoid jail. But that's not how judges, prosecutors and juries think. It's not simple.

        http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-prison-term-for-an-accessory-to-1-robb-204368.html

        Here's a jail term for an accessory who just helped clean up. Certainly cleaning up is a crime, right?

        http://video.tbo.com/v/42386905/woman-receives-prison-term-for-accessory-to-murder.htm

        There's a reason Google paid a half billion dollar fine for directing traffic to Canadian pharmacies. I think it's highly likely that someone will successfully prosecute them for aiding and abetting infringement just like the got caught aiding and abetting drug trafficking.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          Your clearly unbiased view of Google aside 'Bob', please tell us how any of those crime cases make up for the fact of lack of due process in the proposed law for the issue at hand?

          Did the mob boss and drug boss and whatever boss you keep mentioning get accused and sentenced from a private entity?

          Face it 'bob', none of what you're writing has anything to do with how ProtectIP is made to work.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

            Did the mob boss and drug boss and whatever boss you keep mentioning get accused and sentenced from a private entity?

            People receive criminal complaints sworn out by citizens all the time. Do you ever read a newspaper? And the "sentences" you refer to are statutory. Disney can't decide that TVshack should forfeit $10 million and its owners should serve 4 year 3 months in prison. This isn't even FUD, it's pure drivel.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 6:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

              Even they have the right to a day in court, not an automatic injunction, is the government going to offer free representation to foreign website owners so they can defend themselves in an American Court?

              And where is the fraking safeguards against abuse?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          he guy is facing the same jail term as the thief merely for driving a car. By your logic, driving a car isn't a crime so the driver should avoid jail.

          Would I be an accessory to theft if I yelled out in a crowded bar that I just hid $10k under my mattress and I usually don't lock the door. A thief is also sitting in the bar and goes to my house and steals my money. Does that make me an accessory? Don't be silly. Your examples do not represent the case I was making.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

          I think it's highly likely that someone will successfully prosecute them for aiding and abetting infringement just like the got caught aiding and abetting drug trafficking.

          Nope. Google is protected by the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. As long as they play by the rules, there is no 3rd party liability for copyright infringement for service providers.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DC, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:37pm

      Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

      Scum running USENET? Boggle ...

      Do you have any idea what USENET is and what it has meant to the information industry?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

      Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

      When I look at people who make stupid comments, I think "Gosh, there should be a law." "But," you retort, "that's not a valid analogy, because making a stupid comment is legal, whereas copyright infringement is not." I agree, so why are you thinking there should be a law when there already is one?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

        its is illegal therefore we need more laws to keep people from doing it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rich Kulawiec, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

      Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy

      Somehow the scum running the USENET sites [...]
      [...] are providing some of the Internet's most useful services, often at their own expense and on their own time.

      There, I fixed it for you -- and for the rest of the ignorant newbies who do not comprehend what Usenet actually is, how it works, or anything else about it. No, don't bother: I'm sure it's far beyond your pitifully feeble comprehension, and it gives me a headache just trying to talk down to your level.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:01am

    Okay, let's start another thread:

    If it censorship, or is it just the consequences of applying the law?

    Let me use a real world example. A guy on a street corner selling drugs, yelling "crack, crack, blow, weed" is in some ways using his first amendment rights to free speech. None of the words are in themselves illegal. He has every right to say whatever he wants on a street corner, if you look at the situation without context.

    He gets arrested by the police, and taken away. He no longer stands on the street corner yelling "crack, crack, blow, weed". Now, if you want to narrowly look at only his speech, you could say that drugs laws are about censorship.

    Now, before you go off and suggest that I am on crack, think about it. If you shut down a website that is selling illegal material (brand name knock offs, dangerous substances, etc), you could very narrowly say that they have been censored if you ignore the bad acts there were going on.

    My opinion is that Mr Bambauer (and many here) are fear mongering. There is no real world examples to show how this law actually works, no test cases, nothing in front of the courts. We don't know the implications, in the same manner that we couldn't foresee all of the implication of DMCA.

    On the other side, to be fair, we didn't realize all of the implications of the RICO act, and there are some good and bad to that as well.

    We have a whole bunch of speculation, but most of it seems pretty far fetched.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:09am

      Re:

      Let me use a real world example. A guy on a street corner selling drugs, yelling "crack, crack, blow, weed" is in some ways using his first amendment rights to free speech. None of the words are in themselves illegal. He has every right to say whatever he wants on a street corner, if you look at the situation without context.

      Actually in this case, they took down the corner to the "dealer" stopping many others who are also there from yelling or talking.
      Regardless however, you can't apply a real world example.
      So both my point and yours are null and void

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Killer_Tofu (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      Actually, there is plenty of proof already. ICE (part of the US DHS) is already running around committing acts that are currently illegal but would be legal under this law. And there are cases around that in court right now.

      Also, considering these lists come from the media companies (and others) that still act like its 1985, and we have seen those lists, there are plenty of reasons to not want this law to pass. This is not 1985, and they need to pull their collective heads out of their asses. Not everything is a pirate site just because they don't like it (the internet archive, 50 cent's own official website, etc).

      Funny thing is, there are already laws in place that they can follow to get infringing material taken down. They are just the world's largest crybabies because it actually takes effort to enforce the laws. Instead they want to use MY taxpayer dollars to use MY government to work for their corporations. Well to that sir, I say they need to PISS OFF.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:32am

        Re: Re:

        Hear hear!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re:

        Where are the "illegal" acts of ICE? So far I have only seen acts committed after a warrant was issued by a court of law.

        Would you care to correct me?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Killer_Tofu (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          While some groups would Accuse certain websites of certain things, there has been no proof from a court of law that they broke any law. There have been no charges brought yet, which only further proves that ICE is illegally seizing property. If it was actually needed for a case, or actually broke the law, there would have been court cases. So far we have only seen ICE try to avoid every change possible of going to court. This just shows that they are being underhanded, shady, and acting illegally (just like the warrantless wiretaps, trying to avoid the light of justice at all costs).

          Also, look up just about any story on this site regarding Rojadirecta. There are some pretty good explanations in those.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Oct 15th, 2011 @ 10:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Where are the "illegal" acts of ICE? So far I have only seen acts committed after a warrant was issued by a court of law."

          Here's a question, why was no information about the first raids put out? We have no affidavit, no warrants, and yet 15 places were ransacked at the same time.

          We have a magistrate judge who allowed this, but there was no adversarial hearing for the first 9 sites. You basically have a one sided fight against piracy where the other sites don't even know they have to play the game.

          And just because there's a warrant, it doesn't automatically make the act legal.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 4:13pm

      Re:

      Let me use a real world example. A guy on a street corner selling drugs, yelling "crack, crack, blow, weed" is in some ways using his first amendment rights to free speech. None of the words are in themselves illegal. He has every right to say whatever he wants on a street corner, if you look at the situation without context.

      He gets arrested by the police, and taken away. He no longer stands on the street corner yelling "crack, crack, blow, weed". Now, if you want to narrowly look at only his speech, you could say that drugs laws are about censorship.


      A fine way to use one bad law in an attempt to justify another.

      The fact that drug laws lead to censorship ought to give you doubts about drug laws.

      If you discuss drug prohibition with those who are charged with enforcing it you will discover that many of them now realise that the drug laws are futile.

      (Having said that, I do admit that I support laws against the promotion and advertising of drugs - which might be seen as censorship - however in that case the information being censored is misleading or false - so there is a difference.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Copyright is no human right


    This web site seems to enjoy arguing that simply helping
    someone get content without paying should be protected speech.






    Copyright is no moral right.

    There is hno inherent right to be paid or to sstate it in a libertarian way - there is no right to have the state enforcing your monopoly.

    What's copyright? Only positive law giving one stakeholder the power to use the machinery of the state against another.

    Pass a law granting me an exclusive right to be paid every time some other mentions my name, and every site mentioning my name without paying me is guilty of theft.

    That can't be right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

      Re: Copyright is no human right

      A wonderful argument, except that copyright is in the constitution. Are you suggesting that the constitution is wrong?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re: Copyright is no human right

        So is the right to bare arms. Your point?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DC, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re: Copyright is no human right

        Moron.

        Copyright protections are not in the constitution.

        Congress' authority to legislate copyright is in the constitution.

        Current copyright protections are not constitutional law, but congressional law.

        A lot of people think Congress is getting it wrong. A lot of people think publishers (not artists) have too much influence in Congress.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

        Re: Re: Copyright is no human right

        So what if he is suggesting the constitution is wrong. We've amended the US constitution 17 times if you don't count the Bill of Rights. Clearly throughout our history we've found various reasons to change it. A major overhaul of copyright is gaining popularity these days. Including some who are calling for a the complete abolition of copyright all together.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 6:08pm

        Re: Re: Copyright is no human right

        No copyright is not in the constituion go educate yourself, I double dog dare you to find the text that says "copyright is a right".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 10:55am

    I'm going to put this bluntly because I can't believe this discussion.

    CENSORSHIP IS NEVER RIGHT!
    NEVER!
    THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!
    CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF TYRANNY!
    MORE KNOWLEDGE IS THE ANSWER NOT LESS!

    /rant
    forgive my caps lock, for I know not what I do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 11:50am

    "that compares "soft censorship" of the internet -- using indirect methods, such as pressuring companies to stop working with Wikipedia"

    was this supposed to be wikileaks or was someone pressuring wikipedia?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2011 @ 6:21pm

    Lolita Fashion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_fashion#Gothic_Lollita

    This probably will never be allowed in America.


    I wonder why in America is still legal to photograph children, with all the paranoia going on it is surprising that people are still allowed to take any photograph from a children LoL

    In the age of visual diaries many probably will go to jail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sidney, Oct 18th, 2011 @ 1:06pm

    Thieving

    I notice that the thieves always yell "censorship" and try and change the argument.

    The truth is "file sharing" is thieving if you don't own the content or it is not public domain. When they yell that it is time shifting....then, the content should not be available to the public at large.

    If it is, it is just thieving and the thieves need to go to jail. Stopping thieves is not censorship: it is protecting your intellectual property from abuse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 18th, 2011 @ 4:45pm

      Re: Thieving

      I notice that the thieves always yell "censorship" and try and change the argument.

      Or the censors yell "theft" and try to change the argument.

      The truth is "file sharing" is thieving if you don't own the content or it is not public domain.

      No, the truth is it's copyright infringement.

      If it is, it is just thieving and the thieves need to go to jail.

      You're actually saying people should serve jail time for noncommercial copyright infringement? Wow.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This