I disagree about IPv6 being in general use. VERY few endpoints on the net are ready for IPv6. While the major backbone providers are almost ready, there is a LONG way to go before we're ready to cut over. If you ceased IPv4 support right now, the Internet would cease to function for all but the most technical of individuals.
I also think you seriously underestimate the time required to get where we are today with DNSSEC. Unlike this law, DNSSEC isn't some fanciful idea that essentially won't be effective. It's implementation needs to continue as planned for the greater good of the ENTIRE Internet, not just to appease the MPAA/RIAA.
Do you understand what you're writing? Or are you just passing around quotes?
IPv6 isn't widely implemented yet either, so should we just get rid of that and replace it with an MPAA approved version?
This viewpoint is about as ridiculous as me saying that because 3D isn't yet widely used in all forms of media you should just replace it all with an entirely new format.
There is a LOT of engineering/security and time invested into getting DNSSEC developed, deployed and standardized. All of this takes considerable time. I seriously doubt that Paul Vixie meant for his statements to be used in the way you are applying them.
I'm always astonished reading stuff like this. I think many people simply don't understand how the Internet is built, maintained, and funded.
Each entity ALREADY pays for bandwidth to send/receive their data, be it an end user or content provider such as Netflix, Google, YouTube, or TechDirt. Content providers generally use far more outbound bandwidth than inbound, and end users generally do the opposite. The key point is both parties are ALREADY paying.
If you want to use the highway analogy; this is like my city charging WalMart extra taxes because too many people use the existing roads to get to WalMart. As a result of all these people going to WalMart, they make money and should have to pay for the privilege of allowing their customers to use the existing highway infrastructure to get there.
Using this train of thought, we need to ignore the fact that WalMart already pays taxes to the city, state and federal government which in part goes to fund these roads. We also need to ignore the fact that consumers pay these same taxes too to fund the infrastructure.
I think Netflix and Google should demand that the ISP's pay for the Netflix/Google bandwidth because it's the content companies that create the value that entices consumers to get Internet access in the first place! These companies create the useful services that cause people to even want to get ON the Internet.
AT&T, Comcast, COX and every other consumer broadband provider out there should be paying Netflix in order to make sure their customers have access to that service. After all, why should Netflix foot the bill for the bandwidth that Comcast's customers are sucking up?
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know, S. 968, which was introduced by Senator Leahy, would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to take legal action to combat online piracy and counterfeiting. This legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 26, 2011, and awaits consideration by the full Senate.
Michael Pascazi, a lawyer and entrepreneur from New York, has slapped telecom giant Verizon with a class-action lawsuit, seeking to claim a total of $US20 billion in damages for the firm's alleged violations of federal wiretapping laws. The lawsuit claims that the company collaborated with the US government to violate these laws by handing over personal phone data without obtaining search warrants.
Laywer + Entrepreneur = Class Action Lawsuit
So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce.
Don't make this a party issue. Here are the co-sponsors of the bill. The way I see it there are more [D]'s than [R]'s here.
Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Kelly Ayotte [R-NH]
Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
Roy Blunt [R-MO]
John Boozman [R-AR]
Thad Cochran [R-MS]
Chris Coons [D-DE]
Bob Corker [R-TN]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Al Franken [D-MN]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Kay Hagan [D-NC]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Marco Rubio [R-FL]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?
I do understand the rights of content producers. I honestly do. I also understand the uphill battle they face in terms of stopping piracy and monetizing their works.
My issue is not with the industry working to protect their rights, rather the industry trying to protect their rights by infringing on mine.
I didn't take home $47.5 million dollars last year in salary + bonus. I didn't even take home $4.7 million dollars. I get rather upset and start writing letters to my Senator when laws like Protect IP come about to try and make sure those individuals making $47.5 million take home $49 million next year.
If it really takes that much time to scan the Internet to determine where the "rights holders" content is being abused, maybe the abuse isn't such a big deal. Honestly; when DMCA takedowns get issued over a one minute home video that has music playing in the background, how do you justify that? It's like you're going out of your way to find cases of abuse to make the issue seem grander than it really is.
Please, don't take this as me saying that copyright infringement isn't an issue. But the industry is absolutely going to lose support of the population when they pull stuff as I described above.
When it comes to my own site, I do what I can and I'm happy to say that I keep infringing content away. But when I see some of the DMCA takedowns being issued for sites that operate and provide content provided by the CREATOR, I question how much thought someone would put into filing a takedown request against me, or get my site blacklisted, because someone posted a link to some remote site with infringing content.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?
I just need to make sure that the MPAA and RIAA are not allowed to pay off our politicians, corrupt the political process, and introduce laws designed to prop up THEIR business at the sacrifice of everyone else.
You seem like the type of chap that would tell a woman that's just been raped that she needs to adapt her appearance in order to stop it from happening again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?
You hit the nail on the head.
How can someone operate a site on the Internet that allows for end-user contribution, something as simple as forums, without incurring MASSIVE legal risk if the responsibility for all end-user content is on the shoulders of the site operator.
That one Anonymous Coward statement you quoted is what I fear the most from our big-content overlords.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?
I'm not falling for anything.
I am an IT professional with 20 years in the Internet industry. I have EXTENSIVE expertise in how the Internet functions on all layers.
The individuals with concerns about changing the structure and stability of the DNS system UNDERSTAND the issues with what is being proposed. They also understand technology far better than the lawyers and lobbyists hired by the MPAA.
My site is not created for the purposes of allowing unchecked uploads from users. Almost all of my content is text based and user generated. Although the site does allow users to upload content, it is mostly just .PDF based guides for various hardware tweaking, etc.
I go through extreme efforts to make sure that I'm not serving up any illegal content and hand down severe penalties for users who promote illegal content, sites, etc.
With the current proposal; I have increased risk of losing my livelihood if someone decides to LINK to infringing content. I have to put faith in the MPAA and other rights holders to NOT misuse the system. Unfortunately; that's not an organization or industry I have ANY faith in to do the right thing.
Right now, If my datacenter was served with a DMCA notice they would call me immediately before disconnecting my hardware. They would not; however, be able to do anything about my domain being seized and replaced with an ICE warning without any prior notification.
DMCA works, to an extent, even with all of the improper DMCA takedown requests. At least it provides site owners some sort of advanced notification to deal with an issue.