Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : i2C - Internet Infrastructure Coalition : Protect IP/ SOPA Activism

[phil29]

I realize there is another thread already running, but I wanted to throw this in its own thread to make it stand out. This is less a discussion about SOPA et al, and more of an "if you want to do something, here's a great resource".

http://americancensorship.org/

[srfreeman]

Call your congressman, an interesting use of technology.

When you call your congressman, what do you plan on telling him?

Apparently, current methods of handling the problems covered by the new legislation are not working. What do you propose be done in lieu of legislation.

Current petitions and complaints offer no options and will easily be turned into calls for help from a clueless group that can do nothing on their own.

[kpmedia]

Originally Posted by srfreeman

Apparently, current methods of handling the problems covered by the new legislation are not working.

In a word: bullcrap.

There are plenty of laws on the books for the government to take action. This new farce of legislation puts power into the hands of private corporations and mafia-like "organizations" (MPAA, RIAA, etc), which is absolutely ridiculous. It's an attempt to circumvent unfriendly courts, which have largely dismissed many IP complaints as out-of-bounds and un-Constitutionally actionable (denial of due process).

[kpmedia]

Watch this, too: http://boingboing.net/2011/12/02/ste...ains-sopa.html

The biggest problem is that the law is open-ended, and does not actually protect American citizens. It protects only corporate interests with no due process or recourse for individuals or SMBs. And it does so under the guise of attacking those "evil foreign thieves" but contains the language that allow denial of due process to American-owned operations. As such, it's not just an anti-piracy law, it's very anti-American.

I also wonder if there's consequences related to other international commerce treaties, as this is effectively an anti-commerce law. Granted, it's supposed written to oppose "bad" commerce, but could just as easily affect otherwise legal trade.

-

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by kpmedia

In a word: bullcrap.

There are plenty of laws on the books for the government to take action. This new farce of legislation puts power into the hands of private corporations and mafia-like "organizations" (MPAA, RIAA, etc), which is absolutely ridiculous. It's an attempt to circumvent unfriendly courts, which have largely dismissed many IP complaints as out-of-bounds and un-Constitutionally actionable (denial of due process).

+1 on this. It is crony capitalism at its best.

[srfreeman]

kpmedia & fshagan;

Granted, lobbyists have gotten the ear of the lawmakers. This is the system we have sanctioned over the years.

Given that there is no opposing noise to distract them, the fact remains that the current system is not handling the issues presented. The question remains, do you have a way of handling these issues?

The discussed legislation only affects the World Wide Web and simply continues building on the legislation that started the commercial interest in it. This is not being seen as having an effect on any long standing business practices.

It is going to require far more than just complaining to turn the tide.

[kpmedia]

Originally Posted by srfreeman

This is not being seen as having an effect on any long standing business practices.

But only if you're blind or purposely sticking your head in the sand.

The Colbert videos gave a couple of great examples of consequences. And then think of companies that will go out of business (SMBs), due to inability to fight.

And the corporations that will be tied up in legal battles (driving up costs) -- noting that some would have happened anyway, but this adds more. Do you think for one minute that Warner Bros won't get sued by EFF or Google, if they makes attempts at (or succeed at) shutting down Youtube from a user-submitted Bugs Bunny parody, in what would have otherwise been considered fair use?

This law bypasses due process. End of story. That's not good.

This bypasses traditional legal mechanisms, giving corporations the ability to sidestep the courts. It's a dishonest way to further increase draconian copyright protections, by giving government control of the media (acting as proxy to a few corporate interests). It's no different from shutting down airwaves or burning books en masse.

-

[srfreeman]

Originally Posted by kpmedia

But only if you're blind or purposely sticking your head in the sand. The Colbert videos gave a couple of great examples of consequences. And then think of companies that will go out of business (SMBs) and corps tied up in legal battles that would have happened anyway. Do you think for one minute that Warner Bros won't get sued by EFF or Google, if they attempt to shut down Youtube from a Bugs Bunny parody, in what would have otherwise been considered fair use?

This law bypasses due process. End of story.

Certainly there will be consequences. These consequences and others that are currently occurring can and are being thought of as being caused by flaws in the legislation that commercialized the Internet, ~30 years ago.

Correcting mistakes of the past is a time honored tradition. Damage to entities that were formed as a result of past errors must be expected.

Proposed legislation covers or just stops any protracted legal battles. Not a problem.

Whether you consider it wrong makes little difference. If the community cannot provide working options, the feeling that current providers are irresponsible will stand and the legislation will pass.

Story runs until the final gavel.

[srfreeman]

kpmedia;

You really need to look at the current US administration's stance on governmental control of the private sector and their ability to sidestep the courts. Your last paragraph sounds like what they want, possibly guaranteeing passage of these bills.

Now, as a Country, the US people sanctioned the current administration. If changes are to be made, options must be presented.

[kpmedia]

Your whole premise is simply false.

Since this whole law is absurd, I'll use an equally ridiculous analogy:

- I decide I don't like you, and I want to shoot you in the face.
- You cry foul, and say shooting is wrong.
- But according to your own logic, you need an alternative solution!
- What exactly is the alternative? Hitting you in the head with a hammer? Immolation? What?
- Because by your own logic, it has to happen in some way. A simple "NO!" is not acceptable.

Ridiculous, no?

[srfreeman]

Originally Posted by kpmedia

Your whole premise is simply false.

Since this whole law is absurd, I'll use an equally ridiculous analogy:

- I decide I don't like you, and I want to shoot you in the face.
- You cry foul, and say shooting is wrong.
- But according to your own logic, you need an alternative solution!
- What exactly is the alternative? Hitting you in the head with a hammer? Immolation? What?
- Because by your own logic, it has to happen in some way. A simple "NO!" is not acceptable.

Ridiculous, no?

Well, you are partially right. It is a ridiculous analogy.

My personal views are very libertarian, yet hold with current law. To use part of your analogy.

- You decide you don't like me and you want to shoot me in the face.
- I blow your head off (self defense) and then say you were too slow to action.
- Who needs an alternative?

The current legislation is a bit different.

- It is based on the idea that current operations and policies concerning commerce on the World Wide Web are irresponsible.

- Simple complaining reinforces the idea and clearly there are many examples of open discussions on how to circumvent current law.

- It seems that presentation of workable alternatives may be a way to forestall regulation.

- If there are no workable alternatives to be presented...

The current US administration is in favor of deeper control of the private sector, this is no secret. Lack of alternatives will appear to them as acceptance.

[kpmedia]

SOPA is about as anti-Libertarian as could be.
Irresponsible is over-correction instead of mere correction.

[srfreeman]

Originally Posted by kpmedia

SOPA is about as anti-Libertarian as could be.
Irresponsible is over-correction instead of mere correction.

Yes, it is and I have stated that I am opposed to it.

What alternative can you propose to "over-correction"? What would constitute "mere correction"?

[kpmedia]

Simply expand the ability of IC3 to embargo foreign entities via DNS, instead of domain confiscation. Local citizens are subjected to existing laws and penalties. Don't remove safe harbor provisions for carriers.

This isn't hard.

[srfreeman]

Originally Posted by kpmedia

Simply expand the ability of IC3 to embargo foreign entities via DNS, instead of domain confiscation. Local citizens are subjected to existing laws and penalties. Don't remove safe harbor provisions for carriers.

This isn't hard.

Embargo of foreign entities via DNS is proposed in the new legislation though there are questions on how this will affect the reliability of the DNS system as a whole.

How can US citizens be stopped from performing illegal activities of the sorts discussed without domain confiscation?

Since end users are inherently loose (they feel some sort of privacy is due them) and user generated content can come from anywhere. How can the current illegal activity be stopped without holding the carriers responsible?