GPFontaine wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote: GPFontaine wrote: Usa, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic about the original topic, the fact that I wrote it, or dragging another topic into this thread. No, I'm serious. I'm curious as to how someone can support the kind of security measures taken at certain foreign airports to find one kind of criminal, but be so opposed to similar measures being proposed online to find another kind. Is it because most of us here actually are the type of criminal this law wants to find? This is like arguing that shoplifters and murderers should pay the same penalty and security for them should be equal. It is a ridiculous premis to compare airport security to copyright infringement. I don't condone what people do with torrents and I think that there does need to be reform, but censorship isn't the right way and certainly not censorship dictated by corporations.

I don't think it is. I find it much more invasive to infringe on my person than to infringe on my files.

The TSA's current system has flaws (believe me, I know), but at least they're doing their best to try and balance privacy with security. And the focus is on a hard criteria for finding illegal things, not soft criteria like people who may have them.

But moving on.

I dunno, maybe I'm just jaded. Everytime I see one of these things, it's either a hoax, or it's some people going apeshit insane about how companies trying to protect their rights is going to destroy the internet. I haven't gone completely in depth on this yet, but this really doesn't seem too horrible. I see a potential for some loopholes, but every bill has that in raw form, and many other laws have this potential too...and when someone tries to go through said hole, a lot of times it gets closed.

Sorry, I just see this as "Waaaaaaah, they wanna shut down our torrentz!"

Okay, I've read this closer now, and...

GPFontaine wrote:

Under this law Nintendo could dislike Sydlexia.com. They could appeal to the US Government to throw Syd's site on the naughty list based on one infraction they find somewhere in the forums or wiki. Hell, it doesn't even have to be blatant. It could just be an image from a Copyrighted game or a link to a rom that he didn't catch in the forums years ago. The threat doesn't have to go through due process and they don't have to sue Syd. Instead they just blacklist and the site goes off the DNS grid.

I'm not seeing at all where this is allowed by the proposed law. In fact, unless I'm seriously misreading this, I'm seeing a whole lot of misconceptions.

First of all, while Nintendo could make it's case to the AG, as with any law, they don't have any official power under this law as I see it. All the power lies with the AG.

Second, the site has to be "dedicated to infringing activities". One single instance doesn't cut it. One section of the site dedicated to said activities doesn't cut it. The site has to be completely dedicated to pirating, or it has to be a vital component of the site. That's spelled out right there in the first paragraph.

Third, I don't see where this "lack of due process" comes in. It looks like to me that through this whole thing, the AG has to go through the court process. They need to file a suit and everything. Yes, they can get an injunction to shut the site down while the case is ongoing, but that's not unique to this bill, and it's not guaranteed.

Finally, this "blacklist". It's a list of sites the DoJ feels may be dedicated to infringement but that the AG hasn't gotten around to filing an action against yet, and it looks like they can add a site to the list "upon information and reasonable belief". So, yes, they could in theory put Sydlexia.com on it.

What does that mean?

Absolutely nothing.

According to the text of that bill, being on the list doesn't mean a damn thing. It means you're likely to be looked at. It doesn't mean the government can block a site on a whim or that your site is going down. It means you're being looked at. That's it.

Now, really, it looks like all this bill does is give the AG the power to file lawsuits to take down sites based around piracy. Yes, I can see it being used as a tool to take down sites like Megaupload and Dropbox which are, let's fucking face it, mostly used to hand off infringing files. But it's hardly the end of free speech as we know it. I could be wrong, but if I am, please show me something in the text of the bill that refutes it. I'm not seeing anything there myself.

As I hinted at, it annoys the hell out of me that, all the government has to do is hint they may want to regulate the internet, and suddenly people yell "CENSORSHIP!!!!!" and go nucking futs. Honestly, calm down and read for a bit. This will not destroy the internet. Just make the free stolen stuff harder to find.

GPFontaine wrote:

I have no problem with the justice system doing its job. COICA bypasses the justice system and skips due process, that is what makes it terrifying to me.

Again, I'm not seeing where this is stated in the bill. It looks to me like they need to go through the court system to shut these sites down.

It's true that the court can issue an injunction to shut the site down before the decision has come in, but that's not unique to this bill.

GPFontaine wrote:

USA, I have a hard time reading the bills, but here is how I understood it. A complaint gets to the Attorney General. The Attorney General then brings it to the court system which has the immediate ability to shut down the sites (temporarily or permanently depending upon their choice). There is seemingly no defense allowed.

It actually looks like this bill has been altered since this last came up. The so-called "blacklist" section is gone. Maybe other stuff changed but I really don't feel like doing a compare and contrast right now.

The bill does say this:

Quote:

(b) Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity in violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party described in subsection (e) receiving an order issued pursuant to this section shall take the appropriate actions described in subsection (e).

Which, yes, does in effect shut the site down before a defense is allowed. However, this is something that is not unique to this law. Injunctions are issues all the time in both civil and criminal cases when it is in the interest of the court to stop a certain activity.

For example, let's say someone starts to build a house on your land. You take them to court. You don't want him to continue building the house while the case is ongoing, so you ask for an injunction. If it succeeds, you've effectively stopped him before he can present a defense. Maybe he has a good one, and he will get a chance to present it. An injunction just keeps a potentially bad situation from getting worse.

And the AG can't just walk into court and get one of these, either. Note the section about service. You're still getting notified of the court action, and get to show up to prevent the injunction.