<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Well, under the DMCA and existing copyright laws, what you list as a
potential fear shouldn't be happening anyhow. Current laws require a
host to remove material that the copyright owner indicates is being
used without permission or under fair use laws. Current law, also,
permits the poster to challenge the copyright owners request, and
have it replaced.<br>
<br>
If you read the bill carefully, it does not penalize the host for
the issues between the poster of material and the copyright owner.
It only requires the host to make a reasonable effort to remove
material that is deemed illegal or misused under copyright until
adjudication is completed. It most significantly makes the owner of
copyright liable for false reports, and denotes the penalties for
'frivolous lawsuits' or false reports.<br>
<br>
To make the blacklist, a host really has to demonstrate a complete
disregard of law and copyright. In the extreme case, the host site
is a terrorist forum for communicating internationally with secret
cells in foreign countries.<br>
<br>
Since I read the bill, the points you make really don't apply.
However, it is interesting to note which organizations are crying
foul the loudest, and some I don't understand their being involved:
Google, Mozilla(?), Facebook, EFF...<br>
<br>
Google and Facebook, I can understand their concerns because the
bill puts the onus of responsibility squarely on their shoulders to
make a reasonable effort to remove illegal or misused copyrighted
materials. But that doesn't mean they should ignore the misuse of
their hosting of materials by subscribers as is the current policy.<br>
<br>
IMHO,<br>
<br>
MJR<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/29/2011 2:45 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKGT8WpvoUzoWzonMwDoxvcqyHaufJ6X4t0SpbrUXkwpZkFeTQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Yeah, but I think it's only meant to apply to services
hosted outside the US. Not that that makes it OK, but most of your
examples wouldn't apply.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Alex
Mandel <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tech_dev@wildintellect.com">tech_dev@wildintellect.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">My
understanding of the concerns is that this bill will net a lot
of<br>
non-offenders without much court oversight (if any).<br>
<br>
Think of the the scenario where any web 2.0 website (anything
that<br>
allows users to post) could potentially be a target if someone
happens<br>
to post something that is copyrighted or at least thought to
be under<br>
copyright. The fear is that major companies could ask paypal
and google<br>
to unlist a wikipedia article, or that action could be taken
to cut off<br>
google if it happens to link to a website that some-one
uploaded<br>
potentially copyrighted materials too without permission. It's
not clear<br>
to me that music inadvertently in the background of a you-tube
video has<br>
been cleared as fair use (though it ought to be). The bill
seems to<br>
shift the burden from being a request to take down
material(DCMA) to a<br>
we will cut off your business (ISP, payments, blacklist dns)
unless you<br>
prove you're not hosting our materials within 5 days of
notification, oh<br>
and this doesn't necessarily have to go to court or be proven
100% until<br>
you sue to get your domain name back at which point the burden
of proof<br>
is on the wiki, forum, social network site that was just
trying to<br>
provide a service, to prove they weren't doing anything
illegal.<br>
<br>
Specifically on the blacklist idea, people are concerned that
entire<br>
regions will get blacklisted from US viewers, essentially
meaning that<br>
we can no longer see 100% of the Internet. That by definition
is<br>
censorship. Even if you're ok with Censorship of the internet
is it fair<br>
to block 100% of a website if only 1% is offending material?<br>
<br>
While I don't know if things would go this extreme I
understand the fear<br>
that censorship brings and the potential to make it really
difficult to<br>
implement any website that allows users to post without having
to bend<br>
over backwards to admin/moderate (a cost that no startup or
non-profit<br>
can afford).<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
PS: Search engines as usual will get targeted too, you think
they do a<br>
poor job of listing the Internet(estimates are 10-15% of the
web is<br>
indexed), wait until they have to censor what they list even
more<br>
dramatically.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
On 11/23/2011 01:29 PM, Mikies Runs Baal wrote:<br>
> Actually, certain types of porn are illegal, not only
in this country<br>
> (USA), but other countries internationally.<br>
><br>
> Secondly, speaking to the vagueness alluded to, all
laws tend to be<br>
> somewhat vague.<br>
><br>
> As with all law, there has to be probable cause for
an action to be<br>
> initiated. This bill is no different, and further,
spells out<br>
> consequences for filing false reports by the
copyright holder et al.<br>
><br>
> After reading it from beginning to end, I,
personally, think it is a<br>
> good law. If enacted, it might give us the right to
circumvent<br>
> encryption protections on DVD and rip licensed copies
to our personal<br>
> computer or other digital devices strictly for
personal use much like<br>
> the current RIAA guideleines for ripping our music
CD's to our personal<br>
> devices. This would, of course, have to be tested
with a lawsuit<br>
> contesting the restrictions imposed by the DMCA on
ripping DVD's with<br>
> copy protection. This might be defended as a moot
point since almost all<br>
> DVD's I have bought within the last year now include
a code for d/l'ing<br>
> a digital copy to a personal digital device including
my laptop or other<br>
> device.<br>
><br>
> Currently, court decisions (case laws) under the DMCA
make it illegal to<br>
> circumvent the encryption protections, but does NOT
speak to the rights<br>
> of licensed copy owners to rip for personal use on
their digital<br>
> devices. A close read of this law suggests it might
be used to counter<br>
> the DMCA on DVD's for personal use.<br>
><br>
> As with all copyright issues, the licensed user MUST
maintain a<br>
> permanent copy of the original CD/DVD for "Fair Use
Laws" to apply. Give<br>
> away the original, lose the rights to the copy...<br>
><br>
> I have an extensive library of VHS and DVD originals
that have<br>
> encryption protection in place. VHS's have a limited
life-expectancy.<br>
> So, I would definitely love to be able to convert to
a DVD format, and<br>
> since my laptop is my primary entertainment system
when I am not home, I<br>
> would love to be able to convert my entire library to
digital format and<br>
> store on my laptop or external HDD drive for
portability.<br>
><br>
> I would encourage everyone to read the the bill in
its entirety.<br>
><br>
> Here are the link/s again (all available links I
could find, btw)<br>
><br>
> online: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261"
target="_blank">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261</a><br>
><br>
> PDF:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_cong_bills&docid=f:h3261ih.txt.pdf"
target="_blank">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_cong_bills&docid=f:h3261ih.txt.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> PDF: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf"
target="_blank">http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> online: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h3261"
target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h3261</a>:<br>
><br>
> Takes a couple hours to wade throught the text.<br>
><br>
> IMHO,<br>
><br>
> MJR<br>
><br>
> On 11/23/2011 9:10 AM, Eric Rasmussen wrote:<br>
>> Has anyone signed the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://whitehouse.gov" target="_blank">whitehouse.gov</a>
petition?<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#%21/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55"
target="_blank">https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55</a><br>
>><br>
>> I've never e-signed a whitehouse petition so I'm
curious to know<br>
>> everyone's thoughts on whether or not its a
meaningful step.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks!<br>
>> Eric<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Joseph
Arruda<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joseph.arruda@gmail.com">joseph.arruda@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>> I have read partway through <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261"
target="_blank">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261</a>
, and it is indeed pretty vague in its language (a
dangerous thing in the hands of Big Content)...I'll
probably finish by the end of the weekend if anyone wants
a rundown.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ja<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Bill
Ward<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bill@wards.net">bill@wards.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>> Um, porn may be unsavory but it's not an
illegal activity.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Mikies
Runs Baal<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mikiesrunsbaal.sec@sbcglobal.net">mikiesrunsbaal.sec@sbcglobal.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>> Heya Bill,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Besides me, has anyone bothered to
d/l and read the actual bill to find<br>
>>>>> out IF and WHAT the hubris is
actually about.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Seems to me that the major screamers
are the ones hosting porn sites and<br>
>>>>> other illegal activities.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> IMHO,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> MJR<br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> vox mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vox@lists.lugod.org">vox@lists.lugod.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox"
target="_blank">http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Check out my LEGO blog at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.brickpile.com"
target="_blank">http://www.brickpile.com</a><br>
>>>> Follow/friend me: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://facebook.com/billward" target="_blank">facebook.com/billward</a>
• <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://flickr.com/photos/billward" target="_blank">flickr.com/photos/billward</a>
• <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/williamward" target="_blank">twitter.com/williamward</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
vox mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vox@lists.lugod.org">vox@lists.lugod.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox"
target="_blank">http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Check out my LEGO blog at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.brickpile.com/" target="_blank">http://www.brickpile.com</a><br>
Follow/friend me: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://facebook.com/billward" target="_blank">facebook.com/billward</a>
• <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://flickr.com/photos/billward/" target="_blank">flickr.com/photos/billward</a>
• <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/williamward"
target="_blank">twitter.com/williamward</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vox@lists.lugod.org">vox@lists.lugod.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox">http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>