New Bill Being Considered In Congress Could Shut Down Social Media
Sites Crucial To ‘Occupy’ Protests
October 27, 2011
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
<http://www.addictinginfo.org/author/stephen-foster/>
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/27/new-bill-being-considered-in-congress-could-shut-down-social-media-sites-crucial-to-occupy-protests/
In what would be a stunning disregard for First Amendment rights, rumors
are swirling that the Republican controlled Congress is now considering
a new bill that could blackout sites such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook,
and other sites that utilize content generated by users. Phones such as
iPhone, Android, AmazonCloud, Pandora, Grooveshark and even your email
accounts would be adversely affected.
Some provisions in the bill would make it a “felony to stream unlicensed
content — including cover band performances, karaoke videos, video game
play-throughs, and more.” Major profit driven corporations are the
driving force behind such a bill.
This bill could also effectively silence the ‘Occupy’ movement that has
swept the nation by killing information sharing. Most Americans
currently get most of their news about ‘Occupy’ through social media. If
social media sites were to shut down because of the bill, Americans
would be less likely to see ‘Occupy’ footage and would thus be in the
dark, forcing us all to rely on corporate owned media sources. This bill
is dangerous and would be a major blow to constitutionally protected
freedom of speech. This is nothing more than government sponsored
censorship and must be stopped.
Please make your voice heard and demand that Congress kill this bill.
You can take action here
<http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/?source=fb>.
New Bipartisan Bill Will Allow U.S. Gov’t To Shut Off Any Website,
Anywhere, For Any Reason
http://wonkette.com/455343/new-bipartisan-bill-will-allow-u-s-govt-to-shut-off-any-website-anywhere-for-any-reason
By KEN LAYNE <http://wonkette.com/author/klayne/>
4:52 PM OCTOBER 27, 2011
217 COMMENTS
<http://wonkette.com/455343/new-bipartisan-bill-will-allow-u-s-govt-to-shut-off-any-website-anywhere-for-any-reason#idc-container>
4999 VIEWS
And that was the last day anybody could get Wonkette.com to show up in a
browser.
<http://wonkette.com/455343/new-bipartisan-bill-will-allow-u-s-govt-to-shut-off-any-website-anywhere-for-any-reason>You
know how the politicians are always saying we need to be competitive
with China? Well, we are about to get super competitive when it comes to
internal censorship of the global Internet./Everybody/ except for a
handful of malcontent “privacy activists” is behind the bold new plan to
make all Internet service providers in the United States /turn off any
domain/within five days, if Washington says “turn it off.” As usual,
this new legislation
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/idUS105209665820111026> is
cloaked in bullshit terminology about copyright and lost profits for
media conglomerates, but the result is exactly the same as China’s
“great firewall” — except, this being the land of “corporations are
people, my friends,” the ISPs will be responsible for the dirty work
instead of some top-level government technological agency.
Via Cryptogon, <http://cryptogon.com/?p=25713> here’s the relevant chunk
of the legislation:
<http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf>
A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable
measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located
within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion
thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed
to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or
portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet
Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as
possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a
copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
How? The whole Internet domain system requires a constantly updated
Domain Name Server database that connects your computer to whatever
server holds your “Tranny Hunter” porn or Communist Revolution/Buffy
slash-fiction forum. Your ISP might be Verizon or AT&T for your “smart
phone” or it might be dial-up AOL for confused old people who still have
$9.95 a month charged to their Discover card. Either way, the ISP
“resolves” the domain name you’re trying to reach with the computer
servers that have that content, wherever it might be. (All you actual
tech people in the comments can correct this if necessary.) So when the
Government sends a “turn off these domains” order to your ISP, the ISP
will have no choice but to block the offending websites. Problem solved!
You know they’ve been working on this feverishly since the WikiLeaks
outrage, right?
Here’s a Forbes blog post that explains just how the law will be used:
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2011/10/26/dont-let-hollywood-break-the-internet-with-the-protect-ip-act/>
The PROTECT IP Act would allow copyright owners – movie studios and
other content providers – simply to accuse a website of
infringement, which could lead to that site being shut down by court
order and entire links to the site being wiped clean from the
Internet. Any website with a hyperlink, such as Twitter, Facebook or
a blog, would be subject to liability. More, non-infringing sites
could be inadvertently shut down under the proposal. Indeed, the law
is so far-reaching that it would force Internet providers like
Comcast to block all access to the allegedly illegal site.
The potential for abuse by the notoriously litigious content
industry is clear. Last year, when the government sought to shut
down one child pornography site, it ended up affecting some 70,000
legitimate sites for several days, even notifying visitors that the
sites – many of which were business sites – were purveyors of child
pornography.
For instance, the bill is so broadly written that, in theory, it
would allow any copyright owner to shut down a legitimate retail
website, such as Amazon or Best Buy, by alleging that one product
being sold on the site could “enable or facilitate” an infringement.
But in practice, it won’t be giant business websites like Amazon that
get the plug pulled. It will be the little guys, the alternative press,
the OccupyWhatever sites, anything that gets in the way of the
Internet’s actual role in America: retail advertising and shoe shopping
and lonely online pursuits shown to lower people’s actual engagement
with the world, like sport teams or pornography or gadget blogs or
orc-battle games or anything shit out by the Murdoch empire of diversions.
Oh well. It was really an aberration that the Internet functioned as
openly as it has these past two decades. But that era is already over,
as proven by the U.K. national police shutting down mobile messaging
during the summer riots or, just two months ago,
<http://wonkette.com/451293/san-franciscos-bart-blocks-protester-cell-phones-for-maximum-totalitarianism> San
Francisco’s BART stations easily turning off all the cell phone signals
within the stations to prevent protesters from organizing an action
there against police brutality.
House Introduces Controversial Anti-Piracy Act
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/idUS105209665820111026
By Brent Lang at TheWrap <http://thewrap.com/>
Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:43am EDT
The House Judiciary Committee unveiled new legislation Wednesday
designed to crack down on online piracy.
The proposed legislation would grant the federal government broad powers
to cripple websites that host illegal content.
Labelled the Stop Online Piracy Act, the bill would allow content
creators and the government to effectively shut down websites they claim
are violating copyright laws by pulling ads and disabling their credit
card processors.
Also read: Anti-Piracy Bill Passes Committee; Senator's Objections May
Derail It
It also allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions against foreign
websites that traffic in pirated U.S. movies and television shows.
Copyright groups and content creators hailed the proposal as an
important means to safeguard intellectual property rights, but consumer
advocacy groups warned that the punishments dictated by the new
legislation were overly harsh.
"There is no need for a bill this sweeping and this Draconian,” Gigi B.
Sohn, president and co-founder of the consumer advocacy group Public
Knowledge, said in a statement. “There are simple, easily implemented
solutions on which industry and others agree -- such as cutting off the
ability of credit-card companies to fulfill payments to sites that
traffic in copyright infringement.”
In an opinion piece on Forbes, Consumer Electronics Association
President and CEO Gary Shapiro echoed Sohn's concerns, writing Wednesday
that the legislation is so expansive it threatens legitimate web retailers.
"... the bill is so broadly written that, in theory, it would allow any
copyright owner to shut down a legitimate retail website, such as Amazon
or Best Buy, by alleging that one product being sold on the site could
'enable or facilitate' an infringement," Shapiro wrote.
Yet, the bill received a rapturous response from the business community
and some big-name support in the entertainment industry.
“Our creative industries provide good jobs for millions of Americans and
represent one of the country’s most important exports. However, we face
an increasingly difficult battle against entities overseas that
shamelessly steal our valuable products and illegally market them online
for their own gain,” Philippe Dauman, Viacom president and CEO said in a
statement. “[The bill] provides the Department of Justice and rights
holders critical tools to ensure that the creative work of Americans
across the country is protected from offshore internet parasites.”
“Websites that blatantly steal the creativity and innovation of American
industries violate a fundamental right to property,” Thomas J. Donohue,
president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber, said in a statement. “Operators
of rogue sites threaten American jobs, endanger consumer safety, and
undermine the vitality of the online marketplace. I commend
Representatives Smith, Goodlatte, Conyers, and Berman for standing up to
the mass theft of American intellectual property.”
House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced the bill along
with committee members Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Bob Goodlatte
(R-Va.) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.).
It is similar to the PROTECT IP Act, which passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee last May, but stalled after Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Oregon) placed
a hold on the bill. Wyden argued that the bill infringed on free speech
and would discourage innovation.
Even though Hollywood and its top lobbyist, MPAA chief Chris Dodd, have
launched a full on assault on lawmakers to get tough on piracy,
discomfort within the technology industry will likely mean that the new
legislation will face a fierce battle before it becomes law.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News
From Underground" newsgroup. If you'd like to donate to News From Underground,
please visit http://markcrispinmiller.com/donate - we appreciate your ongoing support.
Ways to unsubscribe, 1) send a blank email to [email protected]. PLEASE NOTE: you must unsubscribe using the SAME email with which you subscribed; 2) go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page.
For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
