Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Doofy · Dec 4, 2011, 09:35 PM

Perhaps someone would quote me the part where it's actually mentioning messing with the DNS system, other than on a local (ISP) IP blocking basis?

subego · Dec 5, 2011, 06:40 AM

The DNS resolves IPs for you. Blocking IPs is by definition messing with the DNS.

To be clear, the issue isn't that this is allowed by the bill, there are absolutely, positively sites which should be blocked. The issue is that this bill allows it without any due process.

Doofy · Dec 5, 2011, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by subego

The DNS resolves IPs for you. Blocking IPs is by definition messing with the DNS.

Ummm. No it's not. It's after the DNS.

Originally Posted by subego

To be clear, the issue isn't that this is allowed by the bill, there are absolutely, positively sites which should be blocked. The issue is that this bill allows it without any due process.

Can you quote the bit of the bill for me which allows this without due process?

Bizarre, ain't it? Civil forfeiture laws (which don't give any due process at all) are on the books and barely a peep. Stop someone stealing the latest crap that the evil RIAA/MPAA comes out with and everyone goes apeshit.
You get what you deserve, Amerika.

subego · Dec 5, 2011, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ummm. No it's not. It's after the DNS.

I have no idea what the subject of this sentence is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Can you quote the bit of the bill for me which allows this without due process?

Bizarre, ain't it? Civil forfeiture laws (which don't give any due process at all) are on the books and barely a peep. Stop someone stealing the latest crap that the evil RIAA/MPAA comes out with and everyone goes apeshit.
You get what you deserve, Amerika.

If you're just going to ignore what I'm saying, repeatedly mind you, I'm not going to do your research. Google the Senate bill and find it yourself.

Big Mac · 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bizarre, ain't it? Civil forfeiture laws (which don't give any due process at all) are on the books and barely a peep. Stop someone stealing the latest crap that the evil RIAA/MPAA comes out with and everyone goes apeshit.
You get what you deserve, Amerika.

I strongly dislike civil forfeiture laws too, but there's less the people can do about them because they're part of established law. We can do much more about a bill before it is signed into law. Before it's signed into law we have a chance tp rally enough people to make enough noise to prevent its passage. See the difference?

subego · Dec 5, 2011, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I strongly dislike civil forfeiture laws too...

Obviously then, you should start railing against them in threads about the Internet.

Doofy · Dec 5, 2011, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by subego

If you're just going to ignore what I'm saying, repeatedly mind you, I'm not going to do your research. Google the Senate bill and find it yourself.

Well, see, I've read the bill. Just wondering if you have.

A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section

...yet you claim there's no due process.

subego · Dec 5, 2011, 05:51 PM

This isn't even what we're talking about. The MPAA isn't the DoJ.

If you're going to call into question whether I've read it, at least quote the relevant text.

Doofy · Dec 5, 2011, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by subego

This isn't even what we're talking about. The MPAA isn't the DoJ.

If you're going to call into question whether I've read it, at least quote the relevant text.

So what *is* the relevant text? Point me to it.

subego · Dec 5, 2011, 07:40 PM

It's the part where private individuals can seek a court order to block a domain by suing the domain itself and not the individual who owns it. This does an end-run around the due process rights of the owner.

Doofy · Dec 5, 2011, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by subego

It's the part where private individuals can seek a court order to block a domain by suing the domain itself and not the individual who owns it.

Which bit is that then? I'm having trouble finding it, so please quote section and subsection.

subego · Dec 5, 2011, 09:45 PM

Sec. 4(a)(2).

Doofy · Dec 6, 2011, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Sec. 4(a)(2).

???

You'll have to be more specific than that. There doesn't appear to be a Sec. 4(a)2 in the document I'm reading.

subego · Dec 6, 2011, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, see, I've read the bill. Just wondering if you have.

Originally Posted by Doofy

You'll have to be more specific than that. There doesn't appear to be a Sec. 4(a)2 in the document I'm reading.

Hmmm... using my truly spectacular powers of deduction here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're reading the wrong bill.

Doofy · Dec 6, 2011, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Hmmm... using my truly spectacular powers of deduction here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're reading the wrong bill.

H.R.3261 ??

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-3261

subego · Dec 6, 2011, 08:48 AM

Nope. As I already said, it's the Senate bill. Those start with "S".

Doofy · Dec 6, 2011, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Nope. As I already said, it's the Senate bill. Those start with "S".

Right. That's not SOPA. The thread is about SOPA, no?

So, if the copyright holder finds that his work has been pirated by someone outside the jurisdiction of the US, he can take action to have it blocked. Since the US treats foreigners like shit already (as the bill of rights only applies to US citizens), what's the big deal? Seems reasonable, since you're not going to get local legal co-operation from countries not signed to Berne or UCC.

Wiskedjak · Dec 6, 2011, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Stop someone stealing the latest crap that the evil RIAA/MPAA comes out with and everyone goes apeshit.
You get what you deserve, Amerika.

While certainly somewhat true, I have no doubt that the majority of instances of SOPA being used will be just as appropriate as the use of notice-and-takedown from the DMCA. It will most certainly be used to silence competition.

subego · Dec 6, 2011, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Right. That's not SOPA. The thread is about SOPA, no?

The way some talk you'd think it was about civil forfeiture.

SOPA is the House version of the bill, and PROTECT IP is the Senate version.

SOPA doesn't let private citizens kill a US domain outright, it only allows them to cut off all the domain's income. PROTECT IP does allow for a private citizen to kill a US domain.

Doofy · Dec 6, 2011, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by subego

PROTECT IP does allow for a private citizen to kill a US domain.

No it doesn't. It only allows a private citizen to take action if the offender doesn't have an address within US jurisdiction.
Unless I'm reading it wrong again. You should probably spell it out to me.

subego · Dec 6, 2011, 11:02 AM

Nope. You just need to be "unable to find" the owner.

(2) IN REM.—If through due diligence a qualifying plaintiff is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the qualifying plaintiff may commence an in rem action against a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.

Doofy · Dec 6, 2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Nope. You just need to be "unable to find" the owner.

Which is kind of a difficult thing to not be able to do, with regard to US-based websites.

subego · Dec 6, 2011, 11:37 AM

That depends on how interested the owner is in not being found.

ebuddy · Dec 6, 2011, 08:36 PM

Anyone here think It's not more about figures like Julian Assange than a true concern of copyright infringement anyway? In fact, funny story... In February 2008, WikiLeaks published allegations of illegal activities at a Swiss Bank that led to a California judge ordering WikiLeaks' ISP to block wikileaks.org.

Sloppily-drafted laws granting powers that already date back at least four years does nothing more at this point than offer opportunities for infringement of another kind. While I'm not quite ready to replace the 'c' with a 'k' in America, I'm certainly not willing to grant an already bloated US government more fodder for slop and abuse.

subego · Dec 6, 2011, 09:23 PM

I think Assange is icing. AFAIK, much of the text of SOPA was written by either the MPAA or the RIAA.

They're also the ones licking all the ice cream cones in congress.

Wiskedjak · Dec 6, 2011, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Anyone here think It's not more about figures like Julian Assange than a true concern of copyright infringement anyway? In fact, funny story... In February 2008, WikiLeaks published allegations of illegal activities at a Swiss Bank that led to a California judge ordering WikiLeaks' ISP to block wikileaks.org.

Sloppily-drafted laws granting powers that already date back at least four years does nothing more at this point than offer opportunities for infringement of another kind. While I'm not quite ready to replace the 'c' with a 'k' in America, I'm certainly not willing to grant an already bloated US government more fodder for slop and abuse.

This is exactly the kind of thing I think will happen. It will be used anti-competitively and politically, just as the DMCA get [ab]used.

The Final Dakar · Dec 9, 2011, 10:43 AM

Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details... | Techdirt

After continuing to stall and refusing to respond to Dajaz1's filing requesting the domain be returned, the government told Dajaz1's lawyer, Andrew P. Bridges, that it would begin forfeiture procedures (as required by law if it wanted to keep the domain). Bridges made clear that Dajaz1 would challenge the forfeiture procedure and seek to get the domain name back at that time. Then, the deadline for the government to file for forfeiture came and went and nothing apparently happened. Absolutely nothing. Bridges contacted the government to ask what was going on, and was told that the government had received an extension from the court. Bridges, quite reasonably, asked how that was possible without him, as counsel for the site, being informed of it or given a chance to make the case for why such an extension was improper.

He also asked for a copy of the the court's order allowing the extension. The government told him no and that the extension was filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He asked for the motion papers asking for the extension. The government told him no and that the papers were filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He again asked whether he would be notified about further filings for extensions. The government told him no.

He then asked the US attorney to inform the court that, if the government made another request for an extension, the domain owner opposed the extension and would like the opportunity to be heard. The government would not agree.

And file further extensions the government did. Repeatedly. Or, at least that's what Bridges was told. He sent someone to investigate the docket at the court, but the docket itself was secret, meaning there was no record of any of this available.

...and this is without SOPA.

subego · Dec 9, 2011, 04:40 PM

You durty hippy Amerikomrades get what you deserve!

Wiskedjak · Dec 10, 2011, 12:08 PM

hmmmm ... I wonder what's going to happen with SOPA
http://torrentfreak.com/universal-ce...-label-111210/

“If UMG took down a video it has no rights to, then what we have here is exactly the sort of abuse that careless, overzealous, or malicious copyright holders can create by abusing a takedown law,” he told us.

UMG issued a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube for a video singing the praises of MegaUpload. I could really care less about MegaUpload, but I don't like copyright law being used to silence a voice that one doesn't like.

ebuddy · Dec 10, 2011, 12:24 PM

All of this could be resolved through forced sterilization or state-sponsored genocide like the wildcats do in nature. Wait... wrong thread.

Sorry. Carry on.

Doofy · Dec 10, 2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

state-sponsored genocide

It's a good job you're well practiced at that then!

ebuddy · Dec 10, 2011, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's a good job you're well practiced at that then!

Couldn't do it without your help. Amerikkka thanks you for your support.

Doofy · Dec 10, 2011, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Couldn't do it without your help. Amerikkka thanks you for your support.

Strange... I don't recall us slaughtering injuns by the million.

ebuddy · Dec 10, 2011, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Strange... I don't recall us slaughtering injuns by the million.

You don't know your history.

The Final Dakar · Dec 15, 2011, 01:05 PM

Meanwhile, in potential DMCA abuse news....

Judge gives Universal Music 24 hours to explain takedown spree

So label executives must have been furious on Friday when the locker site unveiled a new promotional video featuring some of the music industry's biggest names singing the site's praises. One of the labels, Universal Music Group, went a step further and started filing takedown notices.

The legal basis for the takedown requests isn't clear. Megaupload says that the music and artwork in the video are original, and that it has signed agreements with everyone who appeared in it.

Adding the TWiT tie in for Subego (and it's also poignant)

But UMG apparently continued its takedown campaign, targeting an episode of Tech News Today that included a clip from the video in its coverage of the controversy. The host, Tom Merritt, says he filed a counter-notice under the DMCA, but as of Wednesday evening the show had not been restored. Under the DMCA, it might take as long as 10 days for the video to go back up. "In 10 days a daily news show is worthless," he told the Verge, "so Universal was able to censor this episode of Tech News Today."

Big Mac · Dec 15, 2011, 01:12 PM

Live Congressional Stream: KeepTheWebOpen.com

Most of the solid opposition to this has come from Republicans! Dan Lungren on right now making excellent points!

subego · Dec 16, 2011, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Adding the TWiT tie in for Subego (and it's also poignant)

The Final Dakar · Dec 16, 2011, 04:32 PM

Oh, I missed the follow up.

UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own

UMG insists that it had a right to take down the video—not under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as Megaupload had assumed, but under a private contractual arrangement between UMG and YouTube.

UMG's filing raises more questions than it answers. Most obviously, the firm has not explained why it took down the video in the first place. But the filing also raises deeper questions about UMG's effort to essentially opt out of the DMCA takedown rules. UMG seems to believe it can take down videos even if it doesn't hold the copyright to them, and that when UMG takes a video down from YouTube, the owner of that video can't avail herself of even the weak protections against takedown abuse provided by the DMCA.

UMG's response also sheds some light on another mystery: why Monday's issue of Tech News Today was yanked from YouTube. When UMG removes a video via YouTube's CMS, a "reference file" is created that "in theory is supposed to identify other instances of postings of the same content." UMG speculates that this "reference file" system was responsible for the accidental removal from YouTube of a Tech News Today episode featuring the Megaupload video.

Shady shit.

Doofy · Dec 16, 2011, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Shady shit.

Nope. Morons...

...morons who're going to buy me a new yacht if they ever take down one of my videos.

hyteckit · Dec 20, 2011, 11:21 PM

Yo gusto sopa. Oops. Wrong sopa.

It's not DNS; It's firewall.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 21, 2011, 02:29 PM

Just curious- how come angry lefties aren't out in the streets protesting Obama, the way they did Bush for just about everything? I mean lately it's amazing how crap like this, and govt. granting itself powers to detain people indefinitely etc. are coming out of the woodwork, yet I don't see all the same angry lefties with signs blaming the guy in the oval office, or frankly, even giving a flying shit at all.

So I take it the protesting and angry ranting all during the previous admin wasn't really about anyone giving a shit about anyone's rights or any loss of freedoms, it was just "whine at the Republican", now it's "Free pass for the Dim." Got it.

OAW · Dec 21, 2011, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Just curious- how come angry lefties aren't out in the streets protesting Obama, the way they did Bush for just about everything? I mean lately it's amazing how crap like this, and govt. granting itself powers to detain people indefinitely etc. are coming out of the woodwork, yet I don't see all the same angry lefties with signs blaming the guy in the oval office, or frankly, even giving a flying shit at all.

So I take it the protesting and angry ranting all during the previous admin wasn't really about anyone giving a shit about anyone's rights or any loss of freedoms, it was just "whine at the Republican", now it's "Free pass for the Dim." Got it.

SOPA is a House bill introduced by GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas and initially co-sponsored by 8 GOP and 4 Dem House members. So perhaps "angry lefties" aren't in the streets protesting Obama about it because it isn't an Obama Administration initiative?

OAW

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 21, 2011, 02:59 PM

So, with a straight face you're actually going to pretend everything the left screeched insessantly at Bush over, was all just things Bush did personally, and not also acts of congress?

Just admit it- whatever it is, wars, bills that force people to buy products, rights being swept under the rug, government power grabs- lefty loudmouths give the oval office a pass so long as it's a Dim.

Athens · Dec 21, 2011, 03:09 PM

Ha! please don't try and defend Bush

CBC News: the fifth estate - The Lies that Led to War

Doofy · Dec 21, 2011, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Just curious- how come angry lefties aren't out in the streets protesting Obama, the way they did Bush for just about everything?

Bizarre, ain't it?

Over here, under a conservative government, the lefties are out in force marching against state-funded student tuition fees being scrapped.

But when their boys in the last government started the ball rolling with scrapping state support of these, where were they? Yep, you guessed... ...nowhere.

It really is all red vs blue to them. They can be hypocritical bastards as long as they're protesting against the opposing side, not their own. And that's why I despise lefties.

OAW · Dec 21, 2011, 03:11 PM

No Crash I'm not "pretending" about anything. What I am doing is staying on topic. You should try it sometime.

OAW

Doofy · Dec 21, 2011, 03:11 PM

I'm still waiting for all the lefties to protest against the continuation of the Patriot Act, or the ~~Bush~~ Barry tax cuts.

Waragainstsleep · Dec 21, 2011, 04:22 PM

I seem to recall the students marching when labour introduced tuition fees.

Doofy · Dec 21, 2011, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

I seem to recall the students marching when labour introduced tuition fees.

I don't.
Of course, if you find me an article about it I'll stand corrected.

Waragainstsleep · 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I don't.
Of course, if you find me an article about it I'll stand corrected.

This BBC timeline references a number of protests:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7923093.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/61885.stm

This article says the 2010 march was the largest since fees were introduced in 1998:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...uition-fees.do

This one was on Labour's watch too:
Students defy union and march against tuition fees | Education | guardian.co.uk