Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Politics Your Rights Online

Protect IP Act May Be Amended 179

Posted by samzenpus
from the making-changes dept.
angry tapir writes "The controversial U.S. copyright enforcement bill called The Protect IP Act may be amended on the Senate floor later this month in response to ongoing concerns about its provisions affecting Internet service providers and the domain-name system, according to the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Protect IP Act May Be Amended

Comments Filter:
  • Sorry, but fuck you. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:29AM (#38683968)

    We still don't want it even with an amendments.

    • by Xanny (2500844) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:45AM (#38684038)

      I know it is drony and hive minded and all that other jazz, but let us be honest: those in congress do not care if you want this bill or not. They just want it passed, so they get their payout by big media for passing it. They barely know how to use email because they are all ancient farts, but they are not ignorant - they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history, and for politicians, it is a bad thing - educated and informed people will decide representatives based on their voting records, rather than talking points, and they want anything but to be held accountable.

      SOPA / PIPA / NDAA all show the true colors of our political system in the USA - paid for by corporations, and always against the interests of the people, because career politicians need ways to keep people ignorant, voting for them, and preferably, not voting at all. The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket. And then they can get paid off day after day by big business to pass laws completely against the spirit of America, freedom, and entrepreneurship (hello hundred year copyright) and sit on their laurels waiting for the next election cycle to talk about abortion, illegal immigrants, and nebulous "jobs" and who is making more "jobs".

      I know I'm extremely hypocritical about saying it, because honestly, I do not want to inconvenience myself to change a broken political system I have inherited from hundreds of years of Americans. I want change to happen without having to make sacrifices for it. I want government to be run the way I want, even though I have no political experience. But we are losing our freedoms and we have lost our representation, so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system, we are just going downhill. And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:06AM (#38684126)

        The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket

        So you recommend that people grudgingly continue to vote for the fossilized farts who don't represent them just to inconvenience them? Do you understand that by casting a vote you legitimize the system, so whatever corrupt dickhead wins the election can point to the results and say "See, most Americans voted, therefore I'm what the people really want!". Make your displeasure known, it's the only way to show how disillusioned you are with the current "one-party" political system.

        • by ByOhTek (1181381) on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:32AM (#38684456) Journal

          And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything. The politicians don't care if the people legitimize the system, as long as they get their money and power.

          At least, by casting a vote, you can nudge the system in the right direction. It's a lot more than what you would get by not voting.

          • by smpoole7 (1467717) on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:50AM (#38684542) Homepage

            > And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything

            Sad, but true. For Congress Creatures(tm), it's all about obtaining the numbers for re-election. If you're disgusted and inclined to vote against them, they *hope* you *won't* vote. Their strategists will say, "we'll lose support on this one, but after all, we have time before the next election. We have a war chest and can afford $$$$ TV and radio ads. We can get our base back [by opposing the war] / [supporting the war] / [being pro-choice] / [being pro-life] / whatever. We'll run negative ads to attack our opponent. And if we can demoralize the opposition, make them believe that their vote is pointless, so much the better."

            A high turnout ALWAYS sends a message, even if they're re-elected. If your Creature was re-elected by a 10% margin in the previous election, but pulls out a squeaker in this one -- especially if he/she sees a good bit if his/her "base" go for a third party candidate -- it will make him or her think.

            Hopefully, anyway. :)

            • by TFAFalcon (1839122) on Friday January 13, 2012 @09:19AM (#38684736)

              And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.

              As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.

              • by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Friday January 13, 2012 @11:43AM (#38686396)

                The key is not voting for a Democrat instead of a Republican or vice versa. By the time of the general election it's too late.

                The primaries are what matter. In most cases, the reason you only have a choice between an imbecile and a turd sandwich is because the Republican primary chose an imbecile and the Democratic primary chose a turd sandwich. You can pretty well bet that there were candidates running in those primaries that would do you better -- certainly you have a better chance of that with six candidates running in a primary than with two running in the general election. On top of that, because fewer people vote in primaries, your vote counts for more when you do.

                • by ByOhTek (1181381)

                  Well spoken. Both parties tend to have some very good candidates during the primaries.

                • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Friday January 13, 2012 @02:10PM (#38688890) Journal

                  I live in California, and by the time the primaries come here, the race is already over. I don't get to vote for (D) or (R) Candidates for President, at least I don't have a vote that counts in any meaningful way.

                  Primaries do matter, but only for those "early" states. The reason we have a choice between Imbecile and Turd Sandwich is because we don't have meaningful elections.

              • by ByOhTek (1181381)

                You have an axe murderer in one room. He WILL chop off your head.
                You have a guy with a single bullet in his gun in the next. He WONT miss, but he probably won't kill you either (he likes legs and arms?)
                You are in the room in the middle. One of the two will come into the room, and he will do whatever is his forte, to you.

                Does going into the room where the guy will shoot you, mean that you support his actions?

                It's a bit of a different story here, some times you can't make a huge change in one go, but you can

            • Back in 2006 this was my ballot:

              Bob Casey - Senator - D: Co-sponsor of PIPA: http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/C001070-sen-bob-casey [sopatrack.com]
              vs
              Rick Santorum - Senator Incumbent - R: Watch the news to see what he is up to.

              We set a record for the highest out-voting of a candidate since 1980 in getting rid of Santorum. It sent a signal. It helped get us PIPA. Well, it'd still be here. Santorum would still have voted for PIPA.

              Except for PIPA and the NDAA, Casey was the preferable option by far.

              • OK, so call Casey up and tell him why you voted for him last time and why you might just not vote for him next time if he continues to support PIPA and if the Republicans decide to field a candidate less batshit than Santorum.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Hatta (162192)

              For Congress Creatures(tm), it's all about obtaining the numbers for re-election. If you're disgusted and inclined to vote against them, they *hope* you *won't* vote.

              You have two options. You can either vote for someone who could possibly win, or not. Whether you vote for someone who can't win or vote for no one at all doesn't really make a difference. If you vote for someone who could win, you might legitimately knock the congressperson out of his seat. But what have you done? You've just elected some

          • by unity100 (970058)
            how about directly ignoring the system ?
        • No, voting does not "legitimize the system" if you don't vote for the person who wins. Not voting allows the person to win by a larger margin. Rather, if you are fed up with politics vote for the candidate you believe in even if it is a candidate that has no chance of getting elected. Vote Libertarian, vote Green, vote Constitution, heck, vote for the Socialist Equality Party if you believe in that.

          Those in power want votes. By spreading a message that you don't vote, there is no hope for any change bec
        • by 1u3hr (530656)

          Do you understand that by casting a vote you legitimize the system

          Exactly. Because the system does allow you to vote them out. The system works, if people stop sitting at home playing video games and pay attention to the issues and cast a vote. Both candidates may be flawed, so instead of going off in a huff, choose the lesser of the two evils -- or just vote against the incumbent.

          People fought and died so you'd have the privilege of voting, and you want to throw it away. What's the alternative? Getting some diesel and a ton of fertilizer and blowing up some federal bu

        • by sjames (1099)

          Write in ficus. Even the most shameless politician will be a bit red faced if he 'wins' only because the actual winner was disqualified for being a plant.

      • by Strawser (22927) on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:38AM (#38684486) Homepage

        they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history

        Not break it as much as control it. I doubt they see that as a bad thing. In the olden day it was difficult for people who don't have access to large amounts of capital to publish information to a large audience, and people with large amounts of capital are already a part of the system. With the intarwebz, anyone has that publishing capability, and the US Government has little control over that. This gives them that control.

      • so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up ... out of the woodwork to fix the broken system,

        Check out Buddy Roemer- he's running in the Republican* primary and limiting the contributions he accepts to $100 per human. Brave enough for you?

        Then join Rootstrikers(.org), started by Lawrence Lessig, and read his recently released "Republic Lost" which address this issue with the goal of fixing the problem.

        As for "millions of others", You have a solution now. Grok it and pass it along., or give me a better one.

        (*don't worry- he's not a fanatical old fart who misses the days before toilet paper. He's

        • by Xanny (2500844)

          I'm already in change congress and rootstrikers, and I do vote. The point of my post was more along the lines that the majority of middle class America is complacent in its ignorance of the issues and they don't react as a body to the loss of freedoms because they are glued to reality TV and moral issues between candidates more so than the more technical and unsettling issues like how the US still maintains a larger military force than the rest of the world combined, spends more on military than the rest o

          • we are still a vocal, tiny minority.

            I don't see how that is any excuse to become a cowering, silent minority. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, so if we aren't getting what we want, we need to squeak louder.

      • by sgt scrub (869860)

        And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

        I completely disaggree. Talking about it on the internet works. All the way up to 2000 we didn't know how much congresscritters were getting paid for pushing legislation through or who was paying them. Now, with the internet and sites like slashdot, we hear about who is voting for what and who paid them to vote for that what. We need to continue to talk about what they are doing while we still can. If not, IMHO, the day will come when we will no

        • by Xanny (2500844)

          I'm not saying information being distributed on the internet accomplishes nothing, I just mean the political circle jerk on sd & hn & reddit about how broken and horrible the US political system has become, but you are preaching to the choir in all these places - educated, often technical, engineers, who are at least somewhat active in politics and in the 15 - 35 age bracket. In other words, the biggest voting minority block there is. If the message never reaches older people, or less educated peo

      • by unity100 (970058)

        so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system

        such people attempted to come out of the woodwork recently. you ridiculed them, despised them, called them names, called them out about shit, and then beat them down with police batons. it was called 'ows'.

        im sure at the moment you read the word 'ows', a good many of you immediately lapsed to very reactionary and negative mindsets. let me tell you : it doesnt matter what you feel about what particular aspect of a revolution/change movement - NO revolution/change on the planet is going to be in the way yo

    • by game kid (805301) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:54AM (#38684074) Homepage

      Amending an "IP" "protection" bill is like cleaning the engine cylinders of a bomb-rigged Yugo as it hurtles toward a crowded mall--better to just detonate it before it even makes the parking lot.

      --unless, of course, said mall is filled with mindless zombies instead of people. Perhaps the government of this crowded mall looked at our voting record and thinks we are all mindless zombies. I'm not sure I could blame them then.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by reboot246 (623534)
      It's like polishing a turd. Yeah, it's shiny, but it's still a turd.
  • by mykos (1627575) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:32AM (#38683986)
    What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

    I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:41AM (#38684022)

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

      Capitalism?

    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:41AM (#38684024)

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits. I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

      Capitalism.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:59AM (#38684092) Homepage

      SOPA could be the leverage to get all the other IP stuff passed. They'll take this to the brink then say, "all right, we won't do SOPA". Everybody will be so relieved they'll overlook all the other laws they just slipped through.

      Next time it will be something SOPA plus something that makes SOPA look mild by comparison. We'll get in such a panic over the other one that we'll let SOPA through with a sigh of relief that we "won".

      • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:30AM (#38684196) Homepage

        Next time? they are already crafting SOPA-II

        It's called the OPEN act. and they are in the initial stages. It's exactly as you describe. but nobody is paying attention to it, exactly as they have it planned.

        http://youtu.be/9TpZJA9EIPY [youtu.be] -- On how we got here, and how this fight is not over with. The scumbags in congress have no intention in stopping this behavior.

        • I thought the OPEN act was meant to be an ALTERNATIVE to SOPA.
    • by Solandri (704621) on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:18AM (#38684382)

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

      Evil.

      Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties. Say I have a business transporting furniture. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $200 because they're worth more than $200 to me. You sell the horse and buggy whip to me for $200 because they're worth less than $200 to you. In this way, even though the amount of stuff does not change from the transaction, its value increases. With each transaction, items get moved to the hands of people who are better able to make use of them to improve their productivity. Whereas the horse and buggy whip only cost you $190 worth of productivity to make, in my hands it can generate (say) $310 worth of productivity.

      When a company forms a monopoly or subverts the market with laws like the content industry is trying, they break this mechanism. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $300 because it's worth $310 to me. To you they're only worth $190 because that's what they cost you to make. In functioning capitalism, market forces would drive the price down to about $200. But by subverting the free market with your monopoly and eliminating competition, you're able to drive the price the other way and get it near the maximum I'd be willing to pay. I end up paying an extra $100.

      Furthermore, I should be able to buy a horseless carriage for $250 which will give me $500 worth of productivity. But you've gotten a law passed which bans it from the market. So by being forced to buy the horse and buggy whip, I also lose out on $190 worth of productivity.

      The consequence of all this is that I no longer have an extra $100 to spend on something else productive, and my productivity has been lowered by $190 from where it should be. And you, because the extra $100 you made came too easily, you don't fully appreciate its value and are more likely to waste the extra money you make on silly things like gold plated toilet seats. The economy overall is harmed, the rate of technological progress slows down, recessions become more common, and increases in the standard of living slows down or even regresses.

      It's normal to put your needs ahead of those of the single person you're dealing with in a transaction. People who buy high and sell low don't survive for long, and everyone has a personal obligation to look out for themselves. But putting your needs ahead of all of society by subverting free market forces for personal gain is just plain evil.

      • by cptdondo (59460) on Friday January 13, 2012 @09:27AM (#38684808) Journal

        That sort of backyard capitalism only works when there's relative parity between the parties. In our current "big business is good, regulation is bad, consumer protection is bad" there is no parity.

        A health insurance company doesn't care if they lose you as a customer. They only want you if you are a net profit to them. And because the companies can legally collude and share information, no other company will want you either. So there's no parity.

        There's parity if you buy a soda; you can always buy Coke, or Pepsi, or RC, or the local brand. But the things that are really critical to us as a society have no parity between the parties.

      • by Joce640k (829181) on Friday January 13, 2012 @10:08AM (#38685182) Homepage

        Where's that Heinlein quote...oh, yes, here it is:

        "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
        that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
        public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
        with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
        circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
        supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
        individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
        of history be stopped, or turned back."

        - Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

      • by unity100 (970058)
        stupid. for the reason below :

        Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties

        this is a make-believe, childish understanding of social dynamics. its extremely ignorant of history of this planet and its society too. like a believer of a religion, putting TRUST in something, despite it always happened otherwise.

        the evil of capitalism is not in its transactions or the basic premise of trade. it is in the fact that there is no limit to wealth in capitalism, and wealth breeds wealth, and wealth is ultimately power. there is no way to remedy that in capital

      • You realize that monopolies are consistent with Free Market theory, right? It's evil socialist regulations that stop monopolies from forming.

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      You forgot, "then amend it to totally fuck people over later when nobody is looking".

    • by Pluvius (734915)

      I don't know what they call it in business, but the political term you're looking for is "shifting the Overton window." The window itself is the range of policies that policymakers are willing to accept. Politicians and lobbyists shift the window by espousing radical ideas that few sane people would accept so that when they later present a "compromise position," it appears to be much more acceptable by comparison than it would have if they'd just started with the compromise position to begin with.

      Rob

  • by MollyB (162595) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:48AM (#38684050) Journal

    After reading the earlier Slashdot story, I wrote all three of both our Vermont congressmen and urged them to reconsider support for PIPA and SOPA. The only reply I received was from Sen. Patrick Leahy.

    Here's a snippet from TFA with a relevant notion: contacting your representative can't hurt:

    "[...]However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters."," [Leahy] said.

  • by PSVMOrnot (885854) on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:51AM (#38684060)

    This isn't so much an amendment, as a plan to think about amending it. From the article [techworld.com.au]:

    "...plans to offer an amendment that would require a study of the impact of the ISP provisions in the bill before they are implemented. If the study found negative impacts, it's likely the ISP provision would be killed."

    The above is pretty much all of the article which is not political filibustering, back patting or stating things which won't change (the payment freezing, and search engine stuff).

    TL;DR version: they're thinking about maybe possibly backing down on one point.

    • Quote from the Leahy press release: "As I prepare a managersâ(TM) amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it
      • by Joce640k (829181)

        Dear Leahy,

        You mean the likely effects of the new law weren't actually studied yet...?

        Color me shocked.

        • by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:42AM (#38684498)

          This is why I believe we need limitations on how fast a bill can be voted for.

          Something like 1 day/page should be a good way to either (a) slow the legislature down and give them time to actually read the bills, or (b) make the laws much, much shorter.

          Oh, and no overlapping. No "March 15th is the day for these three bills". One day per page (with predetermined font and page sizes so there's no loophole here) of a bill.

          "Emergency bills" should have a higher threshold of voting such as 4/5 or 5/6 majority. If there's greater than 1/6 opposition then it probably isn't an emergency.

          Oh look, I just stopped a whole buttload of bad laws coming out every year! Now all we have to do is actually get them to follow these rules. Ha.

    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      The translation is:

      "We are going to reduce the opposition to this bill by pretending that later on we will have an honest appraisal before implementing 100% of everything thats in the current bill"
  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:04AM (#38684114)

    The sad reality is that if it took a public outcry for them to realize this was a bad idea then they really have no grasp as to what is going on here at all.

    Congress passes too many ill considered laws without thinking things through properly. I don't need a congress that passes lots of laws all the time if the price is that they won't actually understand what they're passing.

    As much as possible, congress must be comfortable with the idea of taking things slow and not being hasty. Congress should really think about completely rewriting the whole thing from the start with a fresh understanding of what they're actually legislating.

    We don't need grandstanding politicians full of their own self importance pushing on agenda or another. We need sober and mature statesmen that will investigate issues, hear all sides, and THEN craft legislation. Anything that comes expressly from one lobbying group or another will be a creature of that faction against every other.

    And if all sides cannot agree to a final bill... let us all learn to love the deadlock for it is in the deadlock that our freedoms are truly kept safe.

    • The other side of the coin is the sad reality that people seem to need a cattle prod in the arse to wake up. We have a society of sheepel at the moment. When the shit hits the fan because of this, perhaps it will wake people up into realize the one party system we are truly in, and retake government. Of course, this is going to be next to impossible. Sheepel will not change, and the people in power will find round about ways of keeping their interests in mind while ignoring the masses. It would literal
      • Re:No confidence. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Karmashock (2415832) on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:37AM (#38684484)

        People have always been disinterested in continuous political engagement. We don't have the time for it. We have jobs. We have personal and local problems. We simply don't have the attention span or energy to manhandle the political powers that be all the time.

        What is supposed to contain that issue is that the government... at least in the US... isn't supposed to be this powerful. It's been out of control for three generations so this is nothing new. But it's really well beyond anything the people can keep in check.

        It's been said that the worst thing that ever happened to Washington DC was air conditioning. There was a time when it was just too hot and nasty to stay in the city throughout much of the year. Might as well add central heating to that as well. Congress just meets too often, passes too many laws, and doesn't particularly think about any of them very deeply.

        Nearly all legislation should be state or city legislation where as the Federal government should be as minimalistic as possible if only because we can't really control or escape federal excesses as easily as state issues. If a state goes crazy we have 50 others. No critical harm if one of them goes broke or does something crazy. But the federal government is another matter.

        Perhaps I'm showing my ideological stripes here, but I think this would be less of an issue if congress AND the presidency got their wings clipped a bit. They're too eager to involve themselves in our lives and too disinterested with doing their traditional jobs.

        I think the president has more then enough to worry about with the economy and foreign policy. He really doesn't need to concern himself with anything else right now. And as to congress, anything that doesn't fix the budget problem should be sidelined. I don't want to hear ANYTHING from congress that doesn't either increase revenue or reduce spending. No new regulation. No new issues. NOTHING. Just balance the stupid budget.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      The sad reality is that if it took a public outcry for them to realize this was a bad idea then they really have no grasp as to what is going on here at all.

      No, they know exactly what is going on. The have always known this was a "bad idea" with respect to a functioning internet and healthy society. They don't care, it's good for the people who pay their bills, so fuck the rest of us. The public outcry only showed them it's not going to be as easy to get away with as they thought, but they'll figure out

      • congress isn't so uniform. Use congress's factionalism.

        Some republicans and democrats have started opposing it. I remember seeing something about Darrel Issa coming out against it. He's a fairly powerful member... If Bernie Sanders keeps supporting SOPA that will also cause many republicans to reflexively oppose it. They don't really understand the technology. You believe they do but they don't. What they do pay attention to is which way the wind blows. They like opposing things the other party is doing. Th

        • by Hatta (162192)

          They don't really understand the technology. You believe they do but they don't.

          No, I don't think they understand the technology at all. I think that they are aware of their ignorance and and the damage it can cause and don't care.

          And they do listen to voter outcries if it looks like the public ACTUALLY cares.

          Only to the extent that they'll shelve a bill for a while and then resurrect the exact same provisions with a more patriotic acronym.

  • All you need is a couple of midgets, a parrot, a bartender and an Irish nun.

    But this is serious - the need to shut down, and block search engines that link to them. any sites the US DOJ considers puts American jobs at threat. Like fake Gucci, Reebok, Adidas items - that rob sales of companies that employ so many North Americans. And those big movies (made in New Zealand or Australia), that never seem to make a profit (because of the pirates). Jobs, it's just about jobs [insert tasteful joke about dead marketing "genius" here].
    If he could point at foreign websites selling pirate cheese I'd buy the concerned, but senile politician line - but as it is he's the one who appears to have been bought.
    But as several "Vermonters" and the "majority of ISPs" (Cable companies) are "concerned" - he might, maybe, possibly, consider, a bit of a test first (to see if anyone is awake) before pushing through the legislation needed to begin another stupid war. I'm betting that jobs line will get the bill through.

    That anarchic internet was nice while it lasted, but it just isn't enough like television for some "people" (sigh).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:11AM (#38684138)

    ...and let them hang themselves.

    - Increase the length of a copyright to 200 years.
    - Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence, so the MAFIAA can't pick and choose who gets pinged.
    - and make it mandatory to defend your IP in court or lose your rights - similar to trademarks.

    Then see how much the MAFIAA want this fight.

    • by Alsee (515537)

      Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence

      While the minimum penalty for infringement is merely big fines, most copyright infringement is already a criminal offense. For example effectively any P2P copyright infringement is already a felony with up to 1, 3, 5, or even 10 years in prison depending on circumstances. That's right, a FIVE YEAR felony for of having a modest sized music library on P2P, and a TEN YEAR felony for a second offense of having a modest sized music library on P2P. A rather substantial percentage of the united states population,

      • Standard procedure in any corrupt system of law, I imagine. First make the law so strict that almost every person has done something criminal - then, if someone starts making trouble for those in power, it only takes a little digging to find something they have done that they can be jailed for. Avoids all the hastle of having to pay off the police to frame them if they actually are guilty.
      • It's like the zoning and code-enforcement mess in the City of Hialeah, Florida. You could make it a college textbook case study. Basically, the zoning & code-enforcement office took a ~35-year lunch break, and by the time anyone started to really notice or care, they discovered that something like 95% of the single-family homes in the city had at least one *major* building or zoning code violation (mostly, illegal additions built without permits and/or illegal studio apartments the owners rent out for a

    • by TheSpoom (715771)

      They'd pass a law that said that since the government imposed those restrictions, they need to pay for them. Win-win on the side of them and the government (since they're getting "campaign contributions" through passing the bill), big lose on the side of the taxpayer.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:25AM (#38684180) Homepage

    Where it exists.

    I.E. burn it in a trash can.

    I just hope all the fervor over SOPA is translated to every time this thing morphs. as SOPA is already being rewritten and name changed.

    The scumbags in Congress will not stop until they do the bidding of their masters.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:41AM (#38684232) Homepage

    I remain confident that the ISPs -- including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs -- would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest,

    And there's absolutely no conflict of interest between their role as ISPs and their role as content providers here, none whatsoever. They don't hate that fact that people can watch other things than their programming and wouldn't like to turn Internet back into cable TV.

  • by jonwil (467024) on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:49AM (#38684270)

    The bill still allows ISPs, web hosts, social networks, search engines and content providers to be forced to take content down even when the one issuing the take down notice has no ownership or connection to the content. And it still provides no option to challenge the take down.

  • by VJmes (2449518) on Friday January 13, 2012 @07:50AM (#38684274)
    There's a pattern to this. Politicians at the behest of self-interest groups and self-appoint moralists, begin to regulate what was a benign social issue. Uninformed, policy gets drafted by these people which gains traction from these self-interest, righteous minorities and soon thanks to ignorant third-parties the very inaccuracies that are used to draft these policies are perpetuated. The use of loaded words like criminal, scourge & terror helps to convince a mostly oblivious public. Before long the regulation comes into effect and pushes the issue underground, initially it's deemed a success. However as it becomes apparent that the matter is thriving underground, a war is declared, harsher penalties combined with the perpetuation of gross-inaccuracies and lies continue to waste your tax dollars.
    It's history repeating itself, and it's always follows a similar pattern. Though the end result is the same; tax dollars are wasted, usage increases unabated and the constant game of cat and mouse continues because those elected to listen to the people who know best, won't.

    If I went about my job with the same level of ignorance, incompetence and sheer corruption as the supposed leaders of the United States, I'd be out of a job very quickly. If the private sector won't tolerate it, why does capital hill seem to be a breeding ground for these bottom-feeders?
    • by smpoole7 (1467717) on Friday January 13, 2012 @09:11AM (#38684658) Homepage

      Where history is actually repeating itself lies in the fact that bought-out politicians are nothing new. This comment is going to sound like it's off at a tangent, but I'm sharing it to maybe calm some people down. To quote someone I heard a while back, "hate is like a deadly poison. YOU'RE the one drinking it, but you hope the OTHER guy dies!"

      Instead of hopeless or mindless rage, channel that into a determined anger that will actually change things. The biggest aid for that is a sense of perspective.

      I like to read alternate history; a good one is Eric Flint's "Rivers of War" series (currently just two books, but I'm gonna give him a noogie if he doesn't produce #3 pretty soon) for a good look at the political situation right after the US was founded. Even then, there were political parties, deals in back rooms, posturing, money and favors ... and (of course) a disastrous war that made some people rich, others poor.

      A lot was said (admittedly, with some justification) about Cheney and Haliburton during W's term, but go back to WWII. Go watch Little Orphan Annie; her benefactor was called "Daddy Warbucks." That was a common joke back then: it was a guy who got rich selling arms during the war. Go back to the Civil War, and you'll find the same thing: there were some people who got ridiculously wealthy off of that conflict. Even in the Revolutionary war, which is the closest you might come to an "ideological" conflict, there were people who stood to lose or gain a great deal on the outcome, and it determined their actions.

      In times of peace, the same thing happens. As Flint points out, some supported a National Bank for noble reasons, but others supported it simply because they thought it was a path to riches. Those who opposed it were equally divided.

      What I've said, in my usual long-winded way, is that politicians have ALWAYS been corrupt. Don't ever give up trying to Fight The Machine(tm), but don't let rage consume you and don't (worst of all) become demoralized if you think your efforts make no difference.

      Usual disclaimer: just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it. :)

      • Details always matter (except to most Americans; you prove otherwise!)

        While what is going on is similar to the past it is also similar to the fall of Rome and even more generally the fall of every non-conquered democracy. It "rhymes," that is, it is a similar pattern. All democracy falls into despotism by the accumulated incompetence of the people over time. The more successful and distracted the more quickly things are likely to slip bye the public. Its a flaw of human nature to accept a past of only 20-30

  • . . . most Senators just show up to vote once in a while anyway . . .

    . . . the rest of their time they spend out somewhere else . . . um, . . . like doing Senate business . . .

  • They may be actually waking up, or maybe someone showed them the article [techdirt.com] on Techdirt that seems to indicate a flaw in the plan. The author of the Techdirt article believes that since SOPA/PIPA are targeted at foreign sites and the registrars for .com and org are US companies, SOPA/PIPA are actually not applicable. It may be that the desired "amendment" is to try and patch this loophole.
  • Wow, normally I won't complain, but the spelling here is getting awful. Dear editors, please consider using some kind of software like After The Deadline to reduce this again.

    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      Don't bother. Editors are right up there with yetis, the loch ness monstor, and the y2k bug.

      We've all heard of them but I've never seen any. At least we have foot prints and blurry photographs to give credit to some of the above, but here on slashdot I don't think we've ever seen any editing.

      Maybe we can hope for fairies to correct the spelling in submissions.

  • This law will make it a lot harder for the FBI to fight online white collar crime and the FBI actually has a lot of its own lobbyists on capitol hill. I can't believe that they are going along with this.

  • Something called "Protect IP" can never be good, because "IP" is a monstrous scam that ought to be abolished for the good of all mankind.

  • Leahy defended the bill, saying the ISP provisions were developed in consultation with major service providers. Several ISPs support the bill, he said in comments on Vermont Public Radio. However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters," he said.

    I want a list of the ISPs that were consulted. That way I can improve the accuracy of my list of ISPs that are incompetent about their technology. But something tells me they didn't actually do this consultation with the engineering people that actually understand what is going on.

    Of course, this is all aside from the fact that the content industry continues to pimp Congress to whittle away people's rights and give government support to businesses using a fundamentally flawed business model.

  • by LtGordon (1421725) on Friday January 13, 2012 @11:48AM (#38686498)
    May I suggest an amendment?
    Prefix the bill with: /*
    Postfix the bill with: */

    Because it looks prettier that way ... yeah, that's why.
  • by unity100 (970058) on Friday January 13, 2012 @11:54AM (#38686632) Homepage Journal
    The top 5% of society is taking 72% of everything.

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html [ucsc.edu]

    of course, that is an optimistic statistic. since, the bulk of the wealth at the top is undetectable in offshore banks, swiss banks, various fund schemes etc. if you count this unaccounted for wealth in, it really goes towards 1% owning near 90% or more. (the total wealth in swiss banks is assumed to be 7 times or so the value of everything - goods, services, land, everything - in the world, so go figure.).

    now, see, the 1% people on the top, want to keep taking such 70-90% of everything. and the whole story behind laws like this, is that. that is a bigger share of the economy than biggest dukes had in medieval times.

    so life, is 90% more expensive because this 1% segment gets 90% out of the economy and everyone has to work to generate that extra 90%, and give it to them through the system. imagine how life would be, if everything was 90% cheaper ... or 90% more abundant ...

    so, instead of thinking this like 'some law bought by lobby interests', think it as like 'feudal lords trying to keep their hold on peasantry' -> for this is exactly what it is.

    doing this, would break various mental conditionings that were built into your brain through the education and media systems and through conditioning of society at large. and, you would be free to seek any alternatives. the least benefit would be that you would be able to analyze the situation objectively, instead of instinctively skipping by the fact that someone in this society is taking 90% of every effort you spare, away from you through the economy - not even taxes. taxes are calculated after that 90% is taken away from you.

    ( for the naive out there - NO, if you are running your own business, this does not change - you are still spending on a lot of costs to run your business or your life, and ANY cost you spend out of your pocket - or opportunity costs - has that 90% drain on them - for, you cant exist outside economy while being in it, even if you work for yourself )
  • by wytcld (179112) on Friday January 13, 2012 @12:13PM (#38686986) Homepage

    "I remain confident that the ISPs -- including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs -- would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest," Leahy said.

    So this is about Comcast/NBC Universal as the largest "ISP" in the "largest association of ISPs"? Fuck that. Not only is their main business content rather than service, but they're a last-mile provider, in which capacity they'd be far less affected by the onerous requirements of this bill than backbone providers or hosting providers.

    What this really shows is that service providers should not be allowed to have a business interest in content. Period. It corrupts their perspective. And it allows them to get big enough to corrupt the perspective of paid-for representatives.

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...