Worst Internet Law Ever

[Pedersen]

I've made this same post on CS, and asked the mods to hide it unless/until they approve. I'm also posting here, since I have a feeling some of you will disagree with me. Have at it then.

What would it allow to happen? If you make a site that allows a user to post *anything*, no matter how small, and some user decides to post a link to a random youtube video which includes copyrighted music in the background, *your* site could be shut down.

This could even shut down Facebook, Google+, and Twitter. Possibly going so far as to shut down LinkedIn, too. Forums, Blogs, anything where any user is allowed to post content, can be completely shut down without viable recourse for the person being shut down.

How about Google groups, too? Those can be killed. Once even a link to copyrighted content appears, a copyright holder can demand the shut down of the site that has the link.

I am astounded. This might be the single worst piece of legislation I've ever even heard as regards copyright and the internet.

Here's a link to a better writeup, and includes some action points. Please, people, take them. Otherwise, the internet as we know it will be dead in this country, and the economic issues that we have right now are going to be called the good old days within a year.

Now, why am I posting it here on CS? This law mandates the creation of internet blacklists. If a user on this site posts a link to a youtube video that has copyrighted music in it, then the copyright holder can get CS added to the blacklist and prevent people in the US from being able to access the site.

ETA: Here's a link about still more of the problems. This bill is bad. Really really bad. http://www.itworld.com/security/2246...iticisms-myths

[Panacea]

Yeah, I got a notice from Free Press on this, and sent an email off to my reps in Congress telling them what a boner this law is.

The media companies will stop at nothing to control all content. They want no content out there that they don't "create", forgetting they actually create very little.

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at how we've eviscerated the copyright protections in the Constitution.

[HYHYBT]

DMCA is already too broad; is there *anything* good that could come from this passing?

[Andara Bledin]

The thing here is that it will turn around to bite pretty much every media company, too.

I can't see anyone possibly agreeing that this is a good idea.

I imagine the first thing that would happen is that people would cross post content from competing providers to get all of the providers shut down en mass until they figure out that this idea was too stupid to live and have it put out of its misery.

Article @ Ars Technica

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Having actually read the law it will do none of those things.

If a cop sees you cross street against a red light but there is no traffic around chances are unless he is a Paladin he will let you get away with breaking the law.

You know you broke the law but since you did so in a way that would cause more trouble to ticket you for than to just let it go it gets overlooked.

The very first part of the bill is a protection that disallows it from being used to violate the first amendment or in fact journalism rights.

Nor does it repeal the Fair Use Act. What it does do is allow service providers and online financial institutions like Pay Pal to distance themselves and deny service to websites who are in part or whole dedicated to the distribution of illegal downloading, and/or other illegal activities.

For example YouTube probably won't be shut done unless they suddenly stopped taking down the videos people post of whole episodes.

Nor does it actually add to copyright law. The only thing the law does is create another way to enforce copyright law. Oh and harm has to be proven. They can't just say, "Well this person made a mix cd we want them shut down" They have to prove it hurts record sales.

All in all it's pretty much just a law to allow better enforcement of already existing laws and it's actually against the proposed law to just shut down a blog that you don't like.

As the law states, "Must be proven that website in whole or in part is dedicated to disseminating infringing material"

Basically unless CS starts a section of the website dedicated to trafficking in pirated video it would be illegal for any other company to do anything that would cause harm to CS.

A third party posting a link to something copyrighted does not constitute dedicating part of your resources to pirated material.

[Rageaholic]

WTF?!

As if it wasn't already easy enough for people to file stupid lawsuits. This is just unnecessary and gives corporations even more power against the little guy.

Fuck corporate America!!!

[Dreamstalker]

Sony Pictures has been after Ghostbusters fansites on and off for a while, claiming copyright infringement.

The largest site gathers all known info in one place (more or less; if the site owner doesn't have access to it or otherwise doesn't want to duplicate it, then a legal link is posted). Appropriate disclaimers, credits etc are on the site design. There's a lot of 'unofficial' derivative content on the forums: speculation, new designs, fan work, etc.

Once in a blue moon someone will post a link that's found to be illegal (rip/torrent/etc) and it's taken down fairly quickly, but for a short time does exist, so can possibly be cached. Would that be considered 'hosting illegal material' if it turns up or only if it can be proven that an admin did nothing?

The assorted fan franchises have been accused of 'infringement' (charity fundraisers in costume). The creator (who I would think ultimately has the final say on what is infringing or not) has repeatedly said leave the fans and fansites alone, the studio every so often thinks otherwise. So far, it's been reined in but I suspect they are just waiting for another reason to go after something that doesn't make them money.

[Andara Bledin]

Basically unless CS starts a section of the website dedicated to trafficking in pirated video it would be illegal for any other company to do anything that would cause harm to CS.

CS has a section dedicated to outside links; that, alone, could get them in deep shit if this law goes through. Were, they, you know, actually hosted in the US. But, since it's not, it's just useful as an example.

However, if this law goes into effect unaltered, Facebook is gutted. So is most of MySpace. As is (as Dreamstalker shows) every fansite that isn't appreciated by the IP holder. This law does an end run around fair use by requiring third parties that have no stake in a piece of content's existence to react, which is unfair.

The chilling effect this will have, not to mention the gutting of massive sections of actual content by those whose only connection is that the pages in question have a "donation" link to PayPal, for example, is absolutely unacceptable.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

CS has a section dedicated to outside links; that, alone, could get them in deep shit if this law goes through. Were, they, you know, actually hosted in the US. But, since it's not, it's just useful as an example.

I think there was something recently where the US authorities pointed out they could go for a UK site through ICNAN (spelling? the naming group overseeing it) and thus got jurisdiction that way.

Watching with interest.

Rapscallion

[Rageaholic]

I swear if any of my favorite sites get shut down because of this stupid law, I will go balistic!

[Andara Bledin]

If this law goes into effect, pretty much any site that allows users to post is likely to go dark until it's defeated. Unless they choose to be one of the sites fighting to kill it like the abomination it is.

^-.-^

[mikoyan29]

Sony Pictures has been after Ghostbusters fansites on and off for a while, claiming copyright infringement.

The largest site gathers all known info in one place (more or less; if the site owner doesn't have access to it or otherwise doesn't want to duplicate it, then a legal link is posted). Appropriate disclaimers, credits etc are on the site design. There's a lot of 'unofficial' derivative content on the forums: speculation, new designs, fan work, etc.

Once in a blue moon someone will post a link that's found to be illegal (rip/torrent/etc) and it's taken down fairly quickly, but for a short time does exist, so can possibly be cached. Would that be considered 'hosting illegal material' if it turns up or only if it can be proven that an admin did nothing?

The assorted fan franchises have been accused of 'infringement' (charity fundraisers in costume). The creator (who I would think ultimately has the final say on what is infringing or not) has repeatedly said leave the fans and fansites alone, the studio every so often thinks otherwise. So far, it's been reined in but I suspect they are just waiting for another reason to go after something that doesn't make them money.

I never understand this attitude from these companies. You would think they would welcome any sort of publicity especially given that Ghostbusters is what over 20 years old now? I can understand them going after illegal downloads of the movies but not fan created stuff. But then again, I guess it's like Disney going after every version of Mickey copies that they don't like.

[Andara Bledin]

Other sites that this bill will destroy include pretty much every single art site on the Internet except those that are run by the artists themselves, and only for those artists that don't have detractors willing to lie to get their sites taken down.

After all, the way this law is written, someone can claim to be a content creator, file a formal complaint with some hosting site or domain registrar that the site contains some of their work, and that unrelated party will have to take it down or risk facing prosecution. All of the registrars and hosts will be flooded with these things pretty much from the moment it goes live, and rather than actually check the merits of every single one, they're more likely to just shut things down to protect their own asses. They won't have any other choice.

^-.-^

[Dreamstalker]

I never understand this attitude from these companies. You would think they would welcome any sort of publicity especially given that Ghostbusters is what over 20 years old now?

I don't think they're going after the fan creations specifically (or maybe they are, if so I haven't heard about it); the thorn in their paw seems to be "we didn't approve this/it's not making us money!" (well a higher power than you does approve, so there). Or something. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.

[Rapscallion]

I suspect this will have a huge effect on other things - avatars and smilies.

Rapscallion