January 9, 2012 at 8:59 am
Just saw this
bteraberry (1/4/2012)
Anyone against SOPA is either making money by stealing others intellectual property or they are not familiar with what the proposed legislation actually say or both.
I disagree. I am against SOPA for a few reasons. It is a blunt instrument that doesn't discriminate against proper v improper content on a site. It is blocking an entire domain when there may be a single infraction.
In theory it's aimed at sites that infringe, but in practical terms, a site like this one that is in the UK (i.e. foreign site) and has someone post copyrighted material in the forums (it happens, we remove it all the time), could be blocked by a writ from an Apress/Manning/Sybex, etc.
Not all infringing content is from large content farms that are violating copyright.
It also allows for the bypass of a court order, which is fundamentally wrong. We can't be sure courts will rule fairly, but we definitely can be sure corporations will not.
Google is happy that people are so up in arms about SOPA. They make tons of money off of illegal enterprises.
Google has boycotted SOPA. They do benefit from these sites, though I think (hope?) they are trying to remedy the copyright violations.
For the record, as an author and creative person, I fully support copyright. However I support the original 14 + 14 yrs for copyright. Creating content depends on other content, either using it or being inspired. You ought to profit from it, but it's not a lottery for a person or company and shouldn't be there for you to live off for your entire life.
Plus, if you can't create more within 28 years to earn more money, then too bad. We want to protect the creative people, not the lucky guy that threw poop on a wall once and managed to get people to buy it.
January 9, 2012 at 9:02 am
Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.
Everything is less common than we think. The media distorts things because we think it's important because it's shown. Or it's common. In reality it might be a very small percentage of the actual cases of xxx
January 9, 2012 at 9:31 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)
. . . For the record, as an author and creative person, I fully support copyright. However I support the original 14 + 14 yrs for copyright. Creating content depends on other content, either using it or being inspired. You ought to profit from it, but it's not a lottery for a person or company and shouldn't be there for you to live off for your entire life. . . .
Or even worse, not you but your remote descendants. If the current copyright law applied in the 1800's, Dickens's novels would have gone to public domain in 2011. In 2010, royalties would have gone to his grand-grand-grand-grandchildren who never met one of his grandchildren in person.
January 9, 2012 at 11:59 am
I would like to suggest that anyone interested in leaning more about SOPA and it's potential effects should read Mike Masnick at techdirt.com.
January 9, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)
It also allows for the bypass of a court order...
I don't believe that's true.... here's a quote from pages 13 and 14 of the bill...
19 (c) ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS.—
20 (1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of
21 the Attorney General, with prior approval of the
22 court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pur
23 suant to this section on similarly situated entities
24 within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof
25 of service shall be filed with the court.
1 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being
2 served with a copy of an order pursuant to this sub
3 section, the following shall apply:
4 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—
5 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider
6 shall take technically feasible and reason
7 able measures designed to prevent access
8 by its subscribers located within the
9 United States to the foreign infringing site
10 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the
11 order, including measures designed to pre
12 vent the domain name of the foreign in
13 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re
14 solving to that domain name’s Internet
15 Protocol address. Such actions shall be
16 taken as expeditiously as possible, but in
17 any case within 5 days after being served
18 with a copy of the order, or within such
19 time as the court may order.
The highlighting is mine, of course, but it sure does sound like a court order is involved there.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (1/8/2012)
Jeff Moden (1/7/2012)
Michael Valentine Jones (1/7/2012)
Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money.Although I certainly agree that there will always be abuses by people in positions of authority, I'd really like to see the statistics for how "common" that really is and how often non-drug activity is actually involved. Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.
I think if you really look into it, you will see it is a whole lot more common than you think. Take a look at some of the links I posted. There are actually many worse cases than these.
The real problem is that because police departments are allowed to keep the money, they have a huge financial incentive to do this. Even when the state law is much more restrictive, they can get around it by inviting the federal government to make the seizure, and then the feds kick up to 80% of the money back to local police.
Plenty more info here:
http://www.fear.org/FEARintro.html
Police in this town of 1,046 people siezed more than $3,000,000 in property in 3 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal
"Police seizures scandal
Tenaha has the dubious distinction of allegedly utilizing a state forfeiture regulation to seize property from unsuspecting motorists to raise revenue for the local police. A Houston Chronicle article detailed the allegations that led Texas State Senator John Whitmire to declare, "The idea that people lose their property but are never charged [with a criminal offense] and never get it back, that's theft as far as I'm concerned." Law enforcement authorities in Tenaha seized property from at least 150 motorists between 2006 and 2008, totaling more than $3 million USD.[3] In most of the cases where the seizures were improper, the victims were African-American or Latino.[3][6]
The allegations are that the town has used its proceeds to build a new police station, reward high revenue generating officers personally,[3] and buy a second police car.[7]
Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She's still hoping for the return of what she calls her life savings.[8] In another instance, a man was taken to the local prison and directed to surrender thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, then released without charges.
The town's District Attorney, Lynda Russell, has been accused of corruption for allegedly making commission payments to one of the arresting officers and local clubs, when Texas law explicitly states that forfeited money can only be used "for official purposes".[9]
In July 2008, 10 plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against Tenaha and Shelby county officials, alleging that police officers had stopped them without cause and unjustly seized their property. The plaintiffs allege that officers threatened them with criminal prosecution if they did not cooperate. Officials named in the suit included Tenaha mayor George Bowers, deputy city marshal Barry Washington and Shelby County district attorney Lynda Kay Russell.[10]
In March 2009, the plaintiff's attorney Timothy Garrigan announced that he would seek class-action status for the lawsuit, citing a large number of similar reports from other alleged victims..."
I just read the PDF, including the assessment of many of the states I've lived in or been through, at the following link you indirectly provided...
http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf
On that subject, I humbly submit that I stand corrected. :blush: Thanks for the kind correction, Michael.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 9, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)
It also allows for the bypass of a court order...I don't believe that's true.... here's a quote from pages 13 and 14 of the bill...
19 (c) ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS.—
20 (1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of
21 the Attorney General, with prior approval of the
22 court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pur
23 suant to this section on similarly situated entities
24 within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof
25 of service shall be filed with the court.
1 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being
2 served with a copy of an order pursuant to this sub
3 section, the following shall apply:
4 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—
5 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider
6 shall take technically feasible and reason
7 able measures designed to prevent access
8 by its subscribers located within the
9 United States to the foreign infringing site
10 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the
11 order, including measures designed to pre
12 vent the domain name of the foreign in
13 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re
14 solving to that domain name’s Internet
15 Protocol address. Such actions shall be
16 taken as expeditiously as possible, but in
17 any case within 5 days after being served
18 with a copy of the order, or within such
19 time as the court may order.
The highlighting is mine, of course, but it sure does sound like a court order is involved there.
Jeff, I am not a lawyer, but IMO the devil is in SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
Meaning, government is being given a card blanche to strong-muscle service providers to do govt's bidding, guaranteening immunity. Say you are a service provider and you get a phone call from say attorney general's office suggesting that you take a site out. If you do, quote Section 104 and you are off the hook. If you don't, you will get audited twice a year.
No court order needed.
January 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Revenant (1/9/2012)
Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)
It also allows for the bypass of a court order...I don't believe that's true.... here's a quote from pages 13 and 14 of the bill...
19 (c) ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS.—
20 (1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of
21 the Attorney General, with prior approval of the
22 court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pur
23 suant to this section on similarly situated entities
24 within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof
25 of service shall be filed with the court.
1 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being
2 served with a copy of an order pursuant to this sub
3 section, the following shall apply:
4 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—
5 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider
6 shall take technically feasible and reason
7 able measures designed to prevent access
8 by its subscribers located within the
9 United States to the foreign infringing site
10 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the
11 order, including measures designed to pre
12 vent the domain name of the foreign in
13 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re
14 solving to that domain name’s Internet
15 Protocol address. Such actions shall be
16 taken as expeditiously as possible, but in
17 any case within 5 days after being served
18 with a copy of the order, or within such
19 time as the court may order.
The highlighting is mine, of course, but it sure does sound like a court order is involved there.
Jeff, I am not a lawyer, but IMO the devil is in SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
Meaning, government is being given a card blanche to strong-muscle service providers to do govt's bidding, guaranteening immunity. Say you are a service provider and you get a phone call from say attorney general's office suggesting that you take a site out. If you do, quote Section 104 and you are off the hook. If you don't, you will get audited twice a year.
No court order needed.
Gosh, I have to disagree. While it's true that section 104 looks like card blanche privs by itself, all of the sections of the bill form a "single" law. Section 104 doesn't exclude the requirement for the court orders stated in Section 103.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 9, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Speaking of laws... I wonder why we need so many. Weren't the first 10 sufficient?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 10, 2012 at 7:57 am
I'd have to dig around, and it's hard to even know what the current version of the bill might change, but in one of the revisions there was a place the Attorney General, a political appointee, could take action with an ISP without a court order.
Perhaps that has been removed from the bill at this point.
January 10, 2012 at 9:18 am
Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)
Speaking of laws... I wonder why we need so many. Weren't the first 10 sufficient?
There were 15, according to Mel Brooks, and the Congress apparently has been trying to make up for those five that were dropped, but they cannot get it right.
January 10, 2012 at 9:21 am
Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)
. . . While it's true that section 104 looks like card blanche privs by itself, all of the sections of the bill form a "single" law. Section 104 doesn't exclude the requirement for the court orders stated in Section 103.
I does -- it EITHER a court order or a voluntary action, "voluntary" implying action on provider's own, without an order, for which the provider gets immunity.
As I said, I am not a lawyer, so I will ask one how she would read it.
January 10, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/10/2012)
I'd have to dig around, and it's hard to even know what the current version of the bill might change, but in one of the revisions...
That's one of the best points made yet. 🙂 Does anyone happen to have a link to the latest copy of the bill?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Jeff Moden (1/10/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/10/2012)
I'd have to dig around, and it's hard to even know what the current version of the bill might change, but in one of the revisions...That's one of the best points made yet. 🙂 Does anyone happen to have a link to the latest copy of the bill?
I looked around, but there's so much nonsense out there, that at this time I was struggling to get through the clutter. There's this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3261:
But current could be changed tomorrow as amendments are added. Or it could have changed and not yet publicly posted.
Here only 1% of the people seeing it support it, but I'm not sure that's a good poll. I would like to see something more like this and have a way to solicit opinions and get some summary every day: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show
January 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Bill # is S.968
Put it into the box for 'THOMAS' and it will bring you to a non-pasteable link.
The final link is here for the pdf as of this date:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 55 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply