Time Magazine Confirms What I said about Dems about to pass Massive Internet Censorship Act

[Leopolds Ghost]

Which would essentially put most of the art on YouTube, etc. (and DU's breaking news videos) out of business and delete millions of fan created videos, political videos, and art and blacklist (impose a federal government filter) the sites they are hosted on, preventing anyone within the Continental US from accessing those sites.

But some ponies on DU just won't listen!...

http://techland.time.com/2011/11/17/sopa-wont-stop-online-piracy-would-censor-everyone-else/?iid=tl-article-mostpop1

There’s a disturbing bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill right now called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. It’s purportedly designed to thwart music and movie piracy by empowering copyright holders to isolate and shut down websites or online services found with infringing content. SOPA is the House version of the bill, introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), and there’s another in the Senate called the Protect IP Act, introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Hearings on SOPA began Wednesday, and the chances it’ll pass are excellent, because it’s backed by powerful business lobbies and has bipartisan majority support in both the House and Senate. If it does pass, the only thing that could shut it down would be a veto by President Obama.

In short, SOPA, if passed, would allow the U.S. government to blacklist any website found to have infringing material, inhibiting access to said sites using DNS filtering techniques similar to those employed by China and Iran. What’s “infringing material”? Anything deemed in violation of copyright, say a few posts by users in a web forum or on a social network—even links sent in email. What’s more, a website or Internet communication medium’s owners would be held liable for any infringing content, and the government would be empowered to cut off revenue to those sites’ owners and force search engines to block them, too.

What’s more, Yahoo in October exited the business trade group that supports the bill, and according to the Washington Post, Google and the Consumer Electronics Association are threatening to do so as well.

MORE: Verisign Seeks Authority to Shut Down Websites Without Court Orders

What Time doesn't mention in its article on the subject is that this bill would allow the federal government to censor sites containing ordinary user content -- i.e. "fair use" -- a concept some DUers appear to be unfamiliar with, if previous threads on the subject are any indication.

I.e. the federal government and site owners would be empowered to censor or demand payment from users for submitting videos of themselves singing a cover song, posting a clip or screencap or art based on a derivative work -- 99% of fan created art on the web.

It would also introduce what TIME (the most conservative of the major newsweeklies) calls "China and Iran" style Internet filtering nationwide -- the sort of thing DUers pressured Google to leave China over.

Yet when I posted a thread on this last week, I was accused of overstatement and claims the bill was dead, and/or had nothing to do with Protect IP]. Nonsense! PROTECT IP Act is the SENATE version. SOPA is the HOUSE version. People saying they didn't see how the two were related, or how it would affect anyone, your argument was invalid!

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. K&R

[savalez]

35. a REPUBLICAN introduced this bill

Lamar Smith is a Republican and he introduced this bill

Just wanted to make that clear since the title solely blames Dems and gives Pubs a free pass (as usual).

Anyway, yeah get involved here:

https://donate.mozilla.org/page/s/SOPA?source=snippet


SOPA info : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act




(edited to fix link)

[judesedit]

Exactly. And isn't it funny. The repugs have blocked everything.How, all of a sudden, do dems rule?

There are many GOP thugs that have tried to destroy this site with their bs propaganda. They are too stupid to learn anything. And too greedy to stop what they're doing. Pathetic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. I've been here for 7 years. GOP has supported this bill all along. What's new is Dems on board.

How many Dems? Well, most of them in the Senate, apparently.

[Leopolds Ghost]

109. *** UPDATE *** americancensorship.org wants you to press button to call your Senator today

Just go to http://americancensorship.org/ and enter your phone and zip code
(e-mail address not necessary) and they will connect you IMMEDIATELY to your Senator.

(Don't make the mistake I did of signing up late at night, they automatically call)

When americancensorship.org calls, the four key talking points they mention in the message are:

1. The bill will do nothing to stop piracy on the Internet. People looking for
pirated material will still be able to find it. The bill does not target any actual piracy,
only copyright claims by third parties on potentially fair-use material hosted on legal websites.

2. The bill would endanger many sites on the web by making them liable for what users post
and subject to shut-down at the request of a copyright owner.

3. The bill is a jobs killer. Many major sites that today employ thousands could never
have started under the Protect IP Act.

4. The bill gives aid and comfort to authoritarian regimes that wish to censor the Internet
using nationwide filtering like in China. If America does so, they will encourage most
nations to embrace censorship using DNS filtering techniques that America previously opposed.

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. I posted a new thread for calling your Senator:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2402879

[bbgrunt]

52. Leahy (D) introduced the senate version.

[Ken Burch]

53. Leahy? WTF? Why would HE want to censor the internet?

I thought Leahy was on our side. And he doesn't even NEED corporate money to get re-elected.

[Odin2005]

102. There are only 2 congresspeople who are on our side.

Sanders and Kucinich.

[kenny blankenship]

108. Democrats are ALSO in the pocket of Hollywood.

Maybe some folks thought Big Phrma and insurance co.s and wallst had of 100% of the party between them - but there are others who own a worthwhile chunk of the donkey's ass as well. Big Media aka Hollywood are another player.

[Art_from_Ark]

99. It was introduced in the Senate by Patrick Leahy

who is supposed to be a Democrat.

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. Just to clarify, my OP is not an attack on Dems.

Just being clear-headed here. What are our chances of stopping this bill if no party-active Dems oppose it?

[PoliticAverse]

2. Imagine if Righthaven could have blackholed DU. n/t

[Fumesucker]

3. They are trying to nip the 99% peaceful revolution in the bud..

They are remarkably out of touch..

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Two words: proxy server

Two more words: SSH tunnel

http://www.aplusproxy.com/ssh/index.php

Subvert bad law.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. That won't help the major websites where most valid fair-use content is hosted

Youtube, fan-sites, etc.

I don't think the technology even exists to spider Youtube and download all the fan-created videos before this bill passes, not unless Anonymous organized a campaign to get individual users to archive "fair use" content on the web.

Of course, if Youtube were built on a distributed peer-hosting model (with the same content guidelines as it has now) it'd be easier to save. As it is, this bill would be the death of Youtube financially as well as in terms of content.

[Pharaoh]

60. Could'nt you tube just create a new site

hosted offshore, called screwyoutube, and link multiple servers like Wiki did?

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. Ideal thing would be to have Youtube keep its current guidelines and host videos on user space

Remotely served from regional flash host providers, like broadcast channels, under the common carrier policy.

This would also allow people to configure their flash the way they want.

Unfortunately Google is too monopolistic and is moving in the opposite direction, towards standardizing all their products under a central database (distributed but all owned by Google) with a universal red-and-black color scheme and forcing their customers to adapt.

Say hello to the MPC.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. The irony is, this bill would be the equivalent of the Nuremburg book-burnings for fair use content.

If all those fan videos, clips, Lets-play videos, alternate streams of major news sites, screencaps, etc. were made out of paper, placed in a pile and burned.

But it would do NOTHING to deter actual piracy, most of which is peer-to-peer or hosted on underground websites anyway, and whose content is NOT in danger of being erased from existence since it is the ORIGINAL WORK.

But all the derivative works which are legal under 200 years of US law will be placed in a virtual pyre and burned, on the copyright-holder's say-so, and the websites that hosted will be taken down and subjected to Chinese-style monitoring and site-wide censorship if they refuse to do so.

You'll get a screen that says

451 Error -- This website is inaccessible in your country due to violation of the PROTECT IP Act.

That will apply to any website hosting, say, a parody video using a short clip of The Simpsons -- all of which have been taken down by Fox using legal sanctions despite being patently fair use under US Law dating back 200 years -- or a website mirroring ABC News Footage of a political protest without the express written consent of ABC, etc. You can see where this is going.

[Pharaoh]

61. I would think any artist that would do that

would be seriously fucking himself/herself?

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. Unfortunately the copyright holder is the producers/distributors

That's the problem with the music and book and other publishing industry in the US, why most of the creative output is being done on the sidelines.

[AverageJoe90]

104. Again, Mussolini & Hitler would have LOVED this legislation.

It's just another fascist wet dream come true........

On the other hand, let's give a BIG hand to Ron Wyden, the Democrat Senator from Oregon, who is valiantly opposing this POS 'legislation'.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. According to americancensorship.org

I should mention that according to http://americancensorship.org -- one of the bill's main opponents,

The bill would only apply to copyrighted works valued at $2500 or more. So ordinary members of the
99% would not be able to go to, say, ASCAP / BMI and get a website shut down for posting a pirated
copy of a song or T-shirt made by an artist on DU.

BTW, there is real life precedent for this. ASCAP and BMI already have the power to sue public venues including small restaurants, coffee shops, and community centers that do not pay them steep membership royalties -- a legalized extortion racket -- in real life -- for performance of cover songs, even if the only music performed on the premises is is folk songs or the artists' own work. The legal argument is that said folk singers also benefit from ASCAP and BMI as artists, even though 90% of the money goes to the record companies (from folk venues and restaurants!) and the remaining 10% is divvied up among top artists on the basis of sales (meaning you pay Justin Bieber a percentage every time you go to your local bar / night spot to hear a local band play.)

They will set up a similar system to take down fair use content across the web and require you to pay to submit it on a studio-affiliated content server such as Hulu.com or go.com, enabling the producers to control fan content.

[WinkyDink]

6. So much easier when all is in a "cloud."

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Yeah that's what makes me nervous about cloud computing

It's all about making the contents of your desktop the property of the web host, just like the software is nominally the property of the manufacturer and all you're purchasing is a license (meaning they can install upgrades to sabotage your old software if they want you to buy new software, etc.)

Heck, did you know Google's business model for webmail is that they archive your e-mails and check for keywords and then serve you ads related to keywords in your e-mails? Can you imagine what people would say if the Post Office read your mail?

[Remember Me]

27. The Google ads here at DU are clearly based on my preferences

or at least recent Google searches, which may or may NOT be preferences.

[MessiahRp]

54. They don't technically read your email.

An algorithm parses for words not context. It's not someone in a back room reading your shit. Let's not try to pretend that we need to get hysterical about Google Adwords.

I know there's a big brother complex out there where we're paranoid and shit after what the telecoms and Bush pulled off together, there's a reason to be scared, but Google is usually on the front lines fighting censorship. The keywords they parse for are in their email client. Don't like getting ads based off the keywords, don't use Gmail.

Again, it's not like some dude is reading it somewhere. It's all in the server backend generating. If you're concerned about that then you're fucked. Damn near every website runs off tracking cookies now... most won't let you enter without them. And what do you think search engines are doing when you enter things there? Yes they're doing a direct search but they're searching the keywords to show advertising. Google's ENTIRE business model lives and dies off of those ads. Consider it a tradeoff. When people pay to place those ads, Google can go out and create Google Maps, Places and Earth for free. They can create Google Plus and buy Zagat out to come up with a better reviews source than Yelp or create their own flight/trip planner that's free. Or buy blogger.com and keep that free. Or buy YouTube and keep that free. Or Google Docs or any of a million different apps they provide that creates value in your daily life.

How about Droid? It's so open to developers that it makes the beloved censorship kings at Apple look like Nazi Germany.

Yet we fret about Google.

Let's fret about the companies that actually are the ones that have shown nefarious reasons for going after your data and you. And let's crush this bill... introduced by a Republican but clearly supported by the same elderly, stale, rich Democrats that fuck over the younger generations constantly when they side with the RIAA and MPAA on every other bill because they have ZERO understanding of technology.

[WildNovember]

75. No, but I think it means they *can* read it if they find a trigger keyword.

I don't think there are any *good* IT companies. They're all into spywork.

[MessiahRp]

76. Yep. All into spywork, All conspiring against us.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Google-refuses-U-S-demand-for-search-data-1193298.php

Oh. Well there goes that.

[WildNovember]

80. They won't release info for this inquiry means they don't spy on people?

Not sure how that follows.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Google-Working-on-Agreement-with-National-Security-Agency-jw-83583137.html


I repeat, all the IT companies have the capacity to spy on people.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. If you're downreccing this, Care to comment?

BTW, if this were a GOP sponsored bill then we could talk about whether it is possible to stop it, or whether Obama would be willing to veto a GOP bill. However, It's sponsored by Dems in the House and Senate, with bipartisan support from the business wing of the GOP.

[struggle4progress]

13. Sure. I don't generally think Time is worth a bucket of warm spit: the publication has, since its

founding, specialized in bullshizz reporting with a hidden agenda

I link the Committee report downthread

According to the Committee report, AFL-CIO supports the bill

I can guess why Google might dislike the bill. But, again according to the Committee report, Google declined an explicitly offered opportunity to testify before the Committee regarding the bill

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. Google wants to downsize Youtube so thats hardly surprising. Whats surprising is that Dem'd want to.

But I guess I should not be surprised at anything most people in this country claim to do any more.

If the AFL-CIO (which has nothing to do with the subject matter) supports it, that's good enough for us, I guess.

All the fan videos and so forth on Youtube are a money loser for Google. They would be happy to shut it down.

Really sad what a frog in the pot most people in this country have become.

So AFL-CIO supports China and Iran style filtering of the Net in the enforcement of
(bogus, in the case of fair-use) copyright claims?

How come you didn't support Google when China did it?

[MessiahRp]

82. LMAO you couldn't be any more wrong.

And believe me when I say I am inside the situation enough to know. Not happening. They have no intention of downsizing YouTube. NONE.

Rp

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. Downsize free content I mean. So you are inside the situation on this bill? Do you support it?

Youtube loses money hosting fan-created content. Lots of money. I was following the discussion of this on Google's discussion boards when they first started making changes to Youtube in an effort to stop losing money.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Bump for comment n/t

[struggle4progress]

12. Sen Leahy's S. 968 was reported by Leahy from Judiciary, with an amendment in the nature of a

substitute, and placed as #70 on the Senate calendar on 26 May. The Committee's 22 July report 112-39 (pdf) can be obtained from gpo or from gpo via Thomas:

... The Committee bill, as reported, authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a foreign registered domain name that accesses an Internet site that is ‘‘dedicated to infringing activities,’’ or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a cease and desist order from the court ... If the court issues an order against the domain name or its registrant, owner, or operator, the legislation authorizes law enforcement officers to serve the court order on specified third parties ... The Committee bill, as reported, similarly authorizes a ‘‘qualifying plaintiff,’’ defined as either the Attorney General or a rights holder, to file an action for civil injunctive relief against the registrant or owner of any domain name that accesses an Internet site that is ‘‘dedicated to infringing activities’’ — or the domain name itself — and to seek a cease and desist order from the court ... The mechanism is identical to that reserved for the Justice Department in non-domestic actions; however the resulting remedies are more limited ... The definition of an Internet site ‘‘dedicated to infringing activities’’ in the legislation is narrowly tailored to implicate only the most egregious rogue websites that are trafficking in infringing goods. For an Internet site to fall within the definition, the legislation requires a party bringing an action, whether against a domestic or non-domestic domain name, to make one of two showings. The plaintiff can show that the Internet site has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the (1) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works in violation of title 17, (2) violation of section 1201 of title 17, or (3) sale, distribution, or promotion of counterfeits under the Lanham Act. Alternatively, the plaintiff can show that the Internet site is designed, operated, or marketed primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the (1) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works in violation of title 17, (2) violation of section 1201 of title 17, or (3) sale, distribution, or promotion of counterfeits under the Lanham Act ...

The committee report is, of course, part and parcel of the legislative record for the bill, so (for example) if the bill passed both chambers without further amendment, the report would be rather judicially authoritative with regard to the Congressional intent of the bill

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. Your point being?

... If the court issues an order against the domain name or its registrant, owner, or operator, the legislation authorizes law enforcement officers to serve the court order on specified third parties ...

The Committee bill, as reported, similarly authorizes a ‘‘qualifying plaintiff,’’ defined as either the Attorney General or a rights holder, to file an action for civil injunctive relief against the registrant or owner of any domain name that accesses an Internet site that is ‘‘dedicated to infringing activities’’ — or the domain name itself ... The mechanism is identical to that reserved for the Justice Department in non-domestic actions ...

The definition of an Internet site ‘‘dedicated to infringing activities’’ in the legislation is narrowly tailored to implicate only the most egregious rogue websites that are trafficking in infringing goods. For an Internet site to fall within the definition, the legislation requires a party bringing an action, whether against a domestic or non-domestic domain name, to make one of two showings.

The plaintiff can show that the Internet site has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the (1) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works in violation of title 17, (2) violation of section 1201 of title 17, or (3) sale, distribution, or promotion of counterfeits under the Lanham Act.

Note that according to most plaintiffs will claim that any reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works is in violation of title 17, thereby eliminating any and all content that does not explicitly post a fair use disclaimer, and putting a chilling effect allowing websites to take down those that do (cf. the example of Simpsons parody clips on Youtube, mentioned above).

Alternatively, the plaintiff can show that the Internet site is designed, operated, or marketed primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the (1) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works in violation of title 17, (2) violation of section 1201 of title 17, or (3) sale, distribution, or promotion of counterfeits under the Lanham Act ...

Note the broad language in section 2. This is Patriot Act all over again.

[struggle4progress]

56. Point: before going all knickers-knotted, people should skim the bill & read the committee report

:boring:

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. Sleep. Here's a couple infringing derivative copywrited works which I'll post here for your benefit.

[JoeyT]

14. Stopping piracy is the new For the children.

Anyone questioning anything put forward with those words clearly supports piracy. Even when the bill does all sorts of other shit that no bill ought to do. After all, we all know the government never uses broadly written laws poorly.

Actually I think stopping terrorism was the new for the children, so stopping piracy is the new stopping terrorism. Either way, it's a bullshit phrase used by the dishonest to shut down discussion.

[woo me with science]

15. The march to fascism is escalating.

OWS is scaring them, and they are having to move perhaps more quickly than they had planned.

This is very serious.

[Enthusiast]

22. I share your concern. nt

[Divine Discontent]

65. it may seem ludicrous to some, but that is precisely what MAY be going on. TPTB are pushing things

because they know there are people uprising for the 1st time in their lives about the injustices of the "hard working" million people who happen to have it all in life and a bank account with 7 digits or 8, or 9, and they are scared of us realizing this as a collective...



Get it now, or one of a million other designs! http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128659602907896843?rf=238107662556833486

[xchrom]

18. recommend

[slay]

19. No - you are right

people need to realize these people in power are DESPERATE to clamp down on the internet and exert their power and control over it - just like they always do. Anyone who doesn't see this as a HUGE threat to freedom of speech on the internet is sorely mistaken.

[socialindependocrat]

20. Gee, just like China! Did Bachmann suggest this?

[Enthusiast]

21. I'm full time suspicious of governmental actions

they deem 'in our best interest'.

[hunter]

23. Same way "terrorists" justified the Patriot Act and Homeland Security...

"Pirate" copyright infringers are being used to justify this steaming violation of free speech.

Do you really want the government and very large internet service providers controlling which sites you can and cannot visit?

In essence, do you want the authorities determining who you can or cannot talk to?

Certainly laws like this would make it more difficult for copyright infringers and other "bad guys" and make it easier for "authorities" to shut down these and other "illegal" activities, but do you really want the equivalent of "no-fly" lists and TSA inspections on your internet connection?

There really are bad guys in life, but we have to deal with them on an individual basis with due process. Otherwise the USA is just another shitty authoritarian regime censoring dissidents and declaring them non-persons.

More to the immediate concern, it's becoming clear that our copyright and patent laws have passed the point where they are beneficial to the common good. Is it ethical and progressive to simply crush with an iron fist those who push back against increasingly unreasonable boundaries and restraints?

The eff, defender of DU in the Righthaven case, has been saying quite a bit about this:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/proposed-copyright-bill-threatens-whistleblowing-and-human-rights

[Hutzpa]

24. My question is this

Why is Janet Napolitano allowing this sh*t to go on under her watch?

[sabrina 1]

110. Why did she allow the Naked Scanners into our airports?

Just because someone has a 'd' after their name, as we are learning on a daily basis, doesn't mean they are on our side. In fact, exactly WHO is on our side other than Kucinich and Sanders anymore?

[FarLeftFist]

25. If Obama vetoes that bill he will be re-elected.

[AverageJoe90]

96. I do hope he uses COMMON SENSE here...........

and vetoes the HELL out of this POS.

[robinlynne]

26. This sentence of yours is problematic for me:

I.e. the federal government and site owners would be empowered to censor or demand payment from users for submitting videos of themselves singing a cover song, posting a clip or screencap or art based on a derivative work -- 99% of fan created art on the web.

It is currently against the law to create derivative works without consent of the author. So if I take your photo and create a collage that IS illegal, unless I ask for your permission first. It always has been. I'm not sure about singing a cover song. I believe the issue is whether or not you make money doing it.


What is extremely concerning is the "ability to shut down sites". Obviously that can be used to create censorship. And corporations will have the means to enforce their copyrights (They already do now.) , while individual citizens have not even filed for copyright. I do not copyright my DU posts, but professionally, as a photographer I copyright. I do not want the nazi party able to sue an image of mine, period.

Internet censorship is extremely dangerous. I do not have an answer. I think a video of someone singing belongs to that person and that person can distribute it wherever she wants to. Otherwise it could become illegal to sing. I think anyone earning money by singing someone else's song should pay the appropriate royalties.

BIG difference between for profit and not. But again, if the nazi party wants to use my image not for profit, I will not tolerate it. We have to have that choice.
Public figures, i.e. photos of events in public, or politicians are public. BUT if you use one of these photos FOR PROFIT, or alter it's meaning, or even alter it, that is illegal. When someone creates a photo of Obama with a mustache, it is not legal, unless the photographer gives consent for that usage. It may also be defamation.

[hunter]

38. There are some pretty big copright viloations in this thread...

For example, Fumesucker's post, via icanhascheeseburger:



I've had a couple of pictures taken down from photobucket, presumably for copyright violation. Invariably the photos taken down are of a sexual or left wing political nature. Maybe there are scripts sifting through DU posts for copyright violations, maybe I have some prudish, homophobic, right-wing "fans." Other pictures I don't have the copyright holder's permission to use, but have posted in a similarly fair use manner, have stayed up for years. Tentacles are apparently okay:



I tend to think that for movies and stuff the copyright holders think any publicity is good publicity and leave small clips and stills alone.

My own art and writing I post with a Creative Commons license that allows not-for-profit sharing of all sorts.



http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us

If I took a lovely photograph I wouldn't want it used in some oil company's greenwashing campaign or anything similar. But if someone wants to use it in their own non-commercial art I'll share.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. The very idea that it is illegal to create a collage using someone else's art is patently absurd.

I recently created a collage using another artists' work. I was concerned
to get his permission not because I had to but because I wanted to (it is
a political poster and I did not wish to misuse his work - see sig link.)
and also because he was an old friend. But there are also other issues here.
I was publishing it (on DU-only) for noncommercial consideration. If it were
for commercial consideration then the issue would be whether the original
artist should be partially credited. But it's a collage of multiple works.
Are you familiar at all with any collage artists? In the case of this poster
I would credit Mike, because it's mostly (50%) based on his work, although
it is also parody/satire (and his original posters were parody/satire of
"Rosie the Riveter" and other works that would STILL be under copyright if
we used your logic.) The point is that under this new bill, the fact that it is
noncommercial does not matter. all of DU would theoretically be subject to
DNS blacklisting for posting of images under copyright without EXPRESS
PERMISSION of the copyright holder (which includes 99% of images on the web.)

By your assessment an image or clip is only fair use if it is published
(which you say is not allowed) attached to a disclaimer defending its
status as fair use and hence exempt from automatic challenge.

Also note that the artist would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE under SOPA / STOP IP Act
unless the original work were VALUED AT OVER $2500. they'd be fucked if someone
tried to SELL their original work, or barely modified versions thereof, unless
they could prove that the work was valued over $2500.

This law would ultimately *make* what you deem illegal, illegal (i.e. fair use --
parody, satire, pastiche, sampling, excerpts, criticism, image macros, cover songs
(and Weird Al Yankovic songs) DU VIDEOS, and Youtube itself, and also, e.g.
screencaps of the NBC / ABC / FOX livestream of current events --

but only for corporate-controlled intellectual property.

If you BELIEVE that the law will not be selectively enforced, I AGAIN refer you
to ASCAP and BMI policies towards noncommercial music performance in REAL LIFE.

Policies they are attempting to apply to radio as well (pay-to-play).

Last but not least, anyone who supports the copyright laws as they are CURRENTLY structured would have been laughed out of any intellectual circles 100 years ago. Anyone who is educated knows that Shakespeare's entire canon is composed of derivative works. That is how art was traditionally done, one artist would be inspired by another. That's also how folk music was done, which is why folk barely exists anymore. It's all controlled by the record industry.

This law is NOT narrowly tailored to piracy of whole works (which won't even be affected by this law as that is already illegal and is not done over HTTP.)

[JackRiddler]

73. It most certainly is not against the law to create derivative works.

Otherwise, parody would be impossible. Scholarship would be largely impossible. The Internet is mostly illegal, according to your false view.

Fair use issues are settled in court if the copyright holder argues use is unfair, and that's how it must stay.

[CanSocDem]

28. Fear of 'piracy'...

...is right up there with 'fear of socialism'.

Free-market Psychosis??

.

[ZombieHorde]

29. I am surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Most internet theives don't understand how to steal.

They just greedily took everything they could and never thought about the consequences.

[EFerrari]

30. Of course you're right. IT people all over the world are talking about

this situation.

[snot]

31. We already have copyright laws that are not only adequate but over-reaching.

[defendandprotect]

32. k/r

[Liberal_in_LA]

33. kick! How do we stop it?

[FreeBillClinton]

34. If this passes with democratic support and there's no veto, I'm done with the party forever.

Yes, it's that important.

[firehorse]

41. right there with you

[sabrina 1]

111. You won't be the only one.

It will be time for a new party for a lot of people, many of whom are teetering on the brink as it is.

[ut oh]

36. So the Repubs want the Gov't to become Righthaven???

to an extent at least... Very sad indeed.

[Better Believe It]

37. This is a huge danger.

[JDPriestly]

39. If the bill passes, then Americans need to boycott the media companies.

Simply stop purchasing CDs, etc.

Stop watching TV. End your subscriptions to cable.

I have been asking people to stop consuming these products for a long time.

Of course, I think that if fair use of copyrighted material is ended on the internet, a lot of sales of products will be lost anyway.

There was a time, for example, when excerpts from Fox News were more common on DU. Who bothers now that Fox wants to restrict access to their material.

We used to get a lot more clips and quotes from some other news sources also. But nobody bothers if they have to pay to get into the website.

Best way to change this law is to stop using the media. You can still quote from a printed book that you own or borrow from the library. That will be the way to go in the future.

I never download large quantities of copyrighted material without paying for it. That, it seems to me, is not the issue here. Rather they owners of the material want to end the fair use doctrine as I understand the OP. They are crazy to do that. They will lose customers in the end.

[WillyT]

40. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[Zorra]

42. The 1% will use every device possible to curtail democracy. nt

[tcaudilllg]

46. Democracy: it's what's for dinner.

[DeSwiss]

43. You're right many won't listen......

...because they think all this can be fixed. However, given the kind of educational system we've labored under 'lo these many years, it's understandable since few Americans possess any real critical thinking capabilities. In truth, it doesn't require too much thinking. Just common sense.

As in the common sense required to realize the fact that you can't make a house straight and level when it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me">built with a crooked foundation made of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rlqjxst6xU">LIES from the start.

- You have to tear it all down and start again.....

K&R





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hklqkwyISuk">''All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent.'' ~ Thomas Jefferson.

[a2liberal]

44. K&R (n/t)

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. Obama on Internet censorship in Egypt:

I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/28/remarks-president-situation-egypt

[bigwillq]

57. So he'll veto, right?

:shrug:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

63. Only if Rahm gives him the stubby finger. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

103. Hopefully the President will give the middle finger to the copyright fascists here in America too...

[OtherSideTeam]

This is going to be sticky.

The rules are changing. Eventually, technology will solve the problem.

[stockholmer]

51. solve it in a dystopian way that your worst limited nightmares cannot comprehend

DARPA, Big Brother, Video Game Psychology & Obedient Humans living inside Skinner Boxes. This was a presentation at the DICE 2010 Summit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nka-_Mhp7f0

http://www.darpa.mil/
----------------------------------------

Planetary Skin - Global Surveillance Infrastructure

http://www.planetaryskin.org



NASA and CISCO systems welcomes you to the prison planet, a global surveillance infrastructure is being built up. This is total "control" and monitoring on all activity on earth. Just imagine feeding this data into an artificial intelligence.

The following is from the Planetary Skin website: Planetary Skin Institute will research, develop and prototype an approach to provide near-to-real-time global monitoring of environmental conditions and changes. This will deliver the required decision support capabilities to manage global resources, risks and build environmental markets. Planetary Skin proposes an open and unifying approach to develop the required decision support capabilities to manage global resources, risks and enable the necessary environmental markets.

http://www.axiomatica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=438&Itemid=

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I think you've been listening to a little too much Alex Jones.

I'm just not feeling the panic, here.

[stockholmer]

79. I do not listen to Alex Jones, I simply keep aware of the march against privacy that keeps moving

ahead at a ceaseless grinding pace. Capitalism needs to forever expand and commoditise everything it can, and the more data the systems gather on us globally, the more humanity can not only completely financialised, but also controlled socio-politically at all sorts of multi-variate levels.

As for panic, I simply would refer to the 'frog-in-the-pot' analogy. Tyranny comes in on little cat's feet many times, and with a iron fist at others.

Think about this the next time you go through a back-scatter x-ray machine, (perhaps also having your laptop hard drive searched by the US's TSA) sans shoes and any liquids, at your local airport.

[OtherSideTeam]

47. This is going to be sticky.

The rules are changing. Eventually, technology will solve the problem.

[Wild Thing]

48. Avaaz petition against this law

Here's a link to Avaaz.org, who are gathering an international petition against this proposed law. There are over 710,000 signatures already from all over the world, but more are needed. I posted this link as a rely to an Anonymous video, then sce56 very kindly posted it as a new post since I'm too new to do that myself, so it could get more exposure:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?cl=1390372942&v=11160

I'm hoping now that this web link is in 3 different places, DU members will see it and consider signing the petition.

[Leopolds Ghost]

86. Thanks Wild Thing n/t

[wial]

49. the dems are increasingly in danger

of losing their base. No one who supports Occupy can any longer in good conscience support dems, and this bill just adds insult to physical injury.

Obama will have to do something remarkable to win back any loyalty. He would do well to remember how quickly he rose to power -- can be replaced just as easily.

For those who call themselves dems and do support censorship -- stop calling yourselves dems, you're a disgrace to what was once a great political party. Civil liberties should be at the very core of every true progressive's, let alone every true American's, agenda.

[alp227]

50. So in essence "fair use" get strucken down from the books.

I think that's what this bill would do in kissing up to Big Media. Fair Use allows copyrighted material to be used in brief excerpts or educational/informational purpose.

[abelenkpe]

55. K&R nt

[Taverner]

58. If this law were passed, Righthaven would have beaten DU in court...

[blkmusclmachine]

62. Welcome to 1984.

Actually, I think we've been in 1984 for awhile now. At least since 9/11.

[NashVegas]

64. What Is The Basis For the Claims About Fair Use?

I'd like to see some documentation. Otherwise, if you ask me, it probably doesn't go far enough.

Google, and other Tech Valley interests, doesn't give a shit about your freedoms half as much as it cares about its own business plan - which largely consists of re-training you to do online everything you used to do offline, so that they can siphon off the income of those businesses that assisted you in your quests in the bad old days.

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. You Don't Believe In The Concept Of Fair Use? "The bill doesn't go far enough"

Your question is studiously vague.

[NashVegas]

81. I Would Like to Know What the Bill Describes As Fair Use

For example, we know that on DU and elsewhere, it's perfectly okay to copy a small percentage of a copywritten article, and credit the author.

Am also under the impression that it's fair use to copy a small portion of a copyrighted audio/video work or broadcast for news/educational purposes, without expressed permission from the copyright holder.

Something is going to have to give before a whole system that worked is finished being broken. Content pirates republish other peoples' work via aggregators and other strategies and they take money out of the pool that could be paying people who actually make music, write, take photos, make phone calls and do leg work to bring meaningful information to the public.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. The issue is threefold. #1 rights holders do not care about fair use, they challenge it. #2 --

1. Rights Holders do not care about fair use. As shown in the ASCAP / BMI example (for live music) or the YouTube example (every fair use snippet that is posted from certain rights holders such as Fox or WMG is taken down as soon as Fox or WMG sees it, regardless of legal disclaimer.) Their argument is "we want a complete monopoly on the use of all snippets of our material for any purpose. We will continue shaping the copyright law until we get this, giving us a total monopoly as content providers and not just as content distributors." Or more simply, "you want to claim fair use, sue us."

2. YouTube is essentially radio. If they win the fight against YouTube, they will go after free music on the radio next.

Prove me wrong. You know what the only difference between YouTube and radio is? YOUTUBE HAS A MECHANISM TO DIRECTLY SELL YOU THE MUSIC YOU ARE LISTENING TO AND PAY THE ARTIST. RADIO DOES NOT.

3. This bill has nothing to do with piracy on the Internet. Piracy of whole copyrighted works is already illegal and is not done on websites, which this bill applies to; it's done on torrent sites, which is not HTTP and has nothing to do with DNS or going after website administrators. Go ahead, try to find a website directly hosting NON-fair use copyrighted material. This is all about going after fair use in order to avoid pirates CLAIMING fair use.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. Not that I don't agree with your second paragraph though - I do.

All the organizations opposing this, including large institutions, claim that the bill would allow rights holders to take down content that is widely considered fair use, with the backing of federal criminal and cyber-crimes division instead of civil court, as at present. i.e. the rights-holders would be a plaintiff in a federal crime. This includes the sort of clips that companies such as WMG and Fox regularly have taken down from YouTube already thanks to their threat of legal action and unwillingness to reach terms with services such as YouTube; including any parody video containing even part of a song or clip.

It would also be open to abuse from organizations threatening legal action against activist sites like DU, although the bill's gloss claims it is "narrowly tailored" to go after piracy sites, this is not reflected in the bill's actual language, which lists a whole host of arguments for why a site might be shut down, e.g. if 95% of the images posted on the site are in fact copyrighted by someone, somewhere, and are not reposted with the author's express permission.

[Generic Other]

69. As a collage artist, I always build in layers

All my work is cut and paste.

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. Post #26 claims such art is illegal and would presumably fall under this law.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

http://tinyurl.com/42e7lb4">Oops, I did it too! Well not really, that's a bad example because I requested
the artist's permission. Altho I did post it on DU beforehand...
... http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.10859191.0095/fc,135x135,white.jpg

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Point being, if it were being republished

On a for-profit site, OR if the derivative artwork were substantially similar to an original, I would make a point to get permission from the author of the parent work; simply as a courtesy to the original author.

But the IP industry does not distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit use on the Net because they're trying to turn the Net for-profit, define all use of the Net as publishing, and create new legal precedent.

Note that the IP industry considers all broadcast on the internet (including your personal blog) no matter how small the intended audience to be publishing or free distribution, and therefore unauthorized publishing of copyrighted work.

They've wanted to shut down radio music stations using pay-for-play, too. Using the same argument they're using against Youtube.

(which actually has a mechanism for purchasing the original if rights-holders request, unlike radio -- even if only a small sample of the original work is included in the video.) So which is a bigger violater -- Youtube or radio?

[Generic Other]

77. Since part of the point of my art was to use copyrighted images

I used all the paperback covers of "1984" to create a new artwork. It is transformative and fair use. If I can't show my art, it will not keep me from making it. It will only keep YOU from seeing it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. Exactly. I didn't mean to imply otherwise ;-)

[Generic Other]

93. And robs me of an audience

so a lose/lose situation.

Why do these old idiots who don't even know how to do a google search think they should be regulating anything on the internet? :(

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. Is there any other thread on this? Chance of passage etc?

S'why I'm bumping this one.

[FirstLight]

71. how close is it to passing?

really? it seems like the sheer amount of content on the web would be nearly impossible to police, but what do I know, they have spy techies working on this stuff 24/7

so here's what I think of... we may need to have an alternative to the common internet. There was a Organization that i ran across months ago, and i can;t find the link...(believe me, i have looked, and I can't recall what they used to call themselves or the stupid technology, so ya...)
BUT they were developing a software we could have on our own computers and such that would enable us to transmit signals without the need for cellular or typical land line DSL technology. they were planning for something happening like a solar flare i think... who knows

My dad was also reccommending i get my ham radio license for emergency communications... wonder if that could be used somehow ?

[Aerows]

78. This most likely has absolutely nothing to do with copyright protection

And everything to do with getting a stranglehold on the internet to halt messages the government doesn't like.

It's like the war on terror or the war on drugs. They come up with a bogeyman, when the real goal is getting people to agree to giving up their rights.

Sorry to see something nefarious in this, but there have been enough precedents that it's kind of hard not to!

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. Bumping for continued relevance n/t

[AverageJoe90]

95. Drastic measures may be needed to save our freedoms..........

Funny thing is, these POS bills never target hatemongers and other riffraff which we really COULD do without.
As for Leahy? He might as well be Repub-lite if he supports this fucking crap.

[Huey P. Long]

89. recommended

[Exultant Democracy]

90. bigger then a can of pepper spray, but they would never misuse it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. Funny you should mention that...

I got this picture sent to me as a chain e-mail from decidedly nonpolitical relatives... you've probably seen it.



"The Land of Free Pepper Spray"

[AverageJoe90]

97. Mussolini & Hitler would've LOVED this POS 'legislation'.

Imagine a bill which can have videos taken down for the most trivial things, or even no reason at all.....all as a pretext to shut down free speech TPTB don't like.
The funny thing is, as well, is that we DON'T see any bills going after potential terrorists(real ones, anyway), hatemongers, and other real riffraff we could do without but millions of law-abiding citizens are at risk because some greedy fuckers just have to go to fucking EXTREMES to prevent 'lost profit'. Just another thing that makes me wonder if we really are becoming like Nazi Germany in '33........

For those of you who still can't see the damn truth.............WAKE UP!

[BlueIris]

98. Outrage fatigue.

I think that's why more people aren't really upset here.

[Trillo]

100. Mueller seems to have figured it out. NT

[Odin2005]

101. "Intellectual Property Protection" is a trojan horse to create a police state.

It's quite obvious.

[woo me with science]

105. k&r

[Quantess]

112. Interesting...