Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Sep 2010 22:22 UTC
Legal Big Content, which already owns the Obama administration, is at it again - I guess mandatory monitoring software to scan every computer's content isn't enough. A bi-partisan proposed bill would allow US federal courts to issue injunctions that would order domain registrars or registries to cease resolving the domain name of a copyright infringing website.
Order by: Score:
Worldwide?
by Vanders on Mon 20th Sep 2010 22:32 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

If passed, the Justice Department could ask a federal court for an injunction that would order a U.S. domain registrar or registry to stop resolving a infringing site’s domain name, so that visitors to PirateBay.org, for example, would get a 404 error.


.org is a US based registrar. I don't see how this bill could affect .org.uk, or .cx, or the hundreds of other non-US registrars on the internet.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Worldwide?
by UglyKidBill on Mon 20th Sep 2010 23:02 UTC in reply to "Worldwide?"
UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

How about this:

"Dear Registrar,

if you dont comply you will be infringing article X of your Registrar License, thus it will be revoked AND any dns request orginating from your IP range will be banned, effectively shutting you out of the intertubes.

The 'choice' is yours.

Sincerely, We the Owners."


Edit: furthermore, AFAIK, so much of the traffic passes at some point trough US based nodes that such a block has much wider effects

Edited 2010-09-20 23:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Worldwide?
by maxhrk on Tue 21st Sep 2010 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Worldwide?"
maxhrk Member since:
2005-07-24

for some odd reason, that word 'Owner' sound even more intimidating.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Worldwide?
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Sep 2010 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Worldwide?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And some people actually wonder why we don't want the U.S to control the important parts of DNS...

so much of the traffic passes at some point trough US


Other than sites hosted in the US, the only traffic that passes thru the US is to and from parts of Asia and South America.
However, the more isolationist the U.S becomes the more alternative routes there will be.

Edited 2010-09-21 05:01 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Worldwide?
by UglyKidBill on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worldwide?"
UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

So in your view such situation wouldn´t have an impact because it would affect communications between "US + part of Asia + part of Latam" and the rest of the world only ?? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Worldwide?
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Sep 2010 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Worldwide?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Not that much no, since most Asia traffic is intra-asia and most european traffic is intra-europe. It would only affect traffic that crosses these borders, such as traffic some from europe to Asia, some traffic from south america to asia etc.
In fact, if you look at it from a certain perspective cutting down p2p traffic is a good thing. It leaves more bandwidth for stuff like youtube and other streaming services.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Worldwide?
by KLU9 on Tue 21st Sep 2010 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worldwide?"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

To paraphrase:

The internet views the United States as damage and routes around it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Worldwide?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Worldwide?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

That won't really have much affect. The US Gov't does not really control ICANN much if at all. Further, most DNS Servers are DNS Cache Servers - e.g. they mostly just forward requests to another DNS Server or resolve from their own cached data if they have it already. Your ISP really only does DNS caching. This just means it would take a bit longer to get to the DNS information.

And of course, you could just by-pass the whole thing altogether and setup your own DNS server to look directly at the root servers, which are spread around the world. Sure, it's a U.S. Organization that runs .com, .org, etc; but they have zero control or influence over any non-US TLD - e.g. .com.ca.

So all they have to do is change their TLD at most, if they aren't already under another country code to start with (which if they are based outside the US is most likely).

Reply Score: 2

hmmmm
by Adurbe on Mon 20th Sep 2010 22:36 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

not sure I like a foreign gov dictating what I can do in my own country... seems a bit.. imperialist

Reply Score: 13

RE: hmmmm
by blitze on Tue 21st Sep 2010 07:56 UTC in reply to "hmmmm"
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Now you understand what the US is about and next is the fall - like all Imperialists/empires before.

Alternative DNS systems in other countries can't be built fast enough.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: hmmmm
by Darkmage on Tue 21st Sep 2010 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE: hmmmm"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

Alternate DNS can't be built fast enough? LOL

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmmmm
by righard on Tue 21st Sep 2010 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmmmm"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

If I'm correct to understand your understandment to be a misunderstandment.... ;)

He meant that we'd better start to day building an alternative DNS then tomorrow.

Reply Score: 2

We knew it was coming
by MadRat on Mon 20th Sep 2010 23:08 UTC
MadRat
Member since:
2006-02-17

Every good thing - the internet being one of them - gets raped by the corporate world and then the government steps in and makes it even worse by regulating it.

Reply Score: 7

Got to love it
by DoctorPepper on Mon 20th Sep 2010 23:16 UTC
DoctorPepper
Member since:
2005-07-12

I just love the fact that the MPAA/RIAA have bought so many U.S. politicians that they basically can do whatever they want.

I'm just sad that there basically isn't anything we U.S. citizens can do about it. ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE: Got to love it
by TheIdiotThatIsMe on Tue 21st Sep 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "Got to love it"
TheIdiotThatIsMe Member since:
2006-06-17

I'm just sad that there basically isn't anything we U.S. citizens can do about it. ;)


Why? There is plenty of things U.S. citizens can do. The problem is the ruling attitude of our nation in regards to politics and government (not that the two should be treated equally, politics covers far, far much more than government) is that of apathy and cynicism, both of which we know have provided soooo well instead of providing or pushing an alternative. [Please note, I'm not trying to pick on you personally, just the overall mindset of our citizens that we are helpless]

If we don't like what our government is doing, and do nothing to change it, we are at more fault than the government.

For U.S. citizens who are unhappy with the laws that have been passed or have been proposed, ask yourself these questions:

1. Have you written or expressed any kind of concern, displeasure, or rebuttal to any of your representatives?

2. Have you offered any constructive alternative, in a complete, full written form that can debated, standing next to what the current options are?

3. Have you seeked out any others with views the same as yours to file a petition, work with your representative, or raise public awareness?

Remember, politics is dirty. It's conflict. It's fighting tooth and nail for everything you believe in. But to not fight at all, to just 'dismiss it', you are as every bit guilty as the people you accuse.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Got to love it
by DoctorPepper on Tue 21st Sep 2010 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Got to love it"
DoctorPepper Member since:
2005-07-12

I tell you what, you let me know how that works out.

I've been around a LONG time, and I can tell you, it won't help.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Got to love it
by mikeinohio on Tue 21st Sep 2010 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Got to love it"
mikeinohio Member since:
2010-02-21

1. Have you written or expressed any kind of concern, displeasure, or rebuttal to any of your representatives?


Yes, but trying to reason with a third party's hired gun really doesn't work.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Got to love it
by andydread on Tue 21st Sep 2010 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Got to love it"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"I'm just sad that there basically isn't anything we U.S. citizens can do about it. ;)


Why? There is plenty of things U.S. citizens can do. The problem is the ruling attitude of our nation in regards to politics and government (not that the two should be treated equally, politics covers far, far much more than government) is that of apathy and cynicism, both of which we know have provided soooo well instead of providing or pushing an alternative. [Please note, I'm not trying to pick on you personally, just the overall mindset of our citizens that we are helpless]

If we don't like what our government is doing, and do nothing to change it, we are at more fault than the government.

For U.S. citizens who are unhappy with the laws that have been passed or have been proposed, ask yourself these questions:

1. Have you written or expressed any kind of concern, displeasure, or rebuttal to any of your representatives?

2. Have you offered any constructive alternative, in a complete, full written form that can debated, standing next to what the current options are?

3. Have you seeked out any others with views the same as yours to file a petition, work with your representative, or raise public awareness?

Remember, politics is dirty. It's conflict. It's fighting tooth and nail for everything you believe in. But to not fight at all, to just 'dismiss it', you are as every bit guilty as the people you accuse.
"

Very well said.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Got to love it
by emerson999 on Tue 21st Sep 2010 08:22 UTC in reply to "Got to love it"
emerson999 Member since:
2007-12-08

Oh, there's something we can do about it. Things just haven't gotten bad enough to justify shooting corrupt politicians yet.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Got to love it
by re_re on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Got to love it"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

Well ...... that would be quite the carnage if we started doing that ...... between the democrats, republicans, and independents, we may have a dozen politicians left nation wide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Got to love it
by Delgarde on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Got to love it"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Well ...... that would be quite the carnage if we started doing that ...... between the democrats, republicans, and independents, we may have a dozen politicians left nation wide.


Oh, don't beat up on yourself too much. If the rest of us followed that example, there might be a few dozen politicians left *world* wide.... ;)

Reply Score: 2

mail
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 20th Sep 2010 23:19 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

To: US
From: World
Subject: Notice regarding proposed legislation dealing with IP infringement
------------------------------------

Dear US,

Fcuk off.

Yours truly,

World

Reply Score: 9

v RE: mail
by ssa2204 on Tue 21st Sep 2010 03:40 UTC in reply to "mail"
RE[2]: mail
by earksiinni on Tue 21st Sep 2010 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE: mail"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Damn, yo!

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: mail
by lezerno on Tue 21st Sep 2010 06:16 UTC in reply to "RE: mail"
RE[2]: mail
by Bully on Tue 21st Sep 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: mail"
Bully Member since:
2006-04-07

Your ignorance of politics, law, and the U.S. is understandable...to a degree. But since you seem to think you are the next Paul Krugman, maybe it would be wise to say get an education on the subject you wish to preach about?


It's great that you say he's ignorant. But at least back it up by enlighten us what exactly he isn't understanding correctly.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: mail
by LighthouseJ on Tue 21st Sep 2010 11:49 UTC in reply to "mail"
RE[2]: mail
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE: mail"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

C'mon, aren't both sides (US and EU) being equally arrogant?
- The U.S. DoJ thinks they get carte blanche on foreign soil, including the EU, China and Japan.
- The EU considers itself the small village of Astrix and Obelix, standing up against the Romans.
- Hence, both parties have trouble understanding (and respecting) each other's cultural and societal differences.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: mail
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: mail"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Plus, the parent post shows more European arrogance in the form of a childish outburst of profanity.


Or, you recognise a joke when you see one, Mr Grumpypants.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: mail
by red_devel on Tue 21st Sep 2010 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: mail"
red_devel Member since:
2006-03-30

His "grumpiness" aside the man is right in a lot of what he says. Joke or no joke, if you have editors posting comments like that you can't expect us to consider this site professional or reliable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: mail
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: mail"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

His "grumpiness" aside the man is right in a lot of what he says. Joke or no joke, if you have editors posting comments like that you can't expect us to consider this site professional or reliable.


I makes jokes. Sue me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: mail
by testman on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: mail"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Doing it "for the lulz", hmm?

Reply Score: 2

RE: mail
by Adurbe on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 16:42 UTC in reply to "mail"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

For those who dont know.. google :-p

Reply Score: 2

As one dies, 10 more pop up...
by SuperDaveOsbourne on Mon 20th Sep 2010 23:34 UTC
SuperDaveOsbourne
Member since:
2007-06-24

Blocking the notion of an anonymous cloud just doesn't seem to be doable. Also seems as one is taken down, 10 more pop up. So who really cares if legislation is passed to block or non resolve DNS requests. P2P on IP addresses seems like its unstoppable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: As one dies, 10 more pop up...
by Almafeta on Tue 21st Sep 2010 00:18 UTC in reply to "As one dies, 10 more pop up..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Blocking the notion of an anonymous cloud just doesn't seem to be doable.


Registrars are about the opposite of anonymous. With few exceptions, TLDs are run by for-profit corporations and need to comply with the rules for such.

Edited 2010-09-21 00:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Well thats really quite dumb
by TechGeek on Tue 21st Sep 2010 00:01 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Thats pretty stupid since any person can start their own DNS server. True, they can be shut down, but it will be like whack a mole. Not to mention, there are other ways of finding information besides DNS. How hard will it be for people who are pirates to add an extra well known IP address to their DNS list? You can basically add your own unofficial top level domain. .p2p anyone?

Reply Score: 5

We miss ya, Dubya
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Sep 2010 03:36 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

It's odd that one would miss GW's more sane stance on copyright....

Reply Score: 5

A Strange Thought
by Brendan on Tue 21st Sep 2010 05:06 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Ok, my strange thought goes a little like this...

You do a statistical analysis of Presidential speeches, and find a group the 500 most frequently used keywords (budget, tax, America, healthcare, whitehouse, pensioners, etc). From this list of keywords you generate a sentence for each possible permutation (inserting words like "a", "an", "the" where necessary); then filter out sentences that are already covered by other people's copyrights, and maybe remove sentences that are too nonsensical.

You combine the remaining sentences into groups of 8 lines and call them poems (such that each sentence is more than 10% of the poem). Then you publish each poem (e.g. as a collection) and make one hardcopy, and send it to the Library of Congress.

Finally, you sit back and wait for the US Government to accidentally infringe on your copyright (possibly, while publishing more "poems"), and repeatedly nail their collective asses in court, until they're too scared to say anything.

It's a brute force attack on the copyright system. :-)

- Brendan

Reply Score: 10

RE: A Strange Thought
by raboof on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:46 UTC in reply to "A Strange Thought"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

you sit back and wait for the US Government to accidentally infringe on your copyright

No you don't.

Unlike patents, copyright only covers actually copying other people's work. Independently discovering/writing a text is never copyright infringement - even if the text is identical to an existing copyrighted text.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: A Strange Thought
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE: A Strange Thought"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

No you don't.

Unlike patents, copyright only covers actually copying other people's work. Independently discovering/writing a text is never copyright infringement - even if the text is identical to an existing copyrighted text.

That's theory.

If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text, you will have a hard time proving in court that it was written independently. In practice, I think proving this is impossible.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: A Strange Thought
by raboof on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A Strange Thought"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

"copyright only covers actually copying other people's work. Independently discovering/writing a text is never copyright infringement - even if the text is identical to an existing copyrighted text.

That's theory.

If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text, you will have a hard time proving in court that it was written independently. In practice, I think proving this is impossible.
"

That's theory.

In almost all practical cases, and certainly in Brendan's case above, it's actually pretty obvious.

Edited 2010-09-22 06:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: A Strange Thought
by lemur2 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A Strange Thought"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text


If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text, I think it is a fair assumption that you copied it.

If you however make a text which is almost entirely different from a copyrighted text, but semantically it parses out to mean effectively the same thing, I think it is an even fairer assumption that you didn't copy it, but rather that you just independently came up with the same ideas.

Edited 2010-09-22 07:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A Strange Thought
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Strange Thought"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Indeed, but Brendan's idea, if I understood it well, was to put a copyright on random sequences of words which politicians often use and wait for some of those exact sequences of words to be pronounced by them.

Edited 2010-09-22 08:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Paradroid
by Paradroid on Tue 21st Sep 2010 07:52 UTC
Paradroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

What I find interesting is the hypocracy of the MPAA and studios. In certain parts of the world they *compete against* piracy by releasing films early (and cheap too I'm sure) on DVD. These releases are not quite to the same standards as the official western release.

In the rest of the world they just try and rip us off £20 for a BluRay copy of a film we already own on DVD.

And films from the 1920's are still not in the public domain even though everyone connected to the production is highly likely to be dead by now.

Reply Score: 3

Comment on"poorly written article"
by fran on Tue 21st Sep 2010 09:24 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

One thing about the negative comment "poorly written article".
To make my comment I’ll refer to a older article.
I submitted an article some time ago about Google buying Zynga.
My article was edited to something totally different. Much more negative spin.
The comments "crappy games","advertisements all over the place" I did not make. Reason I did not was Googles advertisement is always low profile (Use gmail and you’ll know). Secondly advertisements pay, for the most part, your favourite magazines, sports shows, series ect.
Osnews has advertisement on it does’nt it.
I also did not say "crappy" games. Google has deep pockets to improve these. Also game tastes is subjective.
What I’m trying to say that Thom does write excellent articles. I think most of those who frequent osnews also think the same, but the articles can become a bit snotty (“rub two braincells together”.)
Also osnews miss a lot of other news. Maybe the extensive articles on other news is lowering quantitive output on other interesting stuff. Take Slashdot.org for example. Lots of news, but not a lot of analysis. I for one can make up my own mind on the interpretation of news.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your article was scrapped and completely rewritten, since - no offence - your English was very bad and it was impossible for me to fix it (I didn't even understand most of it). As such, I ended up rewriting the whole thing from scratch. I do see now that I accidentally attributed the whole thing to you while I should have just listed you as submitter (and not author). Sorry for that.

And yes, I'm sharp and direct, that's just how people are where I live. The internet is big enough to avoid folks like me if you're sensitive ;) .

Reply Score: 1

We are all artists now
by orfanum on Tue 21st Sep 2010 09:27 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

This will just accelerate the movement that makes consumers creators and creators, consumers.

Gradually there will be an eschewment of the 'canon' of Hollywood-produced material, corporate-capitalist content, and works of artistic production that are driven by money-making Philistines.

Well done USA, you are helping us to evolve, in the same way that *that* meteorite helped small mammals overcome large dinosaurs.

Reply Score: 3

I hate to break the news to the DoJ but...
by cmost on Tue 21st Sep 2010 11:31 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

There's no way, ever, that the DoJ or any other organization from any government anywhere in the world will succeed in stopping software, movie, music, game or other pirates, or hackers in general. I wish the U.S. would stop wasting tax payer money on big business agendas and actually get to work for the people.

Reply Score: 4

v Load of Crap
by ferrels on Tue 21st Sep 2010 11:37 UTC
RE: Load of Crap
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:49 UTC in reply to "Load of Crap"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do ANY of you really believe that the US would create statutes that attempt to enforce US laws in a foreign country?


The US still has excessive control over the internet's backbone infrastructure. As I have written before on this very website, on numerous occasions, so far, the US has done an absolutely amazing job at keeping the internet open and free - I have given ICANN props for that.

However, the new US administration led by Obama and Biden poses a very real danger to the openness and freeness of the web, because many of their direct advisors are former RIAA/MPAA/etc. lobbyists and/or employees (Biden especially). This means that the key to the internet is now very close to being in the hands of dangerous, anti-freedom and anti-consumer rights organisations like the RIAA - an organisation, mind you, which openly advocates mandated monitoring software on every computer and device sold.

Any true American cannot support this - as such, if you do support the RIAA/etc., you are nor a true American, nor a true Western democrat [the system, not the US political party].

Edited 2010-09-21 12:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Load of Crap
by ferrels on Tue 21st Sep 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Load of Crap"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

Any true American cannot support this - as such, if you do support the RIAA/etc., you are nor a true American, nor a true Western democrat [the system, not the US political party].



And who are you to make the determination as to who is a "true American"? You're not even a US citizen. So now members of the EU determine who are "real" Americans? And in case you didn't know it, America isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

As for excessive control over the internet, the US designed and built the internet. So if you're unhappy with that, you need to lobby your own government to develop its own network for information exchange or stop whining about it. No one in the US twisted anyone's arm and forced them to connect to the internet.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Load of Crap
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Load of Crap"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And who are you to make the determination as to who is a "true American"? You're not even a US citizen.


...which should indicate to you how little there is left of the original goals of the US' founding fathers. You're too close to the painting.

So if you're unhappy with that


Read the comment again. You clearly did not the first time around.

Edited 2010-09-21 17:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Load of Crap
by ferrels on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Load of Crap"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

"And who are you to make the determination as to who is a "true American"? You're not even a US citizen.


...which should indicate to you how little there is left of the original goals of the US' founding fathers. You're too close to the painting.

So if you're unhappy with that


Read the comment again. You clearly did not the first time around.
"


I read and understood Thom's post quite well. I also read the legislation and it's apparent that I'm probably one of two people posting here who has actually done so.

My comment about who determines "real Americans" also stands. And I'm not your son. I've fought in two wars on behalf of the US so I certainly don't need Thom or you telling me what constitutes a "true" American.

Edited 2010-09-21 17:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Load of Crap
by andydread on Tue 21st Sep 2010 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Load of Crap"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

" Do ANY of you really believe that the US would create statutes that attempt to enforce US laws in a foreign country?


The US still has excessive control over the internet's backbone infrastructure. As I have written before on this very website, on numerous occasions, so far, the US has done an absolutely amazing job at keeping the internet open and free - I have given ICANN props for that.

However, the new US administration led by Obama and Biden poses a very real danger to the openness and freeness of the web, because many of their direct advisors are former RIAA/MPAA/etc. lobbyists and/or employees (Biden especially). This means that the key to the internet is now very close to being in the hands of dangerous, anti-freedom and anti-consumer rights organisations like the RIAA - an organisation, mind you, which openly advocates mandated monitoring software on every computer and device sold.

Any true American cannot support this - as such, if you do support the RIAA/etc., you are nor a true American, nor a true Western democrat [the system, not the US political party].
"

This is a serious problem Biden Biden Biden Biden. Obama was on the right track with Lawrence Lessig as his technical advisor. When Biden jointed the ticket it all went south from there. Biden brought all his RIAA/MPAA friends/goons along to fill the Justice department. Biden is Evil. Biden and his pro-RIAA/MPAA goons has ruined the Obama administration from the perspective of young people. Good luck getting young people to come out for this administration in droves this election or any other. They feel terribly betrayed. Anyone who was looking for Obama to reduce the influence in Washington of corporate lobbyists including that of the RIAA/MPAA rightfully feels betrayed and apathetic about this bullshit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Load of Crap
by WorknMan on Tue 21st Sep 2010 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Load of Crap"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Any true American cannot support this - as such, if you do support the RIAA/etc., you are nor a true American, nor a true Western democrat [the system, not the US political party].


Well, I don't have a big problem with them trying to shut down sites like Pirate Bay, because unlike you, I do not condone wholesale piracy. Granted, I think it's dumb how they're going about it and ultimately fruitless, since it will probably never be stopped, but I can't blame them for trying.

Note: I have a BIG problem with them trying to lock down devices/file formats and such, but when they're busy trying to shut down sites who's only purpose is to allow mouth breathers to download content that they never paid for, they're not going to hear a peep from me.

But imagine if those sites were shut down? I guess if Joe Sixpack is no longer able to illegally download the latest Snoop Dogg album, the freedom of the internet is in jeopardy. Oh no!!!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Load of Crap
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Load of Crap"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But imagine if those sites were shut down? I guess if Joe Sixpack is no longer able to illegally download the latest Snoop Dogg album, the freedom of the internet is in jeopardy. Oh no!!!


Read my comment more carefully. You'll notice I was also talking about the mandatory monitoring software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Load of Crap
by lemur2 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Load of Crap"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You'll notice I was also talking about the mandatory monitoring software.


Just on that ... how exactly does anyone imagine the US government would be able to force citizens of other nations to run "mandatory" software of any kind.

They can't even get everyone to run Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Load of Crap
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Load of Crap"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"You'll notice I was also talking about the mandatory monitoring software.


Just on that ... how exactly does anyone imagine the US government would be able to force citizens of other nations to run "mandatory" software of any kind.

They can't even get everyone to run Windows.
"

Who is talking about the entire world?

I surely wasn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Load of Crap
by MollyC on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Load of Crap"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04


Any true American cannot support this - as such, if you do support the RIAA/etc., you are nor a true American, nor a true Western democrat [the system, not the US political party].


Thom, I generally like your writings, and I assume you don't mean to offend, but you'll have to excuse me for not taking cues from a European on what a "true American" might or might not support.

A few more points:
Most of President Obama's personal assets he obtained by way of royalties from his two books, the sales of which took off in 2007 (though one of them had been written many years earlier, in the 1990's). So most of his assets he obtained by way of being a "content creator". I'm not surprised that he would take a dim view on wanton piracy. (Not that I assume he is pushing this bill.)

Second, the US produces lots of IP, and I'd guess that a substantial percentage of pirated IP is produced by the US. Is it so surprising that the US govt might want to protect the rights of the creators of that IP?

Note that I made no comment as to the proposed legislation (I know nothing about it beyond the one-sided description of it here; but I assume that it won't work anyway), nor do I make any assumptions as to how much support the legislation has in Congress or in the Administration. Just because a bill has bi-partisanship sponsorship doesn't mean that it has majority support in the government.

P.S.
There are some lunatic right-wingers running around the US questioning whether the president is American or not, literally; your suggestion that the president might not be a "true American" is particularly offensive in that light.

Edited 2010-09-23 08:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Load of Crap
by MollyC on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Load of Crap"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Just to clarify: My point about President Obama getting most of his personal assets by way of being a content creator himself is that he might favor anti-piracy measures because he is naturally by sympathetic to content creators rather than because he is "owned by Big Content".

(Again, I make no assumptions as to the amount of support this particular bill has in either congress or the administration.)

Reply Score: 2

Stupid.
by Windows Sucks on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:18 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

This is why I HATE the MPAA! I Want to pay for movies, I used to use netflix like a champ and what happened? They started making it so that you had to wait 30 days for new releases to come to netflix??

So I started using redbox and then they did the same thing to redbox!!

So F it I started downloading, their loss.

All this does again as always is affect people who don't do this stuff anyway (Like DRM does) Those of us tech enough will get around all that crap as we always do.

Might be better to go all IP address anyway. Then they wont see my DNS requests will have to track what IP's I go to. LOL!

Reply Score: 4

Question?
by Windows Sucks on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:30 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Doesn't ICANN control ALL top-level domain name spaces DNS root zones, and the root nameservers for the whole internet?

Isn't ICANN controled by the US government (Even though its supposed to be a seperate org?)

So in reality they could pull the plug on anything they wanted to that was in the internets root DNS servers?

I am assuming though that unless blocked you could use 3rd party DNS servers that pointed directly to machines.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Question?
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "Question?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Doesn't ICANN control ALL top-level domain name spaces DNS root zones


No, they do not directly control the ccTLD's.

and the root nameservers for the whole internet?


Technically you can create your own root servers for whatever TLD's you want and there are actually alternative roots. The problem is getting people and organisations to use them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Question?
by Windows Sucks on Tue 21st Sep 2010 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Question?"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

"Doesn't ICANN control ALL top-level domain name spaces DNS root zones
No, they do not directly control the ccTLD's.
and the root nameservers for the whole internet?
Technically you can create your own root servers for whatever TLD's you want and there are actually alternative roots. The problem is getting people and organisations to use them.
"

Then if you say created your own DNS servers and domains etc, could the US governemt then just block parts of the subnets for those DNS servers and the servers maybe set up for the bittorrenting etc?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Question?
by Soulbender on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

could the US governemt then just block parts of the subnets for those DNS servers and the servers maybe set up for the bittorrenting etc?


Sure ,they could (theoretically) block those IP's in and out of the US but your servers would still work within the region you are located and probably partially from other (non-US) regions.
Blocking in,out and transit traffic in US on tier 1 level might not be as easy as one might think. Carriers in, for example, Asia has contracts with US carriers for transit traffic and if the US carrier started blocking stuff that could be a contract violation. It also requires quite a bit of co-ordination between carriers and the government in order to keep the list of IP addresses updated.
You'll find even more problem if you start digging a bit.

Reply Score: 3

.
by PatrickQuinn on Tue 21st Sep 2010 12:47 UTC
PatrickQuinn
Member since:
2010-06-08

Thank god its worlwide and not worldwide. Other wise us europeans would be screwed!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by bolomkxxviii
by bolomkxxviii on Tue 21st Sep 2010 13:20 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Just want to say I vote in every election. The problem is I have to choose between one corrupt politician or another. My letters mean nothing compaired to the millions paid to politicians by big business. A revolution once in a while can be a good thing. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. "Government for the people" my @ss. It is government bought by the big businesses.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by bolomkxxviii
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 21st Sep 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by bolomkxxviii"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

South Park once made an excellent comparison in this respect: http://www.southpark.nl/episodes/808/

Truthfully, the issue of having to choose for who is your "LEAST un-favourable" extends to many other countries, including Thom's home country of the Netherlands.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by bolomkxxviii
by KLU9 on Tue 21st Sep 2010 14:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by bolomkxxviii"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

The two dominant parties have actively created a cartel on power, gerrymandering districts so that only one of their duopoly can win.

Better to have districting out of the hands of the very politicians it affects (like in Iowa IIRC) or introduce some NON-first-past-the-post element, like partial PR or alternative votes.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by bolomkxxviii
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by bolomkxxviii"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The problem is I have to choose between one corrupt politician or another.


Blame your system. The problem with the US system is that there's not really any diversity in the political space. You only really have two parties and they're both to the right. In most of the european countries, for example, the political space goes all the way from the communist left to the fascist right. While the two extremes are usually nutcases the fact that there's a wide diversity in between makes for a healthier political climate in the long run.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by bolomkxxviii
by aesiamun on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by bolomkxxviii"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

So I blame the system...nothing changes.

The blame game solves nothing...

Reply Score: 3

I hope it's implemented
by ronaldst on Tue 21st Sep 2010 15:08 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Then the rest of the world will wake the fcuk up. I hope.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I hope it's implemented
by Neolander on Tue 21st Sep 2010 16:07 UTC in reply to "I hope it's implemented"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

+1. If such nonsense is voted *and* enforced, maybe the Internet could finally become a decentralized, US-independent, and truly anonymous (unless you explicitly introduced yourself) network.

Yes, I know, I should stop dreaming about such a terrorist-friendly world and go back at dreaming of foldable OLED screens and touchscreens with real haptic feedback. After all, terrorism (and especially its new spawn, piracy) is by far the #1 cause of non-natural death in most countries of the world, isn't it ? And going after it instead of building and maintaining schools is a proven efficient way of stopping it, right ?

Edited 2010-09-21 16:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Better than al-qaeda
by jefro on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:36 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

If al-qaeda were in change we'd really be in trouble.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Better than al-qaeda
by Soulbender on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 04:18 UTC in reply to "Better than al-qaeda "
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Because the only options available to us is the US and the Al-Queda.

Reply Score: 3

bazaillion
Member since:
2006-09-30

You know its funny how the U.S. Government always backs the RIAA and the MPAA when it comes to piracy. In fact going out of its way to enforce ridiculous legislation that these two groups put forth. However another perfectly legal, 10 Billion/yr industry. The adult industry gets no love from their government even though they are probably the most affected and pilfered out of them all. All because the government is against it.

Reply Score: 1

No surprise here
by another_sam on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 09:33 UTC
another_sam
Member since:
2009-08-19

I always knew Bill Gates had total power over the Internet.

Reply Score: 1

Sad part is
by deathshadow on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 11:58 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

With wars on two fronts, a tanking economy due to over-reliance on credit (which the current regime has a head in the sand policy over) a failing education system and a health care 'reform' that has nothing to do with actually reforming health care and everything to do with socializing INSURANCE (using the Commiewealth of Taxachussetts model of "people can't afford insurance, let's force them to pay for it from the government..." -- yeah, health care reform, that's what that is.)

What pressing issues are the US congress addressing? Fighting Internet piracy with techniques that WON'T WORK (ever heard of a hosts file?), National "drive safely" day (because we can't possibly drive safely every day), dicking around with the ecology of Long Island sound, and passing a NIMBY on the fishing industry... Oop, don't forget tacking a bunch of pork barrel extras on a oceanographic grant to line their own pockets and proposing another pay raise for themselves.

... and of course shelving for five weeks straight the budget for the next years military spending -- the ONLY thing to come before them in the past month that has ANYTHING to do with any of the real problems the nation is facing.

Better get yourself back down to Congress, Mr. Adams. Gettin’ ready to vote, and they said they couldn’t settle such an important question without Massachusetts bein’ there.

I can just imagine. Alright, what burning issue are we voting on this time?

On whether or not to grant General Washington’s request that all members of the Rhode Island militia be required to wear matching uniforms.

Oh, good God!

I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm; and that three or more become a Congress! And, by God, I have had this Congress!

Edited 2010-09-22 12:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Wow.
by Adam S on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 12:51 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Big Content, which already owns the Obama administration


TROLL.

Edited 2010-09-22 12:51 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Wow.
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "Wow."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Big Content, which already owns the Obama administration


TROLL.
"

Sadly, it is not so.

Just look at the actions of the Obama administration regarding IP and copyright, as well as him appointing several pro-RIAA individuals at the very top positions of the DoJ (at least the #2 and #3). Take a look at the Obama administration trying to push ACTA onto the world. Just look at the Obama administration's stance on IP protection and copyright. Just look at Biden's pro-Big Content voting record.

As I've said before - Obama has tried (Congress screwed it up though*) to do some great things to finally bring America (kicking and screaming) into the modern world, but on the IP/copyright front, he's simply fighting for the wrong side in this the war.

* http://action.change-congress.org/page/share/yearone

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow.
by Adam S on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow."
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

No, it is so.

You can make any sort of implication you want, but you can't state it as fact. No administration is "owned", and injecting that opinion as fact is nothing more than flamebait. Sorry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow.
by fretinator on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the point is not that they "own" them in sense of some financial purchase, but that they own them in the philosophical camp - the Obama administration has repeatly come down on the side of the Big Content providers. Trying to push the ACTA treaty world-wide is an example of this. Perhaps these wheels were already set in motion by the previous adminiistration, bit his is certainly doing nothing to slow it down.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow.
by Adam S on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow."
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Obviously Thom is not suggesting the administration was owned like a possession, but I object to the implication that my president bends to the will of any industry. Obviously - and unfortunately - the administration has sided with them. But some people feel it's a good thing. I'm not one of them, but it's certainly not the first time a politician has sided with a business. It certainly doesn't mean he's in their pocket.

For someone who believes it treasonous to throw trash at his queen, it's pretty reckless to dismiss someone else's government as "owned" by any industry with a pejorative tone, especially in the midst of reporting facts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow.
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't see why you should get so upset over this. I'm not saying he's a bad president - in fact, I think he's a great guy and he's trying all his damn best to make America a better place for its citizens. After eight years of Bush, that's a massive relief not just for you, but also for the rest of the world.

However, no matter how much I may like someone, it doesn't shield them from my disapproval. In this matter, it's quite clear that he's in cahoots with Big Content - owned, if you will - and that's a very bad thing. I think me pointing that out is not something you should take offense over.

As for the queen thing - this is entirely not comparable. I'm not upset about a guy throwing a glass candleholder to queen Beatrix during Prinsjesdag - I'm upset because someone just insulted the very embodiment of my country. It'd be like me burning an American flag while standing in the crowd during a 4th of July parade. It'd be like me throwing a rock towards Obama while he's holding the State of the Union.

I could care less who is our monarch. I care about what he or she represents.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow.
by Adam S on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow."
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Ironically, I don't care about burning the flag.

I'm not upset about you insulting the President, that's a right I'd fight to protect. I care about you irresponsibly reporting it the way you did. It's not a fact, and it's not something we agree on, so it's a silly, poorly-written intro to a legitimate article. If there were anywhere but here, I'd click away.

It's a bit like me saying "Sarah Palin, who is poorly educated, gets way too much attention." It's simply not a material fact, though it may be supported by lots of examples. It has no place in any sort of responsible reporting, because it's not only not objective, it's actively injecting your viewpoint and spinning the story, and that always makes me sick.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Wow.
by koki on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow."
koki Member since:
2005-10-17

Thom, you seem to have been drinking too much of Stallman's kool-aid lately.

Reply Score: 1

piracy websites
by hussam on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 07:27 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

Would be a great day in history when piracy websites get shutdown.

Reply Score: 2

Eric F. Vermote - Piracy expert
by damienbizeau on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 08:04 UTC
damienbizeau
Member since:
2010-09-23

Fantastic article & all content seems interesting in terms of "preliminaries". I am one who also believes the Internet needs government regulation in America (very serious government action in France with new anti-piracy law called HADOPI starting to be officially applied for example). Eric F. Vermote illegally used P2P in Maryland during 2003-2004 (bootlegs & audio files for his car). This man with a IT degree works for NASA & the University of Maryland but went to jail for automobile theft in Florida... he is definitely not at all scrupulous with music too obviously and filed a defamation legal suit in France against me in July 2009 stipulating he never got involved in on-line piracy because he is a manipulative liar & because the case involved never got officially substantiated or couldn't ever be substantiated; my point is that if the Internet had been better regulated by the US government Eric F. Vermote would not have had the opportunity to lie against me and pretend what I accused him of (on-line piracy) is frivolous. On-line piracy cases almost absolutely never get substantiated unfortunately! Damien Bizeau - Classical Music, France.

Reply Score: 1

Piracy == Theft
by axilmar on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 11:32 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Piracy means lost revenue, and therefore it is theft.

Personally, I welcome this move against piracy, and I wish it is extended to other countries as well.

Edited 2010-09-23 11:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Piracy == Theft
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 11:40 UTC in reply to "Piracy == Theft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Piracy means lost revenue, and therefore it is theft.


Your ears mean me losing 2309573495873496745290257735025702957097509475039475039745027502750275 092475094750349750937503760376039476 Euros.

Please pay me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Piracy == Theft
by axilmar on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Piracy == Theft"
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

"Piracy means lost revenue, and therefore it is theft.


Your ears mean me losing 2309573495873496745290257735025702957097509475039475039745027502750275 092475094750349750937503760376039476 Euros.

Please pay me.
"

Did I just copy your ears? then I certainly should pay you.

Reply Score: 2

obongo
by xaeropower on Sat 25th Sep 2010 12:47 UTC
xaeropower
Member since:
2005-12-16

Dont expect much from some kenyan worthless lieing ***** puppet.

These need to make countless laws for transferring 1s and 0s, I suggest deport idiot politicians back to Liberia where they have to kill for food and water.

Edited 2010-09-25 12:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1