Looks like Congress has declared war on the internet (again)
SOURCE
Many internet users in the United States have watched with horror as countries like France and Britain have proposed or instituted so-called “three strikes” laws, which cut off internet access to those accused of repeated acts of copyright infringement. Now the U.S. has its own version of this kind of law, and it is arguably much worse: the ( Read more... )
Many internet users in the United States have watched with horror as countries like France and Britain have proposed or instituted so-called “three strikes” laws, which cut off internet access to those accused of repeated acts of copyright infringement. Now the U.S. has its own version of this kind of law, and it is arguably much worse: the ( Read more... )
The music industry is generally a good example of reducing piracy by making legal music much easier to access than illegal music (even if they're still trying, a futile attempt imo, to make the same amount of money they used to).
However, when you go to an institution like a college or a public library you almost always have to agree that you aren't using the internet for illegal reasons. If RIAA for whatever reason believes that so and so is stealing music and they legally ask the ISP to cooperate, well so be it. I think it's a waste of time on money on their part to go through all the red tape, but they're not doing anything legal. So I find it hard to muster up any sympathy for people who get busted.
ISPs already monitor internet activity and it's way too late to close that door. What they don't do is let anyone and their cousin have access without them jumping through hoops. Which makes this law even more onerous because it makes it easier to access private information.
Reply
But compelling them by law to cooperate is a different matter.
Reply
At least you're aware. I think a lot of people don't read the fine print and realize that they've opted into giving up their privacy and are shocked!!! when the lack of privacy dawns on them. To them I say pay more attention.
Reply
Fanmade games, alterations, etc, could be shut down. Fanart or fiction could be stripped from websites.
And even further, "the new law would allow the government to target any site that has “only limited purpose or use” other than infringement (by the government’s definition)."
Those were my main fears, not people illegally downloading music being shut down.
Reply
And even if it sucks for fans, they have the right to do those things.
I'm sure we can come up with nefarious ways to apply this law and I notice that some comments are pointing to ways this can be used as a political weapon to crush dissent but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who are probably most supportive and pushing this law are the entertainment/software companies who are losing money to piracy and are looking for an easy way out.
"Someone could say, copyright the OWS thing, as mentioned in a post above, and then have anything online related to it shut down."
Let's say they were able to get the copyright. You can't blame them for wanting to protect their copyright. But that's why it's not all that easy to gain a copyright of a phrase. I've read a few articles about people trying to do that but what I'm getting from this articles is that people aren't getting very far since the phrase is already out there.
Reply
Even still, the biggest issues are not the copyright issues. "the new law would allow the government to target any site that has “only limited purpose or use” other than infringement (by the government’s definition)."
So effectively, the government could shut down anything they pleased, and the targets would have no recourse. With little or no requirement for a court hearing, they could remove websites from the internet and people would have to fight to prove they were innocent and had a right to be online. And even if they won, anything they had up (especially a business or movement) might already be crushed by then.
So, people would no longer be presumed innocent before guilty - and if they make a precedent for this in internet legality, how long until it trickles into other areas of law?
Reply
Well we're just talking about a hypothetical here. I believe the chances of someone actually holding the copyright to Occupy Wall Street are slim. The phrase is already out there. You'd think someone would have to go above and beyond to prove that phrase was theirs.
"So, people would no longer be presumed innocent before guilty - and if they make a precedent for this in internet legality, how long until it trickles into other areas of law?"
Slippery slope aside, I generally agree with the problems people have with this.
My issue is that companies are acting like they can't already take action against people infringing on their copyright. All this law seems to do is make it so they don't have to work as hard anymore to do what they've always been able to do.
Which is why I think it's an overreach.
Reply
Leave a comment