[RedCell989]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Well I entirely support things like this. There is nothing wrong with the legislation. The issue is abuse of the legislation. Everything can be abused though.

Oh I am not worried about the government abusing powers, they never do that.

[petteyg359]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Well I entirely support things like this. There is nothing wrong with the legislation.

Free injunctions with no court involved aren't wrong? AFAIK, all a company has to do is tell your ISP that you're infringing their rights, and your ISP can either choose to spend their money to fight on your behalf (really, how likely is that?) or cut you off.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't speak lawyer-excrement, so I can only go off of information that other people have deciphered.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by petteyg359

Free injunctions with no court involved aren't wrong? AFAIK, all a company has to do is tell your ISP that you're infringing their rights, and your ISP can either choose to spend their money to fight on your behalf (really, how likely is that?) or cut you off.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't speak lawyer-excrement, so I can only go off of information that other people have deciphered.

There is a lot more to it than that. You will have time to come into compliance if you are not direcrly involved with the infringment.

[I.M.O.G.]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

There is a lot more to it than that. You will have time to come into compliance if you are not direcrly involved with the infringment.

Does it say how much time, how it is determined if you are in compliance, and who does the determination?

My issue is in lack of specificity. If those points are nailed down, I could feel better about the proposed legislation.

You seem to have read the actual law more than others, and I can't decipher lawyer speak so I too am mainly going off explanations of others in articles I've read.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

Does it say how much time, how it is determined if you are in compliance, and who does the determination?

My issue is in lack of specificity. If those points are nailed down, I would feel better about the proposed legislation.

You seem to have read the actual law more than others, and I can't decipher lawyer speak so I too am mainly going off explanations of others in articles I've read.

I will find it and

(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. Such showing shall not be presumed to be a complete defense but shall serve as a defense only for those measures for which a technical limitation on compliance is demonstrated or for such portions of the order as are demonstrated to be unauthorized by this subsection.
(D) DEFINITION- For purposes of this paragraph, a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection includes a product or service that is designed or marketed to enable a domain name described in such an order--
(i) to resolve to that domain name's Internet protocol address notwithstanding the measures taken by a service provider under paragraph (2) to prevent such resolution; or
(ii) to resolve to a different domain name or Internet Protocol address that the provider of the product or service knows, reasonably should know, or reasonably believes is used by an Internet site offering substantially similar infringing activities as those with which the infringing foreign site, or portion thereof, subject to a court order under this section was associated.
(5) IMMUNITY-
(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT- Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4), no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity served with a copy of a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order. (B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY- Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4)--
(i) any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order; and
(ii) any--
(I) actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to such order, that is instituted pursuant to this subsection, or (II) act, failure, or inability to restrict access to a foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to such order, in spite of good faith efforts to comply with such order by such entity,
shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity..

I will get paragraph 4 up

(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS-
(A) IN GENERAL- To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief--
(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or
(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).
(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. Such showing shall not be presumed to be a complete defense but shall serve as a defense only for those measures for which a technical limitation on compliance is demonstrated or for such portions of the order as are demonstrated to be unauthorized by this subsection.
(D) DEFINITION- For purposes of this paragraph, a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection includes a product or service that is designed or marketed to enable a domain name described in such an order--
(i) to resolve to that domain name's Internet protocol address notwithstanding the measures taken by a service provider under paragraph (2) to prevent such resolution; or
(ii) to resolve to a different domain name or Internet Protocol address that the provider of the product or service knows, reasonably should know, or reasonably believes is used by an Internet site offering substantially similar infringing activities as those with which the infringing foreign site, or portion thereof, subject to a court order under this section was associated.

(c) Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:
(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
(ii) LIMITATIONS- A service provider shall not be required--
(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or
(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.
(iii) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.
(iv) TEXT OF NOTICE- The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.
(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.
(C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account--
(I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).
(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES-
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

The knowingly and willfully fail to comply. This is giving teeth to laws that have been circumvented.

[I.M.O.G.]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

On the DNS subject, when this thing started gaining a little traction it was pointed out there's already a FireFox plug in developed that is capable (and I believe has a crowd sourced database available) of resolving IPs directly based on an "independent" DNS table. Personally I feel like that's all the more reason to come up with better legislation, if a lot of the people who are the problem can figure stuff like that out to circumvent it, all it will do is deny access to sites to "average joes" who may not even be looking for the content in question.

Also a huge security risk in using "independent" DNS. DNS is who tells you what IP a domain name should go to. If someone can compromise the "independent" DNS, fishing attacks or other security compromises would be especially dangerous - a much higher risk than there is in the current DNS system.

@Archer: Ya, but what the hell is that saying? To me, that says I can't sue the people in the goverment responsible for accusing me. It all talks in circles though, and if I were in the situation, I'd need to hire a lawyer to tell me what the law says.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

Also a huge security risk in using "independent" DNS. DNS is who tells you what IP a domain name should go to. If someone can compromise the "independent" DNS, fishing attacks or other security compromises would be especially dangerous - a much higher risk than there is in the current DNS system.

@Archer: Ya, but what the hell is that saying? To me, that says I can't sue the people in the goverment responsible for accusing me. It all talks in circles though, and if I were in the situation, I'd need to hire a lawyer to tell me what the law says.

Well I guess that could be an issue. You are a smert person and you dont get it on the first read. I guess those people in DC will be and are clueless.

What is it saying? Well basically if you take steps as outlined by the law and use all due diligance to comply with the law you will be immune.

I think it would be good to actually go over this. I may need filled in on what is actually wrong with this legislation.

[I.M.O.G.]

Gotcha, I can see how that could be what it means.

Parts like this especially concern me:

(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--

So by law in as little as five days of receiving notice, the advertising agency needs to drop the relationship with the offending site. I don't know where the law states how someone is determined to be an offender, and I don't know where the law states how a counter claim can be filed by the advertising agency - if I'm an ad agency, I may have had that client for years and it may be an especially profitable relationship. If I don't believe the notice was duly obtained or administered, I should have reasonable recourse. I also don't understand what the repercussions would be for me if I refuse to comply with the notice.

Here's a relevant reference that I think is very appropriate. I've gained this knowledge from running this site, and handling DMCA takedown requests:

The DMCA allows for reasonable terms that for the most part work alright, but it is also a horribly abused system - iNet receives dozens of DMCA requests. Often times they are sent by people that don't like what someone said about them on a site, true or not. Often times they go ignored, as iNet is good about valuing real discussion. Ultimately, it is the individual poster responsible for the material as well, not iNet - however people send these sorts of DMCA requests to iNet because many companies other than iNet knee-jerk comply rather than stand up for their users. These individuals either don't want to incur the court costs by going through the legal system, or they know they don't have a real case - but by abusing the DMCA system, they can often get the result they are after almost for free.

From what I've read, there are a lot of issues like that in the proposed legislation. Everything I'm reading points to the thing not being fully cooked, worse off than DMCA already is, and most alarmingly, it extends the reach of the law beyond the borders that DMCA currently reaches. There is good reason for this to cause international alarm, as well an national alarm for US citizens who feel it isn't right for the US to make an internet governing land grab.

Take this reference for example:

Worried about the chilling effects of the SOPA bill? You should be. If it goes through, there will be no more "two guys in a garage" coming up with a great startup. It will have to be "two guys in a garage backed by four lawyers".

https://plus.google.com/101149790069...ts/M5fF2FBgpGX

Just as I can't understand and fear the repercussions of the bill, but know I would need a lawyer to figure it out, this guy is basically saying just that, while referencing the forbes article he links.

[Archer0915]

SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
(b) Action by the Attorney General-
(1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or
(B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
(2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a foreign infringing site or the foreign domain name used by such site.
(3) NOTICE- Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--
(A) to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site--
(i) at the postal and electronic mail addresses appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and
(ii) via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(B) to the owner or operator of the Internet site--
(i) at the primary postal and electronic mail addresses for such owner or operator that is provided on the Internet site, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(ii) if there is no domain name of the Internet site, via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the Internet Protocol allocation entity appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of allocations and assignments, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(C) in any other such form as the court may provide, including as may be required by rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(4) SERVICE OF PROCESS- For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.
(5) RELIEF- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.
(c) Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:
(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
(ii) LIMITATIONS- A service provider shall not be required--
(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or
(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.
(iii) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code. (iv) TEXT OF NOTICE- The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.
(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link. (C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account-- (I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e). (D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES-
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e). (3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS- Except as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(iv), an entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine the means to communicate such action to the entity's users or customers.
(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS-
(A) IN GENERAL- To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief--
(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or
(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).
(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

Gotcha, I can see how that could be what it means.

Parts like this especially concern me:



So by law in as little as five days of receiving notice, the advertising agency needs to drop the relationship with the offending site. I don't know where the law states how someone is determined to be an offender, and I don't know where the law states how a counter claim can be filed by the advertising agency - if I'm an ad agency, I may have had that client for years and it may be an especially profitable relationship. If I don't believe the notice was duly obtained or administered, I should have reasonable recourse. I also don't understand what the repercussions would be for me if I refuse to comply with the notice.

Here's a relevant reference that I think is very appropriate. I've gained this knowledge from running this site, and handling DMCA takedown requests:

The DMCA allows for reasonable terms that for the most part work alright, but it is also a horribly abused system - iNet receives dozens of DMCA requests. Often times they are sent by people that don't like what someone said about them on a site, true or not. Often times they go ignored, as iNet is good about valuing real discussion. Ultimately, it is the individual poster responsible for the material as well, not iNet - however people send these sorts of DMCA requests to iNet because many companies other than iNet knee-jerk comply rather than stand up for their users. These individuals either don't want to incur the court costs by going through the legal system, or they know they don't have a real case - but by abusing the DMCA system, they can often get the result they are after almost for free.

From what I've read, there are a lot of issues like that in the proposed legislation. Everything I'm reading points to the thing not being fully cooked, worse off than DMCA already is, and most alarmingly, it extends the reach of the law beyond the borders that DMCA currently reaches. There is good reason for this to cause international alarm, as well an national alarm for US citizens who feel it isn't right for the US to make an internet governing land grab.

Take this reference for example:



https://plus.google.com/101149790069...ts/M5fF2FBgpGX

Just as I can't understand and fear the repercussions of the bill, but know I would need a lawyer to figure it out, this guy is basically saying just that, while referencing the forbes article he links.

Forums and the like should be protected. Most try to keep it clean and that is due diligence.

If anything this gives some sort of written protections. MegaUpload? They did not need this for that.

SEC. 204. AMENDMENTS TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) review, and if appropriate, amend Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of--
(A) intellectual property offenses;
(B) an offense under section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code; or
(C) an offense under section 1831 of title 18, United States Code;
(2) in carrying out such review, consider amending such Guidelines and policy statements to--
(A) apply an appropriate offense level enhancement for intellectual property offenses committed in connection with an organized criminal enterprise;
(B) apply an appropriate offense level enhancement to the simple misappropriation of a trade secret;
(C) apply an additional appropriate offense level enhancement if the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an additional appropriate enhancement if the defendant instead commits economic espionage;
(D) provide that when a defendant transmits trade secrets outside of the United States or commits economic espionage, that the defendant should face a minimum offense level;
(E) provide for an offense level enhancement for Guidelines relating to the theft of trade secrets and economic espionage, including trade secrets transferred or attempted to be transferred outside of the United States;
(F) apply an appropriate offense level enhancement and minimum offense level for offenses under section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code, that involve a product intended for use in a military or national security application, or a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application;
(G) ensure that the Guidelines and policy statements (including section 2B5.3 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (and any successor thereto)) reflect--
(i) the serious nature of the offenses described in section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code;
(ii) the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent offenses under section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
(iii) the effectiveness of incarceration in furthering the objectives described in clauses (i) and (ii); and
(H) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and Guidelines and Federal statutes;
(3) submit to Congress a report detailing the Commission's actions with respect to each potential amendment described in paragraph (2);
(4) make such conforming amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as the Commission determines necessary to achieve consistency with other Guideline provisions and applicable law; and
(5) promulgate the Guidelines, policy statements, or amendments provided for in this section as soon as practicable in accordance with the procedure set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note), as though the authority under that Act had not expired.

Above are the sentencing guidlines. Most likley a Judge and Jury will take care of that part.

As far as the guys in the garage? This would help protect them from infringement by foreign powers like China.

One other thing: Most people have not clue how to read a contract and understand it (truly understand it and the repercussions of failing to honor it(look at all the failed mortgages)) and many have no idea how to make heads or tails of legislation. Many of them are bitching about things that others have said and most of the people who have complained don't have a clue either. I am not saying this is all good but many jump on the band wagon without having a clue what direction it is going.

I have a hard time with legislation because you have to jump around for reference but there again it is no different than a research paper. Different language and structure but the same amount of jumping around.

I am also not saying I have not missed anything because you can not read it straight through.

[Meathead]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Forums and the like should be protected. Most try to keep it clean and that is due diligence.

If anything this gives some sort of written protections. MegaUpload? They did not need this for that.

Above are the sentencing guidlines. Most likley a Judge and Jury will take care of that part.

As far as the guys in the garage? This would help protect them from infringement by foreign powers like China.

One other thing: Most people have not clue how to read a contract and understand it (truly understand it and the repercussions of failing to honor it(look at all the failed mortgages)) and many have no idea how to make heads or tails of legislation. Many of them are bitching about things that others have said and most of the people who have complained don't have a clue either. I am not saying this is all good but many jump on the band wagon without having a clue what direction it is going.

I have a hard time with legislation because you have to jump around for reference but there again it is no different than a research paper. Different language and structure but the same amount of jumping around.

I am also not saying I have not missed anything because you can not read it straight through.

The guys in the garage do not need protection from China. The big dogs do. All you have to do is look at wikipedia's list of companies supporting the SOPA bill and it already sends off multiple red flags that something is probably not right. Video game designers figured out how to stop piracy through programs like steam. Why can't these media idiots do that? All these years of trying to pass **** bills when they could have created their own itunes and stopped crying like babies. I'm sure as the sky is blue that I'm not giving the government the ability to decide what is "due diligence" because these gigantic corporations with wallets as tall as the empire state building can't handle their own problems and come up with their own solutions. Kinda interesting that these media giants aren't being creative about how to protect their media, they aren't being creative about the shows they produce, yet they want to be paid for their creativeness ( see show examples in next paragraph for an example)

This is not about the media business's loss in revenue and profits from foreign sources and mom and pops going out of business left and right due to online priacy. This is the giant corporations fighting for the strangle-hold that they once had over all forms of media and media outlets. How ****ty is the radio? How ****ty is network tv? All thats on network tv is ****ty spinoffs using celebrities.... dancing with the stars.... losing weight with the stars..... losing weight...... bachelor......bachelorette.... SURVIVOR: THE MOON...... .... They just pump out the same **** different twist

Now that the internet is around and full steam thanks to plenty of nifty media devices, we don't have to rely on big business to create media for us. The majority now have the power to create and distribute their own media. What does that spell for these media giants? No more free ride. You actually have to create original **** that I want to watch to get my dollar now. Theres so much competition that the consumer has the power to enjoy whatever they please. I've found so much underground music that I legally get for free that I've stopped paying for any media except new video games. Even thats about to go with these free to play games like league of legends where I can pay them for some eye candy because they let me play their game and I think they deserve some money.

On a side note.... I'm not sure whats scarier.... The government controlling the internet or google/microsoft having so much power due to their control of the major search engines.

And don't even get me started about the court systems.... Can we really handle the load that would ensue after the wave of infringement complaints ensue? I doubt it but then again I'm just an avid reader and not a player of any sort in these matters.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by Meathead

The guys in the garage do not need protection from China. The big dogs do. All you have to do is look at wikipedia's list of companies supporting the SOPA bill and it already sends off multiple red flags that something is probably not right. Video game designers figured out how to stop piracy through programs like steam. Why can't these media idiots do that? All these years of trying to pass **** bills when they could have created their own itunes and stopped crying like babies. I'm sure as the sky is blue that I'm not giving the government the ability to decide what is "due diligence" because these gigantic corporations with wallets as tall as the empire state building can't handle their own problems and come up with their own solutions. Kinda interesting that these media giants aren't being creative about how to protect their media, they aren't being creative about the shows they produce, yet they want to be paid for their creativeness ( see show examples in next paragraph for an example)

This is not about the media business's loss in revenue and profits from foreign sources and mom and pops going out of business left and right due to online priacy. This is the giant corporations fighting for the strangle-hold that they once had over all forms of media and media outlets. How ****ty is the radio? How ****ty is network tv? All thats on network tv is ****ty spinoffs using celebrities.... dancing with the stars.... losing weight with the stars..... losing weight...... bachelor......bachelorette.... SURVIVOR: THE MOON...... .... They just pump out the same **** different twist

Now that the internet is around and full steam thanks to plenty of nifty media devices, we don't have to rely on big business to create media for us. The majority now have the power to create and distribute their own media. What does that spell for these media giants? No more free ride. You actually have to create original **** that I want to watch to get my dollar now. Theres so much competition that the consumer has the power to enjoy whatever they please. I've found so much underground music that I legally get for free that I've stopped paying for any media except new video games. Even thats about to go with these free to play games like league of legends where I can pay them for some eye candy because they let me play their game and I think they deserve some money.

On a side note.... I'm not sure whats scarier.... The government controlling the internet or google/microsoft having so much power due to their control of the major search engines.

And don't even get me started about the court systems.... Can we really handle the load that would ensue after the wave of infringement complaints ensue? I doubt it but then again I'm just an avid reader and not a player of any sort in these matters.

So what exactly in the bill do you have an issue with? It will be redone and it will pass but the more we can suggest to our elected officals the better.

EDIT: By the way they already have the powers (megaupload is gone, the patriot act...) this gives protections.

[Meathead]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

So what exactly in the bill do you have an issue with? It will be redone and it will pass but the more we can suggest to our elected officals the better.

EDIT: By the way they already have the powers (megaupload is gone, the patriot act...) this gives protections.

The problem with this bill is it is not needed. If you provide the services needed, then people will buy from you. I'll keep shouting it over and over. STEAM, BATTLE.NET, ETC......

Incentives go a long way. Stop trying to prevent. Prevention still does a ****ty job and all it does is **** people off. Steam lets me shop for all game needs and makes it so easy and convenient that I can't believe steam is even freeI'
I've only read portions of the bill but I trust my sources that interpret things and I double check their sources and leave it at that. Just in the same way you trust others because you cannot be an expert in all aspects of life.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by Meathead

The problem with this bill is it is not needed. If you provide the services needed, then people will buy from you. I'll keep shouting it over and over. STEAM, BATTLE.NET, ETC......

Incentives go a long way. Stop trying to prevent. Prevention still does a ****ty job and all it does is **** people off. Steam lets me shop for all game needs and makes it so easy and convenient that I can't believe steam is even freeI'
I've only read portions of the bill but I trust my sources that interpret things and I double check their sources and leave it at that. Just in the same way you trust others because you cannot be an expert in all aspects of life.

Companies do not do things the way you want so they need to change? I don't think so. Your contention is you dont like it because they need to do business your way.

Also; I do see a bias in your post. How could I trust your sources? I would assume they have the same bias.

I was dead serious: what part of the bill do you take issue with? The parts that try and put a stop to pirate web sites because they want you to buy their product? The part that can help stop US patents from getting messed over? What exactly do you have issue with? They are not going to go with your wants; not yet.

[Meathead]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Companies do not do things the way you want so they need to change? I don't think so. Your contention is you dont like it because they need to do business your way.

Also I do see a bias in your post. How could I trust your sources? I would assume they have the same bias.

I was dead serious what part of the bill do you issue with? The parts that try and put a stop to pirate web sites because they want you to buy their product? The part that can help stop US patents from getting messed over? What exactly do you have issue with? They are not going to go with your wants; not yet.

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying they should bend to my will. I'm saying I won't let the government tell me what is appropriate and not appropriate to view on the internet because the media industry can't develop and adapt a business model that works.

Trust my sources? All i do is read peoples conclusions and look where they got their info. I'm not refuting anything in the bill. I'm just stating my reasoning for why this bill is trying to be passed and why it should never pass.

Megaupload being shut down is equivalent to a sporting goods store being shut down for counterfeit goods. This would be like us blocking china off of trade and tourism because someone in their country sold that sporting goods store the counterfeit goods.

Heres my specific point.

(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.



I have an issue with just the fact that my service provider is controlled by the government is the method of enforcement. When does it stop? I believe the internet should stay as pure as humanly possible plain and simple. Otherwise how can I trust any source I read?

[Archer0915]

(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

So would you say do not block it? I mean you suggest a steam like format which is cool but that will not prevent infringement. So should the infringement not be stopped? I mean a proprietary device and encryption software could be made that may prevent any exact digital copies from being made but that is easily circumvented.

What do you propose to do to stop the infringement?

[I.M.O.G.]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

EDIT: By the way they already have the powers (megaupload is gone, the patriot act...) this gives protections.

I have to nitpick here. with reference if possible, who other than you is making the argument that sopa/pipa gives protections? I suppose it gives protections to the media giants mainly, however they already have DMCA, patriot, etc. I don't see anyone arguing that it gives protections to small business owners, or website operators. I do see a lot of people expressing concern over the international control it describes the US having to influence the internet.

I suggest they publish a documentation that explains why DMCA is insufficient, and specifically how SOPA addresses those shortcomings. This law is about putting deeper control in the hands of the government thru increases means to restrict the population, and making that the law.

I recognize megaupload got what's coming, what they were doing is wrong. However I would prefer the government keeps out of it, rather than takes deeper or more stringent control - I fear their impact on the market will be much larger and more negative than our current situation.

[Meathead]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

So would you say do not block it? I mean you suggest a steam like format which is cool but that will not prevent infringement. So should the infringement not be stopped? I mean a proprietary device and encryption software could be made that may prevent any exact digital copies from being made but that is easily circumvented.

What do you propose to do to stop the infringement?

Yes I'm saying the government should not be able to tell my service provider that certain content is not allowed. I suggest a steam like format as an example of something non-intrusive that the majority who uses it loves it that it is possible to prevent piracy without laws for digital content.

I never said I had any answers. I just know that this type of enforcement is bad news.

To what IMOG said.... I like what you said. The backers of this bill should have some type of website up defending the bill and addressing popular concerns that are rampant everywhere. Why aren't they trying to win the people over? Isn't that how you're supposed to get a law passed?

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.

(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:
(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.


(ii) LIMITATIONS- A service provider shall not be required--
(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or
(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.

Above sets limitations and provides protections. They have limits and as long as it can be proven that prescribed steps were taken you are clear unless you are in violation of other components of the bill as well.

(iii) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.


(iv) TEXT OF NOTICE- The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.



(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link. (C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account-- (I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e). (D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES-
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e). (3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS- Except as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(iv), an entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine the means to communicate such action to the entity's users or customers.
(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS-
(A) IN GENERAL- To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief--
(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or
(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).
(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection.

Blah Blah; I am getting sleepy excuse the slop. They are in there but I do think upone reading it several times that it is too encumpasing. It could be split into three bills and I think that might clear up some confusion.

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

I have to nitpick here. with reference if possible, who other than you is making the argument that sopa/pipa gives protections? I suppose it gives protections to the media giants mainly, however they already have DMCA, patriot, etc. I don't see anyone arguing that it gives protections to small business owners, or website operators. I do see a lot of people expressing concern over the international control it describes the US having to influence the internet.

I suggest they publish a documentation that explains why DMCA is insufficient, and specifically how SOPA addresses those shortcomings. This law is about putting deeper control in the hands of the government thru increases means to restrict the population, and making that the law.

I recognize megaupload got what's coming, what they were doing is wrong. However I would prefer the government keeps out of it, rather than takes deeper or more stringent control - I fear their impact on the market will be much larger and more negative than our current situation.

What worries me is they already can do these things. I mean they took Mega down and they can track most anything they want.

I think it is better to have some rules to this game or anyone and everyone can get a letter. Like this it affords a website recourse if the government does not follow procedures.

Remember the FBI closing things up at many sites recently? I think it was gambling. Well guess what it was about revenue and they want theirs. Every CD not sold is sales tax lost to the states and that means the states beg for more federal money. No matter the truth that is how it is seen and the only way to prove different is to stop it.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by Meathead

Yes I'm saying the government should not be able to tell my service provider that certain content is not allowed. I suggest a steam like format as an example of something non-intrusive that the majority who uses it loves it that it is possible to prevent piracy without laws for digital content.

I never said I had any answers. I just know that this type of enforcement is bad news.

Thank you for clarifying.