Fulanito de Tal
16th August 2011, 22:31
I haven't seen this on this thread yet, so here's to awareness!
Protect IP Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protect IP Act (short for Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, also known as United States Senate Bill S.968) is a bill introduced on May 12, 2011 by senator Patrick Leahy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy) (D-VT)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-0) and aimed at denying access and linking to "pirate" or "rogue" websites, especially those registered outside the U.S., which are "dedicated to infringing activities".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-eff01-1) Having been passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Bill was placed on hold by Senator Ron Wyden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden) (D-OR).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-wyden-press-release-2) The legislation is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act ) which failed to pass in 2010.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-BBC-tech-3)
The bill is supported by a large number of groups including the Motion Picture Association of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Screen Actors Guild, Viacom, and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-4) It is opposed by individuals, consumer rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-eff01-1) and Yahoo! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21), eBay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay), American Express (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express), Google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-wyden-halt-5) Reporters Without Borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders), and Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-PubIntrest-6) Executive chairman of Google Eric Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt), has been vocal in his opposition to the act citing dangers for a free internet.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-guardian-schmidt-7)
Contents
[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#)]
1 Contents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#Contents)
2 Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#Criticism)
3 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#See_also)
4 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#References)
5 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#External_links)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protect_IP_Act&action=edit§ion=1)] Contents
The bill focuses on websites that are not registered in the US, and would give the United States Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing website, and then demand of "information location tools," defined as a "directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link", to "expeditiously" make the target website invisible. The term "information location tools" is borrowed from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) and is understood to refer to search engines, but could cover other sites that link to content.
“ The Protect IP Act says that an "information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order". In addition, it must delete all hyperlinks to the offending "Internet site". ”
At a technical level domain name servers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_Server) would be ordered to blacklist the suspected websites. Although the websites would remain reachable by IP address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address), links directing to them would be broken.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-publicknowledge-8) Also search engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engines)—such as the already protesting Google—would be ordered to remove links in their index of the web of an allegedly infringing website. Furthermore, copyright holders themselves would be able to apply for court injunctions to have sites' domains blacklisted.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protect_IP_Act&action=edit§ion=2)] Criticism
The bill was criticized for not being specific about what constitutes an infringing web site. For example, if WikiLeaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks) were accused of distributing copyrighted content, U.S. search engines could be served a court order to block search results pointing to Wikileaks. Requiring search engines to remove links to an entire website altogether due to an infringing page would raise free speech concerns regarding lawful content hosted elsewhere on the site.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-eff01-1) The fact that an injunction can be issued without notifying the allegedly infringing site nullifies the legal presumption of innocence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence). The ability of any private rights holder to bring legal action against a site via a court and require search engines to censor their search results may make the law unrealistic.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-9)
Attempts to limit copyright infringement online by way of blocking domains have always received the criticism that blocking domains would fracture the Domain Name System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System). Theoretically, all domain name servers world-wide contain identical lists; with the changes proposed, servers inside the United States would have records different from their global counterparts, making URLs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL) less universal.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-publicknowledge-8)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google)
Google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) chairman Eric Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt) has stated that the measures called for in the Protect IP Act are overly simple solutions to a complex problem, and that the precedent set by pruning DNS entries is bad from the viewpoint of free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech) and would be a step toward less permissive internet environments, such as China's. As chairman of the company that owns the world's largest search engine, Schmidt has declared "if there is a law that requires DNSs to do X and it's passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-guardian-schmidt-7)
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=487
Reject the PROTECT IP Act
The PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is a threatening sequel to last year's COICA Internet censorship bill that would—like its predecessor—invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation.
Urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!
Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement. But innovation and free speech advocates know that PIPA is nothing more than a dangerous wish list that will compromise Internet security while doing little or nothing to encourage creative expression.
PROTECT IP = Private Rightsholders Opposed To Emerging Consumer Technologies, Innovation, and Progress
As drafted, the bill seeks to stop websites believed to be "dedicated" to "infringing activities" by granting the government the unprecedented power to attack the Internet's domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users' attempts to reach certain websites' URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.
It gets worse: the bill uses the following dangerously expansive definition of DNS server: "a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name." This loose, uncabined definition could lead to the targeting of other technologies—like operating systems, email clients, web clients, routers, and more—that are capable of providing IP addresses when given domain names like a traditional DNS server.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has placed a hold on the Senate version of the bill, taking a principled stand against a very dangerous bill. But every Senator and Representative should be opposing the PROTECT IP Act -- contact your members of Congress today to speak out!
All bold emphasis was added by me.
Protect IP Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protect IP Act (short for Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, also known as United States Senate Bill S.968) is a bill introduced on May 12, 2011 by senator Patrick Leahy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy) (D-VT)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-0) and aimed at denying access and linking to "pirate" or "rogue" websites, especially those registered outside the U.S., which are "dedicated to infringing activities".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-eff01-1) Having been passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Bill was placed on hold by Senator Ron Wyden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden) (D-OR).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-wyden-press-release-2) The legislation is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act ) which failed to pass in 2010.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-BBC-tech-3)
The bill is supported by a large number of groups including the Motion Picture Association of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Screen Actors Guild, Viacom, and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-4) It is opposed by individuals, consumer rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-eff01-1) and Yahoo! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21), eBay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay), American Express (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express), Google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-wyden-halt-5) Reporters Without Borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders), and Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-PubIntrest-6) Executive chairman of Google Eric Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt), has been vocal in his opposition to the act citing dangers for a free internet.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-guardian-schmidt-7)
Contents
[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#)]
1 Contents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#Contents)
2 Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#Criticism)
3 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#See_also)
4 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#References)
5 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#External_links)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protect_IP_Act&action=edit§ion=1)] Contents
The bill focuses on websites that are not registered in the US, and would give the United States Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing website, and then demand of "information location tools," defined as a "directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link", to "expeditiously" make the target website invisible. The term "information location tools" is borrowed from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) and is understood to refer to search engines, but could cover other sites that link to content.
“ The Protect IP Act says that an "information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order". In addition, it must delete all hyperlinks to the offending "Internet site". ”
At a technical level domain name servers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_Server) would be ordered to blacklist the suspected websites. Although the websites would remain reachable by IP address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address), links directing to them would be broken.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-publicknowledge-8) Also search engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engines)—such as the already protesting Google—would be ordered to remove links in their index of the web of an allegedly infringing website. Furthermore, copyright holders themselves would be able to apply for court injunctions to have sites' domains blacklisted.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protect_IP_Act&action=edit§ion=2)] Criticism
The bill was criticized for not being specific about what constitutes an infringing web site. For example, if WikiLeaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks) were accused of distributing copyrighted content, U.S. search engines could be served a court order to block search results pointing to Wikileaks. Requiring search engines to remove links to an entire website altogether due to an infringing page would raise free speech concerns regarding lawful content hosted elsewhere on the site.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-eff01-1) The fact that an injunction can be issued without notifying the allegedly infringing site nullifies the legal presumption of innocence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence). The ability of any private rights holder to bring legal action against a site via a court and require search engines to censor their search results may make the law unrealistic.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-9)
Attempts to limit copyright infringement online by way of blocking domains have always received the criticism that blocking domains would fracture the Domain Name System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System). Theoretically, all domain name servers world-wide contain identical lists; with the changes proposed, servers inside the United States would have records different from their global counterparts, making URLs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL) less universal.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-publicknowledge-8)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google)
Google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) chairman Eric Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt) has stated that the measures called for in the Protect IP Act are overly simple solutions to a complex problem, and that the precedent set by pruning DNS entries is bad from the viewpoint of free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech) and would be a step toward less permissive internet environments, such as China's. As chairman of the company that owns the world's largest search engine, Schmidt has declared "if there is a law that requires DNSs to do X and it's passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act#cite_note-guardian-schmidt-7)
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=487
Reject the PROTECT IP Act
The PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is a threatening sequel to last year's COICA Internet censorship bill that would—like its predecessor—invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation.
Urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!
Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement. But innovation and free speech advocates know that PIPA is nothing more than a dangerous wish list that will compromise Internet security while doing little or nothing to encourage creative expression.
PROTECT IP = Private Rightsholders Opposed To Emerging Consumer Technologies, Innovation, and Progress
As drafted, the bill seeks to stop websites believed to be "dedicated" to "infringing activities" by granting the government the unprecedented power to attack the Internet's domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users' attempts to reach certain websites' URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.
It gets worse: the bill uses the following dangerously expansive definition of DNS server: "a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name." This loose, uncabined definition could lead to the targeting of other technologies—like operating systems, email clients, web clients, routers, and more—that are capable of providing IP addresses when given domain names like a traditional DNS server.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has placed a hold on the Senate version of the bill, taking a principled stand against a very dangerous bill. But every Senator and Representative should be opposing the PROTECT IP Act -- contact your members of Congress today to speak out!
All bold emphasis was added by me.