bill that shuts down websites and news blogs

[cortez]

http://uswgo.com/protect-ip-act-threatens-the-internet-blogs-that-tell-the-truth-site-operators.htm

[Cebu_4_2]

Protect IP Act threatens the Internet, blogs that tell the truth, & site operators

May 15, 2011 by Brian D. Hill
Filed under Brian D. Hill's Articles, USWGO, Your Rights Threatened

Leave a comment

Author: Brian D. Hill

Related: Tell your senators to vote No on S.968 the bill number of the ‘Protect IP Act’, Obama Administration To Begin Shutting Down Websites

UPDATE!!! I found the name of the bill and it is S.968. Start calling all your representatives to vote no on the S-968 Senate Bill. It is urgent unless you rather not be legally allowed to get the truth out. If you want to get the truth out then please keep calling and faxing your senators that you want S-968 t0 be thrown in the trash can.

A new bill being supported by the Obama Administration and being sponsored by at least 11 senators of all stripes is being introduced that will threaten news aggregation, truth blogs, documentary filmmakers, political websites, and any website that uses portions or snippets from mainstream media websites or any portion of any copyrighted content.

The bill titled ‘Protect IP Act‘ with the bill number ‘GRA11400′ hosted on Senator Patrick Leahy’s website tells a story that what this bill will do is grant the U.S. Government the power to bring lawsuits against any blog or website that uses any portion or excerpt of any copyrighted materials and obtain court orders requiring search engines like Google to stop displaying links to them. If you don’t believe me then read the bill yourself which is 30 pages long right now. In fact I will embed this scary bill from Scribd for any of you who wish to read this bill to confirm what I am saying.
Protect IP Act by Obama Administration and 11 senators – Read this crazy bill!

This bill is yet another bill that will further give the U.S. Government even more power to shut down any website which criticizes the Establishment or any mega fascist Corporation all under the guise of further protecting copyright. The problem with this new copyright bill is that it violates Fair Use Exemptions. This bill also violates the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that they can sue websites and demand that search engines can censor any website that the Obama Administration or the Supreme Court thinks is committing copyright infringement. This bill also means you cannot post any copyrighted images on your website even if it is for an educational purpose because the Federal Government will view your site as willfully infringing another persons content and use that as an excuse to shut down your site and sue you in Federal Court.

While copyright is necessary to a certain extent, we cannot trade our civil liberties and our 1st amendment for more corporate copyright controls.

In fact this isn’t the only time the U.S. Government has attempted using copyright or some other do-good method to shut down or control the Internet. The U.S. Government has seized many domains under the guise of stopping pirated video streaming websites, Obama attempted to pass a ‘kill-switch’ bill plus giving Joe Lieberman the power to shut down any website he wishes with just a phone call, and U.S. authorities have shut down a WordPress host with around 73,000 blogs.

If the U.S. Government has attempted to control and censor the Internet before it will most likely happen again. The establishments agenda is on the wall that they want to either control the Internet to be more like cable TV or have it shut down. The one that told that agenda is non other then Jay Rockefeller.
YouTube Preview Image

In fact here is a quote from Wired about this bill threatening bloggers and their 1st amendment rights.

“Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the bill’s main sponsor. The proposal is an offshoot to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act introduced last year. It was scrapped by its authors in exchange for the Protect IP Act in a bid to win Senate passage.”

Of course they tell you they want to stop counterfeit goods and commercial piracy but what they won’t tell you is that they wish to criminalize bloggers for using excerpts and quotations, video embeds of portions of copyrighted videos, news aggregation websites (Even those that use very few paragraphs), and documentary filmmakers since they often reference copyrighted content for their educational documentaries.

This new copyright bill is just another attempt to give Obama the power to shut down any website he wishes under the noble deed of protecting copyrights and putting a stop to the selling of counterfeit goods.

[Book]

Tell your senators to vote No on...



:oo-->

[Cebu_4_2]

Tell your senators to vote No on...



:oo-->


Like they even vote, this place is sick. Land of the free... insert national anthem here:

[7th trump]

Well, I for one dont think copying someone elses invention, saying or what ever should be used by others for profit. The whole idea behind patents is to have claim and all rights including profit to yourself. You pay for that if you decide to copy right it.
If you dont then just share it.
This bill is really nothing to worry about if you ask me.
You are honest or you are not and its that simple!

[gunDriller]

This bill is yet another bill that will further give the U.S. Government even more power to shut down any website which criticizes the Establishment or any mega fascist Corporation all under the guise of further protecting copyright. The problem with this new copyright bill is that it violates Fair Use Exemptions.

This bill also violates the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that they can sue websites and demand that search engines can censor any website that the Obama Administration or the Supreme Court thinks is committing copyright infringement. This bill also means you cannot post any copyrighted images on your website even if it is for an educational purpose because the Federal Government will view your site as willfully infringing another persons content and use that as an excuse to shut down your site and sue you in Federal Court.


they don't give a fvck about IP.

SO - the solution ?

* start a new search engine dedicated to free speech, not censoring & jiggling search results to appease advertisers as Google does.
* if necessary, start a new Internet - and/or revive dial-up bulletin boards - which can also be networked together using Internet technology.

work ? yes. worth it ? DEFINITELY.

the US gov. is having a censorship race with China.

maybe Japan will become the new Free Speech Mecca.

personally, i don't care if the server i'm connecting to is highly irradiated - if i'm 5000 miles away.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Well, I for one dont think copying someone elses invention, saying or what ever should be used by others for profit. The whole idea behind patents is to have claim and all rights including profit to yourself. You pay for that if you decide to copy right it.
If you dont then just share it.
This bill is really nothing to worry about if you ask me.
You are honest or you are not and its that simple!


What about using a news clip or other intellectual property to make a non-profit documentary? Under this law, they could gag order your documentary - it doesn't mention PROFIT so much as it mentions "using sources that don't belong to you"

[7th trump]

Well, I for one dont think copying someone elses invention, saying or what ever should be used by others for profit. The whole idea behind patents is to have claim and all rights including profit to yourself. You pay for that if you decide to copy right it.
If you dont then just share it.
This bill is really nothing to worry about if you ask me.
You are honest or you are not and its that simple!


What about using a news clip or other intellectual property to make a non-profit documentary? Under this law, they could gag order your documentary - it doesn't mention PROFIT so much as it mentions "using sources that don't belong to you"



Well what do you do?
Its still not your clip even if its not posted that you cannot use it.
Sucks........
Pretty soon we'll be like Rome and start taxing haircuts to gain revenue.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

So for example if I wanted to make a documentary exposing George Bush Or Obama, or any political figure...

I couldn't do that since I don't own any of the footage....right? And that's honest?

[7th trump]

So for example if I wanted to make a documentary exposing George Bush Or Obama, or any political figure...

I couldn't do that since I don't own any of the footage....right? And that's honest?



Yep thats honesty.
Doesnt mean you cannot make a documentary though. Just cant use someone else footage if they dont want you to.
Its just road bumps.......

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Just cant use someone else footage if they dont want you to.

Well that's ALREADY the case today. This new law just means they can gag-order your entire documentary if they don't want it out there.

[7th trump]

Just cant use someone else footage if they dont want you to.

Well that's ALREADY the case today. This new law just means they can gag-order your entire documentary if they don't want it out there.
Only if you are using someone elses material thats required permission to use.
Find a source thats not copy righted..........no big deal

[Libertytree]

This is a joke on top of a joke on top of a joke....invoke the almighty DHS and they do whatever the fuck they want, even without the laws. These "laws" mean nothing and are to be treated with the impunity they deserve.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

7th Trump this literally means I cannot expose many things. Let's say, for example, the Denver International Airport:

http://www.alef.net/ALEFPlaces/DenverAirport/Mural2.Gif


How would I describe this painting to you? You HAVE TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. We can't even have a discussion about the themes going on here unless I can show you the picture.

Intellectual Property law is ALREADY THE STRONGEST IT HAS EVER BEEN IN HISTORY I really don't think the answer is another bill. More freedom, not more restrictions.

[7th trump]

7th Trump this literally means I cannot expose many things. Let's say, for example, the Denver International Airport:

http://www.alef.net/ALEFPlaces/DenverAirport/Mural2.Gif


How would I describe this painting to you? You HAVE TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. We can't even have a discussion about the themes going on here unless I can show you the picture.

Intellectual Property law is ALREADY THE STRONGEST IT HAS EVER BEEN IN HISTORY I really don't think the answer is another bill. More freedom, not more restrictions.

Looks as though you need to go there and get a photo for yourself.
I know it sucks but its just more to overcome.

[Libertytree]

7th Trump this literally means I cannot expose many things. Let's say, for example, the Denver International Airport:

http://www.alef.net/ALEFPlaces/DenverAirport/Mural2.Gif


How would I describe this painting to you? You HAVE TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. We can't even have a discussion about the themes going on here unless I can show you the picture.

Intellectual Property law is ALREADY THE STRONGEST IT HAS EVER BEEN IN HISTORY I really don't think the answer is another bill. More freedom, not more restrictions.


Paintball guns come to mind?

[madfranks]

I'm only one chapter in, but I'd recommend this book to everyone here:

http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx

http://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/B914.jpg

Michele Boldrin and David Levine are asking us to rethink everything we believe about copyright and patent. The authors argue that neither are part of the free market order. They are the product of positive law, a modern invention of the state, and one that is the enemy of technological progress. They amount to special grants of privilege to market winners to coerce others and prolong the period of winnings that derive from being the first to market.

The authors argue that intellectual property is the wrong phrase. They want to use the term monopoly, and examine the institution the same way all monopolies are examined in economic literature.

In fact, they say that copyright and patents need to be completely scrapped. That sounds shocking but the author's arguments are incredibly convincing. No matter what objection occurs to you immediately—this would ruin incentives for creation, be unjust, violate contracts, wreck profits, introduce chaos—they refute it with patience, logic, and massive amounts of evidence.

They don't only deal in theory. They examine the history and workings of these institutions, from the Industrial Revolution to the present. They show that anywhere copyright and patent have been applied, the result has been stagnation in that industry. This applies to the steam engine, the cotton gin, and the airplane. More recently, the problem of intellectual property stagnation has afflicted music, movies, books, and the internet at large.

They point to dynamic industries like fashion and architecture to show that IP is not necessary for creation or profitability or development. In fact, the belief in IP, they say, is rooted in confusion over the nature of the competitive process itself.

Competition and progress are everywhere based not only on rivalry but also on the ideas of emulation and imitation—institutions that are made illegal by patents and copyrights. There are no such things as lone creators who perfect a product the first time around in a market economy. Making technology come to life in a real market environment requires many rounds of experimentation with methods, manufacturing, and marketing. Shutting down that process—this is what patents and copyrights do—results in stagnation.

Their examples are immense. They show how IP in literature has been a disaster for writers of literature. The books that are unprotected have made the largest dent in the culture while copyright has been responsible for dooming certain authors to unjust obscurity. The same is true in music. They show that many of the great innovations in modern times are products of an open-source world: capitalists using public domain material to create great products and art, and then tragically resorting to the state to freeze history.

They further revise the history of IP to show that it is a modern invention of the state. Its present form is only decades old, and is the product of the largest market players shutting down the market process in order to reward themselves at others' expense.

The implications of this work are astonishing to consider. If they are right, the costs to civilization of intellectual monopoly are frightening to contemplate. It suggests a radical policy agenda for anyone who believes in freedom: the entire apparatus of copyright and patent needs to be thrown out completely. Not just reformed. Abolished.

There is so much to learn from this book. We can only recommend that you read it slowly and let their argument sink in. Ideas this dramatic and radical—and this thoroughly argued—don't come along very often. It takes time to deal with it intellectually.

Even if you think that patents and copyrights are wholly legitimate, you must read this book, if only to grapple with what the substantive opposition consists of. And if you think you don't care about this topic, beware: it is one of the most important areas of statecraft that young people do care about. Sooner or later, our society is going to have to deal head on with this area of law. It is incumbent on defenders of a free society to examine their position.