Protect IP Act- aka More Government Meddling.

[I'myourtarget]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/protect-ip-act-coica-redux

I can't seem to find any good articles about it, but oh well.
Apparently this bill basically has all the elements of S.978. It also ups the consequences from jailing you after 10 infractions to jailing you after the first.

As an added bonus, the bill means that the government can/will also shut down the site that the video was posted to if someone posts a copyrighted work. So basically, one asshat decides to post a movie to Youtube and Youtube goes bye bye.

Since I can't find a good article on it, I'll just post the video I found it out from. It's 30 minutes, so be sure you have enough time for it.

If anybody else has an actual article they think is a better representation, by all means, please post it.

[Technician]

http://www.thehostingnews.com/web-hosts-consider-protect-ip-acts-consequences-21560.html

It has become so obvious now that big corporation are basically leading the government by the balls at this point. The government wouldn't have this much issues with net neutrality if they weren't being forced persuaded by big business to change everything in their favor.

EDIT: Wow, this bill makes a single internet copyright violation a felony? Jesus Christ...

[Vordakk]

I'myourtarget said:

So basically, one asshat decides to post a movie to Youtube and Youtube goes bye bye.

Yeah, right. Google owns Youtube. If the government is supposedly controlled by big corporations as you people seem to think it is, they certainly wouldn't shut down a website belonging to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the U.S.

[eargosedown]

Vordakk said:

you people

Woah now.

[Vordakk]

eargosedown said:

Woah now.

I was referring to the two above me, not the entire Doomworld user base.

[Quast]

Vordakk said:

Yeah, right. Google owns Youtube. If the government is supposedly controlled by big corporations as you people seem to think it is, they certainly wouldn't shut down a website belonging to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the U.S.

Of course not. Youtube is a terrible example. How many lawyers could google afford to deal with litigation? What about an individual/website that isn't large and/or profitable?

[Technician]

Vordakk said:

Yeah, right. Google owns Youtube. If the government is supposedly controlled by big corporations as you people seem to think it is, they certainly wouldn't shut down a website belonging to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the U.S.

No, but they can regulate as they see fit. No one in the government, or even corporations pushing these absurb copyright laws, know how sites like Youtube make profits. This bill is so vague that they can literally force Youtube to remove videos of people covering songs, playing games, reviewing movies using clips, etc. This bill is more or less throwing out the fair-use law and setting up a vague law that basically says, if we don't want you using a song, even without generating any kind of a profit, we can tell you're host to remove it, and even press charges if we want to use you as an example. This bill has changed the previous bills law of a ten strike violation before it can be considered a felony to a single violation.

The kicker here is they are also persuading search engine to blacklist sites that are known for using such media from their search results. i.e. sites that are not hosted in the US who do not have to follow such absurd copyright limitations.

Google and Youtube will never go down, but it will have a zero tolerance attitude with what you can broadcast. Youtube will essentially host channels that are officially ran by corporations owning such media (Vevo or Hulu for example), and channels that are essentially web-vlogs. Let's Plays, speed runs, cover songs, etc. can be removed without argument of fair-use. Site's like That Guy with the Glasses would be shutdown. The bill ironically says this will preserve industry, but doesn't take into account that many people are making money themselves through making video reviews, LPing, etc.

Don't you read any of this-oh wait, sorry, I forgot, you don't. On to your next half-thought allegation.

[Steeveeo]

If this passes, I imagine that there would be a new form of internet griefing/trolling that would be the end of many websites: The Copyright Bomb.

A user - or hell, even a bot - would go on the target forum, post some copyright-infringing material, and report the website to the authorities. If it's as bad as it sounds, this would not only take the website offline, but potentially send an innocent person to jail if posted under a hijacked account.

Perhaps a LITTLE slippery-slope-like, but I still don't like this bill...

[Quasar]

The noose is tightening. With this they can shut down whatever they want.

Free speech is dead.

[elic]

Quasar said:

The noose is tightening. With this they can shut down whatever they want.

Free speech is dead.

It's not like it's been passed already, so there's no need to get all pessimistic now.

Whatever happened to S.978? If that wasn't passed I doubt this will.

[GreyGhost]

Quasar said:

Free speech is dead.

Not yet, though once every word in the dictionary is either trademarked or subjected to content/context filtering we'll lack the means to publicly voice our discontent.

[Vordakk]

Technician said:

On to your next half-thought allegation.

Yet you agree that Google and Youtube will never go down, which was the point of my response. I'm not in favor of Protect-IP, I was just pointing out the flaw in what I'myourtarget said, which was that Youtube would go bye-bye. It won't.

Save your childish insolence for someone who cares.

[Technician]

Vordakk said:

Yet you agree that Google and Youtube will never go down, which was the point of my response. I'm not in favor of Protect-IP, I was just pointing out the flaw in what I'myourtarget said, which was that Youtube would go bye-bye. It won't.

Save your childish insolence for someone who cares.

Look here, Vordakk, I never once made the argument that that Google or Youtube would close down. Not once. As you said, I'myourtarget mentioned that, so I don't know why you included me in your above post at all. But than again, you did say "you people".

Go ahead, take the ground of superiority. I'll leave the wallstreet topic to demonstrate how much of a narrow-viewed ass you really are.

[Vordakk]

Technician said:

Look here, Vordakk, I never once made the argument that that Google or Youtube would close down. Not once. As you said, I'myourtarget mentioned that, so I don't know why you included me in your above post at all. But than again, you did say "you people".

Go ahead, take the ground of superiority. I'll leave the wallstreet topic to demonstrate how much of a narrow-viewed ass you really are.

There you go again with the name-calling. The hallmark of someone who has a losing argument.

I never said that you said Youtube would close down. But I did say that you said government is being controlled by corporations, which you did. Your exact words were "big corporation are basically leading the government by the balls at this point". Did you not write that? The "you people" was in reference to you and the OP thinking corporations control the U.S. government.

Here's an article from 2002 that sums up why your viewpoint on corporations controlling government is misguided. But don't put too much stock in it. After all, it was posted by me, and I'm apparently a "narrow-viewed ass"(I guess narrow views equate to not believing what Technician believes).

[Reisal]

This would essentially kill my Youtube channel if enacted. And would kill Youtube as well due to a tremendous drop in video uploads and visitors.

[Butts]

Senator from Oregon... Google is in Oregon...

When is it ok to start hating the corporations? I mean, ever since the East India Trading Company fiasco, I have pretty much been untrusting, disdainful. They started out on the way wrong foot... in fact, I think there is a story about them imprisoning hundreds of people in a tiny box.

No sane citizen would vote for this. If it passes, then that means the form of government is far from bipartisan, democratic, republican, any of that bullshit, it's a corporatocracy and a couple other things mixed in, but the point is, evil greedy assholes are the "leaders" and they are just trying to get more and more and more. They won't stop until there is nothing left on the planet to turn into wealth for themselves.

[Wagi]

I'm sorry, but I don't see youtube being killed just because people aren't posting their crappy TF2 games with copyrighted Taylor Swift music in the background on youtube anymore.

[Mr. Freeze]

Wagi said:

I'm sorry, but I don't see youtube being killed just because people aren't posting their crappy TF2 games with copyrighted Taylor Swift music in the background on youtube anymore.

Well then let's have a look at what the bill would ACTUALLY effect:

- Lets Plays
- Reviews showing gameplay
- Glitch / beta videos
- Mod trailers
- Montages. Yeah they're annoying, but that doesn't mean they need to be rendered illegal.
- Anything with gameplay footage *at all*.

You are quite possibly the dumbest motherfucker on the entire internet if you seriously think all this bill covers is "TF2 games with copyrighted Taylor Swift music". Either that, or you can't put enough brain cells together to realize the broader implications of the bill.

[I'myourtarget]

Ok, I'm sorry, apparently my "bye bye youtube" comment was not an accurate one. I'm sorry, that was the information and example that I got from the video. Moving on, the point of the thread is not "LOL I'MYOURTARGET SAID SOMETHING STUPID AGAIN."

Personally, I can't think of anything that I'm even remotely interested in on Youtube that does not have some form of copyrighted material involved. I'm sure there are many others who can say the same. (None of my interests, by the way, include crappy TF2 videos with Taylor Swift music in the background. Seriously, what the fuck?)

[The Pursuer]

http://americancensorship.org/

Last chance to protest. They're holding a hearing today.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Quasar said:

The noose is tightening. With this they can shut down whatever they want.

Free speech is dead.

Along with all forms of entertainment and software that they don't control. Once all the torrents/warez/P2P/cyberlockers and video hosting sites are gone it'll be onto the legitimate stuff: rival music labels, game studios, software publishers etc. could all be either bought out or shut down (using nefarious tactics like the one Steeveo posted) along with open source/freeware stuff, hell even blogs and forums etc. could be taken out as well.

How far they go beyond shutting down illegal stuff is unclear (and how feasible it is given that the law only applies to US-hosted content initially)...but why else would they create such a far-reaching bill if they didn't intend to go all the way?

[Vordakk]

Quasar said:

The noose is tightening. With this they can shut down whatever they want.

Free speech is dead.

This thread seems to completely ignore the fact that there will be MASSIVE pushback from the population if the government tries to employ this type of censorship. While I certainly don't support this bill because I believe that it gives the government way too much leeway to decide what they can and cannot effectively shut down, doesn't anybody think that if they tried to pull some shit like that, people would go crazy? Look at how many people all already utterly mistrustful of the U.S. government. Polls show that 89% of Americans distrust government, as of October 2011. That's partially what the Occupy movement is about(or should be IMO). People are pissed off, they distrust government by default, and they're paying more attention to legislation than they have in a long time.

These types of threads always result in people likening the future of the world to THX 1138. Let's be just a bit more realistic.

[Quasar]

Vordakk said:

This thread seems to completely ignore the fact that there will be MASSIVE pushback from the population if the government tries to employ this type of censorship. While I certainly don't support this bill because I believe that it gives the government way too much leeway to decide what they can and cannot effectively shut down, doesn't anybody think that if they tried to pull some shit like that, people would go crazy? Look at how many people all already utterly mistrustful of the U.S. government. Polls show that 89% of Americans distrust government, as of October 2011. That's partially what the Occupy movement is about(or should be IMO). People are pissed off, they distrust government by default, and they're paying more attention to legislation than they have in a long time.

These types of threads always result in people likening the future of the world to THX 1138. Let's be just a bit more realistic.

There had BETTER be a massive pushback. That is entirely and pretty much always my point.

I have been advocating for the pushback for 11 long years now and I am so tired of it. Finally the Occupy movement has started, but will it accomplish anything? The wait to see is the worst part.

[Fulgrim]

Mr. Freeze said:

Well then let's have a look at what the bill would ACTUALLY effect:

- Lets Plays
- Reviews showing gameplay
- Glitch / beta videos
- Mod trailers
- Montages. Yeah they're annoying, but that doesn't mean they need to be rendered illegal.
- Anything with gameplay footage *at all*.

If I owned a video game company I'd be fighting this bill tooth and nail. Why? Every thing you listed above is free publicity for a product I'm trying to sell. Screw tv commercials, give your game to a few people that do lets plays and let the cash start rolling in. Its pretty much gotten to the point where I watch a couple lets plays or a live stream before I end up buying a game. I don't bother looking up reviews.

[NightmareZer0]

Quasar said:

Free speech is dead.

It's been dead. If you know too much the government will off you. Government keeps trying to get more control.

[Technician]

Satyr000 said:

If I owned a video game company I'd be fighting this bill tooth and nail. Why? Every thing you listed above is free publicity for a product I'm trying to sell. Screw tv commercials, give your game to a few people that do lets plays and let the cash start rolling in. Its pretty much gotten to the point where I watch a couple lets plays or a live stream before I end up buying a game. I don't bother looking up reviews.

Some people out there are make a menial income from LPs. It wouldn't surprise me if some media companies ignore the free publicity to battle a few people making a dime off of their product. It's not unheard of for game companies to shoot themselves in the foot. caughActivitioncough.

[GreyGhost]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

How far they go beyond shutting down illegal stuff is unclear (and how feasible it is given that the law only applies to US-hosted content initially)...but why else would they create such a far-reaching bill if they didn't intend to go all the way?

That's where the so-called "Free Trade Agreements" come in to play, since they tend to include clauses about harmonizing copyright and other IP-related laws, which makes them a convenient mechanism for the US government to shove their domestic legislation down other peoples throats.

[Blastfrog]

In the hypothetical situation that this bill does pass, how do you think the government would respond to the near-unanimous hatred and protest for this bill?

Do you think that they would try to defend the bill as much as they could, saying that it's for the better good and that it's what's necessary to stop and punish those fiendish content thieves, who are worse than Hilter?

Or do you think that they would back down on it and eventually repeal it?


How much power does the public really have to force the government to repeal such a law, even if the government did their best to ensure that it stays implemented?

[Technician]

Sodaholic said:

In the hypothetical situation that this bill does pass, how do you think the government would respond to the near-unanimous hatred and protest for this bill?

Yes, because the government really listens to it's people... They are so far disconnected from regular citizens, I bet they have no idea that this bill will inhibit individuals in anyway.

[I'myourtarget]

Glad I came to find that the topic right now is about whether the government gives two fucks about us, because I just found a definite no.

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/15/congressional-sopa-hearings-n.html

Yay democracy.