SOPA hearing yesterday: There are not enough /facepalms in the world

[ecoho]

I'm not sure if people have posted about it yet, but the hearing on SOPA was yesterday, and oh my god do I want to punch so many congressmen in the face.

Basically, it was a bunch of old white guys who knew absolutely nothing about technology and didn't bother to learn. One congressman said "If I had a dime for every time someone in the hearing used the phrase "I'm not a nerd" or "I'm no tech expert, but they tell me..." I'd have a large number of dimes and still feel intensely worried about the future of the uncensored Internet." The main backer of the bill openly confessed several times he didn't understand how the internet works, yet he acted like all the internet engineers opposing the bill were "wrong".

There was also this juicy quote from a reporter that pretty much sums it up: "If this were surgery, the patient would have run out screaming a long time ago. But this is like a group of well-intentioned amateurs getting together to perform heart surgery on a patient incapable of moving. "We hear from the motion picture industry that heart surgery is what's required," they say cheerily. "We're not going to cut the good valves, just the bad - neurons, or whatever you call those durn thingies.'

This is terrifying to watch. It would be amusing - there's nothing like people who did not grow up with the Internet attempting to ask questions about technology very slowly and stumbling over words like "server' and "service" when you want an easy laugh. Except that this time, the joke's on us."

Almost every single amendment to the bill was blocked without any meaningful discussion and it looks like they're rushing this bill out the door despite the consequences just so they can get it over with.

Does this piss anyone else off, or is it just me?

ok so i just got an Email back from my congress women. ill post the response now:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. It is good to hear from you.
H.R. 3261 was introduced by Representatives Lamar Smith (R-TX) and John Conyers (D-MI) on October 26, 2011. A similar bill, the PROTECT IP Act (S.968), was introduced in the U.S. Senate. H.R. 3261 authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to seek court orders against foreign internet sites committing or facilitating intellectual property violations, such as distributing copyrighted media or selling counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods sold online range from clothes and handbags to knock-off prescription drugs, which may not be as effective as U.S.-regulated drug or which may contain dangerous substances. H.R. 3261 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which held a public hearing on the legislation on November 16, 2011. At the hearing, it was evident that there is bipartisan support for the intent of H.R. 3261, which is to combat rampant online piracy that steals American innovations, hurts job creators and puts consumers at risk. However, the committee also fielded concerns that internet service providers, advertisers and other internet entrepreneurs will in the course of their legitimate business operations find themselves embroiled in intellectual property enforcement actions against bad actors. I do not serve on this committee, which has yet to schedule further action on the bill. I will, however, be sure to keep your views in mind should the Committee decide to approve H.R. 3261 for consideration on the House floor.

so it seems it still hasnt made it to the house floor so theres a good possibility that it will be beat (or at least changed significantly) before it goes any farther then the house.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

On the plus side, you could probably get FOX's site shut down too. Pretty sure EVERY website would violate at least 1 part of SOPA.

Doubtful. The rule of law doesn't apply to friends of those with power.

Not if both the "abuser" and the copyright holder were both in that position.

 

[acturisme]

You can't legislate behavior.

 

[New York Patrick]

All passing this bill will accomplish is quickening the end of the reign of sheer and utter incompetency that has slowly run the US into the ground over the past century. This bill will be a pain in the ass to enforce, and it shows that the government has neither the people or the constitution at heart. It will undoubtedly create dissent against a corrupt, decedent and self serving government run by senile or outright stupid politicians.

People aren't usually complacent or happy when you outright try to take control of something you don't have the right to do so over. As long as there is continuous, vocal, omnipresent, and unrelenting resistance against this (and that other bill that no one seems to know about, which basically turns the US into a police state in order to "protect against terrorism at home"... don't look at me for a link. You can look it up yourselves... it will be good exercise) it will not hold together. It will crumble, and the flawed abomination we call the federal government will crumble with it.

 

[Harrison Tayler]

Basically, America can go and do its own thing with the internet. In fact, while the government is at it, they can decide the colour underwear that the population has to wear monday to friday.. Sat and sunday are free choice. For now.
Yeah, its a joke. But no-one is laughing

 

[Talshere]

"If I had a dime for every time someone in the hearing used the phrase "I'm not a nerd" or "I'm no tech expert, but they tell me..." I'd have a large number of dimes and still feel intensely worried about the future of the uncensored Internet." The main backer of the bill openly confessed several times he didn't understand how the internet works, yet he acted like all the internet engineers opposing the bill were "wrong".

This is why I fucking hate politics and even democracy in general, because it's all about the most popular people making decisions instead of the most knowledgeable.

It pains me to, say, see people who have zero hands-on experience in the field of education make extremely important decisions about the future of education in our country. Or the internet, in the case of SOPA.

I wouldnt mind if it were the most popular, but its not, nor is it about the most far reaching, economically stable or internationally motivated reasoning. Its about what the 2 or 3 massive companies want.

Big business has to much power in US politics because there is no limit to the amount of money they can throw at people and ultimately, money wins political campaigns.

 

[MrGalactus]

Isn't a representative democracy a bit flawed if it has 535 people representing a country of 350,000,000?
Won't that lead to situations where that relatively tiny, tiny amount of people represent themselves only, and ignore/totally fail to relate to the wants and needs of their constituents?
Just sayin'.

 

[Sherlock/]

SOPA has been postponed (as mentioned in this thread earlier), so for now there's still time to get some (legitimate) files you need. The US trade representative has compiled a list of the best sources, for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3215

 

[The Long Road]

I am intensely disturbed that the US Government has this much power over a worldwide network. Most of the sites I use daily are US-based, which means that hey presto poof, my daily source of information, be it global, local or personal, goes down the drains like so much half-eaten soup.

Hang on, you guys voted a DEMOCRAT into power. Aren't they meant to be "the good guys" in these things? Power to the people, freedom of speech, liberalism, etc etc?

Well thank you for revealing how disgustingly ignorant you are.

Democrats aren't the 'good guys' any more than Republicans are. If there was an obvious 'good guy', do you really think anyone else would be voted into power? In this case, the Democrats are far more likely to be the 'bad guys', as their political philosophy involves a LARGER government with MORE power to do whatever it thinks is necessary - exactly the kind of government SOPA needs.

OT: I realize why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about this, but there are two reasons you should all chill out.

First - Everyone's screaming about how lobbyists are controlling Congress with their pseudo-legal 'sponsorships'. The thing is, the congressmen get that money whether or not the bill passes. All they need to do is say a few words on a podium and let the country call their individual reps and senators. That way they still get the cash and the shitty bill doesn't pass. Lobbyists can play congressmen, and congressmen can play lobbyists. It IS a two-way street.

Second - Congress has no Constitutional power to regulate the internet. This is high-profile enough for someone to bring up suit against the government on several counts, including a breach of the First Amendment (somewhat shaky) and a lack of basis in Congress's enumerated powers (much more likely). The US Supreme Court would throw out the law if it ever got there, because the only justification Congress could possibly have is the Commerce Clause, and the court has been adopting an increasingly strict interpretation of that clause over the past few decades. There's a barometer for how likely the court is to strike this down - Obamacare. If the court finds Obamacare's Commerce Clause justification unconstitutional, then it will very likely strike down SOPA. Even when copyright law is brought into play, the court will see this as far overreaching the stated problem and say "try again with a bill that doesn't sound like it came from Fahrenheit 451, please".

 

[ranyilliams]

Yo check this out, there is one man who does not stand with these bills:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DeAzrZCD65c#!

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Sober: The point isn't that everyone is a pirate and we're sad because we won't get to pirate. (Which, for many people, is just frankly not true in any way.) The point is that you can use SOPA to do nasty things that don't revolve around piracy.

If you were being sarcastic, pardon me, because it's hard to figure out deadpan on the internet.

 

[Theflyingass]

The internet needs to be censored.

IP theft needs to be punished more severely.

SOPA is a great idea, but it needs to be defined more clearly. First and foremost, people should know that the 'pirate fear tactics' are ridiculous and misleading. Any reasonable internet user already knows this. Thieves will try to tell you that the internet will die if this legislature passes. They want you to believe all your social interfaces will be shut down because the gov wants to stop IP theft. Fear tactics are working as of now, but that doesn't make it right to be an asshat pirate. Chicken little calls for the end of days... I know everyone isn't so foolish to believe that.

It's a fine line to walk (so it seems) when so many users justify IP theft as 'I needs a demo', or 'DRM makes me sad', or 'I wants to make advertising dollars by using other peoples work to help me sell my shit'. Even the crazy 'I live in Australia, and my minimal wage is twice what it is elsewhere, but all my living costs aren't, so I should have a right to be an asshat when games are priced accordingly!' needs to stop. Your excuses are not valid. They are only sad. Sad that people as a majority are spoiled beyond reasonable expectations. For shame.

So many people are spoiled/caught up, by their life being tied to the internet. You'd think they would die if they didn't have the internet teet to suckle. It's sad really. It needs to be stopped before they become more addicted to it. (too late)

SOPA isn't perfect. But it's the best way to 'start to stop' these internet fiends. The idea that products should be cheaper is ridiculous and absurd. Next generation (a few years from now)should cost more considering the amount of time and money put into it. Does that give people the right to steal ones and zeros? No.

If you can't live without getting your fix of IP theft, then you need some serious intervention. If your morale's aren't active, you should be slapped (with fines) until you realize what you're doing is wrong. The warning system is perfect for that. Though why you need to be told more than twice what you're doing is wrong, is beyond me...

The world can still be a great place to live, even if you can't get paid content for free anymore. If you ever created something, you have the right to release it for no cost. The fact that people decide to make things free (file sharing) without consent is absolute bullshit.

Kids People now-a-days need to stop depending on the internet as a life force. Suck it up, and work for your damned happy fun time preoccupations.

Its clear you don't understand the real issues here. You probably think the NDAA is a good idea as well.

 

[mb16]

The internet needs to be censored.

IP theft needs to be punished more severely.

SOPA is a great idea, but it needs to be defined more clearly. First and foremost, people should know that the 'pirate fear tactics' are ridiculous and misleading. Any reasonable internet user already knows this. Thieves will try to tell you that the internet will die if this legislature passes. They want you to believe all your social interfaces will be shut down because the gov wants to stop IP theft. Fear tactics are working as of now, but that doesn't make it right to be an asshat pirate. Chicken little calls for the end of days... I know everyone isn't so foolish to believe that.

It's a fine line to walk (so it seems) when so many users justify IP theft as 'I needs a demo', or 'DRM makes me sad', or 'I wants to make advertising dollars by using other peoples work to help me sell my shit'. Even the crazy 'I live in Australia, and my minimal wage is twice what it is elsewhere, but all my living costs aren't, so I should have a right to be an asshat when games are priced accordingly!' needs to stop. Your excuses are not valid. They are only sad. Sad that people as a majority are spoiled beyond reasonable expectations. For shame.

So many people are spoiled/caught up, by their life being tied to the internet. You'd think they would die if they didn't have the internet teet to suckle. It's sad really. It needs to be stopped before they become more addicted to it. (too late)

SOPA isn't perfect. But it's the best way to 'start to stop' these internet fiends. The idea that products should be cheaper is ridiculous and absurd. Next generation (a few years from now)should cost more considering the amount of time and money put into it. Does that give people the right to steal ones and zeros? No.

If you can't live without getting your fix of IP theft, then you need some serious intervention. If your morale's aren't active, you should be slapped (with fines) until you realize what you're doing is wrong. The warning system is perfect for that. Though why you need to be told more than twice what you're doing is wrong, is beyond me...

The world can still be a great place to live, even if you can't get paid content for free anymore. If you ever created something, you have the right to release it for no cost. The fact that people decide to make things free (file sharing) without consent is absolute bullshit.

Kids People now-a-days need to stop depending on the internet as a life force. Suck it up, and work for your damned happy fun time preoccupations.

thank you for your opinion, it has been filed away as such.

also:

IP theft powers activate!

 

[Victor Cross]

This bill is possibly the worst thing that could possibly happen to the internet.

However, if you ask me, I'd say that IF (again, IF) it gets passed, someone will definitely declare it unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will sort it out (hopefully, but I trust them more than I trust Congress right now).

We can only hope that by then, the damge won't be irreparable.

 

[Ragnarok185]

The internet needs to be censored.

IP theft needs to be punished more severely.

SOPA is a great idea, but it needs to be defined more clearly. First and foremost, people should know that the 'pirate fear tactics' are ridiculous and misleading. Any reasonable internet user already knows this. Thieves will try to tell you that the internet will die if this legislature passes. They want you to believe all your social interfaces will be shut down because the gov wants to stop IP theft. Fear tactics are working as of now, but that doesn't make it right to be an asshat pirate. Chicken little calls for the end of days... I know everyone isn't so foolish to believe that.

It's a fine line to walk (so it seems) when so many users justify IP theft as 'I needs a demo', or 'DRM makes me sad', or 'I wants to make advertising dollars by using other peoples work to help me sell my shit'. Even the crazy 'I live in Australia, and my minimal wage is twice what it is elsewhere, but all my living costs aren't, so I should have a right to be an asshat when games are priced accordingly!' needs to stop. Your excuses are not valid. They are only sad. Sad that people as a majority are spoiled beyond reasonable expectations. For shame.

So many people are spoiled/caught up, by their life being tied to the internet. You'd think they would die if they didn't have the internet teet to suckle. It's sad really. It needs to be stopped before they become more addicted to it. (too late)

SOPA isn't perfect. But it's the best way to 'start to stop' these internet fiends. The idea that products should be cheaper is ridiculous and absurd. Next generation (a few years from now)should cost more considering the amount of time and money put into it. Does that give people the right to steal ones and zeros? No.

If you can't live without getting your fix of IP theft, then you need some serious intervention. If your morale's aren't active, you should be slapped (with fines) until you realize what you're doing is wrong. The warning system is perfect for that. Though why you need to be told more than twice what you're doing is wrong, is beyond me...

The world can still be a great place to live, even if you can't get paid content for free anymore. If you ever created something, you have the right to release it for no cost. The fact that people decide to make things free (file sharing) without consent is absolute bullshit.

Kids People now-a-days need to stop depending on the internet as a life force. Suck it up, and work for your damned happy fun time preoccupations.

Ok I agree to some extent. we are spoiled. however this bill will not help anything at all. the Internet is one of the few things that others DON'T have control over. This is clearly NOT about fighting Piracy since any competent Pirate can easily bypass this shit. This is about control. you don't obviously don't know that the Internet is a great place for innovation and for people share their work... wait a minute *faceplam*. *sigh* troll.......

 

[littlealicewhite]

I cut/pasted this from The Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261

[Caution: wall of legislative gobblygook]

Spoiler

H.R.3261
Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House - IH)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Stop Online Piracy Act'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Savings and severability clauses.

TITLE I--COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. Action by Attorney General to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites.

Sec. 103. Market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.

Sec. 104. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.

Sec. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.

Sec. 106. Guidelines and study.

Sec. 107. Denying U.S. capital to notorious foreign infringers.

TITLE II--ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT

Sec. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.

Sec. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.

Sec. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.

Sec. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.

Sec. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.

SEC. 2. SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.

(a) Savings Clauses-

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

(b) Severability- If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

TITLE I--COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) DOMAIN NAME- The term `domain name' has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127) and includes any subdomain designation using such domain name as part of an electronic address on the Internet to identify a unique online location.

(2) DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM SERVER- The term `domain name system server' means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.

(3) DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME- The term `domestic domain name' means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.

(4) DOMESTIC INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `domestic Internet Protocol address' means an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States.

(5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site' means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.

(6) FOREIGN DOMAIN NAME- The term `foreign domain name' means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.

(7) FOREIGN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `foreign Internet Protocol address' means an Internet Protocol address that is not a domestic Internet protocol address.

(8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site' means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.

(9) INCLUDING- The term `including' means including, but not limited to.

(10) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR- The term `Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator' means the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8111).

(11) INTERNET- The term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 5362(5) of title 31, United States Code.

(12) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICE- The term `Internet advertising service' means a service that for compensation sells, purchases, brokers, serves, inserts, verifies, clears, or otherwise facilitates the placement of an advertisement, including a paid or sponsored search result, link, or placement, that is rendered in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site.

(13) INTERNET PROTOCOL- The term `Internet Protocol' means a protocol used for communicating data across a packet-switched internetwork using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, and includes any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol.

(14) INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `Internet Protocol address' means a numerical label that is assigned to each device that participates in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.

(15) INTERNET PROTOCOL ALLOCATION ENTITY- The term `Internet Protocol allocation entity' means, with respect to a particular Internet Protocol address, the entity, local internet registry, or regional internet registry to which the smallest applicable block of Internet Protocol addresses containing that address is allocated or assigned by a local internet registry, regional internet registry, or other Internet Protocol address allocation authority, according to the applicable publicly available database of allocations and assignments, if any.

(16) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE- The term `Internet search engine' means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection.

(17) INTERNET SITE- The term `Internet site' means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address.

(18) LANHAM ACT- The term `Lanham Act' means the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act').

(19) NONAUTHORITATIVE DOMAIN NAME SERVER- The term `nonauthoritative domain name server' means a server that does not contain complete copies of domains but uses a cache file that is comprised of previous domain name server lookups, for which the server has received an authoritative response in the past.

(20) OWNER; OPERATOR- The terms `owner' or `operator', when used in connection with an Internet site, includes, respectively, any owner of a majority interest in, or any person with authority to operate, such Internet site.

(21) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDER-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `payment network provider' means an entity that directly or indirectly provides the proprietary services, infrastructure, and software to effect or facilitate a debit, credit, or other payment transaction.

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of this paragraph, a depository institution (as such term is defined under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) or credit union that initiates a payment transaction shall not be construed to be a payment network provider based solely on the offering or provision of such service.

(22) SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `service provider' means a service provider as defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, that operates a nonauthoritative domain name system server.

(23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether--

(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;

(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide--

(i) such goods and services,

(ii) access to such goods and services, or

(iii) delivery of such goods and services,

to users located in the United States;

(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and

(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.

(24) UNITED STATES- The term `United States' includes any commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States.

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.

Spoiler

TITLE II--ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT

SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

(a) Title 17 Amendments- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(a) Criminal Infringement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--

`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, or by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works, when the total retail value of the copies or phonorecords, or of the public performances, is more than $1,000; or

`(C) by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial dissemination, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial dissemination.

`(2) EVIDENCE- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction, distribution, or public performance of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial dissemination' means--

`(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public performance--

`(i)(I) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

`(II) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner; or

`(ii)(I) the copyright owner does not intend to offer copies of the work for commercial distribution but has a reasonable expectation of other forms of commercial dissemination of the work; and

`(II) the work has not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner;

`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public performance, the motion picture--

`(i)(I) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

`(II) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility; or

`(ii) had not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner more than 24 hours before the unauthorized distribution or public performance.'.

(b) Title 18 Amendments- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking `during any 180-day period' and all that follows and insert `of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;';

(2) in subsection (c)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `of 10 or more copies or phonorecords' and all that follows and inserting `including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;'; and

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking `if the offense' and all that follows and inserting `in any other case;';

(3) in subsection (d)(4), by striking `under paragraph (2)' and inserting `committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain under subsection (a)';

(4) in subsection (f)--

(A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

`(2) the terms `reproduction', `distribution', and `public performance' refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively, of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17; and';

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking `; and' and inserting a period; and

(C) by striking paragraph (4); and

(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(g) Evidence of Total Retail Value- For purposes of this section and section 506(a) of title 17, total retail value may be shown by evidence of--

`(1) the total retail price that persons receiving the reproductions, distributions, or public performances constituting the offense would have paid to receive such reproductions, distributions, or public performances lawfully;

`(2) the total economic value of the reproductions, distributions, or public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, as shown by evidence of fee, advertising, or other revenue that was received by the person who commits the offense, or that the copyright owner would have been entitled to receive had such reproductions, distributions, or public performances been offered lawfully; or

`(3) the total fair market value of licenses to offer the type of reproductions, distributions, or public performances constituting the offense.'.

(c) Rule of Construction- Any person acting with a good faith reasonable basis in law to believe that the person's conduct is lawful shall not be considered to have acted willfully for purposes of the amendments made by this section. Such person includes, but is not limited to, a person engaged in conduct forming the basis of a bona fide commercial dispute over the scope of existence of a contract or license governing such conduct where such person has a reasonable basis in law to believe that such conduct is noninfringing. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the application or interpretation of the willfulness requirement in any other provision of civil or criminal law.

SEC. 202. TRAFFICKING IN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS GOODS OR SERVICES.

Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) OFFENSES- Whoever--

`(i) intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services,

`(ii) intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, or

`(iii) intentionally imports, exports, or traffics in counterfeit drugs or intentionally participates in or knowingly aids drug counterfeiting,

shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000.

`(B) SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES- In the case of an offense by a person under this paragraph that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under this paragraph, the person convicted, if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.

`(2) SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH-

`(A) SERIOUS BODILY HARM- If the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of paragraph (1), the penalty shall be, for an individual, a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, and for other than an individual, a fine of not more than $15,000,000.

`(B) DEATH- If the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of paragraph (1), the penalty shall be, for an individual, a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, and for other than an individual, a fine of not more than $15,000,000.

`(3) MILITARY GOODS OR SERVICES-

`(A) IN GENERAL- A person who commits an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished in accordance with subparagraph (B) if--

`(i) the offense involved a good or service described in paragraph (1) that if it malfunctioned, failed, or was compromised, could reasonably be foreseen to cause--

`(I) serious bodily injury or death;

`(II) disclosure of classified information;

`(III) impairment of combat operations; or

`(IV) other significant harm--

`(aa) to a member--

`(AA) of the Armed Forces; or

`(BB) of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency; or

`(bb) to national security or critical infrastructure; and

`(ii) the person had knowledge that the good or service is falsely identified as meeting military standards or is intended for use in a military or national security application, or a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application.

`(B) PENALTIES-

`(i) INDIVIDUAL- An individual who commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

`(ii) PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL- A person other than an individual that commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.

`(C) SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES-

`(i) INDIVIDUAL- An individual who commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) after the individual is convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

`(ii) PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL- A person other than an individual that commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) after the person is convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $30,000,000.'.

(2) Subsection (e) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking `and' at the end;

(C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `counterfeit drug' has the meaning given that term in section 201(g)(2) of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(2));

`(6) the term `critical infrastructure' has the meaning given that term in section 2339D(c);

`(7) the term `drug counterfeiting' means any act prohibited by section 301(i) of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(i));

`(8) the term `final dosage form' has the meaning given that term in section 735(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379g(4));

`(9) the term `falsely identified as meeting military standards' relating to a good or service means there is a material misrepresentation that the good or service meets a standard, requirement, or specification issued by the Department of Defense, an Armed Force, or a reserve component;

`(10) the term `use in a military or national security application' means the use of a good or service, independently, in conjunction with, or as a component of another good or service--

`(A) during the performance of the official duties of the Armed Forces of the United States or the reserve components of the Armed Forces; or

`(B) by the United States to perform or directly support--

`(i) combat operations; or

`(ii) critical national defense or national security functions; and

`(11) the term `use in a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application' means the use of a good or service, independently, in conjunction with, or as a component of, another good or service by a person who is directly engaged in--

`(A) Federal, State, or local law enforcement; or

`(B) an official function pertaining to critical infrastructure.'.

SEC. 203. PROTECTING U.S. BUSINESSES FROM FOREIGN AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE.

(a) For Offenses Committed by Individuals- Section 1831(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter after paragraph (5)--

(1) by striking `15 years' and inserting `20 years'; and

(2) by striking `not more than $500,000' and inserting `not less than $1,000,000 and not more than $5,000,000'.

(b) For Offenses Committed by Organizations- Section 1831(b) of such title is amended by striking `$10,000,000' and inserting `not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization (including expenses for research and design or other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided)'.

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.

SEC. 205. DEFENDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ABROAD.

(a) Resources To Protect Intellectual Property Rights-

(1) POLICY- The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall ensure that the protection in foreign countries of the intellectual property rights of United States persons is a significant component of United States foreign and commercial policy in general, and in relations with individual countries in particular.

(2) DEDICATION OF RESOURCES- The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, and the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies, shall ensure that adequate resources are available at the United States embassy or diplomatic mission (as the case may be) in any country that is identified under section 182(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

Now, can someone tell me what the fuck all this means?

 

[CulixCupric]

But it's only being censored in America, right? So I have nohing to worry about?

Because Americans are the biggest bigots in the world, and force it on the rest of the world. trust me on this, i live in america. was born here, and 90% of people here will try to make everyone suffer what they do. Oh, how I'd love to move to Ye Olde Britannia.

 

[hooksashands]

But it's only being censored in America, right? So I have nohing to worry about?

Hey, I live in Canada, but I'm worried about it. Partly because I don't want our current government getting any ideas, but because I value everyone's freedom. People who don't understand the internet should not be making decisions about regulating it. Period.

Some speculate that if the bill passes, it might actually benefit the Canadian economy. All the people with servers in North America will naturally want to move them somewhere out of corporate U.S. jurisdiction. This means Canada or South America (Columbia, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, etc). We'll be handing you guys free tax earnings from server costs while neutering the Fair Use agreement. In other words, an exercise in pure economic dumbassery.