The facts on SOPA
John Eppstein
Thread Starter
#1
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #1
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
The facts on SOPA

Monday, November 21st, 2011 by Sandra Aistars
Opponents of this legislation would have you believe that it would somehow give rightsholders unilateral ability to shut down any site that contains any infringing content.
This is incorrect. Rightsholders do not have the ability to act unilaterally. They do not have the right to seek to shut a site down or make it inaccessible, and the legislation only applies to sites that are “dedicated” to infringing activity – not sites with minimal amounts of infringing content.
Here, for the record, is how the process works:
1) A rightsholder identifies a website distributing her products without permission. She also notices that there are U.S. payment processors facilitating business with this website and/or U.S. ad servers placing advertisements there. She gathers the facts to demonstrate that the site meets the definitions of a site dedicated to theft of US property. Namely, that the site in question is “primarily designed”, “has only limited purpose or use other than” or is “marketed” to engage in, enable or facilitate violations of current U.S. copyright and trademark law; or that the site is taking deliberate steps to avoid knowing that it is breaking U.S. IP law, or is taking “affirmative steps” to “foster infringement”, such as through programs that give users rewards and prizes for uploading pirated content.
2) The rightsholder can send a written notification to the payment processor or ad network, if there is also advertising on the site, providing very specific evidence (under penalty of perjury) that the payment processor or ad network is working with a site that is dedicated to infringement as defined in the legislation. The rightsholder must additionally clearly show that immediate and irreparable harm will be done to the holder of the IP right in the absence of action by the payment processor or ad network.
3) If the payment processor or ad network disagrees with the facts presented by the rights holder, or if the accused website presents a counternotice disputing that it meets the definitions in the bill, the rightsholder must petition a Federal Court to evaluate the matter and issue an order confirming that the site is dedicated to theft of US property. These proceedings take place under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are the rules applicable to every litigation in Federal Court in the U.S.. The heightened standards of proof applicable to injunctions would apply to the rightsholder’s case.
4) If the Federal court issues an order declaring the site to be dedicated to theft of US property, the rightsholder may then serve the order on the payment processor or ad network to request it stop supporting the site’s activities.
The decision to pursue a rogue website under this process is clearly a big decision, and no simple matter in terms of process and cost for the rightsholder. Significantly, there are no financial damage awards available for rightsholders whose works have been infringed– only the ability to obtain a court order directing U.S. payment processors and ad networks to cease supporting the rogue site. Finally, and importantly, there are defined penalties for perjury and damages, including costs and attorneys fees recoverable against anyone who asserts a false claim.
In other words, the rightsholder must be very certain she can marshal all the evidence needed to forge ahead. There is both an explicit standard that their claim must meet, as well as a financial disincentive if her claim is deemed frivolous.
Under no circumstances can a private rights holder bring any type of action that would result in a site being blocked by an ISP or search engine. That capability is only afforded to the U.S. Attorney General, who may only do so after obtaining a Federal Court order that a site is “dedicated to infringing activity” (in a process conducted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
—-
Get more FACTS:
More Scary – But Unsupported – Rhetoric
U.S. Consumers At Risk From Rogue Sites
Technically Speaking
What Are Rogue Web Sites?
Creative Community Boosts U.S. Economy

From this blog:
The Copyright Alliance Blog

Link thanks to Bob Ohlsson.

There has been a lot of nonsense and hot air bandied about concerning this bill. This should set the facts straight.
#2
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Monday, November 21st, 2011 by Sandra Aistars
Opponents of this legislation would have you believe that it would somehow give rightsholders unilateral ability to shut down any site that contains any infringing content.

This is incorrect. Rightsholders do not have the ability to act unilaterally. They do not have the right to seek to shut a site down or make it inaccessible, and the legislation only applies to sites that are “dedicated” to infringing activity – not sites with minimal amounts of infringing content.

Here, for the record, is how the process works:

1) A rightsholder identifies a website distributing her products without permission. She also notices that there are U.S. payment processors facilitating business with this website and/or U.S. ad servers placing advertisements there. She gathers the facts to demonstrate that the site meets the definitions of a site dedicated to theft of US property. Namely, that the site in question is “primarily designed”, “has only limited purpose or use other than” or is “marketed” to engage in, enable or facilitate violations of current U.S. copyright and trademark law; or that the site is taking deliberate steps to avoid knowing that it is breaking U.S. IP law, or is taking “affirmative steps” to “foster infringement”, such as through programs that give users rewards and prizes for uploading pirated content.

2) The rightsholder can send a written notification to the payment processor or ad network, if there is also advertising on the site, providing very specific evidence (under penalty of perjury) that the payment processor or ad network is working with a site that is dedicated to infringement as defined in the legislation. The rightsholder must additionally clearly show that immediate and irreparable harm will be done to the holder of the IP right in the absence of action by the payment processor or ad network.

3) If the payment processor or ad network disagrees with the facts presented by the rights holder, or if the accused website presents a counternotice disputing that it meets the definitions in the bill, the rightsholder must petition a Federal Court to evaluate the matter and issue an order confirming that the site is dedicated to theft of US property. These proceedings take place under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are the rules applicable to every litigation in Federal Court in the U.S.. The heightened standards of proof applicable to injunctions would apply to the rightsholder’s case.

4) If the Federal court issues an order declaring the site to be dedicated to theft of US property, the rightsholder may then serve the order on the payment processor or ad network to request it stop supporting the site’s activities.

The decision to pursue a rogue website under this process is clearly a big decision, and no simple matter in terms of process and cost for the rightsholder. Significantly, there are no financial damage awards available for rightsholders whose works have been infringed– only the ability to obtain a court order directing U.S. payment processors and ad networks to cease supporting the rogue site. Finally, and importantly, there are defined penalties for perjury and damages, including costs and attorneys fees recoverable against anyone who asserts a false claim.

In other words, the rightsholder must be very certain she can marshal all the evidence needed to forge ahead. There is both an explicit standard that their claim must meet, as well as a financial disincentive if her claim is deemed frivolous.

Under no circumstances can a private rights holder bring any type of action that would result in a site being blocked by an ISP or search engine. That capability is only afforded to the U.S. Attorney General, who may only do so after obtaining a Federal Court order that a site is “dedicated to infringing activity” (in a process conducted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
—-
Get more FACTS:
More Scary – But Unsupported – Rhetoric
U.S. Consumers At Risk From Rogue Sites
Technically Speaking
What Are Rogue Web Sites?
Creative Community Boosts U.S. Economy

From this blog:
The Copyright Alliance Blog

Link thanks to Bob Ohlsson.

There has been a lot of nonsense and hot air bandied about concerning this bill. This should set the facts straight.
thanks john.
#3
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #3
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
thanks john.
before the high fives fly, perhaps we should see what happens to this act in markup.....

With Pelosi now in the opposition, as well as Ron and Rand Paul and Darrell Issa (talk about a weird twist) anything can happen.
John Eppstein
Thread Starter
#4
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #4
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
before the high fives fly, perhaps we should see what happens to this act in markup.....

With Pelosi now in the opposition, as well as Ron and Rand Paul and Darrell Issa (talk about a weird twist) anything can happen.
Well, not that it probably makes any difference but I've written Pelosi and informed her that if she doesn't support the bill I won't be able to support her anymore.
#5
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #5
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Well, not that it probably makes any difference but I've written Pelosi and informed her that if she doesn't support the bill I won't be able to support her anymore.
I really wish the sea werent so filled with muck in the matter- Google and the big aggregators are certainly not on the sides of the copyright holders. It feels very much like a dip into NYC or Chicago power politics. And it should be a simple enough matter for the government to efficiently draw laws which are technology independent and are more concerned with protecting the idea instead of the bits and bytes. And it certainly shouldnt require 200 million dollars worth of lobbying to get it done.
#6
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
I really wish the sea werent so filled with muck in the matter- Google and the big aggregators are certainly not on the sides of the copyright holders. It feels very much like a dip into NYC or Chicago power politics. And it should be a simple enough matter for the government to efficiently draw laws which are technology independent and are more concerned with protecting the idea instead of the bits and bytes. And it certainly shouldnt require 200 million dollars worth of lobbying to get it done.
a little common sense could go a long way. we are well on the way to the snake eating it's own tail, and there's an old saying, "you don't miss your water, till your well runs dry".

alot of this plays out in an epic battle between two government agencies, the judiciary committee who is sympathetic to the infringement and protection of IP, and the commerce committee who supports the telecos, tech and ISPs...

I can't recommend enough the new book by robert levine, it does sway towards to pro-IP side of things, but it doesn't pull punches in unraveling the history of how we got here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/bo...pagewanted=all

Book Review: Free Ride by Robert Levine - Businessweek

Amazon.com: Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back (9780385533768): Robert Levine: Books

and from his blog:
Thoughts on SOPA
#7
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #7
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
a little common sense could go a long way. we are well on the way to the snake eating it's own tail, and there's an old saying, "you don't miss your water, till your well runs dry".

alot of this plays out in an epic battle between two government agencies, the judiciary committee who is sympathetic to the infringement and protection of IP, and the commerce committee who supports the telecos, tech and ISPs...

I can't recommend enough the new book by robert levine, it does sway towards to pro-IP side of things, but it doesn't pull punches in unraveling the history of how we got here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/bo...pagewanted=all

Book Review: Free Ride by Robert Levine - Businessweek

Amazon.com: Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back (9780385533768): Robert Levine: Books

and from his blog:
Thoughts on SOPA
Sadly enforcement of most criminal and civil law is fraught with great ambiguity, and near capriciousness from the federal government.

As to the Commerce Committee and Judiciary Committee- we can see commerce tending to prevail-

look at the Congress now saying they prefer Torture to be a tool in prosecution of domestic terror suspects and allowing them to be denied the Civil rights- It points at serious archectural problems. I am not intending to compare the matters, but am trying to articulate that the laws we have at present are already being misused- and protections which were seen as absolute, are now considered as provisional. That is a very slippery slope to be on.

I do hope a law emerges which deals with the issue, but we are in murky times. And I think of all the IP to be protected, entertainment is not the one concerning the govt the most.
#8
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Sadly enforcement of most criminal and civil law is fraught with great ambiguity, and near capriciousness from the federal government.

As to the Commerce Committee and Judiciary Committee- we can see commerce tending to prevail-

look at the Congress now saying they prefer Torture to be a tool in prosecution of domestic terror suspects and allowing them to be denied the Civil rights- It points at serious archectural problems. I am not intending to compare the matters, but am trying to articulate that the laws we have at present are already being misused- and protections which were seen as absolute, are now considered as provisional. That is a very slippery slope to be on.

I do hope a law emerges which deals with the issue, but we are in murky times. And I think of all the IP to be protected, entertainment is not the one concerning the govt the most.
I agree that there's shady (and sometimes blatent..) dealings and abuses perpetuated by our own government in certain instances.
But that's painting with a pretty broad-brush, don'cha think?
To say that there's bad law(s) out there --doesn't mean every law is bad. Just as there is surely corrupt polititians --doesn't mean that all are corrupt.

I have general concerns too with any legislation, and don't have the highest faith in the fairness of the world-- but to not do anything because 'something' could possibly perhaps go wrong... no one would get out of bed in the morning.

(paraphrase) : "The only thing Evil needs to prevail... is for Good men to do nothing"
#9
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #9
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
I agree that there's shady (and sometimes blatent..) dealings and abuses perpetuated by our own government in certain instances.
But that's painting with a pretty broad-brush, don'cha think?
To say that there's bad law(s) out there --doesn't mean every law is bad. Just as there is surely corrupt polititians --doesn't mean that all are corrupt.

I have general concerns too with any legislation, and don't have the highest faith in the fairness of the world-- but to not do anything because 'something' could possibly perhaps go wrong... no one would get out of bed in the morning.

(paraphrase) : "The only thing Evil needs to prevail... is for Good men to do nothing"
we would have to cross the line into the political verboten zone for that-

but I will say that the Congress wanting to deny US citizens their Constitution rights if accused of being a terrorist is pretty darn serious..... dont you?

and since some here think when ever an example is used against this sacred cow is a direct comparison, allow me to say simply- THAT IS SIMPLY AN EXAMPLE OF A BAD IDEA FOR A LAW, WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE......got it?


and we are talking about doing nothing- we are talking about writing a better law- which this very well may become (though I doubt it) in Markup.... you watched Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid didnt you?



the embed feature seems to elude me I guess-

Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube

Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill becomes a Law.....
#10
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #10
John Eppstein
Thread Starter
#11
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #11
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
we would have to cross the line into the political verboten zone for that-

but I will say that the Congress wanting to deny US citizens their Constitution rights if accused of being a terrorist is pretty darn serious..... dont you?
Yes but that has nothing to do with piracy and this isn't the place to discuss it. I haven't heard anyone claiming that pirates are terrorists.

Quote:
and since some here think when ever an example is used against this sacred cow is a direct comparison, allow me to say simply- THAT IS SIMPLY AN EXAMPLE OF A BAD IDEA FOR A LAW, WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE......got it?


and we are talking about doing nothing- we are talking about writing a better law- which this very well may become (though I doubt it) in Markup.... you watched Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid didnt you?



the embed feature seems to elude me I guess-

Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube

Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill becomes a Law.....
You delete everything in the YT URL before (and including) the = sign and if there's also an & sign you delete everything after and including that as well.

HMmm..... cute! Kinda beside the point, but cute.
#12
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #12
Gear addict
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

Unless the bill will be effective, there is no point in passing it. As it stands right now, people would be able to very easily go around the block by using foreign proxies.
#13
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #13
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

#14
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #14
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Yes but that has nothing to do with piracy and this isn't the place to discuss it. I haven't heard anyone claiming that pirates are terrorists.
yeah thats why I wrote the sentence that followed- you actually quoted it.


and since some here think when ever an example is used against this sacred cow is a direct comparison, allow me to say simply- THAT IS SIMPLY AN EXAMPLE OF A BAD IDEA FOR A LAW, WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE......got it?
#15
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
Unless the bill will be effective, there is no point in passing it. As it stands right now, people would be able to very easily go around the block by using foreign proxies.
As John has repeatedly pointed out, and I agree, the intention is to make it harder for people to find copyright infringing content. It's impossible to make it impossible. The hope is that it can be made difficult enough to dissuade enough infringers that artists can make a living from sales.
John Eppstein
Thread Starter
#16
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #16
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
Unless the bill will be effective, there is no point in passing it. As it stands right now, people would be able to very easily go around the block by using foreign proxies.
Yes, Matt, that's true. And I can assure you pretty conclusively that it will be effective for the greater percentage of the American market because most people can't even be bothered to learn how to set up a simple Bittorrent client properly, let alone configure and use a foreign proxy system. Sure, the hard core will be able to circumvent it pretty easily, but this isn't about the hard core, who will always find a way.

This is about discouraging Joe Six Pack and Hettie Hairspray from engaging in the casual piracy that comprises about 90% of the pirate traffic at this time. Those people are essentially lazy and profoundly uninterested in anything that smacks of being a nerd or hacker. Make it moderately inconvenient for them to pirate and the vast majority would rather just spend the money and not be bothered.

Most people don't even understand what a numerical IP address is. They have difficulty programming the advanced features of a microwave oven. The limit of their technical ability is figuring out what button to push on their multipurpose remote.

This simple fact escapes a lot of the people here because most everybody on this site uses digital audio production to some degree and therefore by definition has at least some degree of technical interest. Even so, I'm regularly amazed by the degree of technical ignorance displayed by some people - and that's on a nominally technical site.
#17
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

the thing I don't get about blocking the DNS is will it be illegal to link directly to an IP address? most people don't type in most urls anyway, they probably visit them from a link and then maybe bookmark it. won't people just create pages with a bunch of links directly to the IP addresses of various pirate sites?

or will ISPs be able to actually block access to the banned IP addresses from within the US, in which case people would have to use proxies?
John Eppstein
Thread Starter
#18
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #18
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
the thing I don't get about blocking the DNS is will it be illegal to link directly to an IP address? most people don't type in most urls anyway, they probably visit them from a link and then maybe bookmark it. won't people just create pages with a bunch of links directly to the IP addresses of various pirate sites?

or will ISPs be able to actually block access to the banned IP addresses from within the US, in which case people would have to use proxies?
It would be possible to type in the IP, but most people don't know how to do that.

Any page comprising such a list would find itself being blocked as having no purpose other that facilitating piracy.

The idea is to make it difficult for the average nontechnical user to access pirate content - to drive piracy back underground where it belongs rather than being mainstream.
#19
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #19
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
the thing I don't get about blocking the DNS is will it be illegal to link directly to an IP address? most people don't type in most urls anyway, they probably visit them from a link and then maybe bookmark it. won't people just create pages with a bunch of links directly to the IP addresses of various pirate sites?
Under the current text of the bill:

Following a court order served on a service provider to block access to a website, the Attorney General may seek an injunction against any other service provider that has knowingly and willingly provided a way to circumvent that block. Under the language of the bill, I would imagine that a site that provides direct links to sites that have been blocked could fall under this provision.

The injunction is limited to a court order prohibiting the service provider from interfering with the initial court order.
#20
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #20
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

that makes sense. but it just seems like instead of playing whack-a-mole with a handful of cyber lockers it would turn into playing whack-a-mole with a million blog posts or forum posts that provide direct links to the IP addresses of the banned sites. there's no reason to use a proxy like some people have mentioned, right?

why can't they just block those IP addresses within the US? forgive the dumb question, I'm sure it's already been addressed and probably has something to do with how the internet works technically, but I'm just curious.

although simply preventing the cyberlockers from showing up in google results would be a huge step and I guess this bill would accomplish that?
#21
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #21
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
simply preventing the cyberlockers from showing up in google results would be a huge step
Massive!
#22
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
that makes sense. but it just seems like instead of playing whack-a-mole with a handful of cyber lockers it would turn into playing whack-a-mole with a million blog posts or forum posts that provide direct links to the IP addresses of the banned sites. there's no reason to use a proxy like some people have mentioned, right?
I believe that is the most likely outcome - we're half way there already, see below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
why can't they just block those IP addresses within the US? forgive the dumb question, I'm sure it's already been addressed and probably has something to do with how the internet works technically, but I'm just curious.
Several countries already implement this, but for political rather than copyright reasons. You might have heard the phrase "Great Firewall Of China". Do you think the American people are ready for one yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
although simply preventing the cyberlockers from showing up in google results would be a huge step and I guess this bill would accomplish that?
It could. I do wonder, though, how successful it would be. I tried using Google to search for a few albums. Most of the hits were for blogs and online forums, not cyberlocker sites. The trend these days is to obfuscate the file details on the cyberlocker sites, and point to them via multiple indirection.
#23
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #23
Banned
 

I think blocking infringing sites is not a free speech issue. Blocking access to theft is not blocking access to free speech.
#24
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo View Post
I think blocking infringing sites is not a free speech issue. Blocking access to theft is not blocking access to free speech.
Exactly.
To compare SOPA to China's situation is IMO disingenuous.
#25
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #25
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

the big difference between here and China is that presumably under such a system the sites themselves are blocked and become illegal, individual acts of piracy are still illegal, but an individual using a proxy to bypass the blocks probably wouldn't be illegal. so it would only be a half-assed sort of censorship the point of which would be to make it inconvenient for the majority of americans to access certain information. if the government blocked say wikileaks, people who were truly interested could still access the site without risk of landing in jail.
#26
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #26
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

so- what do people think about this?


SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE OFFENSES.

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),' and inserting `section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),'.
SEC. 203. AUTHORITY TO SHARE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION.

(a) AUTHORITY TO SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended to read as follows:
`(C)(i) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made--
`(I) when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
`(II) when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury;
`(III) when the disclosure is made by an attorney for the government to another Federal grand jury;
`(IV) when permitted by a court at the request of an attorney for the government, upon a showing that such matters may disclose a violation of State criminal law, to an appropriate official of a State or subdivision of a State for the purpose of enforcing such law; or
`(V) when the matters involve foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in clause (iv) of this subparagraph), to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties.
`(ii) If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct.
`(iii) Any Federal official to whom information is disclosed pursuant to clause (i)(V) of this subparagraph may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information. Within a reasonable time after such disclosure, an attorney for the government shall file under seal a notice with the court stating the fact that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.
`(iv) In clause (i)(V) of this subparagraph, the term `foreign intelligence information' means--
`(I) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--
`(aa) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
`(bb) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
`(cc) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of foreign power; or
`(II) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--
`(aa) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
`(bb) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.'.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Rule 6(e)(3)(D) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by striking `(e)(3)(C)(i)' and inserting `(e)(3)(C)(i)(I)'.
(b) AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION-
(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT- Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
`(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.'.
(2) DEFINITION- Section 2510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
(A) in paragraph (17), by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
`(19) `foreign intelligence information' means--
`(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--
`(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
`(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
`(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
`(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--
`(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
`(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.'.
(c) PROCEDURES- The Attorney General shall establish procedures for the disclosure of information pursuant to section 2517(6) and Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that identifies a United States person, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801)).
(d) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be disclosed to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.
(2) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `foreign intelligence information' means--
(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--
(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--
(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
#27
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #27
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

I'm still not sure what the 'Patriot Act' has to do with the proposed legislation. You keep coming back to that..

Let me pose a question to you:
What are your thoughts on the AntiTrust Laws? (also known as 'Competition Law')
Competition law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Modern competition law has historically evolved on a country level to promote and maintain competition in markets principally within the territorial boundaries of nation-states. National competition law usually does not cover activity beyond territorial borders unless it has significant effects at nation-state level.[1] Countries may allow for extraterritorial jurisdiction in competition cases based on so-called effects doctrine.[1][2] The protection of international competition is governed by international competition agreements
Quote:
Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:
  • prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
  • banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
  • supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.
Do you or do you not believe that government should help to maintain a fair playing field for markets, when the free market doesn't provide its' own solution?
And wouldn't this bill be in the same vein of thought as AntiTrust Law?
#28
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #28
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
I'm still not sure what the 'Patriot Act' has to do with the proposed legislation. You keep coming back to that..

Let me pose a question to you:
What are your thoughts on the AntiTrust Laws? (also known as 'Competition Law')
Competition law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Do you or do you not believe that government should help to maintain a fair playing field for markets, when the free market doesn't provide its' own solution?
And wouldn't this bill be in the same vein of thought as AntiTrust Law?
the Patriot act has been invoked in computer fraud cases. It allows for wiretaps and evidence collection which exceeds the legislation proposed against an end user. If we wish to stop piracy, the end user of pirated materials must be a significant target for prosecution.


one point I have been thinking of a lot is this though-

pirated media is generally fairly large in data volume, and almost all internet service providers in the US are moving to a volume based pricing model. Since the providers will be billing against usage, it seems to me they would be wanting to preserve piracy in order for them to maximize their billing- thus, they are now a significant accessory to the crime and financially benefit from it. Thus allowing them to be prosecuted for traffiking in IP theft.

thoghts?
#29
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #29
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
I'm still not sure what the 'Patriot Act' has to do with the proposed legislation. You keep coming back to that..

Let me pose a question to you:
What are your thoughts on the AntiTrust Laws? (also known as 'Competition Law')
Competition law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Do you or do you not believe that government should help to maintain a fair playing field for markets, when the free market doesn't provide its' own solution?
And wouldn't this bill be in the same vein of thought as AntiTrust Law?
so are we talking about Clear Channel now?
#30
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #30
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
pirated media is generally fairly large in data volume, and almost all internet service providers in the US are moving to a volume based pricing model. Since the providers will be billing against usage, it seems to me they would be wanting to preserve piracy in order for them to maximize their billing- thus, they are now a significant accessory to the crime and financially benefit from it. Thus allowing them to be prosecuted for traffiking in IP theft.

thoghts?
This has been my view for a long time, although Don will tell you differently.
Certainly, Australia has charged for data usage for at least 6 years, and although the price is coming down, the data based contracts are getting bigger and bigger - 50/60 gig per month in a country with a generally slow download net speed and no netflix, Spotify etc....
THe tech companies are attempting to constrict content to their own services, like iCloud, but until they can achieve that, the way they attract people to huge data contracts (and more income) is by looking the other way on illegal streaming and piracy.
The telco regulators reported a huge spike in complaints about mobile devices this year. One of the biggest spikes was complaints about 'surprise' enormous telephone bills. This is because they promote the smart phone and tablet market, but fail to warn people how costly they are to actually use.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.