US Congress moves to censor the Internet

[5co77ie]

Today Congress holds hearings on the first American Internet censorship system, the new copyright bill, now known as the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA).

The proposed Law will allow copyright holders to force websites which have any suspected copyrighted material to be blocked by ISP companies in any state in the USA, without requiring that the websites be given time to take the offending material down. Whilst it's bad for America and their sites like YouTube, and Facebook, surely it'll be better news for other sites elsewhere in the world who prefer free speech like WikiLeaks.

Whilst corporations will be able to force the shut down of websites by just claiming the site “engages in, enables or facilitates” infringement, it'll only be in the USA, and if the country wantes to become more insular so be it, will it have any real effect on us this side of the Atlantic?

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?fpla

Global civic organisation Avaaz reports the US Congress is debating a law that would give it the power to censor the world's Internet - creating a blacklist that could target YouTube, WikiLeaks and even groups like Avaaz.

Says Luiz Morago of Avaaz: “Under the new law, the US could force Internet providers to block any website on suspicion of violating copyright or trademark legislation, or even failing to sufficiently police their users' activities. And, because so much of the Internet's hosts and hardware are located in the US, their blacklist would clamp down on the free web for all of us.

<<<snip>>>

Morago points out that for years the US government has condemned countries like China and Iran for their clampdown on Internet use. “But now, the impact of America's new censorship laws could be far worse - effectively blocking sites to every Internet user across the globe.

“Last year, a similar Internet censorship bill was killed before reaching the US Senate floor, but it's now back in a different form. Copyright laws already exist and are enforced by courts. But this new law goes much further - granting the government and big corporations enormous powers to force service providers and search engines to block websites based just on allegations of violations - without a trial or being found guilty of any crime."

[kaosmark2]

Of course it'd affect us. Loads of websites are hosted over there, and any success in censoring the internet would spread. If they can succeed, in a 'free speech democracy' culture, then other countries would follow.

[5co77ie]

Surely the website hosted over there that don't want such regulations would move their hosting to outside the USA? I'm not sure it would spread or will even get through Congress - it's already failed once to get through.

It all depends how educated the populace are if it's done on the 'stop piracy' banner and pushed that way in the press - then unless people were actually educated about what that meant, most would say that's fine then.

[kaosmark2]

But it's immediate. If they can take a website down straight away, without warning, without requesting they take the offending material down, even if its just users on an internet forum, then how is there any way to hold things.

The hope is that it doesn't get through.

[eFestivals]

The internet is not the great freedom that's been claimed for it. It's just another corporate bore.

[Purple Monkey]

Knew this was coming.

FUCK THE HUMAN RACE.

(signed).

[lharris92]

north korea and china are watching with great amusement.

[Kowalski]

Of course it'd affect us. Loads of websites are hosted over there, and any success in censoring the internet would spread. If they can succeed, in a 'free speech democracy' culture, then other countries would follow.

[5co77ie]

/me gets out pencil

*draws line

"there"

[Kowalski]

Websites and forums should be capable of moderating and/or self policing what is posted. Rather than have their website blocked by an ISP it seems more sensible to take evasive action to avoid the threat of blocking (should this OTT proposal go through).

If somebody posted something copyrighted on here, would you keep it on or remove it?

[t8yman]

BT have already blocked newzbin2.com apparently. but you can workaround it very very easily. Pirate sites will still thrive, you will just need to access them via dedicated client software. most people who klnow what they are doing "download wise" hardly use the www to download files anyway.policing the internet is an impossible task, its even less unwinnable than the war on drugs or the war on terror

Edited November 17, 2011 by t8yman

[eFestivals]

If somebody posted something copyrighted on here, would you keep it on or remove it?

deleted.

[russycarps]

people are just upset they might not be able to steal music and films anymore and try and dress this fact up as "losing freedom of speech"

just be honest

[eFestivals]

people are just upset they might not be able to steal music and films anymore and try and dress this fact up as "losing freedom of speech"

just be honest

Nope.

Like all these things, the fear is more to do with the potential misuse of the powers they're wanting rather than with a strict application of why they've been thought up in the first place.

Just about any law that gets passed gets misused for other purposes, just because it exists and can be used for another purpose.

A great example of that was Gordon Brown using anti-terrorism law to snatch the assets of the UK arms of the Icelandic banks that went bust. That law was never intended to be used in that way, but because it was there it could be misused in that way - nothing within that anti-terrorism legislation says that it can only be used for terrorist matters even tho it was designed for only that purpose.

[Purple Monkey]

Nope.

Like all these things, the fear is more to do with the potential misuse of the powers they're wanting rather than with a strict application of why they've been thought up in the first place.

Just about any law that gets passed gets misused for other purposes, just because it exists and can be used for another purpose.

A great example of that was Gordon Brown using anti-terrorism law to snatch the assets of the UK arms of the Icelandic banks that went bust. That law was never intended to be used in that way, but because it was there it could be misused in that way - nothing within that anti-terrorism legislation says that it can only be used for terrorist matters even tho it was designed for only that purpose.

[russycarps]

Nope.

Like all these things, the fear is more to do with the potential misuse of the powers they're wanting rather than with a strict application of why they've been thought up in the first place.

Just about any law that gets passed gets misused for other purposes, just because it exists and can be used for another purpose.

A great example of that was Gordon Brown using anti-terrorism law to snatch the assets of the UK arms of the Icelandic banks that went bust. That law was never intended to be used in that way, but because it was there it could be misused in that way - nothing within that anti-terrorism legislation says that it can only be used for terrorist matters even tho it was designed for only that purpose.

[t8yman]

people are just upset they might not be able to steal music and films anymore and try and dress this fact up as "losing freedom of speech"

just be honest

[kaosmark2]

Nope.

Like all these things, the fear is more to do with the potential misuse of the powers they're wanting rather than with a strict application of why they've been thought up in the first place.

Just about any law that gets passed gets misused for other purposes, just because it exists and can be used for another purpose.

A great example of that was Gordon Brown using anti-terrorism law to snatch the assets of the UK arms of the Icelandic banks that went bust. That law was never intended to be used in that way, but because it was there it could be misused in that way - nothing within that anti-terrorism legislation says that it can only be used for terrorist matters even tho it was designed for only that purpose.

[windy_miller]

This bill seems to be focused solely on shutting down or blocking pirate sites, yet there are far worse crimes that take place on the internet than copyright infringement.

This isn't really anything to do with censorship, it all to do with the MPAA trying to make money.

[russycarps]

It's difficult though isnt it? I think the theft of music is a dreadful thing. How can it be stopped?

do you people actually want it to be stopped?

[t8yman]

It's difficult though isnt it? I think the theft of music is a dreadful thing. How can it be stopped?

do you people actually want it to be stopped?

[russycarps]

I want people to steal shitty music, and pay for good music.

[Purple Monkey]

I reckon the fact that the the worst period of musical output since Ug the caveman farted C sharp and the proliferation of musical theft is happening at the same time is no coincidence.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[russycarps]

Some of the best albums I've ever heard have been released this year.

[kaosmark2]

It's difficult though isnt it? I think the theft of music is a dreadful thing. How can it be stopped?

do you people actually want it to be stopped?