Sponsored Adverts

Author Topic: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)  (Read 8882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« on: June 08, 2011, 04:09:31 AM »
Not 100% sure how the US law currently stands but there's a bit of a brouhaha being caused by some proposed legislation passing through US Congress that has repercussions outside of it's borders. Previously most action taken against copyright infringement has been on those operating under the auspices of the US, i.e. domain name managed by the US based ICANN (.con et-al).

In the Protect IP Act of 2011 authority is given to the Attorney General to pursue infringements directly overseas and/or where the US has no claim of jurisdiction;
Quote
(a) Commencement of an Action-
   (1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
       (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or
       (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.

What this essentially means is that the US can veto any National Sovereignty and take direct action against a "person" bypassing their own territorial legal system. So yeah... hmm. There's more to this but I've not read the entire proposal yet. In combination with the previous posting about 'upgrading' infringements from "civil" to "criminal" it's going to mean a few rather large corporations stifling 'creativity' rather than protect it (as S. 968's title suggests it's for). All pretty serious stuff for us creators that don't have the deep pockets require to protect our little corners of the Internet ;o)

Further reference

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2011, 03:21:21 AM »
kat, if it's the same bill you were talking about, then the youtube pro gamer darksydephil has recently posted a rant about this on his channel. most of the videos i watch online now are his, and i sure would be depressed if videos like his playthroughs were stopped, as not only have they replaced my desire to watch tv most days but they are also good research for my games design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2011, 04:22:34 AM »
Yeah it is. He got a couple of things 'wrong' in his rant though. It's not "inadvertent" and politicians aren't "out of touch with reality", they know exactly what this will do because the lobbyists have told them what will happen if they don't change the law (he did suggest that in passing, heh)  ;)

There was one slight error though, I need to double check this but the penalties aren't based on uploads per-say but rather the number of 'broadcasts' - that's the whole point about this bill, it's all about penalising what the language refers to as "public broadcasts" and that's defined as views/people iirc.

There's also this. Although he didn't mention this (as he's American), the European Union is also quietly working on something similar - I've not yet researched it but I have seen one or two references to it. The whole thing is pretty much part of this whole United Nations overhaul on International Copyright that protects those with the deepest pockets and sadly, it's not a 'conspiracy theory' either.

It's all pretty nasty stuff.

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2011, 04:40:36 AM »
thanks kat, and understood i think.

i didn't previously read the links you had previously posted but i have just read this page posted by phil's gaming friend who is also a us copyright lawyer, as mentioned in phil's vid. he seems to think the bill will go ahead.

http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/trolling-the-stream-by-ultradavid/

and agreed, this is terrible news.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2011, 05:04:32 AM »
I'm still reading but if you look up at the previous post where it mentions the "Protect IP Act", he writes his article (so far) based on just the one law. If PIA gets enacted what he mentions as being a *civil* crime will be a criminal one - the two laws together are basically the Dinner scene from the God Father, the baseball bat welding mod boss is the government, and we are the guy getting hit in the head.

This is a lot bigger than people think it is and it's being changed from multiple points of (coordinated?) attack, it's no coincidence that Apple recently got a patent that allows it's devices to be disabled through infrared signals; or Microsoft recently being awarded a patent that 'snoops' on VoIP to check packet contents. It is all part of a broader 'plan' to gain control over the Internet and kill 'free speech' (I mean that in a very broad sense of people being able to use the Internet as a medium of expression rather than just 'politicised' content).

Google and YouTube won't care either, they'll continue doing what they doing and strip audio from videos or strip video leaving only audio commentary. Or they'll just remove material simply based on received requests (no need for DMCA if these laws get passed).

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2011, 05:23:57 AM »
interesting and according to that page you mentioned that tracks the progress of these bills, if i understand it correctly, it's roughly half way through the process of being passed? is there any indication how long the remaining stages could take?

also what's that infra red tech apple are going to use?

edit: i forgot to mention, when i post on these updated forums i'm usually then redirected to the forum sub section rather the last post in a topic, is that a bug or a feature because i preferred the old style of seeing what i've just posted.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 06:43:05 AM »
The Bills timing is going to be dependant on how hard the lobbyist push it. Typically things like that can take a good few months.

The Apple Patent is this - United States Patent Application 20110128384.
Quote
Systems and methods for receiving infrared data with a camera designed to detect images based on visible light are provided. A system can include a camera and image processing circuitry electrically coupled to the camera. The image processing circuitry can determine whether each image detected by the camera includes an infrared signal with encoded data. If the image processing circuitry determines that an image includes an infrared signal with encoded data, the circuitry may route at least a portion of the image (e.g., the infrared signal) to circuitry operative to decode the encoded data. If the image processing circuitry determines that an image does not include an infrared signal with encoded data, the circuitry may route the image to a display or storage. Images routed to the display or storage can then be used as individual pictures or frames in a video because those images do not include any effects of infrared light communications.
Basically it's a technology that allows Apples hardware to receive infrared signals that can then be used to do a number of things. The IR stream is basically a 'trigger' that activates overlays, GUI stuff, but it can also be used to completely disable a device and prevent it from recording. The initial purpose behind it appears to be a type of DRM that will prevent people recording concerts and other 'copyright' material.

The Microsoft Patent is this - United States Patent Application 20110153809
Quote
Aspects of the subject matter described herein relate to silently recording communications. In aspects, data associated with a request to establish a communication is modified to cause the communication to be established via a path that includes a recording agent. Modification may include, for example, adding, changing, and/or deleting data within the data. The data as modified is then passed to a protocol entity that uses the data to establish a communication session. Because of the way in which the data has been modified, the protocol entity selects a path that includes the recording agent. The recording agent is then able to silently record the communication
The MS Patent is basically a mechanism that allows them to 'silently' record VoIP conversations. Note that "silent" in this context means "without consent" or "without any parties knowing it's happening".

Re: the forum question. I don't know why it does that so I'll look into it (because it annoys me too).

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2011, 01:05:18 PM »
thanks kat and the techs there are impressive, just a shame their going to be used for draconian restrictions.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2011, 08:51:05 AM »
From PC Pro
Quote from: PCPro
BT has been given two weeks to block illegal file-sharing site Newzbin, after a judge ruled in July that the ISP must take action. It's the first time a British ISP has been ordered to block a site for copyright infringement, and expected to set a precedent for how websites hosting illegal content are dealt with by courts in the future.

It's interesting that Rights Holders have argued the case that they can force a service provider to do this, thus indirectly going after the infringing party. It sets a nasty precedent that rather than go after specific sites, and prosecute within the realms of the Law, they'll just get a self-justified 'court order' to force ISP's to block them - not sure who's arguing the case that a given site is 'innocent' in that scenario.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2011, 08:16:07 PM »
House Of Representative introduced their version of the "Protect IP ACT" titled "Stop Online Piracy Act" (PDF). Not read the full text yet but the highlighted section below from the Judiciary Committee press release pretty much implies the authorities can go after 'sites' outside local jurisdictions and due-process. If the bill continues the theme from the Senate draft, 'sites' would also be prosecuted 'in absentia' (in the absence of the owner charged with the crime).

Quote from: House Judiciary Committee
Washington, D.C. – A bipartisan group in the House today introduced legislation that expands protections for America’s intellectual property (IP) and combats the illegal distribution of counterfeit goods via rogue websites.  The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions against foreign websites that steal and sell American innovations and products.  The bill increases criminal penalties for individuals who traffic in counterfeit medicine and military goods, which put innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk. And it improves coordination between IP enforcement agencies in the U.S.

Additional References:

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2011, 12:47:03 AM »
i think darksydephil is talking about the same bills in this video blog of his:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DSPGaming#p/a/u/0/WAtSfNh9B0c

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2011, 03:25:27 AM »
I think he's got his Bill numbers slightly mixed up.. there is a bit of cross-over but the The Protect IP Act (Senate version) is S. 968, not S. 978, which changes the law to make certain infringement actions felony crimes, but yes, he's spot on.

This new version is a 'Send-to-jail-without-passing-Go!' card to Rights Holders because they can (in practice) place legal liability on third parties such as YouTube or even this site, obliging them to actively monitor their networks, with possible criminal penalties for infractions. It is, in application, similar to what BT has just been ordered to do (post on previous page), Rights Holders sought and got a Court Injunction on the site in question, ordering BT to block the entire domain (and any subsequent associated domains).

The *only* thing I disagree with is his interpretation that Politicians are idiots and don't know what they're doing... nothing could be further from the truth.

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2011, 03:44:59 AM »
understood and agreed. i also have come to believe that the usa and uk politicians are far more likely aware of the consequences of their actions, than a lot of people give them credit for. that's not to say there aren't some idiots in our respective governments, but the ones making laws like this seem to be know exactly what their doing, but sadly for us, simply don't care if innocent people get caught in their net, pun intended.

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 980
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2011, 05:39:13 PM »
darksydephil has posted an updated vlog on the protect ip bill, definitely worth watching if any of you guys are interested in this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DSPGaming#p/a/f/0/Jq5w0UmpMm4

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2295
Re: S. 968 PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2011, 07:40:29 PM »
Good recap of the issue. Did a bit of reading up on Filibusters.. apparently (at least according to Wiki here and here) they are subject to rules and may not necessarily be extended indefinitely. There are different rules for State legislature as well. Interestingly most (Westernised) countries appear to have the same or similar types of rules in place at both the local and national level. So good luck to the guy if he can stand without rest or support for more than 2 hours!

Tags:
 

Sponsored Adverts
RSS Content is copyright © KatsBits™ 2018 unless otherwise stated. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this web site may be reproduced (except for personal use, or otherwise stated) without prior written permission from KatsBits.com. For more infomation on copyright click here.
Web design cpdtAdvertisePrivacy PolicyDMCA (about DMCA) Home Store Workshops Blog Jobs Support About Katsbits Contact Site Search KatsBits Help Site Map RSS feed Forum YouTube FaceBook LinkedIn Twitter IMVU