[ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship

[Richard Bennett]

The bill, less amendments agreed to in committee on Thursday,  is here:

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf

If you're interested, read it and decide for yourself what it does. This 
amendment post-dates the drafting of the EFF letter you were asked to 
sign earlier. I think you will find that it does not declare that "the 
plaintiffs decide guilt."

In particular: no domain can be blacklisted without a court order, and 
no signed domain can be blacklisted at all.

RB

On 12/18/2011 9:44 PM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Tfu.
>
> The bill provides a non-judicial means of action for holders of
> "intellectual property."  The essence of american jurisprudence is that
> it is *jurisprudence*, not private justice.  The holders of IP already
> have tools for court-mandated and court-moderated handling of illegal
> activity.  What they want is to bypass the unfortunate cost of going to
> court, and this bill provides them that.
>
> It's a horrible bill.  The writers have only the vaguest understanding
> of the technical requirements and underpinning of the internet.  The
> plaintiffs decide guilt.  This is not justice.
>
> Amy!
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:18 -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
>> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of
>> the bill. It says:
>>
>> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
>> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>>
>> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to
>> be RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
>> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell
>> camcorder grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>>
>> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
>> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>>
>> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
>> copyright material are by permission and which aren't.  It does
>> require the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary
>> purpose is to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but
>> that's not very hard.
>>
>> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
>> internet."
>>
>> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is
>> the essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
>> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
>> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise
>> violate the law, then don't.
>>
>> RB
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>>
>>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel
>>> Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>   wrote:
>>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
>>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>>>
>>>>            Noel
>> -- 
>> Richard Bennett
>>

-- 
Richard Bennett