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

[Tony Li]

No, but it does require service providers to block traffic based on a court order.  This is, in effect, conviction without due process.  Not to mention an inappropriate use of the Internet infrastructure.

Tony

On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:

> 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
>