Also on the "horribly ugly" side of things is the extension of this bill to cover search engines. But even if that's true, law enforcement agents will likely apply this provision only to the largest ISPs.
Two years pass as we litigate our way through the judicial system, finally winning reinstatement in the DNS catalogue. Private enforcement would only encourage large media companies to bully foreign sites through U. So despite most of the bill not applying to them, domain registers and registrars are now encouraged to simply take down sites on a voluntary basis, if they believe they're dedicated to infringement.
Worse, the bill contains language that gives private copyright holders,. But Goodlatte said he agreed that these tools, and how they are used, must not interfere with the practices of "legitimate businesses" that are not violating the law.
The Protect IP bill , currently stalled in the Senate, represents a death blow to Internet freedom of speech. Your Website optional: During a more recent interview with the network, Lieberman labeled claims that he was working to create an,.
I also can't see how it could survive First Amendment scrutiny. Copyright Freedom or Uncivil War? As a result, it is likely that these bills will continue to be amended and, though they may pass in some fashion, they are likely to be quite different than they were when first proposed.
By Brad Sukala on June 16, 2011. It looked bad, but some people complained that we were jumping ahead without the actual text of the bill, even if the summary document was pretty straightforward and was put together by the same people creating the bill.
The whole thing about no longer going directly after domains via registrars and registers is a red herring. In theory, that means a court could order the removal of any reference to the banned site from any Internet service in the U.
Under the new definition, it seems you could still claim that a service like YouTube especially in its early days could have run afoul of this law. Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion. It would be a bit like requiring the manager of a flea market to shut down the entire market because some of the merchants were selling counterfeit goods.
Your Reply: The problem with this is that the entire site would be affected, not just that portion that is promoting the distribution of illegal material. As for the promise that it doesn't expand secondary liability, that's nice to say but it's simply untrue. Read More. What's more, the newly added private enforcement provisions apply to Web sites registered in the U. Protect IP allows such tampering for any "nonauthoritative" domain name server, but never defines "nonauthoritative.
Law professors warn that new legislation allows state to seize websites merely for linking to other websites that host copyrighted material.
The more legal and cost-effective options consumers have, the less likely any but the most marginal illegal businesses will survive. When taken to its logical end, DHS would have the power to censor search engine results, for instance, on the basis that sites with "infringing activities" may show up in the query results. Correct ongoing abuses by DHS.