Quote:
Originally Posted by PornoMonster
Corporate supporters of Senate 968 (PIPA) and HR 3261 (SOPA) demand the ability to take down any web site (including craigslist, Wikipedia, or Google) that hurts their profits -- without prior judicial oversight or due process -- in the name of combating "online piracy."
Paul from what I understand, this law is to powerful. Someone can file a complaint, and get a site taken down. This would be done without any legal courts or verrification.
Sure, the person filing the complaint can get in trouble, but what about all the days of missed revenue when the site was down.
Go read what Craigs List has to say about Monster Cables.
Don't believe it? Monster Cable has labeled craigslist a "rogue site," earmarked for blacklisting and full-takedown under PIPA -- resale of stereo cables by CL users reduces Monster 's new cable sales
Look out garage sales -- I have cables for sale.
|
I hope someone can put you and I right on this point. I read the act and this is a paste and copy of what part of it says. Regarding taking down sites. I put my reading of it in red.
Quote:
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if-- So doesn't apply to US sites that can be sued via the courts. Or actually charged for breaking law in a US court.
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States; So block US traffic and you have no problems. People can get through, but you're not aiming at the US.
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and So is just A US company or citizen just standing us and saying B&B is a piracy enough? No I think to break a law it's innocent until proven guilty.
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site. Still seems to me the AG will need proof and possibly a conviction. No where does it say only accused or in the opinion of. Yes I can see some small sites getting swiped, but try it on a site in the EU and they might find the EU battling it out in court with the AG.
(b) Action by the Attorney General-
(1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or Again that word foreign.
(B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.Again that word foreign.
|
So Monster Cables, doesn't like CS legally reselling second hand cables and attacks it. That breaks so many US corporate laws the court case will be a dandy.
I read so many scare stories, most of them untrue, that when I go read the law, I wonder how they figured it out. Probably copied it from Torrent Freak.
Yes the law needs to be carefully examined in the process of getting it passed. Safeguards need to be put in. IMO it should not exclude US owned sites. They should be as subject to their own laws as others are. At present Manwin are in the clear, as is CL I believe. I'm sure there are other piracy sites owned by US companies. That might be the loop hole, open a US corp and it's plain sailing. Until a US company sues.
As the CEO of Wikipedia said follow the money. Make a CC processing site liable to damages and funding takes a hit. Go after advertisers and it could be a fatal blow for most of them.
Piracy used to be a cottage industry, not it's major business. It will be stopped.