US - Bill S. 968 re piracy

[GA Russell]

Today I received an email from a music industry group encouraging me to write my Senators and Congressman in support of Bill S. 968, which it says would punish ISPs which do business with pirate websites.

I suspect that many here have a relevant opinion, and therefore may wish to contact their representatives regarding Bill S. 968.

[carld]

Is that the one that makes illegally streaming copyrighted movies a felony?

[typhoon5ht]

I have no idea what that bill is about...

[carld]

Okay, something is hinky here. Bill S. 968 is the "Secondary School Innovation Fund Act." Either someone is hoaxing, or that's the wrong bill number.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S968:

[GA Russell]

Here's what the email I received said:

"...a bipartisan group of legislators recently introduced S. 968; a bill giving the Justice Department the authority to seek a federal court order to seize a domain name used by a website engaged in criminal piracy or counterfeiting. Under the bill the Court would also issue an order to intermediaries -- such as ISPs, payment processors, Internet registries, advertisers, etc. -- prohibiting them from doing business with such criminal operations."

I don't know anything more about it.

[DiapDealer]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

It's in the very first step of the legislative process. Hopefully it dies a slow, tortuous death in committee.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by carld

Okay, something is hinky here. Bill S. 968 is the "Secondary School Innovation Fund Act." Either someone is hoaxing, or that's the wrong bill number.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S968:

That was the 111th congress. (2009-2010)


Here's the bill for the 112th congress, also known as the Protect IP Act of 2011...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

It's in the very first step of the legislative process. Hopefully it dies a slow, tortuous death in committee.

It probably will.

[carld]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

That was the 111th congress. (2009-2010)


Here's the bill for the 112th congress, also known as the Protect IP Act of 2011...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

Ahh, thanks. I didn't realize that. I was the one who was hinky then.

[Giggleton]

I'm not in favor of this act, as anyone who does not believe in intellectual property should be.

[crich70]

I would think at least some of what this supposed bill is supposed to cover is already covered by other laws. I mean fraud that involves money being sent via wire and such for example. That would be the purview of the Treasury Department I would think. Especially since they talk about conterfeiting.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Here's what the email I received said:

"...a bipartisan group of legislators recently introduced S. 968; a bill giving the Justice Department the authority to seek a federal court order to seize a domain name used by a website engaged in criminal piracy or counterfeiting. Under the bill the Court would also issue an order to intermediaries -- such as ISPs, payment processors, Internet registries, advertisers, etc. -- prohibiting them from doing business with such criminal operations."

I don't know anything more about it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by crich70

I would think at least some of what this supposed bill is supposed to cover is already covered by other laws. I mean fraud that involves money being sent via wire and such for example. That would be the purview of the Treasury Department I would think. Especially since they talk about conterfeiting.

If it's anything like similar laws we were inflicted with in the UK the purpose will be to close loopholes like requiring evidence of wrongdoing before acting. Obviously it will start out with good intentions (or at least the public will be told it has good intentions), but once it is law all bets are off.

Our anti-terror laws are now used to suppress public demonstrations and give local councils the power to spy on people suspected of trying to send their children to the wrong school or letting their dogs mess in the park. We're not even allowed to take photographs in public without someone demanding to see what we've photographed.

[Penforhire]

One of the issues, to me, is I want my ISP to provide a "dumb" data pipe. They shouldn't be responsible for what I or others do with the pipe.

One analogy is, if I do something illegal with my car on the road, and not because of the road, I don't expect anyone other than myself to be responsible. I can't imagine ISP's having much more control over their traffic than we do over vehicles on a highway and I don't want them sniffing our data any more than necessary to obtain more control.

[corona]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

One analogy is, if I do something illegal with my car on the road, and not because of the road, I don't expect anyone other than myself to be responsible. I can't imagine ISP's having much more control over their traffic than we do over vehicles on a highway and I don't want them sniffing our data any more than necessary to obtain more control.

Your ISP just needs one of these. Kind of like looking in the trunk and glove compartment of every car -- and every driver's wallet and pantspockets -- as it goes by...

[Barty]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Here's what the email I received said:

"...a bipartisan group of legislators recently introduced S. 968; a bill giving the Justice Department the authority to seek a federal court order to seize a domain name used by a website engaged in criminal piracy or counterfeiting. Under the bill the Court would also issue an order to intermediaries -- such as ISPs, payment processors, Internet registries, advertisers, etc. -- prohibiting them from doing business with such criminal operations."

I don't know anything more about it.

Piracy or counterfeiting. What, no child pornography? Don't they always throw child porn in there?