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

[vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)]

has anyone seen the present state of the bill after two days of mark up?

If the action implied in the bill applies to a second level domain,
that could end up blocking far more than the portion of a web site
that is said to infringe - it still looks like a blunt instrument to
me.

v


On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> 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
>