Search Slyck
Anonymous
Welcome
MPAA Unhappy With Google's Opposition to Anti-American Copyright Legislation
May 19, 2011
Most technologists, bloggers, journalists, and in general, those who support the First Amendment of the US Constitution, were adamantly against the CIOCA Act - or the "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act". The bill would have given the Department of Justice, and indeed copyright holders, the arbitrary right to infringe on free speech by shutting down website deemed to be infringing - all without the benefit of due process.The internet celebrated when CIOCA was died when the last year's Congress went out of session. But hey, there's a new class in town, and this year's Congress has reintroduced CIOCA. This time, it's virtually the same game with a different name - the Protect IP Act, or PIPA for short.
Much like the CIOCA act, PIPA is being near-universally derided by just about everyone who believes in the US Constitution and the Amendments that grant us the freedoms to participate in a democratic society. One slight different between PIPA from CIOCA is that PIPA concentrates its efforts on foreign websites. As recent domain seizures in the US have already proven, the authorities already have enough power to drop US websites. But PIPA goes much further than this.
What PIPA would create is the Great Firewall of America. US authorities, on the behest of a copyright complaint or other legal action, or even their own behest, can file an action to force DNS (Directory Name Service) providers to block certain websites deemed infringing. You see, when you enter a domain name in your browser, it needs to know the IP address of the website - a domain name (say, Slyck.com), means nothing to FireFox. It needs to talk to the DNS provider first, reference the domain name to the IP address, and bam - you're connected. One of the provisions of PIPA would prevent this from happening (but you can still connect via the sites IP address...)
Also being targeted are credit card processors and "search interactive services". That means sites like Google could also be forced to remove or block content - something Google flipped out about yesterday. From Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt:
"[i]f there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to websites], to do X and it’s passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it...If it's a request the answer is we wouldn't do it, if it's a discussion we wouldn't do it."
Good for Google - and indeed good for the opposition to PIPA. The stronger the anti-PIPA camp, the less chance this has of becoming law. The MPAA caught wind of Schmit's comments, prompting a blog post in response. From Michael O’Leary, the MPAA's executive vice president for government affairs:
"Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws.
We’ve heard this ‘but the law doesn’t apply to me’ argument before – but usually, it comes from content thieves, not a Fortune 500 company. Google should know better. And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does."
He actually has a good point about Google and China - considering Schmit further made a comparison between this bill and the Great Firewall of China. Rather curious considering Google's own work helped maintain this policy, however to Google's credit, they no longer collaborate with the Communist Chinese government.
From the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge:
"This new provision gives private parties the ability to get injunctions against credit card companies [and] ad network[s]...that serve targeted sites. One of the few upsides of the old bill was the fact that those who trusted the prosecutorial discretion of the government could take solace in the fact that only a foolhardy federal prosecutor would go after the edge cases of Internet entrepreneurs whose business models might be in good faith, though they ruffled the feathers of rightsholders. With the introduction of a private right of action, the injunctions issuing from this bill can now be called forth at the litigious whim of any copyright holder."
Aside from the political bickering, the PIPA act as it is currently written is wholly inadequate to confront the perceived issues of internet piracy. Although the MPAA claims the provisions of the bill are narrow, they are anything but. The bill is clearly written with copyright holders in mind, while side stepping the virtues of due process. Americans deserve better than this.
Share
"Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws.
We’ve heard this ‘but the law doesn’t apply to me’ argument before – but usually, it comes from content thieves, not a Fortune 500 company. Google should know better. And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does."
He actually has a good point about Google and China - considering Schmit further made a comparison between this bill and the Great Firewall of China. Rather curious considering Google's own work helped maintain this policy, however to Google's credit, they no longer collaborate with the Communist Chinese government.
From the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge:
"This new provision gives private parties the ability to get injunctions against credit card companies [and] ad network[s]...that serve targeted sites. One of the few upsides of the old bill was the fact that those who trusted the prosecutorial discretion of the government could take solace in the fact that only a foolhardy federal prosecutor would go after the edge cases of Internet entrepreneurs whose business models might be in good faith, though they ruffled the feathers of rightsholders. With the introduction of a private right of action, the injunctions issuing from this bill can now be called forth at the litigious whim of any copyright holder."
Aside from the political bickering, the PIPA act as it is currently written is wholly inadequate to confront the perceived issues of internet piracy. Although the MPAA claims the provisions of the bill are narrow, they are anything but. The bill is clearly written with copyright holders in mind, while side stepping the virtues of due process. Americans deserve better than this.
Share
This story is filed in these Slyck News categories
You can discuss this article here - 7 replies
NewsDemon Newsgroups
$10.99 Unlimited Access, 256-Bit SSL, 1,200+ Days Retention, 99%+ Completion, Free Newsreader, Paypal Accepted.
www.NewsDemon.com
$10.99 Unlimited Access, 256-Bit SSL, 1,200+ Days Retention, 99%+ Completion, Free Newsreader, Paypal Accepted.
www.NewsDemon.com
© 2001-2012 Slyck.com