-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Warp
Stop Online Piracy Act - Protect IP Act
- Thread starter Sushubh
- Start date
- Replies 152
- Views 16,839
anyone thinking that this does effect us is sadly mistaken sopa/pipa does exactly that if ever made it into law, it breaks the net as we know it now. the domain seizures and dns root servers breaking is how this effects us, plus for example if i link a youtube vid here, tomm someone files a report of copy right infringement under the sopa the domain i.e broadbandforum.co could have been seized if it was a .com, .org, .net , still if thy cannot seize this domain then they can ask google to suspend google ads and adwords payments or any kind of payment processor would asked to suspend the owners a/c . this act is maddening and thankfully some people in mainstream media are waking up to it now. do not for moment think that it will not effect us in india. EU parliament has already passed a strong resolution against continuous domain seizures by U.S , it is high time that ICANN , WIPO and root dns servers were taken out of U.S hands, which is run by lobbyists from hollywood gate keepers a dying breed who can't get this in their thick heads that middle men are not required in digital age.
a good example why the shit is getting scary.
US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook — arstechnica.com — Readability
After a series of one-sided hearings, luxury goods maker Chanel has won recent court orders against hundreds of websites trafficking in counterfeit luxury goods. A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites"—explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google—to "de-index" the domain names and to remove them from any search results.
How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.
That was good enough for Judge Kent Dawson to order the names seized and transferred to GoDaddy, where they would all redirect to a page serving notice of the seizure. In addition, a total ban on search engine indexing was ordered, one which neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with yet.
US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook — arstechnica.com — Readability
After a series of one-sided hearings, luxury goods maker Chanel has won recent court orders against hundreds of websites trafficking in counterfeit luxury goods. A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites"—explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google—to "de-index" the domain names and to remove them from any search results.
How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.
That was good enough for Judge Kent Dawson to order the names seized and transferred to GoDaddy, where they would all redirect to a page serving notice of the seizure. In addition, a total ban on search engine indexing was ordered, one which neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with yet.
S
sTrOnTiaBOnd
Tribe Legis Memo on SOPA 12-6-11 1
The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the "prior restraint" doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being "dedicated to theft of U.S. property" – even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt. The Supreme Court has made clear that "only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression [and] only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint." Freedman v. Maryland , 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965). "[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart , 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).
I hope it is not allowed to pass with the PIPA bill
The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the "prior restraint" doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being "dedicated to theft of U.S. property" – even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt. The Supreme Court has made clear that "only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression [and] only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint." Freedman v. Maryland , 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965). "[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart , 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).
I hope it is not allowed to pass with the PIPA bill
We all hate SOPA and its immense powers . But Who are they ? some movie , music , drug companies . Why cant we stand up for one day or even one week in unison and totally ignore / not buy tickets / games / albums / etc from all those companies who support SOPA , we can even start some # tag on twitter to show our anger to all artist , directors , etc who support SOPA.They are powerful because we made them so , with our money.
I think u meant to include software developers too.......Based on pure concepts of Pricing, all these u have named can sell their product at cut throat rates & still make huge profits......but they just want to keep charging high & so are supporting SOPA!
Leave aside the selling stuff , There is no other way to show the power of people , imo , than by stop buying products from the companies which support SOPA .Only with sopa , what are they going to do ? when no one really buys anything from them anymore ? Instead of writing petition , calling reps , they should stop buying stuff.