Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I haven't read it yet either, but if it reads "Open Act"
It likely has something to do with closing the internet or many of its features/websites
considering the feds just took down that megaupload foreign site completely, I'm still not understanding why we need MORE LAWS?????? Just enforce the 800,000 or so laws that are already on the books idiots
Here's the text of the proposed legislation. I haven't had time to read it yet, but will tomorrow. In the mean time, y'all go ahead.
I haven't read much of it but what I did I would support. The parts I have read specifically outline that it will be used solely against sites located outside the US.
Well, I haven't read it yet either, but if it reads "Open Act"
It likely has something to do with closing the internet or many of its features/websites
considering the feds just took down that megaupload foreign site completely, I'm still not understanding why we need MORE LAWS?????? Just enforce the 800,000 or so laws that are already on the books idiots
The reason we need more laws is because technology keeps changing. The original Copyright Act of 1976 obviously did not include digital media. Hence, the law needed to be amended and was in 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2010.
Unfortunately, as a result of technology changing so quickly, our legislators are largely ignorant and we end up with overly-broad bad laws. These bad laws require new laws to be enacted to either amend or correct the bad laws once the legislators gain a better understanding of the technology.
I haven't read much of it but what I did I would support. The parts I have read specifically outline that it will be used solely against sites located outside the US.
While I think testing this law out with foreign sites is a good idea, I think US sites should be also be included once they work out the kinks in the law. For example, give US sites a three year grace-period before the amended law applies.
While I think testing this law out with foreign sites is a good idea, I think US sites should be also be included once they work out the kinks in the law. For example, give US sites a three year grace-period before the amended law applies.
There is already numerous ways for copyright owners to address these issues for sites within the US through the DMCA, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution. The problem that needs to be addressed is sites that are outside the reach of US law enforcement and US civil courts.
Well, I've read it and it seems a far better bill than the other two.
First, it tasks the Trade Commission with enforcing copyright laws instead of the Department of Justice, as the other two bills do and it only applies to foreign sites. If a complaint is made which is found to be a domestic site, the information is forwarded to the DOJ for action under existing laws.
Secondly, only the holder of a copyright may be able to file a complaint and a bond must be posted. If it's determined that the internet site in question is not guilty, then the bond is forfeited. That's to preclude frivolous charges being made.
Third, it lays out a procedure for accused sites to respond to the charge before cease and desist orders are issued. Moreover, it creates a new court within the Commission for taking such evidence and making adjudications. It even lays out the qualifications for judges and requires they be rotated as much as possible.
Fourth, cease and desist order are time limited, though they may be extended indefinitely in 14 day increments until the domain name registration expires.
Fifth, foreign sites which post the owners name, contact information and a statement of their willingness to submit to the laws of the United States and our courts are exempt from this bill. If they do that, any questions about their actions will be handled by the DOJ and Federal Courts.
The one item in this bill which might give cause for concern is that investigations and actions taken by the commission must be forwarded to the President for his approval or disapproval for policy reasons. While that could lead to favoritism in some cases, the intent is to keep investigations from compromising on-going diplomatic or intelligence efforts. On the whole, I think that's a justifiable cautionary inclusion.
Overall, it seems like a good, solid bill which will address foreign piracy on the internet without trampling on anybody's rights.
The part of the bill I don't like is that it's attempting to "region-lock" the internet i.e. it will make it much harder for people in the US to access foreign domains. It's not like every foreign website is pirate bay...
The part of the bill I don't like is that it's attempting to "region-lock" the internet i.e. it will make it much harder for people in the US to access foreign domains. It's not like every foreign website is pirate bay...
Hmmmmm... Another bill they have to pass to find out what's in it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
