FED's want to censor the Internet...

[GreyGeek]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:

What the corporations, who have successfully perverted the USTPO such that they can patent ANYTHING as "their" IP, have failed to do is successfully sue enough people to stop what they CLAIM are billions of dollars in losses due to theft of their musical and video properties. Other corporations will use this law to stifle their software competition.

So, if your legal eagles can't get the job done for you what do you do? Why, you donate "campaign contributions" to greedy politicians and presto!, they pass laws which replace their lawyers with Federal police.

Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities

   `(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is `dedicated to infringing
 activities' if such site--

      `(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section
 2323; or

      `(2) is--

         `(A) primarily designed, [b]has no demonstrable, commercially significant 
purpose[/b] (i.e. FOSS) or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting 
in concert with the operator, to offer--

            `(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or 
facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, 
without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or
 public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially 
complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission,[b] or otherwise, 
including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources[/b] for
 obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

......

   `(b) Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of
 an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a 
preliminary injunction, or [b]an injunction against the domain name[/b] used by an Internet site
 dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any infringing activity in 
violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 
party described in subsection (e) receiving an order issued pursuant to this section shall take the
 appropriate actions described in subsection (e).

   `(c) In Rem Action-

      `(1) IN GENERAL- [b]The Attorney General may commence an in rem action against any
 domain name[/b] used by an Internet site[b] in the judicial district in which the domain name 
registrar or domain name registry is located, or, if pursuant to subsection (d)(2), in the District of 
Columbia, if--[/b]

         `(A) the domain name is dedicated to infringing activities; and

         `(B) the Attorney General simultaneously--

......

      `(2) SERVICE OF PROCESS- For purposes of this section, the actions described under
 paragraph (1)(B) shall constitute service of process.

   `(d) Situs-

      `(1) [b]DOMAINS FOR WHICH THE REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR IS LOCATED 
DOMESTICALLY[/b]- In an in rem action commenced under subsection (c), a domain name shall
 be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--

         `(A) the domain name registrar or registry is located, provided that for a registry 
that is located in more than 1 judicial district, venue shall be appropriate at the principal place 
where the registry operations are performed; or

         `(B) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition
 of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.

      `(2) [b]DOMAINS FOR WHICH THE REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR IS NOT LOCATED DOMESTICALLY[/b]-

         `[b](A) ACTION BROUGHT IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA[/b]- [i][b]If the provisions of
 paragraph (1) do not apply to a particular domain name, the in rem action may be brought in 
the District of Columbia to prevent the importation into the United States of goods and 
services[/b][/i] offered by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities if--

            `(i) the domain name is used to access such Internet site in the United States; and

            `(ii) the Internet site--

               `(I) conducts business directed to residents of the United States; and

               `(II)[b] harms intellectual property rights holders that are residents of the 
United States.
[/b]
         `(B) [b]DETERMINATION BY THE COURT[/b]- For purposes of determining whether 
an Internet site conducts business directed to residents of the United States under subparagraph
 (A)(ii)(I), a court shall consider, among other indicia whether--

            `(i) the Internet site is actually providing goods or services to subscribers located
 in the United States;

            `(ii) the Internet site states that it is not intended, and has measures to prevent,
 infringing material from being accessed in or delivered to the United States;

            `(iii) the Internet site offers services accessible in the United States; and

            `(iv) any prices for goods and services are indicated in the currency of the United 
States.

   `(e) Service of Court Order-

      `(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the 
Attorney General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name
 registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the 
registry. Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall 
suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name.

      `(2) [b]NONDOMESTIC DOMAINS[/b]-

         `(A) ENTITY TO BE SERVED- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(2) applies, 
the Attorney General may serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on any entity 
listed in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B).

         `(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS- Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to this 
section--

            `(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, 
United States Code, or other [color=red][b]operator of a domain name system server shall take 
reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name's Internet
 protocol address[/b][/color];

            `(ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section 5362(4) of
 title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to 
prevent--

               `(I) its service from processing transactions for customers located within the
 United States based on purchases associated with the domain name; and

               `(II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites 
associated with such domain name; and

            `(iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites 
shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from 
serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name.

      `(3) [b]IMMUNITY[/b]- No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or 
administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this section, or 
against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any action reasonably calculated to
 comply with this section or arising from such order.

   `(f) Publication of Orders- The Attorney General shall inform the Intellectual Property 
Enforcement Coordinator of all court orders issued under this section directed to specific domain 
names associated with Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities. [color=red][b]The 
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall post such domain names on a publicly 
available Internet site, together with other relevant information, in order to inform the public.
[/b][/color]

   `(g) Enforcement of Orders- In order to compel compliance with this section, the Attorney
 General may bring an action against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this 
section that willfully or persistently fails to comply with such order. A showing by the defending 
party in such action that it does not have the technical means to comply with this section shall 
serve as a complete defense to such action.

   `(h) Modification or Vacation of Orders; Dismissal-

      `(1) MODIFICATION OR VACATION OF ORDER- At any time after the issuance of a court 
order constituting injunctive relief under this section--

         `(A) the Attorney General may apply for a modification of the order--

            `(i) to expand the order to apply to a domain name that is reconstituted using a
 different domain name subsequent to the original order, and

            `(ii) to include additional domain names that are used in substantially the same 
manner as the Internet site against which the action was brought,

         by providing the court with clear indicia of joint control, ownership, or operation of 
the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order and the Internet site 
associated with the requested modification; and

         `(B) a defendant or owner or operator of a domain name subject to the order, or any
 party required to take action based on the order, may petition the court to modify, suspend, or
 vacate the order, based on evidence that--

            `(i) the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order is no
 longer dedicated to infringing activities; or

            `(ii) the interests of justice require that the order be modified, suspended, or 
vacated.

      `(2) DISMISSAL OF ORDER- A court order constituting injunctive relief under this section
 issued against a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities shall 
automatically cease to have any force or effect upon expiration of the registration of the domain
 name. It shall be the responsibility of the domain name registrar to notify the court of such 
expiration.

   `(i) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit civil or criminal 
remedies available to any person (including the United States) for infringing activities on the 
Internet pursuant to any other Federal or State law.

   `(j) Internet Sites Alleged by the Department of Justice To Be Dedicated to Infringing 
Activities-

      `(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall maintain a public listing of domain names 
that, upon information and reasonable belief, the Department of Justice determines are 
dedicated to infringing activities but for which the Attorney General has not filed an action under 
this section.

      `(2) PROTECTION FOR UNDERTAKING CORRECTIVE MEASURES- If an entity described 
under subsection (e) takes any action specified in such subsection with respect to a domain name
 that appears on the list established under paragraph (1), then such entity shall receive the 
immunity protections described under subsection (e)(3).

      `(3) REMOVAL FROM LIST- The Attorney General shall establish and publish procedures 
for the owner or operator of a domain name appearing on the list established under paragraph 
(1) to petition the Attorney General to remove such domain name from the list based on any of 
the factors described under subsection (h)(1)(B).

      `(4) JUDICIAL REVIEW-

         `(A) IN GENERAL- After the Attorney General makes a final determination on a 
petition to remove a domain name appearing on the list established under paragraph (1) filed by 
an individual pursuant to the procedures referred to in paragraph (3), the individual may obtain 
judicial review of such determination in a civil action commenced not later than 90 days after 
notice of such decision, or such further time as the Attorney General may allow.

         `(B) JURISDICTION- A civil action for such judicial review shall be brought in the 
district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has a 
principal place of business, or, if the plaintiff does not reside or have a principal place of business
 within any such judicial district, in the District Court of the United States for the District of 
Columbia.

         `(C) ANSWER- As part of the Attorney General's answer to a complaint for such 
judicial review, the Attorney General shall file a certified copy of the administrative record 
compiled pursuant to the petition to remove, including the evidence upon which the findings and
 decision complained of are based.

         `(D) JUDGMENT- The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and 
transcript of the record, a judgment affirming or reversing the result of the Attorney General's 
determination on the petition to remove, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.'.

SEC. 3. REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

   The Attorney General shall--

      (1) publish procedures to receive information from the public about Internet sites that 
are dedicated to infringing activities, as that term is defined under section 2324 of title 18, United 
States Code;

      (2) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about what information such 
rights holders should provide the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation pursuant to 
such section 2324;

      (3) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about how to supplement an 
ongoing investigation initiated pursuant to such section 2324;

      (4) establish standards for prioritization of actions brought under such section 2324; and

      (5) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case management and 
development to affect timely disposition of actions brought under such section 2324.

[budr]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/o...nsorship-bill/

I hope he can make it stick. In any case, we need to have his back.

[Detonate]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

Other corporations will use this law to stifle their software competition

Which is what concerns us most. I'm sure that M$ supports this law. And they have deep pockets. What would happen to Medibuntu?

[Snowhog]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

What would happen to Medibuntu?

If such a law were passed, and actually enforced, I believe the likes of Medibuntu and any other such 'service' that the law targets, would go 'black' - would go underground on the 'Net. One of the most amazing things about the 'Net, is that once something is put on it, it is there for ever - somewhere.

[GreyGeek]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

I was thinking specifically about Medibuntu when I read that article. The law dictates cutting the DNS connection, but that wouldn't prevent people from using the quad IP directly in the URL, and to use encrypted email, stenography or other means to pass around the IP addresses of favorite, politically illegal sites. The Chinese have been doing it for years. To cut them off China has to, essentially, cut all connections to the outside world. And, like packet radio, there does not have to be a central server. In fact, the Internet itself didn't really have a "central server" until domain names were introduced to make browsing easier for the technically challenged. The original ARPA network between the US military and educations institutions only used IP addresses.

[kyonides]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

But I hate IPv6 addresses...

[Detonate]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

Yes, but from what I've been reading lately, you better get used to them. We are approaching the saturation point for IPv4 addresses quickly. But that's a topic for another thread.

[GreyGeek]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

The ISP's are getting "creative" in their interpretation of the First Amendment.

The fundamental problem with corporations in our country is that as "corpus" ("bodies") they've bribed their way into claiming MORE rights than a real live citizen. It wasn't always so, and it shouldn't be so today:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corp...ations_us.html

After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

If those principals were still in effect the Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled tha corporations could spend what ever they wanted on bribes to politicians, without accountability. Bill Gates would still be in prison for violations of the anti-monopoly laws and especially for submitted false testimony to the court, i.e., the tampered tape "proving" that IE could be easily removed from Windows when, in fact, it couldn't. Tampering with court evidence is a felony, yet he never did the perp walk nor did he spend one second in jail. Our founding fathers would not have been so lenient, because they still had in their memories the corruption caused by government and businesses being in bed with each other.

[Detonate]

Re: FED's want to censor the Internet...

If those rules were still being effectively enforced, we would be living in a much different world.