This has got to be the work of Republicans in Congress, because no Democrat (at least not that I know of) would ever advocate censorship of the internet.
Please check out these articles, go to their web sites, and sign their petitions.
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/pi ... w&rd=1&t=4
Well, I can't post the form at right here in these forum topics, so, to sign it, you have to go to the web site at:
URGENT ACTION NEEDED: New Internet
Blacklist Bill Could Shut Down Twitter And
YouTube!
A bit of an emergency: The rumor all over Capitol Hill is that the House version of the Internet Blacklist Bill will be introduced this week, probably on Wednesday.
Our allies on the Hill say the bill's so bad that it could effectively destroy Youtube, Twitter, and other sites that rely on user-generated content by making the sites' owners legally responsible for everything their users post.
Nobody will want to take that risk, so sites like Youtube and Twitter could be forced to shut down.
Facebook, Myspace, and Google+ would be at risk. The cyberlocker and streaming provisions could affect your iPhone, Android, AmazonCloud, Pandora, Grooveshark and even your email accounts.
It also includes provisions that would make it a felony to stream unlicensed content -- including cover band performances, karaoke videos, video game play-throughs, and more.
And all of this is being driven by a few major corporations who are trying to protect their private profits.
Will you use the form at right to ask your Congressmember not to cosponsor the legislation, at least until they've heard our concerns?
ALSO: We need to completely overwhelm the social networking sites with info about this legislation so we can bombard Congress with constituent contacts:
If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Just use the form at right to email your lawmakers, and use the links above to share with your friends.
There's more background on the Internet Blacklist Bill over here.
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/pi ... w&rd=1&t=4
Here is what I had sent to them, with my own comments added the letter.
Our Government wants to make almost anything a felony.I am a constituent and I implore you NOT TO cosponsor the House version of the Internet Blacklist Bill/PROTECT IP Act, which will be introduced this week by Reps Goodlatte, Smith, and others.
Advocates' understanding of the proposed language is that it is written in such a heavy-handed fashion that it would even threaten the existence of sites like YouTube and Twitter.
We hope you'll oppose the legislation -- but even if you're considering supporting it, please take the time to hear our concerns before signing on as a cosponsor.
I must add . . . . .
Please do not let this Blacklist Bill pass.
I would hate to see YouTube getting closed down.
I have been watching many educational YouTube videos on science, Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, and Evolution, and I have been getting the education that I was not able to receive in school, due to the declining quality of education in American schools over the years.
I'm 60 years old now, and I resent it when some people wish to control what I may see and hear on the Internet. I'm an adult, and NOT some infantile idiot who needs to have a Nanny State intervening in what I may watch.
This Blacklist Bill is just another attempt by right-wing Christard Funny-mentalist in the Retardican Party to censor educational videos on science.
I know their REAL motives behind the Blacklist Bill.
Tell those right-wing bed-wetting ignoramuses in the Retardican Party to take a hike!
There's probably not a dry pair of pants among them!
They need to go back to Kindergarten!
No wait! They might try to molest the kids!
Commit them to a retard home somewhere instead!
They have no business in politics.
DO NOT ALLOW THIS BLACKLIST BILL TO PASS!
Gerald - AKA - Big Fat Heretic
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigFatHeretic
You have permission to share the above YouTube link.
For example: if I were make a video of myself and some friends singing at a Karaoke Bar, and then upload the video to my YouTube channel, I would be charged with a felony.
Excuse me, but people who sing at Karaoke Bars are amateurs, and some people, their singing sucks, but everybody is there to have a good time, and uploading a video of people singing at a Karaoke will in not way cut into the sales of music CDs and deprive any professional singer of money, especially if some of the people suck at singing.
No, in fact, after watching a video of people singing at a Karaoke, even if some of then suck, it might actually get people interested in buying songs from recording companies, and the professional song writers and professional singers would benefit from the sales.
The same is true of showing footage of video game play-throughs on YouTube. It actually gets more people interested in buying the videos games, therefore increasing sales.
So, a YouTube video of people singing at a Karaoke, even is some of them suck, and a YouTube video of a video game play-through is actually free advertising for the companies who sell music CDs or videos games.
Some idiots would like to charge people with copyright infringement just for singing Happy Birthday in public.
OK, here's some more information . . . . .
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs/
To sign the petition at right just go to . . . . .
Oppose PROTECT-IP Act: U.S. Government Wants To
Censor Search Engines And Browsers
Tell Congress to Kill COICA 2.0, the Internet Censorship Bill
UPDATE: Great news. We don't always see eye-to-eye with Google, but we're on the same team this time. Google CEO Eric Schmidt just came out swinging against PROTECT IP, saying, "I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems." And then he went even further. From the LA Times:
"If there is a law that requires DNSs, 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," he said, according to the report. "If it's a request the answer is we wouldn't do it, if it's a discussion we wouldn't do it."
Big content is irate. The Motion Picture Association of America released a statement saying, "Weâ??ve heard this â??but the law doesnâ??t apply to meâ?? argument before â?? but usually, it comes from content thieves, not a Fortune 500 company. Google should know better."
ORIGINAL: We knew that members of Congress and their business allies were gearing up to pass a revised Internet Blacklist Bill -- which more than 325,000 Demand Progress members helped block last winter -- but we never expected it to be this atrocious. Last year's bill has been renamed the "PROTECT IP" Act and it is far worse than its predecessor. A summary of it is posted below.
Senators Leahy and Hatch pretended to weigh free speech concerns as they revised the bill. Instead, the new legislation would institute a China-like censorship regime in the United States, whereby the Department of Justice could force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites, and scrub the American Internet clean of any trace of their existence.
Furthermore, it wouldn't just be the Attorney General who could add sites to the blacklist, but the new bill would allow any copyright holder to get sites blacklisted -- sure to result in an explosion of dubious and confused orders.
Will you urge Congress to oppose the PROTECT IP Act? Just add your name at right.
PETITION TO CONGRESS: The PROTECT IP Act demonstrates an astounding lack of respect for Internet freedom and free speech rights. I urge you to oppose it.
Just sign on at right and we'll forward the petition to Congress.
Just sign on at right and we'll forward the petition to Congress.
If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Here's the bill summary:
The PROTECT IP Act
Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost American creators and producers billions of dollars and to result in hundreds of thousands in lost jobs annually.This pervasive problem has assumed an especially threatening form on the Internet. Consumersare increasingly lured to well-designed websites that are devoted almost exclusively to unauthorized downloads and streaming of copyrighted content or sale of counterfeit goods.
These rogue Internet sites are often outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement because they are foreign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar. The illegal products offered at these websites are wide-ranging, from the latest movie or music hits to pharmaceuticals and consumer products.
Today, both the Justice Department and rights holders are limited in the remedies available to block these infringing websites, even when the website is directed at American consumers and steals American owned intellectual property. Even those infringing domestic Internet sites that the Justice Department seized through its Operation In Our Sites initiative are at risk for reconstituting under an identical, but foreign-registered, domain name, which would then fall outside the reach of American authorities. The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (â??PROTECT IP Act â?) authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the site is dedicated to infringing activities. For an order to issue, the Justice Department must also show that the Internet site is directed at U.S. consumers and harms holders of U.S. Intellectual Property. The Department would be required to serve notice of the action promptly after filing.
If the court issues an order against the registrant, owner, or domain name, resulting from the DOJ-initiated suit, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order on specified U.S. based third-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site (in the case of an Internet service provider or search engine), or cease doing business with the Internet site (in the case of a payment processor or advertising network).
The Act similarly authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement to bring an action against the owner, registrant, or Internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domesticor foreign, and to seek a court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domainname. However, if the order issues, the rights holder must seek the courtâ??s permission to serve that order and may only do so on a payment processor or online advertising network, and not an Internet service provider or search engine (as available for a DOJ-initiated action).
The Act ensures that third-parties are not overly burdened to comply with an order by stipulating that the party is not required to take action beyond what is technically feasible and reasonable. Additionally, an Internet service provider is never required to modify its network or facilities to comply with a court order. The plaintiff can request the court to compel third-party compliance only where the third party does not make reasonable and good faith efforts to comply with an order. The third-party would not be liable for any action or inaction, unless in contempt of court.
The Act includes safeguards to allow the domain name owner or site operator to petition the court to suspend or vacate the order, including in the situation in which the Internet site at issue is no longer, or never was, dedicated to infringing activities; or the interests of justice require it. Similarly, as site operators subject to an order transition the infringing websites to new domain names, the Justice Department or private party is authorized to bring a related action against the reconstituted domain name, site owner, or registrant, in the same Federal court.
The Act further protects payment processors and Internet advertising networks that voluntarily cease doing business with infringing websites, outside of any court ordered action. Those parties are immunized from damages resulting from actions taken against an Internet site where they have a good faith belief on credible evidence it is dedicated to infringing activities.
Additionally, the legislation protects consumers against counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded pharmaceutical products sold on the Internet by providing a safe harbor for domain name registries, registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks to take voluntary action against any infringing website that â??endangers the public healthâ? by offering such dangerous medication.
The Act includes a savings clause explicitly stating that it does not limit or expand civil or criminal remedies, or enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability under title 17 (including section 512). Additionally, failure to take voluntary action under the Act does not constitute liability for any party, including vicarious or contributory liability. The Act also provides that nothing in the Act shall serve as a basis for determining the application of section 512 of title 17.
The Act will also help law enforcement identify and prevent counterfeit products from being imported into the Unites States by ensuring law enforcement can share samples of packaging or labels of suspected counterfeits with the relevant rights holders to determine whether the shipment should be seized at the border. Similarly, it ensures that law enforcement can share anti-circumvention devices that have been seized with affected parties.
Last Congress, the following organizations supported S. 3804:
Co-Chairs of the National Association of Attorneys General Intellectual Property Committee, Jim Hood of Mississippi and Rob McKenna of Washington
The International Trademark Association
The United States Chamber of Commerce
The Vermont Chamber of Commerce
The Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy
The International Anticounterfeiting Coalition
The National Music Publishers Association
The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
The Directors Guild of America
The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists,and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories, and Canada
The Screen Actors Guild
The Recording Industry Association of America
The Motion Picture Association of America
Viacom
The Entertainment Software Association
The American Federation of Musicians
The California Teamsters Union
The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse
MasterCard
The Software & Information Industry Association
Association of American Publishers
The Writers Guild of America, West
The American Association of Independent Music
Sony Pictures
The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers
Publishers, including: Cengage, Harper Collins, Macmillan, Pearson Education, Penguin, RR Donnelley, and the Association of American Publishers
Newspaper Association of America
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters
The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union
Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
The American Federation of Musicians
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, AFL-CIO
The Property Rights Alliance
Communication Workers of America
International Association of Fire Fighters
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
The Songwriters Guild of America
BMISESACCALinnovates.org
Chanel
Fortune Brands
Imaging Supplies Coalition
Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Major League Baseball
National Basketball Association
National Football League
NBC
Nintendo
The Recording Academy
Oakley
OpSec
Personal Care Products Council
Reed Elsevier
True Religion Jeans
1-800-PetMeds
Activision
Acushnet Golf
Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA)
Church Music Publishersâ?? Association
Copyright Alliance
Disney
EMI
Entertainment Software Association
Fashion Business Inc.
Guru Denim, Inc.
Johnson and Johnson
Merck
Motion Picture Association of America
NagraStar
Nagravision
National Music Publisher's Association
NBC
Universal
Nervous Tattoo Inc., dba Ed Hardy
Newscorp
Nike
Premier League
Sony Music Entertainment
Sports Rights Owners Coalition
STOP Streaming Group
Tiffany and Co.
Time Warner
Ultimate Fighting Championship
Underwriters Laboratory
Universal Music Group
Warner Music Group
Xerox
Zondervan
Creative Coalition Campaign
Commercial Photographers International/Society of Sports and Event Photographers
National Association of Theatre Owners, Inc
Professional Photographers of America/Student Photographic Society
Association of Magazine Media
The Independent Film and Television Alliance
Association of Test Publishers
Gospel Music Association
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs/
So, it appears that some idiots in Congress want for YouTube and Google to be held solely responsible for content or web sites put up by individual users.
Excuse me . . . but I have often seen disclaimers on forums and on NEWS web sites where they say that the opinions expressed are not the views held by the web site, but are solely the opinions of the forums users posted in the comments, and that the web site itself is not responsible.
Which means that we are allowed to express our opinions on a NEWS story, as long as we follow their basic rules about not attacking another person or using language that is inappropriate.
But now, our Government wants YouTube and Google to be held responsible for the content put up by individual members or web site owners.
OK, if for example: a YouTube user or a web site is advertising medical products that might be harmful, then it's up to the authorities to go after the individual who is violating any laws and then have the user channel or web site be shut down.
But it's an entirely different thing if all of YouTube and Google got shut down just because a few people are violating some laws.
I think their real motive is to have YouTube shut down because of all the educational videos on science, such as astronomy, paleontology, geology, biology, anthropology, and EVOLUTION!!!
Of course, these right-wing religious fundamentalists don't seem to realize that if YouTube gets shut down, that they're only cutting their own throats because there are many religious videos put up by Christians.
Oh! But wait!
For them, there are other alternatives, like God Tube and Jew Tube for religious videos.
So, those who are religious will have a safe haven free from all those "horrible" videos on evolution. But the rest of us would be shit out of luck!
Well, most Reform Jews and Conservative Jews do accept evolution, and so, Jew Tube would probably allow science videos. Only the Orthodox Jews are more fundamentalist, so there might still be some problems between the ultra Orthodox and the more liberal denominations of Judaism.
Anyway, I really don't know one way or the other. I only recently heard about God Tube and Jew Tube, and I haven't really check out either one.
Well, if God Tube wants to provide a safe haven for idiots like Ray Comfort, VenomFangX, Kent Hovind (after he gets out of prison) Eric Hovind, etc. etc. that lot's of luck.
Every one of them a liars by the town clock, and if God Tube is willing to welcome this whack-pack of moronic Christards, the God Tube can have them.
Yeah! This is a hymn they really ought to be singing!
I'm fat and sassy! I love to sing & dance & stomp my feet & really rock your world!
