back to article Technology investors urge US politicians to reject web-blocking law

A proposed US law that would block access to websites that host copyright-infringing material would "throttle innovation and hurt American competitiveness", a group of technology investors has told US legislators. US Congress members should reject the proposed new law, the proposed Protect IP Act (PIPA), the investors said in an …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Because they know....

This is proof - if any more was needed - that they know how important a foundation of the internet and the consumer and computer electronics industries copyright infringement and IP theft is.

0
7
Silver badge

Patent Issues?

Does this also mean that Oracle can have Google blocked from the Internet because they are supposedly infringing on Java IP?

2
1

Nah

Google would just chuck a bung to the relevant politicos to make sure they never appear on the blacklist - ever.

2
1

O'Leary . . .

. . . "play by the rules" ??

Ok, you first, stop calling it theft and start calling it copyright infringement. Until you admit that there has been no theft (no-one has been deprived of anything), then I see no raeson to change laws to aid the archaic current system.

There is, clearly, a market for downloading films, but nothing available across borders and mass market. Until that is there, expect the continued infringement.

For reference, I don't download films, I buy them on blu-ray. I just don't like someone misrepresenting their argument whilst at the same time misrepresenting the counter argument.

3
0
Big Brother

re EvilGav1

Quote

For reference, I don't download films, I buy them on blu-ray. I just don't like someone misrepresenting their argument whilst at the same time misrepresenting the counter argument.

Well good luck finding 'Ain't Misbehaving' (circa 1974, UK 18Cert London only) on Blu-ray. It is there in the interweb if you look hard enough. A lot of it is comprised of clips of silent porn films, some from pre WW1.

What is needed is some way for filme such as this and the huge numbers of classic silent films to be made freely available. It won't be very long before it is 100years since Charlie Chaplain appeared in front of a camera for the first time. This continual extension of copyright (I'm looking at you here Disney) is wrong. You have earned enough from Mickey M over the past 90years. Time to move on.

You can't keep renewing the copyright on dead tree publications can you? Why should Film & Music be different.

Anon cos the MPAA/RIAA are always watching you.

5
0
Meh

question

an honest question, I mean not to offend anyone.

What if, instead of working on making a law, the ISPs, MPAA and RIAA decide to help each other. The ISPs will add to their term of service that such website can't be used on their networks, and proceed to block those sites. While the studios are going to pay the ISPs for the extra bandwidth that the legal stream sites will use.

What if the above happened and the large ISPs decided to agree to it, while leaving the customer with a choice to leaving them to smaller ISPs. Will this be legal? I know it will piss off many, but will it be legal?

0
0
Unhappy

I don't know, but it sounds like bribery

I'll admit I don't actually know anything about the topic (I skim articles like this unless it's relevant to copyleft), but that sounds too close to anti-net-neutrality to be helpful. There wouldn't be any extra bandwidth if the download qualities and compression schemes were the same, but even so, that bandwidth is already paid for (by the end user on one end of the network and the user or server owner on the other end). Not to mention bandwidth independent of the amount of data transmitted; it would just take longer to download. This would enable ISPs to censor stuff, too, pretty much arbitrarily and make it acceptable for ISPs to take bribes.

Ideally you would want to shut down the source (which may be for profit) if possible. I don't support blacklisting sites because it's censorship, but it's less invasive to block communication to and from a certain place (supposedly) known to break the law than it is to throw money at independent ISPs to actively censor content or specific websites.

Someone with enough money and influence simply could simply make anything they find annoying to their business disappear (maybe print publishers don't like non-profit archives of public domain books). Or maybe instead of accepting money to account for the bandwidth, ISPs might force people to pay for for-profit content distribution tightly integrated and bundled with TV and internet services. ISPs might condone illegal activity the same way Google adsense and hosting companies do while still doing business with people wanting to prevent that activity, accepting cash from both sides while doing nothing to "fix" the problem and doing more harm to the consumer in the process.

Also, if a website is unjustly blocked, it would be easier to detect and easier to reverse if you only had to account for a single nationwide blacklist.

1
0

re: question

I think part of the problem with that is the MPAA/RIAA are trying to find ways to avoid spending any money on enforcing their copyright. So my guess would be this type of deal would still cost more than they want to spend.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

PIPA?

Yup, it's a load of arse.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums