Senators Unconcerned About Massive Consequences Of Criminalizing Embedding YouTube Videos

Image Source

Mike Masnick
TechDirt

This is really no surprise, but the same Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously approvedthe PROTECT IP Act, despite worries from internet experts and major media about how it would break the internet, has now also unanimously approved the anti-internet streaming bill that makes it a felony to stream certain videos online -- potentially putting people in jail for embedding YouTube videos or just putting up YouTube lip synching videos.

What's really troubling here is that the media and plenty of concerned citizens have directly raised the issues about the unintended consequences of this law. And while Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons continue to insist that (of course) the law is not intended to be used against such people, they have made no move to fix the bill. Even supporters of this bill, who insisted that we were wrong about what the bill allowed, eventually conceded that our argument was accurate and that this bill could be used to put people in jail for embedding a YouTube video or doing a lip synch video.

And that's a huge, huge problem. Of course, no one thinks the bill is for that purpose directly or that it's going to be widely used for such purposes. However, the bill, as written, clearly allows law enforcement to charge people with a felony for that, assuming it meets a few other conditions. But those conditions are pretty minimal (ads on your page? you're in trouble...). The risk here of abuse is a serious risk, and it's incredibly troubling that Klobuchar, Cornyn and Coons failed to change or adapt the bill, and worse that the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee allowed the bill to move forward in such a broken state. They were clearly made aware of problems with the bill, but directly chose not to make any changes. How do you explain that other than incompetence or corruption?

Read More at TechDirt

OPPOSE the PROTECT IP Act HERE

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Pentagon Ramps-Up Cyberwar Plans

Hacker - Wiki Image

Tom Burghardt
Dissident Voice

As the Obama administration expands Bush-era surveillance programs over the nation’s electronic communications’ infrastructure, recent media reports provide tantalizing hints of Pentagon plans for waging cyberwar against imperialism’s geopolitical rivals.

On May 31, The Wall Street Journal disclosed that the Pentagon now asserts “that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.”

One sound bite savvy wag told journalist Siobhan Gorman, “if you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks.”

Also on May 31, The Washington Post reported that America’s shadow warriors have “developed a list of cyber-weapons and -tools, including viruses that can sabotage an adversary’s critical networks, to streamline how the United States engages in computer warfare.”

Cyber War, Civil Liberties and Internet Freedom in the US

“It is truly a shame that what is viewed abroad as heroic is considered as suspect at home.”

AFP File Image

Monica Davis
Before It's News

Ah, the Internet. So much attention is being paid to the glory of this military invention. We base revolutions on access to the Internet. We base civil rights progress on the ability of the Internet to foster communication across vast distances, enabling freedom fighters to connect, interact and tear down the walls of oppression. While we view any threat to the Internet as a threat to global freedom of speech and liberty, some mistakenly ignore repression at home. 

Florida's governor just signed a law that basically says if the cops shoot and kill someone, the records of that incident are exempt from Open Records Laws. In other words, police killiings are none of the public's business.

ACTION ALERT: Reject the PROTECT IP Act

Electronic Frontier Foundation

The PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is a threatening sequel to last year's COICA Internet censorship bill that would—like its predecessor—invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation. Urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!

Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement. But innovation and free speech advocates know that PIPA is nothing more than a dangerous wish list that will compromise Internet security while doing little or nothing to encourage creative expression.

PROTECT IP = Private Rightsholders Opposed To Emerging Consumer Technologies, Innovation, and Progress

Back from the Dead: The Internet “Kill Switch”

The American author William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” 

Tom Burghardt  
Dissident Voice

And like a horde of flesh-eating zombies shuffling out of a parking garage to feast on what’s left of our freedoms, the Obama administration has promised to revive a proposal thought dead by most: the internet “kill switch.”

On May 12, the White House released a 52-page document outlining administration plans governing cybersecurity. The bill designates the Department of Homeland Security as the “lead agency” with authority to initiate “countermeasures” to protect critical infrastructure from malicious attacks.
But as with other aspects of U.S. policy, from waging aggressive wars to conducting covert actions overseas, elite policy planners at the Pentagon and at nominally civilian agencies like DHS hide offensive plans and operations beneath layers of defensive rhetoric meant to hoodwink the public.

The term “countermeasure” is described by the White House as “automated actions with defensive intent to modify or block data packets associated with electronic or wire communications, internet traffic, program code, or other system traffic transiting to or from or stored on an information system for the purpose of protecting the information system from cybersecurity threats, conducted on an information system or information systems owned or operated by or on behalf of the party to be protected or operated by a private entity acting as a provider of electronic communication services, remote computing services, or cybersecurity services to the party to be protected.” (Section 1. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Authority, May 12, 2011, p. 1)

In other words, the proposal would authorize DHS and presumably other federal partners like the National Security Agency, wide latitude to monitor, “modify or block” data packets (information and/or communications) deemed a threat to national security.

Read Full Article 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US in new push to break China Internet firewall

China's so-called Great Firewall
© AFP/File

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) -  The United States plans to pump millions of dollars into new technology to break through Internet censorship overseas amid a heightened crackdown on dissent in China, officials have said.

State Department officials said they would give $19 million to efforts to evade Internet controls in China, Iran and other authoritarian states which block online access to politically sensitive material.

Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state in charge of human rights, said funding would support cutting-edge technology that acts as a "slingshot" -- identifying material that countries are censoring and throwing it back at them.

"We're responding with new tools. This is a cat-and-mouse game. We're trying to stay one step ahead of the cat," Posner said.

The announcement came shortly after the United States and China wrapped up wide-ranging annual talks in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed exasperation at Beijing's intensifying clampdown on domestic critics.

Alternative Media Rankings Surge After bin Laden Assassination Spectacle

Updated: May 9th 
This marks the end of the 7-day period since the announcement of the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Thank you to all of those who continue to follow alternative media, as well as those who are just tuning in -- Liberty, Love, and Peace Will Prevail. 

Dees Illustration

Activist Post

A story like the assassination of "public enemy #1" is naturally going to drive people toward all news sources.  However, we in the alternative news media have been particularly busy since the announcement late Sunday night, as indicated by Alexa website rankings.

For those of us covering the government and mainstream media lies, distortions, and pure propaganda, it has been nearly overwhelming to attend to every facet of this professional wrestling-style spectacle.  As a result, traffic to alternative news sites has surged dramatically.  This is very encouraging, as it indicates that people are not immediately rushing only to the comfort and security of the official story, which is largely framed by appeals to emotion -- rather, people appear to be hungry for facts.  Given that alternative media generally does not have even a fraction of the budget of corporate media, the ranking increases are doubly satisfying.  We are honored to be included with the true news sources below as a reliable indicator of the search for truth and justice amid the miasma of the current official coverage of the bin Laden Assassination Show being peddled for obviously corporate and political reasons.

Alternative Media Rankings Surge After bin Laden Assassination Spectacle

Dees Illustration

Activist Post

A story like the assassination of "public enemy #1" is naturally going to drive people toward all news sources.  However, we in the alternative news media have been particularly busy since the announcement late Sunday night, as indicated by Alexa website rankings.

For those of us covering the government and mainstream media lies, distortions, and pure propaganda, it has been nearly overwhelming to attend to every facet of this professional wrestling-style spectacle.  As a result, traffic to alternative news sites has surged dramatically.  This is very encouraging, as it indicates that people are not immediately rushing only to the comfort and security of the official story, which is largely framed by appeals to emotion -- rather, people appear to be hungry for facts.  Given that alternative media generally does not have even a fraction of the budget of corporate media, the ranking increases are doubly satisfying.  We are honored to be included with the true news sources below as a reliable indicator of the search for truth and justice amid the miasma of the current official coverage of the bin Laden Assassination Show being peddled for obviously corporate and political reasons.

The Realization is Now

Seth Godin

New polling out this week shows that Americans are frustrated with the world and pessimistic about the future. They're losing patience with the economy, with their prospects, with their leaders (of both parties).

What's actually happening is this: we're realizing that the industrial revolution is fading. The 80 year long run that brought ever-increasing productivity (and along with it, well-paying jobs for an ever-expanding middle class) is ending.

It's one thing to read about the changes the internet brought, it's another to experience them. People who thought they had a valuable skill or degree have discovered that being an anonymous middleman doesn't guarantee job security. Individuals who were trained to comply and follow instructions have discovered that the deal is over... and it isn't their fault, because they've always done what they were told.

White House draft bill expands DHS cyber responsibilities

Jason Miller
Federal News Radio

Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks.

The proposal would codify much of the administration's memo from July 2010 expanding DHS's cyber responsibilities for civilian networks.

The White House, however, is taking those responsibilities further, according to a source familiar with the document. The administration drafted a legislative proposal to give DHS many, if not all, of the same authorities for the .gov networks that the Defense Department has for the .mil networks.

A Workaround For Domain Name Seizures?

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

A group of anonymous developers have concocted a clever antidote to Government domain seizures.  MAFIAA Fire is a Firefox add-on that automatically redirects a user to a website's alternative domain name if the original domain was seized.

MAFIAA Fire exploits the fact that when a domain is seized, although it appears that the Government has taken control of the entire website, they have really only gained control over the domain name.  The Government redirects the domain name to a Government IP address and website rather than the IP address containing the original website.  When a user types in a seized domain name, such as rapgodfathers.com (seized last November), their browser is not directed to the original website, it is directed to a site containing the famous DHS/ICE seal.

If a user types in the IP address or an alternative domain name for the site,  the website content would still be accessible.  The problem is that users don't know the IP address or alternative domain name, they only know the original domain name.

Supporters of DHS Domain Name Seizures Undervalue Important Constitutional Protections

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

This site has been generally critical of recent United States policy toward copyright issues.  We have expressed discomfort with the Obama Administration's statements in support of Internet freedom, which seem to clash with a proposal to wiretap suspected infringers and the introduction of COICA legislation.

The most troubling issue has undoubtedly been the series of Government domain name seizures, through which the DHS takes the domain names of accused infringers without first giving the accused a chance to defend their site at a hearing.

Although we question the Constitutionality of the seizures, these issues deserve a vigorous debate that presents the well-reasoned arguments of all sides, including those that are convinced that the Government seizures are right and legal.  Unfortunately, last week, Terry Hart of Copyhype, who has been a vocal defender of the domain name seizures, chose to go beyond that defense to question the motives of the critics of the domain name seizures such as SitesAndBlogs.com and Techdirt.comand attempted to dismiss the importance of the Constitutional issues we have raised.

Can The Law Treat A Blogger Differently Than A Print Journalist?

Screenshot of the Cutler Files

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The last few weeks have seen websites and blogs forced to fight back against copyright bullies, frivolous lawsuits and the United States Government.  Now, in Maine, a blogger has been forced to use the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution to fight back against the State's attempt to use its election laws to penalize him for anonymous posts he made in criticism of a political candidate.

This case raises important issues surrounding whether the law can apply different standards to print and online journalists, as well as whether a blogger has the right to post political criticism anonymously.

The issues arose during last year's election cycle.  While working on the gubernatorial campaign of candidate Rosa Scarcelli, Dennis Bailey created a blog called the Cutler Files, which launched in August 2010.  With the help of Scarcelli and her husband, Bailey used the blog to anonymously launch political attacks on Eliot Cutler, the Independent candidate for governor.

Al Franken: ‘They're coming after the Internet’

Mike Zapler
Politico

AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.

"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”

Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."

Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Jury Says Blogger Has To Pay For His Words Even Though He Did Not Lie

Blogger Johnny Northside

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Friday, a Minnesota jury found that a blogger must pay $60,000 in damages because of statements he published in his blog about a public figure who was subsequently fired from his job.  Internet publishers and free speech advocates should pay close attention to this case if it is appealed because the blogger was found liable even though the jury did not find that the blogger's statements were false.

This decision is the latest example of the law's apparent struggle to apply basic constitutional protections to internet publishers.  If the Minnesota ruling holds up, it will mean that bloggers will have to worry they will be forced to pay for true statements that they publish that cause a person damages.


In June 2009, Jerry Moore was fired from the University of Minnesota after blogger John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside wrote a blog post criticizing the college for hiring Moore.  In the post, Hoff criticized Moore's previous work as Executive Director of a community organization and linked Moore to a real estate scandal.  In the post, Hoff stated, "Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave N."

Following his firing, Moore brought a lawsuit in Minnesota state court (copy of complaint), claiming Hoff was liable for defamation and intentional interference with his contract with the school.  The case went to trial last week and on Friday, the jury returned its verdict in favor of Hoff on the defamation claim but against him on the intentional interference with contract count.

The jury found Hoff was not liable for defamation because they were not convinced that the blogger's statements about Moore were false.  The jury returned the following interrogatory (answer in bold):

1.  Was the statement “Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.” false? No

Although it has been reported elsewhere that the jury found that Hoff's statement was true, that is not precisely correct.  The jury found that Moore did not prove that Hoff's statement was false, not that the statement was true.

Since the publishing of a false statement is a basic element of a defamation claim, that finding was enough to defeat the defamation count.  Although the judge had previously ruled that Moore was a limited public figure, which would have also required the jury to find actual malice in order to prove defamation, the jury stopped at the first question and did not make a finding on actual malice.

Moore's failure to prove a false statement seemingly should have been the end of the entire case against Hoff, but it was not.  Even without a false statement, the court allowed the jury to find against the blogger on the intentional interference with contract claim and awarded Moore $35,000 in damages for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress.

Generally, intentional interference with contract occurs when someone knows about a contractual relationship and intentionally induces one of the parties to breach the contract.  If the other party to the contract suffers damages, he can sometimes sue to recover his losses.

In the absence of First Amendment protections, this case might be a reasonable example of an intentional interference with contract.  Hoff's blog posts give the impression that he knew about Moore's contract with the college and that his posts were at least partially intended to convince the college to fire Moore, which they did.  However, Constitutional free speech protections should not permit a plaintiff such as Moore to fail to make a defamation case against a publisher, but still be able to backdoor his damages through another claim.

The Minnesota case reminds me of the famous 1988 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell case, in which a jury found that Hustler publisher Larry Flynt was not liable for defamation, but found him liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Reverend Falwell.  Unlike the Minnesota case, the Falwell case specifically focused on a publisher's right to publish satire of a public figure rather than the right to publish direct factual claims, but in both cases, a jury found against a publisher even though they found the publisher was not liable for defamation.

Hustler Falwell Parody

Flynt appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, who overturned the jury finding in favor of Falwell because the First Amendment demands that the proper action against a public figure is a defamation suit, not a suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court reasoned that criticism of public figures, such as Falwell or Moore, is sometimes going to cause unfortunate damages, but this important form of speech must be protected by "a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability."

This does not mean that a publisher is free to say anything about a public figure, whether true or false, without repercussions.  The Court explained that the First Amendment does not allow unfettered speech without any limits and culpability because of the particularly insidious nature of false statements.  The Court stated that a defamation claim, which requires a showing of a false statement, is the appropriate action to bring against a publisher because:

False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truthseeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective.

The same analysis should be applied to the Minnesota case.  Even if Hoff's statements damaged Moore, who was deemed a public figure, if those statements were not false and did not reach the level of defamation, the First Amendment should protect Hoff from having to pay damages.  Allowing Moore to recover for intentional interference with contract is not very different from allowing Jerry Falwell to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In both cases, a jury has ruled that the publisher's speech was not defamatory, yet the plaintiff is awarded the damages caused by that speech.

Legal commentator Eugene Volokh believes that the ruling against Hoff will be ruled unconstitutional if the case is appealed.  He also astutely adds that most states have a rule of intentional interference with contract that states that “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.”

Hoff's attorneys have stated they plan to appeal the decision and they should.  If a decision like this is allowed to stand, it could have a chilling effect on bloggers' ability to do the important work of making true factual accusations against politicians and other public figures.

Bloggers and other publishers must be free to expose these true facts, even if those facts bring a public figure down without fear that they will have to compensate the public figure for the fall.  Otherwise, would we find ourselves in a country where Woodward and Bernstein would have to had to pay Richard Nixon for the losses caused by his impeachment and loss of job as President even if they were telling the truth about Watergate?

David Makarewicz is an attorney practicing internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs.  Visit Dave at Sites and Blogs to keep up with breaking Internet news.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US cites Baidu, PirateBay, others in copyright piracy

Baidu is the 6th most trafficked website in the world
© AFP/File Simon Lim

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Monday named leading Chinese search engine Baidu and Swedish torrent download site Pirate Bay in a list of the world's top online and physical markets for pirated and counterfeit goods.

The US Trade Representative said the two websites, a host of others and more than 20 physical markets, like the widely known Silk Market in Beijing and Panthip Plaza in Bangkok, as "notorious" centers openly selling or enabling the sale of counterfeit or pirated goods, from software to industrial products to live sports television broadcasts.

While no action was threatened in the USTR's first global "Review of Notorious Markets", it said the markets were targets for copyright enforcement efforts and could be included in individual country reports on enforcement efforts.


"The United States urges the responsible authorities to intensify efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets," it said.

While the markets named spanned from physical sites in South America to Southeast Asia and Internet sites in a number of countries, Chinese offenders were the most numerous on the list.

It said that Baidu, the sixth most trafficked Internet website in the world, and the leader in China, according to web surveyor Alexa Internet, was enabling piracy with "deep linking" searches.

Such searches, for instance, could take a user directly to a page for a pirated download rather than to the website's home page.

Also named were business-to-business site Taobao, sports telecast rebroadcaster TV Ants, smartphone applications host 91.com; physical markets in Yiwu, Shenzhen and Beijing; and popular computer markets like Hailong PC Mall in Beijing and Shanghai's Yangpu Yigao Digital Square.

The USTR said that Taobao had moved to curb pirated and copyright-infringing goods on its site, but "it still has a long way to go in order to resolve those problems."

A slew of BitTorrent sites -- which permit speedy downloads of large files like music, videos and books -- were named, including The Pirate Bay, IsoHunt of Canada, Russia-based Rutracker, Demenoid of the Ukraine, and Publicbt.

Russia-based social network site Vkontakte was cited for permitting users "to provide access to allegedly infringing materials."

The list of physical markets included sites in Mexico City, Buenos Aires, New Delhi, Kiev, Jakarta, Hong Kong and Manila.

It said the entire economy of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay "is based in part on the trafficking of counterfeit and infringed goods, with a particular emphasis on electronic goods.

"This activity spills over into the entire Tri-Border Region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, creating a hotbed of piracy and counterfeiting."

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Activist Post

Many of us believe the Internet to be open and free for us to explore all known information.  Indeed, it is true that we currently can surf to any active website with our browser, and we can start a website or blog on any topic we wish to discuss.  And it is quite a profound concept that everyone with a smart phone literally has all of the world's knowledge in the palm of their hand.

Ben Franklin knew well the importance of free access to information when he founded the first public library in America to share knowledge with those without the means to their own books.  Today, he surely would consider the Internet's unprecedented access to information, and ability to communicate it instantly, as the ultimate level playing field of economic mobility and freedom.

However, this access is now under threat of authoritarian control.  First, it is important to note that the gears of the Internet have always been controlled by central authorities, as Douglas Rushkoff recently wrote, "From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another."

Therefore, the idea that our movements on the Web are even remotely private or untraceable is false.  The central "authorities" who control the gears of the machine know exactly where you have been, while Google and the CIA have even developed ways of knowing where you're going next as well.  It's very creepy to know that our every move is being tracked, traced, and databased, but it has been happening from day one on the Internet, and will likely continue to happen despite the violation of basic rights to our privacy.


Because Internet privacy has never been possible in the current web infrastructure, any proposed "privacy law" would just seem to pay lip service to the idea if it doesn't address decentralizing the control grid.  As Rushkoff pointed out, "I'm not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. I just want to smash the fiction that the Internet is some sort of uncontrollable, decentralized free-for-all, so that we can get on with the business of creating something else that is."

The focus here will be on the multitude of threats to our free access to the current Internet.  As Ben Franklin understood, information should be free and open to all, not just the select few.  Although the books in Franklin's first library were indeed copyrighted material, they were freely shared.  We should think of the Internet as a gigantic open-source public library.  A place where information such as news, books, movies, and music should be free to view while we're visiting the library.

Unfortunately, those who have control over the grid and influence over policymakers do not view the Internet in the same light.  It appears that they view it as an economic and propaganda playground -- the last one that they don't fully control.  Well, given the blight of proposed Internet control laws and web censorship tactics, it seems there is a calculated effort to control the free flow of information.

Below are 6 threats to our free and open access to the World Wide Web:

Legislation: The Protecting Cybersecurity as a National Asset Act, aka the "Internet Kill Switch" bill, has recently been reintroduced with a new Orwellian name, the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act. This bill would give government the unchecked power to restrict access to the Internet if they declare a "national cyberemergency."  CNET recently reported:

But the revised wording (PDF) continues to alarm civil liberties groups and other critics of the bill, who say the language would allow the government to shut down portions of the Internet or restrict access to certain Web sites or types of content. Even former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn't actually "shut down" the Internet: at least at first, a trickle of connections continued.

The second piece of legislation that's being reintroduced this year is the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).  This bill, clearly written by the mega-media entertainment cartel, would empower the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down, or block access to, websites found to be illegally sharing copyrighted material.  It gives the government the authority to force Internet Service Providers to block access to websites from certain IP addresses, much like how the U.S. recently blocked the Al Jazeera feed during the Egyptian protests.  COICA has also been referred to as the "Blacklist" bill because it allows the government to blacklist or seize any domain name suspected of infringement -- even if located outside the United States.

DHS Seizures: Who needs there to be laws on the books when the Department of Homeland Security appears to already be above the law. DHS has been on a rampage of arbitrarily seizing websites without due process.  In November 2010, they seized over 70 websites suspected of copyright infringement.  Just before the Super Bowl, DHS seized another lot of domains for illegally share-streaming sporting events -- some merely for linking to copyrighted material.  Most recently, DHS erroneously seized 84,000 domains accused of being affiliated with child porn in some way which the DHS later admitted was done by accident.  

Clearly, DHS has displayed its technical ability to censor the Internet by removing these websites. And although the domain seizures were technically accompanied by a court order, it seems that the DHS has partnered with large media outlets and sports entertainment to protect their profits. Finally, these court orders are a guilty-until-proven-innocent ruling which can irrevocably damage small businesses and the livelihoods of many people whose path to justice remains unclear.

Civil Lawsuits: Again who needs laws when you can be frivolously sued in civil court over copyright issues and bullied into settling the claim. Copyright infringement trolls like Righthaven are suing blogs and sites, and despite the only court ruling to date being a dismissal of charges due to Fair Use rights, they are still forcing many settlements.  In fact, even Internet giant Drudge Report was forced to settle a civil suit involving a copyrighted image and link.  

According to Steve Green, who's been diligently covering these lawsuits for the Las Vegas Sun, claims they are a new type of legal enterprise:

Attorneys say the Righthaven lawsuits are unprecedented in recent memory because, in the past, newspapers dealt with online copyright infringement by simply asking infringing websites to remove the infringing material and to replace it with a link to the source newspaper. Most Righthaven defendants say they were sued without warning.

Not surprisingly, most of the cases are settled out of court.  However, this tactic is a very effective intimidation tool against small websites who seek to share information.  In some cases the costs and aggravation of combating the lawsuit can force the closure of these website defendants.

Net Neutrality: It would seem that net neutrality should fall under the legislative category. However, it is actually considered more of a "market based" regulation than actual law, yet the taxpayer still funds its enforcement through the FCC.  Before identifying the reasoning behind and specific aspects of net neutrality rules, it's worth noting that Internet futurist, Douglas Roshkoff, views the details as irrelevant because:

The moment the 'net neutrality' debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network -- its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation -- is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them -- that network loses its power to effect change. (source)

The concept behind net neutrality is just what it says; to keep Internet access neutral for all users. But again, it is a very Orwellian term where true supporters of a free an open Internet can be tricked into supporting so-called neutrality rules.  Blogger Timothy Karr wrote, "The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users."

What they are, in fact, are rules to allow service providers to charge tiered price levels depending on the amount of broadband used by individual web-surfers or websites.  In other words, certain access will be discriminated against through reduced access speeds or additional fees.  Besides limiting size of the surfer's information wave, this tiered approach to the Internet will likely make it very difficult for smaller websites to compete with the big boys who can afford to pay ISPs for unadulterated access.

Technical Censorship:  Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Wikipedia have become the most powerful information sharing tools the world has ever known. Combined, these five websites could literally rewrite history or shape the entire flow of current information if they chose to do so. Indeed, each of these virtual libraries has been repeatedly accused of censorship in many various forms; from blatant removal of content to manipulating the searchable strength of disapproved content.

Google, who seems so powerful that they may actually run the world, recently revealed that they are tweaking their search algorithm to weaken the search engine ranking of information aggregating websites referred to as "content farms."  It seems that Google seeks to reduce websites with little original content to the level of spammer status in their search results. What's more, Google can wield the power of their Google Page Ranking for individual sites.  Their constantly changing algorithm may actually penalize websites for search engine optimization, as with the recent case of JC Penney losing business due to Google penalizing them for SEO.

Taxes:  If Congress or local governments elect to tax websites, the level playing field on the Internet is finished.  In May 2010, the Federal Trade Commission proposed the "Drudge Tax" which would seek to tax news aggregators as if they are brick and mortar media companies. The FTC report also suggested that news aggregators be forced to pay copyright fees to link to mainstream news sources.  And in perfect wealth distribution fashion the report also discusses the "possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations."

More recently, some states have proposed taxing online retailers such as Amazon, arguing that it's not fair for local retailers who must pay taxes for selling the exact same items.  In the past,Amazon has terminated its contracts with third-party affiliates in states who have adopted online tax laws. California Congressman, Dan Lungren, introduced the resolution Supporting the Preservation of Internet Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses aimed at preventing states from impose these new taxes on online retailers.

What's more, some states and even municipalities are beginning to impose a blogger fee referred to as a "privilege license" as a sort of business license for blogs.  Philadelphia has forced bloggersto pay a $50/year, or $300 lifetime, fee for the privilege of expressing ideas online.

Conclusion
It seems clear that the powers-that-be are engaged in an all-out assault the free flow of information on the Internet.  Blogs and websites must be prepared to combat the coming onslaught of news laws, regulations, and fees.  For those who believe information should be free for all who pay for Internet access, we must fight to maintain this liberty.  Stay tuned to the new blog Sites & Blogs for breaking Internet news and legal commentary about online copyright and privacy rights.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner