Stop the Internet Blacklist | Hacker News Reader

Stop the Internet Blacklist

demandprogress.org

99 pointsrtrunck11 comments

Here's a link to the full text of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

I'm surprised this submission doesn't have more upvotes. It seems like I constantly see Net Neutrality being debated all over the tech community but this bill seems much more insidious than any of the possible evils that Net Neutrality supporters suggest.

From my understanding, a simple decision by a judge can knock an entire website offline. The criteria to be blocked is that the sole purpose of the website is to infringe on copyright. If the domain is registered in the US, then the domain registrar is required to remove access to the domain. If the domain is registered outside of the US, then ISPs and other businesses, including financial services and ad services are required to block/prevent the website from operating (I'm thinking this will greatly affect PayPal and Google Adsense).

In my opinion, this bill would set a dangerous precedent for the US government to be able to block any website. I could see cases where large entertainment companies would bring lawsuits against small web startups in places where the courts would favorably lean in their direction (think patent cases in East Texas).

This hits personally because I run a website that helps independent artists sell their music online. I can't really see any possibility of us being dragged into court on copyright infringement claims, but I do know we have to deal with scammers on the site frequently. It's disturbing that if this bill is passed a dispute over copyright infringement has the possibility of shutting down the entire site (which would have the ironic side effect of harming a lot of independent artists who then would have no way of contacting us online to figure out how to get paid).

I'm surprised this submission doesn't have more upvotes.

Possibly because we went through it yesterday, as part of EFF's campaign:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1737715

Ahh...thanks, that would explain it. I didn't make it on Hacker News yesterday. This was the first time I was hearing about it.

I decided to read S. 3804 to understand the technical implications therein, and I am not a lawyer, but here was my basic understanding:

If a website's primary purpose is copyright infringement or counterfeiting, and if your domain was registered domestically, then the Attorney General can take it away. If your domain name was registered non-domestically, the following will happen:

- Domestic ISPs will be required to DNS blacklist your domain name.

- Domestic payment processing and advertising companies will be forbidden from doing business with you.

Again, IANAL, so if someone else has a more insightful reading please let me know. I couldn't find a lay explanation anywhere.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with counterfeiting. It seems to me that politicians are bundling them together in their newspeak, like in the infamous Anti-"Counterfeiting" Trade Agreement (ACTA https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-Counterf...), to make anti-piracy more palatable to the public.

Yes, I know it sounds conspiracy-theorish, but remember they have been negotiating the ACTA with all the secrecy.

>Copyright infringement has nothing to do with counterfeiting.

That's not really true. Counterfeit goods often involve copyright violations.

The bit that raises the conspiracy hackles is that, if you say "counterfeiting", you're conflating counterfeit goods and counterfeit money.

Counterfeit goods often involve copyright violations.

OK, but that's just tangential.

This would seem to violate due process. The US already has a legal system and the capability to issue injunctions against ISPs and hosting companies to take down sites that have been found, in court, to violate the law.

Thankfully, it appears that this bill has been delayed until after midterm elections. Hopefully that's enough time to talk some sense into our representatives.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/victory-internet-censor...

I called one of my senators, Patty Murray, since she's up for reelection. I also called her challenger, Dino Rossi. I talked with staffers from both. Sadly, neither indicated that they had taken any position on S. 3804.

Clearly you have no choice but to run for office.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com