Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Act to Block Sites Infringing on U.S. Copyrights | Hacker News Reader

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Act to Block Sites Infringing on U.S. Copyrights

deadline.com

20 pointshealsdata14 comments

- "Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, requiring clear evidence, due process, and judicial oversight to ensure fair enforcement and prevent censorship. Courts must first verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order."

I don't see how these could be feasible in practice. Two days ago there was a political advocacy piece about copyright on HN [0], and people in the discussion thread asked for a mirror because their country censored it. Broader point being, either you have to relax these professed legal protections beyond recognition, or you have an ineffective law.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902385 ("Copyright reform is necessary for national security (annas-archive.org)")

(This is neither here nor there, but it's remarkable the Congressperson who wrote this internet-blocking bill is the same one who once named a bill after Aaron Swartz).

She noted her flip from opposition to SOPA to this.

The current (slight) majority party is both in favor of blocking and "no regulations at all"

Since Citizens United, only money matters anyway.

Let the bidding begin.

Anyone know how this would work? Are they going to block at the IP address level or the DNS level? What are possible workarounds?

This is obviously going to be used for more than copyrights, like silencing any support for Palestine.

It is apparently aimed at large-scale, foreign-run piracy sites, and there's a detailed court process.

Translation; it's an ISP Section 230 ( and how's that working, with everyone bitching either about censorship or illegal threats, hate and porn in profusion right here in River City?) for the music/film/sports industry.

Due to the complexity, small producers be damned. And other fallout, but big money rules.

Wilhoit's Law:

> Frank Wilhoit: “ …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

It's good to be rich. They buy the laws.

> It is apparently aimed at large-scale, foreign-run piracy sites, and there's a detailed court process.

I think you mean libgen and sci-hub, so it's a "long arm of the law" proposal rather than a "repel boarders" type of thing.

I get the impression it's more about videos, movies, music, streaming sports and other highly popular and valuable things.

There are suits against book and paper sharing sites under current laws, but IMO, small potatoes. Look at the value. A lot to Elsevier but nothing compared to movie and music empires. The snip you quoted was almost verbatim from the article, not my opinion.

Charles Dickens would like to talk to you about copyright infringement and the US publishing industry...

J. R. R. Tolkein can join the line (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Ace_Books).

Wtf. How is this not a blatant first amendment violation?

I'm sorry for my representative, everyone.

> I'm sorry for my representative

Please contact her and let her know why this bill is a bad idea.

Yes, please, they block contacts so only their constituents can email them.

Do people really call or email their representative (=singular, a person) and even get a reply back? Or any action from them?

On other issues, yea. On countering a lobbyist set agenda, probably not.

When the entire executive and judicial branches are bought and paid for, violations mean nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com