Author Topic: Piracy Blacklist Bill Introduced  (Read 2201 times)

Offline markov

  • Cactus Zombie
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
  • 1337 13V3L: +16/-1
  • The mgt.
    • chowdersploitation
Piracy Blacklist Bill Introduced
« on: October 27, 2011, 08:24:21 AM »

A bipartisan group of House members introduced legislation Wednesday that would boost the government’s authority to disrupt and shutter websites that hawk or host trademark- and copyright-infringing products, including allowing the government to order sites removed from search engines.

Much of the package is similar to a stalled Senate measure known as the Protect IP Act. Both proposals amount to the holy grail of intellectual-property enforcement that the recording industry, movie studios and their union and guild workforces have been clamoring for since the George W. Bush administration.

Both bills allow the Justice Department for the first time to obtain court orders demanding American ISPs to stop rendering the DNS for a particular website — meaning the sites could still be accessible outside the United States. The House bill also allows the Justice Department to order search sites like Google to remove the allegedly infringing site from its search results.

Furthermore, the newest proposal, (.pdf) introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), grants the U.S. attorney general sweeping powers to block the distribution of workarounds that let users navigate to sites that have been blacklisted or had their domain name seized, such as the MafiaaFire plugin on the Firefox browser.

Sherwin Siy, a staff attorney with digital rights group Public Knowledge, said the measure could be interpreted to prevent reporters from writing about DNS workarounds, such as publishing the IP addresses of banned websites. DNS servers translate domain names, such as, into IP addresses – but DNS can be bypassed if a user knows the IP address of a site.

“If anybody tells people how they can get around that block, the attorney general can bring an action on them,” Siy said in a telephone interview.

He suggested the government could order news sites to take down stories noting workarounds. ”It’s written pretty broadly,” he added of the bill, officially known as the “Stop Online Piracy Act.”

The anti-workaround provisions of the 79-page proposal, in part, appears to be in response to a white paper from top internet security experts concerned over the fallout if the Justice Department begins ordering American internet service providers to stop giving out the correct DNS entry for an infringing website under the .com, .org and .net domains.

DNS filtering not only causes security problems, it also invites the creation of workarounds, according to the paper written by Steve Crocker of Shinkuro, David Dagon of Georgia Tech, Dan Kaminsky of DKH, Danny McPherson of Verisign and Paul Vixie of Internet Systems Consortium.

Mandated DNS filtering would be minimally effective and would present technical challenges that could frustrate important security initiatives. Additionally, it would promote development of techniques and software that circumvent use of the DNS. These actions would threaten the Domain Name System’s ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the internet’s value as a single, unified, global communications network.

Moments after the House legislation was introduced, Smith said the bill was needed because “Rogue websites that steal and sell American innovations have operated with impunity,” Smith said in a statement.

The United States, however, has been invoking an asset-forfeiture law to seize generic top-level domains of infringing websites under a new program called “Operation in Our Sites.” It began last year, and the Department of Homeland Security has targeted more than 128 sites, ranging from sites that link to video streams to those that hawk knock-off paraphernalia.

The House bill, like the Senate bill, allows rights holders to seek court orders instructing online ad services and credit card companies from partnering with the infringing sites.

The Smith proposal is set for a hearing Nov. 16 before the House Judiciary Committee, where it is expected to pass and then move to the House floor.

The Senate’s counterpart legislation, however, has been placed on a permanent, procedural hold by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). Wyden said the Protect IP Act represents a “threat to our economic future.”
my prankcalls: chowdersploitation

Offline nyphonejacks

  • PLA Corporate Drone
  • *****
  • Posts: 435
  • 1337 13V3L: +22/-5
    • nyphonejacks
Re: Piracy Blacklist Bill Introduced
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2011, 03:53:33 PM »

easily circumvented by:
proxy server in a country not covered under this law
using a DNS service in a country not covered under this law
VPN to a country not covered under this law

while copyright infringement is a major problem that does need to be addressed these methods seem excessive.

none of this requires that the alleged or accused website/webmaster face a fair trial to determine guilt - all it takes is someone claiming infringement for action to be taken - which can place financial hardship on the website/webmaster of any site blocked or taken down, this will end up costing more to implement than it is worth.

media distributors and content owners need to work to provide the content to their consumers in a way that the consumer wants to consume their media - iTunes has proven that plenty of people are willing to legally purchase digital media if provided a legitimate source to acquire this media. video media has not been able to find a legitimate and profitable avenue where to distribute digital content efficiently. Netflix was a good start, but lacks lots of newer titles, and many back catalog films. Hulu and Crackle are other good sources of digital media, but also they are not all inclusive and there are many titles that are unavailable for consumers to legally obtain the media that they are looking to consume.

I think that most people would prefer to watch digital media legally if given the choice, either paid or ad supported, as legitimate sources generally are higher quality, and the risk of virus infection is nearly zero. also, many times these alternate sources can either be mis-labeled or incomplete files, and can come in many different formats.

the movie industry needs to work to standardize a digital delivery format, similar to what MP3 has become for audio files - perhaps they can settle with AVI or DiVX - once a delivery standard has been agreed upon, they should work to license their media to content provider partners such as netflix or Hulu so that people can gain legal access to the media that they want.

I always try to find a legitimate source for and video media that i want to watch - as it is always better quality, and i have no problem trading off having to sit thru embedded ads or paying for a high quality video - it is also usually easier to track down legitimate sources when they are available, when not available it becomes a hassle to try to find the media that you want, then find a way to view it in a high quality format free of viruses hoping that the file is the proper one, and in english..

well that's just my 2 cents...