[aklug] Re: Stop Online Piracy Act, a.k.a., Internet blacklist bill

On 11/18/2011 09:34 AM, Jim MacDonald wrote:
> So has anyone done the work and asked our representatives where they stand on this bill?
> Jim MacDonald
> jim@macdonald.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:53 AM, adam bultman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/2011 06:05 AM, Bruce Hill wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:53:03PM -0900, Christopher Howard wrote:
>>>> New bill going through Washington, another attempt to destroy freedom in
>>>> the war against copyright violations:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/16/sopa-condemned-internet-blacklist-bill?newsfeed=true
>>>>
>>>> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It is hard to read through the entire bill (as there are so many pages)
>>>> but sections 102 and 103 especially stuck out at me. Basically they
>>>> force Internet providers, search engines, electronic payments services,
>>>> and Internet advertising services to blacklist foreign Web sites that
>>>> are violating copyrights, at the summons of the Attorney General. It
>>>> also provides said organizations immunity from lawsuits and from
>>>> liability for complying with said orders.
>>>>
>>>> The sponsors of the bill assure us that concerns about future government
>>>> censorship are highly exaggerated.
>>> < snip>
>>>
>>> Just the facts, Jack
>> FTFY
>>
>> --
>> Adam
>>
>> ---------
>> To unsubscribe, send email to<aklug-request@aklug.org>
>> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>>
>
>
> -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
> -- File: signature.asc
> -- Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFOxqVTBjycziiNVVgRAgejAJ9M8P/m3bgGIi1R+6qxQT08MafErACfbvG5
> KWScXa0Tb17UEbVqBuuc6rY=
> =jtDu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, send email to<aklug-request@aklug.org>
> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>

Murkowski is the only one who has sent me a response so far. It is
rather generic and strictly speaking doesn't commit to anything, though
it seems to describe the Senate bill in rather glowing terms:

[QUOTE]
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act of
2011. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

S. 968 is a bill designed to protect intellectual property rights from
theft, take action against internet piracy, and prevent online threats
to economic creativity in our nation. S. 968 was introduced by Senator
Leahy on May 12, 2011, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Should the full Senate consider this bill, I will keep your concerns in
mind. Again, thank you for contacting me.
[/QUOTE]

The following article indicates that none of them are cosponsors of the
House or Senate bills, which perhaps says something because there are a
lot of cosponsors:

http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2011/10/stop-online-piracy-act-hr3261-violates.html

The article indicates that there is some pretty strong political
pressure on both sides of the issue, with the Chamber of Commerce and
359 companies on one side, and Tea Party activists and a left-wing
coalition on the other. My educated guess is that our representative and
senators are still trying to figure out what is the most
politically-correct approach to take here.

-- 
frigidcode.com
theologia.indicium.us
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.