Well I certainly agree with you there. Not sure what the US is doing messing with foreign websites if that did happen.

This is the General Discussion section. It is for General Discussion. I fail to see how this thread doesn't qualify as General Discussion.

Americans may have made the Internet....that's the hardware and technology side.

But it was a Brit that made the World-Wide-Web!
And Sir Tim is very vocal about his demands for net neutrality.
No interference from Government or businesses about who has control over it - or who can use it - or multi-tier speeds (basically paying to have your content hosted, paying more to have that content delivered at faster speeds).

Sure, stuff like ChildPorn is abhorrent, and illegal in most countries of the world, but there are already mechanisms in place to control that. InternetWatchFoundation and Interpol, to name two.

The ONLY reason this bill is even in the works is because organisations like RIAA and MPAA (and the industries behind them) are demanding and lobbying for it. It's to make us customers pay through the nose for their out-dated business practises. We're [all] still criminals in their eyes. This not only will get passed, it will pave the way for worse shenanigans in the future.

The problem is that the US government basically controls ICANN, which allows them seize the domain name of any site they don't like. Basically it means that if the government doesn't like what's on foo.com it tells ICANN to redirect all requests for foo.com to a site that the government set up. The original content of foo.com can still be accessed you put in a request directly to the site's IP address rather than by putting in the domain name, so it's not like the site itself has been seized, but its known domain name has. This is the problem when you have a government willing to use whatever power it has regardless of what the law says, and if the US government keeps up and expands these kinds of tactics I can actually see it leading to fragmentation of DNS and the internet in general.

Personally I predict that the internet will shift, currently US controls 7 of the 13 root DNS servers, I reckon that "people" will set up 14 and 15 elsewhere, and then things will get messy.

I think the gov't wants us to believe that the RIAA & MPAA are behind this. I don't think they are b/c the RIAA already has a great & affordable system set up for customers to get songs they like from iTunes & such (n/m my personal belief that Napster of 10yrs ago was an inside job, for record execs to jump the gun on the 'net), and most pirates don't burn movies, as the MPAA makes more than 90% of their money while movies are in theatres and most movies are only worth watching once or twice; thus not worth pirating. And the fans that want to watch movies more than twice are usually hardcore fans that wouldn't pirate. W/all that in mind, I think the only people pushing something like this from the RIAA & MPAA are people who don't have quality respect in their industry, and are lookin for whatever they can do to get the respect they seek, even at the cost of net neutrality.

Thus stating, I feel that the RIAA & MPAA don't have nearly as much to lose as the American gov't does. This as while they can control the television news broadcastings, newspaper articles and magazine publications, the internet is the one place where those who wish to honestly discuss the American gov't's ill doings, can do so w/o effective gov't interference. That news of this proposal that started this thread becomes public in the same time frame where people all across the educated world are constantly questioning the Obama admin, CIA, FBI, (in)justice system and bullshit media is of no coincidence, I find.

So I feel all signs point to it being the American gov't pushing for more lack of freedoms, this time on the internet. Of course I'm sure they have their moles in the RIAA & MPAA pushing for things as well, though. But the folk at the top of the power chain have the most to lose, w/folk speaking their minds on the 'net.

Hmmm, interesting points you raise.
It does make sense on one level - governments should fear their populations.

But they have absolutely nothing to lose or gain with regards to Intellectual Properties, and protecting them, or not...This, for me, is business-inspired. It's not US-centric, which would make little sense in any case, but aimed at the whole world - "they" want the power to shut down/sieze control of websites around the world that "they" feel are impinging on "their" (lack of) ability to make money. LOTS of money. "They" want further powers to sue *anyone* they can or cannot prove are "stealing"/illegal downloading of music, films, games, whatever.

Yes, there are services that offer legal downloads, but regionalism and pricing pretty much limit their success. (If you're not a US citizen, you're pretty much screwed through one, the other, or both, depending how much the US hates your region/country at the time). Hell, they're probably screwing their own citizens, anyway. :\

^

Good observation Lone3wolf (Lukipela & others here have also said things which help put the peices of the puzzle together better).

Your points in your last post tie in with me saying the American gov't has their moles in the RIAA & MPAA: That is to say that there is no better way for the Obama admin, CIA, FBI, & (in)justice system to get the power they seek, than through inflitrating businesses and doing (what I feel are inconsequential, in the long term) favors for people who have a measure of control in industries. This way they make inroads into controlling where money goes, and controlling decisions regarding debt (As in "I own you: try disobeying me and I'll sell you out to the highest bidder, now that you accepted my favor, fool!"). Hence me saying earlier about so and so 'in bed' with the banks; they can also be 'in bed' with businesses and those who control (or seek to control) industries.

Wherever there's a white collar crime, including that of unjust laws being passed or being discussed, there's almost always a paper-trail of money to follow as well.

Well, Google don't like this : lol. content thieves....screw you, MPAA!

"You shouldn't have any problems if you have nothing to hide."

Fuck you indeed, MPAA.

You said it!

Now what's this about a Chinese fire drill?

OH SHIT! Who said it wouldn't pass? O_o Dammit!! I *hate* being proven right in cases like this....It'll pass the next stage of US Government shenanigans, too :\

Unless more people act against it!

Actually it's looking like PIPA is just as dead as its predecessor, COICA. The bill managed to move forward by making it out of committee, but the moment that happened Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed a hold on the bill. A "hold" means that he basically said to the senate leadership "If you bring this bill to a vote I will filibuster it, so don't even bother bringing it to a vote." He previously did this exact same thing to kill COICA. Basically unless the senate leadership cares enough about the bill to get into a serious fight over it, or tries to slip it through by tacking it onto a budget bill (which would also likely cause a large fight) the bill is as good as dead (at least until its next iteration). Any Oregonians should write Senator Wyden to thank him for standing up and putting an end to this bill, or if you happen to run across him buy the man a beer.

The Senate would require 60 votes (3/5 of the body, for those not well acquainted with U.S. politics) to close debate, and thus any filibuster, on the bill and move it to a vote. I have no idea how probable 60 votes would be for this bill, but it isn't insurmountable by any means. However, if for some reason it did make it to the Oval Office for a approval, what do you think Obama would do with it? Honest, non-rhetorical question here, because I really haven't been paying much attention to this bill. I am guessing he would veto it? I doubt the bill could get the 2/3 votes in both Houses to override that veto, in any event.

Edit:
After reviewing Senator Wyden's voting record, I have to conclude that he is not generally the sort of politician I support. I think the only other issue I agree with him on is abortions ;). However, I'd still probably buy him a beer for doing this.

Edit2:
Oh, wait, he voted against the Patriot Act a couple days ago, so make that 2 other issues I agree with him on. Heh.