P.R.O.T.E.C.T. IP Act, 2011
p2pnet view P2P | Freedom | Entertainment | Music | Politics:- Public Knowledge is a Washington DC based public interest group working to defend your rights in the emerging digital culture. Art Brodsky (right), the Communications Director of PK, has sent us the following:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up tomorrow (Thursday) S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011. In advance of that session, 13 groups today sent a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and senior committee Republican Charles Grassley (R-IA) outlining their concerns about the bill.
Primary among the objections are:
1) The bill continues to allow Internet Service Providers to interfere with Doman Name look up services (DNS). “We continue to believe that such a provision would be ineffective and runs contrary to the US government’s commitment to advancing a single, global Internet,” the groups said.
2) The inclusion of “information local tools,” as subject to the bill’s provisions, “makes nearly every actor on the Internet potentially subject to enforcement orders under the bill, raising new policy questions regarding government interference with online activity and speech.”
The text of the letter is here.
Art Brodsky – Communications Director
http://www.publicknowledge.org
(202) 861-0020 ext 103 (o) • (301) 908-7715 (c)
1818 N St., NW Suite 410, Washington, D.C. 20036
Thanks for that, Art!
Devil’s Advocate – p2pnet
-And identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
World War III will be a global information war with no division between civilian & military participation ~ Marshall McLuhan
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
that’s nice .. but i have a few questions. how can one be bound by a bill when he/she has not signed the contract?
for anything to become law there must be an agreement by the ppl. did the ppl make such an agreement? did you?
have you ever heard of consent of the governed? do you know how it works? AND do you know one can reject any bill not in the constitution?
He is an excerpt from English Law dating back to Magna Carta found @ http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/Home::what_is__a_freeman.html
“So in article 61 of the Magna Carta it was written that if this ever happened you could petition the crown to sort out the crowns problem (or parliaments if it was them), the crown had 40 days to fix it or dissolve parliament.
If in the 40 days nothing was fixed the petitioner could go into rebellion against the crown and parliament lawfully until the problem was resolved.”
i’m sure it’s similar in Amerika or any other commonwealth based constitution. i’m sure there’s a provision where a certain number of ppl make such a bill rescinded .. or it can be done individually.
can you provide us with this info?
May 26th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
If these passes… the hackers will just find another way to get around the wall…mean while all the Americans will be stuck and shall be censored. If the government can’t prevent people hacking their system… then what makes you think hackers won’t break the system the government created? This is just another way for the government to take control over the people and take away.
May 26th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@?
hackers, intruders and crackers are a minor part in this … but do enable the government to instil laws to tighten internet access. foolish thing by internet community to do.
this is a matter of bills, acts and laws for everyone, not just for few internet elites … stick to the subject AND learn your rights first
once you educate yourself you will see the bigger picture and what’s at play here
you can start here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/51024
May 28th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Got this from ‘Demand Progress’, and it comes as no surprise …
“Bad news first: Yesterday afternoon the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the new Internet Blacklist Bill — the PROTECT IP ACT.
The good news: Within minutes, Demand Progress ally Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed what’s known as a “hold” on the bill, buying us some time and drawing attention to our cause.”
Of course they passed it.
Our government long ago abandoned the pretense of ‘for the people’. Although this was also in the email ..
” Opposition to the bill is snowballing: Google, Yahoo, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, and Net Coalition are making their opposition vocal. Demand Progress and a dozen other civil liberties and human rights groups circulated a letter in opposition this week. ”
I don’t see this making any difference.
The ones with the absolute most money are the ones completely in charge. We are all about to become outlaws.
I hope they start making the prisons a whole lot bigger.
May 28th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
still no answers DA? or are you looking into it?
May 28th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“still no answers DA? or are you looking into it?”
Answers? Looking into what, the PROTECT Act?
May 28th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
answers to first RW questions
May 28th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
DA,
I think the RW wants you to answer this:
RW said:
If in the 40 days nothing was fixed the petitioner could go into rebellion against the crown and parliament lawfully until the problem was resolved.”
i’m sure there’s a provision where a certain number of ppl make such a bill rescinded .. or it can be done individually.
can you provide us with this info?
So, gabby wants to know if you, as a Canadian, are looking into starting a rebellion in the USA, or if you are going to individually rescind this American bill which is your right as a Canadian under maritime laws and all those who vibrated before you.
As he stated above, Gabby wants an answer. Can I suggest that you use ancient civilization shaman type techniques and telepathically send it to him? Or, I guess you could use my stargate (for a minimal fee) and walk through it to his place to answer him. Your choice, *shrug*.
Personally I would ask him to research it himself and answer his own question that you can post for everyone to see.
May 28th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
“Gabby wants an answer”
Yes, I’m well aware it’s “gabbi”.
Since his comments are not abusive, I decided to see where they go.
All he’s doing is supplying more of his traceroutes in the doing, anyway.
Should he stop behaving himself, they get added to the blacklist.
As to providing the answers on this one, I’m not in the mood to speculate, and I’m not exactly obligated to. Besides, the answer you provided at the end of your comment really says all that’s needed.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
A small side note here:
The right of individuals to petition to crown to right wrongs is called “mandamus”, in the UK this centuries old right was removed by legal slight of hand and the representative for such petitions is now the chief justice, so one is hardly likley to obtain said justice.
June 11th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
@quartz
BULLSHIT! under natural law, sovereign law, common law and all ancient laws maritime admiralty law has no power on land unless it is the consensus of all free individuals on the land. a free individual can refute any admiralty law that tries to impose it’s power on them. i nor the public seen a public review or vote on what you say therefore slight of hand is null and void.
business: is the act of buying something at low price and selling it at higher marked up price. it is not barter, trade or work on land. this goes back to laws of gods, angels, heroes, watchers, original kings and queens and men and women given freedom of choice.
chief justice is nothing but an administrator for admiralty law. only true court is with 12 or more judges or 12 or more parts in jury of your peers. judges are obligated to present their oath before starting any court. this is your main remedy against admiralty court. these days when pressed for their oath they will leave 3 or 4 times, switching jurisdictions in each process, before you will get a sovereign or common law court. most of the time they will abandon ship leaving you as the main authority to decide
notice of understanding and intent is the starting procedure for any dispute / negotiation before a case can be presented in any lawful court. this process can be used to oust any unlawful act, mandate, legislation or so called law the shills may devise.
add a claim of right to your notice and you have your specific rights that courts are obligated to adhere to, if they deem to be lawful. since laws in england are mainly from bible these laws are still the highest ones to date.
since men and women were given the freedom of choice and to choose right and wrong it must be a free open public consensus with ALL truth presented before a lawful decision can be made. laws then can be written to present such truths. without this they are only acts, mandates, legislation, legal manipulation, orders and any other part of deceptive acts.
in times of old kings, queens and any other rulers were presenters and teachers of truth, they had no power to decide over free individuals as freedom of choice was given to men and women way before they came along
we are seeing a renaissance of free individuals creating a lawful system, outside of tyrannical system of today, as internet is providing truth needed to make such a system. we can see this in gatherings all over the world of youth and how they organize, setup their camps, occupations, rebellions, expose information, gather truthful information and use it, use comprehensive organizational and community skills. soon all free individuals will get together and depose the corrupt, secretive and liars. hopefully before the pole shift.
it’s a test of all free men and women to see whether or not they have gained the wisdom to move to the next step in responsibility within our universe. the message is clear. learn adapt and evolve or perish.
June 11th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Please read and learn:
A “mandatory order” (until 1999 called an order of mandamus) is an order made by a court directing a public authority (technically, any person) to perform some duty which it ought to perform. New Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 26th April 1999 and renamed the old order of mandamus as a “mandatory order” (see CPR rule 54.1).
The procedure is to make an application for judicial review under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 54 which specifically covers the making of a mandatory order as well as a quashing order (previously called an order of certiorari) and an order of prohibition.
Theres no need to be rude especially when its clear you have little understanding of the UK law I spoke of, the crown does not employ admiralty law as you claim.
June 12th, 2011 at 12:45 am
@Quartz
A right can NOT be removed by any part of Law Society since it is a Private Corporation. If they do try then they are OBLIGATED to provide remedy. Without remedy they are Unlawful and Illegal. In Canada, same as the UK, the Queen holds birth certificates accounts of your person in a bank called The Crown, and is THE authority to complain to about judge’s misrepresentation, or any other tricks Law Society tries to pull. http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/man-who-tried-arrest-judge
It’s all smoke and mirrors in most courts where only judge and plaintiff sit or stand. Only justice you will get is in a court of your peers. This means a jury of your peers. ANY court on this planet works the same. Even if you are in front of a King or Ruler and his minions you demand a jury of your peers. Those that conduct summary judgements are tyrants and can be brought to justice, assassinated, deposed or sent to “wild lands”.
I make no mistake by saying “assassinated”. It has been and still is reserved for those who have killed one of more people, directly or indirectly, or one who kills persistently and who surround themselves with armed protection. Looking at the world situation this includes many heads of state, corporations, politicians, rulers, cops, soldiers, drug dealers, gang members, home invaders and thugs.
According to Just Law since time immemorial you have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property from any attack but you DON’T have the right to go out and kill.
Anyway, under Common Law the community has the right to arrest anyone who’s unjust. Maybe that chief justice should the first. Pitchforks and bats anyone?
June 12th, 2011 at 6:23 am
@quartz
i’ll try but it’s really hard since this is elementary school material, law 101 at best
ok, let’s go through this step by step.
“mandatory order” is 2 words, mandatory and order
mandatory: please pick up a good law dictionary and see definition, not your regular dictionary.
- this word is composed of 3 words: man, date, oral, which translates to a man answering by a certain date orally, this means one may show up in front of someone by a certain date to orally answer something. it is NOT an obligation. it is a start of an administrative / accounting procedure process
order: since we are taking about “civil” procedure this means it’s under civil law / law of commerce / maritime admiralty law.
- same as ordering something from a shop. you put an order in and one must pay for an item. therefore it’s a request. you are NOT obliged to accept nor fill the request. you can decline it.
mandamus definition: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Mandamus.aspx
“A writ which commands an individual, organization (eg. government), administrative tribunal or court to perform a certain action, usually to correct a prior illegal action or a failure to act in the first place”
- again it’s under legal and illegal / law of commerce / maritime admiralty law and has nothing to do with lawful / common law. natural law or sovereign law
- all main words used are from maritime admiralty law / law of commerce / law of the seas
* if you are not a lawyer, employee of government, officer, accountant or any other agent of such you are not bond by their rules. you CAN use their rules against them though
person: 2 words, purse and son. a son that carries a purse for his master.
- translation: a man with an account in his name. you are not a person … you have a person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3PGof2w
- again, see law dictionary
try to do same with all words used and see which jurisdiction they are under. try to learn history of your own language and it’s linguistics as well
why do you need to “make an application” when you can write a lawful letter to accomplish same affect? actually better with more power. if you are a sovereign you may make a decree and override them all as you have same powers as a king or queen.
simply put, laws are inalienable rights and commonly accepted rules proven over time. there are 3 main laws:
- do not breach the peace
- do not harm anyone or their property
- honor your contracts
the rest of laws you can find in your bible, torah or whichever ancient book or system you use. you can take it back to titans, gods or whomever. originally they are all the same.
if you decode all ancient texts as one you will find much more than laws; natural and universal cycles, their technology, our origins, neighbors if any, all that you can imagine and way beyond. you will need a critical mind and superior knowledge of sciences or time to learn them.
June 14th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Creating derivates or grasping at roots of words does not mean the current word usage is either the same as the root or the derivative, your efforts to change the meaning of what was posted are usually employed by those who practice underhand methods to make an invalid point, I take you post to be invalid and lacking in reasonable response to what was posted by myself.
June 15th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
” Creating derivates or grasping at roots of words does not mean the current word usage is either the same as the root or the derivative, your efforts to change the meaning of what was posted are usually employed by those who practice underhand methods to make an invalid point, I take you post to be invalid and lacking in reasonable response to what was posted by myself. ”
That’s just what he’s doing, Quartz.
He’s been flooding P2Pnet with that babbedygook the entire time Jon’s been away, and trust me when I say, not one regular
reader here credits any validity to his statements ( except him, posting under alts ). Responding to him only gives him what he wants …
attention. He knows if he creates his own website, no one will bother, if he HAS a website, he’s been invited to provide a link ( but
that will never happen ). If it were me I wouldn’t allow any of those posts to pass, but it’s not and we have to respect DA’s decision
to allow him to continue to pollute P2Pnet. It’s also why I have been less active here. I’m sick of the crap in every thread.
June 15th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
@quartz
you can take it any which way you want. the reality is legal system uses a language that’s similar to English but is not. it’s called Legalese. and that quartz is the basis for my comment. maybe this is why they have their own dictionaries, you think?
this is the first thing you learn in any law school that’s reputable.
either you don’t know or thank you for the poor attempt at misdirection or trying to make a joiner between myself and contents of your comments or outright trying to commit fraud upon the public. in case you didn’t know you can be charged and tried for such. i suggest you join some law forums and learn before you end up in jail
June 16th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Nemo me impune lacessit
June 17th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
@Quartz
But he does, in fact.
Does it to this whole site.
June 17th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
I will never give in to such folks: Must be time to have some news here surely ?
Lets see what we have in the pot …*rummage*
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/03142314726/indie-label-opts-out-apple-icloud-music-match-says-its-insult-that-tramples-copyright.shtml
It seems a smaller record label has declined to be part of one of apples “we’re-ok-jack” deal with the major labels due it seems to not exactly being enthusiastic reagrding the terms and conditions ( tbh it always suprises me the labels havent set up their own delivery service and cut the “mighty-rotten” corp out), the exact wording the label used was most interesting.
“As we have been entrusted with an incredible wealth of creative assets, and our primary responsibility is to our partners; the artists, producers, and songwriters that make up the Numero catalog, we feel that Apple’s pittance is an insult not only to them, but every other musician, living or dead, and, if the latter is the case, their heirs.”
While we are at Techdirt there is another great story there regarding more hypocritical acts by the US against those who live abroad and break no laws in their own countries, be a bit nasty if other countries acted as the US are doing and demanded President Bush stand trail after extradition lol
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml
Moving on….
An interesting story from a few days ago over at Slycks
http://www.slyck.com/story2211_LulzSec_Takes_a_Short_Break_Has_Fan_Base_Use_Telephone_Hotline_to_Continue_Attacks
Lulzsec, fresh from allegedly giving sony a “cyber beating” have set up a dail up hotline where disgruntled netizens can suggest targets for DDOS attacks, I cant see this lasting too long as the clear criminal intent critera is met and thus the authorites will have no problems getting half a dozen court orders to root out these miscreants.
I suspect those behind this US banking attack will also be receiving more police attention
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/17/citigroup_breach_revision/
On another more important note it seems Righthaven the copyright trolling group have hit a major hurdle with their claims to a court.
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/14
“In a decision with likely wide-ranging impact, a judge in Las Vegas today dismissed as a sham an infringement case filed by copyright troll Righthaven LLC. The judge ruled that Righthaven did not have the legal authorization to bring a copyright lawsuit against the political forum Democratic Underground, because it had never owned the copyright in the first place.”
This isnt the first case to fail for this important legal reason and its helpful at least in the US that precedents are established in this growing area of the “lawsuit threat” model of extortion employed by some dubious legal outfits. Common sense has it seemed triumphed over speculative invoicing.
July 2nd, 2011 at 12:17 am
Christ, there are so many bad bills out there I got it confused with this one – http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml nicknamed the “anti streaming” act.