16 ms·

Internet Archive joins opposition to the “SMART Copyright Act”

616 points by raybb 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago
> More generally, the SMART Copyright Act would give the Copyright Office a truly extraordinary power–the ability to force thousands of businesses to adopt, at their expense, technology they don’t want and may not need, and the mandated technologies could reshape how the Internet works. Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". Like with the Snowden leaks, it would probably be decades before we found out that such a law created a system of blackboxes and secret warrants that were used in unconstitutional ways against law-abiding citizens.
- userbinator 5y ago
  Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". I bet CSAM will also be mentioned, because then they could start calling opponents pedophiles.
  - krapp 5y ago
    One party has already been calling their opponents pedophiles for years, that wouldn't change anything.
  - mgdlbp 5y ago
    Good old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Makes a good keyword for finding related previous discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=b... Though looking back now, seems like piracy and misinformation could take the place of gangsters and drug dealers.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  The Ministry of Truth already exists, and was revealed to the public this week. That this is under the purview of a law enforcement agency is frightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo...
  - djmips 5y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting. Calling it the ministry of truth is hyperbolic to start as it's mandate seems to be fighting on the information fronts and it seems have been formed to be an anti foreign propaganda organization. Of course we'll have to see how it evolves...
    - ARandomerDude 5y ago
      What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? When a law enforcement agency has the power to "fight" your opinion, the democratic process will inevitably be destroyed. The whole purpose of free speech is the freedom to think out loud, point out errors, and let others do the same to you. If the government can decide your free speech is illicit because it doesn't conform to the government's stated position there is no free speech. The proof that this power will expand is found in the history of the DHS itself. It was formed after 9/11 to make sure knives and explosives didn't get on planes. Now, it governs public discourse. This is unbelievable scope creep. So to say its governance of public discourse is limited to only a few topics of conversation is unencouraging.
      - edflsafoiewq 5y ago
        > What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? Well, what does happen?
        pessimizer 5y ago
        Ever since H. Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset," Gabbard sued, and the suit was dismissed because it was determined that a "Russian asset" didn't have to have any connection to Russians, they could just be a person who said things that Russians liked to have said; since then we're back in the age of "pinkos." Having an opinion that patriotic Americans think that Russians would like you to have is the same as being a traitor. It's like an accidental terrorist. That's what a pinko was; a person who believed in civil rights, worker's rights, etc.. They weren't red, they were pink. edit: this was greatly foreshadowed after 9/11 when the courts managed to jail some people for "material support" of terrorism for simply expressing approval of terrorism. You see, expressing approval of terrorism in public could lead to people being convinced that terrorism is good, and those people could join terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups could harm America with their help. Like gods, rendering the immaterial material. That's always been the punchline of the Al-Awlaki case. We've been guided into focusing on the murders of his young children or his American citizenship because children are sympathetic and individualist nationalists are more concerned when things happen to Americans without a legal process than when things happen to others without a legal process. The punchline is that Al-Awlaki was drone killed for being a propagandist, not any terrorist act. This was also back when the ACLU was a coherent organization, so they objected.
userbinator 5y ago
Yet another way in which something labeled "smart" has a negative connotation... Whatever technology is adopted would then have to be purchased and implemented by anyone swept up by the law—from big tech platforms to your local research library. Big Tech aren't going to be the ones worried --- they are probably more likely to be the ones pushing for more of this shit. We already have nearly-mandatory software in the form of the browser near-monopoly, locked-down walled gardens, and the like. Stallman's "Right to Read" is worth reading again whenever something like this comes up.
- d0mine 5y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
- yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
  As a general rule of thumb, things like this are named to compensate for what they aren't. Look at the PATRIOT Act.
  - ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
    Is there a word for this? Like misnomer but even further. Maybe “antinomer”?
    - userbinator 5y ago
      Doublespeak?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    I'm not sure if it's named for what it isn't or rather named to make it clear that no reasonable or virtues person could disagree with it. Another, more harmless example for me is "natural scroll direction" in macOS.
KoftaBob 5y ago
And piraters will happily play that cat and mouse game and find ways to keep sharing content under the radar. I have zero sympathy for the parasite executives pushing this stuff when pirating hits their bottom line.
- null0pointer 5y ago
  If piracy ever actually touched their bottom line in the first place.
- Schroedingersat 5y ago
  They've never wanted to defeat the pirates. The pirates are the excuse for all the shitfuckery.
misc213 5y ago
How about a consumer protection bill that refunds your monthly streaming service fee if you didn't stream during the billing period
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I think this is a great idea. Similarly ISPs should detect if they don't receive any packets from your connections for any 24 hour period, and refund you for that day.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    That only makes sense if you pay double for using double the packets on another day
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Not even. During the process and confusion caused by changing the pricing rubric, they'll make sure that you're paying more than you were paying before.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    It would be pointless because close to 0% of customers have a single day where they don't transfer any data.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Well, customers who take holidays would have days when they don't transfer any data (assuming they turn off their router/modem while they're away) and customers whose connection is broken because of faulty ISP equipment would also benefit (because there would be financial incentive for the ISPs to fix the problem, rather than it helping their bottom line).
      - Gigachad 5y ago
        Still doesn't really make sense because the ISP still incurs the same expense. They had to buy that capacity which still exists while you are taking a short holiday. If its a long holiday you can cancel the service for that time. If your service doesn't work for a significant period, you likely can receive some compensation enforced by a government body.
Someone1234 5y ago
The Internet Archive is one of those charities I started donating to many years ago, and I've never had a reason to second guess that decision. Be it stuff like this or their broader mission to back up parts of the internet that could otherwise be lost forever. The internet archive, EFF, and ACLU are all very important organizations to protect internet freedoms. PS - You should also consider using Amazon Smile for "bonus" donations to your favorite charity. Gave an additional $100 that way.
- tkgally 5y ago
  I also donate regularly to the Internet Archive. I have benefitted from it immensely both personally and in my work, and I admire and support all of their efforts. A recent interview with Brewster Kahle, the Archive’s founder, is here: https://youtu.be/1pe-J8GER7I https://youtu.be/1pe-J8GER7I
- ad_hominem 5y ago
  So you don't have any issues with the ACLU's heel turn into partisan activism over the past few years? Like reversing position on vaccine mandates, fighting for mask mandates in schools, fighting against school curriculum transparency, fighting to compel speech for teachers (Loudon County)?
  - camhenlin 5y ago
    Many of these talking points are only partisan in the US
    - ad_hominem 5y ago
      It's also "only in the US" where we have the most permissive free speech laws on the planet. Forgive me for expecting a little more from the former top-tier First Amendment defender to keep it that way.
      - camhenlin 5y ago
        I just looked up your list from your previous post: - ACLU supports vaccine mandates because it increases civil liberties by protecting our most vulnerable: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-and-vaccine-mandates-heres-our-take https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-an... - ACLU supported mask mandates in some settings to protect vulnerable children: https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-mask-mandate-bans-discriminate-against-disabled-kids https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-mask-mandate-bans-discri... - Your school curriculum transparency item seems like government censorship that the ACLU was fighting: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-curriculum-transparency-bills https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-curriculum-... - last, “fighting to compel speech for teachers” is a bit of a stretch — they were pushing for teachers to use students’ correct pronouns, which is a common courtesy in most settings. https://acluva.org/en/cases/byron-tanner-cross-et-al-v-loudoun-county-school-board-et-al-amicus https://acluva.org/en/cases/byron-tanner-cross-et-al-v-loudo...
cuuupid 5y ago
Given how many “Web3” platforms and content creators this law would nuke out of existence, I’n genuinely surprised there isn’t more $$$ pushback. Lobbying isn’t exclusive to supervillain-y agendas, it’s strange that deep pockets with a lot to lose aren’t being more active / fiscally vocal about their opposition to this type of legislature. And can you imagine the sheer footprint of this type of tech? Given that there is no incentive to make filtering software efficient for these lobbyists, this could spell doom for companies that would need to scale it to ridiculous sizes; e.g. imagine what this would mean for Twitch, which already has a tough time with DMCA, as they would be legally mandated to run bloated filtering software on hundreds of thousands of live video streams all at once. All I’m saying is if you have to name your legislature “SMART” you’re clearly compensating…
- wmf 5y ago
  Web3 is already breaking every securities law on the books, so why not copyright law too? And if this bill passes they'll probably only go after sites that are hosting MPAA/RIAA content, not NFTs pirated from DeviantArt.
  - incompatible 5y ago
    NFTs are just links, aren't they? Or did we already lose that battle, and linking to a copyrighted work is copyright infringement?
    - wmf 5y ago
      My point is that people have been selling links to plagiarized pirated copies of artwork that they didn't create; they aren't selling links to the original.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      If that battle is lost, I fear the NFT will be part of why we lost it, due to the need to create artificial value beyond the link and meta information container features NFT's add onto art. Steve Mould, one of the better known Science You Tubers, brought up one of the few solid cases most people in my circles thought could make sense: Tickets A record of both attending and having paid for being able to attend an event seems like a great use of the NFT, but it's not too sexy and I am quite sure the likes of Ticket Master would have something to say about the idea, and would want their share. (which always seems to be a bit more than people feel makes sense)
dleslie 5y ago
Interesting that they mention Canada's Bill C11. Forcing CanCon on the entire internet, under threat of onerous fines, is a topic that I would hope to see more discussion of.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Quick research shows this bill would apply the same regulations on radio and TV broadcasts to every random streamer and YouTuber? Does sound bad.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    Basically, yes. There doesn't seem to be any political will in Canada to oppose it, so it's likely to pass.
derevaunseraun 5y ago
Considering how the federal gov handled the whole HealthCare.gov fiasco, I doubt the Copyright Office is even capable of deciding on standards for the rest of the country's technical infra. Even then, there'd likely be easy workarounds. I'd expect big tech to be especially opposed to this because they're cashing in on reposted, copyrighted content that shows up in feeds and recommendations
- wmf 5y ago
  MPAA/RIAA will write the standard and the Copyright Office will rubber-stamp it.
  - anticensor 5y ago
    Except that Believe Music, Elsevier and Disney would write the standards for those associations and those associations would be mere intermediaries.
Guthur 5y ago
Pretty sure this is just governments reverting copyright to it's original purpose which was to control the mass distribution of information they don't like. Governments are increasingly pushing anti human ideology and policies that many citizens will become increasingly opposed to, by isolating individuals and controlling information flow it will be possible to protect us all from our own human nature.
- YPPH 5y ago
  It was not the original purpose of copyright law for the government to control the flow of adverse information, and it hasn't had that effect either. That might be a basis for laws around treason or sedition, but not copyright. One can disagree with this policy without resorting to a position such as this which is essentially baseless, and which really rises no higher than a conspiracy theory.
  - 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
    That's true of modern copyright, but modern copyright originated as a series of reforms to an older copyright regime in which rights attached to publishers that were members of a specific government-sanctioned organization [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Statione...
    - YPPH 5y ago
      Well, that still falls well short of "control [of] the mass distribution of information [the government] doesn't like".
      - nybble41 5y ago
        Did you happen to read the GP's link? The Stationer's Guild was granted a monopoly on printing so that it could implement the government's censorship: > During the Tudor and Stuart periods, the Stationers were legally empowered to seize "offending books" that violated the standards of content set down by the Church and state; its officers could bring "offenders" before ecclesiastical authorities, usually the Bishop of London or the Archbishop of Canterbury, depending on the severity of the transgression. As printing replaced hand-copying, enforcement of "authorized" printing (as in printing only what the government approves) came to include the "copy right", a rule devised by the Stationer's Guild wherein only certain printers were granted the privilege of printing certain books. Anyone who was not a guild member, or who didn't accept the government's censorship, would not be granted the "copy right" and would be punished for attempting to print or distribute the unauthorized books. This is where copyright originated, as an outgrowth of monopoly privileges designed for the purpose of censorship. The Statute of Anne took the term "copyright" in a somewhat different direction, emphasizing the privileges of authors over printers, but in the beginning (from ca. 1557 to 1695) it was designed precisely to "control the mass distribution of information [the government] doesn't like".
a-josh-moore 5y ago
Not this again!
Vladimof 5y ago
copyright already has too many teeth....
Schroedingersat 5y ago
That's a bridge too fucking far. Cancel copyright altogether. Or better, put it back at its original 15 years, only belonging to the specific individuals if they unanomously agree to register, no exclusive licenses.
doh 5y ago
Disclaimer: I'm biased as I built business around similar regulations [0]. Here is my take on the situation and the most likely outcome. European Court of Justice just cleared similar law in Europe and give it a final stamp of validity [1]. Similarly like GDPR, this law will take precedent in most settings because it applies earlier in the life of content than the current US law, DMCA [2]. What I mean by that, Article 17 of EUCD requires "best effort" in licensing prior publishing, while DMCA applies immediately after publishing. This means the US legislators will eventually try to come closer to this law because they don't like not having power over the platforms. If you look at the SMART Copyright Act, it uses STM (standard technical measure) in the existing law (DMCA) to essentially achieve similar outcome without having to change the law itself. The "only" significant change is that they are giving power to determine compliance to the US Copyright Office over the courts. This is significant considering that in Europe this is left to the courts. --------- Our approach [0] around this is a bit different while still complaint with the laws. We offer our services free of charge for platforms large and small and focus on the attribution. That means we care about creators getting credit for their creation but leave the result of the attribution to them. That means creators can put their creations into public domain and we make sure nobody else makes money from it. They can also charge for it or completely prohibit certain use cases. The way we make money is by underwriting the liability, so technically an insurance, which is directly correlated with revenues. More platform makes, more expensive the policy is. We can cover platforms up to $50M in damages per case [3]. The other thing we are doing differently is that we partnered with WIPO [4] to escalate all cases of fair use/exceptions to a real human being that is properly trained in the copyright laws in each jurisdiction. This also is provided free of charge to all participants. Our larger goal is to introduce VISA-like solution for digital rights and allow the millions of creators be in charge of their works while explicitly leaving the decision making in their hands. ---------- [0] https://pex.com https://pex.com [1] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/cjeu-backs-copyright-directive-article-17-platform-liability-provisions https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/cjeu-backs-copyri... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... [3] https://pex.com/blog/introducing-pex-platform-guarantee-enabling-all-platforms-to-thrive-in-the-creator-economy/ https://pex.com/blog/introducing-pex-platform-guarantee-enab... [4] https://pex.com/blog/pex-partners-with-world-intellectual-property-organization-arbitration-and-mediation-center-providing-first-neutral-copyright-dispute-resolution-procedure/ https://pex.com/blog/pex-partners-with-world-intellectual-pr...
rhaksw 5y ago
Comcast has attempted to dismantle net neutrality at least for the last 15 years, and it's arguable they have allies in government. They even paid seat warmers to fill up a FCC hearing so it would seem like nobody was countering their viewpoints [1]. They were fined for that, yet they continue efforts to dismantle net neutrality as K'Tetch describes in that clip. The degree to which monopolistic broadband ISPs are willing to manipulate the system is dastardly. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEXuK073bkE&t=749s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEXuK073bkE&t=749s
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Comcast has attempted to dismantle net neutrality at least for the last 15 years, and it's arguable they have allies in government. No, it's not merely arguable. Large portions of the Republican Party in government, including every Republican member of the FCC, are overtly their allies on this.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Agreed but ISPs couldn't get away with it without us voters endlessly reelecting pols who trade law+power for campaign cash.
  - rhaksw 5y ago
    ISPs may also be lobbying us through social media. Peter Pomerantsev makes a strong case that moderated forums are for sale in This Is Not Propaganda [1]. For example, he mentions "consensus cracking", > There are instructions on how to control an internet forum, including tips on “consensus cracking”: using a fake persona to express the ideas you oppose in such a weak and unconvincing manner that you can then use another fake persona to knock them down. Here is Peter speaking [2] a week ago at a Stanford conference on disinformation where Obama gave the keynote [3]. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41717504-this-is-not-propaganda https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41717504-this-is-not-pro... [2] https://youtu.be/Nd1CKG3o818?t=23848 https://youtu.be/Nd1CKG3o818?t=23848 [3] https://youtu.be/YrMMiDXspYo?t=1855 https://youtu.be/YrMMiDXspYo?t=1855
WC3w6pXxgGd 5y ago
Buttons840 5y ago
Wouldn't this cross the line of legally requiring certain software to be installed and running on your computer? Like, I couldn't host a forum on my own hardware without having to install certain software required by the government. As far as I know this isn't currently the case. The idea that I can't have my own computer running my own software (I could write my own message board software) without government mandated software also running is the most disturbing part.
- bitwize 5y ago
  No different than the government mandating equipment (such as airbags) be running on your car.
  - maxwell 5y ago
    Speech and privacy are rights, driving automobiles is a privilege.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > driving automobiles is a privilege Driving automobiles on public roads is a privilege. Driving your own vehicle on your own property (or with the consent of the owner(s)) is an application of property rights. Though some consideration must be given for the fact that those roads were paid for, in part, by taking the prospective driver's money without their consent—unlike rules governing use of private property, those who are excluded from using public roads are still forced to pay for them.
      - maxwell 5y ago
        Entirely agreed.
  - no_time 5y ago
    It is very different. Airbags serve ME, the owner. Copyright filtering software serves corporations.
  - 5y ago
roastedpeacock 5y ago
Not saying not to try but are others pessimistic by the proverbial 'boiling of the frog' when other countries started adopting DMCA type measures in part by US imperialism also pressure from extra-governmental organizations like the WTO? Hopefully this does not pass and we do not go down this road again...
ddingus 5y ago
Thank you Internet Archive. I donate, and it's a small club, EFF, FSF, and a few others. (Why did the ACLU step away from what made them great? Just a side bar, but WTF? We need that more than ever right now!!) Please consider supporting the archive. Many here are discussing why. I think I want to just say our digital history is important. As I get older and see how far we have come, I seem to value our roots more. And that means I value the archive more. In my view, this works like our very early history did. We, as a species, didn't develop the tech needed to communicate our early history until too late to really get the golden lessons possible from it! And this may be a general law of some sort we will find out in the future when we've got a sample size greater than ourselves. I really suspect it is. Why bother talking about this? The same might be true for digital tech. Once people move to this level of abstraction, basically running history and the machinery of the people digitally, one step removed from the rules of the world, basic materials, means, methods, the rapid pace of change and the implications of non-human readable information technology really mean just take a while to sink in. By the time it does, it's gonna be late --too late perhaps. We are gonna just make it, and still will have lost a lot, but not so much we can't glean the golden lessons from our past. The Internet Archive is going to be a part of that success. This SMART act isn't smart. And part of the struggle here, in addition to the tech issues and our failure to grok how it will play out, also leaves room for bad law. A. LOT. OF. BAD. LAW. Case in point, infringement vs theft. Many simplify this down to theft. And hey, no judgement! Many of the reasons are not unreasonable. And some of the intent is right there too. However, the fact is we have the word infringement because the important parts of theft, the very things that make theft need to have a word, are not part of infringment!! I don't want to derail this. Piracy is bad. 'nuff said, other than it's also necessary because law, society and tech are misaligned right now. Above, I said we are going to just make it, in the sense of capturing our own history with enough fidelity to learn from it, get the benefit of having done it all. And despite that being true, we are still going to make more bad laws, this one being the primary example of the day. Making money can be put above everything and there is real, consistent and effective pressure to do that every day too. But, the people do matter more. They are why making money makes any sense at all, and our history matters more, because that is where the good lessons, insight is, and it's where our stories are. Lives are stories and they all have value, but we only realize that value when the stories get told, shared, talked about, explored, learned from. I bet we see theft plugged in where infringment should be. It's happened every time, and bad word use leads to bad laws and that happens because when we use the wrong words --we simplify just a bit too much so as to bias the process and everyone's thinking toward the preferred goal, we make law that is not well aligned to realities. Everyone is basically worse off for it having happened too. Even the people who wanted the law, though they may not realize it for a good long while. Worse? What happens with laws people do not respect? That's right, they get ignored, violated, and the original purpose for the law gets lost in the noise, leaving us with kind of a mess we know is supposed to be doing good somehow, but it isn't doing that good, or so little of it we may ask, "why did we even bother?" And the answer will either be, "nobody knows", or something along the lines of what I am writing right now. Use the right words, which will lead to better, or arguably the right law, or even better, law that aligns with realities well enough to stand on it's own and be obvious in purpose, mutually respected and abided by as it all should be. Thanks again Internet Archive for making this more visible.
protomyth 5y ago
I assume everyone here in opposition will call their House Rep and Senator's office on Monday and express their disapproval. If your representative is a Republican, then make sure to say you are not happy if they help Disney.
boppo1 5y ago
We need a catchy tik tok to make this bipartisan poison.
lakomen 5y ago
I remember the voting process in the EU about something similar. Ambiguously formulated paper where apparently half the voters didn't know what they were voting for. And despite that the vote wasn't repeated. And that's supposed to be a democracy? The youth protested, for the 1st time in decades many young people went to the streets and demonstrated all throughout Europe. But they were called bots, yeah bots wrote the officials, not real people. The conservatives made up lies against the young people. But not just young people. Article 13. Then they changed it to be Article 17. Dirty tricks. Just like they formulated the vote sentence ambiguously. Beware and do EVERYTHING you can that this doesn't pass and make sure it will never pass, not even in 20 or 40 years or longer next and next generations. This is a systematic, worldwide attempt of censorship and removal of freedom. Do NOT allow this to happen!
TimPC 5y ago
The whole project is doomed from the start. The automated filter has no hope of detecting whether something is fair use or not and current legislation requires that to be evaluated before a takedown. Unless you’re willing to throw out fair use entirely automated detection fails spectacularly.
- anonymousab 5y ago
  > Unless you’re willing to throw out fair use entirely That is more or less the goal, yeah.
hirundo 5y ago
A moth ate some words – it seemed to me strangely weird – when I heard this wonder: that it had devoured – the song of a man. A thief in the thickness of night – gloriously mouthed the source of knowledge – but the thief was not the least bit wiser – for the words in his mouth.

616 points by raybb 5y ago

> More generally, the SMART Copyright Act would give the Copyright Office a truly extraordinary power–the ability to force thousands of businesses to adopt, at their expense, technology they don’t want and may not need, and the mandated technologies could reshape how the Internet works. Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". Like with the Snowden leaks, it would probably be decades before we found out that such a law created a system of blackboxes and secret warrants that were used in unconstitutional ways against law-abiding citizens.

userbinator 5y ago
Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". I bet CSAM will also be mentioned, because then they could start calling opponents pedophiles.
- krapp 5y ago
  One party has already been calling their opponents pedophiles for years, that wouldn't change anything.
- mgdlbp 5y ago
  Good old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Makes a good keyword for finding related previous discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=b... Though looking back now, seems like piracy and misinformation could take the place of gangsters and drug dealers.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
The Ministry of Truth already exists, and was revealed to the public this week. That this is under the purview of a law enforcement agency is frightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo...
- djmips 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting. Calling it the ministry of truth is hyperbolic to start as it's mandate seems to be fighting on the information fronts and it seems have been formed to be an anti foreign propaganda organization. Of course we'll have to see how it evolves...
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? When a law enforcement agency has the power to "fight" your opinion, the democratic process will inevitably be destroyed. The whole purpose of free speech is the freedom to think out loud, point out errors, and let others do the same to you. If the government can decide your free speech is illicit because it doesn't conform to the government's stated position there is no free speech. The proof that this power will expand is found in the history of the DHS itself. It was formed after 9/11 to make sure knives and explosives didn't get on planes. Now, it governs public discourse. This is unbelievable scope creep. So to say its governance of public discourse is limited to only a few topics of conversation is unencouraging.
    - edflsafoiewq 5y ago
      > What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? Well, what does happen?
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        Ever since H. Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset," Gabbard sued, and the suit was dismissed because it was determined that a "Russian asset" didn't have to have any connection to Russians, they could just be a person who said things that Russians liked to have said; since then we're back in the age of "pinkos." Having an opinion that patriotic Americans think that Russians would like you to have is the same as being a traitor. It's like an accidental terrorist. That's what a pinko was; a person who believed in civil rights, worker's rights, etc.. They weren't red, they were pink. edit: this was greatly foreshadowed after 9/11 when the courts managed to jail some people for "material support" of terrorism for simply expressing approval of terrorism. You see, expressing approval of terrorism in public could lead to people being convinced that terrorism is good, and those people could join terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups could harm America with their help. Like gods, rendering the immaterial material. That's always been the punchline of the Al-Awlaki case. We've been guided into focusing on the murders of his young children or his American citizenship because children are sympathetic and individualist nationalists are more concerned when things happen to Americans without a legal process than when things happen to others without a legal process. The punchline is that Al-Awlaki was drone killed for being a propagandist, not any terrorist act. This was also back when the ACLU was a coherent organization, so they objected.

userbinator 5y ago

Yet another way in which something labeled "smart" has a negative connotation... Whatever technology is adopted would then have to be purchased and implemented by anyone swept up by the law—from big tech platforms to your local research library. Big Tech aren't going to be the ones worried --- they are probably more likely to be the ones pushing for more of this shit. We already have nearly-mandatory software in the form of the browser near-monopoly, locked-down walled gardens, and the like. Stallman's "Right to Read" is worth reading again whenever something like this comes up.

d0mine 5y ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
As a general rule of thumb, things like this are named to compensate for what they aren't. Look at the PATRIOT Act.
- ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
  Is there a word for this? Like misnomer but even further. Maybe “antinomer”?
  - userbinator 5y ago
    Doublespeak?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  I'm not sure if it's named for what it isn't or rather named to make it clear that no reasonable or virtues person could disagree with it. Another, more harmless example for me is "natural scroll direction" in macOS.

KoftaBob 5y ago

And piraters will happily play that cat and mouse game and find ways to keep sharing content under the radar. I have zero sympathy for the parasite executives pushing this stuff when pirating hits their bottom line.

null0pointer 5y ago
If piracy ever actually touched their bottom line in the first place.
Schroedingersat 5y ago
They've never wanted to defeat the pirates. The pirates are the excuse for all the shitfuckery.

misc213 5y ago

How about a consumer protection bill that refunds your monthly streaming service fee if you didn't stream during the billing period

dane-pgp 5y ago
I think this is a great idea. Similarly ISPs should detect if they don't receive any packets from your connections for any 24 hour period, and refund you for that day.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  That only makes sense if you pay double for using double the packets on another day
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Not even. During the process and confusion caused by changing the pricing rubric, they'll make sure that you're paying more than you were paying before.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  It would be pointless because close to 0% of customers have a single day where they don't transfer any data.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Well, customers who take holidays would have days when they don't transfer any data (assuming they turn off their router/modem while they're away) and customers whose connection is broken because of faulty ISP equipment would also benefit (because there would be financial incentive for the ISPs to fix the problem, rather than it helping their bottom line).
    - Gigachad 5y ago
      Still doesn't really make sense because the ISP still incurs the same expense. They had to buy that capacity which still exists while you are taking a short holiday. If its a long holiday you can cancel the service for that time. If your service doesn't work for a significant period, you likely can receive some compensation enforced by a government body.

Someone1234 5y ago

The Internet Archive is one of those charities I started donating to many years ago, and I've never had a reason to second guess that decision. Be it stuff like this or their broader mission to back up parts of the internet that could otherwise be lost forever. The internet archive, EFF, and ACLU are all very important organizations to protect internet freedoms. PS - You should also consider using Amazon Smile for "bonus" donations to your favorite charity. Gave an additional $100 that way.

tkgally 5y ago
I also donate regularly to the Internet Archive. I have benefitted from it immensely both personally and in my work, and I admire and support all of their efforts. A recent interview with Brewster Kahle, the Archive’s founder, is here: https://youtu.be/1pe-J8GER7I https://youtu.be/1pe-J8GER7I
ad_hominem 5y ago
So you don't have any issues with the ACLU's heel turn into partisan activism over the past few years? Like reversing position on vaccine mandates, fighting for mask mandates in schools, fighting against school curriculum transparency, fighting to compel speech for teachers (Loudon County)?
- camhenlin 5y ago
  Many of these talking points are only partisan in the US
  - ad_hominem 5y ago
    It's also "only in the US" where we have the most permissive free speech laws on the planet. Forgive me for expecting a little more from the former top-tier First Amendment defender to keep it that way.
    - camhenlin 5y ago
      I just looked up your list from your previous post: - ACLU supports vaccine mandates because it increases civil liberties by protecting our most vulnerable: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-and-vaccine-mandates-heres-our-take https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-an... - ACLU supported mask mandates in some settings to protect vulnerable children: https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-mask-mandate-bans-discriminate-against-disabled-kids https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-mask-mandate-bans-discri... - Your school curriculum transparency item seems like government censorship that the ACLU was fighting: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-curriculum-transparency-bills https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-curriculum-... - last, “fighting to compel speech for teachers” is a bit of a stretch — they were pushing for teachers to use students’ correct pronouns, which is a common courtesy in most settings. https://acluva.org/en/cases/byron-tanner-cross-et-al-v-loudoun-county-school-board-et-al-amicus https://acluva.org/en/cases/byron-tanner-cross-et-al-v-loudo...

cuuupid 5y ago

Given how many “Web3” platforms and content creators this law would nuke out of existence, I’n genuinely surprised there isn’t more $$$ pushback. Lobbying isn’t exclusive to supervillain-y agendas, it’s strange that deep pockets with a lot to lose aren’t being more active / fiscally vocal about their opposition to this type of legislature. And can you imagine the sheer footprint of this type of tech? Given that there is no incentive to make filtering software efficient for these lobbyists, this could spell doom for companies that would need to scale it to ridiculous sizes; e.g. imagine what this would mean for Twitch, which already has a tough time with DMCA, as they would be legally mandated to run bloated filtering software on hundreds of thousands of live video streams all at once. All I’m saying is if you have to name your legislature “SMART” you’re clearly compensating…

wmf 5y ago
Web3 is already breaking every securities law on the books, so why not copyright law too? And if this bill passes they'll probably only go after sites that are hosting MPAA/RIAA content, not NFTs pirated from DeviantArt.
- incompatible 5y ago
  NFTs are just links, aren't they? Or did we already lose that battle, and linking to a copyrighted work is copyright infringement?
  - wmf 5y ago
    My point is that people have been selling links to plagiarized pirated copies of artwork that they didn't create; they aren't selling links to the original.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    If that battle is lost, I fear the NFT will be part of why we lost it, due to the need to create artificial value beyond the link and meta information container features NFT's add onto art. Steve Mould, one of the better known Science You Tubers, brought up one of the few solid cases most people in my circles thought could make sense: Tickets A record of both attending and having paid for being able to attend an event seems like a great use of the NFT, but it's not too sexy and I am quite sure the likes of Ticket Master would have something to say about the idea, and would want their share. (which always seems to be a bit more than people feel makes sense)

dleslie 5y ago

Interesting that they mention Canada's Bill C11. Forcing CanCon on the entire internet, under threat of onerous fines, is a topic that I would hope to see more discussion of.

Buttons840 5y ago
Quick research shows this bill would apply the same regulations on radio and TV broadcasts to every random streamer and YouTuber? Does sound bad.
- dleslie 5y ago
  Basically, yes. There doesn't seem to be any political will in Canada to oppose it, so it's likely to pass.

derevaunseraun 5y ago

Considering how the federal gov handled the whole HealthCare.gov fiasco, I doubt the Copyright Office is even capable of deciding on standards for the rest of the country's technical infra. Even then, there'd likely be easy workarounds. I'd expect big tech to be especially opposed to this because they're cashing in on reposted, copyrighted content that shows up in feeds and recommendations

wmf 5y ago
MPAA/RIAA will write the standard and the Copyright Office will rubber-stamp it.
- anticensor 5y ago
  Except that Believe Music, Elsevier and Disney would write the standards for those associations and those associations would be mere intermediaries.

Guthur 5y ago

Pretty sure this is just governments reverting copyright to it's original purpose which was to control the mass distribution of information they don't like. Governments are increasingly pushing anti human ideology and policies that many citizens will become increasingly opposed to, by isolating individuals and controlling information flow it will be possible to protect us all from our own human nature.

YPPH 5y ago
It was not the original purpose of copyright law for the government to control the flow of adverse information, and it hasn't had that effect either. That might be a basis for laws around treason or sedition, but not copyright. One can disagree with this policy without resorting to a position such as this which is essentially baseless, and which really rises no higher than a conspiracy theory.
- 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
  That's true of modern copyright, but modern copyright originated as a series of reforms to an older copyright regime in which rights attached to publishers that were members of a specific government-sanctioned organization [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Statione...
  - YPPH 5y ago
    Well, that still falls well short of "control [of] the mass distribution of information [the government] doesn't like".
    - nybble41 5y ago
      Did you happen to read the GP's link? The Stationer's Guild was granted a monopoly on printing so that it could implement the government's censorship: > During the Tudor and Stuart periods, the Stationers were legally empowered to seize "offending books" that violated the standards of content set down by the Church and state; its officers could bring "offenders" before ecclesiastical authorities, usually the Bishop of London or the Archbishop of Canterbury, depending on the severity of the transgression. As printing replaced hand-copying, enforcement of "authorized" printing (as in printing only what the government approves) came to include the "copy right", a rule devised by the Stationer's Guild wherein only certain printers were granted the privilege of printing certain books. Anyone who was not a guild member, or who didn't accept the government's censorship, would not be granted the "copy right" and would be punished for attempting to print or distribute the unauthorized books. This is where copyright originated, as an outgrowth of monopoly privileges designed for the purpose of censorship. The Statute of Anne took the term "copyright" in a somewhat different direction, emphasizing the privileges of authors over printers, but in the beginning (from ca. 1557 to 1695) it was designed precisely to "control the mass distribution of information [the government] doesn't like".

a-josh-moore 5y ago

Not this again!

Vladimof 5y ago

Schroedingersat 5y ago

That's a bridge too fucking far. Cancel copyright altogether. Or better, put it back at its original 15 years, only belonging to the specific individuals if they unanomously agree to register, no exclusive licenses.

doh 5y ago

Disclaimer: I'm biased as I built business around similar regulations [0]. Here is my take on the situation and the most likely outcome. European Court of Justice just cleared similar law in Europe and give it a final stamp of validity [1]. Similarly like GDPR, this law will take precedent in most settings because it applies earlier in the life of content than the current US law, DMCA [2]. What I mean by that, Article 17 of EUCD requires "best effort" in licensing prior publishing, while DMCA applies immediately after publishing. This means the US legislators will eventually try to come closer to this law because they don't like not having power over the platforms. If you look at the SMART Copyright Act, it uses STM (standard technical measure) in the existing law (DMCA) to essentially achieve similar outcome without having to change the law itself. The "only" significant change is that they are giving power to determine compliance to the US Copyright Office over the courts. This is significant considering that in Europe this is left to the courts. --------- Our approach [0] around this is a bit different while still complaint with the laws. We offer our services free of charge for platforms large and small and focus on the attribution. That means we care about creators getting credit for their creation but leave the result of the attribution to them. That means creators can put their creations into public domain and we make sure nobody else makes money from it. They can also charge for it or completely prohibit certain use cases. The way we make money is by underwriting the liability, so technically an insurance, which is directly correlated with revenues. More platform makes, more expensive the policy is. We can cover platforms up to $50M in damages per case [3]. The other thing we are doing differently is that we partnered with WIPO [4] to escalate all cases of fair use/exceptions to a real human being that is properly trained in the copyright laws in each jurisdiction. This also is provided free of charge to all participants. Our larger goal is to introduce VISA-like solution for digital rights and allow the millions of creators be in charge of their works while explicitly leaving the decision making in their hands. ---------- [0] https://pex.com https://pex.com [1] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/cjeu-backs-copyright-directive-article-17-platform-liability-provisions https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/cjeu-backs-copyri... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... [3] https://pex.com/blog/introducing-pex-platform-guarantee-enabling-all-platforms-to-thrive-in-the-creator-economy/ https://pex.com/blog/introducing-pex-platform-guarantee-enab... [4] https://pex.com/blog/pex-partners-with-world-intellectual-property-organization-arbitration-and-mediation-center-providing-first-neutral-copyright-dispute-resolution-procedure/ https://pex.com/blog/pex-partners-with-world-intellectual-pr...

rhaksw 5y ago

Comcast has attempted to dismantle net neutrality at least for the last 15 years, and it's arguable they have allies in government. They even paid seat warmers to fill up a FCC hearing so it would seem like nobody was countering their viewpoints [1]. They were fined for that, yet they continue efforts to dismantle net neutrality as K'Tetch describes in that clip. The degree to which monopolistic broadband ISPs are willing to manipulate the system is dastardly. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEXuK073bkE&t=749s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEXuK073bkE&t=749s

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Comcast has attempted to dismantle net neutrality at least for the last 15 years, and it's arguable they have allies in government. No, it's not merely arguable. Large portions of the Republican Party in government, including every Republican member of the FCC, are overtly their allies on this.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Agreed but ISPs couldn't get away with it without us voters endlessly reelecting pols who trade law+power for campaign cash.
- rhaksw 5y ago
  ISPs may also be lobbying us through social media. Peter Pomerantsev makes a strong case that moderated forums are for sale in This Is Not Propaganda [1]. For example, he mentions "consensus cracking", > There are instructions on how to control an internet forum, including tips on “consensus cracking”: using a fake persona to express the ideas you oppose in such a weak and unconvincing manner that you can then use another fake persona to knock them down. Here is Peter speaking [2] a week ago at a Stanford conference on disinformation where Obama gave the keynote [3]. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41717504-this-is-not-propaganda https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41717504-this-is-not-pro... [2] https://youtu.be/Nd1CKG3o818?t=23848 https://youtu.be/Nd1CKG3o818?t=23848 [3] https://youtu.be/YrMMiDXspYo?t=1855 https://youtu.be/YrMMiDXspYo?t=1855

WC3w6pXxgGd 5y ago

Buttons840 5y ago

Wouldn't this cross the line of legally requiring certain software to be installed and running on your computer? Like, I couldn't host a forum on my own hardware without having to install certain software required by the government. As far as I know this isn't currently the case. The idea that I can't have my own computer running my own software (I could write my own message board software) without government mandated software also running is the most disturbing part.

bitwize 5y ago
No different than the government mandating equipment (such as airbags) be running on your car.
- maxwell 5y ago
  Speech and privacy are rights, driving automobiles is a privilege.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > driving automobiles is a privilege Driving automobiles on public roads is a privilege. Driving your own vehicle on your own property (or with the consent of the owner(s)) is an application of property rights. Though some consideration must be given for the fact that those roads were paid for, in part, by taking the prospective driver's money without their consent—unlike rules governing use of private property, those who are excluded from using public roads are still forced to pay for them.
    - maxwell 5y ago
      Entirely agreed.
- no_time 5y ago
  It is very different. Airbags serve ME, the owner. Copyright filtering software serves corporations.
- 5y ago

roastedpeacock 5y ago

Not saying not to try but are others pessimistic by the proverbial 'boiling of the frog' when other countries started adopting DMCA type measures in part by US imperialism also pressure from extra-governmental organizations like the WTO? Hopefully this does not pass and we do not go down this road again...

ddingus 5y ago

Thank you Internet Archive. I donate, and it's a small club, EFF, FSF, and a few others. (Why did the ACLU step away from what made them great? Just a side bar, but WTF? We need that more than ever right now!!) Please consider supporting the archive. Many here are discussing why. I think I want to just say our digital history is important. As I get older and see how far we have come, I seem to value our roots more. And that means I value the archive more. In my view, this works like our very early history did. We, as a species, didn't develop the tech needed to communicate our early history until too late to really get the golden lessons possible from it! And this may be a general law of some sort we will find out in the future when we've got a sample size greater than ourselves. I really suspect it is. Why bother talking about this? The same might be true for digital tech. Once people move to this level of abstraction, basically running history and the machinery of the people digitally, one step removed from the rules of the world, basic materials, means, methods, the rapid pace of change and the implications of non-human readable information technology really mean just take a while to sink in. By the time it does, it's gonna be late --too late perhaps. We are gonna just make it, and still will have lost a lot, but not so much we can't glean the golden lessons from our past. The Internet Archive is going to be a part of that success. This SMART act isn't smart. And part of the struggle here, in addition to the tech issues and our failure to grok how it will play out, also leaves room for bad law. A. LOT. OF. BAD. LAW. Case in point, infringement vs theft. Many simplify this down to theft. And hey, no judgement! Many of the reasons are not unreasonable. And some of the intent is right there too. However, the fact is we have the word infringement because the important parts of theft, the very things that make theft need to have a word, are not part of infringment!! I don't want to derail this. Piracy is bad. 'nuff said, other than it's also necessary because law, society and tech are misaligned right now. Above, I said we are going to just make it, in the sense of capturing our own history with enough fidelity to learn from it, get the benefit of having done it all. And despite that being true, we are still going to make more bad laws, this one being the primary example of the day. Making money can be put above everything and there is real, consistent and effective pressure to do that every day too. But, the people do matter more. They are why making money makes any sense at all, and our history matters more, because that is where the good lessons, insight is, and it's where our stories are. Lives are stories and they all have value, but we only realize that value when the stories get told, shared, talked about, explored, learned from. I bet we see theft plugged in where infringment should be. It's happened every time, and bad word use leads to bad laws and that happens because when we use the wrong words --we simplify just a bit too much so as to bias the process and everyone's thinking toward the preferred goal, we make law that is not well aligned to realities. Everyone is basically worse off for it having happened too. Even the people who wanted the law, though they may not realize it for a good long while. Worse? What happens with laws people do not respect? That's right, they get ignored, violated, and the original purpose for the law gets lost in the noise, leaving us with kind of a mess we know is supposed to be doing good somehow, but it isn't doing that good, or so little of it we may ask, "why did we even bother?" And the answer will either be, "nobody knows", or something along the lines of what I am writing right now. Use the right words, which will lead to better, or arguably the right law, or even better, law that aligns with realities well enough to stand on it's own and be obvious in purpose, mutually respected and abided by as it all should be. Thanks again Internet Archive for making this more visible.

protomyth 5y ago

I assume everyone here in opposition will call their House Rep and Senator's office on Monday and express their disapproval. If your representative is a Republican, then make sure to say you are not happy if they help Disney.

boppo1 5y ago

We need a catchy tik tok to make this bipartisan poison.

lakomen 5y ago

I remember the voting process in the EU about something similar. Ambiguously formulated paper where apparently half the voters didn't know what they were voting for. And despite that the vote wasn't repeated. And that's supposed to be a democracy? The youth protested, for the 1st time in decades many young people went to the streets and demonstrated all throughout Europe. But they were called bots, yeah bots wrote the officials, not real people. The conservatives made up lies against the young people. But not just young people. Article 13. Then they changed it to be Article 17. Dirty tricks. Just like they formulated the vote sentence ambiguously. Beware and do EVERYTHING you can that this doesn't pass and make sure it will never pass, not even in 20 or 40 years or longer next and next generations. This is a systematic, worldwide attempt of censorship and removal of freedom. Do NOT allow this to happen!

TimPC 5y ago

The whole project is doomed from the start. The automated filter has no hope of detecting whether something is fair use or not and current legislation requires that to be evaluated before a takedown. Unless you’re willing to throw out fair use entirely automated detection fails spectacularly.

anonymousab 5y ago
> Unless you’re willing to throw out fair use entirely That is more or less the goal, yeah.

hirundo 5y ago

A moth ate some words – it seemed to me strangely weird – when I heard this wonder: that it had devoured – the song of a man. A thief in the thickness of night – gloriously mouthed the source of knowledge – but the thief was not the least bit wiser – for the words in his mouth.