3 ms·

I think the problem is that we have a number of bills that are bad (PCIP, ACTA, SOPA), and some that are neutral at best because of the ambiguity in the way tha

I think the problem is that we have a number of bills that are bad (PCIP, ACTA, SOPA), and some that are neutral at best because of the ambiguity in the way that they're written. Personally, when it comes to ambiguity in laws like these, I tend to be suspicious, because it's almost inevitable that someone will end up being targeted disproportionately, whether intentionally or not. (I explained my reasoning in a post about SOPA, but the principle applies here as well, since the law is ambiguous enough that I'm not sure what powers it does or does not grant: http://bit.ly/HOfYnt http://bit.ly/HOfYnt) But what we don't have is any bills that are actually good. Spolsky said it best[1]: we need to fight actively for what we want to see, not [just] oppose stuff that we dislike. But right now, Congress isn't doing any of that, and it looks like that isn't changing anytime soon. I respect the EFF, but I can't imagine they have the kind of lobbying power that the MPAA does, so I'm not sure who would be the right person to push for the kind of bill that we do want to see. Whoever that is, let's hope that they do it soon. [1]https://plus.google.com/117114202722218150209/posts/4GgaRiSyaTf https://plus.google.com/117114202722218150209/posts/4GgaRiSy...

tptacek 15y ago
What does CISPA have to do with the MPAA? The bill as originally drafted mentioned the protection of intellectual property. Because we're on HN, I think we're all wired to think IP means "DVD rips". But I don't think normal people or policymakers think of it that way; I think IP was a natural way to write "the things that we think of protecting from hackers who are trying to break into SSL CAs". As evidence for my point of view I offer the fact that the very next draft of the bill removed intellectual property entirely.
- Natsu 15y ago
  To be fair, there's a voluntary anti-copyright infringement plan underway among the top US ISPs that probably won't get underway until after the election. I'm not sure that CISPA is really related to it, but it's at least plausible that this would impact it. The main problem is that nobody is quite sure exactly how the plan is supposed to work, exactly, so you're correct to point out that it's largely guesswork. I'm honestly not sure if there are any privacy laws that would affect it, anyhow. I question whether video rental privacy could even apply to a pirated movie, but who knows? And the plan itself is unknown and subject to change. So there might actually be something there, but I would never argue this one. This argument is weak at best and harmful at worst. Even though big copyright holders have shown scandalous negligence in their DMCA notices and there are good reasons to believe that wide-scale efforts are likely to harm many innocent people, they haven't actually enacted that plan yet and arguing it puts you into a copyright quagmire, so it's best to focus on the more immediate problems with this bill and slough all the weak arguments.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Yea, gnu.org has an entire page on the problems with this term: http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  > What does CISPA have to do with the MPAA? I didn't say it does; my point is that there are a number of Internet-related bills in the media these days, and they range from ambiguous to unambiguously bad (nothing unambiguously good or even close to it, as far as I can think of).

tptacek 15y ago

What does CISPA have to do with the MPAA? The bill as originally drafted mentioned the protection of intellectual property. Because we're on HN, I think we're all wired to think IP means "DVD rips". But I don't think normal people or policymakers think of it that way; I think IP was a natural way to write "the things that we think of protecting from hackers who are trying to break into SSL CAs". As evidence for my point of view I offer the fact that the very next draft of the bill removed intellectual property entirely.

Natsu 15y ago
To be fair, there's a voluntary anti-copyright infringement plan underway among the top US ISPs that probably won't get underway until after the election. I'm not sure that CISPA is really related to it, but it's at least plausible that this would impact it. The main problem is that nobody is quite sure exactly how the plan is supposed to work, exactly, so you're correct to point out that it's largely guesswork. I'm honestly not sure if there are any privacy laws that would affect it, anyhow. I question whether video rental privacy could even apply to a pirated movie, but who knows? And the plan itself is unknown and subject to change. So there might actually be something there, but I would never argue this one. This argument is weak at best and harmful at worst. Even though big copyright holders have shown scandalous negligence in their DMCA notices and there are good reasons to believe that wide-scale efforts are likely to harm many innocent people, they haven't actually enacted that plan yet and arguing it puts you into a copyright quagmire, so it's best to focus on the more immediate problems with this bill and slough all the weak arguments.
yuhong 15y ago
Yea, gnu.org has an entire page on the problems with this term: http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
chimeracoder 15y ago
> What does CISPA have to do with the MPAA? I didn't say it does; my point is that there are a number of Internet-related bills in the media these days, and they range from ambiguous to unambiguously bad (nothing unambiguously good or even close to it, as far as I can think of).