"A law like this will allow other countries to just start our own versions of things like YouTube or Wikipedia. Perhaps the Next Wikipedia will be a UK Based company to get around USA Restrictions."As you note, USA law can only apply within US territory, so it would just be a matter of where servers are located, I'd have thought. Couldn't those providers just set up shop themselves in the Bahamas or somewhere like that?Not that I wouldn't put it past US Federal legislators to attempt to extend their law extraterritorially, as I think they have done in certain cases.

As you note, USA law can only apply within US territory, so it would just be a matter of where servers are located, I'd have thought. Couldn't those providers just set up shop themselves in the Bahamas or somewhere like that?Not that I wouldn't put it past US Federal legislators to attempt to extend their law extraterritorially, as I think they have done in certain cases.

I thought about that as well. Wikipedia could just pack up and relocate to Bahamas as that is not too far away. It is tough for Americans to do business off shore as the USA is the only country I am aware of that makes US Citizens file tax returns regardless of where in the world you live and work.If US Citizens start doing off shore web based companies then likely the US Government will find ways to restrict this activity through the IRS. I wouldn't hold it past them.

I thought about that as well. Wikipedia could just pack up and relocate to Bahamas as that is not too far away. It is tough for Americans to do business off shore as the USA is the only country I am aware of that makes US Citizens file tax returns regardless of where in the world you live and work.If US Citizens start doing off shore web based companies then likely the US Government will find ways to restrict this activity through the IRS. I wouldn't hold it past them.

Heh. I found an interesting link that gives some pointers to how the US Gov't might approach the matter of off-shore, or foreign, web-based companies...http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/06/piracy-and-counterfeiting-us-trade.htmlA quote from the above:-"Canada remains on the Priority Watch List. The United States continues to urge Canada to implement its previous commitments to improve its legal framework for IPR protection and enforcement. Unfortunately, Canadian efforts in 2010 to enact long-awaited copyright legislation were unsuccessful. The United States encourages Canada to make the enactment of copyright legislation that addresses the challenges of piracy over the Internet, including by fully implementing the WIPO Internet Treaties, a priority for its new government. The United States encourages Canada to provide for deterrent-level sentences to be imposed for IPR violations, as well as to strengthen enforcement efforts, including at the border." (my emphasis).Possibly Canada will tell the US where to stick their 'encouragement', but I'm not hopeful.Oh, and there's something about NZ too:-"It seems that the government of New Zealand has become quite zealous about illegal downloading on the Internet. In April 2011, the government pushed through a bill, the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, which targets Internet users that illegally download or upload copyrighted material. Under the law, ISPs will send warning letters to infringing downloaders and uploaders at the behest of copyright holders. Repeat offenders will be disconnected from the Internet for a period of 6 months and could be assessed a fine of up to $15,000."Thus ISPs are required to police their users on behalf of copyright-holders. I think there's something along those lines in the UK as well.

Seeing as I am a Canadian Citizen and a New Zealand Resident......True about Canada and I don't see them changing their Internet stance. Canada is more interested in getting the USA to build Keystone Pipeline and looks like that won't happen. Canada and USA have other long standing disputes like Softwood Lumber and Prescription Drug Subsidies (NAFTA). They don't always get along, but that politics for ya.New Zealand is in a small region for the Film and Music market that it shares with Australia. They need to go to greater lengths to protect what little industry they have. New Zealand is small, about 4.8 Million People. The few that do download here are easily caught as it is very easy to monitor that sort of activity. This is more driven by protecting the Australia/New Zealand film industry, which is a very small market that has to pay for distribution rights, and that is expensive.

Edited January 19, 201214 yr by ytzpilot

I think if this goes through, I'll move to China. At least that place knows about liberties and free internet :(

It's in the link you provided. You chose to quote a portion of one paragraph from a 78 page document. The quote you chose defines an internet search engine, which wikipedia, youtube and avsim are not. These are "Internet sites", and the legislation only mentions "links" not "direct links" in reference to these sites.

But, it doesn't, as far as I can see!In Section 102 the word link(s) only appears in the quote I gave. It does not appear in the causes dealing wth Service Providers, Payment Network Providers, and Internet Advertising Services, wghich are the only other categories.In Section 103 the word link(s) only appears in clauses dealng with Payment Network Providers, and Internet Advertising Services.Can you give me the clause numbers where links is used in relation to Service Providers or, indeed, anyone else?Does anyone find it ironic that, in its opposition to censorship, a private organisation effectively censors the internet for a day

"Does anyone find it ironic that, in its opposition to censorship, a private organisation effectively censors the internet for a day "Wikipedia is not 'the internet', self-evidently.A private media-type organisation; newspaper, knowledge-aggregator, art gallery etc., is entitled to do whatever it wants with its own content, including withdrawing it from public access, just like any other organisation.Since the aim was to demonstrate the crippling effect (whether exaggerated or not) of the proposed legislation upon the internet, there is nothing at all ironic there. It certainly got forums buzzing about the subject, and not just here.Finally, the pages were always available from Google's cache (though links from those pages to other Wiki pages wouldn't have worked).

Edited January 19, 201214 yr by Raindance

Does anyone find it ironic that, in its opposition to censorship, a private organisation effectively censors the internet for a day

Not really. What they did is a protest and they are showing what it would be like without wikipedia if these bills were to go through.

Can you give me the clause numbers where links is used in relation to Service Providers or, indeed, anyone else?

Gerry, My original response was self-explanatory. The information was quite easy to find. Perhaps you are ignoring it on purpose? In any case, it was your link and I don't feel obligated to read it to you.

and the legislation only mentions "links" not "direct links" in reference to these sites.

That's what you said. Can you justify it or not - its really quite simple?

That's what you said. Can you justify it or not - its really quite simple?

That's what your linked PDF says. I'm not trying to justify anything. I strongly recommend you go back and actually read the file which you linked to. No one else seems confused by this. It's really quite simple.

One down one to go.....PIPA is gone, they don't have the 60 votes needed.Cheers

Edited January 20, 201214 yr by ytzpilot

No it isn't. ISPs can stop access to pirate sites .

No, they can't - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15572495, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newzbin#2011_legal_action_and_ISP_site_blocking report just how futile and simple circumvention is.

http://109.236.83.66/

That's what your linked PDF says. I'm not trying to justify anything. I strongly recommend you go back and actually read the file which you linked to. No one else seems confused by this. It's really quite simple.

I attach relevant extracts from Section 102 of the bill in support of my argument about links. Can you post relevant extacts in support of yours?

(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—(i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES.— A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.(C ) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS.—(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION.—A payment network provider shall take tecnically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account(I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; andII) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.

No, they can't - http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-15572495, and http://en.wikipedia....P_site_blocking report just how futile and simple circumvention is.

They can stop some people. Anyway, on that basis we should have no laws they can't stop all crime.

Edited January 20, 201214 yr by mgh