WebProNews

Tag: PIPA

  • Let’s Not Forget The Fall Of SOPA And The Might Of A Unified Internet

    Let’s Not Forget The Fall Of SOPA And The Might Of A Unified Internet

    The fall of SOPA was, by far, one of the most interesting events of 2012. It showed that the Internet can and will be an unstoppable force when faced with a threat that targets its very core. Now let’s relive those events so that we may know why we fight for the Internet and the freedom it brings.

    Vimeo user Sam Mularczyk created a video that recounts the events that led up to the fall of SOPA. It’s a great history refresher for those of us who have already forgotten what made the SOPA protests such a significant event.

    The Fall Of SOPA from Sam Mularczyk on Vimeo.

    The end of the video mentions that the Internet still faces threats at the hands of other treaties and bills like ACTA, TPP and CISPA. Some of these have already been shelved thanks to other massive protests, but others are still moving full steam ahead under a veil of secrecy. To defeat these bills, we may need another protest on the same scale of the SOPA blackout, but that’s not likely to happen.

    In short, the Internet is consistently under threat by groups that would seek to undermine it for control or personal gain. The only way to stop it is to use the Internet as it was intended – a communication platform that allows those of similar minds to band together. There’s not always going to be a blackout that spurs Internet users to action, but reminding ourselves of what can be accomplished when we band together may just be enough to shelve other threats to the Internet that are likely to emerge in 2013.

    [h/t: Boing Boing]

  • The Free Internet Survived 2012, But Will It Be That Lucky Next Year?

    2012 was a dangerous year for the free Internet. Lawmakers and global stakeholders all took a shot at policing and regulating the Internet over the past year to no avail. That doesn’t mean they’ve given up, and 2013 could prove disastrous if certain parties have their way.

    To that end, it would be advantageous to look back on all the bills, treaties, etc that threatened the Internet in 2012. As they say, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Internet freedom fighters will have to learn from tactics employed this year to recognize threats to a free Internet before they even emerge.

    Were you concerned for the free Internet in 2012? Do you think next year will be worse or better? Let us know in the comments.

    The first battle over the free Internet came in January as the much debated SOPA and PIPA came up for vote in Congress. The bills were designed to combat copyright infringement online, but the powers granted to the government to do so were sweeping and overly broad. SOPA in particular gave government the power to censor Web sites on the DNS level thereby removing them from general access to most users. Potential for abuse was high and many feared that the bill would be used to destroy innovation and protect legacy businesses that have yet to adapt to how the Internet does business.

    Worryingly enough, it looked like both bills would actually see smooth sailing through both the Senate and the House. Then the Internet banded together and launched a blackout campaign that saw many popular sites like Wikipedia going dark to show people what a world with SOPA could potentially look like. The tactic worked as thousands of concerned citizens called their representatives telling them to vote no on SOPA and PIPA. The bills were finally taken off the table for good in October.

    After the threat of SOPA and PIPA subsided, a new threat emerged. It had free Internet proponents even more concerned as it was as international treaty that sought to rewrite international law in favor of large corporate interests. The treaty was called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA for short, and it contained a number of worrying implications. The most concerning part of the treaty was that it would require ISPs around the world to “monitor and censor online communications.” It was not only a threat to free speech on the Internet, but a major threat to online privacy as well.

    After many parts of the treaty were leaked, citizens in countries across Europe took to the streets to protest. The protests worked as many countries refused to ratify the treaty and it was finally dealt a death blow in July as the European Parliament voted against it. The treaty was officially shelved, at least in Europe, earlier in December.

    All the previous treaties and bills only sought to remove copyright infringing material from the Internet. It’s bad, but it could be worse. Our friends in Washington took on that challenge when lawmakers introduced CISPA and CSA – two bills that aimed to tackle cybersecurity, but threatened to violate any privacy that U.S. citizens may have online. CISPA was definitely more worrisome as it had the support of those who opposed SOPA just a few months prior. The new bill garnered support because it made it easier for companies to share information with government bodies without having to worry about lawsuits from those whose information was shared without consent.

    Like the previous bills thus far, both were killed before getting very far. CISPA was able to pass the House, but its Senate counterpart, CSA, was killed time and time again. The latest attempt for passage happened in mid-November with the bill being officially killed for the last time.

    The biggest threat by far, however, happened earlier in December when delegates around the world met to discuss an update to a decades old telecommunications treaty. The ITU, or International Telecommunications Union, was met with skepticism as some felt less than scrupulous members of the global community would use the meeting as an opportunity to seize control of the Internet. They did not disappoint as China, Saudia Arabia and others introduced a last minute change to the treaty that would have given them more power over the Internet. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. and much of Europe though, and it was unceremoniously killed.

    Do you think these were legitimate threats to the free Internet? Were Internet freedom proponents blowing the potential threat of these bills and treaties out of proportion? Let us know in the comments.

    As the above illustrates, 2012 was one hell of a year for Internet censorship and regulations. All of it was defeated, however, and tired Internet freedom fighters can rest easy knowing that the Internet is no longer under attack, right? Wrong. 2013 is shaping up to be an even worse year for proposed Internet regulation as various treaties and bills from 2012 are sticking around into the new year while new treaties and bills will obviously be proposed in due time.

    Speaking of relics from 2012, TPP is a prime example of a trade agreement that refuses to die. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much like ACTA, but it seeks to establish better trade relations between the U.S. and Southeast Asia. It’s similarities to ACTA don’t end there, however, as the treaty is negotiated in complete secrecy without any input from the public or Congress. In fact, many members of Congress are lobbying to have the USTR make negotiations more transparent since they have the constitutional right of approving treaties.

    So, where does TPP stand in 2013? It could go either way to be honest. We keep hearing tales of how the treaty is constantly on its last legs as Southeast Asian countries are starting to realize it’s not good for their economy, but the secrecy in which it’s being negotiated makes it hard to tell just how close it is to either death or ratification.

    Another worrisome trade agreement to look out for in 2013 is CETA – the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement. It doesn’t directly affect the U.S., but the treaty’s passage could spell trouble for the free Internet around the world as the treaty contains much of the same language that made ACTA so horrible. If ratified, the treaty could be seen as proof that ACTA wasn’t so bad and new attempts to ratify similar treaties could take hold around the world.

    The last relic left over from 2012 is Clean IT – an European Commission project that seeks to censor the Internet in the name of protecting citizens from terrorism. The concern is that the project does little to actually stop terrorism and does everything in its power to use the Internet to monitor citizens in everything that they do. What’s worse is that the project turns people into Internet vigilantes where they can submit content that they feel is terroristic or otherwise “bad” to have it removed and those who fail to report any “bad” material would be punished.

    As you can see, 2013 is already looking pretty grim and these are just the leftovers from 2012. There’s bound to be more laws, treaties and projects introduced in 2013 that will make SOPA, ACTA and others look like bastions of Internet freedom in comparison.

    The free Internet has been a major force of change in the world, and some clearly don’t like that whether they be a legacy business that refuses to adapt or a world power that wants to subjugate its citizens even in the digital world. Either way, the Internet has proven to be resilient to any threats against it thus far and 2013 may prove to be its biggest test yet. It will be fascinating to see how the Internet and those who use it respond.

    Do you think the Internet will survive 2013? What are you most concerned about in the coming year? Let us know in the comments.

  • SOPA Returns As A Poorly Executed Extortion Virus

    SOPA Returns As A Poorly Executed Extortion Virus

    Remember SOPA? The Internet really dodged a bullet there when the largest Web protest ever killed the bill. There have been rumors that it would be back, despite MPAA CEO Chris Dodd denying any such thing. Well, Dodd was wrong as SOPA is back, and ready to take your money.

    Wait, what? Why does SOPA want your money? Well, it’s not really SOPA. It’s a ransonmware virus that’s using SOPA to scare people into giving them money. Ransomware is a particularly nasty virus that essentially holds your data hostage until you pay up. Here’s what you’ll see if you come across this particular piece of malware:

    SOPA Extortion Virus

    The worst part about these scams is that paying won’t solve anything. They want your money and your data. By paying, you’re just giving them access to both. Thankfully, these kind of viruses are also incredibly easy to remove. There are many ransomware removal walkthroughs available, but this one from YooCare has proven to be the easiest to follow.

    As always, these kind of viruses can not effect you unless you visit a malicious site or download a virus-ridden file. Use common sense when browsing the Internet and avoid sites that seem suspect. Also, you should only download files from trusted sources. That RapidShare link promising beautiful babes may be tempting, but it’s probably a virus. It could even be this one.

    [h/t: TorrentFreak]

  • SOPA And PIPA Are Not Coming Back

    SOPA And PIPA Are Not Coming Back

    SOPA and PIPA were a major threat to the Internet. Only those in the entertainment industry denied the claim as they pushed for stricter control of the Internet. The two bills eventually spurred the single largest Internet protest as countless Web sites, including Wikipedia, went dark. The bills were soundly defeated, but do they ever have a chance of coming back?

    MPAA CEO Chris Dodd was a speaker at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club on Tuesday night where he spoke at length about SOPA, PIPA, and what Hollywood’s doing to help combat piracy. He also spoke at length with Wired after the talk to further clarify what he thought about the Internet movement against the two anti-piracy bills from earlier this year, and other subjects.

    First of all, Dodd was adamant that SOPA and PIPA are dead. During his interview with Wired, he said that the “legislation is gone. It’s over.” He did say this was his own opinion though. Lawmakers could introduce a similar bill next year.

    As for the Internet’s reaction and subsequent protest, he said that he’s never seen a bigger protest to proposed bills in his life. He also said that the protest “changed forever how people are going to address their elected representatives.” He even went on to call it a “transformative event.”

    After the talk, Dodd provided some more details on the secretive six-strike policy that the MPAA and ISPs are implementing across the country. He says that Internet users will not receive any kind of punishment for the first three offenses, but will be subject to various “mitigation measures” after their fourth offense. These include speed throttling and redirects, but it’s still unclear if ISPs can cut off service altogether for repeat offenders.

    On a final note, it seems that Dodd is ready to start working with the tech sector instead of pushing through ill-conceived legislation. He said that he’s not interested in pursuing a legislative solution, but rather teaming up with the tech industry to educate consumers about piracy and its effects on the marketplace. The fruits of Dodd’s labor can already be seen in Google’s recent algorithm update that adds copyright removal notices to their ranking signals.

  • Reddit Launches Bus Tour to “Promote the Open Internet”

    Reddit Launches Bus Tour to “Promote the Open Internet”

    Emboldened by the part it played in combating the SOPA legislation earlier this year with an “internet blackout,” Reddit has officially announced that it is taking to the road with a bus tour in support of the open internet.

    In a post over at the Reddit blog, Reddit GM Erik Martin today announced the Internet 2012 Bus Tour. Martin, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, and other Reddit staff will board a half red, half blue bus and tour across the Midwestern U.S. From the blog post:

    This isn’t just about Silicon Valley and big web companies. Start-ups, local governments, small businesses and web savvy individuals across the country are using the platform of the Open Internet to start new businesses, learn new skills, earn extra income, and make their budgets go further. If you have a story like this, please post it to /r/Internet2012. The Internet 2012 Bus Tour will collect, document and share these stories from the American heartland. We will have 10 journalists from major outlets on the bus, as well as our own documentary crew to capture and tell these stories.

    In order to finance the tour, a fundraiser has been started on IndieGoGo. Perks for the fundraiser include a DRM-free download of the documentary, posters & stickers, a phone call/drunk dial from the tour, having your name on the bus, a ride on the bus, or your very own tour stop (for $36,000).

    A partial itinerary of the tour is already complete, and it starts on October 3 at the Presidential Debate in Denver, CO. From there the bus will make a stop each day, going to Boulder, Co; Lincoln, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Kansas City, MO; and Lexington, KY, where an event will take place on “The Future of Local Communities” with Drew Curtis‘ FARK. The last currently scheduled day will see the tour stop in Danville, KY, where the Vice Presidential debate will take place.

    The tour organizers are currently collecting stories of how the open internet has helped local communities over on the tour’s main subreddit. One of the first posts to that subreddit happens to be the trailer for the bus tour, seen below, which includes more details about the tour.

  • Former MPAA CTO Changes His Mind On SOPA

    Former MPAA CTO Changes His Mind On SOPA

    SOPA is dead, and it’s probably not coming back. The MPAA now realizes that a bill like that just isn’t going to fly. They need to be sneakier and use methods that bypass public scrutiny – like TPP. That being said, SOPA is still on the minds of many people as one of the few things that has ever come close to destroying the Internet as we know it.

    One figure who is still thinking about SOPA is Paul Brigner, former Chief Technology Officer for the MPAA. He was CTO for the group while SOPA was being debated and ultimately killed by the largest online protest movement in the history of mankind. During that time, he defended SOPA and said it was a good way to stop online piracy.

    It seems that in the seven months since SOPA has been dead, Brigner has had a change of heart. He’s now working for the Internet Society, a group that was part of the protest movement against SOPA. Being with the group has apparently changed his mind on the matter. He even wrote a letter to the White House explaining why the Internet is so important:

    We are also of the opinion that any enforcement attempts – at both national and international levels – should ensure and not jeopardize the stability, interoperability and efficiency of the Internet, its technologies and underlying platforms. The Internet – a network of networks – is based on an open and distributed architecture. This model should be preserved and should surpass any enforcement efforts.

    It’s nice to see some more influential people coming out against SOPA and even changing their mind on the bill. He might be a little late to the party, but it’s appreciated nonetheless. It’s especially appreciated that the letter is also meant to help shape future IP enforcement policy. It seems that Washington is actually looking for input from those “nerds” that they neglected to even acknowledge when SOPA was first being debated.

  • CISPA Might Not Be So Bad After All

    What I’m about to say may shock you. So if you’re a sensitive user of the Internet, you may want to go back to Reddit and look at funny pictures to soothe your soul. Here it goes: I don’t think CISPA is as bad as everybody is making it out to be. Right now, most readers are probably thinking, “This guy has hit the loony jackpot and spewing insanity coins everywhere.” I assure you that I have not lost it and all will be explained.

    To understand the current fight against CISPA, let’s look at what came before it: SOPA and PIPA. Both bills were absolutely destructive forces of calamitous intent that sought to destroy the very thing we hold near and dear to our hearts – the Internet. In their current form, these twin pieces of legislation would wreck havoc on the world and the Internet as we know it. It’s a good thing the Internet stepped in and stopped all of it before it could do any harm.

    Now let’s take a look at CISPA. A lot of people, including our own writers, will tell you that CISPA is just SOPA wrapped in a pretty bow of cybersecurity. Full disclosure: I myself have written about the dangers of CISPA and the reasons as to why it’s rotten. The more I look at it though, the more I realize that it’s not the same apocalyptic monstrosity that was SOPA.

    First, let’s look at the main ideal behind CISPA – cybersecurity. It’s all about setting up a network where ISPs, Internet companies like Facebook and the government can freely share information that may pose a threat to the nation’s cyber welfare. I think we call agree that the basis behind the legislation is at the very least noble.

    The main cause for concern, and I’ll admit it’s a pretty big concern, is just how much information Facebook and ISPs can share with the government. I really don’t want Facebook sharing my personal details with the government and I sure as hell don’t want my ISP handing over my IP address to the authorities either.

    The problem with this line of thinking though is a presumption of privacy. We all think that we have privacy on the Internet when that is clearly not the case. As much as Facebook touts privacy as one of its biggest concerns, they’re all too willing to hand over your entire life if its subpoenaed. Of course, Facebook doesn’t have your life story unless you’re willing to share it. You think CISPA threatens your online privacy, might want to take a look at your own Facebook profile before you start pointing fingers.

    I realize that we choose to share this information with our peers and have faith that Facebook, Google+ or any other social network won’t hand this information out to anybody but the people we want seeing it. That’s a viable request and one that these services should implement. Browsers are implementing a “Do Not Track” button later this year in response to these concerns, but it’s unlikely the option will actually do much to protect privacy.

    All of this is to say that CISPA isn’t so bad when you look at it objectively. All it does is make it easier for the Internet and government to exchange information. What information? Information that you have already made publicly available online. While there may be some abuse in terms of sharing the real private stuff like email and text messages, those concerns should be addressed in the final bill.

    A recent OP-ED on Mashable confirmed that CISPA is being changed due to the complaints of Internet users. It might not be the holy grail of privacy protection that you want it to be, but it probably won’t be the Big Brother Orwellian society you think it’s going to create either.

    With that being said, I still encourage protesting CISPA and I have added my name to the petition against it. There’s still problems in CISPA that are worth addressing, but the fact of the matter is that CISPA isn’t the end all be all when it comes to the erasure of our own privacy. We’re doing that just fine by ourselves.

    By the way, if you’re so concerned about privacy, maybe you should direct your attention towards the current destroyers of actual privacy. The TSA has been effectively violating privacy in ways worse than CISPA could ever imagine and they’re even stealing your money. The NSA is also rumored to be building a giant spy surveillance center that will collection information on U.S. citizens. CISPA doesn’t even begin to scratch the absolute absurdity of these other organizations when it comes to violations of privacy.

    The whole point here is to say that yes, CISPA is a cause for concern, but don’t treat it like it’s the next incarnation of SOPA. Save all your rage and ange for the likes of ACTA and TPP. In the meantime, enter into dialogs with your elected congresspeople over your concerns. It’s apparently working and they are listening. I’m pretty sure they don’t want their privacy violated either.

  • A Handy CISPA Infographic Clarifies The Issues

    Does the fact that companies like Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, and Intel mean that CISPA is the friendly, less intrusive version of SOPA or are these companies supporting the bill for reasons not related to intellectual property? Actually, in regards to many of the companies supporting CISPA, are doing so not for the IP protection; instead, a company like Facebook is praising the bill for the improvements it offers to the world of cybersecurity.

    A quote from Facebook’s letter of support indicates as much:

    Effective security requires private and public sector cooperation, and successful cooperation necessitates information sharing. Your legislation removes burdensome rules that currently can inhibit protection of the cyber ecosystem, and helps provide a more established structure for sharing within the cyber community while still respecting the privacy rights and expectations of our users.

    While an admirable position, should better cybersecurity bills come with loopholes to shutdown intellectual property infringers, all in the name of national security? Because that’s what’s happening. The following infographic, courtesy of LuminConsulting.com, highlights some important issues about CISPA we, the people, should be informed about.

    This includes the threat to piracy it constitutes, the fact that CISPA may be in direct violation with the 4th Amendment, and how it gives companies the right to disregard your privacy at will. But hey, as long as CISPA improves cybersecurity, it’s all good, right? At least according the aforementioned companies.

    With that in mind, here are some reasons to oppose CISPA:

    CISPA Infographic
    Click for full size

    While there are other well-known companies on the list of CISPA supporters, the one that stands out the most, at least to Internet users, is Facebook. Does their support of such a bill cause you to consider bailing on Zuckerberg’s prolific creation, or does the fact that all of your Farmville-playing friends still use Facebook allow you to turn a blind eye to such things?

    Let us know what you think.

    [Lead image courtesy]

  • ACTA and The United States Government

    ACTA and The United States Government

    While the buzz surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), something of a global cousin to the SOPA/PIPA movement, may have died down, the issue itself is far from over. In Europe, the agreement is awaiting full ratification, and has faced a great deal of backlash from EU citizens in many countries. While ACTA is indeed a global issue, the United States has played a major role in the agreement’s structure, while attempting to fast-track the ratification process.

    With that in mind, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published a “catching us up” article, one that reviews how U.S. official have handled the treaty, including the apparent subversive methods that occurred in relation to the plurilateral agreement. Some of the findings are troubling. Aside from that, it also demonstrates a “protect intellectual property at any cost” mentality from these same elected officials.

    An example of this:

    Since 2008, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office (USTR) has repeatedly stated that ACTA was negotiated as a “sole executive agreement” under the President’s power to conclude agreements regarding matters delegated to the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore does not need to be put before Congress for review and approval.

    This is important because if ACTA was being handled as a treaty, it would require approval from 2/3 of the Senate. However, the U.S. Trade Representative intimates that Congress essentially forfeited their position as a reviewing entity:

    Ambassador Kirk quoted from the State Department’s letter, suggesting that Congress had authorized the Executive to negotiate ACTA, and stated that ACTA was in fact already binding on the United States. By implication, Congress has no role in reviewing and approving ACTA…

    First, they contradicted previous statements from the USTR that ACTA does not create a binding obligation on the United States. That makes us wonder whether something has changed, or whether the previous statements were made without internal U.S. government legal vetting….

    Second, in citing the PRO-IP Act of 2008, the State Department’s letter highlights the haphazard and unusual way in which ACTA has been concluded. The letter from the State Department suggests that ACTA came about to help “answer the legislative call” of the PRO-IP Act, even though ACTA was announced the year before, in October 2007. Although the State Department’s letter stopped short of calling ACTA a Congressional-Executive Agreement, it certainly seemed intended to give that impression. But outside of the clear terms of the PRO –IP Act, it would be misleading to suggest that Congress gave the Executive full rein to enter into an international agreement with broad IP enforcement powers that would restrict Congress from engaging in domestic reform of controversial parts of U.S. law. ACTA also includes a new ACTA Committee that will have the final say on ACTA’s implementation in national law…

    The EFF’s study also includes this important detail concerning international legislation:

    No agencies can conclude an international agreement in the name of the United States without first consulting with the State Department. The determination of whether an agreement is an international agreement for this purpose must be made by the Office of the Legal Advisor to the State Department (and not the USTR).

    Which makes USTR’s claim that ACTA is a “sole executive agreement” that doesn’t need Congressional input is not only false, but thoroughly incorrect as well. Based on the EFF’s finding, perhaps the U.S. Government should just scrap ACTA and start over.

  • Corporations Supporting CISPA Include Facebook, Microsoft

    Is this how unwanted Internet regulation passes? When enough popular web-based/tech corporations support a bill that’s potentially as damaging as SOPA, causing their legion of followers to accept the inevitable? If so, there’s a really good chance the backlash SOPA experienced could be a thing of past, at least in regards to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

    The question is, which corporations are supporting the bill, making is such a viable option to its SOPA/PIPA predecessors? Thanks to the openness of the U.S. Government, we have a list of CISPA supporters, and after the SOPA backlash, some of names might surprise you:

    AT&T
    Boeing
    BSA
    Business Roundtable
    CSC
    COMPTEL
    CTIA – The Wireless Association
    Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
    Edison Electric
    EMC
    Exelon
    Facebook
    The Financial Services Roundtable
    IBM
    Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
    Information Technology Industry Council
    Intel
    Internet Security Alliance
    Lockheed Martin
    Microsoft
    National Cable & Telecommunications Association
    NDIA
    Oracle
    Symantec
    TechAmerica
    US Chamber of Commerce
    US Telecom – The Broadband Association
    Verizon

    The links go to the individual letters of support, and as you might’ve noticed, Facebook, a company that was outspoken against SOPA, is on the CISPA supporters list. Their letter of support includes the following:

    Effective security requires private and public sector cooperation, and successful cooperation necessitates information sharing. Your legislation removes burdensome rules that currently can inhibit protection of the cyber ecosystem, and helps provide a more established structure for sharing within the cyber community while still respecting the privacy rights and expectations of our users. Through timely sharing of threat information, both public and private entities will be able to more effectively combat malicious activity in cyberspace and protect consumers.

    As you can see, Facebook’s rationale for supporting CISPA is protecting consumers and combating malicious Internet activity. Furthermore, there letter of support does not mention intellectual property protection or protecting the entertainment industry from piracy. With that in mind, does this mean CISPA is nothing like SOPA and the reaction against it is misguided?

    Not exactly.

    On surface, CISPA focuses on the sharing of important cybersecurity information between government officials and companies the information could effect. But, the bill goes further, including portions about protecting intellectual property that remind some of SOPA and PIPA. An example from the actual bill (H.R. 3523):

    (2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence’ means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from–

    `(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

    `(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

    And this is far from the only mention of IP in the bill. If an IP thief is considered a threat to cyber security and intelligence, can anyone foresee a scenario where a website like The Pirate Bay would be viewed as a threat and blocked from U.S. web users, if not altogether taken down by a multinational task force?

    Or, as Andrew Couts described it in his “CISPA is not the new SOPA: Here’s why” article:

    CISPA is a terrible piece of legislation, one that very well could result in the government blocking access to websites on the basis of copyright infringement, or sites like Wikileaks under the guise of national security.

    With that in mind, perhaps CISPA is more like SOPA than we first thought. The big difference is, companies like Facebook and Microsoft are not opposed to CISPA like they were PIPA/SOPA. Does that kind of support change your view about these kinds of bills or are you against any kind of “cyberspace” regulation that gives more control to the U.S. government?

    I know what Julia O’Dwyer’s answer would be…

  • Saving the Internet From the United States?

    Earlier this year, when discussing her son, Richard O’Dwyer, and his upcoming extradition to the United States, Julia O’Dwyer blasted the country’s attempt to take control of the Internet in name of “stopping piracy” or whatever other reason they hide behind. From Julia’s perspective, the U.S. does not own the Internet and therefore, should stop trying to get the rest of the world to follow suit with the desires of the American entertainment industry.

    Her quote was quite compelling, and to be honest, it’s surprising more European citizens–and leaders–haven’t spoken out against the United States and the attempt of its government, led in large part by entertainment industry dollars, dictating to the rest of the world how the Internet should be controlled. O’Dwyer’s quote, courtesy of WSWS.org:

    I don’t know the detail of these laws, but I can see that it’s about America trying to control and police the Internet. Well, it doesn’t belong to them, does it? It’s wrong that America should lay laws down on the Internet for other countries. I don’t think America should rule the world.

    It appears as if Julia’s perspective is, in fact, being adopted thanks to the efforts of AVAAZ.org. Their latest cause is titled “Save the Internet from the US,” and its goals are clear: Stop CISPA, aka, SOPA’s New Clothes, from passing:

    Right now, the US Congress is sneaking in a new law that gives them big brother spy powers over the entire web — and they’re hoping the world won’t notice. We helped stop their Net attack last time, let’s do it again.

    Over 100 Members of Congress are backing a bill (CISPA) that would give private companies and the US government the right to spy on any of us at any time for as long as they want without a warrant. This is the third time the US Congress has tried to attack our Internet freedom. But we helped beat SOPA, and PIPA — and now we can beat this new Big Brother law.

    Our global outcry has played a leading role in protecting the Internet from governments eager to monitor and control what we do online. Let’s stand together once again — and beat this law for good. Sign the petition then forward to everyone who uses the Internet!

    To facilitate their goals, AVAAZ’ petition page sends a message to members of Congress, explaining the threat CISPA poses to the rest of the world. The petition’s goal is to reach 250,000 signatures, of which, well over 200,000 have been recorded.

    Petition

    All things considered, does AVAAZ and O’Dwyer’s mom have a point? Should the rest of the world take stand against a government that allows some of its members to be led around by the money the entertainment industry provides them? Or does piracy actually pose enough of a threat to turn control of the Internet over the United States government, which, again, has the whispers of Chris Dodd resonating in its collective ear?

    Let us know what you think.

  • SOPA Gets a New Name, Still Terrible

    SOPA Gets a New Name, Still Terrible

    So long, SOPA. It’s been real, and it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been really fun. It’s time to celebrate because SOPA’s dead, right? But wait, what’s this CISPA thing RT.com is talking about? Well, if your answer includes something along the lines of “SOPA’s new name” or the “SOPA’s new clothes,” you’re on the right track.

    Simply put, CISPA–the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 3523)–is yet another attempt from a largely clueless U.S. Government to take control of the Internet. Sure, it’s wrapped in a pretty bow of anti-piracy and the prevention of theft, but you might want to take a closer look at who’s backing these attempts. Yes, elected officials bring these bills and acts into being, but not without the monetary influence of the entertainment industry.

    Again, take a look at Lamar Smith’s list of financial benefactors, and start connecting the dots. This is, and has always been about control. The entertainment industry is deathly afraid of the Internet, if, for nothing else, the forced adaptation of a new method of content delivery. Unlike physical media, the entertainment industry’s control over the distribution of electronic media is not the same. And so, like always, the industry is fighting to get some of that control back.

    Apparently, the best way to go about that is to finance corruptible government officials, who will be more than willing to support your cause even though they don’t understand anything about the technology their being asked to regulate. For a perfect example of this, the following video features a segment of Rick Santorum discussing Internet regulation (at the 3:49 mark). If, after that, you think Santorum’s equipped to even discuss Internet regulation, let alone enact the necessary legislation, then you deserve what you get:


    While Santorum’s segment stands out for obvious reasons, the information offered by both Lis Wahl and Kendall Burman is awfully revealing. Furthermore, as the Burman effectively points out, the laws for effective Internet regulation are already in place. If you doubt that, ask Kim Dotcom how the past couple of months have treated him, while keeping in mind his takedown occurred without SOPA or PIPA even surviving the hearings stage.

    As for the new CISPA version of Internet regulation, the video’s YouTube page features an important nugget of information, something that should confirm your opposition to these kinds of bills:

    The SOPA-like bill would give companies the power to collect information on their subscribers and hand it over to the government and all they have to do is request it.

    Isn’t your privacy worth more to you than that?

  • White House Still Opposes SOPA, PIPA

    White House Still Opposes SOPA, PIPA

    The White House appears to mean what it said in March when it told supporters that it’s not ignoring the We the People petitions. As if to affirm that pledge, the Obama Administration restated in the 2011 Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement released today that they still believe that the Protect IP Act and Stop Online Privacy Act introduced in 2011 aren’t such good ideas.

    In a response to a We the People petition in January that targeted the PIPA and SOPA, the White House released a statement then saying that while they it was committed to fighting online privacy, it would not do so in such a way that compromised an “open and innovative internet.” A few days after the White House’s statement, online opposition to the bills culminated with a widespread internet protest on January 18th in which several popular sites, including Wikipedia, reddit, Mozilla, craigslist, et al., commenced with a 24-hour blackout of their sites. Subsequently, the effort was enough to turn the political tide against PIPA/SOPA and the bills were eventually shelved although continue to linger in the shadows of Congress.

    In today’s report, the White House cautiously reiterated its support for bills that target online piracy yet it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk (including authority to tamper with the DNS system), or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet.” The statement continues to say that the Administration is open to the idea of working alongside Congress in order to make sure that these issues are “addressed in a manner that takes in account the challenges and opportunities of the Internet and that is consistent with the Administration’s goals and public policy principles.”

    At this point, however, any further debate and talk about the inequity of PIPA and SOPA would appear to be moot since a day after the internet’s constituency drove back the bills, the federal government decided it didn’t need such legal implements in order to shut down websites. So really, the White House can say they oppose SOPA all they want – it doesn’t really mean anything anymore.

    At any rate. Here’s the full Intellectual Property Enforcement report.

    White House Annual Intellectual Property Report

    [Via Mashable.]

  • Reddit Creates The Freedom Of Internet Act

    Reddit Creates The Freedom Of Internet Act

    The users of Reddit are more than just Internet warriors who fought bravely against SOPA and PIPA with the legendary Net blackout of January. They are also amateur legislators which they have proven by writing a law of their own.

    The law is called “The Freedom of Internet Act” and it seeks to be what SOPA and PIPA aren’t – a level-headed approach to dealing with copyright infringement on the Internet. What makes this law creation unique is that it’s posted in an open Google docs file that anyone can edit it. It’s similar to what the OPEN Act has done by allowing users to propose changes to the bill.

    The law has numerous articles that deal with various facets of Internet law and culture that the creators obviously feel must be considered in any proposed law. The first article addresses the most important concern right out of the gate – censorship. The law proposes that government can not pass any law that imposes censorship unless it meets strict criteria. That criteria is illegal content that is defined as thus:

    “All false information stored to misguide, scam, cause damage, trap users financially, or mutilate collateral are illegal content.”

    On the subject of culpability, the bill proposes that the only persons who should be held accountable for illegal content are those that upload it – not those that download such data.

    On a different note, only if the content contains 40 percent of the original work can it be considered as copyright infringement.

    ISPs can not be held accountable for the uploading of illegal content under their service. ISPs are also not allowed to monitor the data of their users. They also can not filter, restrict or distort any data being transferred over their network.

    As a final protection for the user, they can not be held accountable if they can prove that they didn’t know the work they were uploading was illegal.

    A short, but important article restricts ISPs or governments from being able to throttle users’ Internet as a form of punishment.

    The content removal section is somewhat similar to what is already in the DMCA except for a few key exceptions. Notice for the removal of content must be sent within 30 days of the deletion of the content. This will allow the uploader of said content to appeal the accusation that his content is illegal.

    On that note, ISPs must give notice to uploaders of infringing content that their content has been flagged for takedown.

    The bill also includes a provision that deals with groups who claim to own content that they don’t. I’ll let the bill itself explain in all its glory:

    Willful false claims of copyright infringement shall be treated and tried as equivalent to copyright infringement, and will only be diminishable on the sole condition of proof provided and accepted by a ruling court that supports the defendant’s reason for claiming infringement. No law or act shall diminish the liability wrongful claims of infringement shall carry as set forth by this act.

    To perhaps stop the recent trend of people in foreign countries being tried in the U.S., the bill states that anybody accused of infringement must be tried in the country where they committed the crime.

    In what would be a major change to current digital crime proceedings, there is a provision that says the courts can not use IP or MAC addresses as evidence to identify users as they are not reliable enough to determine identity.

    One of the biggest wins for the average citizen, however, is that the bill would require the government to reimburse any damages caused during the seizure of their property if it’s used as evidence.

    Article seven details the rights of the user. The biggest right is of course anonymity on the Internet. Everything a user does on their computer is considered private under the provisions of this bill with the only exception being if they are suspected of illegal acts.

    It also protects the right of the user to use proxies for anonymous Internet use. The state would also not be allowed to make any assumptions on the actions of a user based solely upon their efforts to protect their privacy.

    The liability of the user that has committed infringement can only be 110 percent of the calculated damage at market level.

    There’s more to this proposed bill and it’s constantly changing. Be a part of the creation at the Google Docs page for it. You can also join the conversation at the FIA subreddit.

    I highly doubt that a crowdsourced bill would ever be considered before Congress, but I’m willing to believe in anything.

    Do you think Reddit’s bill is a better alternative to even the OPEN Act? Or is it just wishful thinking on the part of the Internet? Let us know in the comments.

  • ACTA Referred To European Court of Justice

    Is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty, otherwise known as ACTA, compatible with what is referred to as the EU’s “fundamental rights and freedoms?” Some EU officials are asking that very question, and to help determine the answer, EU trade chief Karel De Gucht indicated the highly-flammable — at least from a social sense — piece of legislation would be referred to the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.

    What happens if, after careful deliberation, the EU court decides that ACTA is not compatible with the rights De Gucht discussed? Does that delay, if not entirely kill the ratification process? While there have been a number of countries to sign the ACTA treaty — The United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, to name a few — would a ruling against it stop the treaty in its tracks? Considering the fact that ACTA has to be ratified by the European Union parliament, proceedings that are supposed to happen this summer, such a ruling could derail the oft-protested treaty.

    De Gucht’s discussed his motivations during a press conference, via Reuters:

    “This morning, my fellow commissioners have discussed and agreed in general with my proposal to refer the ACTA agreement to the European Court of Justice,” said EU trade chief Karel De Gucht, referring to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

    “We are planning to ask Europe’s highest court to assess ACTA’s compatibility with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and information or that of protection,” he told a regular news briefing.

    While the Polish government initially tried to downplay the massive amount of protesting ACTA received, especially from their citizens, it’s clear the global backlash against ACTA has not fallen on deaf ears.

    While some countries have put their signatures on the treaty, a number of prominent members of the European Union — Germany, Poland, the Netherlands — have decided to delay their commitment, at least until the EU parliament weighs in. Now that the European Court of Justice is involved, their position may be revealed a little sooner.

    Hat-tip to Marcelo Bing for the lead image.

  • The Anti-SOPA System Administrator’s Todo List

    The Anti-SOPA System Administrator’s Todo List

    Todo lists are a great way to plan ahead for the day’s events. It gives an idea of how to divvy up your time. What, however, would such a list look like for a systems administrator who is firmly against SOPA/PIPA and any other Internet regulation the United States government introduces?

    It might look something like this, courtesy of the news section at YCombinator.com:

    Today’s sysadmin todo list:

    0. Get corporate membership with EFF.
    1. Identify all applications with user-generated content.
    2. Move all associated domains to a non-US based registrar.
    3. Migrate DNS, web serving and other critical services to non-US based servers.
    4. Migrate yourself to a non-US controlled country.

    I’m sorry for US sites and users. Your government is hell-bent on turning the internet into a read-only device like TV, easily regulated and controlled. The population will be required to sit quietly and keep their eyes glued on the screen so they don’t miss the ads, with any infringers deemed terrorists and pedophiles and thus deserving of summary punishment by DHS squads.

    Hopefully the internet will route around the damaged segment, and the rest of us can continue to enjoy the amazing interactivity it has brought our society.

    As TechDirt points out, the attitude of the government, as well as the content industry’s lobbyists, is one that doesn’t seem to mind if these very valid criticisms exist. TechDirt refers to at as the “what’s the big deal” attitude, and it’s quite fitting, especially when you consider the haphazard disregard federal law enforcement couldn’t care less about the multitude of gigabytes worth of legitimate content on Megaupload.

    All they cared about was taking down a notorious file-infringing service.

    There is one caveat to the sysadmin todo list, and it concerns moving to a non-US DNS servers and registrars. After SOPA took its initial public relations beatdown, Lamar Smith quickly surfaced to amend the bill to only target foreign sites. So while the government might not be able to seize a site with the characteristics the todo list describes, if SOPA were to pass, they could very well block it.

    Whatever the case, if you’re at all worried about getting seized, perhaps a move to another non-US-based service might be in order.

    Lead image courtesy.

  • Anonymous Continues Anti-ACTA Attack On U.S. Government

    At some point, there’s going to be a massive, mainstream media-friendly bust where a bunch of 20-somethings are led away for the world to see, with FBI officials holding press conferences claiming the scourge of the Anonymous hacker group has been eliminated. Until that time, however, sit back and enjoy the ride as Anonymous takes down yet another site, all in an effort to speak out against SOPA, PIPA, and, of course, ACTA.

    Anonymous’ latest round of victims included websites serving the Federal Trade Commission (business.ftc.gov), as well as the follow FTC consumer protection sites, Consumer.gov and NCPW.gov, which highlights National Consumer Protection Week. As of this posting, all of the sites are still down. As is normally the case, Anonymous boasted about the takedowns on their social media communication outlet of choice, Twitter:

    @AnonymousIRC
    AnonymousIRC    PWND ROOT’D AND RM’D http://t.co/WuNcaYZt and many many others #Anonymous #AntiSec #OWS #ACTA 8 hours ago via LulzTweeter ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @AnonymousIRC
    AnonymousIRC    ohai, other one PWND ROOT’D AND RM’D http://t.co/NodvZF3q and many many others more #Anonymous #AntiSec #OWS #ACTA 8 hours ago via LulzTweeter ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @AnonymousIRC
    AnonymousIRC    FTC ROOT’D [Video used on the defacement] http://t.co/grb074xg #Anonymous #AntiSec #OWS #ACTA #CocksAlwaysCocks 8 hours ago via LulzTweeter ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    This is about as close we’ll get to a press conference from the jaded Anonymous group, so for those of you who want to delve into the subject in order to find out what motivates this group, you should probably go the Twitter route and use direct messages. Besides, it’s pretty clear what pushes Anonymous into action — dissatisfaction with the establishment and their attempts to regulate the Internet, among other things.

    The group also posted a manifesto of sorts over at Pastebin.com, which begins eloquently enough with the following greeting, “Dear Fuctarded Troglodyte Clusterfuck (FTC).” From there, the fun really begins:

    Even more bothersome than your complete lack of competence in maintaining your own fucking websites and serving the citizens you are supposed to be protecting, is the US federal government’s support of ACTA. You really want to empower copyright holders to demand that users who violate IP rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated? You really want to allow a country with an oppressive Internet censorship regime to demand under the treaty that an ISP in another country remove site content? Well, we have a critical warning for you, and we suggest you read the next few paragraphs very, very closely.

    If ACTA is signed by all participating negotiating countries, you can rest assured that Antisec will bring a fucking mega-uber-awesome war that rain torrential hellfire down on all enemies of free speech, privacy and internet freedom. We will systematically knock all evil corporations and governments off of our internet.

    While this does go on for a few more paragraphs, the closing of the previous tells you everything you need to know about the mindset of Anonymous and those who are outspoken against the infamous Internet regulation bills and treaties. They, like many in the 20-something generation, feel the Internet does indeed belong to them.

    Is this way of thinking wrong?

    The group also posted a video during their takedowns, which also does a good job of relaying their message:


    While the video is fun, the fact that it does feature a commercial at the beginning is humorous. The revolution may not be televised, but it does need to be monetized, apparently.In light of these latest Anonymous shenanigans, what are your thoughts?

    Are their actions counterproductive or just the kind of message the U.S. government needs to see?

  • Bulgaria Joins the No ACTA Crowd

    Did this past weekend’s anti-ACTA movement in Europe get their message across to the ruling governments? While the fallout is still being measured, at least one country has decided to say “no” to the treaty, putting them with the small, but growing group of foreign governments that, at least at this point, have rejected ACTA.

    The latest country to deny ACTA ratification is Bulgaria, but it appears as if Bulgarian government officials are taking the same approach Germany’s government did. That is, ACTA won’t be signed at least until the EU parliament weighs in. There is, however, some resistance to the nature of the treaty itself, as well as a reluctance to help an industry that “has not adopted to the digital age.”

    Over at RT.com, the comments from Bulgaria’s Economy and Energy Minister Traicho Traikov indicate Bulgaria is in no hurry to ratify ACTA:

    Bulgaria’s Economy and Energy Minister Traicho Traikov says Sofia will not ratify the agreement until the EU member states elaborate a joint position on the document.

    Bulgarian authorities have made the decision to halt the already signed agreement after street protests. Thousands marched through the capital Sofia and 16 other cities.

    Apparently, citizen-led public dissent is still an effective method to get your message out. In light of the #Occupy Wall Street movement, who knew? In this day and age of American protesters getting peppered sprayed in the face for peaceful demonstrations, it’s refreshing to see there are still some governments that listen and give credence to the wants and desires of the citizens.

    What a novel concept.

    In order to solidify Bulgaria’s postion in the ACTA fight, Minster Traikov said, “Authors’ copyright should not be placed above human rights.” If he said that in the United States, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd would threaten Traikov with a lack of financial support from the film industry going forward.

    As RT.com indicates, Bulgaria is the sixth EU state to reject ACTA, joining the likes of Germany, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Estonia and Cyprus.

    Lead image courtesy of wait74 over at Flickr.

  • CIA.gov Not Available, Anonymous Takes Credit [Updated]

    Update: CNN is reporting that sites affiliated with Mexico’s mining ministry and the state of Alabama were also taken down. They’re also reporting that the CIA’s site was back up by this morning, but cia.gov is currently down from where we are sitting.

    What you’re seeing is a screenshot of what happens when you try to access the CIA’s website — CIA.gov — as of the time of this posting. As per usual, Anonymous is taking credit for the takedown.

    No, the outage probably won’t last for a long period of time, but even if Anonymous is erroneously taking credit for the site being down, the connection is being interrupted by some entity. As the news of this particular takedown spreads, it will inevitably lead back to the “is Anonymous helping when they do things like this,” and while that’s valid, the ease at which they, or whatever entity they are covering for, accomplishes these takedowns says a great deal.

    For one, these nuisances, even if they are using tools developed by “real hackers,” have a knack for taking down big targets and doing it in a very public manner:

    @YourAnonNews
    Anonymous    CIA TANGO DOWN: https://t.co/b7vU3R1B #Anonymous (via @RT_America) http://t.co/Tl0p1QK0 1 hour ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Furthermore, these takedowns are making an absolute mockery of the security the United States government uses to “protect” their multitude of sites. This isn’t a small, random government department being temporarily removed from the Internet, it’s the CIA, perhaps one of the most infamous, most powerful acronyms in world, especially the one we currently reside in.

    And Anonymous, or whatever group they are covering for/taking credit for, is toying with their secure web presence.

    The only problem is, the CIA has many more resources than these hacker groups do, and if they find out who is responsible, we’ll probably never find out about it, but the world will, in all likelihood, have one less hacker to worry about.

    H/t to Boing Boing for the heads up.

  • Study: Piracy Does Not Harm U.S. Box Office Sales

    Despite the claims of the MPAA and other supporters of SOPA and PIPA, file-sharing does not negatively impact box office sales in the U.S., according to a new study conducted by economists from Wellesley College and the University of Minnesota.

    The focus of the study is on lag times between U.S. release and foreign release. The study found that longer gaps between a movie’s release in America and its release in foreign countries led to increased piracy in those countries, and correspondingly lower box office sales. The study estimates that pre-release piracy impacted foreign box office sales by as much as 7%
    In the U.S., however, box office sales were not impacted by piracy at all. The study concludes that the impact of piracy is driven primarily by the lack of legal availability of content in foreign markets.

    The study was conducted by economists Brett Danaher and Joel Waldfogel. Danaher is an assistant professor of economics at Wellesley College. Waldfogel is a professor of applied economics at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. The paper is currently under peer review preparatory to publication in an academic journal. Here is the abstract:

    Hollywood films are generally released first in the United States and then later abroad, with some variation in lags across films and countries. With the growth in movie piracy since the appearance of BitTorrent in 2003, films have become available through illegal piracy immediately after release in the US, while they are not available for legal viewing abroad until their foreign premieres in each country. We make use of this variation in international release lags to ask whether longer lags – which facilitate more local pre-release piracy – depress theatrical box office receipts, particularly after the widespread adoption of BitTorrent. We find that longer release windows are associated with decreased box office returns, even after controlling for film and country fixed effects. This relationship is much stronger in contexts where piracy is more prevalent: after BitTorrent’s adoption and in heavily-pirated genres. Our findings indicate that, as a lower bound, international box office returns in our sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of pre-release piracy. By contrast, we do not see evidence of elevated sales displacement in US box office revenue following the adoption of BitTorrent, and we suggest that delayed legal availability of the content abroad may drive the losses to piracy.

    Some entertainment companies are already becoming aware of the losses caused by delaying international releases. The BBC network in recent years has begun airing some of their most popular shows (e.g., Doctor Who and The Graham Norton Show) on BBC America on the same day that they air in the UK.

  • Germany Delays Signing ACTA

    Germany Delays Signing ACTA

    Have all the anti-ACTA protests started to sway European politicians? Maybe this weekend’s plans for mass protest is what did it, but there does appear to be some headway being made against the overreaching attempts at Internet regulation that have permeated throughout the collective social conscious.

    According to various reports, Germany will not be signing the controversial treaty, at least not anytime soon. Perhaps the Germany is waiting for the EU parliament to issue its vote of consent, but that won’t happen until later this year, sometime in the summer.

    According to a Google translation of an article appearing in Spiegel.de, German government officials offered the following response for their ACTA delay:

    The minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP), has now made ​​it clear that in Germany first before a decision is to decide the EU Parliament. “It is good that the public debate about ACTA, both on and offline so committed is done,” the justice minister said on Thursday. “The EU must now decide whether it needs ACTA and wants,” said Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. “This must be approved by the European Parliament only once. All controversial issues are being discussed at European level and must now be answered.”

    While the translation is responsible for the broken English-like response, it appears as if Germany’s government officials won’t act until the controversy surrounding the bill is addressed. Conversely, it also seems as if the German government is waiting on the EU parliament to weigh in before their vote is offered.

    While that may indeed be the case, the fact German officials are acknowledging the controversy surrounding ACTA and other Internet regulatory treaties and laws, which indicates the protests are indeed being noticed. With that in mind, if the following Hatebreed masterpiece isn’t the theme song of the anti-ACTA movement, something needs to change:


    Keep fighting the good fight, you Guy Fawkes-masked groups.