WebProNews

Tag: Protect IP

  • NBC Wants Partners To Support SOPA Or Else

    Apparently, if you want your content to appear on NBC’s family of networks, you had better be resolute in your support of the PROTECT-IP/SOPA bills that are currently polluting the both branches of the U.S. government. According to an email that’s been leaked to the Internet, the NBC family, which includes NBC Universal, NBC Interactive, and all of the distribution properties they own, is adamant that their content suppliers support the anti-piracy acts that threaten the very nature of how the Internet functions.

    The email, which was pointed out by TechDirt, was posted on Emmet Lollis’ Google+ account and there’s really no mistaking NBC’s postion.

    Simply put, NBC wants their content partners to actively support these acts by visiting CreativeAmerica.org, which has a function allowing users to contact their representative to demonstrate just how supportive they are. The email, in its entirety; any bold sections were added by us:

    To Our Suppliers:

    We are writing to ask you for help on an issue that is one our top business priorities – content theft on the Internet, which is a major threat to the strength of our business. Our major guilds and unions are joining us in the fight to keep our businesses strong so that the tidal wave of content theft does not kill jobs. But if the current trend continues, it’s not too strong to say that this threat could adversely affect our business relationship with you.

    We’re writing today to ask you to do two things:

    1) Visit creativeamerica.org, a new initiative to build grassroots support for the fight against content theft, and join the fight. Creative America is a place for the people who make their living in this industry to come together with a single voice to speak out against content theft, and that includes you. In addition to NBCUniversal, the members of this unprecedented coalition are CBS, Disney, Fox, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Viacom, and Warner Brothers, along with AFTRA, the DGA, IATSE, and SAG.

    2) While you are at the creativeamerica.org site, click on the “Contact your Legislator” button to let your representative and senators in Congress know that you support an important new piece of legislation called the PROTECT IP Act, which would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to go after foreign websites that are dedicated to the illegal distribution of our movies and TV shows. The website makes this very easy to do by providing you with a customizable letter along with a tool to let you automatically send a message to your specific legislators, based on your zip code.

    We will be sure to keep you informed about our efforts to fight the growing problem of content theft. You can share your thoughts, concerns, or ideas by sending an email to protectourwork@nbcuni.com.

    Or if you’d like to discuss specific ways you can help, please feel free to contact either Phil Tahtakran in our Washington, DC office at phil.tahtakran@nbcuni.com, or 202-524-6404, or John McKay in New York at either john.mckay@nbcuni.com or 212.664.6202.

    Thank you for your support.

    Sincerely,

    Rick Cotton
    Executive Vice President and General Counsel

    Marcia Haynes
    Executive Vice President, Sourcing

    John Wallace
    President, Media Works_

    Of course, the part that stands out is the threat of business relationship damage. In other words, if a company that supplies NBC with content, giving it its much-need outlet for consumption, doesn’t go out of its way to show support for SOPA/PIPA, there’s a good chance NBC won’t be doing business with that company any longer.

    If that doesn’t sound like strong-arming/blackmail at its finest, someone should provide a better example.

    What’s next? Visits from NBC thugs, threatening to break the legs of partners that don’t believe SOPA/PIPA is an effective means of governing the Internet? As pointed out by TechDirt, not only is NBC’s position incredibly bold, it also borders on hypocrisy:

    When NBC Universal’s General Counsel, Rick Cotton — who famously once claimed that piracy was destroying the lowly corn farmer, since people who watch pirated movies don’t eat popcorn (or something) — is threatening suppliers who don’t sign on? That’s not grassroots. That’s just insane.

    Unfortunately, because NBC’s distribution arm is so strong, it stands to reason most of these content suppliers will play ball and support SOPA/PIPA; although, one hopes these same companies might revolt against NBC’s strong-arm tactics and find another distributor.

    Hey, Netflix is always looking for original content.

  • SOPA’s Internet Censorship Finds Bipartisan Opposition On Twitter

    We’ve been following the massive internet backlash to the SOPA (PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE) bill currently being debated in Congress, and it’s coming from all sides. Not only has the internet community rallied against the bill in the form of online petitions and various sites like Tumblr and Boing Boing devoting graphics to censorship, but tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter and AOL have submitted a joint-letter speaking in opposition to the measure.

    Today, House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi voiced her opposition to SOPA on Twitter. Responding to a question from another user, Pelosi said that we need to find a better solution (presumably speaking of piracy) –

    @NancyPelosi
    Nancy Pelosi    Need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet MT @jeffreyrodman: Where do you stand on Internet censoring and #SOPA? 2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Pelosi, a Democrat, received backup on Twitter from Republican House member Darrell Issa – an influential conservative from California. He responded to Pelosi’s tweet –

    @DarrellIssa
    Darrell Issa    If even we agree… RT @NancyPelosi: Need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet Cc @jeffreyrodman 2 hours ago via Twitterrific · powered by @socialditto

    Issa has been a vocal opponent to the bill, tweeting about “ctrl+alt+delete”ing the measure. He also tweeted out this video of his opposition during the debates taking place in committees as we speak.

    @DarrellIssa
    Darrell Issa    I tweeted last night about my strong opposition to #SOPA…got video of my stand against it in yesterday’s judiciary hearing…stand by 2 hours ago via Twitterrific · powered by @socialditto

    Speaking of Tumblr, they announced today that their efforts led to 87,834 calls to representatives to voice opposition to SOPA. One of those calls even lasted 31 minutes – which signals a pretty healthy discussion.

    It’s interesting to see bipartisan opposition to SOPA, considering that its proponents in Congress have been touting it as a bipartisan effort. What do you think about SOPA? Let us know in the comments.

  • SOPA Meets Massive Resistance

    SOPA Meets Massive Resistance

    The Stop Online Piracy Act, or any of its many variations, something WebProNews has discussed before, is finally meeting a great deal of resistance as various online movements, and the long-awaited push back from entities like Google, Facebook, and Mozilla have (finally?) decided to throw their own weight around.

    Where do you stand concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act? Do you side with the web giants or the government? Does the power SOPA give to stop piracy go too far? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    It looks like the American public is also getting wise about the consequences of such a bill to pass, as the SOPA acronym is currently the top Google Trend. One hopes this isn’t a case of too little, too late. The resistance that’s getting the most coverage has to do with the rebellious responses of a consortium of well-known — and powerful — web companies, all of which banded together to create the following letter as their opening means of disagreement.

    The letter, found under the Protect Innovation TLD, is signed by the following entities:

    Google
    Facebook
    Twitter
    AOL
    eBay
    LinkedIn
    Yahoo
    Zynga
    Mozilla

    The stance of this group is one of disapproval concerning SOPA, and the crux of their position is here, with our own emphasis added:

    We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.

    Essentially, these companies would like to stop piracy as well, they just don’t want it to be under the guise of “The Great Firewall of America,” which is what some entities have started calling SOPA.

    The push back doesn’t stop there, however. With Mozilla, besides co-signing the letter, they also created a page that clearly states their position in relation to SOPA in its current form. The page links to an Electronic Frontier Foundation page that, in part, generates letters of opposition to whatever state representatives are applicable. The page also features valuable information about the potential harm SOPA can cause.

    An example:

    As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users’ attempts to reach certain websites’ URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.

    I urge you to continue reading.

    Google, which also signed the letter of opposition, has also posted about their intentions over at their public policy blog, which includes Google copyright policy counsel Katherine Oyama testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Oyama was scheduled to testify earlier today, and the post has a link to her written and oral testimony.

    An example from the written portion explains Google’s position quite well:

    We support SOPA’s stated goal of providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign rogue websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as written, as it would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that could require monitoring of web sites and social media. Moreover, we are concerned that the bill sets a precedent in favor of Internet censorship and could jeopardize our nation’s cybersecurity. In short, we believe the bill, as introduced, poses a serious threat to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation.

    These more well-known companies are not the only voices of dissension concerning SOPA. Even Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the spirit of the act, and although the White House clearly supports the reduction of online piracy, at least one component of the United States Government disagrees with how SOPA goes about its prevention:


    Biden, apparently, is on the side of the pirates. Levity aside, while he’s not operating from the same stance as Google, Mozilla, et al, but the fact remains, a visible member of the White House has spoken out — quite articulately, I might add — about how the ideas that help give structure to SOPA are harmful and do not represent such standards like freedom and due process.

    It doesn’t stop here, either. Websites all over are using “No Censorship” graphics for their logos, including such well known properties as Reddit and Boing Boing. There are a veritable avalanche of articles speaking out against SOPA as the backlash continues to build.

    If you’re still wondering what all the hubbub is about, watch this video — in its entirety — and if, after finishing it, you still don’t understand why Google and their cohorts are against it, watch it again:


    Remember, if you’re as against SOPA as our Internet benefactors are, there are a number of ways to speak out against it.

    Are you for or against SOPA? Do you stand with the tech industry or not? Does being against SOPA mean you support online piracy? Is there no middle ground? Let us know what you think.

  • A Handy SOPA Infographic

    Do you know why are all the tech companies of note up in arms about the SOPA act? Why have Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Mozilla, among others, banded together to speak out against the SOPA bill that’s currently undergoing hearings at Capitol Hill? Is it simply a matter of wanting to pirate goods without the interference of outside government agencies?

    If you’ve been keeping up, no, it’s not. In fact, the tech companies that are so outspoken against SOPA specifically say they are against online piracy, but they disagree with the way SOPA goes about fighting it. Why would that be? What is contained within SOPA that has companies that normally compete against one another teaming up against a common foe? Hopefully, the following infographic will clear the air.

    Here’s the resized version, which you can click for a full image:

    SOPA Infographic

    Here are two of the more important sections, which I’ve clipped out of the overall graphic, which explains the extent of the “why” concerning the potential for a site being block, or, playing on the word of today, censored:

    SOPA Snippet

    A visitor/user posted a YouTube video of The Beatles performing on the Ed Sullivan Show? It’s your fault for not taking it off, therefore, your site has infringed and is subject to the punishments pointed out in SOPA. So your site’s blocked and your access to ad revenue has been cutoff. Was justice done because you didn’t remove the infringing video in time?

    Another point of concern is the broad, sweeping power SOPA provides affects all kinds of US Internet users:

    SOPA Snippet

    How would you like it if the links you send your friends in emails were subject to censorship, which means the content of them would need to be actively read? Does that appeal to you?

    With the existence of this infographic and the video from the previous article, if you aren’t informed about SOPA, then there’s no one left to blame.


    The information is out there. Go and get it.

  • Obama Threatens To Veto Any Net Neutrality Repeals

    Obama Threatens To Veto Any Net Neutrality Repeals

    Net neutrality, because of extreme corporate influence, has been a contentious issue ever since it was introduced. In fact, the subject has been completely muddied by a lack of understanding from various outspoken anti-Obama groups to the point where a large majority of people who oppose it have no idea what it is they are opposing.

    For further insight into this dilemma, check out the comments from a Breitbart TV piece. Statements like:

    Here’s a thought…maybe since obummer and the socialist have used the internet to over through governments, they want to use net neutrality to make sure they control the internet so nobody over throughs their nwo.

    And:

    Steve sure helped clarify Net Neuter for me. The traffic jam analogy was very good, and how EVIL corporations like Google that are *Okay for the libtarded to operate, potentially unhindered is now made crystal clear for me.

    Help prove the abject ignorance that surrounds the topic. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of how the FCC modeled their approach to net neutrality, but the concept is a vital one, especially for those of us who do not want to see Internet service provision become an offshoot of cable television packages.

    Or those of us who don’t want corporate influence to determine when, where, how, and why we use the Internet.

    With that in mind, the news that President Obama will veto any repeal of net neutrality should be welcomed with open arms from those of us who truly want a free and open Internet. Currently, a group of Republican senators are working hard to remove the bill from the books, following the lead of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Hill explains:

    The House approved a resolution to repeal the rules in April. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and has an additional 42 Republican co-sponsors. It has no Democratic co-sponsors.

    For an extended look at Hutchinson’s misguided approach to Internet legislation, take a look at this gem:


    Once again, the utterly incorrect stance of “net neutrality stifles innovation” is used by Hutchinson, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Hutchinson says she’s against the government controlling the Internet, but she apparently has no issue with companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, and Comcast assuming that role. Of course, if you take a quick look at the corporations that contributed to Hutchinson’s coffers, you’ll find AT&T, one of the companies that would lose control if the FCC’s version of net neutrality survives the legislative process.

    And that’s where Obama’s veto hammer comes into play. The Hill has a quote from the White House, explaining their position quite clearly:

    “The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open,” the White House said.

    It should be noted that Obama’s list of donors include Time-Warner and he has rubbed shoulders both AT&T and Verizon. Nevertheless, at least in the case of net neutrality, Obama hasn’t let these companies influence his stance.

    Now, in regards to PROTECT-IP and other related legislative pieces, perhaps, but not with net neutrality, something his veto talk should indicate quite clearly.

  • Someone Spent $1725 at eBay for an Illegal Copy of Modern Warfare 3

    Someone Spent $1725 at eBay for an Illegal Copy of Modern Warfare 3

    Yes, this is one of the posts where the title says it all, because yes, some amazingly intelligent life form spent almost $2000 for an illegal copy of Modern Warfare 3, which was acquired from eBay. There are a number of things to address about the abject stupidity on display for such impatience, but first and foremost, the game comes out in about three days, which is the amount of time it will take for the item to be shipped to the buyer.

    This means the person was smart enough to acquire almost two grand worth of disposable money, but they weren’t smart enough to do simple math in regards to shipping dates and the game’s official release date, which is November 8th.

    Unfortunately, the eBay auction in question is can no longer be viewed, but Destructoid was kind enough to take a screenshot:

    Modern Warfare eBay

    So, not only was the math ignored, the person who made the purchase overpaid for an item that could very well get them kicked off of Xbox Live, especially if they try to play it online.

    As a Destructoid comment pointed out, someone should give kudos to the seller for making such a nice sum for a game that will be available on Tuesday morning for around $60. Now, it’s true the buyer could’ve duped the seller by bailing out on the sale, but if it actually went through as a legitimate purchase, the person who paid that much for a game that comes out after the weekend deserves all the scorn in the world.

    Something else that occurred to me concerning the purchase of a copy of a game that hasn’t been made publicly available yet, if the PROTECT-IP act goes through, would eBay be liable for facilitating the acquisition of an illegal copy of what’s almost guaranteed to be a huge-selling video game? If illegal streaming sites are punishable for having the content, what about the largest online auction house in the world?

    Hopefully, that little allegory shows just how misguided the PROTECT-IP act is, especially when you have non-tech savvy politicians trying to regulate a technology they clearly don’t understand.

  • PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE Act Gets A White House Petition

    The E-PARASITEs act (formerly known as the PROTECT-IP act) is still floating around Congress, and the threat of its passing has many internet denizens worried.

    The bill would essentially require service providers to block access to certain sites, dependent on the accusation that they promote copyright infringement. The Senate-introduced PROTECT IP Act stated that the target of the new laws were sites that were “dedicated to infringing activities. Once the bill got into the House and was given its fancy new name, the reach was greatly expanded to target any “foreign infringing sites.”

    As TechDirt explains:

    They’re also including an “inducement” claim not found elsewhere in US regulations — and which greatly expands what is meant by inducement. The bill effectively takes what the entertainment industry wanted the Supreme Court to say in Grokster (which it did not say) and puts it into US law. In other words, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be “inducing” infringement, with a very broad definition of inducing, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. Hello, Great Firewall of America.

    Many worry that this will lead to a less-than-free internet that can be censored based on the whims of the entertainment industry. A deeper discussion of the implications of the bill can be found here.

    The E-PARASITE act has a lot of people upset, and some have taken to the White House petition site We the People to express their concern.

    We the People was launched back in September as a way for citizens to propose their own ideas to the White House via online petitions. Last month, The White House responded to a particular petition regarding student loan forgiveness, that turned out to be the backbone of a plan unveiled on the same day by President Obama.

    Not every White House response to these petitions has pleased the petitioners, as one concerning the legalization of marijuana infuriated many on internet communities such as reddit.

    Nevertheless, a new petition has sprung up on the site calling for the administration to “stop the e-parasite act.”

    Here’s what they have to say:

    This Bill would allow essentially allow A Great Firewall of America and would be a shameful desecration of free speech and any sort of reasonable copyright law. The new Law would allow copyright holders to force websites which have any copyrighted material to be blocked by ISP companies around the country, without requiring that the websites be given time to take the offending material down. It would also put pressure on ISP companies to monitor their users like never before, a gross invasion of privacy. This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality. Essentially it’s a censorship law that would end the internet as we know it in America.

    Created on Monday, the petition already has over 7,000 signatures. In order to warrant a response from the White House, it has to reach 25,000 signatures by November 30th. It looks like it will reach its goal way before that deadline.

    Another interesting example of opposition has popped up on the interwebs today, as reddit has unearthed an opposition letter for the PROTECT-IP act, written back in July of this year. The opposition letter is signed by 108 law professors from colleges across 31 different states.

    What are your thoughts on this legislation? Let us know in the comments.

  • Bill Promises To Censor the Internet

    The PROTECT-IP bill is making its way through the halls of the United States government, and besides an unfortunate name change, the bill has been altered by the House of Representatives in such a way, it would essentially allow the government and/or various corporations that feel infringed upon the ability to censor the Internet in whatever way they see fit.

    Should the United States government be allowed to censor the Internet to fit their own whims and desires? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    Perhaps that last part is wrapped in some hyperbole, but then again, after reading portions of the updated bill, as well as some of the reactions to it, it’s pretty clear that, if passed, the American public could soon be using a very different version of the Internet than what we’re used to. The sad thing is, besides a small section of informed reactions to the bill, very few in the American public seem to know and/or care about the implications of PROTECT-IP, which, thanks to input from House of Representatives, now goes by the unfortunately-named E-PARASITE Act.

    Here’s an embed of the document, although, it’s doubtful anyone outside of the tech/Internet sector will actually concern themselves with it:

    E-PARASITES Act

    Even search engines like Google are affected by the contents of the bill. When discussing foreign sites that have been suspected of infringement, the bill’s text reads:

    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.

    Which sounds an awful lot like if a Google search returns a link to a site like The Pirate Bay, they will be asked to remove and/or block the link, thanks to a government order. Over at TechDirt, such governmental actions are being compared to the creation of a Great Firewall of America, obviously taking its queue from China’s iron fist control of Internet content its citizens have access to.

    It should also be noted that foreign sites deemed as being an infringement tool are not given any due process to protect/defend the property. ArsTechnica has more:

    The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.”

    Furthermore, the bill would make programs like the MafiaaFire Redirector, something Mozilla has already successfully backed in the face of Homeland Security pressure, would now be illegal. For those who may not know, when a user tries to access a site that’s been taken down by the ICE squad, those with the MafiaaFire Redirector plugin are redirected to an alternate domain for the ICE’d site.

    Under PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITES, such a program would be under attack from the Attorney General:

    To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief… against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing…

    And these scenarios are just some of the nonsense being introduced in the bill that would give the government power to censor the Internet towards its own desires, all in an effort to protect what TechDirt refers to as “a few legacy companies in the entertainment industry refuse to adapt.”

    If you are unaware of the implications of PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE, allow the following video to educate you:


    Now, before the replies of “you just want to be able to pirate without worry” start pouring in, it should be noted that I have downloaded before, but that’s not what my perspective is about. If I get caught, I’m not going to blame the site that hosted the torrent/file/content I stole. I did the crime, so I should have to pay the price for being caught, and that’s something I’ve long understood.

    It’s not Pirate Bay’s fault I download files, it’s mine, a stance that should clue you in on my position towards censoring the Internet.

    The sad thing is, if you walked down the street of any city in America, asking people their thoughts on the bill, it’s doubtful you’d get much in the way of meaningful reaction. Sure, a few would be informed, but by and large, as long as American Internet users can access Facebook and Twitter, as well as throwaway nonsense like TMZ, they don’t seem to be very interested in informing themselves about who is governing the Internet and the intentions behind the rules being passed.

    With that in mind, when reading about PROTECT-IP, I’m reminded of the following scene from Revenge of the Sith:


    However, instead of applause, it seems that apathy or ignorance rules the day. Where are the #Occupy crowds when you really need them? In other news, considering the powerful telecommunications lobbyists, and the sway they have over the US Government, one wonders why Google hasn’t tried to grease the wheels in favor of an uncensored Internet instead of just hanging out with the Net Coalition crew.

    How much control is too much? Let us know what you think.

    Lead image courtesy.

  • Anonymous Takes Down the US Chamber of Commerce

    As the battle between those who are bound and determined to protect intellectual property (IP) and those who want free reign over the Internet continues to make the news as reports of the Anonymous group lashing out against the potential Protect IP bill hit the wires. In their latest strike against perceived injustices went after the United State Chamber of Commerce’s site.

    Currently, the US Chamber of Commerce’s site is having intermittent success, the latest Anonymous attack was successful in one thing: disrupting the functionality of the site in question. The question is, does this kind of mischief help the causes Anonymous so readily defends or does it make it worse? It’s not like Anonymous’ attacks are going to endear the group to the lawmakers who want to leave a footprint of control on the Internet.

    Is a DDOS attack really going to make Senator Patrick Leahy rethink his position on the Protect IP bill? Incredibly doubtful.

    Nevertheless, Anonymous continued their strategy, which they outlined in the following video:


    They also followed through with their threats, regardless if their desires are met, and the attack was indeed successful. The US Government uses Drupal? Who knew?

    Drupal

    While it may be easy to get behind such shenanigans, the question remains, does Anonymous’ website attack strategy help in relation to meeting their “demands?” Considering the Big Brother approach the U.S. Government is adopting concerning telecommunications, one would think such mischief would only make things worse, while leaving the opposition embattled, determined to nip such behavior in the bud. I’m surprised the RIAA hasn’t tried to plant “stolen files” on Anonymous members’ computers in an effort to facilitate their response. I guess that’s why the group calls themselves “Anonymous.”

    In other news, considering Anonymous actually targeted a government institution, it’s also surprising the lawmakers in question don’t put pressure on Twitter to out the identity of at least the person running the group’s Twitter account, targeting posts like this one. Would they even need warrants to do so? In today’s world, it’s really hard to tell.

  • Anonymous Targets The Protect IP Bill

    Anonymous Targets The Protect IP Bill

    Google is not the only well-known public entity that’s decrying the unfortunate Protect IP bill, a would-be tool of an entertainment industry desperately trying to maintain control over the concept of intellectual property, a muddled subject on the best of days. Keep in mind, the RIAA likes to keep the money they’ve won in previous IP lawsuits, confusing the subject of who they are actually protecting, themselves or the artists?

    As expected, once text of the Protect IP bill hit, the backlash was quick and severe. So much so, it’s hard to believe those that make the laws are even considering the whims of the people they’re supposed to be representing; instead, favoring an entertainment industry that’s shown zero reason to evolve with the times, an industry that cares more about protecting its coffers than it does producing quality entertainment.

    Just ask Roger Ebert and/or the Black Eyed Peas.

    As for the much-maligned IP protection bill, you can find various criticisms all over the Internet, but for these purposes, Tech Dirt and CNet are good starting places. This post isn’t here to discuss the effectiveness or the lack thereof concerning Protect IP. Instead, the backlash has brought us to perhaps the second chapter of this story: Anonymous’ reaction.

    Naturally, the folks in the Guy Fawkes masks aren’t too happy about the implications of the Protect IP bill, and so they’ve decided to fight back like they normally do: by conducting a denial of service attack against the site of the institution Anonymous feels wronged by. In this case, they will be targeting the United States Chamber of Commerce, which sounds like the kind of target Anonymous prefers. However, instead of relying on word of mouth, normally carried by various IRC channels, Anonymous reached out to one of the more outspoken sections of the Internet: Reddit.com.

    The current lead “story” at Reddit concerns a call to arms from the Anonymous army, asking for help in the upcoming attack, called “Operation Payback,”, which takes place on May 23rd, according to the flier. And yes, there is a themed-for-Reddit-flier for the event, which we have:

    Operation Payback
    Click for larger image

    So far, there’s nothing on either of Anonymous’ Twitter accounts mentioning the invitation; however, the Reddit reaction thread is full of responses, with one in particular standing out. In it, user norten asks questions the effectiveness of such Anonymous attacks:

    And DDoS isn’t? It’s exactly shit like this that scares the average voter into thinking the government needs more control to protect them from ‘hackers’. It won’t convince anyone that the internet needs less oversight, and it may sway some the exact opposite way.

    Does Anonymous’ actions only exacerbate the “war” against the Internet or does it help? Whatever the case, it’s hard to deny the logic and common sense being displayed in norten’s response. And then, there’s this perspective from Nick4753:

    Plus, who the fuck cares if the US Chamber of Commerce website is unavailable for 24-48 hours? How many people actually go to that website on a daily basis? The DDOS attacks that are most effective are usually those that cause substantial economic harm because they are aimed at an organization that relies on their website having 24/7/365 uptime. I just don’t see that applying here.

    Is Anonymous targeting the wrong entity? Perhaps their efforts would be better spent engaging Senator Patrick Leahy, one of the chief architects for Protect IP. Just how effective do you think Anonymous’ techniques are? Let us know in the comments.