Evil Kraig F (1/10/2012)
There are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.
In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attorney General's office for a temporary injunction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.
I haven't read through the House's version though.
Ditto for me. I didn't research the other laws in there. However I assume the AG will seek a "friendly" court (dem = liberal judge, gop = conservative judge). I do think that overall the courts tend to rule fairly, although their interpretations vary, at least they tend to think about the issues a bit. I don't always agree, and there are exceptions, but having some review is good.
The main problems I have are that this is a gross block. Someone uploads a bad video to YouTube.UK, they don't agree it's infringing, the whole domain is whacked because of one content item.
There are provisions to work with the "portion thereof" the site, but the DNS blocks are an issue to me. I think the proposed alternative I saw which limited the penalties to financial institutions is better. I can also see a bill which requires search engines to block the particular page as being better, rather than the site.
Ultimately it sucks if someone overseas rips you off, but either we have agreements with their government to handle things or we don't. We can't have perfect enforcement and we shouldn't. That's a police state where justice is too swift, hard, and corrupt (absolute power and all that).