Elbows Music Blog Community

The revised law's dangerous new provisions
But critics have
already condemned the new version, noting that it not only failed to
remove some of the most dangerous features of COICA, but has also added
expansive provisions that the earlier draft didn't include. TechDirt's
Mike Masnick, for example, notes that the narrower definition of an
"Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" in Protect IP is still both broad and vague. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Abigail Phillips wrote earlier today
that "Despite some salient differences...in the new version, we are no
less dismayed by this most recent incarnation than we were with last
year's draft."

Some concessions by the drafters of Protect IP turn out to be
chimerical. For example, forcing the government to sue the
owner/operator rather than the domain name itself, which reduces the
likelihood of domain names being condemned without giving notice to the
registrant, is an improvement that evaporates on closer inspection.

That's because the attorney general can still go after the domain
directly if the owner/operator does not have "an address within a
judicial district of the United States." But Protect IP applies only to
nondomestic domains--that is, domains registered outside the U.S. Most
such registrations are likely to be by companies or individuals without a
U.S. address.

Like COICA, Protect IP expands the web of enforcement techniques by
requiring advertising networks and financial transaction providers to
cut ties to domains found to violate the law. But the new version now
adds search engines and others to the list of providers who can be
conscripted into complying with court orders. Protect IP would require
"information location tools" to "take technically feasible and
reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible," to remove or disable
access to the site associated with a condemned domain, including
blocking hypertext links to the site.

Another new provision encourages advertising networks and financial
transaction service providers (though not search engines), to cut ties
voluntarily with domains it believes are "dedicated to infringing
activities." As long as such actions are undertaken in good faith and
with "credible evidence," Protect IP immunizes those providers from
liability for damages caused by erroneous actions against domains.

Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that
allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a
domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to
nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party,
like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant
does not have a U.S. address.

That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the
plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order
effectively shutting the site down. Private parties, like the
government, can also use the court order to demand cooperation from
financial transaction providers and Internet advertising services.