
Anti-SOPA, PIPA lawmakers want Internet Bill of Rights - iProject
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57450392-93/anti-sopa-pipa-lawmakers-want-internet-bill-of-rights/
======
vibrunazo
2\. Openness – digital citizens have a right to an open, unobstructed Internet

10\. Property – digital citizens have a right to benefit from what they
create, and be secure in their intellectual property on the Internet

It seems to me that 10. would often times conflict with 1., 2. and 6. How
would these conflicts be solved?

~~~
Peaker
Why do we need to secure a "right to benefit from what they create"?

If it's not beneficial for authors, they can go do other things. Is there
reason to believe this will lead to a loss of authorship? Abolishing
copyrights would make derivative works' authorship possible, and that's
probably a more significant source of creativity than brand new works. And
we're currently sacrificing it for the former one, as well as various rights.

~~~
alttab
Of course when it comes to busting terrorists on Facebook, it's all "then
don't share it on the Internet"

------
cdvonstinkpot
Proposed bill of rights (with comment section):
<http://opengovfoundation.org/digital-bill-of-rights/>

~~~
J3L2404
"10.Property – digital citizens have a right to benefit from what they create,
and be secure in their intellectual property on the Internet"

~~~
sukuriant
As a photographer, I support this part of the bill, at least in the spirit of
that section. I don't want my photographs used in professional situations
without AT LEAST my permission.

Could you please expound upon what you've said instead of quoting the last
right?

~~~
J3L2404
I support the idea. PG's dismissal of IP in general is quite a bad idea, in my
opinion. Yes it will be very difficult, but I think it is important.

~~~
Natsu
They say that good fences make good neighbors. The problem with IP is that
there's no good way to fence off anyone's property. I'm not convinced there
can be, because maintaining the metaphorical fences require controlling
everyone else's computer.

So I put more hope in new ways of doing business to help artists profit from
their work.

~~~
sukuriant
I suppose, perhaps, our current system can work just fine. Whenever someone is
caught doing something illegal with another person's artwork (for example,
using a photo-manip'd version of a photo that person took as part of a CD
album cover) take them to court for copyright infringement.

From what I can gather, anything more than that is draconian. I mean, what
artist really cares if their artwork is used as someone's desktop background?

------
mtgx
Before they try building that, they should take a look at what these guys have
been building so far:

<http://www.reddit.com/r/fia>

~~~
cdvonstinkpot
You might want to tell them about it in their discussion, so maybe they can
collaborate.

------
antidoh
Simply stating, in law, that the Bill of Rights applies to the Internet would
suffice (I would hope).

As for the right to use the Internet, that would invalidate Three Strikes
laws. So expect major watering down if this ever makes it to a floor vote.

~~~
mayneack
I'd actually rather it make it to the floor without watering down and fail
than make it to the floor in a form that could pass. I'd really love to force
every member of congress to be on the record voting on this.

------
bryze
The ironic thing to me is that in order to enforce the idea of an Internet
Bill of Rights, you have to throw anonymity out the window. How do you defend
an anonymous user in court?

It's not a bad idea, but how do we defend the anonymous users?

~~~
wmf
_How do you defend an anonymous user in court?_

See this specific example: <http://www.aclu.org/national-security/doe-v-
holder>

More generally, groups like EFF can represent the interests of groups of users
without naming them individually.

------
alan_cx
Why cant these damn people just keep their noses out of the internet?
Seriously, leave it alone. Yeah, yeah, I know, but really, poke the thing
enough with a stick and in then end you'll kill it.

~~~
sukuriant
Because someone else won't leave it alone. Someone needs to establish our
rights online. At least they're trying.

------
tete
Because Bills of Rights have a lot of meaning outside of the internet, right?

I know that doesn't really mean we shouldn't have one in first place, but
these days seem to be more about tools than text and I think that's what the
internet community has always been really good at.

We already have a declaration of independence btw:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independence_of_Cyberspace)

