[btilly]

That's way overstated. The "curation" that is required here is, "Here is a list of domains that appear in court orders. Don't send ads to them with adsense, don't accept ads linking to these domains, drop them from search rankings." My reading of the law as written doesn't require more drastic action, such as scrubbing out links to them from blogs.

That is, it isn't Google's responsibility to figure out who is infringing. It is Google's responsibility to take a list given to them by US courts and follow a set of directions.

Not a pleasant task, to be sure. But it wouldn't break Google's bank account to do it.

[jerf]

Google can not afford to think just about the law in front of us today. This normalizes an idea they can not allow to take root, that they are responsible for the web. That idea is the existential threat, not the proximate law.

In point of fact quite a lot of sites and startups here are actually in the same danger, it's just Google has the spare resources to actually notice, pay attention, and do something about it, where a bootstrapping startup can not.

[palish]

And you see nothing inherently wrong with that task? (Otherwise, you'd label it as more than an "unpleasant task".)

"Memory Hole" comes to mind.

[btilly]

I do see something wrong with the task. We are being poor stewards of DNS. Given past abuses of the legal system by the RIAA, I am sure they will abuse us further.

I'm also quite uncomfortable with how this will work in practice. The bill has a number of assurances to protect non-US companies from having it be unfairly applied to them. I do not trust those assurances. When a US lawyer sends a subpoena to the DNS provider and the website, and the website (not being in the USA) doesn't show up, the DNS provider still will. I doubt that they will put up a vigorous defense. Based on the fact that two sides showed up and the facts presented were overwhelming, the judge will have little choice about taking action under the bill. (Even though the real facts about the website may be overwhelming in the website's favor, the judge has to judge on the facts presented in court.)

Furthermore I hate the precedent.

But when someone opposes it with ridiculous hyperbole, it is too easy for supporters of the bill to point out how ridiculous the argument is. So the fact that the bill is bad won't stop me from pointing out that the argument is even worse.

[palish]

Thank you for the effort you've put into your reply.

[Maakuth]

I haven't read the bill, but does it really require court orders to be shown? For what I've gathered is typical for this kind of legislation, private companies get privileges to send some kind of takedown notices (see DMCA) to the others. If those went through courts, I wouldn't be as worried.

[btilly]

I haven't read the bill, but does it really require court orders to be shown?

It really does. Read the full text at http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/Bill-PROTECT-IP-Ac... to verify for yourself. Sections 3d and 4d say what courts can order companies like Google to do, and sections 3e and 4e say how to go about punishing Google if it fails to do what it was told to do under 3d and 4d respectively. (The difference between sections 3 and 4 is whether the lawsuit was brought by the attorney general or the copyright holder.)