Originally Posted by chaymus
It's worse than bad. For a country that claims freedom is a goal this is pretty Orwellian. Imagine you own a drum site and people want to upload videos of things they find to get help understanding the lick. (Educational purpose and fair use for courts). Now what they didn't know is they uploaded something the RIAA owns the copyright of and they suspect they're losing profit by your supposed fair use. Rather than requesting that users post getting pulled, your DNS (entire website) is automatically routed to a black hole. All of this is done at the request of the content owner, no need to get it court-approved before blocking, or realistically give the drum website owner a chance to pull it first.
The problem is the ambiguity in the writing. Once people start blocking the DNS the drum website owner can offer their own DNS router that will continue to work. It is just shy of telling everyone a centralized internet is on the way out.
By enforcing loose copyright protection at a protocol and centralized backbone it's a serious botch of someone who doesn't know what they're really dealing with.
Obligatory car analogy: Ford decides used cars are cutting into their profits and pass a bill than a used car on the road infringes and should be shut down by an automated tire trap. As cars pass by they don't bother to tell the driver, and don't really care if it's a Ford or not. People begin building private roads where Ford has no jurisdiction.
AFAIK, they dropped the DNS part already.
The scary part, from what I can tell, is that it makes site owners responsible for links to content that may infringe. You think Bernhard has the time or resources to review every post and remove links?