Lawmakers have introduced a new bill called the Block BEARD Act, which would allow people who own copyrights to ask a court to block websites that share pirated content from other countries. This bill, supported by several senators, is another attempt to stop people from illegally sharing digital material in the United States.

Under this proposed law, if a copyright owner finds something on a foreign website that copies their work, they can ask a court to label that website as a "foreign piracy site." The court would then decide if the copyright owner is being harmed and if the website's main purpose is to share copied material. If the court agrees, copyright owners could then ask for an order that would tell internet service providers to stop people in the U.S. from visiting those websites. Website owners would have a chance to disagree with this label.

Some groups, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have expressed concerns that blocking websites can accidentally affect many other sites that share the same internet address or computer systems. They also believe that people who want to access these sites can easily get around the blocks by using tools like VPNs. However, supporters of the bill believe it will help protect creative work and consumers from those who steal intellectual property.

Original article (vpns)

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information for a normal person to *do* anything right now. The article describes a proposed bill and the actions that copyright owners and courts might take if it becomes law.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the proposed mechanism of the Block BEARD Act, including how copyright owners could request a court to label a website as a "foreign piracy site" and the criteria the court would use. It also touches on the potential consequences and criticisms, such as the impact on shared IP addresses and the use of VPNs. However, it does not delve deeply into the legal history of such measures or provide a detailed analysis of the technical aspects of website blocking.

Personal Relevance: The topic has potential personal relevance as it could affect internet access and the availability of online content in the future. If enacted, it could change how people access foreign websites, potentially impacting their ability to view or download content. It also touches on the broader issue of intellectual property rights and online piracy, which are relevant to consumers and creators.

Public Service Function: The article serves a limited public service function by informing the public about a proposed piece of legislation that could impact internet usage. It presents both the arguments for the bill (protecting creative work) and concerns raised by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (potential for over-blocking, ineffectiveness against VPNs). However, it does not offer official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice given in the article for a normal person to follow.

Long-Term Impact: The article discusses a proposed law, which, if passed, could have a long-term impact on how the internet is accessed in the U.S. and how copyright is enforced online. It highlights a debate about balancing copyright protection with internet freedom and accessibility.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is largely informative and neutral in tone. It presents different viewpoints on the bill, which might lead to a sense of awareness about ongoing legislative efforts. It does not appear designed to evoke strong emotional responses like fear or helplessness.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not use overtly clickbait or ad-driven language. It presents information about a bill in a straightforward manner.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have provided more value by suggesting ways for individuals to stay informed about the bill's progress, such as linking to official government websites or providing information on how to contact elected officials. It also missed an opportunity to explain in more detail how VPNs work or what other tools might be used to circumvent such blocks, which could educate readers on internet privacy and security. A normal person could find more information by searching for the "Block BEARD Act" on government legislative websites or by visiting the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website for their analysis.

The text uses loaded language to favor the bill. Words like "pirated content" and "illegally sharing" frame the issue negatively for those who share content. This helps the bill's supporters by making their side seem more righteous. It makes the opposing view seem like it supports illegal activity.

The text presents one side's argument as a fact without offering counter-evidence. It states, "supporters of the bill believe it will help protect creative work and consumers from those who steal intellectual property." This is presented as a positive outcome without exploring potential negative consequences or alternative viewpoints on intellectual property protection.

The text uses a strawman trick by simplifying the opposing argument. It states that groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe people can "easily get around the blocks by using tools like VPNs." This implies their only concern is the ineffectiveness of the blocks, ignoring their broader concerns about free speech and overreach.

The text uses passive voice to obscure responsibility. "Website owners would have a chance to disagree with this label" does not specify who is responsible for providing this chance or how it is offered. This makes the process seem more neutral than it might be.

The text conveys a sense of concern regarding the potential for illegal sharing of creative works. This emotion is evident in phrases like "stop people from illegally sharing digital material" and the description of copyrighted material being "copied." This concern is presented as a driving force behind the proposed "Block BEARD Act," aiming to protect creators and consumers. The purpose of this emotion is to highlight a problem that needs solving, encouraging readers to see the bill as a necessary solution.

A feeling of protection is also present, particularly in the supporters' belief that the bill will "help protect creative work and consumers." This emotion is used to build trust in the bill's intentions, framing it as a shield against wrongdoing. The text also introduces a contrasting emotion of worry or caution, voiced by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Their concerns about "accidentally affect[ing] many other sites" and the ease of bypassing blocks with VPNs suggest a fear of unintended consequences and the potential ineffectiveness of the proposed solution. This worry serves to present a balanced perspective, acknowledging potential downsides and encouraging a more critical evaluation of the bill.

The writer persuades by framing the issue as a battle between those who "steal intellectual property" and those who seek to "protect creative work." This creates a clear division, making it easier for the reader to take a side. The use of strong words like "pirated content" and "illegally sharing" evokes a negative emotional response towards the act of piracy, while "protect" and "consumers" evoke positive feelings towards the bill's supporters. The text also employs a form of comparison by contrasting the perceived benefits of the bill (protection) with its potential drawbacks (unintended website blocking, easy circumvention). This comparison aims to influence the reader's opinion by highlighting the perceived strengths of the bill while downplaying or acknowledging the weaknesses as manageable. The overall emotional tone aims to garner support for the bill by emphasizing the need to combat illegal sharing and protect creators' rights, while also acknowledging and addressing potential concerns.