Web Censorship Bill sails through Senate Committee - Polidicks

[release]On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.” COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade. The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank. Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year. Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site — [b]links alone will qualify a site for digital death.[/b] Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group. [b]In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.[/b] The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites. [b] Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.” (pdf.) The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.” (pdf.) Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.” (pdf.) Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.” [/b] And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.” Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.” (original emphasis.) Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, “the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic — and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.” The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,” Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton’s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States. To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: “The Internet is not at risk of being censored. But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.” “Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,” wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has “represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.” “Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.” The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, “to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.” Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. [/release] Sauce: [url]http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/coica-web-censorship-bill/[/url] :ohdear:

What the fuck. Fuck off Government.

:ohdear: indeed.

uh oh

Won't make it through the senate - the anti-big government conservatives may actually come in handy for something

Won't happen, censorship is against the freedom of speech, atleast I think it is.

Your avatar fits so well with this Gubbinz How the hell is Soundcloud a breach of copyrights? I thought you were only allowed to distribute your own music

Son of a motherfucking bitch. I hate the fucking government. They all need to go choke on a huge dick. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] Honestly, doesn't the government have better shit to worry about rather than copyright law?

[url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1028079-COICA-passes-Judiciary-Committee]I'm ahead of you by an entire day.[/url]

Do they really think they're going to stop the people from uploading and downloading things from a file sharing website? If they do, they're fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26158217]Do they really think they're going to stop the people from uploading and downloading things from a file sharing website? If they do, they're fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Did you read the OP? No one said government employees were good people. They're a bunch of crotchety old men that probably don't even use the internet aside from CNN.com or foxnews.com. So this won't affect them. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] But seriously, if they block Facepunch, I just may kill myself. :suicide:

[QUOTE]Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.” (pdf.) The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.” (pdf.) Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.” (pdf.) Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.”[/QUOTE] It's getting alot of shit so I really doubt it's gonna get any further.

[QUOTE=faze;26158236]Did you read the OP? No one said government employees were good people. They're a bunch of crotchety old men that probably don't even use the internet aside from CNN.com or foxnews.com. So this won't affect them. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] But seriously, if they block Facepunch, I just may kill myself. :suicide:[/QUOTE] Lets run for senate. together using our internet names

[QUOTE=faze;26158236]Did you read the OP? No one said government employees were good people. They're a bunch of crotchety old men that probably don't even use the internet aside from CNN.com or foxnews.com. So this won't affect them. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] But seriously, if they block Facepunch, I just may kill myself. :suicide:[/QUOTE] We can only blame the way we run the system for the reason as to why they're crotchety old men.

[QUOTE=c0nk3r;26158299]Lets run for senate. together using our internet names[/QUOTE] K, brb. Making a campaign. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26158348]We can only blame the way we run the system for the reason as to why they're crotchety old men.[/QUOTE] No, it's them who run the show mate.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26158217]Do they really think they're going to stop the people from uploading and downloading things from a file sharing website? If they do, they're fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Stop? No. Reduce? Totally. You can't totally stop anything, but you can greatly reduce it.

What a bunch of cocksuckers. If this passes there better be some damn riots I can join in on, this is some bullshit.

Great job actually reading the whole thing. [QUOTE=Gubbinz96;26157892][release]On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime.[/quote] In short, they aren't going to close random sites because they feel like it. Only ones that revolve around piracy or illegal file-sharing. Oh yeah, totally unbiased article too. [quote]The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”[/quote] And there's much more bias, throughout that article and the entire source site. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=RedDemon;26159724]What a bunch of cocksuckers. If this passes there better be some damn riots I can join in on, this is some bullshit.[/QUOTE] Get out.

[QUOTE=RedDemon;26159724]What a bunch of cocksuckers. If this passes there better be some damn riots I can join in on, this is some bullshit.[/QUOTE] It will just a be a riot of 4channers with signs comprised of dumb memes.

All this internet safety/censorship stuff is getting way to fuckin far.

Meanwhile in Britian the high court is thinking about loosening copyright laws

I thought America didn't do censoring. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] How [I]can [/I]this even pass?

[QUOTE=TurbisV2;26160556]I thought America didn't do censoring. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] How [I]can [/I]this even pass?[/QUOTE] You've never watched American tv have you?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;26158072]Won't happen, censorship is against the freedom of speech, atleast I think it is.[/QUOTE] Dunno anymore...the federal government seems to believe it has the right to force people to buy a product now, which is also unconstitutional...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s[/media]

Some news that came to me in email: [quote]<CUT> -- big news! Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as "a bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet and pledged to "do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate." Wyden's opposition practically guarantees the bill is dead this year -- and next year the new Congress will have to reintroduce the bill and start all over again. But even that might not happen: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Hollywood's own senator, told the committee that even she was uncomfortable with the Internet censorship portion of the bill and hoped it could be removed when they took it up again next year! This is incredible -- and all thanks to you. Just a month ago, the Senate was planning to pass this bill unanimously; now even the senator from Hollywood is backing away from it. But this fight is far from over -- next year, there's going to be hearings, negotiations, and even more crucial votes. We need to be there, continuing to fight. We're doing everything we can: working with key staffers to remove the most egregious parts of the bill, lobbying more members of Congress to speak out against this bill, and insisting on hearings so the whole Senate can learn about how dangerous this is. And, of course, we'll keep working with you to make sure more people hear about this bill and tell their senators.[/quote]

:geno:

As an Australian we were really damn close to getting an internet filter, hope this doesn't happen at all to you Americans.

Not going to pass, not even close. Yeah, it has "cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade." which for them is like losing 10c of 10 dollars.

[QUOTE=AWarGuy;26161687]As an Australian we were really damn close to getting an internet filter, hope this doesn't happen at all to you Americans.[/QUOTE] The bill that the US is proposing would allow them to shut down foreign owned sites as well. It isn't a filter, it allows them to take down any web site registered anywhere in the world, for the entire world. We need an ICANN equivalent in every country so this can't happen.