[quote=wired.com]Who says Congress never gets anything done?
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 ([URL="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:"]COICA[/URL]) 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 [URL="http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004/04/63263"]suing college students[/URL]. They’ve tried [URL="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/open-source-napster-resurrected/"]suing internet startups[/URL]. Now they want the federal government to essentially act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates.
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 essentially 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.
Among the sites which 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 — links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Webites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer filesharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group.
In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.
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 the DNS to cease operation for suspected websites both foreign as well as domestic. It would also create a blacklist of censored websites.
Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and interest groups from across the political spectrum have denounced the bill. Forty-nine [URL="http://www.publicknowledge.org/letter-law-professors-opposing-coica"]prominent law professors[/URL] called it “dangerous.” (pdf.) The [URL="http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/LawProfCOICA.pdf"]American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch[/URL] warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.” (pdf.) Several dozen of the [URL="http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/COICA_internet_engineers_letter.pdf"]most prominent internet engineers[/URL] 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 [URL="http://www.dontcensorthenet.com/"]prominent conservative bloggers[/URL], 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.”
And Tim Berners-Lee, [URL="http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?source=td"]who invented the world wide web[/URL], 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 forty-nine law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions [I]without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content[/I].” (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 [URL="http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/clinton-assails-censorship-unveils-new-u-s-internet-freedom-po/19325778/"]her landmark speech[/URL] 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, Kobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse.) Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as well as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/18/conservatives-should-support-coica/2/"]Thursday on The Daily Caller[/URL]: “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, [URL="http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/groups-urge-hearing-on-online.php"]praised Leahy for his work[/URL], “to insure 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, [URL="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=C&cid=N00009918&newMem=N"]according to the Center for Responsive Politics[/URL].[/quote]
America: Protecting our freedoms, one censored website at a time. :patriot:
[URL="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/coica-web-censorship-bill/"]Source is here.[/URL]
This is not good.
-snip-
No really I'm against this law. I'm just getting ahead with the doublethink.
It was fun while it lasted
1984, here we come!
In B4 Repealing due to constitutional rights
The Judiciary Committee is not the entire floor of the Senate. This is like 4 people voting on it.
If this prevents DRM from being added to games, good.
But DRM will still be added to games regardless probably.
Oh well, Dead drops are gunna be very popular now:[U]
[url]http://deaddrops.com/[/url]
[/U]
[quote]COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law.[/quote]
misleading title
So what will happen to TPB then?
Nill
This should never be passed. Only 2 things will come of this:
1. Piracy will go back to physical copies
2. Shit will happen eventually when the government shuts down a site that isn't even illegal, [b]which is exactly why laws protecting our freedoms, such as freedom of speech, exist.[/b]
[QUOTE=Detective P;26141652]This is not good.[/QUOTE]
At face value, I agree.
But in the long run I question if it might actually be beneficial.
This WILL FAIL to prevent piracy sites in any meaningful fashion despite being at the extreme end of the spectrum of what the government can do.
So when the "nuclear" option is pursued and the "threat" remains, the only course of action is to cease throwing tax dollars at it.
Basically this is akin to napalming the entire nation of Mexico in order to stop drugs from entering into the United States, only to find that it has zero effect on the rate at which they come in anyways.
If you can't beat 'em...
Hmm, I know youtube is at risk should this go all the way through, but what about garrysmod.org and the Toybox (cloudscript)?
[del]misleading title[/del] title is a lie.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26141794]Hmm, I know youtube is at risk should this go all the way through, but what about garrysmod.org and the Toybox (cloudscript)?[/QUOTE]
I don't see youtube being at risk. They will probably just start screening every single video that users upload.
I kind of support this, piracy is rampant now and there is no excuse for doing it.
People that rate me disagree are the same people that say "It's okay if I pirate it because I wouldn't have boughten it to begin with".
Misleading title. It made it through a committee in the Senate, which is 19 people (split 12/7 between Democrats and Republicans). It hasn't even been brought before the Senate yet. Then (for those non-Americans and Americans not familiar with the process) it has to be voted on by the House of Representatives, and then finally has to be approved by the President. I foresee major obstacles in even getting the Senate to pass it, let alone the Republican-dominated House.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26141977]Misleading title. It made it through a committee in the Senate, which is 19 people (split 12/7 between Democrats and Republicans). It hasn't even been brought before the Senate yet. Then (for those non-Americans and Americans not familiar with the process) it has to be voted on by the House of Representatives, and then finally has to be approved by the President. I foresee major obstacles in even getting the Senate to pass it, let alone the Republican-dominated House.[/QUOTE]
offtopic, but can you please explain to me the difference between congress and the senate?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26142114]offtopic, but can you please explain to me the difference between congress and the senate?[/QUOTE]
Congress is the term used for our legislative branch that consists of both The House of Representatives, and the Senate. Representatives are based on how many people are in a state, and the Senate is two people per state.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26142114]offtopic, but can you please explain to me the difference between congress and the senate?[/QUOTE]
Senate is a branch of congress made up of 2 representatives from each state.
Anyone else thinking Patriot Act for the internet?
:ohdear: Where would I get my linux now?
This is an idiotic law and a threat to democracy and freedom of speech.
I never thought this would even get as far as this, in a civilized nation like USA.
The scary part is, now that the house of reps is full of republicans which are probably all in the pockets of RIAA, this will pass.
I sure hope it doesn't though.
Also misleading title.
[quote]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 — [b]regardless if the website has actually committed a crime[/b][/quote]
I don't like the sound of this at all.
This is the beginning of the end.
[quote]In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet [B]without due process[/B].[/quote]I love how America is progressing.
[QUOTE=starpluck;26142610]I love how America is progressing.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they've almost caught up with Britain.
[QUOTE=starpluck;26142610]I love how America is progressing.[/QUOTE]
This is just one small step to progress.
Wasn't Obama a good idea? Isn't he still working with big companies and still trying for ACTA and the end of net neutrality?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26142114]offtopic, but can you please explain to me the difference between congress and the senate?[/QUOTE]
Full explanation, since earlier ones were brief:
In the US, the Congress is the part of government that makes the laws. It consists of two part - the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Main difference is that the Senate has two Senators per state (100 total right now), while the House has varying representation based on population (between 1 and 53 right now). This admittedly odd system was a compromise made back when the government was first being set up.
Currently, both parts are majority Democrats (Liberals, party of current President), but when the representatives elected this year come in to power in a few weeks, the House will swing to Republican (Conservative) control, which may make this bill more difficult to pass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
