COICA threatens to black list the Internet

[Necronic]

Maybe I am just being generous, but I'm not sure this is such an 'omg' thing as yall are saying. For a site to be shut down it would have to be:

‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

There are a ton of get out of jail free cards there. The Flikr example listed before wouldn't get hit by this, because:

1) It doesn't market copyrighted material. The bill doesn't say 'anyone who has copyrighted materials on their site will be shut down', the site has to MARKET those materials. So it doesn't meet subsection A.i or A.ii, although I could see someone trying a court case over this. I can't see how they would win in the Flikr example.

2) More importantly, the example is completely outside of subsection B.

Flikr, Youtube, and all sorts of sites would not be affected by this. And they aren't the problem. They are willing to remove copyrighted materials when they appear.

So, what kind of sites would be hit by this? The old Pirate Bay sure would have, as would hundreds of other torrent farms. And let me be the first to say, who gives a shit? Those sites really NEED to be shut down. They are a plague on the IP world.

If your argument against this is 'zomg they're going to shut down the torrent farms!' then please get on the Grow Up Bus. You will never win that argument anywhere other than on a college campus or on the internet. In the real world, people don't put on drunk glasses before looking at the line where theft is.

--------------

But ok....I mean....this could be abused. There needs to be a window of time from when the site gets the injunction before it gets shut down, and there needs to be a clear message left on a censored site saying "hey! this site was shut down by your local Justice Department, and here's why:" followed by an explanation of why it was shut down.

I dunno....maybe I am off on this. I just absolutely hate torrent sites and would like to see them quashed. Except for the prwn ones of course.

 

[AshburnerX]

But ok....I mean....this could be abused. There needs to be a window of time from when the site gets the injunction before it gets shut down, and there needs to be a clear message left on a censored site saying "hey! this site was shut down by your local Justice Department, and here's why:" followed by an explanation of why it was shut down.

I dunno....maybe I am off on this. I just absolutely hate torrent sites and would like to see them quashed. Except for the prwn ones of course.

Here's a good article about why this is a bad bill. It's not just about a bunch of people who want to protect their ability to pirate.

 

[SpecialKO]

1) It doesn't market copyrighted material. The bill doesn't say 'anyone who has copyrighted materials on their site will be shut down', the site has to MARKET those materials.

No it doesn't. You missed the first part in the nest of clauses, 'cause it's written like crap.

primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, [STRIKE]or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator,[/STRIKE] to offer

So any site whose "use" as determined by the DoJ, is to offer A.i or A.ii type goods and services. They added the marketing clause to get around sites that have a different stated use versus their actual use (in their estimation). And once you add this part, B falls into place as well.

So Flickr and Youtube apply, at least as far as being able to use this law to block access.

The problem is specificity, and the general failure of US copyright law to catch up to digital distribution. This bill is kind of like bandaging a gushing wound with small dirty rag. Not only will it not really stop the gushing, you'll probably get infected as well.

 

[Necronic]

Wait, I'm reading that different for you. The way I am reading that is "has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than,...copyright infringement, meaning that the site has no demonstrable use other than for copyright infringement. That doesn't hold true for either sight.

 

[AshburnerX]

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

 

[SpecialKO]

That doesn't hold true for either sight.

Only in your estimation. Under that bill, the DoJ is the sole arbiter of whether that it true or not, and the burden of proof that it isn't lies with the site owners. That's the problem.

---------- Post added at 02:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 AM ----------

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

Bingo. It will take more than a few pages from the pen of Patrick Leahy to fix our copyright system.

 

[Necronic]

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

I think that's a sign that we aren't lawyers.

 

[AshburnerX]

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

I think that's a sign that we aren't lawyers.[/QUOTE]

That too.

 

[Tress]

It took almost a month, but I finally got a response to my email where I expressed concerns about the bill. Here's what Sen. Feinstein (or at least a member of her staff) has to say in response:

Dear Mr. ******:

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.

America's copyright industry is one of our most important economic engines, and giving artists and inventors the incentive to produce cutting edge works is vital to the country. The protection of intellectual property is particularly important to California, which is home to thriving film, music, and high-technology industries. I am strongly opposed to theft of copyrighted works, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated.

On September 20, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (S. 3804), of which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation is carefully crafted to address the growing problem of online piracy and copyright infringement, and would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down websites which are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are sites that, in the bill's language, are "primarily designed or have no demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use other than..." selling infringing or counterfeit goods.

Please know that I have been working with California high-technology businesses and Senator Leahy to improve the bill's language and address the concerns of legitimate high-tech businesses, public interest groups, and others. This legislation is currently awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my staff in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Does this response elicit any particular response from you guys? I was pleased I got a response and somewhat surprised by the fact it wasn't a off-topic generic response. While I'm glad she's "working" with the author of the bill on cleaning up the language, I'm not particularly optimistic about the outcome.

Thoughts?

 

[Covar]

Legislation involving the Internet and computers should be required to be Turing complete.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

Does this response elicit any particular response from you guys? I was pleased I got a response and somewhat surprised by the fact it wasn't a off-topic generic response. While I'm glad she's "working" with the author of the bill on cleaning up the language, I'm not particularly optimistic about the outcome.

Thoughts?

I'd ask if she could give five examples of sites that might qualify to be blacked out and five examples of sites that would not qualify. Then again I questions the ability of lawmakers to even know how to turn on a computer so there you go.

 

[GasBandit]

Uh, that sounded as generic as possible, gently telling you "COICA is a good bill, and only bad people will have to worry about it."

 

[SpecialKO]

Yeah, Tress, that sounds pretty generic. It's a longer version of what I got back from Frank Lautenberg in NJ:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (S. 3804) would give the Department of Justice (DOJ) additional authority to track and shut down websites that provide access to unauthorized downloads, streaming or sale of copyrighted content, and counterfeit goods. It would also authorize the DOJ to file a civil suit against a website and seek a preliminary court order that the website is being used to traffic infringing material, provided that the DOJ publish prompt notice of the suit. In addition, this bill includes procedural safeguards that would allow the website owner or operator to petition the court to lift the order.

This legislation was introduced in the Senate in September 2010 and is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or similar legislation be considered in the full Senate.

Thank you again for contacting me.

FRL: mts

 

[Tress]

Let me clarify. I was worried I would get something more like "Thank you citizen for expressing your viewpoints. I will consider you input in future decisions." The fact that it even mentioned COICA was more than I expected.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Never contacted a representative before?

They have to at least pretend to care, but I will tell you, your reply letter was likely typed by a secretary who was instructed to respond to all messages concerning the bill with the same thing. There are likely other template letters for other bills.

It was pretty generic and didn't really explain anything. I like Covar's idea.

 

[Espy]

It was pretty generic and didn't really explain anything. I like Covar's idea.

Oh hell yes. You get that and I will paypal you enough money to buy a used videogame.

 

[Tress]

Never contacted a representative before?

Actually, I have before. Want to know what I got?

"Thank you ______ for expressing your viewpoints. I will consider you input in future decisions."

That's why I was expecting more of the same. Sadly, this is an improvement for me.

 

[GasBandit]

Never contacted a representative before?

Actually, I have before. Want to know what I got?

"Thank you ______ for expressing your viewpoints. I will consider you input in future decisions."

That's why I was expecting more of the same. Sadly, this is an improvement for me. [/QUOTE]

Ironically, that means you probably actually got read by the actual representative. That's all they have time to type in reply.

When we get these big long winded blatherscyte, that means our mail was fielded, read, and replied to by a staffer/intern.

 

[@Li3n]

I for one love legislation that's meant to stop people that are already breaking the law from breaking the law... especially when it always seem to try to do it by some vague method that hurts the law abiding more.

 

[GasBandit]

I for one love legislation that's meant to stop people that are already breaking the law from breaking the law... especially when it always seem to try to do it by some vague method that hurts the law abiding more.

Like gun control?

(can't help myself!)

 

[Espy]

BADUM-TISH!

 

[@Li3n]

I for one love legislation that's meant to stop people that are already breaking the law from breaking the law... especially when it always seem to try to do it by some vague method that hurts the law abiding more.

Like gun control?

(can't help myself!)[/QUOTE]

When they use the excuse that it's to keep them from the hands of criminals, yeah...


Crazy people getting guns at Wallmart is another thing...


And people buying them in bulk and selling them to mexican drug cartels is another too (because laws should already exist that allow law enforcement to arrest people that do that).

 

[GasBandit]

I'd like you to give examples of these "crazy people buying guns at walmart." I suspect it's a baseless and fallacious appeal to emotion. I also suspect you haven't actually ever tried to buy a gun in your life. It is, actually, a teensy bit more complicated than ordering a cheeseburger, despite what alarmist rhetoric has led some to believe.

 

[@Li3n]

Nah, that was a dig at the fact that Walmart sells ammo, but not M rated games...

And what you are referring to as a "teensy bit more complicated" is gun control...

has the internet jaded you so much that when someone responds to a humorous jab of yours with another jab you assume they must be 100% serious?!

 

[Covar]

Wal-Mart sells M rated games... rly:

 

[@Li3n]

Whatever the rating was they didn't... never bothered with learning the rating thing... if i even have a kid i'll just find out what's in the game myself 10x.

 

[GasBandit]

Nah, that was a dig at the fact that Walmart sells ammo, but not M rated games...

And what you are referring to as a "teensy bit more complicated" is gun control...

has the internet jaded you so much that when someone responds to a humorous jab of yours with another jab you assume they must be 100% serious?!

It wasn't a joke. It was a fallacious exaggeration to advance a political viewpoint. You're sure backpedalling a lot lately.

 

[Chibibar]

well... BBC reports that the Ministry approved the idea of two tier internet...
BBC News - Minister Ed Vaizey backs 'two-speed' internet

Hopefully this stays an idea cause if two tier DOES exist, it makes it easier to control. (that is why I attach to this thread. It kinda relate)

 

[Covar]

Whatever the rating was they didn't... never bothered with learning the rating thing... if i even have a kid i'll just find out what's in the game myself 10x.

You mean AO, aka Porno games? yea, imagine that.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, the sell ammo but not porno. What's your point?

 

[strawman]

The more you tighten your grip, USA, the more internet systems will slip through your fingers

 

[Terrik]

The more you tighten your grip, USA, the more internet systems will slip through your fingers

Not after we demonstrate the power of this bill.

 

[GasBandit]

You know, I just had a thought... is there a way to sniff the "real" ip address of a machine on a VPN? I never considered it before, but...

 

[strawman]

You know, I just had a thought... is there a way to sniff the "real" ip address of a machine on a VPN? I never considered it before, but...

for unencrypted VPN connections, sure. Most VPN connections are encrypted though, so you have to break some form of secure encryption to get that information - but would it really be useful? VPNs usually use their own IP scheme inside one of the lan blocks (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, etc).

But you are on the right track. The internet was designed and built to route around failure, and this would be an example of failure. The people who are interested in getting illegal materials will merely be inconvenienced, while many others doing normal work will end up with severe difficulties because some company was able to convince the AG that their site infringes.

 

[GasBandit]

Exactly. Pirate Bay can simply be connected to by VPN through a relocatable proxy that changes as fast as they can shut it down, whereas LegitSmallCorp LLC will be massively at a disadvantage in selling widgets compared to SuperUberCorp Inc.

 

[strawman]

There are only two aspects I don't like about the bill:

The AG alone can declare someone guilty, not a judge, jury, no trial. Just one person who is not exactly fair and impartial.

Blocking things on the internet generally, although if we could get rid of the above issue, this wouldn't be so bad. We already block counterfeit products at ports and so forth, so doing so digitally isn't as bad as people think it is.

All this, of course, with a heaping helping of reality that says it really won't work, and will damage the internet, but there is some value in protecting copyright.

I just think it should be more a civil matter than a criminal one.