Combatting Online Infringment and Counterfeit Act (COICA)
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
NinthCorona
http://www.techeye.net/internet/combating-online-infringement-and-counterfeits-act-riles-rights-groups
Thoughts? Mine are inappropriate for here.
Symmetric Chaos
Oh no, they're going to make it illegal to break the law! nuts
MildPossession
I'm with ^
inimalist
because if there is one group of people who will never find away around these measures, it is web pirates and hackers.
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
because if there is one group of people who will never find away around these measures, it is web pirates and hackers.
My sentiments exactly.
And, if the governments keep meddling in this sh*t, a group like Google will create their OWN internet. over 10% of ALL internet traffic traverses Google's very own network structure. Is it REALLY that difficult to see Google investing in their own internet infrastructure? With white space becoming available to ISPs (from the FCC, lol!), it will not be hard for an organization to create more and more "internet". The problem is who owns what on the internet backbones...
You have to requisition some space on the DNS backbones, of which there are like 5 or 6 major internet back bones, 3 of which the US owns.
If the government wants to continue infringing on "free internet use", they can: but they will only make things worse for both enforcing and for regular users.
I volunteer myself to be the Cyber Security Czar, president Obama. Use me and the world will be a freer safer internet.
inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
My sentiments exactly.
Like, look at TPB, demonoid or ISOHunt
these guys face constant legal problems, and have police raids on their servers (in Europe), and the user base continues to develop more refined methods.
Regardless of how organized these sites might be, piracy and the like is still a hugely horizontally organized phenomenon, with a very tech savvy base. Even if it were possible to effectively combat these people, are the losses of the MPAA or RIAA really worth the, essentially, draconian measures this puts in place or the never ending flow of cash it is going to require?
There is this "new" Pirate political movement that is growing out of TPB, I think their stance on IP rights sort of throws the baby out with the bathwater, but a lot of what they say, especially regarding the sort of low level piracy this seems aimed at (as opposed to, say, combating counterfeit medicine), is very relevant. Piracy is more of a problem with distribution laws being archaic than it is about people wanting to steal.
Shakyamunison
How will this affect the everyday Internet using like myself?
inimalist
depends what you use the internet for, but in general, it could be potentially catastrophic
so, for instance, currently, piracy is organized through hubs, like demonoid or ISOhunt or TPB. These sites operate in a type of legal limbo, because they only facilitate file sharing, which is not the same as (as far as current court cases go) distributing copyright material, and also provides a "plausible deniability" for the site owners, because they can say "we aren't responsible if some of our users want to distribute copyright material" (which a US court recently upheld in the current case against ISOhunt).
what this points to is the ever-changing nature of piracy, and its extreme adaptability. So, imagine these types of sites are shut down, everything will move, as it currently is, to Rapidshare links in forums. So, rapidshare could be targeted, but say that users then start the more direct FTP stuff through forums again. Are they going to start black-listing all forums that have, even if it is against forum policy, hosted links to personal servers? etc.
The problem is, so long as there is some way to transfer data on the internet, pirates will exploit this. If it means finding a way to pirate through facebook and KMC, they will do it. period. The potential from this is obvious.
inimalist
actually, makes me think there is probably an untapped potential for p2p from craigslist...
Mindship
So what is the solution, if there is one?
inimalist
to which problem?
inimalist
what, like the conceptual term "internet piracy"?
idk, when are you going to change your sig and avatar pics?
EDIT: my point being that, the idea of "internet piracy" is very poorly defined. Obviously I get your point more than I am letting on, I just think there are better ways to interpret it.
So like, instead of looking at internet piracy as a problem, maybe it is better to look at how companies might be compensated for the way the internet is organized today.
For me, let the RIAA or MPAA or any other body come forward with a legitimate accounting of what they think are real losses, and take them to arbitration with the major ISPs, whose infrastructure it is that such data is being distributed on.
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
to which problem?
Seems he means the crack down.
And the reprocussions will be an all-out cyber war against "The Man" with "The Man" losing the battle very swiftly. The "laws" need to adapt, not the people adapt to the laws. The products need to adapt as well.
What's sad is I may one day be the moron that has to fight against that cyber war.
I don't want to be on the losing side.
inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
What's sad is I may one day be the moron that has to fight against that cyber war.
I don't want to be on the losing side.
or a mole
we could always use a mole
Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
what, like the conceptual term "internet piracy"?What would be better than COICA in terms of dealing with the problem COICA was meant to address?
when are you going to change your sig and avatar pics? Why mess with perfection.
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
or a mole
we could always use a mole
Nah. I'm way to honest and patriotic. I was also told that being patriotic can sometimes be taking down a destructive regime...but I don't think that applies in this situation. Just old white men being idiots.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
depends what you use the internet for, but in general, it could be potentially catastrophic
so, for instance, currently, piracy is organized through hubs, like demonoid or ISOhunt or TPB. These sites operate in a type of legal limbo, because they only facilitate file sharing, which is not the same as (as far as current court cases go) distributing copyright material, and also provides a "plausible deniability" for the site owners, because they can say "we aren't responsible if some of our users want to distribute copyright material" (which a US court recently upheld in the current case against ISOhunt).
what this points to is the ever-changing nature of piracy, and its extreme adaptability. So, imagine these types of sites are shut down, everything will move, as it currently is, to Rapidshare links in forums. So, rapidshare could be targeted, but say that users then start the more direct FTP stuff through forums again. Are they going to start black-listing all forums that have, even if it is against forum policy, hosted links to personal servers? etc.
The problem is, so long as there is some way to transfer data on the internet, pirates will exploit this. If it means finding a way to pirate through facebook and KMC, they will do it. period. The potential from this is obvious.
So, in other words, someone could get onto a forum like this one, do illegal activity and cause this forum to be closed. Did I interpret you right?
inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, in other words, someone could get onto a forum like this one, do illegal activity and cause this forum to be closed. Did I interpret you right?
I haven't seen the bill, so don't quote me, but that would have to be the way the law worked, because as it is now, demonoid, isohunt, pirate bay, all of these types of sites have, in their conditions of use, the statement that the site is not to be used for illegal purposes.
in fact, enforcement of this would turn forum mods into gvt employees
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't seen the bill, so don't quote me, but that would have to be the way the law worked, because as it is now, demonoid, isohunt, pirate bay, all of these types of sites have, in their conditions of use, the statement that the site is not to be used for illegal purposes.
in fact, enforcement of this would turn forum mods into gvt employees
Not good.
inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
What would be better than COICA in terms of dealing with the problem COICA was meant to address?
there probably isn't going to be a blanket solution, because as long as data can be transferred from one place to another on the net, people are going to share. my thought would be to get those who really feel hurt by filesharing into talks with ISPs for compensation, rather than attacking users and restricting net freedom.
the big problem with this is that it would require a legitimate quantification of the fiscal impact of piracy, which would be difficult at best, and from previous statements from the affected industries, they seem to be more interested in equating a single act if piracy with a single lost sale, something so ridiculous it is obvious that ISPs would contest it.
Originally posted by Mindship
Why mess with perfection.
because your distribution of copyright data may get kmc blacklisted
Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
because your distribution of copyright data may get kmc blacklisted So they would have to be original material? I'll prep a Plan B...just in case.
Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't seen the bill, so don't quote me, but that would have to be the way the law worked, because as it is now, demonoid, isohunt, pirate bay, all of these types of sites have, in their conditions of use, the statement that the site is not to be used for illegal purposes.
You should, it's very short and written in pretty plain English.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804
The key passages are this: " 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 ." (which is okay as far as I can see)
and this: " 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." (which is much less so, there is no legal definition of being "central to the site's activity" and people are worried that it will be used to target all sorts of groups)
inimalist
but so long as a site provides commercially viable p2p service of non-copyright files, it should be ok?
It seems like it is written from the perspective that the only think shared on TPB is stuff which falls under violation of American copyright, which isn't true, and given the already existant TOS of all the sites, they would have a hard time proving that the site is maintaind for the purpose of doing something specifically outlined as a violation of use... (though the recent ISOhunt case will be informative, it certainly wont have much impact on the next generation of pirate sites that adapt to these measures).
Like, the best they are going to be able to say is that the operators of TPB aren't dilligent enough in removing copyright material, but given the YouTube example, the onus falls on those who hold the copyright to inform TPB of infractions. The only end result of this, that I can see, are web-moderators becomming directly responsible to the government for the content of the sites they maintain...
I will read through it, but this hardly seems like a reduction of the cluster-**** that are copyright laws. And it still says nothing about what to do when Facebook becomes some type of p2p hub.
Symmetric Chaos
Okay it passed. Did the internet collapse yet? I'm too terrified to check.
jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh no, they're going to make it illegal to break the law! nuts
If you're going to submit intellectual property that is important to you online...,get it copyrighted or don't complain when it happens.
Liberator
Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't seen the bill, so don't quote me, but that would have to be the way the law worked, because as it is now, demonoid, isohunt, pirate bay, all of these types of sites have, in their conditions of use, the statement that the site is not to be used for illegal purposes.
in fact, enforcement of this would turn forum mods into gvt employees
It's been a good run gentlemen.
Stoic
What about You Tube and other sites like that? I heard that they were also being targeted by this act.
Symmetric Chaos
Oops, it only passed in the Senate. Now it's on to the House.
Originally posted by Stoic
What about You Tube and other sites like that? I heard that they were also being targeted by this act.
Not exactly targeted but if they cannot or will not stop people from posting illegal works the government would be allowed to shut them down.
inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oops, it only passed in the Senate. Now it's on to the House.
Not exactly targeted but if they cannot or will not stop people from posting illegal works the government would be allowed to shut them down.
isn't it more that they could stop users from connecting to YouTube, rather than specifically closing YouTube down directly?
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
From the OP:
The bill passed, eh?
That sucks.
The old way was better.
Net neutrality. Where has it gone?
Darth Jello
Here's the problem with such laws and how they've been put into practice. Companies investigate, launch complaints, and file grievances by forming "trade groups" which effectively function as illegal cartels, use illegal methods in order to extra-legally gather evidence against people (often resulting in damage to private property), and then expect excessive fines.
In American legal etiquette illegal organizations don't have much standing when filing legal grievances. I'll give music as an example. The RIAA is by definition, an illegal cartel. It is a partnership of record companies who colludes to exploit artists, set prices, give preferential treatment to distributors, squash competition, and according to some, deal drugs to its artists. They patrol the internet using software which can seriously damage computers in order to extra-legally obtain evidence of copyright infringement and then precede to threaten, extort, and file ridiculous lawsuits against alleged thieves, whether they actually hold the copyright to the material or not (not to mention if the artist has given permission). If anything like this EVER happened prior to the Reagan/Clinton corporate masturbation "reforms", anyone within sniffing distance of the cartel's executive would be immediately arrested and charged with federal violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and RICO, have their bank accounts frozen, and have bail set north of a mil.
Symmetric Chaos
The first shots have been fired.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11863288
War! War! To arms my brethren! We have a natural right to free stuff! To arms! No cancellation without representation! Anyone who would give up the freedom to break the law in order to turn a profit from their "work" deserves neither! And so on!
Robtard
It has begun, only a matter of time before the system becomes thoroughly corrupt and sites which are not breaking the set guidelines start getting the 404.
Just wait until the Christian-Right gets their greasy hands into this, Porn, Islamic and anything deemed "lib'ral" will be targeted.
inimalist
Originally posted by inimalist
Or, to keep on the topic, this whole COICA thing represents something worse even than controlling the internet. The only people pushing hard against online piracy are the RIAA and the MPAA. The lawmakers who are most heavily funded by these groups are the ones who put forth the legislation. This means, literally, that you can buy legislation. If you have enough money, as a non-elected entity, you can set political agenda and have a huge influence over where tax dollars are allocated simply by contributing enough to a particular campaign.
Obviously this is old news, but rarely is there such a blatent example. I can't imagine too many people would put "internet piracy" at the top of the list of issues facing America today, yet time in both houses is now being used to determine if, what would have to be a steady stream of tax dollars, should be spent trying to harass sites that have a history of lurking in a legal grey zone. The recent case against ISOhunt should show this type of legislation is unnecessary anyways, as a site that knowingly supported piracy was held liable in a court of law. Essentially, we have crony-ism to the extreme here, and in order to ensure full coffers for their next election, politicians are acting as agents for major corporate bodies.
That coming out against piracy is an easy photo op for either party surely helps. Most people will react more favorably to a harsh condemnation of "theft" but probably don't have the stomach for a calm conversation about remodelling internet media distribution copyrights.
see, like I said before, in terms of pirates wanting to pirate stuff, this isn't going to affect much. The first shots have been fired, and I can still go to TBP, ISOhunt or demonoid as I could yesterday, and even if I couldn't, TBP 2.0 is just around the corner.
America doesn't have the juristiction to shut down most of these sites, only to pull a China/Burma/Saudi-esque censoring of sites it doesn't like for its own citizens. I think the problem with this comes from what I've quoted above. The American government is willing to attack what would be its own citizens' access to the internet (whatever you want to characterize it as), because a couple of senators need RIAA and MPAA funding for their reelection campaign.
Also, initiating this in the midst of the Wikileaks story strikes me as interesting.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.