Combatting Online Infringment and Counterfeit Act (COICA)

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

Originally posted by inimalist
because your distribution of copyright data may get kmc blacklisted

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: "[the site is] 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 [violation of copyright as defined by US law]." (which is okay as far as I can see)

and this: "[the site is] 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)

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.

Okay it passed. Did the internet collapse yet? I'm too terrified to check.

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.

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.

What about You Tube and other sites like that? I heard that they were also being targeted by this act.

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.

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?

Originally posted by inimalist
isn't it more that they could stop users from connecting to YouTube, rather than specifically closing YouTube down directly?

Sure, if this was China.

That's not the case for the US. What WOULD happen is a court order, even if from a federal circuit court or higher, would issue a cease and desist on behalf of the plaintiff. Worst case scenario, Google (YouTube's owner) would be sued for damages (tort).

Strangely enough, it has happened…but I do not think it got to the point of an actual case and a ruling: it was settled outside of court.

From the OP:

According to the EFF, the new bill would break the internet one domain at a time by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block internet users from reaching certain websites that are hosted in the US. The bill would also create two internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second is a blacklist of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities."

The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well.

Visitors to blocked sites will see a 404 error message.

Originally posted by inimalist
From the OP:

The bill passed, eh?

That sucks.

The old way was better.

Net neutrality. Where has it gone?

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.

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!

It has begun, only a matter of time before the system becomes thoroughly corrupt and sites which are not breaking the [loosely] 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.

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.