S.3804 - Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

A bill to combat online infringement, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act as introduced.
  • Official: A bill to combat online infringement, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act as reported to senate.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 91 total comments.

  • x083 09/22/2010 6:20pm

    this is fascist legislation to destroy the internet, or the free internet rather. in a communist-fascist world, where the plutocratic-cabal is the only real terrorists of the world. their obvious goal is world communism, otherwise known as serfdom. power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. it removes the free flow of information which is essential for any free society, or a free world in general. blocking a site because of purported copyright infringement is just another way of censorship.

    people need to fight this tooth and nail, anyway they can, including picketing senators homes, churches, and everything. flyers need to be handed out everywhere, describing the future fascist world government, without a free internet, so the public can paint a very not so pretty picture in its mind.

    wake up 2 people a day who wake up 5 people a day who wake up 10 people a day. please take this seriously and the food and supplement bills these communist fascists are trying to ram thru

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:27pm

    It’s not about Communistic beliefs or a fascist government. Copyright infringement is stealing from thousands of recording studios and musicians world-wide. The RIAA site states that there are “$12.5 billion of economic losses every year,” that, "71,060 U.S. jobs lost,” and even there is even “a loss of $2.7 billion in workers’ earnings.” Recording studios have been accepting fewer bands because they can’t make as much money, and more bands have been laid off from their studios because people are stealing from them.

    Wouldn’t you be Pissed if someone stole money from you? Wouldn’t you be angered if days of hard work and expenses were completely lost without compensation?

    websites that support copyright infringement and piracy SHOULD be destroyed. They destroy the Musical world and inhibit the flow of new music.

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:02am

    They are losing money because they are still using an outdated business model. If you don’t change your business model to keep up with technology your business will fail. Bribing the government protection is out of bounds for a civil matter. The majority of traders wouldn’t buy the music anyway; nothing of value was ever lost.

    When music is made and released for free, you know its art. That is why so many garage bands became very popular early in their careers, but years later they are have turned fans away with garbage. Look at NIN, releasing their art for free and making money with a new business model that works. Don’t be so ignorant about the music business and how it functions.

    This bill gives the government the power to remove any website from the internet by claiming infringement. COICA is an abuse of power, it’s bad for everyone. If this bill passes, you will see these powers expanded to remove other things the government or businesses don’t want online. DMCA is bad enough.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Taospark 12/19/2011 11:21am

    Most of the RIAA’s statistics are false and presumptuous at best. It’s either naive or dishonest to assume that every single person who pirates or infringes on an IP would ever be a customer, or that they would do so given the general disposition of the entertainment sector.

    In fact, many new musicians are giving away their content for free on Youtube and other sites while finding this openness rewarded with both donations and purchases. The RIAA defends record companies who have ripped off musicians for half a century and this bill was another terrible attempt to defend a fleeting monopoly.

  • BenVreeland 09/27/2010 8:53am

    This bill seems ripe for abuse. It empowers the government through the courts to censor web content from the American public. This is being pushed by the Motion Picture Association of America but, a wall is a wall. Once the barriers are in place is there any way to stop the courts from ruling that site like Wikileaks are “dedicated to infringing activities?”

  • jgardner03 09/27/2010 9:47am

    I wonder if any of these clowns have ever heard of either the 1st or 5th Amendments, of which this bill violates both. This is an easy slippery slope argument – since the definition of “infringing activities” is so vague, it could encompass a broad range of activities which the JD would like to shut down. Political speech, anyone?

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:21pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    You need to understand, that Piracy and Copyright infringement is a serious issue. You are literally stealing from someone who spent their time, money, and effort to express their own views and ideas. When people steala CD or movie, they steal from the people who create, advertise, distribute, and sell them.
    You also need to have faith in the Government that we have. They won’t just delete every site online that insults them or questions the government. People wouldn’t allow someone to delete all sites like facebook or MySpace or YouTube: Only stuff like Lime Wire, Nappster, and Shareaza.

  • nmeagent 09/28/2010 7:25pm

    They are going to have a hell of a time censoring foreign DNS servers or preventing individuals from routing to them.

  • libercogito 09/29/2010 2:15am

    This is a beautiful example of why people that don’t understand technology shouldn’t be permitted to legislate it. This bill would do absolutely nothing but establish a dangerous precedent. The sponsors and writers of this bill should be ashamed at themselves for publically displaying such starling ignorance. This bill will not affect piracy, because unlike our brilliant legislators, the average pirate actually has a decent grasp of the technology. Not resolving a domain name will not stop traffic to that domain. Rogue DNS providers will spring up immediately, it isn’t as though creating a DNS server is challenging. Beyond that, domain names are an entirely unnecessary conveniance…people will just use the IP addresses.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:31pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Yeah. They can make a site quickly and re-post all the music onto a new site.

    Does that mean that the principle of trying to stop copyright infringement is wrong?

    Look, I realize that piracy will never be completely stopped. I know that more sites will pop up and steal millions from hard-working musicians, recording studios, stores that sell the CD’s and movies, and numerous other people.

    But that’s no reason to completely abandon the principle behind it. Piracy is illegal, and should be limited as much as possible.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:12pm

    Here’s a flaw: the federal government is not granted the power to regulate Internet content by the Constitution.

  • nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:12pm

    Here’s a flaw: the federal government is not granted the power to regulate Internet content by the Constitution.

  • nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:12pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    Here’s a flaw: the federal government is not granted the power to regulate Internet content by the Constitution.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:37am

    Except you don’t feel that this bill gives a little bit too much power to the government? The term “infringing activities” is pretty vague to me and I can see all sorts of misuse of power. Also, what ever happened to Americans being against censorship? This is blatant attempt at censorship of internet content; “a service provider…shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address.” Just in case though the definition of censoring (according to Merriam-Webster): “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.”

    I understand that spreading copyrighted materials is considered illegal in the United States, but there’s a better way to resolve the matter.

    Please do not pass this bill, never enforce it! Stop censorship!

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:40pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Would ppl if 1787 know about the internet?

    The Constitution gives Legislation the right “To promote the Progress of Sciences and usefull Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective writings and Discoveries.”

    The Legislation also has the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers.” That includes protecting against copyright infringement.

    Both of these were in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
    The Founding Fathers knew that the times would change, so they made the Constitution a “Living” document to ensure that all rights were protected. They couldn’t see the internet, but they could expect a problem with it.

    Please read the Constitution if you don’t believe me. I did.

  • nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:13pm

    Okay, sorry about that. I don’t know how in the hell that was posted four times.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:14pm

    Or three? Hah, I’m seeing things now.

  • d_bo_fightsback 09/29/2010 9:56pm

    While our government on hand hand tells other countries to lessen restrictions on their people regarding internet freedom. We have a misguided politician that belives that the federal governments knows best, that they again believe they have the right to regulate the lives of private citizens. They believe they have the obligation to police and control everything. The internet doesnt belong to them. It was created with the freedom of all man to have free access to the internet and all its content.

    i oppose s.3804

  • Comm_reply
    JustAVoter 10/25/2010 11:37am

    You have Constitutional right confused with privilege. Rights are freely granted by the Constitution/law. Privileges cost. Access to and use of the internet is NOT a right…it’s a privilege. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything granting anyone any right to the internet. If net access were a right, it would be free, like primary education where they teach the use of research and knowledge. Since access to the internet is a privilege, it has a price. This bill does not conflict with ANY US Constitution wording. Freedom of speech grants you the right to say anything you want. In no way do you do not have the right to TAKE what you want, especially if someone else owns it—no matter what it is.

  • Comm_reply
    JustAVoter 10/25/2010 11:37am

    This bill is intended to stop/hinder theft of an artist’s work. If you take it and did not make it, you stole it. If you buy it, you own exactly what you bought. If an eBook, you own only that single copy, no copyright ownership, just that single, solitary copy. Your purchase of an eBook did not come with distribution rights and by granting or selling copies, you are a thief. Remember, when your right infringes on my right, you become the oppressor.

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:41am

    Except you don’t feel that this bill gives a little bit too much power to the government? The term “infringing activities” is pretty vague to me and I can see all sorts of misuse of power. Also, what ever happened to Americans being against censorship? This is blatant attempt at censorship of internet content; “a service provider…shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address.” Just in case though the definition of censoring (according to Merriam-Webster): “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.”

    I understand that spreading copyrighted materials is considered illegal in the United States, but there’s a better way to resolve the matter.

    Please do not pass this bill, never enforce it! Stop censorship!

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:56pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    You just need to have faith in this law. You need to assume that the Attorney General will be faithful and responsible.

    You also need to realize that Copyright infringement IS objectionable. Besides, censorship is meant to keep specific images/ ideas away from a specific group of people (such as a bleep when someone swears)

    If the person/ people are stealing from someone, then “censorship” is necessary. wouldn’t you be angry if someone stole money from you after you put in hours of hard work?
    Unless you’re a millionaire, or unless you work for free at your job, then you would have a problem with someone stealing from you.
    If you have a problem with someone stealing from you, why don’t you have a problem with people stealing from others?

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 10:40am

    “You need to have faith” has been the basis for every religious war ever fought in the bloody course of our history.

    You, Vladdie, need to be more cynical.

  • Comm_reply
    Gruesomex 11/01/2010 11:00am

    I agree with everything you’re saying, but a bad law is a bad law.
    An argument that crime is being committed and therefor we must pass this law is not a good argument. Is there a requirement for stronger laws to enforce copyright? Yes, most likely. Is this the right law? Most definitely not.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:59pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    then, Gruesomex, follow the idea that the Constitution states that Legislation has the right “To promote the Progress of Sciences and usefull Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective writings and Discoveries.”

    They also have the right “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers.”

    Is this a good law? Yes.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:50pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Ok. The internet doesn’t belong to the politicians. That’s a valid point.

    Here’s the problem with your argument, though. While other countries are restricting websites about historical facts, information about the world around them, and limiting a person’s right to learn about the freedoms of other countries, The U.S. is trying to restrict Copyright infringement and limit the amount of piracy that goes on.

    People have the internet for “free access,” but when they steal from others with that “free access,” they may as well not have it.
    Instead of incarcerating everyone who commits copyright infringement and jailing those who use a counterfeit CD, we should just stop the websites that steal from others.


Vote on This Bill

10% Users Support Bill

43 in favor / 371 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments