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 31-60 of 91 total comments.

  • Munio 10/02/2010 3:51am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    This bill S. 3804. basically states: The American consumer should be told by the Government on how to purchase and what sites to buy from. However, to be optomistic, this bill could significantly reduce fake goods entering into the United States (e.g., via China). Unfortunately, this is yet another baby-step into living under the iron curtain.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:02pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This law actually states that “We will delete sites that are stealing billions from thousands of people, and try to protect the rights of Copyright and limit Piracy.”

    I’m sorry you feel that this is communistic, but it’s only trying to protect our “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” by stopping the sites that illegally allow people to download and share audio and video.

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 10:44am

    Billions is it? Let’s see a citation for those numbers.

    My guess is that you are making a blind assumption: that someone who streams music or downloads a TV episode they missed would have otherwise bought it. In most cases, they would simply give it a miss and pay for something more entertaining.

    Record and movie executives seen “billions” in lost revenue to people who will store a digital copy of something they may never even listen to (8 of 10 songs on an album) and would certainly never pay for under other circumstances (Really? You wanted how much for each episode of Heroes on iTunes?)

    But I digress, that tends to happen when I come into contact with one of the “faithful” who has an almost religious zeal for the (often unconstitutional) actions of a few government wonks.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:50am

    Granted Munio’s explanation was a bit extreme, there’s definitely the possibility, power corrupts. All the attorney general or the courts have to do is prove somehow that this website is related to the vague term of “infringing activities.” You can’t see the possible 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.”

    Blacklisting websites and blocking internet users from accessing certain sites is not a road that I want to go down.

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

  • Comm_reply
    Taylor_L 10/27/2010 8:10pm

    I’ve read through the bill several times, and I still don’t see any sort of blatant attempt at censorship. It’s an attempt to slow down copyright theft, of which I am a victim.

    SOMETHING has to be done to stop the pirates, because frankly, I’m sick of them.

    All this talk of censorship screams of overreaction and paranoia.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Taylor_L 10/27/2010 8:27pm

    BTW, just to clarify… sure, folks could say blocking any sort of content is a form of censorship, but the websites targeted are those that at promoting ILLEGAL activities. Is it “censorship” when child porn websites are blocked? Not to say that piracy is as heinous as child porn, of course. But they’re both crimes.

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:06am

    Well yes it is censorship when you block anything you find offensive. Maybe we should be like Pakistan and block Facebook. When you start down this path, where do you stop?

  • Comm_reply
    Taylor_L 10/28/2010 6:39am

    and don’t forget spam, viruses, etc. I don’t hear people crying censorship when that content is blocked. Copyright theft is just as illegal as that stuff, and the point is blocking ILLEGAL content.

    (okay… I’m done with the “and another thing!” stuff now, heh).

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 11/01/2010 11:30am

    First it is censorship, blatant censorship at that. Just look at a definition of censoring.

    Then child porn websites aren’t blocked. They’re disabled or taken down then the people responsible are brought to justice, all of which is not censorship.

    The only flaw with your argument is that the hacker/virus/spammer websites are not blocked by our government/internet service providers (ISPs). You or I have services that are provided on our own accord to block these websites from us and only us. The websites still exist and are still accessible if we ever had the crazy desire to go to them.

    Also for all of us that are calling censorship it’s not about us not being able to get stuff for free anymore, it’s about the “free internet”. If you want a free, unbiased, uncensored community then you have to take the good with the bad.

    Once the grounds are established with this bill, a blatant internet censorship bill, what would stop them from going a little further?

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:17am

    “Then child porn websites aren’t blocked. They’re disabled or taken down then the people responsible are brought to justice, all of which is not censorship.”

    That is the same thing this bill does, and yes that is censorship. In a truly free and uncensored internet you will find all kind of things, free, unbiased, uncensored, good, bad, repulsive, you name it. The removal of anything by government or a business is a form of censorship.

    “Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.”

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:04pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    THANK YOU TAYLOR!

    People, it’s not censorship if it stops an illicit activities from occuring.

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 11/19/2010 8:32am

    Did you read at all my counter-argument? Taylor’s argument is completely invalid. Taylor’s argument deals with different subjects that are dealt in a different manner.

  • Comm_reply
    NHWynter 11/21/2010 3:05am

    4ofjulyguy – Just because you say that Taylor’s argument is completely invalid doesn’t make it so. That is just your opinion.

    I’m going to be honest. You clearly don’t understand the definition of censorship. And your claim that hackers/virus/spammer websites are not blocked by the Government/ISP is also false. I can state, for a fact, that YAHOO, Google, AOL, and Microsoft all DO block sites that are known for viruses and spam without you having to tell them to do so.

    Also, please show me where it says that the Free Internet means that people can break the law by distributing copyrighted materials?

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 11/23/2010 8:07pm

    First my “opinion” is based on fact, unlike Taylor’s, making it fact instead of just “opinion.”

    Then that’s fine NHWynter, but obviously it is your knowledge that is limited. You actually proved my point in your argument, since when are Yahoo, Google, AOL, and Microsoft the government/ISP? They’re two different body’s, one being private and one being the government; also they DON’T block the websites. Why would we have anti this and that to block the websites for us otherwise????

    Then lastly sir it is you that does not understand the definition of censorship because the definition matches the purposes of this bill exactly. Just in case though, according to Cambridge “to remove anything offensive or to remove parts considered unsuitable.” Yep, that pretty much sounds like the bill…“a service provider…shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address.”

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:35am

    Really?

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/the-rise-of-web-censorship/375?tag=nl.e539

    That’s called ICE getting a jump on the new bill. They didn’t just shut down counterfeiters, they shut down directories that simply list other places that might h

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:12am

    Are you kidding? Spam and viruses are destructive to everyone, unwanted. In most cases people can choose to block this stuff or not. You can always unblock you favorite spammers and virus writers. Read your junk mail folder everyday if you want, get infected, scammed, identity stolen, and buy some counterfeit stuff. You argument in this case to is complete fail.

  • RowenaCherry 10/25/2010 1:56am

    This law is clearly aimed at sites that have no legitimate business apart from the illegal dissemination of copyrighted works.

    Pirates who spend hours creating, uploading, and re-uploading illegal copies of books probably have plenty of time to comment and vote on s3804 because they enjoy their current power to break the law with impunity and to destroy the livelihoods of smaller authors (who are not nameless wealthy corporations).

    On Astatalk and Demonoid, the pirates are sharing misinformation about COICA. One pirate, “Internet Blacklist” is even quoted on this site!

    “Well, i was checking out demonoid and i happened to glance over a very disturbing piece of information. In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and…”

    “This COICA bill is a critical threat to freedom of information, and the big media companies seem to have greased enough congressional palms to get it passed witho…”

    Novels, movies, music, games are not “information”!

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:55am

    No, novels, movies, music, and games are not information.

    However this is blatant attempt at censorship of internet content, something we as Americans are supposed to be against; “a service provider…shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address.” 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. Blacklisting websites and blocking internet users from accessing certain sites is not a road that I want to go down.

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

  • RowenaCherry 10/25/2010 2:07am

    Congressmen who might be checking out polls and petitions ought to realize that not everyone who votes and signs petitions has actually read the Bill.

    Some are voting based on an interested party’s summary of what is in the bill.

    For example:
    “If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media copanies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed form the internet and not just in the US.

    There is a petition going around at demandprogress.org to stop this.. please join."

    http://astatalk.com/thread/10319/1/new_law_proposal_called_The_Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act_%28COICA%29/

  • Brit 10/25/2010 7:29am

    Why would a petition to stop this bill be on a site well known as a vehicle for stealing and disseminating eBooks?

    Why would Astatalk benefit from killing this bill?

    From my personal experience Astatalk has cost me countless dollars as an author. I no sooner get my books taken down, when they pop back up a day later. And there are thousands of us whose works are being given away without consideration of us as the authors. We’re labeled greedy for wanting to be paid for our hard work. Who of you wants to work for free?

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 10:03am

    You can’t see the possible misuse of power? My problem with this bill is that it goes to far, giving the government too much power; power corrupts.

    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. Blacklisting websites and blocking internet users from accessing certain sites is not a road that I want to go down.

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

  • Comm_reply
    RowenaCherry 10/28/2010 2:07am

    Brit, the Bill is intended to shut down sites that have no apparent purpose other than to infringe on copyright.

    Astatalk appears to exist for no other reason than to infringe on copyright…. maybe with a little social networking and pleasant discussion about the products they steal on the side.

    Therefore, pirate sites are promoting their own petitions, asking the government to allow them to continue to infringe copyright with relative impunity. If “information wants to be free”, I’d like to see real names on all petitions published.

  • Comm_reply
    RowenaCherry 10/28/2010 2:18am

    Fair enough, 4th of July Guy, but how would you protect the creators of music, games, novels, photographs, artwork etc if not by shutting down the sites that make copyright infringement so easy and so profitable?

    Most copyright owners whom I know aren’t in favor of prosecuting consumers, and we all know that DRM is inconvenient and insulting (it presupposes that all consumers are thieves).

    Pirates infringe copyright by storing copies on legitimate, commercial storage/hosting sites, and then posting links and copyright infringing images and descriptions on the pirate sites. If the indisputably pirate sites could be disabled, piracy would be much reduced. That’s not censorship. The copyrighted works would still exist, they just wouldn’t be fenced.

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/30/2010 11:52am

    First, most of the internet copyright infringement is not that “profitable”. Most of the websites are barely able to stay afloat; the big ones are only able to because of how big they are. Most of the profitable pirating is still done physically by making copies of something then selling it for profit. Also one of the arguments for digital pirating is the fact that it’s not done for profit. Someone literally takes a bunch of their time to prepare something for people then distributes it free of charge.

    Then if most copyright owners aren’t in favor of prosecuting consumers, then why pass a bill that does exactly that. What if you’re a legitimate consumer who wanted to access a website for distribution purposes but now it’s gone because it violated copyright infringement law? That seems like consumer punishment to me.

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 10/30/2010 11:52am

    continued… Lastly, I’m not calling censorship of a product, I’m calling censorship of the internet; which this bill is proposing exactly.

    As for answering on how to stop it, I don’t know, it seems that it will always exist. Even if this bill was to pass, if a website were to be blocked then a new one would just pop up, until the government would have to block the entire internet. For example, it’s a known fact that ThePirateBay.org has been copied, in its entirety, several times so, if anything were to every happen to it, it could be brought back.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 2:23pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Copyright Infringements like LimeWire, Nappster, and Shareaza don’t earn a profit. That is true.
    However, they are stealing the profits from other people by downloading their CD’s for free. Thousands are doing it, and billions of dollars are stolen yearly from companies who can’t stop the websites. the digital people may not have a profit, but they still are doing illegal activities by distributing music, movies, books, and games illegally.

    I don’t quite understand “distribution purposes,” but here’s what I assume you are saying. You are saying that some people may want their songs distributed to gain popularity. If they want to do that, they can either place their music on iTunes for a fee, or open up their own website to do so. They shouldn’t go to a website that distributes music illegally, because then it will be deleted by this. If they really want to distribute it, they can. And, if it’s SO EASY to make a site, then they should be able to as well.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 2:36pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    And, even if new websites open up, people can still delete them. The hassle isn’t opening the websites. The hassle is re-posting the millions of songs that are on it.

    So, let em make more sites. It’s their life they’re wasting. And, by the time that it’s all set, the website will probably be destroyed.

  • Comm_reply
    KmhrVv 11/19/2010 4:59am

    You don’t seem to understand what this bill actually does. It gives the government the ability to block the DNS entry for the site. DNS takes the text you type into your web browser and changes it into an IP address – which works like a street address for computers.

    The computer hosting the site is still 100% intact. All they have to do is sign up for a new DNS entry, and the site (with all of this context) is back up and running. They wouldn’t have to do any additional work.

    For that matter, if the pirate knows the IP address of the site, then they can get to it even with the DNS entry blocked. Give it a try, you can get to opencongress.org by typing “74.86.203.132” without the quotes into your web browsers address bar)


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