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.

4ofjulyguy 11/19/2010 8:32am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:04pm

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.

KmhrVv 11/19/2010 4:59am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 2:36pm

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)

amandajones 11/19/2010 4:42am

The fact that 87 internet engineers got together and wrote a letter to congress AGAINST this bill because it might wreck the internet is enough to make me oppose it. These learned people, who understand how the technology of IP address and DNS servers work in an interconnected manner, fear that this bill will not only cause a wave of server problems that will take out innocent websites that have zero to do with swapping media, it will also increase costs for all of us because so many completely unrelated sites will have to rework how they interact with one another. This bill is a nuclear option that will take out many unintended victims. The internet is a complicated system, you can’t just go turning off things here and there and think that everything else will just go smoothly sailing along. Please listen to the people who work with this technology everyday:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter

And: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/case-against-coica

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 2:36pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 2:23pm

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 2:23pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 30, 2010 11:52am

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:59pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to dkliman Nov 15, 2010 6:15am

First, HAVE SOME FAITH!!! The Attorney General won’t just stop websites on a whim. He’s going to do his job and stop sites that perform copyright infringement.

second, THIS IS A COPYRIGHT LAW!!! It’s trying to stop the sites that recklessly and terribly distribute music without the consent of the musicians or studios who work so hard to make it. You don’t just need to make laws, you need to enforce them too. To enforce them, you need to stop the sites that are breaking them.

You have the freedom to do what you please, but when you infringe upon other’s freedoms by stealing, then there’s a problem.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:51pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:51pm

(P.S. People should really have more faith in our government! People need to have faith that political officials won’t take advantage of any power to the point of corruption. It also isn’t censorship to stop a site if it’s a site that steals from people.)

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:51pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Nov 01, 2010 11:32am

So, what should we do? should we just let people steal whatever they want because more sites will keep popping up?

Should you let people steal cars because more cars will be made?
Should you let people steal food because more will be made?
Should people steal money because more is circulated every year?

This bill is trying to create a more stable protection of copyright issues. Should people just wait until the perfect bill is made to put it into law?

Our country didn’t start out perfect. We used the Articles of Confederation. Writing the “perfect bill” you both are hoping for won’t happen without lesser bills to learn from.

We need to fight the problem. And if this bill doesn’t work, we make a new one. You don’t learn something without making mistakes.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:42pm
Link Reply
+ -1

Sure, you can say “It’s just an example! This would never happen!” but billions of dollars are being stolen from companies every day because someone isn’t willing to pay $20 for a book or a CD, and won’t spend $30-$50 to own a movie. Billions are also stolen by people who can’t pay $1 for the redbox at Walmart to rent a movie, and who can’t pay $10 a month for hearing unlimited music.

It’s not censorship. It’s not injustice. It’s protection for people, companies, and stores from people who abuse the rights of others for their selfish gain.

I support this bill and everything it’s trying to do. I don’t care how useless you think it is, or how the founding fathers didn’t write in provisions concerning the internet, or how you think it’s a fascist/ communistic way to regulate all internet.
It’s just trying to stop people freom performing illicit activities.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:32pm
Link Reply
+ -3

However, to your dismay, you only sell 1/3 of the projected books. (if you made 1,000, you sold 333).
Sure. Not EVERYONE will buy a book. not every single person will want a book by an author they don’t know. But it was a GOOD BOOK! It must have been, since the publishers thought so.

Someone created a website “http://www.dropslot.com” (DON’T TRY THAT SITE! IT’S JUST AN EXAMPLE) that had your book inside it. According to their site, 400 other people downloaded that book.

You are crushed. The Publisher won’t buy the rights to your books again, since you decreased their profit and were a negative investment. You won’t be invested in again, since other companies know your book was a failure in stores. Now, you aren’t able to make another book because people stole it.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:26pm
Link Reply
+ -2

I see people stealing all the time. I see companies losing a profit to people who want to listen to some song for free, or because they want to play a game without paying for it.
When someone downloads a CD, movie, book, or game, they aren’t just stealing from one person. They’re stealing from every single person who created, recorded, advertised, and produced the item. They are also stealing from the people who sell and distribute the item for others to enjoy.

Here’s why I feel so strongly about this issue: I am an aspiring musician, with hopes of making it to the top. I want to do what I love, and spend as much time, effort, and resources as I need to to fo as far as I can go.

Let’s say you wrote a book. You spent months thinking about just the right words to say, and place them coherently into a binder.

Now, you get a publisher to distribute your book. You finally got it in stores (after months of waiting and millions of dollars from the company).

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:04pm
Link Reply
+ -3
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 28, 2010 6:39am

THANK YOU TAYLOR!

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

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:02pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to Munio Oct 02, 2010 3:51am

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:59pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to Gruesomex Nov 01, 2010 11:00am

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:56pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 27, 2010 9:41am

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?

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:50pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to d_bo_fightsback Sep 29, 2010 9:56pm

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:40pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to nmeagent Sep 29, 2010 4:12pm

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:31pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to libercogito Sep 29, 2010 2:15am

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:27pm
in reply to x083 Sep 22, 2010 6:20pm

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.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:21pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to jgardner03 Sep 27, 2010 9:47am

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.

dkliman 11/15/2010 6:15am

This bill is a blatant attempt to shut down whistle-blower sites like wikileaks.

I cringed when I first heard of the great firewall of china, shedding a tear for those unfortunate enough to live there and have to be repressed by an authoritarian dictatorship which doesn’t have anything like the first amendment.

Who is to define what is “legal?”

Cory Doctorow recently spoke on this subject http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2010/10/12/after-the-digital-economy-act-cory-doctorow-and-tom-watson-mp/ and he pointed out that what really needs to be overhauled is copyright laws.

S. 3804 is going absolutely in the wrong direction and won’t do anything but infringe on our freedom. Those who want to pirate will not be stopped by this, but plenty of regular people will be blocked out of many sites that have no reason to be blocked except for the whim of some politician.

I would suggest as an alternative that Senators look at the IMMI, Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, which is actually good.

4ofjulyguy 11/01/2010 11:32am
in reply to Gruesomex Nov 01, 2010 11:10am

Agreed completely! Also with the ease of creating websites these days new websites woud just be popping up all the time.

All this bill would do would allow for misuse of power and censorship.

4ofjulyguy 11/01/2010 11:30am
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 28, 2010 6:39am

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?

Gruesomex 11/01/2010 11:10am

People just because you need better enforcement does not make this a good bill. The reality is this bill will do little to impact infringement and has a much higher chance of being misused.
I’m all for making a law that will work BUT THIS ISN’T IT!

Gruesomex 11/01/2010 11:00am
in reply to JustAVoter Oct 25, 2010 11:37am

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.

4ofjulyguy 10/30/2010 11:52am
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 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.

4ofjulyguy 10/30/2010 11:52am
in reply to RowenaCherry Oct 28, 2010 2:18am

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.

4ofjulyguy 10/30/2010 11:30am
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 28, 2010 5:43am

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?

Taylor_L 10/28/2010 6:39am
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 27, 2010 9:50am

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).

Taylor_L 10/28/2010 5:43am
Link Reply
+ -4

To those crying “censorship”…
Okay, if you go by the strict definition, the blocking of a website could be considered censorship. However, do you get upset when spammers are blocked? Viruses? Hackers? That’s censorship if we go by your definition. If you think blocking those particular illegal sites is okay but blocking pirate sites is not, that shows all you’re truly worried about is losing your ability to get something for free.

For those who would tell me I’m only worried about money, well, don’t you want to get paid for your work? Also, I have stories that I wrote for charity, and stories I sold at a flat rate (no royalties) for anthologies, and I fight just as hard to get those files removed as I do for my royalty-paying ones, so don’t tell me it’s all about the money.


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