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.

RowenaCherry 10/28/2010 2:07am
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 27, 2010 10:03am

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.

kevinmcc 11/27/2010 1:26pm

DHS shuts down 70 websites and COICA isn’t even a law.

http://www.osnews.com/story/24074/US_Government_Censors_70_Websites

Taylor_L 10/27/2010 8:10pm
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 27, 2010 9:50am

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.

uncleray 11/23/2010 12:47am

This is another example of “Slippery Slope” legislation.
Today it’s “pirate sites” being shut down. Tomorrow it will “dissenting sites”.
The reality today is that money talks.
Just my $0.02

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:35am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:04pm

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

kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:12am
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 28, 2010 6:39am

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.

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:36am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 2:23pm

Dude, stop that. Not every download file would have actually been purchased. You are making a seriously biased argument with inflated numbers.

RowenaCherry 10/28/2010 2:18am
in reply to RowenaCherry Oct 28, 2010 2:07am

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.

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:41am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:59pm

Your faith has been fulfilled!

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

Ahead of the bill’s passage, ICE is already shutting down websites guilty only of listing other websites that deal on some level in copyrighted material – a CLEAR violation of the 1st amendment. Let it be noted that the torrent-finder website didn’t actually host anything in violation of the law.

Go on folks, have faith! See how far it gets you.

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:48am
in reply to Peoplesuck Nov 28, 2010 10:26am

They have been trying to take control back since Pandora opened her box

http://www.cluetrain.com/

That’s the book that many wish had never been written:

“A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies.”

- The Cluetrain Manifesto – 1999
isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:38am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:51pm

And why would they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States

Gosh, power never corrupted anyone…

Taylor_L 10/27/2010 8:27pm
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 27, 2010 9:50am

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.

JustAVoter 10/25/2010 11:37am
in reply to d_bo_fightsback Sep 29, 2010 9:56pm

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.

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.

JustAVoter 10/25/2010 11:37am
in reply to d_bo_fightsback Sep 29, 2010 9:56pm

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.

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”!

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.

nickwall0 11/19/2010 10:17am

not only does this law try to combat copyright infringement, it also “attacks” websites like YouTube, Facebook, and WikiLeaks. all three of those sites are either on or they are trying to get on the “lists” of sites that they want to shut down.

4ofjulyguy 11/23/2010 8:11pm

To everyone that thinks that this is an even decent idea just read this article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/case-against-coica

stifftwig 11/19/2010 7:23pm

While I might agree that uploading or downloading copyrighted content is wrong, I think our lawmakers should be very careful with the wording of this to be sure it doesn’t allow for restriction of rights of US citizens in other areas. There is so much other content on the internet that, in my opinion, should be restricted before working on this type of content, such as pornography sites. I’ll never forget the time I searched for pictures of boats at work and got some really embarrasing content. Scary. I fear for our rights as Americans when I see bills such as this and wonder what the next step will be. Public libraries where books are free to read? Will we still be able to access dictionaries and encyclopedias online? Will internet searches be monitored? What if I misspell a word and get search results that directs the attention of these watchdogs to me? Who will be appointed as these watchdogs? Do I still live in the US?

talikarni 11/20/2010 4:47am

Copyright used to be a matter of civil law, before the MPAA mafia convinced the feds to start doing their dirty work for them. That’s why FBI notices appear on home releases of movies. Now it’s increasingly criminalized, even as copyright is also increasingly extended. Copyright today would be unrecognizable to the founding fathers, who put the concept into the Constitution with the express warning that copyright be limited in duration.
This bill would mean literally the end of the internet within US borders and territories and even open the door for other countries to follow suit.

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).

kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:06am
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 27, 2010 8:27pm

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?

4ofjulyguy 11/23/2010 8:07pm
in reply to NHWynter Nov 21, 2010 3:05am

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.”

NHWynter 11/21/2010 3:05am
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Nov 19, 2010 8:32am

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?

kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:17am
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Nov 01, 2010 11:30am

“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.”

Peoplesuck 11/28/2010 10:16am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:26pm

When you do manage to create media you wish to profit from, the best way these days is to seek not a publisher or recording studio, but such websites as Amazon.com, itunes, or some other Digital Media giant that took the time to put in the necessary means to protect the media and enable it to generate money when consumed.

With technology being the way it is today, most people with talent in the Arts can cut out the middle man and all the sudden it became a lot cheaper to produce your own media! All it takes is either learning how yourself, or finding someone you trust to help you. You can use Social Media to promote yourself. Can you see where I’m coming from here? Times have changed a lot since the 90’s where Media Moguls ruled with an Iron Fist. Hell, they’re looking for people who can do all these things themselves before they’d even think about signing them, at which point they have the power to control what you produce! Would you rather not have that external influence?

Peoplesuck 11/28/2010 10:07am

The Recording and Media industries just need to FLAT OUT EVOLVE their business models and adapt to Digital Media. Passing this bill isn’t the answer to their lack of implementing Safe-guards ala I-tunes back when they easily could have.

It shouldn’t be the Government’s job to bail out Industries that make mistakes, especially if those mistakes were intentionally made due to greed or some other obscure reason only the rich stock-holders fathom. Corporations and industries and especially the rich need to learn from mistakes just like everyone else does.

This bill will just be the beginning of more power over the internet being taken away from the people, and given to the Government and bodies of interest that have the power to sway political decisions.

To think that Political parties aren’t swayed by the people lining their coffers with “Political Donations” are totally oblivious.

Peoplesuck 11/28/2010 10:26am

Kinda sucks that you can’t edit your own posts..
(edit of last line in above post by me)
“political donations” would be some pretty oblivious thinking imo.

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 10:40am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 12:56pm

“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.


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