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 61-90 of 91 total comments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 10:03am
in reply to Brit Oct 25, 2010 7:29am

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!

4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:57am

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!

4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:55am
in reply to RowenaCherry Oct 25, 2010 1:56am

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!

4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:50am
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 24, 2010 5:15pm

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!

4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:41am
in reply to JustAVoter Oct 25, 2010 11:37am

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!

4ofjulyguy 10/27/2010 9:37am
in reply to debstover Oct 25, 2010 9:25am

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!

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.

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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?

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/

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”!

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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.

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

nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:14pm
in reply to nmeagent Sep 29, 2010 4:13pm

Or three? Hah, I’m seeing things now.

nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:13pm

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

nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:12pm
in reply to superpeople Sep 29, 2010 2:27pm

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.

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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.

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.

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?

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?”


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