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.

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.

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?”

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.

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

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!

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!

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 9:41am
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!

kevinmcc 11/27/2010 10:02am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 12:27pm

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.

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)

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.

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?

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?

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

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!

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 11:30am
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?

LiFo 11/20/2010 10:10am

This bill isn’t just harmful to the structure of the internet but also the cause of internet neutrality as a whole.
As a supporter of internet neutrality, I believe that government regulation is necessary to prevent ISPs from abusing their position of power.However, if this bill gets passed, it will make many view the government as an ineffective corrupt censor disproved of its ability to uphold the intrest of the public.
As others have stated before me, this bill will not actually block users from accessing suppliers of contraband, but rather allowing them from accessing them through a DNS server. And I guarantee that work-around will pop up the second this bill gets passed, making its effectiveness null.
Thats why a believe this bill’s effect is far greater than the scope of the Internet Piracy debate; we should consider how it effects the topic of Telecommunication regulation as a whole.

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 9:50am
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!

loucifer667 11/20/2010 7:06am

The bill you are proposing “S.3804 – Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” is not good for the future of the internet. We understand that copyrighted materials should be protected, but this bill is not the way to do it. Private technology companies will figure out how to protect their investments. Please do not push this bill through, it is the wrong thing to do. Many of your supporters do not support a bill such as this and will definitely not support you in the future because you would be the guy who destroyed their free internet.

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/

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.

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.

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?

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…

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 11:41am
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.

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.


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