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.

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:36am

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

  • 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!

  • 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.

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

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    4ofjulyguy 11/01/2010 11:32am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:51pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:51pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    (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.)

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:38am

    And why would they?


    Gosh, power never corrupted anyone…

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:59pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:41am

    Your faith has been fulfilled!


    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.

  • 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).

  • Comm_reply
    Peoplesuck 11/28/2010 10:16am

    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?

  • 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 1:42pm
    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.

  • 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:


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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • kevinmcc 11/27/2010 1:26pm

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


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

    Including torrent-finder, which only lists sites that in some cases (not all) deal in copyrighted materials (though not in their entirety).


    So ICE has shut down sites guilty of no crime except TALKING about other sites with censored materials.

    Never mind our first amendment rights, we weren’t using them anyway.

    Well some of us upstarts were… have no doubt, we’re next.

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:48am

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


    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
  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:50am

    + Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia.
    Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies.
    + There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.
    + In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.
    + As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked markets.

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