Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill"

[INRM]

Title: Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill"
Author: Richard Esguerra
URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online

Senator Patrick Leahy yesterday introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA). This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

COICA is a fairly short bill, but it could have a longstanding and dangerous impact on freedom of speech, current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy, and beyond. In 2010, if there's anything we've learned about efforts to re-write copyright law to target "piracy" online, it's that they are likely to have unintended consequences.

This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet. Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site.

Opinions?

[XBoxWarrior]

Opinions?

Yes.

[INRM]

XBox Warrior

Opinions, as in "Does anybody think this is right, or wrong?" "Does anybody agree, or disagree with it?"

[quixotecoyote]

I agree with XboxWarrior.

[drkitten]

I agree with XboxWarrior.

I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I like fudge.

[elbe]

Will they finally crack down on that "JREF" place? I hear that place is a hotbed of "infringement".

[Ysidro]

I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.

[Bob Klase]

I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

I disagree with disagreeing with anyone.

[Thunder]

Opinions?

why

[Thunder]

I like fudge.

citation required.

:p

[KoihimeNakamura]

I think I'll care more on Friday, after it's gone through Committee

[Normal Dude]

I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.

Your way of thinking is totally wrong! It's obviously up or down.

[RPG Advocate]

Yes.

I agree with XboxWarrior.

I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

I like fudge.

I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.

I disagree with disagreeing with anyone.

why

citation required.

:p

I think I'll care more on Friday, after it's gone through Committee

Your way of thinking is totally wrong! It's obviously up or down.

Not sure what's up in this thread. I thought it might be a sublte way of letting the OP know the story was a hoax, but other media outlets seem to corroborate it, so if it's a hoax, it's a damn good one.

Anyway, the only effect going after these sites at the domain registrar level will have is that instead of a fancy name, your favorite pirate sites will be known by their IP addresses. The problem, of course, is that this list could become like the no-fly list in that totally innocent sites may appear on it with few avenues for the affected parties to seek relief.

[fuelair]

As long as the blocked domains (etc.) are ones that assist piracy or libel/slander to operate, I have no problem with their blocking. If they start blocking ones that they just don't like, no.

[INRM]

I don't think the issue here is the nature of the article. The issue is the guy who posted it on this site.

Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see.

It strikes me as a dangerous step in the wrong direction

[Arus808]

last i looked, the internet is run by private ISP's on private servers. They can block or allow you access to any site on the net as per their contract with you to provide that service.

Dont like it? Then start your own isp, with a backbone and you can have access to any content you want.

[NWO Sentryman]

citation required.

:p

no, no, no, you're doing it wrong.

It's [citation needed] /:teacher:

[INRM]

Arus 808,

There's a difference between what you're saying and what this bill proposes. This bill does not entail giving a private ISP the right to block access; it gives the government to block people's access to ISP's.

[Beerina]

As long as the blocked domains (etc.) are ones that assist piracy or libel/slander to operate, I have no problem with their blocking. If they start blocking ones that they just don't like, no.

Hence the "slippery slope" idea -- best to not allow it to begin with.


For example, when expanding the government's power to investigate for the "war on terror" after 9/11, the government swore up and down they'd only use it for terrorism.

Almost immediately they started using it for illegal drugs. No, they didn't use the sophistry that selling illegal drugs "is terrorism". They just started doing it. When asked about their promise to reserve it to terrorist investigations, they stated, "The law doesn't actually specify it's limited to terrorists."


These are the sacks of dung we deal with in government. Lawyers. Liars. The power hungry. This is how they "run", to use the modern vernacular.

[Thunder]

There's a difference between what you're saying and what this bill proposes. This bill does not entail giving a private ISP the right to block access; it gives the government to block people's access to ISP's.

why is this a bad thing?

[KoihimeNakamura]

The government should not be in the business of blocking websites.

Unless they can prove, to a judge, that they are breaking the law.

[Ladewig]

Opinions?

I have an exceptionally strong opinion. My opinion is that before one worries about the content of a proposed law, one should actually read the text of the law.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/09/CombatingOnlineInfringementAndCounterfeitsAct1.pdf

[Ladewig]

Title: Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill"
Author: Richard Esguerra
URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online

This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General.


Opinions?

What is a "censorship court order"? I cannot find any reference to it outside of this (very repeated) story?

[KoihimeNakamura]

It is kinda broad.

Of course, we could stop using Congress to stop propping up RIAA. That might work better too.

[quixotecoyote]

The government should not be in the business of blocking websites.

Unless they can prove, to a judge, that they are breaking the law.

Unsurprisingly, that's what the bill actually says. They have to prove to a judge that the site is either already in violation of civil forfeiture law or that it's main purpose is to distribute infringing or counterfeit materials.

[pipelineaudio]

Damn those evil RIAA people, trying to protect millions of jobs, congress damn them!

On issues like this, its best not to use sources like eff, wired or ars-technica for the facts of the case, but it is helpful to learn their opinions on these issues

[drkitten]

Not sure what's up in this thread. I thought it might be a sublte way of letting the OP know the story was a hoax, but other media outlets seem to corroborate it, so if it's a hoax, it's a damn good one.

It's not that the story is a hoax. It's that the story is a non-story. The bill doesn't say what his paranoiac fantasies say that it does.

The poster, as he himself admits, has a track record of doing this. The weatherman will tell him "It will be not be as sunny tomorrow -- it will be windy and chill" and he'll instantly run for the nearest library and post "OMFG! The weatherman just told us that the sun is going out and we'll all freeze to death!"

[Ausmerican]

Opinions?

You misspelled onions by a magnitutde of pi.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Unsurprisingly, that's what the bill actually says. They have to prove to a judge that the site is either already in violation of civil forfeiture law or that it's main purpose is to distribute infringing or counterfeit materials.

Yeah, I read it once the pdf was actually linked. I'm not really happy about the 'links to' bit but whatever.

Damn those evil RIAA people, trying to protect millions of jobs, congress damn them!

On issues like this, its best not to use sources like eff, wired or ars-technica for the facts of the case, but it is helpful to learn their opinions on these issues

Yeah, uh.. that's an opinion. I also doubt RIAA is millions of jobs, but whatever.

[pipelineaudio]

Yeah, uh.. that's an opinion. I also doubt RIAA is millions of jobs, but whatever.

one of RIAA's jobs is to protect millions of jobs, but whatever

[rustypouch]

no, no, no, you're doing it wrong.

It's [citation needed] /:teacher:

Evidences?

[erlando]

The recording industry in America is "millions of jobs"? Millions? Really?

[Upchurch]

The recording industry in America is "millions of jobs"? Millions? Really?
How loosely are you willing to define "recording industry"? I bet we could find a way to make that work out.

[pipelineaudio]

How loosely are you willing to define "recording industry"? I bet we could find a way to make that work out.

I wouldn't limit it to just the recording industry, whatever that may be. The guy who mops the floors at the local live venue, the bartenders, the sticker printers, the mechanics, bus drivers, cabbies, so many are affected past the "fat cats" (who really aren't affected much as their interests are now wall street) that most don't think of when it comes to IP theft

[ktesibios]

Don't forget the restaurant industry. You would be surprised at how much of a studio runner's time is spent going out to get the clients' food orders.

[quixotecoyote]

Which of course brings in the agriculture industry and the transportation to get it to the restaurants.

[Dancing David]

I don't think the issue here is the nature of the article. The issue is the guy who posted it on this site.

Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see.

Where does the legislation proposed or other wise say that?


It strikes me as a dangerous step in the wrong direction

[NWO Sentryman]

Evidences?

http://xkcd.com/285/

[erlando]

I wouldn't limit it to just the recording industry, whatever that may be. The guy who mops the floors at the local live venue, the bartenders, the sticker printers, the mechanics, bus drivers, cabbies, so many are affected past the "fat cats" (who really aren't affected much as their interests are now wall street) that most don't think of when it comes to IP theft

Ah, those millions... :rolleyes:

That's BS! Don't kid yourself, the RIAA is protecting exactly one category: The money, ie the "fat cats".

From http://www.riaa.org/whatwedo.php:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major music companies.

(bolding mine).

People won't stop going to concerts. So the bartenders, moppers, cabbies etc. are safe.

[pipelineaudio]

People won't stop going to concerts.

On which planet?

So the bartenders, moppers, cabbies etc. are safe.

In dream land

[quixotecoyote]

On which planet?


Which of course ties the fields of astronomy and astronautical engineering to the RIAA employment lynchpin.


In dream landAs well as the hypnotic pharmaceutical industry and bed manufacturers.

A truly vital part of our economy.

[erlando]

On which planet?

Are you really claiming that piracy of music is causing people to no longer go to see the performers live? Please provide evidence for this claim.

Also please explain why digital music in general have not caused this effect.

In dream land

Failure to address RIAA's interests noted.

[pipelineaudio]

Are you really claiming that piracy of music is causing people to no longer go to see the performers live? Please provide evidence for this claim.

The lack of angel money causing a drop in live show infrastructure? You seriously can't connect the dots?

Most songwriters DO NOT and HAVE NEVER taken a stage, they're songwriters

You guys are invoking the T-Shirt fallacy

Also please explain why digital music in general have not caused this effect.

Because the highest attendance in history was during the early digital era

Failure to address RIAA's interests noted.

Failure to even try and gain a rudimentary understanding of the IP war noted

[erlando]

You seriously can't connect the dots?

You seriously can't provide evidence?

[WildCat]

Most songwriters DO NOT and HAVE NEVER taken a stage, they're songwriters
How did songwriters make a living before recordings?

Because the highest attendance in history was during the early digital era
You mean during the tech boom times of the 1990s? When unemployment was 4%? When tickets cost $20 for a major act?

Yeah, I'm sure it was because of digital recording... :rolleyes:

[Ladewig]

Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see.

It strikes me as a dangerous step in the wrong direction

Where does the legislation proposed or other wise say that?

I, too, would like INRM to identify the relevant clause in the bill.

[jadebox]

It appears that the bill would only require ISPs to remove the domain names of "offending" sites from DNS servers, not actually block access to the sites. It's like saying "We won't close down that crack house. We'll just paint over the number on the mailbox."

Visitors could still enter IP addresses directly or use any number of "redirection" services that would appear. And, with how easy it is to create new domain names, the government and courts wouldn't have a chance of keeping up.

Without considering the free speech/slippery slope issues, it seems like a totally unworkable idea.

-- Roger

[pipelineaudio]

How did songwriters make a living before recordings?

The same way computer programmers did before computers


You mean during the tech boom times of the 1990s? When unemployment was 4%? When tickets cost $20 for a major act?

Yeah, I'm sure it was because of digital recording... :rolleyes:

No, his question was to show that digital did NOT lead to a decline in sales, and BTW it was the 80's

[erlando]

No, his question was to show that digital did NOT lead to a decline in sales, and BTW it was the 80's

That was part of it, yes. But the real question was this:

Are you really claiming that piracy of music is causing people to no longer go to see the performers live? Please provide evidence for this claim.

Also please explain why digital music in general have not caused this effect.


You have yet to provide any evidence of piracy causing people to stop going to concerts.

I don't support piracy of neither music nor software. But coming up with IMO silly claims like "music piracy is hurting cab drivers" is not helping anyones fight against piracy.

And trust me, RIAA (by their own mission statement) couldn't care less about anyone other than the major music labels.

[pipelineaudio]

You have yet to provide any evidence of piracy causing people to stop going to concerts.

Well for starters, it caused far fewer places to play, so there are far fewer places to see a live act

I don't support piracy of neither music nor software. But coming up with IMO silly claims like "music piracy is hurting cab drivers" is not helping anyones fight against piracy.

Believe it or not, there are many subtle and not at all subtle connections between different characters that together make up this thing we call "the economy". If you don't think the lack of people going to bars hurts cabbies, then I don't know what to tell you

And trust me, RIAA (by their own mission statement) couldn't care less about anyone other than the major music labels.

And just as the creationists bring up "darwin was a racist" it really doesn't matter. The end result is that the RIAA is one of the very few people advocating for IP protection

It always cracks me up how the anarcho-hipster "sticks it to the man" by hurting the artist

[erlando]

Well for starters, it caused far fewer places to play, so there are far fewer places to see a live act

And the link to music piracy is...?

I simply cannot see why the fact that albums already for sale being distributed illegally should have any effect whatsoever on ticket sales or the number of venues etc. If people are not willing to pay for the music (i.e. pirating it) why should they be willing to pay 6-8-10 times the price of an album to go to a concert in the first place?

Why should music piracy have this effect when CDs, LPs, cassettes and any other means of recording didn't? Or is it your claim that the availability of recorded music stops people from going to concerts?

And just as the creationists bring up "darwin was a racist" it really doesn't matter. The end result is that the RIAA is one of the very few people advocating for IP protection

It might be true that RIAA is pretty alone in their fight. But that doesn't change the fact that they are NOT in any way interested in anything else than protecting the financial interests of their members; the major labels.

Claiming they are some sort of benevolent organization "protecting millions of jobs" is just wishful thinking.

[pipelineaudio]

And the link to music piracy is...?

I simply cannot see why the fact that albums already for sale being distributed illegally should have any effect whatsoever on ticket sales or the number of venues etc. If people are not willing to pay for the music (i.e. pirating it) why should they be willing to pay 6-8-10 times the price of an album to go to a concert in the first place?

Why should music piracy have this effect when CDs, LPs, cassettes and any other means of recording didn't? Or is it your claim that the availability of recorded music stops people from going to concerts?


Do you REALLY want to know the answers to these questions, or do you just want to stick to your preconceived notions?

You really are asking very valid questions, and I would like to help you find the answers to them. Some of it is not immediately intuitive, unless you are at the forefront of the IP war.

The guy I partnered up with to create software was also the inventor of P2P as we know it. You can bet that I take massive heat from both sides of this issue daily, so I have a lot of perspective on it


It might be true that RIAA is pretty alone in their fight. But that doesn't change the fact that they are NOT in any way interested in anything else than protecting the financial interests of their members; the major labels.

Again, it really doesn't matter to me WHY they're doing it (yes they're doing a job because they got paid to do a job, same as you or me I suspect). What matters is that they are doing it. What matters more is getting the public off of this blame the victim game

Claiming they are some sort of benevolent organization "protecting millions of jobs" is just wishful thinking.

Luckily that was not my claim.

If you really want the answers to the questions you asked, I will be glad to if you start another thread. Actually I think each question deserves its own thread, and if so I will try my best to bring relevant experts from both sides into this discussion.

[INRM]

bump

[Ladewig]

Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see.


Where does the legislation proposed or other wise say that?


So you make a claim, another poster asks you for evidence of that claim, and you bump the thread by adding a post that simply says "bump." Fascinating. Personally, I would be so embarrassed about not being able to support that claim that I would hope the thread rolled off the first page.

[Dancing David]

Why should you be able to download and swap other people's copyrighted material without their permission?

You can purchase the material for yourself, but not redistribute it. That does not require all this tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

If you wish to swap with someone on the internet then contact the creator/owner of the work and get their permission.


I disagree with more than a twenty year copyright, that does not mean I can go to someone’s house, steal all the vegetables from their garden and sell them without legal consequences.

[INRM]

Dancing David,

I don't think people should be stealing people's property, be it physical, or intellectual. What I'm worried about is this issue being used to justify a policy of excessive internet policing and censorship.

[INRM]

The bill has temporarily been delayed
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/victory-internet-censorship-bill-delayed

Unfortunately, I'm quite confident they'll try again, and considering they intended to slip this bill through just before a recess, they're willing to resort to all sorts of dirty tricks in order to get away with it.

[Ladewig]

Dancing David,

I don't think people should be stealing people's property, be it physical, or intellectual. What I'm worried about is this issue being used to justify a policy of excessive internet policing and censorship.

For the third time, what part of this very specifically worded bill will allow for censorship?

[Dancing David]

Dancing David,

I don't think people should be stealing people's property, be it physical, or intellectual. What I'm worried about is this issue being used to justify a policy of excessive internet policing and censorship.

And you haven't shown a basis for that.

[Ladewig]

Bump.

Dancing David,

I don't think people should be stealing people's property, be it physical, or intellectual. What I'm worried about is this issue being used to justify a policy of excessive internet policing and censorship.

For the fourth time, please indicate which part of this very specifically worded bill will allow for censorship or admit that you have overreacted.