"Censoring the internet" is not an accurate summary of COICA

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I've seen several threads fuming about the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act and describing it as "censoring the internet".

This is not accurate - the COICA doesn't criminalise any form of speech that was legal beforehand; what it does is introduce new powers to oppose breaches of existing copyright laws on the internet.


The text of the bill defines an infringing website as one that is:

(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer:

(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the 'Trademark Act of 1946' or the 'Lanham Act'; 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)); and

(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.



I think there is a case to be made that clause (B) is too broadly-phrased, but that's a far cry from the complaints I've been seeing about "censoring the internet". And I think that if we're to keep the idea of copyright as a legal concept and the right of creators to their creations then some form of legislation along these broad lines is necessary.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Also, the votes were not for PASSAGE of the bill,

but rather they voted in committee to send it to the full Senate - which is arguably "voting for the bill", but not in the sense that most people would use that phrase.

[Better Believe It]

2. The case against the COICA internet censorship bill. It will "censor legitimate online speech. "

UPDATE: The Case Against COICA
Legislative Analysis by Peter Eckersley

UPDATE: EFF is deeply disappointed to report that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the COICA Internet censorship bill this morning, despite bipartisan opposition, and countless experts pointing out how it would be ineffective, unconstitutional, bad for innovation and the tech economy, and would break the Internet.

Notably, Senator Feinstein and Senator Coburn commented on the need for more work on elements of the bill — an important consideration as negotiations shift to the Senate at large. The bill is unlikely to come up again until next session, and in the meantime, we look forward to educating Congress about the dangers in COICA, and joining others to oppose this or any other infringement "solution" that threatens lawful speech online.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In September, digital rights advocates and Internet engineers helped to delay the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), a terrible bill that would have allowed the Attorney General to censor the Internet in the name of copyright enforcement. Now that the November elections are over, COICA is back on the Senate Judiciary Committee schedule for markup this Thursday and could pass out of committee during the "lame duck" session of Congress.

To recap, COICA gives the government dramatic new copyright enforcement powers, in particular the ability to make entire websites disappear from the Internet if infringement, or even links to infringement, are deemed to be “central” to the purpose of the site. Rather than just targeting files that actually infringe copyright law, COICA's "nuclear-option" design has the government blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system — a reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech.

Despite some amendments at the end of last session, COICA remains disastrously bad. Here are some of the reasons why:

Please read the full article at:

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

[pnorman]

3. See this DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9595567

[JackRiddler]

7. That's a dupe. The older one is better...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9589905

[JackRiddler]

4. "What it does is introduce new powers" to do something already possible under current law.

Go to www.limewire.com.

What do you see?

Site shut down by injunction for the suspected copyright infringement that COICA is supposed to fight.*

Under current law. Hence, no need for COICA.

So why COICA with its granting of expansive, peremptory powers to AGs (yeah, yeah, gotta get a court to sign off, please) to shut down on suspicion of infringement, not just sites, but their ISPs and advertisers?

Under the vague, all-purpose COICA language, the above inclusion of a link to limewire could be called an advertisement, which AGs will also be allowed to restrict. (There is no definition of the difference between a link and an advertisement, and I challenge you to present one.)

True, it's not proscriptive, so it's not "censorship" until an AG decides to use the vague language that way on behalf of the Sacred Interests of Disney, SONY and Newscorp. (I mean, it's not like there are any AGs around looking for bullshit cases to showboat on in the effort to justify expanding budgets, right?)


AGs do not need more powers. They have enough of those already, and while they can already bully sites and minor drug users, they aren't making much use of their powers in tackling the country's greatest criminals, who get to run our major institutions and comfortably retire (or go on book tours, albeit not in the UK).



FOR SOME REAL DOPE EVERYONE GO TO THIS THREAD INSTEAD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9589905


---


* a crime I've seen compared on this site so far to pedophilia, screaming fire in a crowded theater, and destruction of the economy, but not yet to terrorism. That one's still coming.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. No need for comparisons, copywrite infringement is you stealing

food from my family. Deal with it. If that is acceptable to you, and clearly it is, then procede. But stealing is stealing.

[JackRiddler]

6. Something about your post makes me doubt that's the case.

[Codeine]

12. .

:spray:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. y = 1 / x

[Codeine]

11. Just protecting your writes?

:rofl:

[phasma ex machina]

9. "The Internet" is a concept and therefore immune to any appropriation by the control freak community

In practice, how does one actually subjugate the Inet to the powers-that-be? Outlaw WAPs to stop neighborhood subnets? Relentlessly search and destroy buried cables? Run a PR campaign demonizing TOR?

:rofl:

[shraby]

10. Wouldn't that put a big chill on linking to other sites? That's

a main part of the internet is linking like sites, or to refer people to one they think they'd like.

[JackRiddler]

13. Well that 's the thing - what's the difference between advertising and linking.

There can be a free Internet only when a content provider is held responsible, not the host, ISP, or "advertiser" (which any link might qualify if the language is this vague).