Anti-piracy legislation passes Senate committee

[Mike]

Back in September we covered new legislation that would allow the government greater latitude in shutting down file sharing and P2P websites. Yesterday that bill unanimously passed a vote in the Senate's Judicial Committee, taking it one step closer to implementation as a law.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, would grant the Department of Justice the ability to seize and shut down the domain names of "rogue websites" that promote copyright infringement. Currently all domain names, including those outside the U.S., are managed by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. With this bill a new precedent may be set, allowing a governmental agency to deny access to a website internationally as well as domestically.

The process for shutting down a rogue site would still require a civil lawsuit to determine if copyright violation has occurred. The change would come in the outcome, where traditionally damages are awarded. The new system would allow for a request to take the domain offline, effectively removing the site from the Internet. This has already been used against several streaming video sites and has drawn praise from copyright groups hoping to see it become standard procedure.

The MPAA and RIAA have already released lists of sites they would like to see eliminated including The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, and Demonoid, among others. Demonoid has asked its users to protest passage of the bill, and is joined by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation in fighting what they see as a form of Internet censorship. Comparisons to China and Iran have already been made, along with predictions of damaging the Internet as a whole, stifling future innovation, and imposing unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/41206-anti-piracy-legislation-passes-senate-committee.html

 

[Decimae]

allowing a governmental agency to deny access to a website internationally[\quote]
Really? Ever heard of jurisdiction, USA? The web != USA.

 

[veedubguy]

Let them try and shut down said sites... They will just keep popping up and give the people more reason to continue on. What a waste of federal funds and time. I have purchased more products because of these torrent sites. I like to know what I am getting before I go out and buy it and this is the best way to do so imo...

 

[whiteandnerdy]

I agree with Decimae. I know copyright infringement isn't a good thing but if the site isn't based in the US what gives then the right to say you cant go to it?

 

[Ahmed90]

lolwut ? internationally ???

i guess these sites will be by IP next the domain was to make the IPs more easy to remember but with all the techs today its a piece of cake to save an IP

 

[Jesse]

scary stuff.

 

[madboyv1]

@Decimae and whiteandnerdy: The same right that allows a company to sue overseas over copyright infringement. There are multiple international laws and statutes that allow protection of copyrights beyond "national jurisdictions". Beyond that it is a large mess of laws, regulations and cooperation local to various countries. The right is clearly there, whether or not the US government should be targeting internet sites directly, rather than letting these various watchdog organizations run to the end of their leashes and wading through that mess is beyond me.

If anything the physical piracy rings that SELL counterfeit copies software, video games, and movies are far more damaging than the free copies circulating (and then you have the counterfeiting of other physical products like clothing and shoes).

 

[Per Hansson]

Seen the movie "Team America; World Police" ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/

USA: World Police
Atleast I LOL:ed when reading this news story
Oh, it wasn't an April fools?

 

[Guest]

lacking the ability to pirate won't cause me personally to purchase more media, only consume less. I have a budget, and entertainment is something I'm less flexible with, because it's importance is rather low. I can actually say that I will probably buy even less.

 

[xempler]

I bet my left nut that more than half the Senate's Judicial Committee doesn't understand the concept of P2P or even know how to turn on their own computers. Yet, here they are trying to pass a law about it.

This reminds me of when the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11. Most admitted that they voted for it even though they never even read the act or understood it's implications.

Morons in government doing what they usually do.

 

[Guest]

Madboyv1 mentioned the counterfeit rings selling stuff.

One of the many stupid points by governments was that illegal copies help fund terrorism. Really? So stopping the torrents isnt going to have those dodgy lil people walking into bars and pubs trying to flog their copies of cams and silver screeners making the alleged terrorist and counterfeit gang rings even more money.

Well done on thinking this through as ever.

Veedubguy mentioned how he saw it as a try b4 you buy. And with the mass amounts of overmarketed crap that we are expected to buy I kinda agree. Im sure even Jo Whiley in her tv about music on the net and torrents etc, she said that those who download via torrents and p2p spend 1.5 times the amount of those who just buy from shops legally.

So why are the companies complaining of a loss of money, and during a worldwide recession ?
Cos they can, cos they have nothing to waste taxpayers money on. Bands QQing about loss of money coz of the net, if its out there for free we must have lost that much money, downloads x price of an album = profit loss ? NO! not accurate. Number of people on planet x price of an album = target profit ? NO! ...

This whole thing is a whole bunch of bull sh1t made of crap statistics. Number crunching gone mad.

 

[lchu12]

Ha, this will only fuel the amount of people to go out and "buy" counterfeit copies and fund terrorist organizations, rather than having people download it themselves.

But frankly, if I really like a product I would buy it. Just some software either doesn't work right or has work stopping bug that gets really annoying when you buy it, and expect it to do a certain action.

 

[madboyv1]

Guest@9:47 AM: If the "thinking this through" part was directed at the government, then I agree. The vast majority of 'purported' sellers of pirated material or blatantly copied/plagiarized are more often cartels involved with drugs or Asian black markets for the sake of pocket lining, rather than Terrorism (with a US mandated capital 'T' lol). It's hard to not find stories about China and their "quality US products", or Mexican or South American busts on illegal copies of software and printed banknotes.

If that comment was directed at me however... =(.

 

[TomSEA]

"Comparisons to China and Iran have already been made, along with predictions of damaging the Internet as a whole, stifling future innovation, and imposing unconstitutional restrictions on free speech."

But it's ok to engage in wholesale theft, eh?

 

[Benny26]

xempler said:
I bet my left nut that more than half the Senate's Judicial Committee doesn't understand the concept of P2P or even know how to turn on their own computers. Yet, here they are trying to pass a law about it.

This reminds me of when the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11. Most admitted that they voted for it even though they never even read the act or understood it's implications.

Morons in government doing what they usually do.

100% Right...But then i wonder would it really be better if mensa ruled the world? lol

 

[windmill007]

We are turning away from the land of the free. Ever hear of proxy's..No? Just wait if this law passes..they will become a very hot topic! You can't stop people on the internet....you will just tick people off. Blocking things just makes people want to do it more. Why do they even try?

 

[PanicX]

I think its going to be hard to use free speech as an argument against punishment issued through due process of law. I don't have a problem with this legislation besides that it imposes USA's laws on an international level. That opens a can of worms that ultimately can fragment the internet to everyones mutual loss.

 

[gingerbill]

difficult subject . I'm against people downloading media for free , some of it i understand the reasons but why should a company invest £100 million to see a show just downloaded and to be fair the US has made alot of great TV shows recently . I think the people who download stuff for free but then go and buy the DVD's of shows they think are great have it correct . That way great shows are rewarded. Anyone thinking its fine to download everything and never buy anything are *****s in my opinon , if everyone did that there would be no more great shows.

The US (or any country) having the power to shut down sites internationally i am against , if the US goverments werent *****s and took sensible advice then maybe we could trust them but as it stands this power will be abused.

 

[viperpfl]

The problem we have here is the law is very broad. Even a simple word can be considered copyright infringement. Even though the law says a civil lawsuit would require a site takedown, we all know that won't happen. It won't happen when it comes to the MPAA and the RIAA. What would happen is the MPAA would put in a request for a site takedown claiming copyright infringement, and then the lawsuit would begin. I also believe that this law will be abused and would limit commerce.

This law is going to be bad for everyone.

 

[Guest]

Does this mean the end to porn sharing? )

 

[Nima304]

I hope 4chan can bring an end to this. They're the only ones taking offensive action against the anti-piracy movement.

 

[Zeromus]

Noo, I hope btjunkie isn't on the list. Oh no by mentioning the name does it enlist? Anything but btjunkie D:

 

[Guest]

At madboyv1. The comment was about how the government have not thought it through.

At TomSEA. I get that pirating is in general wrong. Making your gf or bf a mixtape is by law illegal if the law was to twist the fact, you just gave something you bought to someone else and they didnt pay for it (thats sharing p2p the non digital way) ... but as i said b4...

The industries that be, find out how many copies have shifted on p2p site,s and in my opinion work out that by multiplying those figures by the price of the dvd, album, book, game, etc, that the total figure they have now come up with, is the revenue that is missing from their wallets.

Now from one tv show i watched it showed that with music at least, that those who were active with p2p sites put 1 and a half times the amount of money into the system, compared to those who didnt use p2p.

So blaming p2p for a dip in revenue is absolute crap and they know it, and if they dont they need to go back to school and relearn their maths or economics.
Not to mention that the world is in recession anyways and people cant afford every album or dvd or bluray that pops out.

In the old days, when you bought a cd, your friend might want a copy on cassette, "Cassettes, wtf are they" some may cry. "Wow is he talkin 8 tracks from the 70's".... No.
But there was sharing, again non digital, and non monitored by big brother, and was it the worlds biggest issue then... no. But in this digital age, can you really take the number downloaded and multiply to find the revenue or profit lost ? Erm I would have to say no.
Rarely would I own a film my friends owned, it would have to be something special or a cult classic. The digital age and internet speeds however mean that everyone and anyone can obtain the same film at the same time. It doesnt mean that any of those people who downloaded it had any intention of buying it. So they shouldnt have downloaded it and watched it? Ok probably not. But what if they waited, til it was released on dvd went to a friends, and had a friday night in watchin said film. No extra profits for them now ? No difference? Again its just a digital age? Same with a cd of music? If you download its illegal and punishable by stupid insane amounts of money. But get a friend to rip you a copy and because its unmonitored tough crap on them eh ?

And what about the internet companies telling you even before streaming and itunes was main stream, how fast their connections are, and how long it takes to download music and movies.
Sony and such selling divx players. Im immediately thinking they are cashing in on new products, with new features, due to the supply and demand that opens up with the internet and the types of material that can be obtained due to p2p. And so what if there is legal sources for the uses of such products? Never when I first saw a divx dvd player, did I think, wow maybe digital cameras record in divx and these dvd players are made to play back these files. No I thought wow, they are encouraging the use of illegally obtained films and music.

And I remember yesterday or the day before TomSEA saying if Warner Bros. released the 36 mins of harry potter as a ploy it could be rather clever....

Ya think? Not only is the news covering the story of its release, but now its got two stories in every news segment on the radio. The actual weekend release talk, and the illegal if not suspiciously, well timed release of the 36 mins which not only helps as free advertising, but is also epicly timed for this actual meeting of senate douche bags, who have a hollywood scandal to use as firepower to sway decisions. Not that it needs swaying.

Sorry

 

[Guest]

Pretty soon it will be books, and that's when EVERYONE in USA should really be upset about.

 

[Darkshadoe]

There is already a senator that says he is blocking this in the senate unless it is changed.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/211162/