[Very Important] Coica Passed & Federal Seizure of Websites has Begun

reply to post by babybunnies


Why? Sorry I'm not okay with being told what to think.

reply to post by Whyhi

The U.S. government has launched a major crackdown on online copyright infringement, seizing dozens of sites linked to illegal file sharing and counterfeit goods.

Have you ever downloaded a n MP3 off the internet?

There, now this site is linked illegal file sharing.

There were videos posted here a few months ago about a Nevada Sheriff and his fight to protect the property of a rancher. The government was trying to take land that he had legal rights to; as long as he was using the land nothing could be done.

Solution?

Take his cattle.

Since he was no longer using the land it was legal for them to take it from him.

Remember always that politicians usually were lawyers first and most law schools prefer students who already have a degree in philosophy.

There is no detail so small that it cannot be manipulated.

EDIT TO ADD: COICA was not even used in these seizures. It was ICE - Homeland Security Investigation Division that made these seizures of sites. This is what worries me.

Update: ICE, while I am not sure why it is the agency going after these types of sites, did have court-ordered warrants. Due Process is being given.

Let us first provide the background on what COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act) is and its intended use. By knowing what it is, then we can discuss it intelligently without the inherient knee-jerk reactions that I am sure will ensue on this thread.

My only goal here is to provide what the OP did not. Background to the claims that are made in the title and the leading nature that the domains of such sights can lead to the slippery slope to such sites as ATS, infowars, etc.

The Congressional Research Service summerizes the bill as such: Source

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief against a domain name used by an Internet site that is "dedicated to infringing activities," even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that "dedicated to infringing activities" as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling counterfeit goods. Requires the AG to maintain a public listing of domain names that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the AG has not filed an action. Allows parties to petition the AG to remove such a domain name from the list and obtain judicial review of the final determination in a civil action.

For the full text of S. 3804, you can find that HERE

Now, when you read this bill, ignore all that has been struck out. Those are the Acts and Provisions that have been omitted from the final draft. Further down in the bill is the real text.

Excerpts:
Sectioin 2 defines what is a site that is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’...

(i) primarily designed, or 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--

In other words, sites that serve no purpose of engaging in commerce with anothers' copyrighted material and sole puporse is to do the following:

(I) to offer goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or that enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including but not limited to offering or providing access in a manner not authorized by the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies or phonorecords of, or public performances or displays of works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, streaming, or other transmission, provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining access to such copies, phonorecords, performances, displays, goods, or services; or

(II) to sell or offer to sell or distribute or otherwise promote goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

This is the defining paragraph that gives what appears to be a narrow section pertaining to domains and sites that are engaging in knowingly and willingly serving its users with copyrighted materials without just compensation to the owners of those works.

The above is all in legalese, but is quite easy to read. If you need reference to Title 17 of the USC, you can find that HERE. Title 17 deals with copyright laws.

Since in this country, we reward innovation and original works; protection for the owner(s) of such innovation or original work is rooted our laws. There is though, a case to be made about such laws and their usefullness, but that is not for this discussion. This discussion is about the Federal Government using its authority to shutdown sites.

The Attorney General is not convicting anyone that is associated with the domains of these sites nor its owners. This Act only gives the power of...
[
ex]Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity in violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

So before there are claims that the Government, who I am no fan of, is going around shutting down any site it deems 'inappropriate', please educate yourself upon the law and the Act. Sites such as ATS do not promote nor tolerate copyright infringement, so it would never fall under this Act as is.

Think before you speak on the matter and gain a bit of understanding. Then discuss the implications and possibilities. Shouting out random rants and screaming the Government is here to remove ATS makes you look silly.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I agree that COICA is not going to infringe *today* on sites like ATS. Because this is the first cog in the wheel of internet censorship. Like any program you start by getting power to turn off one item of interest that the public will appeal as just, then pass the next bill, then the next slowly stripping down the available sites on the internet.

Before you assume we are just idiots pandering... www.infowars.com...

Know that there is no joke about a wide scale sweep of free internet about to happen, and this is just the start.

They want this freedom shut down period. Jay Rockefeller is leading that charge.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by janon

 

We're not talking about the patriot act, we're talking about online theft. Unless you have a better idea to stop people from stealing music other than shutting down the most popular sources and attempting to track said thieves...

lets debate stealing.... if i have cd and give it to you , thats stealing? i would say thats no more stealing then the money being taken out of my checks in the name of taxes and spent on stuff i don't agree with.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


Don't put words in my mouth, I never referred to anyone as idiots. Just that is was foolish to instantly connect the "seizure" of websites (there was no seizure, only injunction upon those sites and domain) to that of censorship of sites that reside upon the access of the Internet.

I also do not trust most of what the Government puts out via Congress, no matter the party. I do not though, instantly label things until I gain an understanding. That is why I posted what I posted. So until that bill is changed, it remains quite specific in the types of sites and domains it will be aggressive towards. None of which are sites where people 'gather' in a public square type of environment.

reply to post by Gixxer


You handing your CD to a friend is not the same as placing that whole CD upon a domain, where you have no intent in recognizing the owner's right to profit off their original works and then providing potentially 100s of millions of people access to it.

You cannot equate the two in my opinion, but I understand your line of questioning in regards to it.

reply to post by freesprite


Want torrents, you say? Why not go to a site not under the governance of the Corporation UNITED STATES?
thepiratebay.org...

And friend, no way can they get them all...

www.torrentreactor.net...

www.mininova.org...

www.torrentzap.com...

www.torrentdownloads.net...

www.kickasstorrents.com...

www.bitgrab.com...

www.tommy2008.com...

wiki.etree.org...

reply to post by freesprite


haha, the can't seize something they dont have control over. I own my server, I am my own domain registar, they have 0 access to my domain registar accounts. The worse they can do is DDOS Me, which will never work since my proxies will keep them running around in circles for days.