The end of the internet could be soon

[Bobinator]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/...i_b_739836.html

When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.

Help us stop this bill in its tracks! Click here to sign the petition.

COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.

Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)

COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship. Please help us fight back: The first step is signing our petition. We'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your Senator.

TL;DR -- In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.

If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US.

It should be noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed the scheduled markup of the Internet censorship bill — a fantastic outcome, given that the entertainment industry and their allies in Congress had hoped this bill would be quickly approved before the Senators went home for the October recess.

So yeah, this is really, really, bad. If this thing gets passed, this isn't just the US this will happen to, this is the entire world having their internet censored by any big corporation that wants to. What scares me the most is that I'm thinking if this actually does pass, people are just going to be too generally lazy to care, even if that means losing even more of our rights.

The petition is here. You may want to see about sending $3 to help get a guy to DC to fight this bill, too. Even if you don't, though, the biggest thing you could possibly do to help is spread the word and gather people who don't want their rights taken away by a bunch of corporate fat cats. Honestly, what I think scares me most about this bill isn't the censorship we'll get if it passes, but the fact that a ton of people are probably not going to complain at all if it does. I mean, if the government manages to take this away, what else could they get away with?

 

[Prime 2.0]

Signed, and donated $20. I sent an email to half of the people in my contacts list, for that matter. This is absolute insanity, and as cheesy as it may be for me to say it like this, we simply cannot allow it to happen.

 

[Cue]

And why does the US government suddenly think it has the power to control what we, in other countries, can do?

Dear American Government: Get off your high horse, you're not the kings of the world.

 

[Sonnarkku]

Haha, no. My president tried censoring the internet a hellalot of times, he was able to curse on cameras, steal the bones of South America´s most iconic libertator, support a terrorist group and say it on TV (Farc), change the constitution twice, and expropiate as much stores he wanted. Yet, the Interwebz are a totally different thing, it´s not that simple. Trust me, there is a much bigger, fatter industry behind it, and I´m pretty sure the goverments are already aware of the big-ass cultural decrease that will happen if the Interwebz are gone, we´d be less comunicated, be unaware of real-life situation, many information would be lost and people would start broadcasting ilegal internet signal to get money.

EDIT:

Dear American Government: Get off your high horse, you're not the kings of the world.

This post = Topic Winner

 

[Fawfulfan]

Surely this must be some kind of sick, twisted joke. It's in complete violation of not only U.S. civil liberties, but it completely oversteps American authority on the global stage. I signed in a snap, and I also added the petition to my Facebook page.

 

[supersonic45]

Nia Teppelin ニア: ugh us wants to censor internet
that1dude24: welcome to the past 10 years
that1dude24: shit probably wont pass, but it would suck if it did

It's been tried before, I doubt they'll win this time unless Obama says something to the public about it.

I thought the purpose of the internet was that data - no matter how wrong or disturbing - could be distributed. If the US wants to stop it, they're gonna have to put up a fight.

 

[Blitzzo]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/victory-internet-censorship-bill-delayed

The EFF is our friend. Long live the EFF.

Bill isn't gone, but it's delayed, so this buys us some time.

 

[Shadow Hog]

Hey, it's that "oh noes the Government is going to totally ruin the Internet! Woe is us!" thread that shows up every couple of months on at least one of the forums I go to where we have pages upon pages of doom-and-gloom over something that ultimately never pans out! Can't say as I missed it.

 

[Prime 2.0]

Hey, it's that "oh noes the Government is going to totally ruin the Internet! Woe is us!" thread that shows up every couple of months on at least one of the forums I go to where we have pages upon pages of doom-and-gloom over something that ultimately never pans out! Can't say as I missed it.

Because people spread the word and stood up to it in droves, like in the aforementioned doom & gloom topics. Funny how it works out that way. Also funny is the lack of mention of the British Digital Economy Act and France's "HADOPI" 3 strikes law, both internet centric bills of the doom-and-gloom sort that did pan out.

Apathy towards an important issue because of previous victories is dangerous, simply because stuff like this being blocked is not just a matter of course. The silent majority gets nothing; either enough people speak up and act in opposition of something, or they lose.

 

[EternallyAries]

Man i hope this will not pass.

 

[MascaraSnake]

Am I the only person here who approves of the general idea behind this? Copyright infringement on the Internet is illegal and taking down pirated software or media is a good thing. Nobody has a right to obtain such material, and banning it is not a violation of any law.

That said, this bill is very poorly designed: The second list is totally ridiculous. If sites are banned, they should be banned in an official court ruling that can be appealed against. Sites like YouTube should of course not be blocked, but copyright violation should be deleted on sight. This system is already in practice in Germany, where most music owned by Sony and Warner Bros. has been deleted from YouTube. Of course, that means I can't access a lot of stuff, but that's okay because it secures the copyright of the artists. And those artists who have no problem with their content being shared can register an official YouTube account and upload whatever they want.

In essence, it would be supportive of this law, if only it was transparent and controllable. The way it is now, it's not acceptable.

EDIT:

I thought the purpose of the internet was that data - no matter how wrong or disturbing - could be distributed. If the US wants to stop it, they're gonna have to put up a fight.

If that is the purpose of the Internet, then the Internet is illegal as a whole. At the moment, the Internet is a playground where you can easily violate a lot of laws and get away with it.

 

[Miyosaki]

I find this quite ridiculous...

First off it is against the Constitution, the document the U.S. laws were built upon.

Second off, who decided that one single country can control the entire internet?

It's as though the Congress forgot the 1st amendment, forgot about "Freedom of Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and just went for controlling whatever they please without actually understanding just how much of the internet makes something that is no doubt copyrighted by a corporation.

 

[Fawfulfan]

Am I the only person here who approves of the general idea behind this? Copyright infringement on the Internet is illegal and taking down pirated software or media is a good thing. Nobody has a right to obtain such material, and banning it is not a violation of any law.

I somewhat agree with your sentiment. The problem is not the intent of the bill, but the undue power it grants the government. Under this law, the government and Internet corporations would be able to blacklist and remove any website they consider to be copyright infringement without due process of law. Sites like YouTube are not actually guilty of copyright infringement--only the unethical users who post copyrighted material--but under this law, YouTube could be immediately declared guilty of copyright infringement and taken off the Internet. Furthermore, unlike the Internet censorship in Iran or China, blacklisted sites in America could be completely removed from the Internet, which is a complete violation of U.S. authority. America does not "own" the Internet, and therefore does not have the right to purge the Internet of content which the government finds objectionable.

I agree we need much better copyright policing online, but this is not the answer. What we need is to handle each case of online copyright infringement as a court case. We need a better legal infrastructure which allows corporations to easily sue websites, and for those websites in turn to appoint attorneys and defend their practices in a court of law. If they are found guilty, they will be wiped of the offending content. This is fair, this is in the spirit of other American constitutional rights, and if it is vigorously upheld, this will strike a medium that should satisfy corporations, government, and the online community.

 

[MascaraSnake]

I somewhat agree with your sentiment. The problem is not the intent of the bill, but the undue power it grants the government. Under this law, the government and Internet corporations would be able to blacklist and remove any website they consider to be copyright infringement without due process of law. Sites like YouTube are not actually guilty of copyright infringement--only the unethical users who post copyrighted material--but under this law, YouTube could be immediately declared guilty of copyright infringement and taken off the Internet. Furthermore, unlike the Internet censorship in Iran or China, blacklisted sites in America could be completely removed from the Internet, which is a complete violation of U.S. authority. America does not "own" the Internet, and therefore does not have the right to purge the Internet of content which the government finds objectionable.

I agree we need much better copyright policing online, but this is not the answer. What we need is to handle each case of online copyright infringement as a court case. We need a better legal infrastructure which allows corporations to easily sue websites, and for those websites in turn to appoint attorneys and defend their practices in a court of law. If they are found guilty, they will be wiped of the offending content. This is fair, this is in the spirit of other American constitutional rights, and if it is vigorously upheld, this will strike a medium that should satisfy corporations, government, and the online community.

That's pretty much exactly my stance on it. The internet has been a legal gray zone for much too long, and defending your copyrights must be a nightmare. But as far as I can see, this law doesn't allow the US government and courts to actually take down websites, only to censor them. Of course, forcing ISPs to censor the sites for everyone is violation of international right, so it should and probably will not be accepted by any country in the United Nations.

The problem is that the internet is not national, and copyright laws differ in every country. To solve this problem, all countries would need to agree on copyright matters and then create an international institution to deal with it. Either this, or the internet would need to be strictly nationalized. I think we can all agree that the second solution is not acceptable at all. Unfortunately, I don't see the first solution happening anytime either.

 

[PHCC]

Well, I'm not very worried with this. This would take a long time to happens in Brazil, but people can easily find a way to download things that need to be paid for free. Like e-mail: My sister is in an exchange in Taiwan, and she can't download musics there, so, I send an e-mail with the musics for her and she download them as well. But I wouldn't accept this if I live in US.

 

[Colson]

ohcrapdownloadasmuchpiratedstuffasyoucanbeforetheycensorit!!
Just kidding.

I will throw my computer out my second story window if they pass the bill.

 

[Red Pie]

Wow.
But why just the US?

 

[Blitzzo]

To the people arguing in favor of this bill in the interests of copyright: Did the Internet eat your dog or something? I apologize, but this seems to me like nothing more than some corporate big-suits reacting to the Internet like it's some goddamned apocalyptic black horse that is spreading Communism (it isn't) and destroying the foundations of America (it isn't, it's actually doing a ridiculously good job at spreading our culture to other countries while fostering growth within our own nation and promoting the ideals of Freedom of Speech).

The reality is that we are transitioning to a new economy. Post a video online, come up with an addicting game, start a mini-series or thought-provoking blog. Go viral. Get tens of thousands of eager customers purchasing your work or merchandise because you are now hip. It worked for Valve. It worked for Notch. Hell, it worked for Rick Astley (although this was somewhat unintentional on his part, it got him featured in the iTunes Music Store for a while). Companies who are used to the old economy are confused and they are trying to keep their work off the Internet for some weird reason. They fail to realize that the Internet is A. free advertising, B. good publicity for them, and C. bad publicity for them if they make the ill-advised decision to try and take down their work.

A lot of companies could monetize their works using the power of the Internet, but they simply aren't. Look at Viacom. Say, what's everyone's opinion of Viacom in here? Probably extremely low. They decided to troll YouTube on several counts. First attempt, they actually succeeded, and somehow managed to get YouTube to take down millions of videos, many of which didn't even have any content owned by Viacom, since all they did was scan for certain keywords and act like those videos were somehow their property.

I'm pretty sure that companies like Viacom would be able to make more money if they spent less time trying to protect their copyrights (which almost nobody else cares about), and more time actually appealing to consumers and making them want to do business with them.

Oh, remember Downfall? Yeah, the film that made a splash on YouTube once Hitler's ranting scene became viral - as the subject of a number of parody videos. A lot of people hadn't even heard of the movie before that particular clip hit the Internet. Even the film's director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, liked the parodies. Constantin Films, however, did not, as they instead thought it would be a good idea to order takedowns of those videos. Fools. They could have found a new revenue source.

So, that's that. Now, on the subject of the actual bill itself, this is even worse, since it not only gives way too much control to big business ("Oh no, I'm not in complete control anymore with the Internet! I can no longer brainwash millions of Americans every day with spoonfed television programs! I have to actually gain the support of consumers now!"), but it opens the way to an extremely broad form of censorship. I guess one day Viacom might decide to lobby the government to block YouTube because it could potentially infringe their dear copyrights. Poof! Gone! Next, some record company comes out of the blue, complains to the White House that last.fm and a number of independently hosted radio stations and music stores that aren't called "iTunes Music Store" could potentially be hosting infringing content. Poof! Gone! Now the new economy is doomed and we are back to being chained to our televisions for entertainment. Whoops! So much for progress!

Yeeeah. I don't understand why anyone is in support of this at all. Keep in mind that I am not, in any way, trying to promote piracy, but a new digital economy and business model that serves to enable consumers to think and exercise their rights, while enabling big business and independent groups alike to, well, make money.

In closing, http://creativefreedom.org.nz/library/comic/s92cartoon-bw.png

 

[ZarroTsu]

Whoops! So much for progress!

But Blitzzo, that's America's SLOGAN.

 

[Callum]

Signed, posted on Facebook wall. The United States unfortunately is a very important country, and lots of other countries follow its lead, if they did on this, it would be a nightmare... taking websites off the Internet as a whole on the ACCUSATION of copyright infringement, even worse only because of USER-generated content, is a completely unfair joke. Real funny America. How did you get to become a superpower again...? >_>