"The Great Firewall of America"

[kirant]

The title was borrowed from another forum, hence the quotes.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...us-support.ars

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) sets up a system through which the US government can blacklist a pirate website from the Domain Name System, ban credit card companies from processing US payments to the site, and forbid online ad networks from working with the site. This morning, COICA unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Interested in CP's thoughts. On the other forums I've seen this on (Average age of one being 17, the other 20), it's been nothing short of outrage.

EDIT - I'm personally for it. It's a little heavy handed and could use a bit of touch up, but I think it's ideas are in the right spot.

[zamler]

Horrible. Now the U.S. government can decide what is a "pirate" site, which can be anything they decide to classify as such. The idea is most certainly not in the "right spot".

Besides, there are so many ways around this it makes it totally useless.

this is all you need to know as to why we should not support this:

But the content industries don't mind the current version. Bob Pisano, who runs the MPAA, trotted out the "2.4 million hard working, middle-class jobs in all 50 states" that his industry creates.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by zamler

Horrible. Now the U.S. government can decide what is a "pirate" site, which can be anything they decide to classify as such. The idea is most certainly not in the "right spot".

What I meant is that they're at least trying to actively stop piracy now (which I assume is the heart of the bill), as oppose to the almost rampant activity I've remembered for god knows how long.

[Super-Rye]

This works out better for the government than it does for it's people...this is a terrible day for the interwebs.

Thank god for Canada

[TheyCallMeBruce]

I think it's time for me to start a proxy service with ad revenue.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by kirant

What I meant is that they're at least trying to actively stop piracy now (which I assume is the heart of the bill), as oppose to the almost rampant activity I've remembered for god knows how long.

Do you honestly think it will work? As for "rampant activity" yes it's out there. But smart companies find a way to capitalize on it, not attempt to crush it. Mp3 tech was popularized by piracy because the 10:1 compression made the file sizes feasible. The VCR when it first came out was said to be the end of the movie industry. It turned out to be a massive revenue machine, in many cases home movie sales eclipsed the box office take.

iTunes is a very important and vibrant revenue source for the music industry. STEAM is capitalizing on fast connections to distribute games, in fact it's very similar to how people pirate using bittorrent. There will always be those that pirate, but the key is to make the legit version affordable and have enough advantages where most people will just use the legit service instead. You can't stop all piracy, it's been going on since the beginning of time. But the arseholes at the RIAA and the like would have you believe that piracy is going to destroy entire industries, which is completely false.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by zamler

Do you honestly think it will work?

No. I don't think it will (well, MAYBE the kids who don't know what torrents are...). All I'm saying is that I appreciate the fact that the US is trying something as oppose to sitting on its hands and watching.

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by zamler

Do you honestly think it will work? As for "rampant activity" yes it's out there. But smart companies find a way to capitalize on it, not attempt to crush it. Mp3 tech was popularized by piracy because the 10:1 compression made the file sizes feasible. The VCR when it first came out was said to be the end of the movie industry. It turned out to be a massive revenue machine, in many cases home movie sales eclipsed the box office take.

iTunes is a very important and vibrant revenue source for the music industry. STEAM is capitalizing on fast connections to distribute games, in fact it's very similar to how people pirate using bittorrent. There will always be those that pirate, but the key is to make the legit version affordable and have enough advantages where most people will just use the legit service instead. You can't stop all piracy, it's been going on since the beginning of time. But the arseholes at the RIAA and the like would have you believe that piracy is going to destroy entire industries, which is completely false.

I think this is pretty much on the mark.

The private sector has pretty much dropped the ball when it comes to capitalizing on internet-based media. It seems like most of them are trying enter the online market using old methods, or rejecting it all together.

A lot of people in my generation have completely stopped buying music and movies in traditional formats, and many of them have stopped paying them altogether. Organizations like the RIAA aren't going to get these consumers back without adapting their products to their wants.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by kirant

Interested in CP's thoughts. On the other forums I've seen this on (Average age of one being 17, the other 20), it's been nothing short of outrage.

Heh. And if you look at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the average age is Grey Hair (including Al Franken). The youngest member was born around 1960. In other words, they probably don't have a clue about how this works, but here they are, making decisions and laws on something they just don't get.

I ain't got nothing against protecting copyrighted material or intellectual property or whatever they are calling it, but this, and all other attempts at "snuffing out" illegal downloading on the internet, looks a lot like the WAR ON DRUGS. It's futile. Unwinnable.

[JohnnyB]

As someone who lives behind the Great Firewall of China and has to use a VPN just to check the funny pics and vids thread, I very strongly dislike any move in this direction.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by zamler

Horrible. Now the U.S. government can decide what is a "pirate" site, which can be anything they decide to classify as such. The idea is most certainly not in the "right spot".

Besides, there are so many ways around this it makes it totally useless.

this is all you need to know as to why we should not support this:

Welcome to the United States, where the government has been deciding what is illegal since 1776.

I know nothing specific about this law other than what has been said in this thread, so I won't comment on its effectiveness or if I think it is a good idea, but if your main basis for being upset is because the government is making laws and deciding what is illegal, then you seriously need to give your head a shake.

That is how the world works. The governments make the laws. They decide what is illegal. They decide on the punishments. Just be glad that ours is democratic so you can vote to boot them out if they are doing something you don't like.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Welcome to the United States, where the government has been deciding what is illegal since 1776.

I know nothing specific about this law other than what has been said in this thread, so I won't comment on its effectiveness or if I think it is a good idea, but if your main basis for being upset is because the government is making laws and deciding what is illegal, then you seriously need to give your head a shake.

That is how the world works. The governments make the laws. They decide what is illegal. They decide on the punishments. Just be glad that ours is democratic so you can vote to boot them out if they are doing something you don't like.

Perhaps the anger is not that the govnment can decide what is illegal, but rather the fact they can do it unilaterally. Normally to do something like this you'd need a judge to sign off on a variety of documents once the agency can prove that it is indeed viloating american law. Now, it seems more "patriot act" like, where the government can just do as they please without having to justify the reasoning to a judge.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Perhaps the anger is not that the govnment can decide what is illegal, but rather the fact they can do it unilaterally. Normally to do something like this you'd need a judge to sign off on a variety of documents once the agency can prove that it is indeed viloating american law. Now, it seems more "patriot act" like, where the government can just do as they please without having to justify the reasoning to a judge.

How do you get that from the bill?

from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:

(B) DETERMINATION BY THE COURT- For purposes of determining whether an Internet site conducts business directed to residents of the United States under subparagraph (A)(ii)(I), a court shall consider, among other indicia whether--

(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the Attorney General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to

IANAL so maybe the legal mumbo jumbo has confused me, but when the bill refers to a court determining something, the things that a court should consider, and things the court can order, I really am assuming there is a judge involved.

I might be out to lunch on that though, and if I am then obviously the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I ain't got nothing against protecting copyrighted material or intellectual property or whatever they are calling it, but this, and all other attempts at "snuffing out" illegal downloading on the internet, looks a lot like the WAR ON DRUGS. It's futile. Unwinnable.

....but oh so profitable for many. I would suggest that the war on drugs is just as profitable for big business as the drugs are for the criminals.

Very little gets done unless the truly wealthy (individuals or business) can obtain a financial benefit. That's why they can give the world four hour erections, but can't educate their young.

[Phaneuf3]

Someone can feel free to correct any of this info that may be incorrect. Just catching up on this situation after being too busy to read much news over the past while.

First, this is not law (yet). The vote was simply to have it leave committee.

Second, with the likes of Feingold and Franken voting for this to leave committe, you have to think something's up. Both of these fellows have been on the side of freedom on so many things, supporters of net neutrality and individual rights and privacy in the past. My hope (possibly naively) is that they passed it unanimously and quickly for other reasons. They think that right now this bill could get killed outside of this committee but aren't confident that it could be stopped later.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Welcome to the United States, where the government has been deciding what is illegal since 1776.

I know nothing specific about this law other than what has been said in this thread, so I won't comment on its effectiveness or if I think it is a good idea, but if your main basis for being upset is because the government is making laws and deciding what is illegal, then you seriously need to give your head a shake.

That is how the world works. The governments make the laws. They decide what is illegal. They decide on the punishments. Just be glad that ours is democratic so you can vote to boot them out if they are doing something you don't like.

All I can say is what the hell?

Your rant is way off base, and you completely missed the point.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Welcome to the United States, where the government has been deciding what is illegal since 1776.

I know nothing specific about this law other than what has been said in this thread, so I won't comment on its effectiveness or if I think it is a good idea, but if your main basis for being upset is because the government is making laws and deciding what is illegal, then you seriously need to give your head a shake.

That is how the world works. The governments make the laws. They decide what is illegal. They decide on the punishments. Just be glad that ours is democratic so you can vote to boot them out if they are doing something you don't like.

The outrage comes from the US taking on the role of worldwide Internet police.

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.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by zamler

All I can say is what the hell?

Your rant is way off base, and you completely missed the point.

Well then what is the point?

The only other thing you said in your post was that the MPAA supported it, so it was obviously a bad thing, as though the MPAA was some sort of al-Qaeda funded organization.

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The outrage comes from the US taking on the role of worldwide Internet police.

I understand that portion of the argument, and it certainly has many valid points, but he wasn't making that argument. He was saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to decide what is illegal, which is obviously a ridiculous statement, because all forms of government since the beginning of time have decided what is illegal and what is not.

Edit: Just to clarify, let me say that I am against the idea of restricting the flow of information on the internet. I do not think that this bill provides any sort of sweeping powers to any government official, elected or not, that somehow infringes upon anyones rights. What it does do, is provide for the investigation of and the subsequent court ordered action to be taken against websites that are providing illegal products.

These actions will be taken by the judiciary arm of the government and overseen by the legislative and executive branches. This is the exact same thing that happens with every other law that is passed and applied to the citizens of any country.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I understand that portion of the argument, and it certainly has many valid points, but he wasn't making that argument. He was saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to decide what is illegal, which is obviously a ridiculous statement, because all forms of government since the beginning of time have decided what is illegal and what is not.

That's not what I said at all. You read what you wanted to read.

[metal_geek]

Why bother asking other governments to take down "Pirate" sites like wikileaks, when all you have to do is remove it from the root DNS servers.. Makes sense now why the US was so hell bent on keepin the ICANN a US operation..