So is this more of a copyright owners powers thing taking on infringement (which I refuse to have an opinion on)
Or a government censoring dangerous peoples? Its not exaclty clear what its going to censor and I wouldnt think itd be an issue of mass censorship because american government would fear the outrage of the people.
If its anything like italy's blog killing log that goes after the pathological liars spreading poison, but needs to be heavily considered and weighed out, I may be for it.
Regardless of what it's intended to do or what it initially does, we're creating a dangerous precedent if we allow this: That the government can censor websites that it doesn't like (without even going through due process in the case of the AG's blacklist). Eventually it could go far beyond what it was initially intentioned to do.
I agree that anyone who is opposed to censorship should strongly oppose this bill. There are less draconian ways to fight piracy than by censoring the internet.
So is this more of a copyright owners powers thing taking on infringement (which I refuse to have an opinion on)
Or a government censoring dangerous peoples? Its not exaclty clear what its going to censor and I wouldnt think itd be an issue of mass censorship because american government would fear the outrage of the people.
If its anything like italy's blog killing log that goes after the pathological liars spreading poison, but needs to be heavily considered and weighed out, I may be for it.
As usual, the public is distracted by emotional rhetoric on wedge issues while congress screws over the citizens to appease some corporate backers. What we need is media attention on this pathetic bull****.
The internet is no country or companies property.
So, using software to download a bitTorrent containing the latest Metallica album or X-Men movie is just like walking down the street (in no country) and finding a copy of the same movie or album that someone (the film/music disto company) accidentally left behind... Oops...
all those 0s and 1s are property...
And when someone gets your CC number off an IRC channel, they're not actually holding the plastic, that's still in your wallet. But they use it on the internet for few days until visa flags them... But it all happened on the internet, not a real country... And all those motherboards you didn't buy aren't real property either... so we shouldn't worry??:roll::roll:
And when someone gets your CC number off an IRC channel, they're not actually holding the plastic, that's still in your wallet. But they use it on the internet for few days until visa flags them...l:
Illegal acts on the internet does not justify draconian censorship measures.
There are other ways to combat illegal acts, like arresting or suing the perpetrators.
Not an apt analogy to piracy at all. :roll:
So when a court issues an injunction or a grand jury hears evidence and issues an indictment... the carrying out of the court order by Marshals is 'draconian'??
What's being censored?
If we close down a chop shop dealing in stolen car parts, are we censoring them? If we shut down a flea market booth selling bootleg DVDs, is the owner being censored?
Why not extend the legal authority of U.S. courts in a pragmatic and efficient manner.
Look, stolen property is not 'free speech'. Trafficking in stolen property is illegal. However, the internet creates a new mechanism for moving stolen property through normally legal methods. The illegal site with stolen files may not be hosted here in the U.S., but via the internet, we can access it.
As long as there's a legal process for deciding who goes on the list, I have no problem with it. If you are wrongly put on the list, you can appeal, sue for damages, loss of income etc. If you were a legal business.
The government should have no business censoring websites.
David Segal: Stop the Internet Blacklist
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 our 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.
Considering that the average judge doesn't have the slightest idea how the internet works, this seems like a terrible idea.
You're basing that opinion on what?
A prosecutor/attorney presents evidence of a crime. If it can be shown that the main purpose of particular site is to facilitate theft... seems reasonable to block that site.
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.
These groups are basically using censorship to try and fight a losing war.
Yay intellectual property?
IMO this exemplifies the point being made - no theft is involved here at all. It is something different/new we are dealing with.
In 2009, more than four out of 10 software programs installed on personal computers around the world were stolen, with a commercial value of more than $51 billion. Unauthorized software can manifest in otherwise legal businesses that buy too few software licenses, or overt criminal enterprises that sell counterfeit copies of software programs at cut-rate prices, online or offline.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?