Print
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, was recently passed through committee, and is set to move on to the full Senate. The bill would make it easier for the Justice Department to take domestic websites suspected of copyright infringement offline. It would also empower them to force ISPs to redirect traffic away from foreign infringing sites. But PC World is reporting that Senator Ron Wyden (D) from Oregon has promised to block the measure.
Wyden believes the bill is overreaching and could affect innovation on the internet. He does have the option to block it for now, which likely means the bill is dead in this session of Congress. The bill would have to be reintroduced next year. Opponents and supporters of the bill are both staunch in their positions. Supporters say drastic steps are necessary to combat rampant copyright infringement online. But the detractors believe these tools would be wielded clumsily, and would have the effect of censorship.
The bill was a bipartisan effort, but with the new atmosphere in Washington, it is unclear if the two sides will be able to bring the bill back next session. Do you think COICA is a good idea?
Comments are closed on this article
Biceps
November 22, 2010 at 11:34am
Just see my previous posts, and you will see I have no sympathy for pirates and believe that copywrite infringement is very clearly a form of theft. Ya'll can argue that point with me forever, but my opinion on that won't change. I say this so that my following comment can be seen with my overall opinions in the same perspective.
COICA is a poorly-conceived, pro-business, anti-freedom law. This means 'they' can start shutting down sites 'suspected' of copywriting infringement online. No. No and No. This is wrong, and Ron Wyden is right for stepping up and blocking this bill. Content piracy is wrong, but censorship (intentional or not) is the greater of two evils.
Prosecute pirates to the full extent of the current law. Go ahead. Nail them. But don't try to control what can and can't be put on the internet - it won't work, and it will be detrimental to our people, our freedom and our economy.
mortalrage
November 22, 2010 at 9:09am
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT] sponsored the bill, wow a democrate vs a democract how rare. /S
I bet Senator Ron Wyden (D) changes his mind.
duncansil
November 20, 2010 at 3:59pm
How many possible ways are there to say NO?
Nada, nil, nix, no-way, negative ...
Zachary K.
November 20, 2010 at 11:40am
great, the bill might not be prefect but it is SOMETHING, the internet has to change from the lawless, chaotic place it is now. pirates are just walking in and taking everything directly off the shelves, soon people will stop restocking them. pirates are to blame for all the game developers going to the console and we are stuck with crappy ports, if anything. thats censorship in the same way you can't take a book to the copy place and copy it 100's of times to give it away, or sell it for cheap.
moonlightlurker
November 21, 2010 at 10:32am
So if were to go to a library to read a book I am pirating the book from the company. Or what if I borrow a game from a friend or a movie from a friend is that considered piracy? They are sharing what they have bought with me so I can get some enjoyment out of it just like I share stuff with them so they can enjoy it. Or how about rental sites like blockbuster or Netflix or Gamefly in the end someone is losing money because someone rents it instead of buying. Yes they make money from it from the one dvd sale but when a thousand people rent one dvd they are losing money. How is that any different then downloading a movie or game?
Now I agree that having thousands of people download something online means that the people who make the product lose money as its a bit different from borrowing one product between 2 people. But there are alot of exagerations about how much money gets lost in the scheme of it all. Most of the companies out there like Microsoft or Sony have millions of dollars from other products not related to gaming. Millions of dollars also from gaming and in the long run they have tons of money while most of us have very little money to spend
Alot of so called pirates out there will download a product. A game, movie, ebook, comic book, software, etc. They use the product and if they really enjoy it or it makes there lives easier they will buy the product. But have you ever bought a product that you regret spending money on. Well at least in this way you can find out if its worth it or not.
Also there are people out there who prefer having everything on there computer instead of searching for a movie among hundreds of dvds. More and more people have media servers and just run movies or games from the computer to a big screen tv. They might still buy the product but sometimes its easier having it on a computer. So people go to P2P sites to get a good rip of something they already physically have. Or because they do not want to deal with a dvd that has 20 mintues of trailers and then unskippable screens saying do not pirate this products its against the law.
All I am saying is there are people who take advantage of P2P sites because its free. But there are plenty of people who use those sites to try out a product before they actually buy it like myself. I do not make alot of money and with kids and other bills I need to make every bit of extra money I have worth it.
mesiah
November 22, 2010 at 2:04am
I don't support this bill, but I don't support your reasoning either. Libraries and Rental companies are not making copies of materials and distributing them freely with no limitations. Libraries pay for each copy of a book they lend. They do not make copies of the books and it is not legal to do so. The average library book is loaned roughly 20 times. The average illegal download can be copied thousands or even tens of thousands of times.
As for Rental companies. Traditional services like blockbuster don't just pay for a movie and loan it out. There are two business models. Either the rental company pays an inflated fee for the movie, generally $60-$100 and then rents it out at no additional cost. Or, there is the model that blockbuster pioneered. In that model they pay a small price for each copy of a movie, but they pay as much as 40% of the rental fees back to the owner of the license. Streaming services like netflix can either pay a large fee for unlimited downloads or sometimes even have to pay a per view fee for movies. That is why new movies are rarely available for streaming unless it is on a pay per view basis.
So, based on this your try before you buy theory is broken. No money is being made when you steal movies and games online. There is no incentive to buy the products once you already own the full version for free. I'm not going to claim to know what the percentage of people that buy a product once they illegally download it is, but I am willing to bet the farm that it is less than 1%. The other 99% use excuses like "They want too much money for it." or "I'm not paying for this piece of garbage." That doesn't stop them from continuing to use it though.
There is nothing wrong with lending a book or movie or even a game to your friend to try out. You paid for it. You aren't making a copy of it. Just, for a brief time your friend is using it instead of you. Eventually they will give it back, and if they don't and you want to play again you will have to buy another. Lets take things to a larger scale. You are thinking about buying a new Lexus but $60,000 is a lot to pay for a car. You can ask your friend if you can drive his to see if you like it. Or, you could go to the dealership and test drive one of theirs. You could even go to a car rental agency and rent one for a week. But in your world, it would be perfectly fine to steal one off the lot. Drive it around for a while. Then, if you decide you like it, you would go back to the dealership and pay for it. Does that seem right to you?
Trampling on our liberties with broad reaching laws isn't right, but neither is the crime that they are trying to prevent.
moonlightlurker
November 22, 2010 at 10:18am
Lol I see no crime being committed as nothing is being downloaded illegally. Sharing is caring and in the long run its only money that they are losing. Plus as I said most of the stuff that is downloaded by me is stuff I have already purchased but prefer having on my computer for my media center. Its easier to get to and I don't have to sit through the spam that is on dvds these days ie movie trailers/fbi warnings. So I have not broken any so called laws because I already own the product. If anything the crime being committed is how much money is wasted on things such as this bill or other such nonsense.
Yeah actually taking a car of the lot for a test drive would be a pretty cool deal. To bad the world is ruled by fear and mistrust. And is being run by the MPAA and RIAA. Money is the evil part of the world and seems to be the driving force in so many its sad really. Why would I want a Lexus or a new car to begin with. Its just a waste of money and resources. Give me a used car on craigslist any day as long as it gets me to and from I am good.
Also why would you pay full price for something? Go to gamestop and get it used or wait for dvd's to drop in price. If you really want that Lexus wait a couple years and you will see them for sale on craigslist for a lot cheaper then you just advertised.
whyyes123
November 20, 2010 at 10:16am
If this bill passes, you can no longer say there is an OUNCE of democracy left in this country. This is fascist no matter which way you look at it. Bravo to the one who promised to block the bill. Censorship is just plain evil. This is like the Patriot Act all over again.
pastorbob
November 20, 2010 at 9:14am
Remember the Patriot Act? No knock search warrents? This is just one more law that will be abused as often as it is not. Any time due process is threatened as it would be here, it's a bad idea. If the feds think a site is breaking the law then follow the proper procedures. Investigate, file charges and then prove their case against the defendents. This piece of crap legislation is bad idea period. The RIAA and the MPAA can take this idea and place it in the dark recesses of their anatomies.
donthaveaname69
November 19, 2010 at 9:50pm
NO I don't think this bill is a good idea at all. I think the government is trying to overstep their boundaries. Once the government has control, they'll do whatever they want to. The government is slowly taking away all of our rights.
redrum6114
November 19, 2010 at 9:37pm
The real problem is Members of Congress don't know enough about the Internet to make an informed decision on the matter. The people they hire to issue opinions have alternative motives to push a specific agenda.
It has taken this long for them even to address the issue. Congress is to slow to address the ever evolving world of the Internet. Nothing they pass will even be relevant by the time it is in place.
The Federal Government would best be served avoiding the issue of anything involving the Internet all together to avoid further confusion. They are ignorant and don't understand enough to get involved in a productive way to make it worth anyone's time.
aaronj2906
November 20, 2010 at 12:31am
We have gov't people out there like Al Gore who said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", which implies the fallacied "invented the internet" that is popular.
I bet that if you ask many of the Members of Congress if they could tell you what a DNS root zone, or reverse lookup, BIND, FQDN, zone transfer, or cache poisoning is...
You will get glazed over eyes, and some kind of creative followup on how they influenced the creation of something they have never heard of.
Ghok
November 19, 2010 at 8:52pm
From the way you describe it here, it doesn't sound like a bad way to do things, however, the media conglomerates have never shown any rationality in the past, and they are far too powerful in our Government. I don't trust ANYTHING that they might have had a hand in.
And sorry, there is no copyright infringement crisis. People are still making movies, people are still making music. Drastic steps don't need to be taken.
Where're the Tea Party candidates in this? Why aren't they blocking this? Aren't they rabid about Government interference?
aviaggio
November 19, 2010 at 10:43pm
Only when the government interferes with their ability to make money.
Nickompoop
November 19, 2010 at 7:28pm
Do you really have to ask if we think this is a good idea? This bill, if passed, will be the first step to a censored Internet. So, no, it's not a good idea; in fact, it may be the worst idea to hit Congress since the decision to invade Iraq.
Neufeldt2002
November 19, 2010 at 4:20pm
Might as well change your name to the United States of China if this passes.
arosadler
November 19, 2010 at 8:20pm
China doesn't recognize copyrights. They just censor free speech.
gothliciouz
November 19, 2010 at 10:22pm
so does that mean they don't care if you download or share copyrighted digital medias?
