COICA - The Internet Blacklist

On September 28 2010 09:52 Oddysay wrote:
nothing wrong guy , dont worry . everything fine

they do that for secure everyone privacy and the right for movie/game authors , big corporation too.

after all sharing anything and not paying for something was evil .

they need to purge the internet , sharing , after privacy , after website , after what people can say or do , but that all for security , they realy care about you and im sure people will understand that .

just saying that BEFORE what some XXXXXXXXX will reply .

On September 28 2010 09:55 howerpower wrote:


This was a joke right?
Yes, the government cares about us. This does not have to do with money.

On September 28 2010 09:55 shawster wrote:
this is unreal

didn't think internet censorship would come to the us

On September 28 2010 10:23 Ichabod wrote:
Woah, surprising bill if legitimate, who's sponsoring it?

I wonder how long it will take for this (or something like it) to get through congress. *shiver*

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall maintain a public listing of domain names that, upon information and reasonable belief, the Department of Justice determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the Attorney General has not filed an action under this section.

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--

‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or

‘(2) is--

‘(A) primarily designed, 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, to offer--

‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

‘(2) DOMAINS FOR WHICH THE REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR IS NOT LOCATED DOMESTICALLY-

‘(A) ACTION BROUGHT IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA- If the provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply to a particular domain name, the in rem action may be brought in the District of Columbia to prevent the importation into the United States of goods and services offered by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities if--

‘(i) the domain name is used to access such Internet site in the United States; and

‘(ii) the Internet site--

‘(I) conducts business directed to residents of the United States; and

‘(II) harms intellectual property rights holders that are residents of the United States.

‘(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--

‘(i) the Internet site is actually providing goods or services to subscribers located in the United States;

‘(ii) the Internet site states that it is not intended, and has measures to prevent, infringing material from being accessed in or delivered to the United States;

‘(iii) the Internet site offers services accessible in the United States; and

‘(iv) any prices for goods and services are indicated in the currency of the United States.

On September 28 2010 13:03 b3h47pte wrote:
Meh. If this bill actually passses, find we might be "limited" in our freedom i guess. darn. we can't do anything illegal on the web now

but seriously. the websites i use.
google, gmail, teamliquid, facebook, xkcd, cad-comic, msdn, cnn, moddb.

for some reason, i doubt any of these websites are going to affected so whatever

On September 28 2010 12:36 Diuqil wrote:
Wiretapping internet, censoring internet, whats next?

On September 28 2010 17:15 0tso wrote:
"If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media copanies, 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 form the internet and not just in the US."

How are they gonna do this? Sounds impossible to me since this is an American law... as long as the sites they wanna "remove" are hosted outside of the US at least.

On September 28 2010 17:40 eSen1a wrote:
people still torrent?

On September 28 2010 19:43 FindingPride wrote:
what if they deem some of our favorite porn sites under this list...........
wtfffffffffffffffffffff

On September 28 2010 13:03 b3h47pte wrote:
Meh. If this bill actually passses, find we might be "limited" in our freedom i guess. darn. we can't do anything illegal on the web now

but seriously. the websites i use.
google, gmail, teamliquid, facebook, xkcd, cad-comic, msdn, cnn, moddb.

for some reason, i doubt any of these websites are going to affected so whatever

On September 28 2010 20:04 Mawi wrote:

i feel for you i really do don't worry i can torrent some porno for you you just tell me what you like and i will be on it :D

Its time likes this im happy i dont live in America ( no offence no hate.)

On September 28 2010 17:38 Uriel_SVK wrote:


Well the thing with USA is...

USA: "Turn the site of"
Site Admin: "No"
USA: "Then we will make you!!!"
Site Admin: "Yeah,of course, you and what army?"

+ Show Spoiler +

On September 28 2010 17:15 0tso wrote:
"If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media copanies, to censor the internet as they see fit

On September 28 2010 12:36 Diuqil wrote:
This is fucking scary to be honest. Watch, just watch, if this shit passes everything is going to go down hill. America is losing its freedom. Wiretapping internet, censoring internet, whats next?

On September 28 2010 20:49 ragingfungus wrote:
I find it funny that alot of people are arguing that this is hurting our freedom or something when this bill from what ive read is specifically designed to stop piracy. Thats kind of like saying arresting criminals is harming our freedom. Personally I think if properly implemented this could possibly provide a bit of a boon to the economy by forcing all the people illegally downloading things to instead be forced to pay for what they want.

On September 28 2010 22:50 Hizzo wrote:


This line disturbs me.

On September 28 2010 23:44 Kurr wrote:


The thing is, I would never pay for any of the shows or movies I watch online. Nor the music. All this does is limit what I can do online.

If this passes through I'll just find a new hobby... like playing tennis or something.

Edit : And it also has to potential to stop legitimate sites if they simply don't like them as well.

On September 29 2010 00:23 Kalles wrote:
Wikileaks is hosting copyrighted documents I assume, (since they are leaked documents from the state or whatever ... ). Ie this law can (and therefore will) be used to silence critism, whistleblowers etc. Preventing whistleblowers etc is not in the best interest of the people .... aka this law is a bad idea.

On September 29 2010 01:28 sylverfyre wrote:

Wikileaks is pretty retarded though. You could (should) get convicted with treason if you were a US citizen and got caught making some of those documents available to anyone in the world. Whistleblowing is one thing. Treason is another.

What really worries me is how much power the media industry is going to have in determining what is and isn't an infringing website. The last thing the RIAA should get be getting is more power.

Also, if they can't shut down foreign websites, are we going to start seeing a replica of the Great Firewall of China in the USA? *shudder*

I don't like this one bit.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

On September 28 2010 10:03 Playguuu wrote:
Put your name on the list so they know who to go after when the brownshirts come.

Seriously though, this is frightening.

On October 01 2010 10:03 agarfin wrote:
Bumping to save the interwebs! This really needs more attention. 98,000 people have already signed the petition at http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/ and the bill has been stalled. Its so ironic they introduce a massive censorship bill during banned book week ><

Regardless of whether you think piracy is immoral and wrong this bill should not be passed. There are far better methods to stop piracy that dont involve giving the DOJ the power to blacklist web pages with little to no evidence.

On October 06 2010 14:31 ragingfungus wrote:


Im willing to bet that 90% of the people that signed havent even read the bill. They probably just read something on the site about the government trying to censor the web and went omg. Personally I think the government would only shut down sites that realistically should be shut down, but your free to your own opinion. I just wish people would educate themselves on what the bill actually states.

On October 06 2010 14:31 ragingfungus wrote:


Im willing to bet that 90% of the people that signed havent even read the bill. They probably just read something on the site about the government trying to censor the web and went omg. Personally I think the government would only shut down sites that realistically should be shut down, but your free to your own opinion. I just wish people would educate themselves on what the bill actually states.

On October 06 2010 15:03 Seam wrote:


The issue is you 'think' they would restrain themselves.

But what if they don't?

On October 06 2010 15:39 Kakera wrote:
I love how blind some people are to consequences and the age old saying of shit rolls downhill (well that shit being something bad will just get worse, not that you will always get flak from upnups). The more laws the gov't can hide behind to justify their policing attitude the worse it is for us. Maybe some anti-gov't sites start up saying how bad the gov't is with actual evidence to back it up with and the gov't plants some code into their site and closes it down for "copyright infringement". It's the same thing as the drug laws, "dealing above a certain amount of drugs from your home will result in seizure of said home" through this they get more funding for the DEA by ceasing the homes of people they deem a threat,. plant some drugs and take what they want. If there is a way this can be used for ill-use and taken advantage of than it shouldn't be put through. It's going to be another Patriot Act fiasco and we'll see a new era of fear. I for one am not looking forward to the day civil liberties are forsaken for the benefit of the company. Some guy earlier said it very well, make your product worth buying and it won't be stolen.

On October 07 2010 02:17 FaZe wrote:
Honestly, the idea that they would even consider this bill is rediculous. They are giving the media / corporations even MORE control over the populace than they already have. It's a bill that's fueled by greed. Corporations want to continue the trend of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. The interests of the people are ignored, and the corporations continue to make unbelievable profits.

Do you really think companies like Universal Music or Warner need protection? Some media moguls are worth billions now. Billions. You can bet your ass that Joe Schmo in his basement producing his own records isn't going to be the one to profit from this. It's going to be the people who already have the money to bring these issues to court.

At this rate, capitalism will not longer be able to exist within the poor semblance of democracy that we currently live with. It will simply replace it.

is Senate website notes this response to a question from seventh grade students from Vermont's Thetford Academy who asked Leahy which Dead song was his favorite, he replied: "... my favorite is "Black Muddy River" but we always play "Truckin'" on election night at my headquarters."

On October 07 2010 03:30 Precipice wrote:
This is remarkable. There's a bill being passed to allow for the enforcement of copyright infringement, and the whole lot of you are throwing up arguments about "Freedom". This has relatively little to do with a loss of rights and a whole lot more to do with an enforcement of laws.

I also find it ironic that while this bill is, if it is any violation of liberty, a violation of what is known as the "negative" form of liberty; that is, liberty that exists as the absence of control (due to an increased measure of control). What is ironic is that the majority of people raging about this "violation of liberty" are raging about the application of "positive liberty" or the idea that liberty must be achieved internally and with the help of others or government. Basically, I find it insulting to see people rant about liberty without any realistic understanding of "what" freedom is. I find it dismally tragic that people are throwing around the term "liberty" like it's something with an easy, common, shared definition; as opposed to admitting the fact that if you've been using torrents you've been breaking the law.

Sure the bill can be abused, just about every damned bill can be abused. What is fundamental is that the bill's job is to enforce what is essentially already law. I doubt that it would be intelligent for the government to fail to make laws which stay up to date with growing technology.

Lastly, perhaps the greatest demonstration that this conversation lacks grounding knowledge is the fact that both liberals and conservatives are blaming the *other* group for this. Then again, in the 21st century, you're entitled to everything and shouldn't have to pay for products which come from the hard work of others.

On October 07 2010 03:54 alexpnd wrote:


I understand yet I disagree on some parts. Primarily in the condescending tone, as if you are fully knowledgeable on all the implications of this bill. I personally hate/distrust Hollywood so I don't download movies. I do download books however. What's the difference between a book I download and a book I get from the library, or borrow from a friend? I don't see a difference. In particular, and as reparation for your seething quest for justice, if that book I downloaded helps me secure a job or improves the economy in some fashion, would it still be a bad idea? If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea? If I actually like it and buy it for display in my personal library? Lastly the author who wished to divulge his sense of reality, knowledge and opinions unto his readers has his wish fulfilled. I think it's a good idea to share books.

On October 07 2010 04:05 Precipice wrote:


Given the extent to which it is difficult enough for most authors to make a living just by writing, I'd say you do a disservice to the people who write books too. Especially given that there are multiple programs available which would let you download them from home while still supporting the author. Obviously you can make the claim that it's all these companies that get the money as opposed to the author, and you would be correct to a point. That point is where the author still relies on the commercialization of his product in order to subsist. I think that your note about the possible benefits of someone reading a book are irrelevant given the slippery slope of that topic. If you don't pay for the book, in our societies current design, there's a point at which the book does not get made.

I think that the construction of your argument in such moments as, "If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea," is a perfect demonstration of my point that when it comes to such terms as liberty and independence, people are using them without much of an understanding of their historic or modern meanings.

I feel your critique of my tone in the first post is valid; I would suggest that my frustration in this thread is equally valid.

This will likely be my last post in this thread in order to avoid the shit storm that I can see coming out of this.

On October 07 2010 02:40 Yurebis wrote:

Since when are acts of congress capitalism?

COICA

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 copanies, 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 form the internet and not just in the US.

On October 07 2010 04:12 Ympulse wrote:
The government being able to enforce copyright infringement over the internet is a good idea and should be pursued to that end.

This bill, however, is giving a single media company (ClearChannel, research them if you want to have an afternoon of amusement) the ability to "sick the dog" on anything they can construe as slight copyright infringement.

On October 07 2010 04:37 FaZe wrote:


ANSWERS BELOW





If you think what the government does isn't influenced by money and corporations ... then you're just naive.

On October 07 2010 01:34 Rev0lution wrote:
Isn't the provision unconstituttional? Wouldn't websites invoke free speech?

On October 07 2010 02:53 Losticus wrote:
You useful idiots on the left outraged by this bill (including the "Progressive" org being linked) -- do realize it's the left, lead by Obama himself -- promoting regulation and control of the internet?

Glad to see you, too, see the horrendous fruits that your ideology bares. Big government and Statism invariably leads to tyranny and loss of freedom. Let's hope this is stopped.

[B]On October 07 2010 05:45 overt wrote:


I had to quote this simply because this is one of the most ignorant things I've seen posted on this thread.

On October 07 2010 06:06 Losticus wrote:


1-What I said about Obama is factually correct, and in reference to something far more worrisome on the internet front. Instead of worrying about a copyright law, I'm a bit more distraught over the Obama Administration's push to have executive power to shut down parts of the internet, on a whim. http://www.startribune.com/nation/103836983.html http://www.infowars.com/big-sis-to-get-expanded-role-in-policing-internet/

2-Besides laying the blame of deteriorating freedom at the correct feet -- I'm also scoffing at the selective concern leftists have over 'freedom.' Obama is Bush on steroids in all the wrong ways, yet if Bush did half the things Obama's done in the last year and a half, your guys' heads would be exploding. You know all that shit moonbats made-up and screamed about for the last decade re: civil liberties, Bush is a fascist, etc. to score political points? Well now that's actually true, and these same people are silent. Because it isn't abuse of power that bothers them, it's when they aren't the ones doing it.

3-Did I say this was a partisan issue? That Reps have a great track record on liberty? Bush was big government too. I'm a libertarian-conservative, not a Republican, and Bush/McCain are no small government conservatives.

On October 07 2010 06:45 whiteguycash wrote:
wait, you live in America and you thought you were free to begin with?

On October 07 2010 04:12 alexpnd wrote:


I don't think you should leave the thread. You're right about the slippery slope, but you can't deny hard copies are not being sold. Look at Glenn Beck lol. I buy hard copies when I have to have it. Most books I download are in fact free from copyright. The thing I worry about is regression in technology in favor of copyright. I want a solution where copyright is retained with an infrastructure that is flexible and fast as it is today.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said late Thursday that he would seek to block the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, from passing through the full Senate, unless the legislation is changed.

Wyden called the bill the "wrong medicine" for dealing with online copyright infringement. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to seek expedited court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials.

"Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile," Wyden said during a hearing on digital trade issues. "If you don't think this thing through carefully, the collateral damage would be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet."

Wyden's opposition means the bill is likely dead this year. Individual senators can place holds on legislation, and there are only a few working days left in the congressional session this year.

"The significance and implications of the legislation I don't think have been well thought through," Black said during the hearing on digital trade. "Sadly, it's an example of what not to do in an important, complicated digital ecosystem."

On November 20 2010 05:46 Phayze wrote:
Wouldnt censorship on this scale be a giant breach of the American constitution? How does a bill even get to the stage it's in without massive uproar.

On November 20 2010 11:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
Can someone go a little bit more into detail on why this is so awful? I mean, I certainly believe they shouldn't be given the control this act might provide. But at the same time the government needs some ability to shut down the sites that are providing massive copyright infringement, no? Or is it just tons of people in this thread who are taking advantage of this stuff are trying to use "privacy rights," to justify...?

If all the outlash is against the extent of the power being given, then I might understand, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

On November 20 2010 11:35 unkkz wrote:
I dont see how every single journalist in the country isnt going ballistic about this? They would never manage to censor a newspaper or a news channel, but the internet is somehow different. If this does pass i wouldnt be surprised to see other western nations follow, and holy shit is this scaring me.

Honestly cannot believe the sickening double standards of corporate and political america(parts of it) claiming land of the free and all that stuff and then throw up something as despicable as this. Seriously every american sign that petition. Man the world is just going to hell in a handbasket.

On November 20 2010 11:41 Scrimpton wrote:
Only American law ever presumes it can legislate the world.

There really is no logical argument though. Piracy is a crime. Pay for films you want to watch, pay for games you want to play.

Doesn't get much simpler.

On November 20 2010 11:45 Scrimpton wrote:



You can't illegally download the work of other people from a newspaper or news channel.

Stop acting like this is an infrigement of your rights :S - You don't have a right to the property put on sale by other people, you must pay for the right to own/use it.

Now if this was used to censor things they dont want you to hear, rather than to prevent piracy, i can understand the outrage..

but this happens every day anyway.

On November 20 2010 05:46 Phayze wrote:
Wouldnt censorship on this scale be a giant breach of the American constitution? How does a bill even get to the stage it's in without massive uproar.

On November 20 2010 11:41 Scrimpton wrote:
Only American law ever presumes it can legislate the world.

There really is no logical argument though. Piracy is a crime. Pay for films you want to watch, pay for games you want to play.

Doesn't get much simpler.

On November 20 2010 12:40 Railxp wrote:



No, it is not quite that simple.

Take for an example: I wrote a poem. You then memorize my poem from reading it in a bookstore. You go home and write my poem down. The pen is yours, the paper is yours, the time spent is yours. In effect, everything about the poem you've copied is yours. You don't make copies to sell the poem, you just have it in your bedside table for personal enjoyment. Now is it right for me to demand that you be put in jail for "pirating" my poem?

In essence, electronic media is information, just like my poem is information. The pen that you used to recreate the poem is just like your PC at home. Its your PC and you are just "memorizing" and "rewriting" the 1s and 0s of digital information. The change in medium doesn't change anything. Piracy is not theft because the original creator has not lost anything through being copied from.

Most will agree that the creator of an idea should be credited, not too many people dispute this. So I am not proposing that everyone put on their eye patches and sail the torrential seas of the interwebs for plundered booty, but I am trying to demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as some people would like to paint it as.

To illuminate another facet of this complex issue, suppose two developers are neck to neck in releasing a program/game/movie. Both have their websites that are different in layout and text, but are essentially selling the same product because the product is so similar in function and by pure coincidence, style. Neither knows the existence of the other. If this law is passed, the first developer to release said product could sue and use this law to shut down the other guy's website, even if the target audience spoke a different language. Which in turn could mean an entire microcosm of innovation is shut down, because the website could have a small forum of innovative open source guys working on modding the product. Therefore any law arguing for intellectual property rights directly impedes innovative progress because it limits the number of talented people who have access to it.

Yes, the previous example may have many coincidental and circumstantial holes in it, but I am only using it to point out the grey area in these arguments.

Many people support copyright laws because they think "IF WE DONT DO THIS THEN THE POOR REATOR WILL BE LEACHED DRY BY ALL THE ASSHOLE PIRATES!!!"

There are other options. For example, it can be approached from a contractual law point of view. Where when you buy something you have to sign a contract that you will not replicate it. Then the creator can be protected through contractual obligation, rather than from copyright law.

I am not a law-literate person by any means, so i would defer to anyone with more expertise, but these are the shades of grey that I feel are so often overlooked in people who rush for the Banhammer for all solutions.

On November 20 2010 17:00 FabledIntegral wrote:


lmao piracy is not a theft because the original person hasn't lost anything? you're full of it and it's an absolutely terrible argument.

On November 20 2010 22:42 Avaloch wrote:
I believe piracy is a theft because the distribution of the pirated item would cause a loss of income that could have been generated from the sales of the item.

On November 20 2010 22:42 Avaloch wrote:
I believe piracy is a theft because the distribution of the pirated item would cause a loss of income that could have been generated from the sales of the item.

On November 20 2010 22:59 nttea wrote:


how did the original creator lose anything? his argument is completely valid and i agree with it completely.

On November 21 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:


So you're going to tell me Blizzard shouldn't worry about it when people pirate their games because they don't lose anything? Of course they lose a ton of potential profit, which they need in order to even cover the costs of their games, and ensure that the company is satisfied and not fire them all. I'm utterly baffled people are trying to say pirating isn't illegal, just a bunch of kids that want free shit and are whining that they can't get it anymore.

On November 28 2010 07:49 Ichabod wrote:
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/

US Gov't Seizes 75+ domains related to torrenting, they seem to have been closed under the COICA 'censorship bill.' I don't support torrenting, but this just seems like a very intimidating situation.

List of seized websites: + Show Spoiler +

US Gov't Seizes 75+ domains related to torrenting, they seem to have been closed under the COICA 'censorship bill.'

List of seized websites:
2009jerseys.com
51607.com
amoyhy.com
b2corder.com
bishoe.com
borntrade.com
borntrade.net
boxedtvseries.com
boxset4less.com
boxsetseries.com
burberryoutletshop.com
cartoon77.com
cheapscarfshop.com
coachoutletfactory.com
dajaz1.com
discountscarvesonsale.com
dvdcollectionsale.com
dvdcollects.com
dvdorderonline.com
dvdprostore.com
dvdscollection.com
dvdsetcollection.com
dvdsetsonline.com
dvdsuperdeal.com
eluxury-outlet.com
getdvdset.com
gofactoryoutlet.com
golfstaring.com
golfwholesale18.com
handbag9.com
handbagcom.com
handbagspop.com
icqshoes.com
ipodnanouk.com
jersey-china.com
jerseyclubhouse.com
jordansbox.com
lifetimereplicas.com
louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
lv-outlets.com
lv-outlets.net
lv-outletstore.com
massnike.com
merrytimberland.com
mycollects.com
mydreamwatches.com
mygolfwholesale.com
newstylerolex.com
nfljerseysupply.com
nibdvd.com
odvdo.com
oebags.com
onsmash.com
overbestmall.com
rapgodfathers.com
realtimberland.com
rmx4u.com
scarfonlineshop.com
scarfviponsale.com
shawls-store.com
silkscarf-shop.com
silkscarfonsale.com
skyergolf.com
sohob2b.com
sohob2c.com
storeofeast.com
stuff-trade.com
sunglasses-mall.com
sunogolf.com
tbl-sports.com
throwbackguy.com
tiesonsale.com
timberlandlike.com
topabuy.com
torrent-finder.com
usaburberryscarf.com
usaoutlets.net

On September 28 2010 13:03 b3h47pte wrote:
the websites i use.
google, gmail, teamliquid, facebook, xkcd, cad-comic, msdn, cnn, moddb.

for some reason, i doubt any of these websites are going to affected so whatever

On November 29 2010 03:07 iMAniaC wrote:




Moreover, the fact that Blizz and GOM love teamliquid is irrelevant. Paramount was once sued by a toy company for having canceled Star Trek. The reason being that having no new Star Trek on television harmed the market value of the Star Trek franchise, which the toy company had bought rights to. So why wouldn't the US government, or at least the state of California, be able to sue teamliquid directly, for lowering the profits, and thus tax payments, of a California based company? Well, of course, they wouldn't have to sue teamliquid, they could simply shut it down right away, with this new fantastic law implemented.

On November 29 2010 03:07 iMAniaC wrote:


I beg to differ. Teamliquid exists for the main purpose of reporting results of StarCraft 2 matches, events which are the copyright of Gretech/Blizzard, not to be replicated or redistributed in any way. Surely, the existence of sites such as Teamliquid directly contribute to low sales of StarCraft streams, and consequently harm the profit margins and shareholders of Blizzard Entertainment, Thus, closing down teamliquid would be perfectly in line with COICA.

Should this happen right after threads like these, ciriticizing the US government, providing links and information to wikileaks information and posts by people claiming all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories where US is the big bad wolf, that would be merely a coincidence.

Moreover, the fact that Blizz and GOM love teamliquid is irrelevant. Paramount was once sued by a toy company for having canceled Star Trek. The reason being that having no new Star Trek on television harmed the market value of the Star Trek franchise, which the toy company had bought rights to. So why wouldn't the US government, or at least the state of California, be able to sue teamliquid directly, for lowering the profits, and thus tax payments, of a California based company? Well, of course, they wouldn't have to sue teamliquid, they could simply shut it down right away, with this new fantastic law implemented.

I don't seriously believe that teamliquid would be shut down, I just wan to underline that it could be, in accordance with this new law.

On November 29 2010 03:13 LostDevil wrote:



You can't be serious with this logic.

On November 29 2010 02:57 NotSupporting wrote:
Lastly, anyone still believing USA is a place of "freedom" is clearly blinded, America is an imperialistic state where politicians and company's try to keep the population happy and ignorant so they keep consuming and keep working without questioning, the difference between USA and China is way smaller than you think.

On November 21 2010 03:02 Bartuc wrote:
There's a politician here in Europe who in my opinion has a very healthy and sensible perspective on the whole copyright matter: Neelie Kroes. Here's a speech she gave in Avignon earlier which I think contains some very interesting points, if you have the time or interest to read:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/619&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

That said, I am fully against any law such as COICA not only because it would deny to me the ability to visit certain sites as a person living in another part of the world, and even so because of the very principles it represents: Censorship out of economic/corporatist/political motivations.

On November 29 2010 03:14 NotSupporting wrote:


Well, I think this extreme. By the same logic it would also be illegal to go into a café and tell your mate in there out loud that you and him/her should go to the café over the street instead since you find it better, some costumers might hear and therefore it could hurt their business. Perhaps a bad example but I think you see what I mean.

On November 29 2010 03:53 Slaughter wrote:


Oh shut up. You don't live here so stop making assumptions based on little information about other countries.

On November 29 2010 05:09 NotSupporting wrote:


Do you realize that your argument backfires? I don't live in USA and thats exactly why I can look at USA from an objective perspective that is not influenced by American media, propaganda and patriotism.

On November 29 2010 05:09 NotSupporting wrote:


Do you realize that your argument backfires? I don't live in USA and thats exactly why I can look at USA from an objective perspective that is not influenced by American media, propaganda and patriotism.

... that is not influenced by...media, propaganda and patriotism.

On November 29 2010 03:14 NotSupporting wrote:


Well, I think this extreme. By the same logic it would also be illegal to go into a café and tell your mate in there out loud that you and him/her should go to the café over the street instead since you find it better, some costumers might hear and therefore it could hurt their business. Perhaps a bad example but I think you see what I mean.

On November 29 2010 04:23 FoxSpirit wrote:


Actually, unless the other Cafe is factually and certifiably better, you are commiting slander.

On November 30 2010 01:54 Order wrote:
I think they [they being the big game making corporations] should stop whinning about how everyone is stealing their products, but try harder and make them better. Take Blizzard for example. They have WoW, and they have the best customer service in the world + they are upgrading the game all the time. Same with starcraft. THEY CARE. And because of that 12 million people world wide are not playing on a private WoW server, but paying the 15 bucks or something to have the unexploited experience that a DECENT game developer provides.

Point being, that if they really made a game worth playing, I'd buy it. As I did with WoW for some time and now with starcraft. I live in eastern Europe where economy is STILL fucked up from the time when Soviet Union took over, and my parents are middle-class workers so I don't have enough money to buy games. And I can't say that I would buy them even if I had money, but I did buy starcraft and wow, because I knew I would get the experience of Blizzard looking over me. Never would I buy any EA or Activision game, they are just not worth it.

On November 29 2010 07:03 Pioneer wrote:

There are issues in every country, I'm sure you have corrupt officials and corporate influence in Sweden as in any country. The same people that damn the US and it's people are the same ones that tout that their country is the greatest in the world.

I don't agree with what Slaughter said, it's perfectly fine to critique something but in this case don't fool yourself and think that you are some unbiased saint. No one is completely objective.

On November 30 2010 02:00 jstar wrote:


You realize Blizzard is Activision right? Do you also realize EA makes more money than Activision Blizzard?

On November 29 2010 02:57 NotSupporting wrote:
Lastly, anyone still believing USA is a place of "freedom" is clearly blinded, America is an imperialistic state where politicians and company's try to keep the population happy and ignorant so they keep consuming and keep working without questioning, the difference between USA and China is way smaller than you think.