|
Offtopic: HUK YOU ARE MY NEW HERO!
A rainy day is a perfect day for searching up torrents (kekeke)... so I visit www.demonoid.com and:
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. Please see the following article from the Huffington Post for more information. Stop the Internet Blacklist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.htmlAnd if you are a US citizen, please take the time sign this petition DemandProgress.org - Petition to Stop the Internet Blacklist!
The petition: http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
Quote from the Huffington Post:
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.
Is copyright infringement that bad? I like having demonoid 
TL;DR + Show Spoiler +The US Government will have the power to entirely shut down websites based on what they deem to contain "copyright infringement" ... => bad
|
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 09:52 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 .
This was a joke right?
Yes, the government cares about us. This does not have to do with money.
|
this is unreal
didn't think internet censorship would come to the us
|
not demonoid 
|
On September 28 2010 09:55 howerpower wrote:Show nested quote +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 .
This was a joke right? Yes, the government cares about us. This does not have to do with money.
his post was clearly sarcasm
is yours a joke? it's not as clear
"this does not have to do with money"
r u bein srs?
|
On September 28 2010 09:55 shawster wrote:
this is unreal
didn't think internet censorship would come to the us
unreal ? i see that coming since 2-3 year lol .
what i find unreal are more the general people , who say they got nothing to hide when big corporation say they will remove all the privacy they got .
they are realy something. im not going say anything else that something for dont hurt anyone but...
but god i would like to be like them .
everything fine , dont worry , everything cool . give me some drugs for be like that too
im fealing bad worry all the time
|
Put your name on the list so they know who to go after when the brownshirts come.
Seriously though, this is frightening.
|
And yet another proposal is issued that benefits corporations over citizens. Great job, America. What's next on the agenda, offering the blood of your first-born son to Bobby Kotick?
|
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*
|
|
|
hahahahahaha sucked in
Looks like the tables have turned.
|
America is supposed to be a compromise of security and freedom. Lately self interested politicians have seemed to lapse that freedom with violating propositions. Censorship can clearly be used as a form of control over the general people. Not only does this censorship act violate the freedom to browse the internet as YOU a "free man" living in a "FREE COUNTRY" see fit, this act violates the security of privacy to view the internet WITHOUT the possibility of someone LEGALLY OBSERVING YOU WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. America is fucking deteriorating man....
PS Yes I do realize that piracy is something to be dealt with but this is not the way.
The American public only views piracy as wrong because the New Millennium Copyright Act declared it as something similar to theft, the exact classification does not matter. This radically shaped the perspective on file sharing. The record companies and various other software giants got their lobbyists to pass a bill SUITING THEM NOT THE FUCKING GENERAL PUBLIC IN AMERICA. This bill does not suite people, this COICA will not suite the GENERAL PEOPLE, this will SUITE THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE A SHIT-TON OF MONEY SELLING STUFF, while at the same time limiting American freedoms. Unfortunately for us it is cheaper and easier for them to get the government to deal with their financial losses then simply actually caring about the product they are selling. File sharing is not theft. When using file sharing systems people do not remove an original product from it's perspective owner. It is the owners job to make the copy of the file that is more interesting then the ones floating around. Are we going to make it illegal to lend hard copy movies to friends? Are we going to make it illegal to share a product you have purchased with someone else? Telling someone what they can and cannot do with a BOUGHT product is a violation of personal freedom. No one at the grocery store says you cannot use a bought can of beans to make watery chili in a mass distribution center(think soup kitchen or community area).
Shouldn't the freedom-security balance define business, and business not define the freedom security balance?
DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP.
|
It would really suck if the government was able to pull through with the censorship idea. I really don't want to see demonoid go down, because it's such a useful place to get stuff that I don't feel like buying. D=
but not serious:
+ Show Spoiler +
Oh no! Censorship! Glenn Beck was right! We're turning into communist China! No!!
/sarcasm
|
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*
A bunch of people seemingly:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804
|
I hope that anyone who chooses to sign a petition or speak out against the bill takes the time to read it, I have an exam tomorrow so withholding my own opinion until I get the chance to read it tomorrow afternoon, but before anyone on either side begins to argue one way or another - educate yourself on what you are arguing for or against.
It's far too easy for both sides to blanket something like this with broad generalizations and the specifics are right there for us all to read.
ZapRoffo's post above mine links to the full text and it's actually not too long!
Edit: I felt myself getting dumber by the minute as I read the Huffington Post article on it, I can't wait to read the bill itself and come to my own conclusions.
|
It's basically as it's described, the one thing that seems not as described is that it doesn't say "there are 2 lists." The text breaks it down as sites for which the DoJ has initiated court proceedings and had a court order issued against and (the second list) sites that:
‘(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.
What is a site they can target:
(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.
Note: having links to infringement counts (as long as it's marketed to have those links or the links are the main purpose)
Also note: Just part B is not enough, it says it must have A (i or ii) and B, meaning it must be "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 be doing infringing acts. Therefore it could not be brought against YouTube, because it is not designed primarily to host copyright infringing materials, it has other purposes and uses and is not marketed to be hosting copyrighted material.
On whether it's in the US jurisdiction:
‘(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.
Wording can always change though/have things added/deleted.
I'm not sure how much this adds to existing laws, since I'm not so familiar with existing laws.
|
|
|
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?
|
i don't want to do this, but i feel a bump is necessary for such a topic. You guys are debating about rice but not this? Wtf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
