The Senate Has Its Priorities
It would be nice if the senators blocking the expansion of low-power radio would turn their attention to something socially useful, like blocking this:
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site -- regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the "nuclear option," which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites "off."
Update: I missed this: Ron Wyden of Oregon is threatening to block it. Good for Wyden.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site -- regardless if the website has actually committed a crime.
If copyright infringement is a crime, then how the hell can the site actions be "central to the activity" but not actually do? This makes NO sense!
The point here is that the sites in question will not have been established to have committed a crime in a court of law.
Apparently, going to court is too much time and trouble for our government, so in another in a long series of steps designed to eliminate the due process of law, the Senate wants to create yet one more bureaucrat who gets to employ the fuhrerprinzip instead.
And note that the previous version of this bill was something that GWB thought went too far in that direction when they tried to pass it in 2008 in a lame duck session.
This crap always comes up in the lame duck.
The should expand this idea. Remove that whole pesky courtroom due process step and, tada, tax cuts for everyone! There will be tax cuts, right?
The Pirate Bay defense is that they merely link to places where you can get copyright material. This appears to work under Swedish law (where they are located). So it's not a crime, but the US can try to shut it down anyway... that's what they are thinking anyway.
"...if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site -- regardless if the website has actually committed a crime."
If I put up a website devoted to debunking Scientology, couldn't copyright infringement be deemed "central to the activity" of the site?
Oh, absolutely, 100%. The Scientologists love to use copyright claims.
And God help you if you devote a website to the (alleged, but certainly not proven) ovinephilic tendencies of a certain lawyer.
In the article I read yesterday, the Senators were talking about foreign web hosts/sites. Are they really talking about blocking them or actually shutting them down? Are Predator strikes mentioned?
They can do anything they want at the moment. This has to end.
Why the fuck is the government involved in the internet anyway??? That's rhetorical.
Because it's there.
Tubes fascinate them.
I wonder if Senator-Elect Paul would put a hold on this sort of legislation, if it's still in the pipeline when January rolls around.
He's probably a strong IP guy, but probably would not be down with taking the courts out of the loop on yet another law enforcement activity.
When the Senate tried to pass the previous version of the bill back in 2007, it was stopped because Bush threatened to veto it.
Unfortunately, it's not yet clear if President Obama has the strong civil liberties instinct of his predecessor. We know that Biden sucks on MPAA/RIAA issues.
Sorry, 2008 lame duck session, of course.
Maobama is so big on civil liberties he wants terrorist suspects tried in traffic court and kept in jail even if acquitted. Just like that big civil libertarian Fidel Castro.
I may need to use this against the enemies of my administration.
Keeping the world safe for Mickey Mouse.
+10
Of course, my first thought was the Disney vampire squid...but considering how our gubermint works...TSA...but what has TSA copyrighted???
All those cute pictures they've been taking?
Gonna make watching my out of market football team games a little tougher. Looks like I'll end up at bars on Sunday mornings now instead.
Well, I'm sure Anonymous will have something to say about this bullshit. DoS attack anyone?
Is that a dryly sarcastic joke conflating their approaches, or a straightforward serious statement?
Seeing as this is probably aimed partially at 4chan, I wouldn't be surprised if anon launched an attack.
Government blocking something that expands the authority of government? That's funny.
Not as funny as GWB threatening to veto a bill because it gave federal prosecutors unnecessary power. You have to admit that one's hard to top, and it's true.
That is funny.
That is pretty funny.
Even Bush vetoed it. But it has risen from the grave yet again.
Well, he didn't actually veto it. He threatened to veto it and then the Senate refused to take it up even though the Judiciary Committee had reported it out (that time, it was 14-4, with 4 GOPers against.)
I wouldn't call that a pocket veto, after all, even during a lame duck session. Wouldn't want to be imprecise.
Nothing beats the overbearing power of the state. Why the hell not?
Furrrrk.
Finally, someone is paying attention!
While I disagree vigorously with Reason on intellectual property, this law seems like prosecuting a crowbar manufacturer because garage burglars are the only ones buying crowbars or busting head shops because their paraphernalia might be used with illegal drugs. P2P has plenty of valid uses, even if most people using them are stealing copyrighted work. Hell zip drives could do the same exact thing.
Of course, all this will accomplish in reality will be those sites putting up disclaimers that illegal copyright violation and distribution of copyrighted material is a violation of the terms of service and could lead to prosecution, and that they aren't responsible for the misuse of their utility.
Hell zip drives could do the same exact thing.
Did anybody actually use Zip drives for anything BUT sharing software and music?
From the article: "There need not even be illegal content on a site ? links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group."
I can post links which would appear here on reason.com, pointing to other sites which advocate or participate in piracy. Does this law require reason.com to sanitize its comment section under threat of shutdown?
Furthermore, I both reject, and espouse the rejection of copyright law, in general. Would my advocacy of such a position, posted to this page, qualify reason.com for shutdown?
Talk about your grey areas.
Yeah, that's pretty broad authority to shut down any site that allows free speech on its boards.
It's not that far away from shutting down websites that frequently discuss other things that irritate Congress, like ending prohibition or moonshining.
Yeah, that's pretty broad authority to shut down any site that allows free speech on its boards.
It's not that far away from shutting down websites that frequently discuss other things that irritate Congress, like ending prohibition or moonshining.
Huh? No idea how that happened.
I'll tell you for a quarter.
We like things with pretty broad authority. Throw in a dash of vagueness for seasoning.
You have this bizarre notion that you are free to speak your mind in this country - where in the world did you get such an idea???
Dude, read the constitution. Nothing in there about the internet. And besides, websites are totally related to commerce, and not even the passive, non-participatory variety. So they're totally fair game, no questions asked. And don't even get me started on the common welfare stuff, and that's in the preamble -- how can something inside a book supersede what's written right on the cover? That wouldn't even make sense.
Besides, man, FCC. Enough said. Totally.
I cannot improve upon your response in any way. Respeck....
OMG! The stoopid senaterz want to steel my free downloadz!
No, stupid girl.
The Senators want to steal your right to a day in court.
I am a ferociously pro-IP person.
I view the theoretical claims supporting intellectual property as stronger than the claims supporting physical property.
But the Attorney General is not the King or the Pope. He should not get to anathematize websites just based on his individual will.
If a site is violating copyright laws, bring an enforcement action in the courts. If you need an emergency injunction protecting certain content, obtain one from a judge. The only reason to seek such a power for the AG is if you find those options too hard, and I have no respect for any claim by the state that using the traditional court system is too hard.
What the Fluffster said.
I'm pro-IP and I think it's crap too.
""and I have no respect for any claim by the state that using the traditional court system is too hard.""
Not trying to threadjack, but that's one of the arugments for keeping terrorist out of civilian court. Keeping certain evidence out of court makes it too hard to convict.
Hey, if the country wanted to be honest and start a war over IP that would be one (stupid) thing. Or having it be a part of sanction or trade negotiations. But giving it to the AG to treat it like a crime is just absurd.
Not to threadjack, but that's one of the arguments for keeping terrorists captured on foreign soil out of civilian court. The normal criminal process is impossible in such a situation where you're claiming universal jurisdiction, so it poisons the process.
Is a US embassy not US soil?
Well, when I have my casket there, we do keep a little soil in it so I can sleep during the day. So close enough!
And if you don't like another country's law, the way to go about it isn't to have the AG try to enforce our laws in another country.
I do agree.
OMG I js wn my free downloadz What is wrong w u ppl?
If the embassy is not US soil then the US has no jursidiction, and the country where the act was committed should handle the prosectution.
Someone in the Senate did block it or will:
http://www.itworld.com/interne.....e=embedded
Ah, Wyden. Up there with Feingold as a Democrat that I have a fair amount of respect for (even if heavily disagreeing with some positions.)
Why Feingold? I'm assuming you're not a fan of CFR ...
I hope this free library is kept safe.
^NSFW (if your company doesn't like tied up penises and stuff on your desktop)
I thought this crowd was mostly priests? Will warn in the future.
I will bookmark the site for later in-depth analysis...uh, I better do it now...see you guys later...
The only reason there is any support for IP is because its staunchest supporters have no marketable skills and have run out of things to leverage. Governments on their last legs throughout history have played the IP card right before they collapsed into insignificance.
Extended IP supports rent-seeking over innovation, supports established interests over outsiders, and essentially violates most of the bill of rights. It's the last card that can possibly be played in a society that has regulated its economy into uncompetitiveness.
Those who value financial security over liberty deserve neither.
The content of your note was stolen from copyrighted, trademarked material. You'll be hearing from our lawyers, criminal.
Boy, when they said jobs were priority one, they weren't kidding. Anyone know how many jobs will be saved or created by this exercise of the Senatorial sphincter?
""Anyone know how many jobs will be saved or created by this exercise of the Senatorial sphincter?"""
One proctology position?
OT, but as you mentioned that, it was given me second-hand, as reported by the source, that the recent Census may have included a rather creative method for helping with the administration's 'jobs created' numbers. The source, a manager in a local Census office, said part of her job seemed to her to be quite strange, that being that she was to fire around twenty people, and then to hire them back, on a weekly basis. That part was a fact; it was her speculation as to the purpose of the practice.
Which, I must say, I find to be quite odd. I should see if I could arrange to get the story first-hand.
Governments on their last legs throughout history have played the IP card right before they collapsed into insignificance.
[citation needed]
Or am I missing the joke?
You know, the British back in the early 18th century. Oh wait.
The independence of the colonies happened rather quickly after that statute. Britain's economic importance has slowly eroded since. And note how the U.S.' economic importance is eroding - with IP becoming a hotter topic simply because it is something that can be leveraged and securitized if solidified.
The "Dark Ages". The Arabs collapsing into Islamism. Those are the ones off the top of my head.
Rent seeking and intolerance go hand in hand. In an event, the Renaissance and Reformation weren't led by lawyers.
John Calvin was a lawyer.
So Jesse, interesting juxtaposition here. I know you like radio, but on balance I can live with a Senate where one hold can block a bipartisan popular bill in a lame duck session.
I like low power radio, but I wouldn't trade it for this bill passing.
I wouldn't trade it either, but I think there's a notable difference between the two situations. It's one thing to be able to block a bill, another to be able to block it anonymously. Wyden is taking a principled stand in public. The anti-LPFM senators are doing a lobby's dirty work away from the sunlight.
I am threadjacking here.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....ePdHbZMVbM
Perhaps Reason could give it it's own thread.
Perhaps Reason could give it it's own thread
OMG even I know it's spelled its LOL
Stop typing and get back to sucking my cock
Britain's economic importance has slowly eroded since.
Only if you overlook the 150 years when it grew to dominate the globe.
The "Dark Ages". The Arabs collapsing into Islamism.
Nero supported IP laws and injunctions against scribes who copied without permission?
Islam was spread, not at the point of a sword, but in a flurry of court filings?
a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site -- regardless if the website has actually committed a crime.
Wouldn't this give the AG the power to shut down any political discussion forum/site/blog on the internet?
I am strongly pro-IP, but this bill is terrible. Who is Wyden? Too lazy to look shit up.
Wyden is the Oregon Senator who was writing another alternative health care plan with Bob Bennett of Utah (Wyden-Bennett) and is currently to give states a tiny bit more flexibility with Obamacare's mandate. He's among the more interesting Senate Democrats.
Ugh .
Look at it this way: Freenet comes with one click installation on consumer platforms and works better when there are more nodes.
Web surfing with that kind of latency takes some getting used to, but it is really just an extension of the movement toward excessive multitasking anyway. The kiddies will love it.
I'm definitely opposed to this if in any way it restricts my ability to get to porn sites quickly and easily.
Are teh innertoobs used for something besides that?
Well...there are sites that index and review porn sites...does that count?
I called every R on that committee on Friday to voice my complaint about the 19-0 vote. Three offices had no idea that their senator had voted or which way. One office (Cornyn) sends all callers to a full voice mailbox. The only office at all prepared for the fallout was Coburns. I'll commend the young lady for being prepared, but her arguments were weak. As I own property in VT I also spoke with Leahys office.
My main point to all was there are civil courts to handle these issues and, if we are to believe Coburns assertion that this is to protect consumers too, they too have already in place avenues to redress 'rogue' websites. This is nothing more than the MPAA and associates getting what they paid for.