Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)

[Detective Conan]

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.

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.

Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)

COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html

So this isn't so much current, I guess, seeing as the bill is about one week old, but I still felt a need to comment on it. I really can't say anything more than what the author said about the subject. Essentially this bill will further limit Americans's freedom of expression and freedom of speech if passed, and places even more power in media companies (see the second to last paragraph of the article). I'm really hoping this bill doesn't get passed, otherwise I don't think the US could honestly call itself the land of the free and home of the brave anymore. I expect this from countries like China, not the U.S..

Now, I understand a lot of what supports the bill, that being the prevention of Internet piracy, a cause I can support. However, the method to do so as described within the bill is something I can't agree with. It's one thing to censor a torrent site, such as Pirate Bay, because the main purpose of that site is the distribution of (mostly) illegal content. It's a totally different matter to censor a website for hosting some illegal content without warning, such as Youtube. The example in the article depicting the ease Viacom would have to block Youtube is only one example of many instances. The broad version of that example would be if a Corporation wanted to block a site, the DOJ (Department of Justice, an ironic title in this context) could put it on Blacklist #2 and encourage ISPs to block to domain without a court order.

I'm glad there are some people taking action, and I've even found an online petition to combat the bill (feel free to sign if you want).

 

[bamf]

Yeah, I read up on this a week ago. I have doubts on it even passing through committee. It's so close to mid-term elections that it wouldn't surprise me if it turns into a polarized debate. If it made it to an actual Congressional vote, I again doubt it would pass. Then again, a large amount of the opponents of such a bill don't generally have a good voter turn-out. If it somehow was passed, I would hope that it was found unconstitutional.

 

[Nixie]

I think that "broad" bill like the one described above are generally bad news. Sweeping reform is always a catch phrase that makes me cringe. I think strengthing laws is okay but case by case is how copyright and infringement laws should be handled.

I am curious as to the impact the internet is having on the power structures. The fact that so much information is readily available and so quickly is a somewhat "power breaking" tool. There was a time in the not so distant past where publishing/ media empires held considerable power over the masses because they funneled most information. Now we are seeing many of these empires struggle to stay in business. I find it really interesting to see how the impact of the net is unfolding. Couple the instant access plus the questionable content and the connectivity with other people all over the world and you have something that is going to be changing society for decades.

 

[Detective Conan]

Well, the date for the Judiciary Committee has come and gone, and I haven't seen/heard very much about the discussion for COICA on the net. I did find one article earlier today that said the bill had been shelved for now. I'm really surprised it didn't go through because Thursday was voting day (at least in Iowa). And a celebrity died. However, as mentioned in the below article, efforts are still being made to get ISPs to voluntarily obey what COICA demands. I find that a little unnerving.

Last week we explored how the entertainment industry got two of their top campaign contribution recipients, Senators Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch, to field a bill that would create a website blacklist and give the Department of Justice the ability to censor certain websites deemed "dedicated to infringing activities." With a DOJ stocked with entertainment industry lawyers, that's of course dangerous path toward censorship and possible protectionism from disruptive upstarts. According to the EFF, the industry hoped to rush the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) bill through without much debate before the Congressional break, but they failed and the bill has been shelved temporarily.

Update: Techdirt notes that despite the bill's temporary hibernation, White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IP Czar) Victoria Espinel has been meeting with ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others to get them to agree to voluntarily do what COICA required.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Entertainment-Industry-COICA-Bill-Shelved-110671