.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers

.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers (Read Only) => Discussion => Topic started by: coolzeldad on November 18, 2010, 03:34:57 PM

Title: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 18, 2010, 03:34:57 PM
Discussion for COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist (http://forum.randomgs.com/index.php/topic,2054.0.html)
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tomcat on November 18, 2010, 03:54:05 PM
Like i said did I?
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Cake Faice on November 18, 2010, 03:55:47 PM
Lol @ Obama. So much for a democratic republic if our Internets would be censored/blacklisted.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tiger Guy on November 18, 2010, 04:01:15 PM
Lol @ Obama. So much for a democratic republic if our Internets would be censored/blacklisted.
Bush tried to push and block porn on the interwebs way back when.

Silly Republicans and Democrats.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on November 18, 2010, 04:02:40 PM
If I must say so myself, I think that an internet without piracy and porn would be better for our world... especially when it comes to ethics...
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Cake Faice on November 18, 2010, 04:05:20 PM
But I wonder what hell would break loose of this passes through.

We can say good-bye to youtube and mediafire...and the world of torrenting.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on November 18, 2010, 04:06:54 PM
But I wonder what hell would break loose of this passes through.

We can say good-bye to youtube and mediafire...and the world of torrenting.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

nah, youtube and mediafire would stay.

it would mostly be stuff like pirate's bay and other sites like that that would be gone.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Bovicide on November 18, 2010, 04:16:57 PM
If I must say so myself, I think that an internet without piracy and porn would be better for our world... especially when it comes to ethics...

Internet is made for porn. Piracy is bad, i understand, but if you got rid of porn, shit would hit the fan.

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2296/tumblrl6pmqorket1qamnb5.jpg)
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on November 18, 2010, 04:32:02 PM
Internet is made for porn. Piracy is bad, i understand, but if you got rid of porn, shit would hit the fan.

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2296/tumblrl6pmqorket1qamnb5.jpg)

I know what you mean when you say this, but you need to understand that this can be changed!!!
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: jimonions on November 18, 2010, 06:41:24 PM
Just about any website can be used illegally.
censoring the internet would just cause more problems.
Do the US have the authority to censor the whole world? I find this highly unlikely, to do this they would have to filter all of the worlds servers through theirs and then censor it, lots of information including secrets are used on the web and the US government would be able to intercept anything that anyone ever posted on the internet. This would probably make the country safer in some ways but the amendment Freedom of Speech would have to be removed or reformed, not to mention the millions of unhappy people and enemies you would make right inside your own country.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 18, 2010, 07:38:49 PM
nah, youtube and mediafire would stay.

it would mostly be stuff like pirate's bay and other sites like that that would be gone.

That is completely uneducated. Any site can be targeted - Youtube especially. I would recommend actually reading what was posted.

This bill is not only doing what it says, it is extremely vague and open ended to allow greater control if passed.
If I must say so myself, I think that an internet without piracy and porn would be better for our world... especially when it comes to ethics...

Remember, why do you choose what's best for the entire world? You're opinion isn't absolute.

Read and use your brain, implementing a system of complete control over communications.. yeah okay - pass it! no more porn and shit || yarite.

I'm also not saying people wouldn't be able to get around it, but why allow this in the first place?

If you don't do anything, they assume you are in support.

I recommend doing something, including handwritten letters to state senator, petition, flyers, educate others, etc.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Devie on November 18, 2010, 08:12:50 PM
I'm scared....
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Moo on November 18, 2010, 09:18:49 PM
please before you say anything do some research, take a little time to learn something and then post ur opinion so a good debate can continue
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tiger Guy on November 18, 2010, 09:22:05 PM
So the Government is using piracy as a excuse to censor anything they want away in this bill?
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ursus on November 18, 2010, 09:31:18 PM
For torrent trackers like TPB, an .onion domain is easy to get. I myself have the software to set one up.
An .onion site is a site with a 16-bit hash as the URL, that runs on the Tor network as opposed to standard internet (Or whatever you may call it).
This means that even if a site is blacklisted, it can still be accessed by anyone with the Tor proxy browser.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 18, 2010, 10:08:09 PM
I'm also not saying people wouldn't be able to get around it, but why allow this in the first place?

If you don't do anything, they assume you are in support.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ursus on November 18, 2010, 10:20:18 PM


>quoting yourself
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 18, 2010, 10:23:21 PM
>quoting yourself

Because it has already been said. wow..

For torrent trackers like TPB, an .onion domain is easy to get. I myself have the software to set one up.
An .onion site is a site with a 16-bit hash as the URL, that runs on the Tor network as opposed to standard internet (Or whatever you may call it).
This means that even if a site is blacklisted, it can still be accessed by anyone with the Tor proxy browser.

I'm also not saying people wouldn't be able to get around it, but why allow this in the first place?

If you don't do anything, they assume you are in support.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: YomoFox on November 18, 2010, 10:47:27 PM
sounds like hell
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Carp on November 18, 2010, 11:19:08 PM
The bill as it stands now isn't good, and i doubt it will pass through the senate. I do think though if they changed the bill up a bit instead of just shutting down the website, prevent ad networks from working with the site, and banning credit card companies from working with the site that it has some good intentions.

And only 15% of bills that go through the house actually get made into a law, so their is a chance but a pretty small one that this will pass.

And to jims point about them interfering with other countries, if you read closely it didn't say that they would shut other country sites down it just said it would effect other countries.

Not only does the bill effect people of the United States, other countries will see the effects as the United States Government takes other actions to completely remove a website from the internet.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 18, 2010, 11:32:12 PM
oo that quote is what I said

If I didn't note a source under, should assume it's from me.

But what I was trying to illustrate, is that the bill's jurisdiction would allow the appointed to take any site off the internet, or cripple it.

So this pertains not only to the US, but all the countries that don't realize how far the US is integrated into their own.

As for passing, it still has a chance. And to sit around and let something this destructive walk through on dirty money and closed lips would be horrendous.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on November 19, 2010, 08:16:19 AM
I'm in the UK and I voted against this a long time ago

Over 3 mil votes against it
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Xrain on November 19, 2010, 12:05:38 PM
Refer to news update related to this in the news section.  ;D

http://forum.randomgs.com/index.php/topic,2054.msg27910.html#new (http://forum.randomgs.com/index.php/topic,2054.msg27910.html#new)
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on November 19, 2010, 12:30:22 PM
YESS IT GOT DENIED ;D

I just got the email about 3 hours ago :D

Quote
james -- big news! Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as "a bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet and pledged to "do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate."

Wyden's opposition practically guarantees the bill is dead this year -- and next year the new Congress will have to reintroduce the bill and start all over again. But even that might not happen: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Hollywood's own senator, told the committee that even she was uncomfortable with the Internet censorship portion of the bill and hoped it could be removed when they took it up again next year!

This is incredible -- and all thanks to you. Just a month ago, the Senate was planning to pass this bill unanimously; now even the senator from Hollywood is backing away from it. But this fight is far from over -- next year, there's going to be hearings, negotiations, and even more crucial votes. We need to be there, continuing to fight.

Can you chip in a couple bucks so we can keep our lobbyist in DC?

We're doing everything we can: working with key staffers to remove the most egregious parts of the bill, lobbying more members of Congress to speak out against this bill, and insisting on hearings so the whole Senate can learn about how dangerous this is. And, of course, we'll keep working with you to make sure more people hear about this bill and tell their senators.


Keep on fighting,

-- Aaron Swartz, David Segal, and the Demand Progress team

Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Mr. Franklin on November 19, 2010, 12:31:11 PM
YESSSSS MY VOTE COUNTED AGAINST IT :D
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 19, 2010, 12:57:56 PM
Sweet, so far so good.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tomcat on November 19, 2010, 01:49:03 PM
Full bill for the people who need to learn to look

S 3804 IS
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3804
To combat online infringement, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 20, 2010
Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To combat online infringement, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act’.
SEC. 2. INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
‘(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.
‘(b) Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any infringing activity in violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party described in subsection (e) receiving an order issued pursuant to this section shall take the appropriate actions described in subsection (e).
‘(c) In Rem Action-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may commence an in rem action against any domain name used by an Internet site in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar or domain name registry is located, or, if pursuant to subsection (d)(2), in the District of Columbia, if--
‘(A) the domain name is dedicated to infringing activities; and
‘(B) the Attorney General simultaneously--
‘(i) sends a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this subsection to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar, if available; and
‘(ii) publishes notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
‘(2) SERVICE OF PROCESS- For purposes of this section, the actions described under paragraph (1)(B) shall constitute service of process.
‘(d) Situs-
‘(1) DOMAINS FOR WHICH THE REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR IS LOCATED DOMESTICALLY- In an in rem action commenced under subsection (c), a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
‘(A) the domain name registrar or registry is located, provided that for a registry that is located in more than 1 judicial district, venue shall be appropriate at the principal place where the registry operations are performed; or
‘(B) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
‘(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.
‘(e) Service of Court Order-
‘(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the Attorney General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the registry. Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name.
‘(2) NONDOMESTIC DOMAINS-
‘(A) ENTITY TO BE SERVED- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(2) applies, the Attorney General may serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on any entity listed in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B).
‘(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS- Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to this section--
‘(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address;
‘(ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent--
‘(I) its service from processing transactions for customers located within the United States based on purchases associated with the domain name; and
‘(II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites associated with such domain name; and
‘(iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name.
‘(3) IMMUNITY- No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this section, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any action reasonably calculated to comply with this section or arising from such order.
‘(f) Publication of Orders- The Attorney General shall inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator of all court orders issued under this section directed to specific domain names associated with Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities. The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall post such domain names on a publicly available Internet site, together with other relevant information, in order to inform the public.
‘(g) Enforcement of Orders- In order to compel compliance with this section, the Attorney General may bring an action against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this section that willfully or persistently fails to comply with such order. A showing by the defending party in such action that it does not have the technical means to comply with this section shall serve as a complete defense to such action.
‘(h) Modification or Vacation of Orders; Dismissal-
‘(1) MODIFICATION OR VACATION OF ORDER- At any time after the issuance of a court order constituting injunctive relief under this section--
‘(A) the Attorney General may apply for a modification of the order--
‘(i) to expand the order to apply to a domain name that is reconstituted using a different domain name subsequent to the original order, and
‘(ii) to include additional domain names that are used in substantially the same manner as the Internet site against which the action was brought,
by providing the court with clear indicia of joint control, ownership, or operation of the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order and the Internet site associated with the requested modification; and
‘(B) a defendant or owner or operator of a domain name subject to the order, or any party required to take action based on the order, may petition the court to modify, suspend, or vacate the order, based on evidence that--
‘(i) the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order is no longer dedicated to infringing activities; or
‘(ii) the interests of justice require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.
‘(2) DISMISSAL OF ORDER- A court order constituting injunctive relief under this section issued against a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities shall automatically cease to have any force or effect upon expiration of the registration of the domain name. It shall be the responsibility of the domain name registrar to notify the court of such expiration.
‘(i) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit civil or criminal remedies available to any person (including the United States) for infringing activities on the Internet pursuant to any other Federal or State law.
‘(j) Internet Sites Alleged by the Department of Justice To Be Dedicated to Infringing Activities-
‘(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.
‘(2) PROTECTION FOR UNDERTAKING CORRECTIVE MEASURES- If an entity described under subsection (e) takes any action specified in such subsection with respect to a domain name that appears on the list established under paragraph (1), then such entity shall receive the immunity protections described under subsection (e)(3).
‘(3) REMOVAL FROM LIST- The Attorney General shall establish and publish procedures for the owner or operator of a domain name appearing on the list established under paragraph (1) to petition the Attorney General to remove such domain name from the list based on any of the factors described under subsection (h)(1)(B).
‘(4) JUDICIAL REVIEW-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- After the Attorney General makes a final determination on a petition to remove a domain name appearing on the list established under paragraph (1) filed by an individual pursuant to the procedures referred to in paragraph (3), the individual may obtain judicial review of such determination in a civil action commenced not later than 90 days after notice of such decision, or such further time as the Attorney General may allow.
‘(B) JURISDICTION- A civil action for such judicial review shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has a principal place of business, or, if the plaintiff does not reside or have a principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
‘(C) ANSWER- As part of the Attorney General’s answer to a complaint for such judicial review, the Attorney General shall file a certified copy of the administrative record compiled pursuant to the petition to remove, including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based.
‘(D) JUDGMENT- The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming or reversing the result of the Attorney General’s determination on the petition to remove, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.’.
SEC. 3. REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Attorney General shall--
(1) publish procedures to receive information from the public about Internet sites that are dedicated to infringing activities, as that term is defined under section 2324 of title 18, United States Code;
(2) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about what information such rights holders should provide the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation pursuant to such section 2324;
(3) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about how to supplement an ongoing investigation initiated pursuant to such section 2324;
(4) establish standards for prioritization of actions brought under such section 2324; and
(5) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case management and development to affect timely disposition of actions brought under such section 2324.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on November 19, 2010, 01:53:22 PM
tl;dr

This is not a full bull.

Full bills are about the size of a textbook.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tomcat on November 19, 2010, 01:55:08 PM
lol this is the full bill

the health care law was like 1000 pages of pure shit
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on November 19, 2010, 01:57:02 PM
lol this is the full bill

the health care law was like 1000 pages of pure shit

If this is a full bill, then it would already be out of committee and being voted on and amended by both chambers of congress.

Basically, if this is the full bill, then we don't have time to stop it before it gets approved.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 19, 2010, 02:05:23 PM
If this is a full bill, then it would already be out of committee and being voted on and amended by both chambers of congress.

Basically, if this is the full bill, then we don't have time to stop it before it gets approved.

It is the full bill, why are you trying to assert you actually know something others don't?

Really depressing at best...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3804: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3804:)
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on November 19, 2010, 02:12:48 PM
It is the full bill, why are you trying to assert you actually know something others don't?

Really depressing at best...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3804: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3804:)

The entire REASON we have committees and subcommittees in our legislative branch is so that we can get through bills quicker. Most bills are very very long. I mean like really thick. You could probably break somebody's neck from dropping a bill on their head from a 2 story building,

Anyway, the point is that if the bill is really this short, it will get moved through committee really quickly. I mean like lightning fast.
If this bill is this short, it would only take... a littler more than a month after being presented in committee to be passed and signed into law... if everyone votes for it.

If the senate and house don't accept similar versions of the bill (yes, there are different versions), then it might take a few more weeks, maybe a month.

Depending on how long ago this bill was introduced, we might have 2 months to 1 or 2 weeks to do anything, even if we wanted to.

Trust me, I'm taking AP Government -_-
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 19, 2010, 02:18:44 PM
The entire REASON we have committees and subcommittees in our legislative branch is so that we can get through bills quicker. Most bills are very very long. I mean like really thick. You could probably break somebody's neck from dropping a bill on their head from a 2 story building,

Anyway, the point is that if the bill is really this short, it will get moved through committee really quickly. I mean like lightning fast.
If this bill is this short, it would only take... a littler more than a month after being presented in committee to be passed and signed into law... if everyone votes for it.

If the senate and house don't accept similar versions of the bill (yes, there are different versions), then it might take a few more weeks, maybe a month.

Depending on how long ago this bill was introduced, we might have 2 months to 1 or 2 weeks to do anything, even if we wanted to.

Trust me, I'm taking AP Government -_-

Dude.. that's the fucking bill

It's the fucking library of congress. What the fuck do you really think you know?

Just because you take a course does not guarantee your absorption of knowledge.

Also, what makes you think you know more then anybody else? REALLY :|

You are becoming aggravating.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Devie on November 19, 2010, 02:19:33 PM
Trust me, I'm taking AP Government -_-

LOLOLOLOLOOLOL
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on November 19, 2010, 02:57:21 PM
Dude.. that's the fucking bill

It's the fucking library of congress. What the fuck do you really think you know?

Just because you take a course does not guarantee your absorption of knowledge.

Also, what makes you think you know more then anybody else? REALLY :|

You are becoming aggravating.

COOLZ R RAGE
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ursus on November 19, 2010, 02:58:19 PM
COOLZ R RAGE

hemad
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 19, 2010, 03:06:39 PM
:<
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Don on November 19, 2010, 03:12:08 PM
Dude.. that's the fucking bill

It's the fucking library of congress. What the fuck do you really think you know?

Just because you take a course does not guarantee your absorption of knowledge.

Also, what makes you think you know more then anybody else? REALLY :|

You are becoming aggravating.
CALM THE FUCK DOWN, EVERYONE'S ALREADY FUCKING STARING
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 19, 2010, 03:17:15 PM
CALM THE FUCK DOWN, EVERYONE'S ALREADY FUCKING STARING

D:::
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Xrain on November 19, 2010, 03:19:21 PM
I'M RAGING


Trust me, I'm taking AP Government -_-


But seriously, ap government is pretty weak source to validate your statements with. Because how can I know if your passing the class acceptably, more importantly how do I know that what your teacher is teaching you is accurate? High-school teachers are kinda notorious for not being the most accurate source of knowledge.

If you want to back-up your statements legitimately please list proper sources (Wikipedia is a pretty weak source by the way.) Such as the library of congress, or peer reviewed, published sources.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tiger Guy on November 19, 2010, 03:58:53 PM
COOLZELDAD FOR PRESEDENT 2028
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Moo on November 19, 2010, 04:46:53 PM
sextrain for president 2069  :dukenukem:
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on November 19, 2010, 05:10:22 PM
sextrain for president 2069  :dukenukem:

yamada
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tomcat on November 19, 2010, 07:24:38 PM
yamada
(http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/041/080/original/roflbotvopt.jpg?1266844669)
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Banana Hat on December 01, 2010, 01:59:54 PM
back on topic

Full bill for the people who need to learn to look

S 3804 IS
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3804
To combat online infringement, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 20, 2010
Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To combat online infringement, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act’.
SEC. 2. INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
‘(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.
‘(b) Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any infringing activity in violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party described in subsection (e) receiving an order issued pursuant to this section shall take the appropriate actions described in subsection (e).
‘(c) In Rem Action-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may commence an in rem action against any domain name used by an Internet site in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar or domain name registry is located, or, if pursuant to subsection (d)(2), in the District of Columbia, if--
‘(A) the domain name is dedicated to infringing activities; and
‘(B) the Attorney General simultaneously--
‘(i) sends a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this subsection to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar, if available; and
‘(ii) publishes notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
‘(2) SERVICE OF PROCESS- For purposes of this section, the actions described under paragraph (1)(B) shall constitute service of process.
‘(d) Situs-
‘(1) DOMAINS FOR WHICH THE REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR IS LOCATED DOMESTICALLY- In an in rem action commenced under subsection (c), a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
‘(A) the domain name registrar or registry is located, provided that for a registry that is located in more than 1 judicial district, venue shall be appropriate at the principal place where the registry operations are performed; or
‘(B) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
‘(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.
‘(e) Service of Court Order-
‘(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the Attorney General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the registry. Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name.
‘(2) NONDOMESTIC DOMAINS-
‘(A) ENTITY TO BE SERVED- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(2) applies, the Attorney General may serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on any entity listed in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B).
‘(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS- Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to this section--
‘(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address;
‘(ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent--
‘(I) its service from processing transactions for customers located within the United States based on purchases associated with the domain name; and
‘(II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites associated with such domain name; and
‘(iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name.
‘(3) IMMUNITY- No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this section, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any action reasonably calculated to comply with this section or arising from such order.
‘(f) Publication of Orders- The Attorney General shall inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator of all court orders issued under this section directed to specific domain names associated with Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities. The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall post such domain names on a publicly available Internet site, together with other relevant information, in order to inform the public.
‘(g) Enforcement of Orders- In order to compel compliance with this section, the Attorney General may bring an action against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this section that willfully or persistently fails to comply with such order. A showing by the defending party in such action that it does not have the technical means to comply with this section shall serve as a complete defense to such action.
‘(h) Modification or Vacation of Orders; Dismissal-
‘(1) MODIFICATION OR VACATION OF ORDER- At any time after the issuance of a court order constituting injunctive relief under this section--
‘(A) the Attorney General may apply for a modification of the order--
‘(i) to expand the order to apply to a domain name that is reconstituted using a different domain name subsequent to the original order, and
‘(ii) to include additional domain names that are used in substantially the same manner as the Internet site against which the action was brought,
by providing the court with clear indicia of joint control, ownership, or operation of the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order and the Internet site associated with the requested modification; and
‘(B) a defendant or owner or operator of a domain name subject to the order, or any party required to take action based on the order, may petition the court to modify, suspend, or vacate the order, based on evidence that--
‘(i) the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order is no longer dedicated to infringing activities; or
‘(ii) the interests of justice require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.
‘(2) DISMISSAL OF ORDER- A court order constituting injunctive relief under this section issued against a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities shall automatically cease to have any force or effect upon expiration of the registration of the domain name. It shall be the responsibility of the domain name registrar to notify the court of such expiration.
‘(i) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit civil or criminal remedies available to any person (including the United States) for infringing activities on the Internet pursuant to any other Federal or State law.
‘(j) Internet Sites Alleged by the Department of Justice To Be Dedicated to Infringing Activities-
‘(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.
‘(2) PROTECTION FOR UNDERTAKING CORRECTIVE MEASURES- If an entity described under subsection (e) takes any action specified in such subsection with respect to a domain name that appears on the list established under paragraph (1), then such entity shall receive the immunity protections described under subsection (e)(3).
‘(3) REMOVAL FROM LIST- The Attorney General shall establish and publish procedures for the owner or operator of a domain name appearing on the list established under paragraph (1) to petition the Attorney General to remove such domain name from the list based on any of the factors described under subsection (h)(1)(B).
‘(4) JUDICIAL REVIEW-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- After the Attorney General makes a final determination on a petition to remove a domain name appearing on the list established under paragraph (1) filed by an individual pursuant to the procedures referred to in paragraph (3), the individual may obtain judicial review of such determination in a civil action commenced not later than 90 days after notice of such decision, or such further time as the Attorney General may allow.
‘(B) JURISDICTION- A civil action for such judicial review shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has a principal place of business, or, if the plaintiff does not reside or have a principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
‘(C) ANSWER- As part of the Attorney General’s answer to a complaint for such judicial review, the Attorney General shall file a certified copy of the administrative record compiled pursuant to the petition to remove, including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based.
‘(D) JUDGMENT- The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming or reversing the result of the Attorney General’s determination on the petition to remove, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.’.
SEC. 3. REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Attorney General shall--
(1) publish procedures to receive information from the public about Internet sites that are dedicated to infringing activities, as that term is defined under section 2324 of title 18, United States Code;
(2) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about what information such rights holders should provide the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation pursuant to such section 2324;
(3) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about how to supplement an ongoing investigation initiated pursuant to such section 2324;
(4) establish standards for prioritization of actions brought under such section 2324; and
(5) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case management and development to affect timely disposition of actions brought under such section 2324.

tldr, also todays shitty law language is a big turnoff. kinda scary that you consider this a very short bill when 200 years ago this\|/ protected us all.

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2 lines is a fucking law.

that sates that congress CANNOT pass any law establishing a religion or preventing someone from practicing one. It also states that they CANNOT in anyway change our right to free speech.

those 2 lines would hold our nation together far better than the shit up top right?
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Osme on December 01, 2010, 02:04:30 PM
blacklisting the interwib is illegal
and only a fool would say taht piracy would be gone. its not gonna be gone EVER. but what people dont know is that without piracy gaming companies would lose alot of money. people who directly buy a game buy the game regardless. those who are "maybe maybe not" either pirate the game and possibly buy after, or they dont buy it at all.
pirating music might be different, nvr thought about it

Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 28, 2010, 10:45:24 AM
it got passed

unstickies
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tomcat on December 28, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
Proof or it didnt happen
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 28, 2010, 10:54:02 AM
Proof or it didnt happen

it got passed a long time ago .-.

he said "it was an idiotic attempt to censor the internet" and tossed it aside
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ursus on December 28, 2010, 10:54:06 AM
Proof or it didnt happen
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 28, 2010, 10:55:55 AM
YESS IT GOT DENIED ;D

Code: [Select]
james -- big news! Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as "a bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet and pledged to "do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate."

Wyden's opposition practically guarantees the bill is dead this year -- and next year the new Congress will have to reintroduce the bill and start all over again. But even that might not happen: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Hollywood's own senator, told the committee that even she was uncomfortable with the Internet censorship portion of the bill and hoped it could be removed when they took it up again next year!

This is incredible -- and all thanks to you. Just a month ago, the Senate was planning to pass this bill unanimously; now even the senator from Hollywood is backing away from it. But this fight is far from over -- next year, there's going to be hearings, negotiations, and even more crucial votes. We need to be there, continuing to fight.

Can you chip in a couple bucks so we can keep our lobbyist in DC?

We're doing everything we can: working with key staffers to remove the most egregious parts of the bill, lobbying more members of Congress to speak out against this bill, and insisting on hearings so the whole Senate can learn about how dangerous this is. And, of course, we'll keep working with you to make sure more people hear about this bill and tell their senators.


Keep on fighting,

-- Aaron Swartz, David Segal, and the Demand Progress team

I just got the email about 3 hours ago :D

Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ursus on December 28, 2010, 11:11:32 AM


Magic, when a bill gets "passed" that means it got approved. You scared the shit out of me.
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Tomcat on December 28, 2010, 11:12:22 AM
Magic, when a bill gets "passed" that means it got approved. You scared the shit out of me.
same lol

resticky before coolz notices lolz
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 28, 2010, 11:13:16 AM
Damn amerifags and their stupid understanding ???

So

It got denied

Happy? :trollface:
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on December 28, 2010, 12:17:11 PM
Damn amerifags and their stupid understanding ???

WE THROUGH TEA OFF A BOAT NIKKA

WAT U GUN DO
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 28, 2010, 12:18:03 PM
WE THROUGH TEA OFF A BOAT NIKKA

WAT U GUN DO

I HAET TEE NIKKA

:trollface:
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: coolzeldad on December 28, 2010, 12:20:36 PM
I HAET TEE NIKKA

:trollface:

NIKKA WHO TEA DAT?

DAT YO TEA NIKKA

I DUN WANT DAT TEA

CAN'T AFFORD DAT TEA

NIKKA I LIKE TEA

BUT NIKKA DAT YO TEA
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ursus on December 28, 2010, 12:25:25 PM
fuck yo couch nigguh
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: Carp on December 28, 2010, 12:50:08 PM
TEA TEA TEA
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 28, 2010, 01:34:37 PM
NIKKA WHO TEA DAT?

DAT YO TEA NIKKA

I DUN WANT DAT TEA

CAN'T AFFORD DAT TEA

NIKKA I LIKE TEA

BUT NIKKA DAT YO TEA

NOPE :trollface:
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: ItchyDani3l on December 28, 2010, 03:09:58 PM
wtf bump lolololol
Title: Re: COICA: US/World Internet Blacklist - Discussion
Post by: » Magic « on December 29, 2010, 07:16:02 AM
it was at the top of discussion cause of sticky