COICA passed through senate.

LaughingStockWill anything happen to image hosting sites where many users upload copyrighted images?

quite possibly.

QUICK, EVERYONE JUMP ON THE INDIGNANT BANDWAGONUnless the bill has been drastically revised since I reviewed it, it's really not as severe as people are making it out to be.It is noteworthy though that the bill has actually passed, which says a lot about US senators and their technical understanding. Leaders who do not remain up-to-date with society are worthless.

So what, I'm (Singaporean) safe as long as I (from now on) don't pirate shit?

ReiderI guess the only thing to hope for at this point is Obama vetoing it. I haven't actually heard much in regards to his opinion on the matter.

Obama said publicly in a speech "We need to support the Anti Counterfeit Trading Act" (ACTA) a while back.If he supports ACTA, he's probly supporting what has been called "ACTA's successor".All I have to say is, my computer full of animu could not have died at a worse time. Thank god I was able to save all my roms tho.

tehuber1337 · #22It is noteworthy though that the bill has actually passed, which says a lot about US senators and their technical understanding. Leaders who do not remain up-to-date with society are worthless.

Indeed....We have so many leaders here who are computer illiterate. They are, for the most part, at the level of the average internet user. I mean average using Facebook and Twitter, etc.
They should not govern what they don't understand, but they do and will continue to.

Replying to #24

It's not that severe yet.And yeah, Obama probably backs this, despite his party affiliation. So no veto from him.

PC WorldA U.S. senator has vowed to fight attempts to pass a controversial copyright protection bill that would allow the U.S. government to shut down websites suspected of hosting infringing materials.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. Earlier Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 to approve the bill and send it to the full Senate.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. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through court orders, to order U.S. ISPs to redirect customer traffic away from infringing foreign websites."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. Sponsors of the legislation, including fellow Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would have to reintroduce the bill if it doesn't pass this year.Supporters of the bill say it's needed to rampant combat copyright and trademark infringement online. The bill would protect legitimate sites by targeting only sites that have no other purchase than the distribution of infringing materials, supporters said."The Internet serves as the glue of international commerce in today's global economy," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and bill sponsor, said in a statement. "But it's also been turned into a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property."COICA has bipartisan support and will help copyright holders and police better coordinate their efforts to fight online piracy, Hatch added.Opponents of the legislation say it amounts to censorship. Even websites with infringing materials have content that's projected by free-speech rights, opponents have said.The bill could also lead to a fragmentation of the Internet, with other countries emboldened to enforce their own laws, including censorship, said critics, including the Center for Democracy and Technology.COICA is an example of repeated efforts to fix long-time problems through Internet restrictions, said Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group. The Judiciary Committee pushed through the bill without adequate hearings and input from the public, Black said."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."

A new challenger has appeared?

He's but one against many. I hope others will join this senator. If he causes enough attention to it, it might have a chance at at least getting repealed.

Replying to #27

Indeed, and unfortunately, one almost always loses.
He'd better get support from others senators soon, or this bill will be enforced.
It will take a while before anything serious occurs with this bill, yet I am surprised at it's quick passing.

I'm not. By passing it quickly, they can shuffle the court of public opinion. That way no one will question the nature of the bill, and they can institue judgment quicker.If the government feels like they are losing money, in anyways possible, they will erase anything that stands in their way of making a profit.
And in their eyes, we are the anything.

tehuber1337 · #22QUICK, EVERYONE JUMP ON THE INDIGNANT BANDWAGONUnless the bill has been drastically revised since I reviewed it, it's really not as severe as people are making it out to be.It is noteworthy though that the bill has actually passed, which says a lot about US senators and their technical understanding. Leaders who do not remain up-to-date with society are worthless.

It has apparently changed, just so you know. It's not blocking address resolution at the domain level thanks to ISPs. It's blocking IP resolution by removing the DNS entries from all DNS servers situated in America. It's not like removing a signpost; it's like removing every single road into a town.I'll go find the latest wording of the Act and have a read later.

dedboy · #27He's but one against many. I hope others will join this senator. If he causes enough attention to it, it might have a chance at at least getting repealed.

darkrequiem · #28Indeed, and unfortunately, one almost always loses.
He'd better get support from others senators soon, or this bill will be enforced.
It will take a while before anything serious occurs with this bill, yet I am surprised at it's quick passing.

The PC World article mentions that it hasn't actually passed full senate yet, which means it hasn't really "passed" and there's nothing to repeal. It also says that individual senators can prevent bills from passing. According to Wikipedia they can hold bills indefinitely for whatever reason.

Replying to #30

This page says there's only one version, and indeed it appears to be the same as when I read it for the other thread.They're not removing DNS entries from each DNS server in America; that would be impractical. They're removing the domain name registration itself, so after DNS servers refresh you won't be able to reach an infringing website with its domain name. As I said in the other thread, if you know a site's IP address for some reason (and I don't think it's that hard to find out anyway), you'll be fine. ISP blocking would be worse (*cough cough*), as that would be like removing the roads.

The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring the DNS to cease operation for suspected websites both foreign as well as domestic. It would also create a blacklist of censored websites.

But my bad anyway, I forgot the function of DNS servers. I blame terminal exhaustion and a lack of interest in the workings of the internet.

when it passes, the dark age of the internet will begin. so much for the internet being "free" as it is intended to be.

tehuber1337 · #31They're not removing DNS entries from each DNS server in America; that would be impractical. They're removing the domain name registration itself, so after DNS servers refresh you won't be able to reach an infringing website with its domain name. As I said in the other thread, if you know a site's IP address for some reason (and I don't think it's that hard to find out anyway), you'll be fine. ISP blocking would be worse (*cough cough*), as that would be like removing the roads.

They can only do that for domains registered by an American registrar.

Replying to #34

Well yeah. Obviously an American bill can only be enacted in America.Interestingly GovTrack now lists a second version of the bill now that it's been reported by the judiciary committee. They don't have the text up yet though, so I don't know what revisions (if any) have been made.