Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Blacklist Back In Congress

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the nobody-talks-about-my-orange-list dept.

Censorship 278

Adrian Lopez writes "A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission."

cancel ×

278 comments

Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246820)

... I produce the sound of loud laughter aimed at any blacklisting effort ever made.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247068)

Like adblock?

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247130)

You might want to read up. This isn't 'blacklisting' the way you are likely to think about it. This is removing items from the Root DNS server.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247478)

And do they forbid to provide alternative DNS servers ? How is the information provided not covered by first amendment ?

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247910)

First amendment: 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.

Spreading copywritten materials (unless that includes the Bible or some other holy text, i suppose) does not fall under the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or the press, nor does it impair the ability of the people to peaceably congress and/or petition the government for change. The first Amendment is supposed to protect freedom of expression of individuals and religion and allowing the people a viable method of commenting on the government's rights and wrongs - not to protect or prevent the transmission of copywritten materials.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248036)

> Spreading copywritten materials (unless that includes the Bible or some other holy text, i suppose)
> does not fall under the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or the press,

No. But revoking one's voice in public does.

This is like taking away someone's right to vote because they are a felon. Except the felon at least got some due process.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247688)

So then we use an alternate root. Seems simple enough, once again the Internet is flexible enough to route around damage.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247874)

"So then we use an alternate root. Seems simple enough, once again the Internet is flexible enough to route around damage."

So, just wait for them to add an amendment here, or on some other bill...making it illegal for a US citizen to use alternate roots.

While I agree with your sentiment...there is real danger letting them set a precedent of this fashion, and we need to stop this kind of shit right in its current tracks.

I applaud current moves to try to get rid of earmark/pork barrel spending.

Lets also try to convince the congress critters to quit fscking with the internet (something they really don't understand to begin with)...and leave it free.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247918)

Yeah, I hate to break this to you, but stuff will be deleted. Further implications of this are scary (as anybody on /. is smart enough to pirate without torrent sites): with how much porn is on the net, do you think for one moment that once they are done with pirates that they will not go to porn.

It is a scary thought, I know. I don't want to lose my "special" girls that I hang out with daily. The mindset would be simple for them, "Well we took care of those pesky pirates, lets just move forward and take care of the porn".

Anybody that thinks that porn is not at stake here is fooling themselves since if this passes, porn will be next.

Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248064)

I don't believe for a moment that there is any will in Congress to fight p-rnographers. They are very wealthy and could certainly exert a lot of influence.

Pirates are a nebulous group with no leadership, no lobbyists, and most importantly no money to direct at the people who need to be movitated to "see things our way".

Much like the gambling industry, the p-rn industry will make damned sure that whoever gets whatever they need to stay in business. How many billion a year industry is it again?

So what happens when Google is found guilty? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246828)

Too big to fail.

Re:So what happens when Google is found guilty? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246924)

Exactly.

Here's me, Joe Nobody, I just uploaded all the Harry Potters to my Google Docs and spread it all over.

Re:So what happens when Google is found guilty? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247866)

Post some of that to the comments section of Fox News and the New York Times and lets see what happens.

Re:So what happens when Google is found guilty? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247038)

Too big to fail.

No, they'll just pull the plug on Canada until Canada backs off.

Obama will not veto this. (-1, Troll)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246844)

Fucking Repugs... oh, wait, that's a D.

Obama isn't going to veto this if it passes. Just so you know.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (3, Interesting)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247032)

Disclaimer: I am Canadian, so I didn't vote for Obama (although I would have).

The Obama administration has turned out far worse than GWB's eight years with respect to the digital age. For all the command they had of social media and running under the 'change' they were bringing with them, they sure seem to want to bow to their old masters.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (2, Interesting)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247112)

Nobody bothered to actually ask what kind of "change" he was talking about. D'oh!

Also, I told you so. I still remember the Slashdot Obama love during the election - got modded down pretty heavily for some comments that, today, would be voted up. The public is fickle :(

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247360)

I think people thought that since Obama could competently use a computer, he would actually take a better stance than others. The problem, it seems, is that he knows just enough to be dangerous. That, and Hollywood has fairly strong ties to the Dems.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248088)

He's just as beholden to special interests as everyone else in Washington - it's just a different set of special interests than we were working with before.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

quarmar (125648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247976)

Obama actually managed to give "Hope" a negative connotation.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247082)

And yet not a single one of the Republicans in the Senate will probably vote against it either despite the fact that they could block this from ever passing.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247120)

In Soviet Russia, sacks of potatoes are bought and sold like Congressmen.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247330)

In Soviet Russia people had a use for sacks of potatoes.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247860)

In Soviet Russia, sacks of potatoes have a use for YOU!

Re:Obama will not veto this. (2, Interesting)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247180)

Oh, I wouldn't count on that. I don't know about the other new Republican senators, but this certainly goes against Rand Paul's ideals. He's going to be a huge and welcome thorn in the side of both parties.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (-1, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247612)

His what, now? You actually believe Rand Paul has ideals? He has demonstrated, over and over, that he does not. He doesn't even have convictions, let alone ideals. He is a spoiled brat whose political philosophy boils down to "You aren't the boss of me, I'll do whatever I want to, whenever I want to and you can't stop me." Rand Paul pretends to be a board certified ophthalmologist by pretending to be a board of ophthalmological certification who only certifies Rand Paul. Then there is his Aqua Buddha incident where he kidnapped a female college acquaintance and tried to make her smoke pot. Rand Paul respects only one person's rights: Rand Paul's. Everyone else can go hang. Whenever Republicans or Corporations have asked Rand Paul to change his position, his answer has been "To what?"

Rand Paul could not remember why Harlan, Kentucky was famous, but thought it might have something to do with the Dukes of Hazard. Rand Paul threatened to sue the reporter who broke the Aqua Buddha drug fueled idol worshiping kidnapping, even though Paul would not deny the truth of the story. He refused to reveal how old he thinks the earth is, as he is "not running for minister."

In short, Rand Paul is a living, breathing monument to the absolute, unmitigated selfishness that is American Libertarianism. He shows, in innumerable ways, time and again, that his 'ideals' are simply, "Rand Paul gets to do whatever he likes. Rules are made by fascists and do not apply to Rand Paul. Unless they are protecting or enriching Rand Paul, in which case, they do apply."

Re:Obama will not veto this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247746)

You actually believe that "aqua budda" shit? An single source from his college days?

Give me a break.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247854)

Show me where Paul denies it. Go on. Ought to be easy to find, right?

Give me a break. He flat out admitted it was all true.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247940)

Nice Rand Paul rant.

Let me guess....you think a Democrat would have been better?

:)

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248152)

The guy he was running against? No, Jack Conway is a corporate tool.

If you don't like him, then don't sing his praises (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248044)

political philosophy boils down to "You aren't the boss of me, I'll do whatever I want to, whenever I want to and you can't stop me."

That is a relatively good political philosophy, though. It's a huge step up from the mainstream political philosophy of "I'm with the government and I want to hurt someone." I'll take childish over evil any fucking day.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248100)

Would you like a tissue?

Re:Obama will not veto this. (2, Informative)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247988)

You understand that the newly elected don't officially take over until January right? That is why the OP called it "the lame-duck session of Congress". They are trying to push this through while they can.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (2, Funny)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248040)

So, how does he feel about the filibuster? That's been the typical GOP response:

Dem: We need a comprehensive, effective, holistic, and economic means to initiate the process of x

Rep: I don't know what you just said, but I'm gonna filibuster it!

Dem: Aww, nuts!

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248074)

Nope. My Blue state congress-critters are republicans and they are all for pandering to Hollywood despite the distance between here and there.

Re:Obama will not veto this. (2, Informative)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247370)

I have always found it depressing that of all the possible issues the Democrats and Republicans could unify over, that this issue was one of the few. Both major parties are for strong copyright and strong punishments for noncommercial infringement.

Speaking as someone who strongly supports the Democrats on all other issues, my party is dead wrong on the copyright issue. It seems as though the only political party that understands the internet is the Libertarian party.

As such, I believe copyright law needs a strong injection of Libertarian ideology, or we're gonna get stuck with our own version of the Great Firewall of China some day. 1984 was not supposed to be a guidebook for how to run a society...

Re:Obama will not veto this. (1, Funny)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248150)

Yeah, I know, but I mentioned Obama because nobody here has faith in the Republicans anyway, so there's no need to bring up that bit of obviousness. Of course I got modded down troll for telling the truth. The Obama fans still have HOPE...

Re:Obama will not veto this. (2, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247118)

But remember, if you vote for anybody but a Republicrat or Demoblican you're throwing your vote away! So keep rubber-stamping business as usual like good sheep.

In the land of the free (1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246848)

the freemen with the most money make the rules. yet, there are still a lot of ayn randists who would still attempt selling free market/capitalist bullshit to us :

money is power. if you allow any individual or group to gain more money than others, you practically give the power in their hands. no amount of 'equality' legislation in the political arena, can offset this economic power; the one with the gold makes the rule.

Re:In the land of the free (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246964)

You know what they say: Everybody is equal. But some are more equal...

Re:In the land of the free (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247980)

"You know what they say: Everybody is equal. But some are more equal..."

Or, the Golden Rule:

He who has the MOST gold....makes the rules!!

Re:In the land of the free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34246992)

No, it's not money that's the problem. If everyone only had the power over their own property (real property, not imaginary things like patterns), we wouldn't have this problem. Stop giving people power beyond control over their own property.

and (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247244)

property would take the place of money. instead of cash donations, there would be property donations. get some logic.

Re:In the land of the free (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246994)

no amount of 'equality' legislation in the political arena, can offset this economic power; the one with the gold makes the rule.

As an interesting side note - Canada has some wacky ways regarding that. In order to work on government contracts the government may specify that you meet certain criteria to call you an "equal opportunity employer". Basically meaning, do you have enough female managers, have you employed enough visible minorities, do you have anyone disabled in the company - that kinda stuff.

However, none of these are requirements that any actual arm of the government has to abide by. Just a company working with the government. Doesn't that seem strange?

Re:In the land of the free (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247060)

However, none of these are requirements that any actual arm of the government has to abide by. Just a company working with the government. Doesn't that seem strange?

Strange? Well, in an absolute sense maybe. But when has any arm of any government ever felt explicitly compelled to write regulations that apply equally well to said arm?

Re:In the land of the free (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247058)

>>>ayn randists who would still attempt selling free market/capitalist bullshit to us

I'm a libertarian (small, weak government), not an anarchist (no government), but just stop and think: If there was no government and no congress, then there would be no COICA. And no COICA would mean no way for the Corporations from stealing our stuff. We could pirate books, songs, shows without limit.

So what you should be railing against is a powerful government, which is being used to suppress the citizenry. THAT is what Randists are doing.

I'd also like to see Thomas Jefferson's Bill of Rights suggestion to impose a 14-year-limit on copyright.

Re:In the land of the free (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247198)

You may wish to explore the Metagovernment project [metagovernment.org] .

It resembles libertarianism in some ways, in that it is completely opposed to coercive government. But it differs in that it has no opposition to the idea of governance. That is, as long as there is a consensus behind the governance.

The funny thing is, when people hear about the idea of consensus government, the most common criticism is, "but how could we pass laws if we had to find a consensus on each one?" And I suspect you know the libertarian answer: who cares? Why do we need so goddamn many laws?

Another difference between Metagovernment and libertarianism is that Metagovernment is possible in the current world. It doesn't require that Congress overthrow itself. Instead, they are just setting up a new, ground-up form of governance. Over time, the big institutional governments will just become obsolete husks that will be dispensed with.

Re:In the land of the free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248118)

Fucking brilliant, that's what that is.

bullshit (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247290)

I'm a libertarian (small, weak government), not an anarchist (no government), but just stop and think: If there was no government and no congress, then there would be no COICA. And no COICA would mean no way for the Corporations from stealing our stuff. We could pirate books, songs, shows without limit.

instead, your rulers would be the corporations. with their private 'security' divisions.

what you speak of, is basically feudalism. that very environment gave rise to feudalism in early middle ages.

Re:bullshit (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247358)

He said limited government, not no government. I have never heard of a libertarian who did not support a criminal justice system and police force designed to protect civilians.

Re:bullshit (1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247402)

limited government is as 'none' as no government. in a limited government, private corporations would fulfill the rendering of critical goods and services, giving the power over these critical facets of life into their hands. this is what private interests exactly want, since it is the closest situation to feudalism.

they will make the people, public spend funds for military, police, enforcement, saving them headaches of paying for them, also averting the risk of rebellions and revolutions, and still govern all aspects of life outside these with their financial dominance. actually, they already do that.

Re:bullshit (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247836)

What you're describing is a byproduct of a corrupt government, not a limited government. A limited (non-corrupt) government with a concise set of rules to follow that wasn't afraid to enforce them would not have the same problems as we currently do.

Re:bullshit (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247970)

still dont get it.

financial power, the control over resources and services that make up life, IS the power. government's power would always pale compared to that, because financial power would always be able to effect its way into the government system eventually, and 'corrupt' your government. it is a foregone conclusion.

even in a place where corruption would be totally prevented, the financial power would be able to make its own candidate get heard and seen more to the extent of rendering other candidates irrelevant.

Re:bullshit (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248142)

By that logic, the only way to prevent it is to have government control all resources and corporations. Mexico is a nice example of this in action.

I disagree with your conclusion. Force is power. The willingness to inflict violence is power. If the government has the military and law enforcement and is willing to use them to shred any company that tries those things that are illegal and fry those who profited from it, people will be far less likely to try and profit from it.

I think it is large, bloated governments that allow corruption to thrive. If the left hand doesn't know (and can't know) what the right hand is doing, it's much easier to get what you want done. A small, open government would be more effective and less corrupt.

Re:bullshit (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248060)

A limited government doesn't have the power to keep a competitor off your turf. Any corporation that becomes so large and evil as to oppress the people will find itself with a competitor that will exploit the peoples disdain for it. With the government exploiting the commerce clause so thoroughly lately, they're as much to blame for monopolies as the corporations themselves.

Can you imagine all the lobbyists being sent back out of government offices with this very simple statement: "Sorry, we have no power to legislate on that."?

Re:bullshit (2, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247614)

The incarceration of convicts is now a private matter. There are plenty of private security forces. At what point is the public police force and criminal justice system merely a cog in a private system? At what point has the balance of power shifted enough to the private sector that it has a significant influence on the public sector in these areas?

It's all a matter of detail. And the devil sits right there.

Re:In the land of the free (2, Interesting)

domatic (1128127) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247768)

Libertarianism doesn't take into account the Golden Rule the parent post brought up or power vacuums. In Libertarian Fantasy Land, Strong Contracts Are All We'll Ever Need. So, of course, what will happen is everyone in an economic position of power will hang a contract on everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. The door to Krogers will have a EULA you that you agree to by walking past it. And that is just the direct approach that will be taken if Libertarian philosophy is taken and implemented at face value. Of course just like every other would-be utopian idea it won't be. Power will still be bought and sold and the only thing accomplished will be to (maybe) change exactly how you go about it.

Basically what I'm saying here is Libertarianism as a system is just as open to subversion as everything because people will be involved. I'd be open to a (truly) libertarian bloc in the government to slow down and bring into open things like COICA but it is a fantasy to think there is any system that can prevent things like it.

Re:In the land of the free (0, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247820)

I can't believe I have to keep explaining this. Thank government "Bomb throwing anarchists!" propaganda. Anarchism means "no rulers" (Archons in ancient Greek) not "no government" which would be written "anocracy." Libertarians never seem to understand the long history that preceded their little brand of anarchism.

If there was no government, what would keep the powerful of the world from sending goons to enslave you? Without congress and COICA, the corporations of the world would have nothing to stop them from stealing your stuff, and your freedom, and if you think you have the firepower to defend yourself when multi-billionaires gang up on you, you are an idiot.

If we were starting from a level playing field, getting rid of most government would be a wonderful idea. As it is, you will find people like the billionaire Koch brothers backing the idea of getting rid of government, much the way wolves might advocate getting rid of chicken coops, fences, and dogs. We need to level the playing field, then get rid of government. And government is the only thing we've got that can compete wit the power of said multibillionaires. After all, in a free democracy, government is us, and if it is NOT us, it is because WE let someone steal it from us, an WEhave the power to take it back.

Re:In the land of the free (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247146)

See, the problem with your entire statement is that this bill is being pushed by a bunch of people who, although they may not call themselves socialists, espouse socialist ideas. If it passes both houses, it will be signed by a president who has surrounded himself with socialists and espoused socialist ideas. So which part of this bill has anything to do with EVIL free enterprise?

hahaha (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247324)

the democrats in america, arent even close to s in the word socialism. they are more capitalist than the right wingers in europe or other places of the world. your political spectrum is WAY too skewed to right, so that even the socialist there, is capitalist.

Re:hahaha (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248120)

"the democrats in america, arent even close to s in the word socialism. they are more capitalist than the right wingers in europe or other places of the world. your political spectrum is WAY too skewed to right, so that even the socialist there, is capitalist."

But we (the US) ARE a capitalist country. We've always been one...it has been what has propelled us to be a superpower.

And right now, the Dem's are throwing socialistic (to us) ideals, programs and agendas at us over here, and people are merely wanting to make sure we as a country do NOT move towards that way.

Hell, looking at TV today...the socialistic tendencies of many European countries, the debt they have incurred (I know we're fsked with regard to debt too) is having a serious downward effect on world markets.

At some point, you run out of people left working to support those who don't.

Re:In the land of the free (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247706)

What, exactly, are these socialist ideas? Who espouses them, exactly? And, if true, why are these socialist ideals bad? The semantic content of your post boils down to "Booga! booga! booga! socialists! Booga booga! Are you scared yet? Should I say the word socialist some more until you are?"

Re:In the land of the free (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248092)

...and the funny thing is that the "champions of keeping the government out of your business" will cheerfully go along with this.

This will likely be one of the few things that the Republicans don't throw down their usual obstructionism over.

Except that it's not the money that's the problem (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247380)

if you allow any individual or group to gain more money than others, you practically give the power in their hands. no amount of 'equality' legislation in the political arena, can offset this economic power; the one with the gold makes the rule.

It's the damn voters. It's the voters who keep sending these sacks of shit back to DC.

The very fact that you can "spend your way into a seat" is an indictment of the voters and not the money. It means that most of them are so shallow and stupid that they act like a kitten caught between competing shiny things.

The only thing that'll fix our system is to find a way to disenfranchise such people.

And what would the voters do ? (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247930)

pray tell me ?

EVERYthing in a capitalist society, hinges on money. that includes the potential of getting elected. you need to have enough financial power to be able to even get your voice heard, if you are a candidate. going from town to town with train, doesnt cut it anymore. you need to buy ads, appear in mass media, get your name and opinions heard, to be even considered a candidate. you cant just be a candidate by registering as a candidate in the elections.

and, even financial power doesnt cut it anymore. no mass media outlet will let you on, and speak in their channels, even accept and run your ads, if your views do not support theirs. even more, your interests coincide with theirs. so, basically not even financial power is enough ; you need to be friendly with established hierarchy - no, you actually need to be THEIR puppet candidate, so that you can actually make your voice heard.

and what the average citizen can do ? the only candidates they can see, are the ones, well, they can actually see and hear.

the capitalist system, and its resultant established elite hierarchy, doesnt let anybody but their own puppets to be seen.

and naturally, these share the votes.

im not even going to go into constant brainwashing and 'opinion shaping' that can be affected, by using the power of big established media conglomerates. there is a whole network, sitting on top at #1, by spewing outright lies and hatred, despite they dont legally call themselves 'news' in courts anymore. (while defending against libel).

so in an environment like this, what do you expect citizens to do ...

I can just hear it now. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246878)

"Grandpa, you broke my [facebook|youtube|blogspot|twitter|etc]!"

Don't those folks ever care about the children?

No way this could be misused (2, Insightful)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246884)

Got a site you want to shut down? Just a) post some copyrighted material there, and b) complain. Problem solved.

Re:No way this could be misused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34246978)

Claim that the material already there is yours, have it shut down. Much easier.

Re:No way this could be misused (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247030)

The current method of doing that (child porn) was creeping out even the Evil Organization to Neuter the Internet, so they decided to buy a less disgusting alternative.

Re:No way this could be misused (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247042)

The thing is, virtually everything is copyrighted, even this freaking posting I'm making. So finding infringements on just about any website is trivial.

Re:No way this could be misused (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247320)

The thing is, virtually everything is copyrighted, even this freaking posting I'm making. So finding infringements on just about any website is trivial.

Didn't bother reading the summary, did we? That's why it says "without permission". Free clue: when you push that "submit" button, you are not just granting permission to /. to carry your material, you are instructing them to do so.

Re:Freaking Post (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247362)

Hi there.

Do I have permission to use the text of your post for my own purposes in any way which is not intentionally slanderous? Wait, cancel that - what if we nationally publicized the Creative Commons abbreviations?

Meanwhile, how do we actually prove the original source of anything? Anything created by a corp will be copyrighted by a corp and anything created anywhere else will be stolen by a corp and faux-copyrighted to them with them daring you looking at the fangs of Harding in Legal.

Priorities! (3, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246910)

With the huge backlog of important legislation requiring immediate attention in an already gridlocked congress, it's sad this is even being considered. I guess the financial incentives to its backers are just too large. Set the controls for the heart of the sun, we are doomed.

Re:Priorities! (0)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247078)

important legislation

That term has become something of a non-sequitur, along the lines of "military intelligence".

Damm democrat congresscritters (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246916)

You gotta help out your Hollywood Friends before you lose the majority.
You're as bad as the Republicans (i.e. shills for megacorps).

Congress = welfare (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34246940)

Gawdlmighty damn, if only once, just once they would make even a token attempt to do something useful. sighhhhhhhhh. Congress is a welfare program for people who can't hold down real jobs.

Stupid (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246944)

This would be annoying but would it really matter in the long run anyway? How hard would it be to use a proxy. The companies pushing this draconian copyright crap need to move on. On the other hand worrying about them changing their ways is probably just as fruitless as their efforts to stem the tide of change. :)

domain name system (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246984)

its still at the hands of united states. this, actually could cause them to totally lose it though. it was high time.

Re:domain name system (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247102)

Agreed. The internet is truly an international system, so too should the domain name system, be.

Re:domain name system (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247528)

Let them keep it, as long as they stay the hell away from IPs. Many of us already use a manual host file or local DNS to blacklist, just as easy to add the "correct" entries back in.

Re:Stupid (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247192)

Proxy to where? the domain will be removed.

Re:Stupid (1)

Venzor (1929328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247252)

How hard would it be to use a proxy

Until proxies become illegal...

Finally a way to shut down FoxNews! (1)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246966)

I just have to post copyrighted material in the user comments section to get an entire website taken down! Mauhahahahahahahaahahahaha! Say goodbye to slashdot, cnn.com and foxnews.com!

Hardly suprising (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34246982)

I've been saying for a long time that the day will come very soon when typing in thepiratebay.org or other torrent site will only get you a "This site has been blocked for illegal material" message. the only question was whether it would happen by government mandate or voluntary ISP decision.

Re:Hardly suprising (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247122)

Once IPv6 is in place, IP addresses will be cheap, illicit DNS server roots will be added to your DNS list, and voila, blocking will be meaningless. Oh sure, the *official* DNS servers will be blocking tpb, and I suppose someone will be trying to block IP addresses, but it will be a game of cat and mouse where the cat is always two steps behind the mouse.

All any of this does is force the pace of innovation in precisely the opposite direction such legislation purports to be attempting to kill.

Re:Hardly suprising (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248048)

Oh sure, we'll always be able to play the "chase the latest IP address of said torrent sight" game. But it will never be as simple as typing in thepiratebay.org again. You'll have to go to a site or alternate DNS server to find the latest IP address (and possibly demonstrate that you're not a cop to get access to it), and that's assuming that your ISP hasn't started blocking all the alternate DNS servers and sites with IP address listings for pirate sites too (which they probably will start doing at some point too). Anyone who thinks this can't be done in a way that can really frustrate need only use an ISP really locked down with Websense [wikipedia.org] one time (they update their blocked sites every few minutes) to see that they can make it a big pain in the ass to chase the IP if they really want to.

Re:Hardly suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247172)

Which will mark the first^Hsecond time that I'll have had to use a proxy to access a service to something outside of the US.

The first being online poker.

Re:Hardly suprising (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247218)

The real question is, how will they do it? DNS? IP block lists?

In the end people will find ways around it. Expect to see P2P overlay networks like TOR and stuff like Freenet explode with popularity. Freenet in particular could EASILY host a static txt page with magnet URI hash addresses to torrents....and it would probably be pretty quick even on Freenet.

Of course the above may not be what happens, but I can come up with a couple of ideas just off the top of my head...well it will not take long for others to float up.

Re:Hardly suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247394)

More lists? (5, Insightful)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247022)

That's all we need, is more lists for the government to maintain. They do a bang up job already with no-fly.

Not that it matters... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247024)

Not that it matters anymore, but I just wrote both of my senators explaining to them how this will be used as a club to quash free speech. Shame they both get so much money from Disney.

If they include "links to", (2, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247148)

I hope they realize there is no real way to distinguish a google torrent search from a pirate bay torrent search.

On the other hand, actual hosting- might be trickier- just Youtube then.

Pointless (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247188)

As soon as they pass legislation like this, people will just move to using proxy servers. Proxy servers lists change hourly. And I do not expect this to survive a challenge in court -- it is a restriction of trade and commerce, and it will only be a matter of time before they shut down the wrong site, cost them millions, and are forced to pay restitution.

So let's be clear -- this isn't about piracy. It's about killing free speech. Because no sooner will they pass this, than they'll add a rider saying they can shut down sites which host "terrorist" material as well... and then Greenpeace, PETA, and a lot of other political undesireables will find themselves on the list.

GO AMERICA!

hmm.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247224)

so wait, HOW exactly are they filtering?

Domain name - I'll change my domain, and out of blacklist/their retardedness
IP address - ISP's are going to get hurt here, unable to use one of their ip addresses (or for shared hosting ?....maybe?) just buy a new one
IP address blocks - ISPs and legal sites going to be hit hard.

on another note, I'd like to say how stupid "COICA" sounds. that is all.

Lame Duck Congress (5, Insightful)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247268)

While it's often said that a Lame Duck congress can't get much done, it is the perfect time for them to pass unpopular legislation that powerful lobbies want passed. It's one of the few times congress can get away with it while having very few political repercussions.

A race to the bottom against Islamic states (0, Troll)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247346)

Islamic morality says that porn is evil.

American morality says that sharing the ideas of others is evil.

Re:A race to the bottom against Islamic states (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247440)

Most people have no problem with the 'sharing' of ideas. It's the 'sharing' (copying at no cost) of completed works with a supposed value that bothers them. From there it gets messy.

"Rule of Law" (2, Insightful)

macjn (785842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247430)

So is this blacklisting to be done without a proper copyright infringement trial? If so, I'm not sure how it would be legal. If it is to be done via a proper copyright trial and a party is found guilty, I'd think we don't need a special blacklist law. Or I'm completely missing the point. Of course, when it comes to things made by Congresscritters, there doesn't necessarily have to be any logic or reason applied. Sigh.

COICA (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247676)

COICA? What, no backronym? This really is a Lame Duck Congress...

Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247734)

Will this bill even be able to do what it's actually set out to do? So they block DNS resolution to evilp2psite.net, so long as I can still obtain that IP address through a secondary channel, they haven't exactly stopped anything, just inconvenienced people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...