"Stop the Internet Blacklist!" COICA and the censoring our internet (CRITICAL!!!)

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.

Help us stop this bill in its tracks! Click here to sign our petition.

COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.

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

COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship. Please help us fight back: The first step is signing our petition. We'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your Senator.

By David Segal and Aaron Swartz

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

God dammit.

Guys, this needs to get out. NOW. Repost it on your facebooks, repost it on 4chan, repost it on AiB, repost it EVERYWHERE.

 

[Pikaville]

It would suck if the internet entirely changed like that.

*shudders*

 

[StinkomanFan]

I HATE VIACOM *******s just don't understand comedy...

 

[Pluvia]

We get like 3 of these a year. It's like those end of the world prophecies.

 

[Crimson King]

It won't ever pass.

 

[freeman123]

It won't ever pass.

How do you know that? The government already censors television and radio. What makes you think they can't do the same thing to the Internet? All they need is an excuse to get their foot in the door, like piracy, and before you know it they'll start trying to censor all kinds of things.

 

[Tomo Takino]

Freeman, the government censors radio and television because they use public airwaves that travel into your house without your consent.

 

[Crimson King]

How do you know that? The government already censors television and radio. What makes you think they can't do the same thing to the Internet? All they need is an excuse to get their foot in the door, like piracy, and before you know it they'll start trying to censor all kinds of things.

Politicans are reliant on voters. People exist who will follow the constitution. This is a fear mongering story. In Australia, it was shot down, and they censor more than we do.

 

[freeman123]

Freeman, the government censors radio and television because they use public airwaves that travel into your house without your consent.

How is it without my consent? I have to turn on my TV or radio to see or hear the content on it.

Politicans are reliant on voters. People exist who will follow the constitution. This is a fear mongering story. In Australia, it was shot down, and they censor more than we do.

A town in California banned happy meal toys even though the majority of voters were against it. And politicians could get voters behind them censoring the Internet anyway. All they have to do is convince them that it's for their own good, like they've apparently convinced Tomo Takino that censoring radio and television is for his own good.

 

[UberMario]

It won't ever pass.

I believe it's unconstitutional aswell, and Viacom can go rot in ****, all they've been doing is alienating their older fans the past few years. Youtube has PLENTY of user-created content, I'd say at least 50-60% is created at home, 10% is material from music groups BY the music groups, and the remaining 20%-30% is legally unstable content:

Video game music? The developers don't mind, OCRemix is an example of this, they freely distribute older soundtracks, yet that didn't stop David Wise [Donkey Kong Country's composer] from joining in and CONTRIBUTING to the remixes on the site willfully.

Regular music? A big gray area, for lesser known musicians it can be considered free advertising, but bigger groups (more likely than not) just gave in and rolled with it, such as VEVO. PLUS, Youtube has an advertising program that lets the original composers get some of the money via forced-advertising on user-submitted copyrighted music, so this should be legally sound if the creators get in on it financially.

Music remixes? Probably not legal in the strictest sense, especially since the original creators did not earn anything from it, but then again there's no reason why they can't.

TV? A humongous gray area, there are shows that will NEVER be shown again, and at the same time there are people posting episodes a day after they come on (which is wrong). I think the advertising bit helps here too, not to mention some companies (like 4kids of all things) support it and upload episodes aswell, as do Cinar/Cookie Jar, PBS, Jim Henson, and Hulu. Nick posts full episodes on their OWN site, so you'd think it would be common sense for them to make some money on Youtube by posting it there too, but noooooo. They should just whine, not show the older episodes everyone wants, not show the theme songs everyone wants, and not take advantage of Youtube's untapped [by them] potential, you know, because that would make too much sense.

Youtube Poops? Fall under parody imo.


Fansubs/dubs? Probably pushing it a bit, especially since the material usually isn't detected as being someone else's due to the voices, etc. But if the advertising thing can be fixed for that, I think it should be fine, but only on YT, since obviously them being hosted as downloads isn't going to earn the creators any revenue.

Video game playthroughs? Yes, they should be stopped, they [more likely than not] detract from the industry's income.
Video game competitive gameplay?: Fair use, especially when tournamnt related
Video game glitches/tech demonstrations?: Perfectly legal as long as it's not showing the whole game

Download links for payware? Illegal all the way, not even 1% of it are links to the actual sites of the creators . . . . .




Did I miss any categories?


@Tomo: Seriously? You act like there is only one channel of radio and you can't shut it off. >_>

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Video game playthroughs? Yes, they should be stopped, they [more likely than not] detract from the industry's income.

Howso? (Rest of the post was great btw) Why would showing off the whole game detract from sales? Most people don't play a game as if it was a movie (well, excluding MGS4, obviously... ), but rather actually play it. If someone posts his playthrough of a game, the most it will do is stop people who decide, after seeing it, that they aren't interested in it after all (i.e. people who would buy a game and then realize "hang on, this game is ****!"), at which point reviews go to hurt the game more; on the other hand, it's free advertisement.

It won't ever pass.

You're forgetting the absurd backing it has from the RIAA, MPAA, etc... Plus, the fact that Biden has been touting his "piracy is theft" bull****, plus the fact that most people really are this stupid.

 

[UberMario]

Howso? (Rest of the post was great btw) Why would showing off the whole game detract from sales? Most people don't play a game as if it was a movie (well, excluding MGS4, obviously... ), but rather actually play it. If someone posts his playthrough of a game, the most it will do is stop people who decide, after seeing it, that they aren't interested in it after all (i.e. people who would buy a game and then realize "hang on, this game is ****!"), at which point reviews go to hurt the game more; on the other hand, it's free advertisement.

Thanks, BPC. Well, let's say there was this game you wanted to try, and you wanted to find out how good it was, so you watched a Let's Play series, you're pretty much going to come out with one of the following outcomes (from best to worst):


-Wow! That was totally awesome! That gameplay so made me want to get it, I was doubtful at first and wanted to pass, but that video really showed how good it was! (Example: and oddball game like World of Goo, which is so out-of-the-ballpark most people won't end up trying it, the Super Smash Bros series could also be considered part of this category)
-Wow! This game is awesome! I'm a bit spoiled so I probably won't have as much suspense/fun/excitement as I would if I didn't watch those videos, but I'll still get it anyway. (Example: Pokemon)
-Eh, I'll still get this game, but I was probably better off by not spoiling it. (Puzzle games, Nintendogs, Phoenix Wright-style games, etc.)
====================
-Hmmm, I like the story, but now I'm a bit spoiled and probaby won't enjoy it as much when I play it, I wonder if I really should get this now that I pretty much know what the whole game is about. (Example: Most linear side-scrollers, racing games, and some non-standard RPGs)
-Wow, the gameplay looks good, but I don't like the price/can't find it easily, I think I'll just stick with watching it (example: a limited production game/device, such as the Super Scope for the SNES)
-Ugh, I don't like how this looks, I changed my mind about getting this based on what I've watched. (Example: Strategy games, anime-based games, manga-based games, game-based games, most generic games, etc.)
-This game is pretty much all cutscenes, so I'm not going to bother getting it because watching it is pretty much the same thing (Example: Metal Gear Solid series, specifically 4, Square RPGs)


Do you see how Let's Play runs could be considered an issue now?

 

[SkylerOcon]

So pretty much, what you're saying is that game reviews should be illegal because every single scenario you just drew up about Let's Plays hurting sales could also be drawn from reviews and gameplay trailers.

 

[Life]

A bill made by people that don't understand the internet to control the internet because they see it as a threat to their jobs rather than a way to better serve their constituents.

The whole House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for grabs this November. VOTE. THESE. FOOLS. OUT. If you don't, you have no excuse. (Unless you're beneath the voting age, a group which nobody seems to care about anyway. I could rant about that one all day.)

 

[UberMario]

So pretty much, what you're saying is that game reviews should be illegal because every single scenario you just drew up about Let's Plays hurting sales could also be drawn from reviews and gameplay trailers.

Trailers rarely show the true plot, the most they usually show are the home world, the main character, any damsel-in-distress, less than 10 levels total, and half-the-time they don't even show the antagonist . . . how is that remotely spoiling the ENTIRE game? And trailers are usually distributed by the creators, the members can't infringe on their own copyrights unless there was a HUGE blunder of a leak, and even then a company can not infringe itself. lol

As for reviews, well, are you talking about the ones like on Gamefaqs (text), or video reviews?

The former does not truly convey what you are seeing, well you know the saying: "a picture is worth a 1000 words, and if there are 60 pictures a second in a video, how many words would that be [metaphorically]?" And the latter is usually not the full game (usually it's <10 minutes of highlights/lowlights), but they tend to point out flaws most gamers wouldn't notice (and thus leave a more negative stance on gameplay).

 

[Lore]

Trailers rarely show the true plot, the most they usually show are the home world, the main character, any damsel-in-distress, less than 10 levels total, and half-the-time they don't even show the antagonist . . . how is that remotely spoiling the ENTIRE game? And trailers are usually distributed by the creators, the members can't infringe on their own copyrights unless there was a HUGE blunder of a leak, and even then a company can not infringe itself. lol

The first 20ish minutes of a movie are usually made completely unneccessary by commercials. Most of the time, I already know the basic plot, characters, setting, and theme before I even walk into the theatre.

District 9 didn't really do this, and that is one of the main reasons that I loved it so much.

Edit: and the written word in reviews can spoil a lot too. Aeris dies, by the way.

On the Op and piracy in general:

The government needs to focus more on punishing the commercial pirates who sell thousands of illegal copies instead of trying to sue some kid in a basement who occasionally downloads an album or two.

Outright censorship of websites is completely ridiculous and a solution that far outreaches the scope of the original problem, and I hope that the House and Senate realize this.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Thanks, BPC. Well, let's say there was this game you wanted to try, and you wanted to find out how good it was, so you watched a Let's Play series, you're pretty much going to come out with one of the following outcomes (from best to worst):


-Wow! That was totally awesome! That gameplay so made me want to get it, I was doubtful at first and wanted to pass, but that video really showed how good it was! (Example: and oddball game like World of Goo, which is so out-of-the-ballpark most people won't end up trying it, the Super Smash Bros series could also be considered part of this category)
-Wow! This game is awesome! I'm a bit spoiled so I probably won't have as much suspense/fun/excitement as I would if I didn't watch those videos, but I'll still get it anyway. (Example: Pokemon)
-Eh, I'll still get this game, but I was probably better off by not spoiling it. (Puzzle games, Nintendogs, Phoenix Wright-style games, etc.)
====================
-Hmmm, I like the story, but now I'm a bit spoiled and probaby won't enjoy it as much when I play it, I wonder if I really should get this now that I pretty much know what the whole game is about. (Example: Most linear side-scrollers, racing games, and some non-standard RPGs)
-Wow, the gameplay looks good, but I don't like the price/can't find it easily, I think I'll just stick with watching it (example: a limited production game/device, such as the Super Scope for the SNES)
-Ugh, I don't like how this looks, I changed my mind about getting this based on what I've watched. (Example: Strategy games, anime-based games, manga-based games, game-based games, most generic games, etc.)
-This game is pretty much all cutscenes, so I'm not going to bother getting it because watching it is pretty much the same thing (Example: Metal Gear Solid series, specifically 4, Square RPGs)


Do you see how Let's Play runs could be considered an issue now?

So in short, the issue is that some games play more like movies than video games (i.e. bad games-really), that they are inaccessible, or that people don't want to buy them after the LP brings them down from the ridiculous amount of hype? I don't think this is a problem with LPs, but rather with the rest of the games industry. Consider it a kind of "consumer protection" if you will.

 

[El Nino]

Freeman, the government censors radio and television because they use public airwaves that travel into your house without your consent.

How is it without my consent? I have to turn on my TV or radio to see or hear the content on it.

@Tomo: Seriously? You act like there is only one channel of radio and you can't shut it off. >_>

Public airwaves are considered government property, I think, because police, military, and emergency services use radio frequencies to communicate with each other and with the public. So since the government "owns" the airwaves, they can "allow" corporate media to advertise commercial products via entertainment programming as long as certain rules are followed.

The Internet is a series of tubes different because it is essentially a network of personal computers and the service is provided by private companies, and though the government is likely to be already looking at communications that take place on the Net, the network itself isn't government property.

Not to get all William Gibson, but I guess the Net can sort of be like a no-man's-land.

A town in California banned happy meal toys even though the majority of voters were against it.

Would you happen to know the name of that town in California?

And politicians could get voters behind them censoring the Internet anyway. All they have to do is convince them that it's for their own good

I doubt the voters would ever go for something like that, and I can't think of any convincing argument that would sway people into believing that it's for their own good.

I think a bill like this would be mainly about protecting copyrighted material for companies like Viacom, and though they have the money to donate to political fundraising campaigns, they probably can't rally enough voters.

 

[freeman123]

El Nino
Would you happen to know the name of that town in California?

Santa Clara County http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100428

El Nino
Public airwaves are considered government property, I think, because police, military, and emergency services use radio frequencies to communicate with each other and with the public. So since the government "owns" the airwaves, they can "allow" corporate media to advertise commercial products via entertainment programming as long as certain rules are followed.

The Internet is a series of tubes different because it is essentially a network of personal computers and the service is provided by private companies, and though the government is likely to be already looking at communications that take place on the Net, the network itself isn't government property.

I like how the government can just decide that something is their property for basically no reason, and then use that as justification for enforcing their fascist rules.

El Nino
I doubt the voters would ever go for something like that, and I can't think of any convincing argument that would sway people into believing that it's for their own good.

Surely you don't agree with the outcome of every election in history, so you must acknowledge that it's possible for the majority of people to make the wrong choice.