RRD:Two of the problems with the bill may have been addressed(fn1):1.The definition of a infringing site appears to have been narrowed.2.They say that they will now actually try to contact the site owner.But even if they have addressed those problems there are still two problems from COICA that may still need to be resolved.
The first:Will the accused be able to get a swift(as in almost immediate) final ruling on the legality of the speech after a full adversarial process?(fn2)Or will the Government be able to get a "temporary" injunction censoring someone's website that will be resolved months,or years later
(think of how this could be used by a incumbent to supress his critics during a presidential campaign.
No,my concern is really not for pirates,despite the claims of the bill's supporters that only opponents of intellectual property rights could oppose the bill).
The second problem?Have they abandoned their insane attack on the Domain Name system.(see fn3)
There are other changes to the bill as well: 1.Search Engines can now be ordered to remove the site from their listings(something that raises First Amendment implications of its own).There is supposedly a provision allowing the accused to "petition the court to suspend or vacate the order" .But whether this meets constitutes prior restraint remains to be seen. 2.The bill allows a copyright holder to bring action against a alleged infringer.In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this(so far as I know) the problem however is the same one as with the government cases;i.e. will the individual's right to due process be adequately protected. 3.They seem to have removed the provision allowing whole domains to be taken down. e.g. taking down Posterous,or Wordpress.com to deal with a sub-domain such as piratecopyrightedmaterial.wordpress.com.This last resolves one of my major concerns,We but the others remain.
Footnotes: fn1. I say MAY have been addressed because these types of laws should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb to see what may be hidden in them.
See: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders | Techdirt
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/13285714230/son-coica-protect-ip-ac... And this is a site hosting the text of the new bill: http://www.dontcensorthenet.com/full-text-of-the-protect-ip-act-of-2011 fn2
Letter from Law Professors Opposing COICA | Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/letter-law-professors-opposing-coica
....."...."To begin with, the Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. It directs courts to impose “prior restraints” on speech –the “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976), which are constitutionally permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).; see also Center For Democracy & Technology v. Pappert , 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 651 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (statute blocking access to particular domain names and IP addresses an unconstitutional prior restraint). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the category of “prior restraints,” while traditionally applied to “orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur,” Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993) (emphasis added), also
encompasses any governmental action suppressing speech taken prior to “a prompt final judicial decision . . . in an adversary proceeding” that the speech is unlawful. Freedman v. Maryland , 380 U.S. 51, 58-60 (U.S. 1965) (statute requiring theater owner to receive a license before exhibiting allegedly obscene film was unconstitutional because the statute did not “assure a prompt final judicial decision” that the film was obscene); see also Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1962) (State Commission’s letters suggesting removal of books already in circulation is a “prior administrative restraint” and unconstitutional because there was no procedure for “an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint”); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 51-63 (1989) (procedure allowing courts to order pre -trial seizure of allegedly obscene films based upon a finding of probable cause was an unconstitutional prior restraint; publica
tions
“may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing.”). These cases “require a court, before the material is completely removed from circulation, . . . to make a final determination that material is [unlawful] after an adversary hearing.” CDT v. Pappert , 337 F.Supp.2d, at 657 (emphasis added). The procedural seps prescribed by the Act do not come close to comporting with this Constitutional requirement. In place of a final determination after an adversary proceeding that the website in question contain infringing material, the Act permits the issuance of speech -suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content . The domain name registrars, registries, service providers, and domain name server operators against whom injunctions can be issued pursuant to the Act will have, in virtually all cases, no informa
tion
whatsoever concerning the allegations regarding the presence of infringing content at the target websites because they have no relationship to the operators of those websites; they are therefore in no position, and they have no conceivable incentive, to contest those allegations. The Act contains no provisions designed to ensure that the persons actually responsible for the allegedly infringing content –the operators of the target websites –are even aware of the proceedings against them, let alone have been afforded any meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations in a true, adversarial proceeding. ".....
fn3 An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the Senate Judiciary Committee | Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter
Other Links on COICA (including some that are no longer relevant)
#COICA the most dangerous #censorship bill you've never heard off #s3804 - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/coica-the-most-dangerous-censorship-bill...
DHS ICE seizes 84,000 wrong domains: Child porn oops and COICA - Computerworld Blogs
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17834/dhs_ice_seizes_84_000_wrong_domains_chil... American University Intellectual Property Brief » U.S. Senators Continue War On Internet with “Online Infringement” Bill http://www.ipbrief.net/2010/09/26/u-s-senators-continue-war-on-internet-with-... Groups oppose #coica censorship bill - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/groups-oppose-coica-censorship-bill
The Volokh Conspiracy » Once Again, the Copyright/Trademark Tail Tries to Wag the Internet Dog
http://volokh.com/2010/11/13/once-again-the-copyrighttrademark-tail-tries-to-... COICA and the Internet "Ecosystem" | Center for Democracy & Technology http://www.cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/coica-and-internet-ecosystem Senate Needs to Rein in Copyright Bill | Center for Democracy & Technology
http://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/senate-needs-rein-copyright-bill Stop the #COICA internet #censorship bill #tcot #tlot #s3804 - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/stop-the-coica-internet-censorship-bill-...
Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed? | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/01092913147/can-senator-patrick-lea...
What Congress Can Learn from the Recent ICE Seizures | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-congress-can-learn-recent-ice-seiz...
When the Internet Nearly Fractured, and How It Could Happen Again - Nancy Scola - Technology - The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/when-the-internet-nearl...
Mozilla resists US gov't request to nuke "MafiaaFire" add-on http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/mozilla-resists-us-govt-reque... ICE domain seizures relied on twisted evidence and MPAA say so - Computerworld Blogs
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17575/ice_domain_seizures_relied_on_twisted_ev... COICA,a bi-partisan internet censorship bill returns,in the House call your Rep. #freeweb - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/coicaa-bi-partisan-internet-censorship-b...
The first:Will the accused be able to get a swift(as in almost immediate) final ruling on the legality of the speech after a full adversarial process?(fn2)Or will the Government be able to get a "temporary" injunction censoring someone's website that will be resolved months,or years later
(think of how this could be used by a incumbent to supress his critics during a presidential campaign.
No,my concern is really not for pirates,despite the claims of the bill's supporters that only opponents of intellectual property rights could oppose the bill).
The second problem?Have they abandoned their insane attack on the Domain Name system.(see fn3)
There are other changes to the bill as well: 1.Search Engines can now be ordered to remove the site from their listings(something that raises First Amendment implications of its own).There is supposedly a provision allowing the accused to "petition the court to suspend or vacate the order" .But whether this meets constitutes prior restraint remains to be seen. 2.The bill allows a copyright holder to bring action against a alleged infringer.In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this(so far as I know) the problem however is the same one as with the government cases;i.e. will the individual's right to due process be adequately protected. 3.They seem to have removed the provision allowing whole domains to be taken down. e.g. taking down Posterous,or Wordpress.com to deal with a sub-domain such as piratecopyrightedmaterial.wordpress.com.This last resolves one of my major concerns,We but the others remain.
Footnotes: fn1. I say MAY have been addressed because these types of laws should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb to see what may be hidden in them.
See: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders | Techdirt
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/13285714230/son-coica-protect-ip-ac... And this is a site hosting the text of the new bill: http://www.dontcensorthenet.com/full-text-of-the-protect-ip-act-of-2011 fn2
Letter from Law Professors Opposing COICA | Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/letter-law-professors-opposing-coica
....."...."To begin with, the Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. It directs courts to impose “prior restraints” on speech –the “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976), which are constitutionally permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).; see also Center For Democracy & Technology v. Pappert , 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 651 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (statute blocking access to particular domain names and IP addresses an unconstitutional prior restraint). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the category of “prior restraints,” while traditionally applied to “orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur,” Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993) (emphasis added), also
encompasses any governmental action suppressing speech taken prior to “a prompt final judicial decision . . . in an adversary proceeding” that the speech is unlawful. Freedman v. Maryland , 380 U.S. 51, 58-60 (U.S. 1965) (statute requiring theater owner to receive a license before exhibiting allegedly obscene film was unconstitutional because the statute did not “assure a prompt final judicial decision” that the film was obscene); see also Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1962) (State Commission’s letters suggesting removal of books already in circulation is a “prior administrative restraint” and unconstitutional because there was no procedure for “an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint”); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 51-63 (1989) (procedure allowing courts to order pre -trial seizure of allegedly obscene films based upon a finding of probable cause was an unconstitutional prior restraint; publica
tions
“may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing.”). These cases “require a court, before the material is completely removed from circulation, . . . to make a final determination that material is [unlawful] after an adversary hearing.” CDT v. Pappert , 337 F.Supp.2d, at 657 (emphasis added). The procedural seps prescribed by the Act do not come close to comporting with this Constitutional requirement. In place of a final determination after an adversary proceeding that the website in question contain infringing material, the Act permits the issuance of speech -suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content . The domain name registrars, registries, service providers, and domain name server operators against whom injunctions can be issued pursuant to the Act will have, in virtually all cases, no informa
tion
whatsoever concerning the allegations regarding the presence of infringing content at the target websites because they have no relationship to the operators of those websites; they are therefore in no position, and they have no conceivable incentive, to contest those allegations. The Act contains no provisions designed to ensure that the persons actually responsible for the allegedly infringing content –the operators of the target websites –are even aware of the proceedings against them, let alone have been afforded any meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations in a true, adversarial proceeding. ".....
fn3 An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the Senate Judiciary Committee | Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter
Other Links on COICA (including some that are no longer relevant)
#COICA the most dangerous #censorship bill you've never heard off #s3804 - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/coica-the-most-dangerous-censorship-bill...
DHS ICE seizes 84,000 wrong domains: Child porn oops and COICA - Computerworld Blogs
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17834/dhs_ice_seizes_84_000_wrong_domains_chil... American University Intellectual Property Brief » U.S. Senators Continue War On Internet with “Online Infringement” Bill http://www.ipbrief.net/2010/09/26/u-s-senators-continue-war-on-internet-with-... Groups oppose #coica censorship bill - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/groups-oppose-coica-censorship-bill
The Volokh Conspiracy » Once Again, the Copyright/Trademark Tail Tries to Wag the Internet Dog
http://volokh.com/2010/11/13/once-again-the-copyrighttrademark-tail-tries-to-... COICA and the Internet "Ecosystem" | Center for Democracy & Technology http://www.cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/coica-and-internet-ecosystem Senate Needs to Rein in Copyright Bill | Center for Democracy & Technology
http://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/senate-needs-rein-copyright-bill Stop the #COICA internet #censorship bill #tcot #tlot #s3804 - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/stop-the-coica-internet-censorship-bill-...
Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed? | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/01092913147/can-senator-patrick-lea...
What Congress Can Learn from the Recent ICE Seizures | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-congress-can-learn-recent-ice-seiz...
When the Internet Nearly Fractured, and How It Could Happen Again - Nancy Scola - Technology - The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/when-the-internet-nearl...
Mozilla resists US gov't request to nuke "MafiaaFire" add-on http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/mozilla-resists-us-govt-reque... ICE domain seizures relied on twisted evidence and MPAA say so - Computerworld Blogs
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17575/ice_domain_seizures_relied_on_twisted_ev... COICA,a bi-partisan internet censorship bill returns,in the House call your Rep. #freeweb - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/coicaa-bi-partisan-internet-censorship-b...
No comments:
Post a Comment