#1
In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.

If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do.

If you are a US citizen, please take the time sign this petition

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica
#4
Quote by MakinLattes
that would imply that my opinion actually matters to lawmakers.


It may or may not, but not signing it because of that is dumb. You don't realize the fathom of this bill.

If Viacom found Youtube to be in violation of copyright laws by hosting a video of say...someone dancing to a song Viacom owns, then they can petition the DA to put the site on the first list. Then Youtube is blacklisted from THE ENTIRE PUBLIC INTERNET. Not just the U.S.
#7
If that ever happens in my country, I'm ragequitting the internet forever.

It's hard to believe such a bill would get through _anywhere_ though- I thought most people agreed that limiting freedom of information is a step back.
#8
There's nothing we can do about it if Congress wants this passed, and Obama's okay with it. Nothing.

Do I think it'll get passed? Probably not, but it's still frightening.

EDIT: Well, there's the possibility it could be ruled unconstitutional.
Last edited by Holy Katana at Oct 1, 2010,
#10
Guys, I'd recommend everyone sign this petition. It's bloody scary, and the future ramifications are worrying.
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██████████████████████
#11
Australia's no longer that funny now, is it?

Our Internet didn't get censored here, I doubt yours will.
So come on in
it ain't no sin
take off your skin
and dance around in your bones

#12
Signed, w/e
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.
#14
Quote by Holy Katana
The elites don't care about the American people at all. If they want this passed, it'll pass. If they don't, it won't.




/edit. I am so much for true freedom in America, I hope this passes and is legit. Then maybe we will actually start standing up and fighting(no scratching a name on a ballot doesn't count).
Last edited by L.S.D at Nov 7, 2010,
#15
Quote by Våd Hamster
If that ever happens in my country, I'm ragequitting the internet forever.

It's hard to believe such a bill would get through _anywhere_ though- I thought most people agreed that limiting freedom of information is a step back.
The current crop of US Liberal Elites are so damn Socialist that they don't care about whether limits cause us to step back.


Quote by metaldud536
Right.....
Youtube is a site that's HQ'ed in the USA. So, either Youtube would move offshore, or it'd get shut down temporarily. Either one is bad, imho.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Nov 7, 2010,
#16
Quote by whitenihilist
In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.

If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do.

If you are a US citizen, please take the time sign this petition

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica



Yeah... I love democrats.

EDIT: And rhino republicans.
#17
Quote by whitenihilist
It may or may not, but not signing it because of that is dumb. You don't realize the fathom of this bill.

If Viacom found Youtube to be in violation of copyright laws by hosting a video of say...someone dancing to a song Viacom owns, then they can petition the DA to put the site on the first list. Then Youtube is blacklisted from THE ENTIRE PUBLIC INTERNET. Not just the U.S.


Okay then...Let me know how that works out...
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#19
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
The current crop of US Liberal Elites are so damn Socialist that they don't care about whether limits cause us to step back.


Youtube is a site that's HQ'ed in the USA. So, either Youtube would move offshore, or it'd get shut down temporarily. Either one is bad, imho.


Isn't youtube owned by google? And isn't google one of the most powerful companies in the world?
#20
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
The current crop of US Liberal Elites are so damn Socialist that they don't care about whether limits cause us to step back.

Go learn what socialism is before you throw the word around you idiot.
#21
I think this article kinda exaggerates the situation, but I nonethless agree
John Petrucci

The one and only god.
#22
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
The current crop of US Liberal Elites are so damn Socialist that they don't care about whether limits cause us to step back.


Youtube is a site that's HQ'ed in the USA. So, either Youtube would move offshore, or it'd get shut down temporarily. Either one is bad, imho.


You have literally no idea what socialism is do you?
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#23
I think it was joke.


/butthurt
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
#25
Oh, so when I made this thread 5 months back, no one cared, but YOU make it and everyone is interested.

WHAT THE **** GUYS
#26
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Go learn what socialism is before you throw the word around you idiot.
You apparently never learned what it was yourself.

And does anyone here think government cares that google, one of the most powerful cybercorps in the world, is the owner of youtube? Honestly, if the US government took over GM (and still holds 60% of GM shares), does anyone think they'd hesitate to either shut down youtube or shove it overseas?

Quote by Todd Hart
You have literally no idea what socialism is do you?
I've done my research. The question is, have you?
#27
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
You apparently never learned what it was yourself.

And does anyone here think government cares that google, one of the most powerful cybercorps in the world, is the owner of youtube? Honestly, if the US government took over GM (and still holds 60% of GM shares), does anyone think they'd hesitate to either shut down youtube or shove it overseas?

I've done my research. The question is, have you?


...but you used it completely out of context.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#28
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
You apparently never learned what it was yourself.

And does anyone here think government cares that google, one of the most powerful cybercorps in the world, is the owner of youtube? Honestly, if the US government took over GM (and still holds 60% of GM shares), does anyone think they'd hesitate to either shut down youtube or shove it overseas?

I've done my research. The question is, have you?

Worker control over the means of production is not being supported by the US liberal elites...
#29
This bill passing a class action lawsuit against the government for violation of the first amendment... if anyone had balls to do it.
Quote by dr_shred
FrustratedRocka you are a legend

Quote by littlephil

The man clearly knows his shit.

Quote by Banjocal


one of the best, educated and logical posts I've ever seen on UG in the Pit. Well done good sir.
#30
Anyone wanting to take a closer look at the bill and/or read the full text of it;

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

The site TS posted is far from unbiased. Educate yourselves based on the bill people, not on what people say about it.

That said I'm against it - Just saying that people should decide for themselves how it looks, not take someone else's opinion of it.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 50-54
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#31
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Worker control over the means of production is not being supported by the US liberal elites...



Where does the worker get that kind of control? Liberal elites and the unions.
#32
Quote by JDawg
Where does the worker get that kind of control? Liberal elites and the unions.



Except they don't have it, that's the point.
I'll play it and tell you what it is later.
-Miles Davis
#34
Why does every remotely politcally related thread in the pit get overrun by "right wing" trolls and butt hurt left wingers?

There should be an "only discussing-the-meaning-of-socialism thread", or something, this is getting really annoying.
#35
Quote by michal23
Why does every remotely politcally related thread in the pit get overrun by "right wing" trolls and butt hurt left wingers?

There should be an "only discussing-the-meaning-of-socialism thread", or something, this is getting really annoying.



The political thread.
#36
MAJOREDIT:
Quote by necrosis1193
Anyone wanting to take a closer look at the bill and/or read the full text of it;

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

The site TS posted is far from unbiased. Educate yourselves based on the bill people, not on what people say about it.

That said I'm against it - Just saying that people should decide for themselves how it looks, not take someone else's opinion of it.

Damn, now I feel stupid. I'm still against it though.
‘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.
Last edited by TheZephyrSon at Nov 7, 2010,
#37
Quote by JDawg
The political thread.


They're actually a bunch of smart guys discussing politics sensibly though.