Re: COICA

[Guest guest]

about 2 weeks ago or more they seized lime wire. I use this..yes, this is what happens when "WE the people" don't take an active part in gov't. Our elected officials in Congress make promises that they can never keep.From: Joyce Hudson <bjoyful@...>Subject: [health] COICA"Natural Health and Living" <health >Date: Sunday, November 28, 2010, 8:29 PM

There's a list at the bottom of the sites shut down. Other than Torrentfinder which is a search engine, most of these appear to be shopping sites. What I will be concerned about, is if newsletters will be shut down.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101121/23584311958/why-voting-coica-is-vote-censorship.shtml

Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship

from the explaining dept

Last week, we listed out the 19 Senators who "voted for censorship." These were the 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted in favor of COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act). That story got an awful lot of attention, and was widely linked from many different places. While we had linked to all of the details in the post, we had assumed that most of our regular readers we already familiar with COICA and why it's a bill about censorship. Of course, we hadn't been expecting quite so much traffic from those who were not as familiar with the bill or the debate, which resulted in a few complaints in the comments that the bill "has nothing to do with censorship, but is about stopping copyright infringement." While I have no illusion that most of those who made such comments will ever come back and read this, it is important to make this point clearly, for those who are interested. There are many, many serious problems with the way COICA is written, but this post will highlight why it is a bill for censorship, and how it opens the door to wider censorship of speech online. First off, the bill would allow the Justice Department to take down an entire website, effectively creating a blacklist, akin to just about every internet censoring regime out there. Now, it is true that there is a judicial process involved. The original bill had two lists, one that involved the judicial review, and one that did not (it was a "watch list," which "encouraged" ISPs and registrars to block -- meaning they would block them). However, everyone seems sure that the second list will not be included in any final bill. Even so, there are serious problems with the way the bill works. Case law around the First Amendment is pretty clear that you cannot block a much wider variety of speech, just because you are trying to stop some specific speech. Because of the respect we have for the First Amendment in the US, the law has been pretty clear that anything preventing speech, due to it being illegal, must narrowly target just that kind of speech. Doing otherwise is what's known as prior restraint. Two very relevant cases on this front are Near vs. Minnesota and CDT vs. Pappert. Near vs. Minnesota involved striking down a state law that barred "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers from publishing -- allowing the state to get a permanent injunction against the publications of such works. In most cases, what was being published in these newspapers was pure defamation. Defamation, of course, is very much against the law (as is copyright infringement). But the court found that barring the entire publication of a newspaper because of some specific libelous statements barred other types of legitimate speech as well. The court clearly noted that those who were libeled still have libel law to sue the publisher of libel, but that does not allow for the government to completely bar the publication of the newspaper. The Pappert case -- a much more recent case -- involved a state law in Pennsylvania that had the state Attorney General put together a blacklist of websites that were believed to host child pornography, which ISPs were required to block access to. Again, child pornography is very much illegal (and, many would argue, much worse than copyright infringement). Yet, once again, here, the courts tossed out the law as undue prior restraint, in that it took down lots of non-illegal content as well as illegal content. While much of the case focused on the fact that the techniques ISPs were using took down adjacent websites on shared servers, the court did also note that taking down an entire URL is misguided in that "a URL... only refers to a location where content can be found. A URL does not refer to any specific piece of static content -- the content is permanent only until it is changed by the web site's webmaster.... The actual content to which a URL points can (and often does) easily change without the URL changing in any way." The argument was that taking down a URL, rather than focusing on the specific, illegal content constituted an unfair prior restraint, blocking the potential publication of perfectly legitimate content (the court here noted the similarities to the Near case): Additionally, as argued by plaintiffs, the Act allows for an unconstitutional prior restraint because it prevents future content from being displayed at a URL based on the fact that the URL contained illegal content in the past.... Plaintiffs compare this burden to the permanent ban on the publication of a newspaper with a certain title, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), or a permanent injunction against showing films at a movie theater, Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U.S. 308 (1980). In Near, the Court examined a statute that provided for a permanent injunction against a "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical." .... There are some similarities between a newspaper and a web site. Just as the content of a newspaper changes without changing the title of the publication, the content identified by a URL can change without the URL itself changing.... In fact, it is possible that the owner or publisher of material on a web site identified by a URL can change without the URL changing. .... Moreover, an individual can purchase the rights to a URL and have no way to learn that the URL has been blocked by an ISP in response to an Informal Notice or court order.... Despite the fact that the content at a URL can change frequently, the Act does not provide for any review of the material at a URL and, other than a verification that the site was still blocked thirty days after the initial Informal Notice, the OAG did not review the content at any blocked URLs.... One of the complaints we've heard is that such past prior restraint cases do not apply here since "copyright infringement is illegal." But, both defamation and child pornography also break the law. The point is that in all of these cases, there are existing laws on the books to deal with that specific content, which can be handled that way. Adding this additional layer that takes down an entire publication is where it stretches into clear censorship. The other argument that says COICA is not censorship is that it states that it is only directed at sites "dedicated to infringing activities" that have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than" infringement. However, what supporters of COICA hate to admit is that "dedicated to infringing activities" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and the same folks who support COICA -- such as the MPAA and the RIAA -- have a very long and troubled history of declaring all sorts of new technologies as "dedicated to infringing activities." The VCR, cable TV, the DVR and the MP3 player were all lambasted as being dedicated to infringing activities with no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose, when each was introduced. In hindsight, supporters of COICA like to ignore this, and insist they always knew that each of those technologies could have perfectly legitimate non-infringing uses. But that's only because they were allowed to go forward after a series of legal fights. With COICA, no such chance would be given. It's easy to declare something as dedicated to infringing activities if you're unwilling to see how it can be useful.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030542_censorship_internet.html

US Government seizure of the internet has begun; DHS takes over 76 websites

(NaturalNews) As part of a new expansion of government power over information, the Department of Homeland Security has begun seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example at http://torrent-finder.comOver 75 websites were seized and shut down last week, and there is no indication that the government will stop such efforts. Right now, their focus is websites that they claim "violate copyrights," yet the torrent-finder.com website that was seized by DHS contained no copyrighted content whatsoever. It was merely a search engine website that linked to destinations where people could access copyrighted content. Google also links to copyrighted content -- does that mean the feds will soon seize Google, too?These seizures were conducted on the basis of language in the DMCA law, which is vastly overreaching in its powers (it was passed to appease the music recording industry and the RIAA). Even so, the U.S. Senate is right now considering passing yet another law -- COICA -- the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/...), a new law that would give the federal government even more power to shut down websites it opposed.Read more about COICA here: http://www.usa-anti-communist.com/w...And here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris...Here's the list of 19 US Senators who voted to censor the internet via the COICA bill: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...

Government could shut down alternative health websitesWhere is all this going? Today the U.S. government is targeting websites focused on copyright violations, but if the public tolerates this government-sponsored censorship of the web, it's only a matter of time before these government powers are expanded to control the content of the internet.Over the last few years, several U.S. Senators have already attempted to outlaw vitamins and nutritional supplements. One lawmaker even suggested that "alternative health" information should be outlawed on the internet in order to "protect" people from information that isn't aligned with the drugs-and-surgery approach to sick care. It's only a matter of time, it seems, before the U.S. government uses its new power of seizing internet websites as an information warfare weapon to silence anyone who opposes FDA and the Big Pharma agenda.In fact, under these new laws, there's no limit to what websites the U.S. government could choose to seize and shut down. This is the beginning of the federal takeover of the internet, where all websites that don't fall in line with "official" government-approved information are now potential targets of DHS seizures.One music website seized by DHS -- RapGodFather.com -- was seized merely because its users posted comments linking to file-sharing websites (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/...). The site had 150,000 members, but as of today, it is the property of "Homeland Security Investigations." (http://rapgodfathers.com/)See the TorrentFreak.com news report on this important story here: http://torrentfreak.com/music-linki...

All websites using the word "Face" could soon be seizedThe reach of tyrants knows no limits. As widely reported throughout the popular press last week, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has assigned Facebook a trademark monopoly over the word "Face." (http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/pa...) This means that any website using the word "face" could theoretically be seized by the DHS under the DMCA.Lest you think this is some impossible exaggeration of the law, keep in mind that governments always misuse laws to go far beyond their original intended purpose. The RICO Act, for example, which was originally passed in 1970 to combat the mafia, is now used nearly every day against individuals and small businesses (http://www.ricoact.com).Similarly, the Patriot Act signed into law by President Bush after the 9/11 attacks was originally intended to be applied to international terrorists. But now in the United States, it is routinely used against animal rights activists and environmental protection groups (http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...).These rogue abuses of federal law create a pattern of expanding government powers that increasingly threaten the Constitutional rights of American citizens. To seize a person's website without due process is both a violation of that person's First Amendment rights (Free Speech) as well as their Fifth Amendment rights.The Fifth Amendment states:No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.And yet this seizure of websites by the DHS is doing precisely that -- depriving people of property without due process of law.The U.S. federal government, as we have increasingly seen through the actions of the TSA, DEA and DHS, does not recognize nor honor the Bill of Rights. Nor does it believe the U.S. Constitution has any authority whatsoever. The upshot of this is that all Americans citizens are now living under a system of government tyranny, where government agents may molest you at the airports or seize your website if they don't like what you're saying online.

Take action: Sign the petitionHelp stop the government takeover of the internet. Sign this petition:http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/

U.S. Government Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain and MoreWritten by enigmax on November 26, 2010

Following on the heels of this week’s domain seizure of a large hiphop file-sharing links forum, it’s clear today that the U.S. Government has been very busy. Without any need for COICA, ICE has just seized the domain of a BitTorrent meta-search engine along with those belonging to other music linking sites and several others which appear to be connected to physical counterfeit goods.

While complex, it’s still possible for U.S. authorities and copyright groups to point at a fully-fledged BitTorrent site with a tracker and say “that’s an infringing site.†When one looks at a site which hosts torrents but operates no tracker, the finger pointing becomes quite a bit more difficult.

When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield – unless you’re ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is.

This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE have seized the site’s domain.

The message below is posted on the seized sites

“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!†the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.

“I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,†he explained.

Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner.

Torrent-Finder remains operational through another URL, Torrent-Finder.info, so feel free to check it out for yourself. The layouts of the sites it searches are clearly visible in the results shown.

Yesterday we reported that the domain of hiphop site RapGodFathers had been seized and today we can reveal that they are not on their own. Two other music sites in the same field – OnSmash.com and DaJaz1.com – have fallen to the same fate. But ICE activities don’t end there.

Several other domains also appear to have been seized including 2009jerseys.com, nfljerseysupply.com, throwbackguy.com, cartoon77.com, lifetimereplicas.com, handbag9.com, handbagcom.com and dvdprostore.com.

All seized sites point to the same message.

Domain seizures coming under the much debated ‘censorship bill’ COICA? Who needs it?

Update: Below is an longer list of domains that were apparently seized. Most of the sites relate to counterfeit goods. We assume that the authorities had a proper warrant for these sites (as they had for RapGodFathers yesterday), but were unable to confirm this.

Update: A spokeswoman for ICE confirmed the seizures in the following statement. “ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time.â€

2009jerseys.com51607.comamoyhy.comb2corder.combishoe.comborntrade.comborntrade.netboxedtvseries.comboxset4less.comboxsetseries.comburberryoutletshop.comcartoon77.comcheapscarfshop.comcoachoutletfactory.comdajaz1.comdiscountscarvesonsale.comdvdcollectionsale.comdvdcollects.comdvdorderonline.comdvdprostore.comdvdscollection.comdvdsetcollection.comdvdsetsonline.comdvdsuperdeal.comeluxury-outlet.comgetdvdset.comgofactoryoutlet.comgolfstaring.comgolfwholesale18.comhandbag9.comhandbagcom.comhandbagspop.comicqshoes.comipodnanouk.comjersey-china.comjerseyclubhouse.comjordansbox.comlifetimereplicas.comlouis-vuitton-outlet-store.comlv-outlets.comlv-outlets.netlv-outletstore.commassnike.commerrytimberland.commycollects.commydreamwatches.commygolfwholesale.comnewstylerole

x.comnfljerseysupply.comnibdvd.comodvdo.comoebags.comonsmash.comoverbestmall.comrapgodfathers.comrealtimberland.comrmx4u.comscarfonlineshop.comscarfviponsale.comshawls-store.comsilkscarf-shop.comsilkscarfonsale.comskyergolf.comsohob2b.comsohob2c.comstoreofeast.comstuff-trade.comsunglasses-mall.comsunogolf.comtbl-sports.comthrowbackguy.comtiesonsale.comtimberlandlike.comtopabuy.comtorrent-finder.comusaburberryscarf.comusaoutlets.net