Jump to content

Illegal Downloading Coming To An End?


Recommended Posts

Source: Entertainment Weekly

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced today it had unanimously approved a bill giving the Justice Department new powers to combat websites that illegally offer copyrighted content for sale, download, or streaming. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D, Vt.) and Orrin Hatch (R, Utah), would allow federal law enforcement to effectively shut down websites that demonstrably participate in the regular unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Several Hollywood guild organizations, including SAG and the DGA, issued a joint-statement in support of the bill, saying, “We believe today’s committee action is the first step in making it much more difficult for rogue site operators to run their sites with impunity.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The billion-dollar gaming, the billion-dollar entertainment, the billion-dollar software and the multi-million dollar print and book industries in the U.S. are spending untold millions just to lobby for the passage of this bill and/or any other similar or more stringent acts in the U.S. legislature.

Fortunately, liberals, civil liberties groups and free speech advocates are likewise digging in for a long, drawn-out battle.

The only problem is if such an act ever gets approved and promulgated in the U.S., our own senators and congressmen always follow in typical knee-jerk fashion with something similar of their own. Even if none were forthcoming, the U.S. could bring pressure on us--like issuing another travel advisory against going to the Philippines, for example. Or quite simply, through its justice department, telling the webhost to cancel or suspend a local site's account. That's the most severe thing that could happen to a forum like the APS.

But's that's a looong way off. Till then, no penal sanctions are hanging over our heads. So post away, lads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably the end for illegal websites that are currently registered on US-based domain registrars such as Godaddy.com, Name.com, etc. It is basically an Internet Censorship law and questions regarding its legitimacy will surely be debated all over the Internet world. Once they shutdown the domain name, there's no other option but to change the domain name and the website will cease to exist.

I'm currently coordinating with our web hosting provider for a domain registrar that is not based on USA. It's better to move to a domain registrar that is located in a country not covered by US laws. I'm currently considering Bahamas as an option.  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no freakin idea on how they would manage to stop piracy on the net, as long as there are users specially a not U.S. based resident then definitely they couldn't STOP it even upto the smallest part of the world.  There are underground sites who caters illegal hosting specially security and hacking sites where i've been tambay for quite some time and yes they just simply host a site on their own garage, creepy ei! :)

There's a 5% chance (take not only 5) if they could PERMANENTLY SHUTDOWN sites that host files like hotfile/RS/ Fileserve or even pass a bill not to pay uploaders and that could affect the Tri-uploaders of APS namely.... toot, toot and toot  ;D

please don't flame me  ;D these are just what i could think of for now, we'll see on how this thing will progress.

There's a saying "Pag gusto may paraan" di ba?  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pero malaking market kasi ang US para sa mga warez at uploads, kaya malaking dagok pa rin kapag binlock na nila ang access halimbawa sa Hotfile, Fileserve, Filesonic, at iba pa. Hehehe hintayin na lang natin kung anong mangyayari. Ang pinakamalala kasi dyan eh pwede ng i-take over ng DOJ ng US ang mga domain names mismo. Once nakuha ang domain name mo, wala ka ng magagawa rito kapag pinatay nila. Di gaya ng DMCA na mga web hosting providers ang inuutusang mga-take down sa infringing contents, dito sa bagong law eh tiyak na patay ang warez site mo kapag sa US naka-base ang domain registrar mo. Dati kasi pwedeng magpalipat-lipat lang ng host kapag na-shutdown ang isang warez site. Ngayon kapag pinatay ang domain name eh dedbol na talaga hehehe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill just passed the committee level.  The next stage is for deliberation in the senate floor.  No word about a similar bill in the house of representatives.  So, yes, it is still far off.

However, this is the troublesome part.  Talks have began about doing something about piracy in the US.

US music, television shows and movies will have backing of the federal government to pursue or shut down sites carrying their copyrighted materials.  So, any websites shall now be in the lookout for problematic files. Our sources may be at risk.

Anyone heard of Sean Parker and Napster?  This has quite the same impact.  No worries yet since this may be years away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Mang Tonio possible nga na pag anyan ginawa nila eh sarado na agad ang site gamit na lang sila ng IP domain kaso malamang exclusive na lang iyun hehe pero sigurado ang scene releases nila ay kakalat pa din like wild fire  ;D

@ McD napster is like Morpheus and Limewire today right? oh btw include piratebay on the list :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

First, what is this so-called "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act"?

To elucidate further on the Entertainment Weekly snippet McDreamy quoted in the thread starter, allow me to quote in its entirety (be it known that this quote is not for commercial purposes and is non-derivative and purely for purposes of information) the similarly titled Wikipedia article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act>:

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

United States Senate Bill S.3804, known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is a bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on September 20, 2010. It proposes amendments to Chapter 113 of Title 18 of the United States Code that would authorize the Attorney General to bring an in rem action against any domain name found "dedicated to infringing activities", as defined within the text of the bill. Upon bringing such an action, and obtaining an order for relief, the registrar of, or registry affiliated with, the infringing domain would be compelled to "suspend operation of and lock the domain name."

The bill is supported by the Motion Picture Association of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Screen Actors Guild, Viacom, and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States.

It is opposed by organizations and individuals such as Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Distributed Computing Industry Association, Tim Berners-Lee (generally credited with inventing the WorldWideWeb--ate_sha), the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a vote of 19-0 but never received a full vote on the Senate floor. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced he would take the steps necessary to halt COICA so it is not enacted into law this year (2010), and was successful, effectively killing this bill and requiring it to be resubmitted and for it to make it through a new committee again in 2011 with a different makeup of its members.


Definition of infringement

The text of the bill defines an infringing website as one that 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.

Powers granted

The bill, if passed, would allow the Attorney General to bring an in rem action against the infringing domain name in United States District Court, and seek an order requesting injunctive relief. If granted, such an order would compel the registrar of the domain name in question to take the following actions:

    Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name.[5]

Nondomestic domains

If the infringing website is not located in the United States, the bill empowers the Attorney General to bring a similar action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Should an order for injunctive relief be granted, the Attorney General would then be empowered to serve said order upon, and compel to perform the actions listed:

    (i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address;

    (ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent--

        (I) its service from processing transactions for customers located within the United States based on purchases associated with the domain name; and

        (II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites associated with such domain name; and

    (iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name.


Should a party fail to comply with an order served upon it by the Attorney General, the Attorney General would be able to bring an in personam action against the party in question.

Justice Department lists

The bill also calls for the creation, by the Justice Department, of two publicly available lists of domain names. The first list shall be constituted of domain names against which the Attorney General has obtained injunctions.[8] Domestic domains would be required to be locked by their registrars, and service providers, financial institutions, and advertisers would be required to block service to any nondomestic domains on this list. The second list would be a list of domains alleged by the Justice Department to be infringing, but against which no action had been taken.[9] Any service provider who willingly took steps to block access to sites on this second list would gain immunity from prosecution under this bill.[10]

Proposed amendment to COICA

Due to various concerns from outside parties, Senator Patrick Leahy has proposed an amendment to the legislation that responds to these concerns, while preserving the purpose of the legislation. The amendment will:[citation needed]

    * Strike provisions that would have authorized the Justice Department to publish a listing of domain names that provided access to websites dedicated to infringing activities, but against which it did not to seek a court order under the Act, in response to concerns from Internet service providers (ISPs), online companies, and public interest groups.

    * Ease the burden on ISPs and payment processors that are required to take action pursuant to this Act. The amendment specifies that an ISP shall not be required to modify its network or facilities to comply with an order or take steps with respect to domain name lookups performed by others. In addition, the amendment requires only that ISPs and payment processors act as expeditiously as reasonable.

    * Provide more explicit protection from legal liability for any third-party registrar, registry, ISP, payment processor or advertising network that takes action pursuant to this Act.

    * Require the Attorney General to develop a process in consultation with other law enforcement agencies to coordinate related investigations.

Public reaction

Public reaction to the bill has been negative by consumer groups while the bill is generally lauded by artist's rights groups, various labor unions, and the entertainment and publishing industries. The announcement of the bill was rapidly followed by a wave of protest from digital rights activists, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF).

On September 30, 2010, the EFF posted an update to their Deeplinks Blog, announcing that the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee had been delayed until after the 2010 midterm elections. On November 18, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bipartisan bill. On November 26, 2010, the New York Times reported that the U.S. government had seized the domain names of 82 websites, which digital rights advocates used as an example of overreaching enforcement that can already occur under current law, which they believe will take place more frequently and on a broader basis under the more lenient enforcement requirements set by COICA.

Senate opposition

Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden opposed the bill after it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, 2010, saying that unless it is changed, he will prevent it from coming to a vote on the full Senate floor "this year" (2010). He said:

        "It seems to me that online copyright infringement is a legitimate problem, but it seems to me that COICA as written is the wrong medicine. Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile. The collateral damage of this statute could be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet."

It is significant to note that even without the benefit of such a law, the U.S. Justice Department has been quite busy in seizing the assets of websites or blocking or taking down them offline, and doing this quietly.

As stated above, the bill never received a full vote on the U.S.Senate and was effectively killed upon the close of the 2010 Congress. However, no doubt Leahy or some other anal-retentive busybody with monetary agenda will again be resubmitting the same bill, or something similar and just as sinister with the new 2011 U.S. Congress.

I say sinister because when the U.S., as the one true remaining superpower (Russia would like to remedy this situation with its billions of oil money, of course, but by 2015 China will definitely be the other superpower), sneezes, all other countries start to catch a cold. The Philippines, of course starts to have the flu almost instantaneously.

As I have stated in my earlier comment, in typical knee-jerk reaction, perhaps at this very moment some Filipino senator or congressman is communicating to his or her lawyer-ghost writer preparing a draft bill copying almost verbatim the U.S. Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act for sponsorship on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives anytime now.

Goodness gracious, we do need to be vigilant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pabagsak na ang Hotfile ngayon dahil sa mga kaso nila. Wag na kayong kumuha ng premium account sa kanila kasi almost instantly ay dinedelete nila ang ano mang klase ng pirated materials ngayon. Wala na rin halos nag-a-upload sa kanila ng mga movies, mp3s, etc. at nagsilipat na sa Fileserve at Filesonic ang mga uploaders ng warez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

internet service providers are doing their share in stopping online piracy by tracing IP addresses that are downloading illegal files. the system is not perfect often than not they are tagging the wrong customers in which shares the IP address after it changes to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Sa ngayun sa bansang aking tinitirahan obviously hindi pinas tumutulong na din ang mga ISP dito sa paghihigpit regarding piracy nagsesend na din sila ng email na nag dodowload ka/stream ng illegal files at wawarningan ka na pwede daw nila isuspend yung acount mo sa kanila



Natrace na din nila oras at file na dinowload mo kasama sa email na pinapadala nila. Napadalhan na ako once kaya nag mamaskara na ako ngayun para di na mahuli :)


Umiwas na din kayo sa popcorntime app (mac) eto ginagamit ko nun nung nagstream ako at natrace nila activities ng app na ito marami na ako kilala na napaldalahan ng email ng ISP gamit ang streaming app na ito dito sa bansa na tinitirahan ko ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll believe it's the end if they manage to take down the Pirate Bay and Kick Ass torrents completely off the grid.  People still flock to the movies regardless if there's a good CAM version since it's still an experience to see it in the big screen I.E.  Star Wars.  European countries who are ahead of the game when it comes to these types of laws have put so much emphasis on stopping it...yet it falls flat like a Korean girl's ass.  The French HADOPI law for example was such a dismal failure that it actually costs the French serious money.


Piracy has always been around - it has its ebbs and flows, but it won't disappear anytime soon.  A lot of cases dealing with people being identified using IP addresses usually gets thrown out or dismissed that in the end - the only one winning in these lawsuits are lawyers. 

Edited by LepTheImpaler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...