Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Last updated
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleCombating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act
Acronyms (colloquial)COICA
NicknamesSenate Bill S.3804
Codification
Titles amendedChapter 113 of Title 18 of the United States Code
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the Senate as Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act by Patrick Leahy (DVT) on September 20, 2010
  • Committee consideration by House Judiciary Committee

United States Senate Bill S.3804, known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was a bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on September 20, 2010. It proposed 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." [1]

Contents

The bill was 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. [1]

It was opposed by organizations and individuals such as Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, the Distributed Computing Industry Association, [1] Tim Berners-Lee, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch. [2]

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a vote of 19-0 but never received a full vote on the Senate floor. [1] Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced he would take the steps necessary to halt COICA so it is not enacted into law in 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. [3] The Act was rewritten as the Protect IP Act.

Scope

Definition of infringement

The text of the bill defined 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. [4]

Powers granted

The bill, if passed, would have allowed 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 register 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 may lock, the domain name. [5]

Nondomestic domains

If the infringing website had not been located in the United States, the bill empowered 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 been granted, the Attorney General would then have been empowered to serve said order upon, and compel to perform the actions listed: [6]

(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.

Enforcement

Should a party fail to comply with an order served upon it by the Attorney General, the Attorney General would have been able to bring an in personam action against the party in question. [7]

Justice Department lists

The bill also called for the creation, by the Justice Department, of two publicly available lists of domain names. The first list would have been composed 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

Due to various concerns from outside parties, Senator Patrick Leahy proposed an amendment to the legislation that responded to these concerns, while preserving the purpose of the legislation. The amendment: [11] [12]

Public reaction

Public reaction to the bill was negative by consumer groups, while the bill was generally lauded by artist's rights groups, various labor unions, and the entertainment and publishing industries. [13] The announcement of the bill was rapidly followed by a wave of protest from digital rights activists, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation. [14] Demand Progress's petition against COICA garnered more than 300,000 signatures.

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. [15] On November 18, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bipartisan bill. [16] 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. [17] [18]

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. [19] 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. [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

The Design Piracy Prohibition Act, H.R. 2033, S. 1957, and H.R. 2196, were bills of the same name introduced in the United States Congress that would have amended Title 17 of the United States Code to provide sui generis protection to fashion designs for a period of three years. The Acts would have extended protection to "the appearance as a whole of an article of apparel, including its ornamentation," with "apparel" defined to include "men's, women's, or children's clothing, including undergarments, outerwear, gloves, footwear, and headgear;" "handbags, purses, and tote bags;" belts, and eyeglass frames. In order to receive the three-year term of protection, the designer would be required to register with the U.S. Copyright Office within three months of going public with the design.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Economy Act 2010</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Digital Economy Act 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act addresses media policy issues related to digital media, including copyright infringement, Internet domain names, Channel 4 media content, local radio and video games. Introduced to Parliament by Lord Mandelson on 20 November 2009, it received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. It came into force two months later, with some exceptions: several sections – 5, 6, 7, 15, 16(1)and 30 to 32 – came into force immediately, whilst others required a statutory instrument before they would come into force. However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014, and other sections were repealed.

File sharing in the United Kingdom relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. In 2010, there were over 18.3 million households connected to the Internet in the United Kingdom, with 63% of these having a broadband connection. There are also many public Internet access points such as public libraries and Internet cafes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT IP Act</span> US Senate Bill

The PROTECT IP Act was a proposed law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S. The bill was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 11 bipartisan co-sponsors. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the bill would cost the federal government $47 million through 2016, to cover enforcement costs and the hiring and training of 22 new special agents and 26 support staff. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, but Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed a hold on it.

Copyright Alert System (CAS) was a voluntary industry effort to educate and penalize internet users who engage in the unauthorized and unlawful distribution of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing services. The program was operated by the Center for Copyright Information, a consortium consisting of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the internet service providers AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 was a United States bill designed with the stated intention of increasing enforcement of laws related to the prosecution of child pornography and child sexual exploitation offenses. Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), sponsor of H.R. 1981, stated that, "When investigators develop leads that might result in saving a child or apprehending a pedophile, their efforts should not be frustrated because vital records were destroyed simply because there was no requirement to retain them."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop Online Piracy Act</span> Failed United States bill

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a proposed United States congressional bill to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods. Introduced on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), provisions included the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the websites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites. The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act</span> Unpassed United States bill

The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act is a bill introduced in the United States Congress proposed as an alternative to the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act, by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and Representative Darrell Issa of California, a Republican. The text of the bill is available for public comment at keepthewebopen.com.

There were different but similar copyright bills in the 112th United States Congress: The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate. A typical route for legislation like this is to pass some version in both houses, then refer the two bills to a conference committee, which would produce a single bill likely to pass both houses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ley Sinde</span>

Ley Sinde, is a provision in Spain's Sustainable Economy Act designed to address internet copyright infringements. The bill passed the final legislative hurdle and was made law Friday December 30, 2011. The law created a new intellectual property commission designed to review requests from copyright holders about websites that they claim infringe upon their copyright. The commission has the authority to determine whether to take action against the website or content intermediaries such as the internet service provider (ISP) or hosting provider. The commission's ruling is evaluated by a judge, with the goal of completing the entire review process within 10 days. The law has a provision that also requires content intermediaries to respond more quickly than under previous law: websites determined to be in violation of copyright law must be taken down within 48 hours. Finally, the law has a significant impact on individual privacy rights: it allows impacted parties to seek the identity of those they believe to have infringed on their copyright. This clause reversed precedent set by a 2008 European Court of Justice’s ruling in Promusicae v. Telefónica barring IP holders from demanding the identity of copyright infringers from ISPs. There was strong international pressure, predominantly from the United States, for the creation of this legislation while it was strongly opposed by bloggers, journalists and tech professionals in Spain. Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría said that the aim of the law was "to safeguard intellectual property, boost our culture industries and protect the rights of owners, creators and others in the face of the lucrative plundering of illegal downloading sites."

<i>Copyright Modernization Act</i> 2012 Canadian law

An Act to amend the Copyright Act, also known as Bill C-11 or the Copyright Modernization Act, was introduced in the House of Commons of Canada on September 29, 2011 by Industry Minister Christian Paradis. It was virtually identical to the government's previous attempt to amend the Copyright Act, Bill C-32. Despite receiving unanimous opposition from all other parties, the Conservative Party of Canada was able to pass the bill due to their majority government. The bill received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012 becoming the first update to the Copyright Act since 1997.

<i>Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495</i>

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495, Civil Action No. 11-1741 (JDB/JMF), was a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case in which the court held that anonymous users of the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent could not remain anonymous after charges of copyright infringement were brought against them. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the identities of defendants were publicly exposed.

The Email Privacy Act is a bill introduced in the United States Congress. The bipartisan proposed federal law was sponsored by Representative Kevin Yoder, a Republican from Kansas, and then-Representative Jared Polis, a Democrat of Colorado. The law is designed to update and reform existing online communications law, specifically the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FOSTA-SESTA</span> US communications/sex trafficking bills

FOSTA and SESTA are U.S. Senate and House bills which became law on April 11, 2018. They clarify the country's sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amend the Section 230 safe harbors of the Communications Decency Act to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from its immunity. Senate sponsor Rob Portman had previously led an investigation into the online classifieds service Backpage, and argued that Section 230 was protecting its "unscrupulous business practices" and was not designed to provide immunity to websites that facilitate sex trafficking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020</span> United States law on copyright remedies

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 is a United States law that establishes a small claims court-type system within the United States Copyright Office, known as the Copyright Claims Board, for copyright owners to seek damages under US$30,000 for copyright violations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EARN IT Act</span> Proposed US legislation

The EARN IT Act is a proposed legislation first introduced in 2020 in the United States Congress. It aims to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which allows operators of websites to remove user-posted content that they deem inappropriate, and provides them with immunity from civil lawsuits related to such posting. Section 230 is the only surviving portion of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act". GovTrack.us. Archived from the original on November 21, 2010. Retrieved January 20, 2011.
  2. Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee, Wired, November 18, 2010
  3. "Senator Threatens to Block Online Copyright Bill". Pcworld.com. Retrieved 2012-07-25.
  4. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  5. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  6. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  7. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  8. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  9. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  10. "Read The Bill: S. 3804 - Sep 20, 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  11. COICA Managers Amendment judiciary.senate.gov, archived version of November 6, 2010.
  12. Outcry prompts amendments to online IP protection bill By Jaikumar Vijayan, computerworld.com September 29, 2010
  13. "Who Supports COICA". Global Intellectual Property Center.
  14. "Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement" Bill". eff.org. September 21, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  15. "Victory: Internet Censorship Bill is Delayed, For Now | Electronic Frontier Foundation". Eff.org. September 30, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  16. "Senate panel approves website shut-down bill". ITWorld.com. November 18, 2010.
  17. "U.S. Shuts Down Web Sites in Piracy Crackdown". The New York Times. November 26, 2010.
  18. "U.S. Government Seizes 82 Websites: A Glimpse at the Draconian Future of Copyright Enforcement?". Eff.org. 29 November 2010.
  19. Emspak, Jesse (2010-11-19). "Oregon Senator Opposes Bill That Would Block Web Sites". International Business Times . Archived from the original on 2012-03-19. Retrieved 2010-11-19.
  20. Anderson, Nate (2010-11-20). "Senator: Web Censorship Bill A 'Bunker-Busting Cluster Bomb'". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-07-25.