Senators Reintroduce COICA Under New Name, Same Controversial Internet Censorship Directives

BY CCIA Staff
May 12, 2011

Today, the blogosphere has lit up with controversy as the Bill Formerly Known As COICA was reintroduced in the Senate, sporting a new coat of paint and a freshly minted backronym: “the PROTECTIP Act.”  TechDirtPublic KnowledgeProf. Wendy Seltzerthe Technology Liberation FrontCDT, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with a variety of concerns.  CCIA’s statement is here.

By way of background, COICA and its new incarnation represent a different approach to enforcing intellectual property rights online: namely, by the Federal Government mandating which sites U.S. businesses can do business with, and which they cannot.

Under the proposal, the Attorney General may order certain types of businesses to blacklist Internet sites that meet the definition of “dedicated to infringing activities”. There are broad problems with PROTECTIP’s blacklisting strategy, and specific problems with the means by which this dubious strategy is implemented.

Broadly speaking, it is dangerous to endow the Attorney General with the power to banish sites from the Internet, and then erase any evidence of their presence.  Even for unambiguously illegal speech, the open, democratic approach is to penalize the speaker, not obliterate their speech from history.  Technically speaking, it is exceedingly unwise to attempt to achieve this obliteration by meddling with the architecture of the Internet.  PROTECTIP (and COICA before it) appear to equate tearing pages out of the Internet’s phone books – DNS servers – with removing Internet content.  It isn’t equivalent. Making this mistake risks inspiring an arms race over the control of Internet architecture and driving more Internet routing decisions outside of the borders of the United States.

Narrowly speaking, PROTECTIP has some of the same definitional problems that plagued COICA: a broad definition of what is “dedicated to” – which requires neither willful conduct nor any actual infringement by the website. So long as some IP violation is “enabled” or “facilitated” somewhere else, or the site allegedly violates the already controversial anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, they would be subject to banishment.  PROTECTIP also sweeps search engines and other sites into the set of businesses that can be controlled by the Attorney General. The proposed bill uses a very broad term: “information location tools.”  This term appears to include any site using “directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link” to “not serve a hypertext link to such Internet site.”  In short, the Attorney General’s banishment order could be served on any site with a hypertext link.

Ultimately, however, fixing these problems would not get the U.S. Government out of the business of censoring websites – which is an international precedent that we should avoid at all costs.

Related Articles

CCIA, NetChoice Ask To Block Texas Social Media Law From Taking Effect During Appeal

Sep 29, 2022

Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association has asked a federal appeals court to prevent Texas’s controversial social media law from taking effect ahead of a potential Supreme Court hearing of the case. CCIA along with its partner NetChoice argue that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is likely to be overturned because…

CCIA Statement on Florida’s Petition To U.S. Supreme Court In Social Media Law Case

Sep 21, 2022

Washington – Florida has filed a legal brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case challenging its social media law, which an appeals court struck down in May as unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled unanimously in a 3-0 decision that Florida’s social media censorship law violated the First…

CCIA, 31 Other Organizations, Scholars Ask Congress To Oppose Controversial Copyright Proposal, Tech Mandates

Mar 29, 2022

Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association, along with 31 other civil society groups, academics, associations, and companies sent a letter expressing their concerns about legislation that would put the government in charge of creating technical standards and undermine the balance in current law that protects both copyright and innovation, known as the Digital…