Talk:Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Formatting

• Links to the various sections of the USC mentioned in quoted bill text.
• Cleaning up the quoted bill text. I'm not sure if I should paraphrase it, add ellipses for clarity, or leave it raw as is.

Content

• Expansion of the "Public Reaction" section, as well as keeping it up to date with developments.
• An encyclopedic way of talking about the potential consequences of this bill, especially the implication of the secondary list of "alleged" infringing domains.
• Some better non-legalese explanations of the concepts in the bill, especially the implications of brining an action in rem instead of in persona. In short, because the AG can bring the action against the domain name itself, not the registrar, defense of the action becomes somewhat more difficult. Also, the service of process requirements in the bill have some pretty dire consequences - all that is required of the AG is an email notice to the registrar or registry, and a mailed letter (the bill says nothing about requiring certified mail or any other verifiable form of notification). These issues are fairly plain to see for anyone who understands some basic legal concepts, but are probably unfamiliar to the lay reader.
• Contrast to Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement since ACTA is certain to be ratified in 2011 by the USA, EU, and other signatories. ACTA would require laws such as COICA to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Meta

Getting some links to this article so it isn't an orphan. Not sure where to start on that. Getting it into a category for U.S. laws/bills.

anti-piracy bias

Someone's trying to sneak in anti-piracy bias in the article via quotes such as "Public reaction to the bill has been overwhelmingly negative by piracy proponents" and "Numerous petitions have been started in support of the act [11], and at least one online petition to stop the bill has also been started". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.84.150 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a particular IP that's added some clearly POV edits. The reference to the first is synthesis if that at all, and the second link is an online petition. I'll try and NPOV part of that but if that IP makes any additional edits of that nature they need to be discussed first. Shadowjams (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Online petition

Two editors (myself included) question the notability of the online petition against the bill. Hundreds of petitions are started every day. Therefore users wishing to restore this material need to establish notability beforehand. A simple question: How many reliably published, third party sources have covered the petition? Wikispan (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

updating on current status of the bill

I updated it to reflect its final status, of not being passed. I think if anything gets re-introduced it should be included or include a link to this page.

Loosecannon93 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PIPA Copy?

Sounds like one to me... 208.118.153.181 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)