Opinion: Whose Internet Is It Anyway?

(Dec. 2) -- A few days ago I noticed that some of my favorite websites were gone. When I ventured onto entertainment sites like OnSmash and Dajaz1, which feature the latest music, videos and interviews from music artists, I was greeted by the following ominous notice: "This domain name has been seized by the ICE -- Homeland Security Investigations."

Homeland Security? Was I partaking in some virtual terrorist cell network under the guise of a Rihanna video?

I soon learned these were only a few of the 82 domain names seized by the federal government under the claims that they each engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works.

Speaking on the seizures, Attorney General Eric Holder said: "We have disrupted the sale of thousands of counterfeit items while also cutting off funds to those willing to exploit the ingenuity of others for their own personal gain."

Indeed, many of the sites shut down by the government were big proprietors of Chinese-made counterfeit products. However, what Holder and others fail to note is that some of the sites shut down may not have actually violated any particular laws.

Owners of some of the sites recently shut down -- like OnSmash.com -- have explained that many of the links they made available came straight from the labels that used their forums to promote their respective artists. And when they were sent copyright-infringement notices, they took down the links accordingly.

These were friends to artists, and yet they've been lumped in with Chinese bootleggers, and they weren't even afforded due process.

As troubling as this is, there's far worse to come if COICA becomes law.

COICA stands for Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.

The controversial proposed law -- pushed heavily by representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America -- would let the government snatch away the domains of any website perceived to be aiding in the spread of piracy.

RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol said on the day of the bill's approval by a key Senate committee in mid-November: "Those seeking to thwart this bipartisan bill are protecting online thieves and those who gain pleasure and profit from devaluing American property."

Bainwol grossly misrepresents the position of those against COICA.

Civil liberties groups are accusing COICA of jeopardizing free speech by way of government censorship. Moreover, the language used to do so could lead to a similar fate for unsuspecting sites.

As The Washington Times noted, sites like Google and Bing could technically be taken down under COICA despite not hosting unlawful content because they assist users looking for such material through their respective search engines.

Similarly, Peter Eckersley, a technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote that the bill would likely lead the federal government to discover that "the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky."

No one is defending anyone's right to steal copyrighted material, and it is irresponsible to suggest that those who argue against unethical seizures of property without due process are doing so.

If laws are required to help in the fight to protect intellectual property, so be it. At the same time, it should not come at the expense at of free speech and due process.

If you're going to police the Internet, fine -- but keep everyone's rights in mind.