Newsweek article When the Obama administration blocked a number of websites for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it did so in a coordinated fashion.
The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission were working together to shut down dozens of sites that violated the law.
The companies were being shut down as a result of an agreement signed last summer, in which Google and Yahoo agreed to give up their ability to monitor online content for anti-competitive reasons.
The move was intended to protect consumers and to curb piracy.
However, some experts believe that it has done more harm than good.
“The idea that you can shut down a number or a set of sites in order to protect the consumer is actually a dangerous thing,” says Andrew Stigler, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“It’s very easy to see how this could be used to take away your ability to do business online.
The idea that they could have shut down sites for all sorts of reasons is really dangerous.”
The issue was a hot topic at the time, with the Obama White House saying it would protect consumers’ right to freely browse the Internet.
It was also an issue that had the potential to be the focus of a court challenge.
A number of states and internet service providers (ISPs) argued that blocking websites that were being used to distribute illegal copies of movies and TV shows was a violation of the DMCA.
The court ruled that the companies did not have the authority to block sites.
The ruling was a victory for Internet users, who said that the Obama Administration had gone too far.
“This is a victory in the fight against piracy,” said Jennifer Lynch, the president of Demand Progress, an advocacy group that helped draft the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFFA).
“This decision will make it much easier for people to access the internet safely.”
The U.K. has been on the front line of the battle against piracy, as well.
In the past year, the country has been hit by a wave of online copyright infringement and cyber-attacks.
While piracy on the web has been a huge problem for many people, the digital rights group Fight for the Future has argued that it was also harming the economy.
The group is challenging the government’s decision to shut sites down.
The EFF filed a motion to intervene in the case, which the Department of Commerce responded to by saying that the decision had no effect on the court’s decision.
The case is currently in the appeals process, which means that it will likely take months before the case is decided.
The administration has made some concessions in the wake of the court ruling, which included allowing the courts to hear petitions for rehearing.
However a key sticking point has been the removal of the requirement that companies pay for the privilege of operating in the U., a measure that is currently limited to those that operate in the United States.
That would likely cost Google and other tech companies millions of dollars in legal fees.
The White House is expected to make a decision on the appeal next month.
What is the Digital Rights Management Act?
Digital Rights management is a type of legislation that allows Internet service providers to set up a process for protecting their users’ rights online.
In a nutshell, it would allow internet service companies to set rules about what content users can access and when they can access it, and it would give users the ability to block or block content they don’t want to see.
The Digital Rights Manager is a government-backed entity that provides a way for internet service users to control how their internet is used.
Under the Digital Manager system, ISPs can establish their own rules for what content they can and can’t host on their networks, which could potentially have a chilling effect on some types of online speech.
However the Digital Protection Group, an organization that has been tracking the implementation of the Digital Protect Act, has criticized the Digital Manger for not being able to protect users from certain types of content, like piracy.
A recent report by the Center for Democracy and Technology estimated that the Digital manger could cost US ISPs $250 million per year.
The bill has passed through Congress, but is still in limbo.
A major hurdle is the fact that the bill is currently being drafted and signed into law by the President, but it has yet to be passed by Congress.
What does this mean for the future of the internet?
While the Obama administrations decision to block websites for copyright violations may be viewed as a victory, it could have serious consequences for the internet in the years ahead.
“We need to continue to fight for net neutrality, for privacy, for free speech, for the freedom to be able to do what we want on the internet, and for freedom to access and communicate online,” said Jessica Rich, director of government relations at Fight for Free Speech, in an interview with Motherboard.
“When the Internet becomes the government of the future, then we will need to be ready