What’s SOPA Wrong With PIPA Anyway?
—-Update—–
When I decided to feature SOPA and PIPA as this month’s blog topic, there was still uncertainty about the future of the bills. However, while in the process of writing this post, President Obama spoke out against SOPA and promised to veto the legislation if it passed. As a result of the overwhelming opposition, Representative Eric Cantor(R-VA) announced he will stop all action on SOPA. As PIPA still remains active in the Senate, and SOPA is technically still in Committee, I decided to continue with this month’s post.
—–End Update—–
Unless you live under a rock or are new to the internet (in which case, welcome! Websites require a toll, so send that check on over), chances are you have heard about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). The bills have generated much heated discussion on both sides of the issue, and numerous rumors have circulated regarding the bill’s provisions. Amidst all the buzz and confusion, you might not know what to think. Perhaps you do not even understand what the bills say, and I assure you, you are not alone. So, let’s start by taking a look.
Background
SOPA, known as House Bill 3261, was introduced in the US House of Representatives on October 26, 2011 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and 12 additional co-sponsors. As may be inferred from its name, the Stop Online Piracy Act was designed to combat online piracy. The bill would authorize United States Attorney General (AG) and proprietary right holders to obtain a court order against a foreign Internet site targeting the U.S. (e.g. Pirate Bay, WikiLeaks) and displaying pirated content requiring the site to cease and desist its activities. The court order would also require internet search engines to cease linking to the “infringing site”, prohibit payment network providers (e.g. PayPal) and online advertising networks from providing their services to the “infringing site”, and compel internet service providers to block their subscribers from accessing the “infringing site”. SOPA contains a provision that holds copyright holders responsible for damages, costs and attorney’s fees if they knowingly misrepresent a site as infringing their content.
SOPA also applies the above provisions regarding withholding services to any site that takes “deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability” that its site will be used for copyright infringement. This section is vague and could theoretically be used against sites such as YouTube where users could post pirated content without YouTube’s consent.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have been two of SOPA’s biggest supporters, undoubtedly because it is their members’ content that is being pirated. GoDaddy initially supported the bill, but renounced its support after customers – including LegalJunck – transferred over 100,000 domains to other providers.
Some of SOPA’s more vocal opponents include Twitter, Yahoo!, LinkedIn, ebay, Mozilla, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Wikimedia, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), AOL, and Human Rights Watch, but SOPA has many, many others not listed here (a recent POPVOX poll had 2% for, 98% against the bill). Wikipedia and Reddit have organized a “blackout”on January 18, 2012, during which many websites will not be available in protest of SOPA and PIPA. LegalJunck will be participating in the blackout and will not be accessible on the 18th.
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
The Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) is the sister bill to SOPA. PIPA is also known as Senate Bill 968 and was introduced in the U.S. Senate on May 12, 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 11 cosponsors. PIPA has the same goal as SOPA – to combat online piracy – but a slightly different means of reaching that goal. PIPA is often referred to as “SOPA lite” because some feel its provisions are less drastic than SOPA’s. PIPA does not include the requirement that internet search engines cease linking to the “infringing site”. However, PIPA does prohibit payment network providers and internet advertising providers from doing business with “infringing sites”. Further, PIPA also compels internet service providers in America to block access to the infringing site, like SOPA. And, unlike SOPA, PIPA does not penalize copyright holders who materially misrepresent the infringement of a site. In short, the bills are not exactly the same, but are similar enough to merit the same treatment.
Real World Application
So, what’s the big deal? Now that we have reviewed the legislation, you may be wondering why so many oppose SOPA and PIPA.
SOPA and PIPA have the power to shut down a website for infringing content, or a single infringing link. Even if another party posted infringing content on your site, without your permission, your site could qualify as an enabler of copyright infringement under SOPA and PIPA. If the bills were to pass, you may soon find your favorite sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Yahoo!, sites where millions of users are free to post content, shut down. Both small and major businesses alike could potentially suffer devastating economic hardship.
Not only do SOPA and PIPA have the power to shut down a site, but in doing so they deny the site owner due process. “Due process” is one of those legal buzzwords you may have heard before. It requires U.S. citizens to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before they are denied of life, liberty or property. SOPA and PIPA both allow the Attorney General or an owner of infringed content to obtain a court order requiring an internet service provider to block access to a site without offering the site owner a chance to be heard or appeal.
Further, there are numerous copyright infringement laws that have already been enacted. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) already provides a procedure for copyright holders to request online service providers block access to content that infringes their copyright. The DMCA is not a perfect law, however, Congress should focus on redrafting it before it creates new and ridiculous laws. SOPA and PIPA are essentially unnecessary.
Online copyright infringement is certainly a problem and we do need a reasonable solution. But SOPA and PIPA are not the answer. United States law enforcement has no authority to remove foreign websites that display pirated content, so instead Congress sought to block U.S. citizens from accessing the infringing websites or other sites that supposedly support the infringement. However, the problem still exists. That foreign website that you can no longer access is still displaying pirated content. Copyrights are still being infringed.
Image by ~C4Chaos via Flickr
We need a solution to copyright infringement, but unwarranted internet censorship is not it. Contact your Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel.
Trackbacks