Stop Online Piracy Act
The \\\'\\\'\\\'Stop Online Piracy Act\\\'\\\'\\\' (\\\'\\\'\\\'SOPA\\\'\\\'\\\')(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJyhPlbTf-g) is a United States bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Provisions include the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the sites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the sites. The law would expand existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison. A similar bill in the U.S. Senate is titled the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).
Proponents of the legislation state it will protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites. Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated sites, and citing examples of \\\"active promotion of rogue websites\\\" by U.S. search engines, proponents assert stronger enforcement tools are needed.
Opponents state the proposed legislation threatens free speech and innovation, and enables law enforcement to block access to entire internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. They have raised concerns that SOPA would bypass the \\\"safe harbor\\\" protections from liability presently afforded to Internet sites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Library associations have expressed concerns that the legislation\\\'s emphasis on stronger copyright enforcement would expose libraries to prosecution. Other opponents state that requiring search engines to delete a domain name could begin a worldwide arms race of unprecedented censorship of the Web and violates the First Amendment.
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia, Reddit, and an estimated 7,000 other smaller websites coordinated a service blackout, or posted links and images in protest against SOPA and PIPA, in an effort to raise awareness. In excess of 160 million people viewed Wikipedia\\\'s banner. A number of other protest actions were organized, including petition drives, with Google stating it collected over 7 million signatures, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and a rally held in New York City.
In response to the protest actions, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stated, \\\"It\\\'s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users and arm them with misinformation\\\", and \\\"it\\\'s very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform.\\\"
The sites of several pro-SOPA organizations such as RIAA, CBS.com, and others were slowed or shut down with denial of service attacks started on January 19. Self-proclaimed members of the \\\"hacktivist\\\" group Anonymous claimed responsibility and stated the attacks were a protest of both SOPA and the United States Department of Justice\\\'s shutdown of Megaupload on that same day.
Contents
Overview
List of legislators who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA
Bill 3261 or USBill, is a proposed law that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. Presented to the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).
The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringementHow?. A court order requested by the DOJ could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from conducting business with websites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual-property laws, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites.
The bill establishes a two-step process for intellectual property-rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.
The second section covers penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials, or consumer goods. The bill would increase penalties and expand copyright offenses to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content and other intellectual-property offenses. The bill would criminalize unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months.
The bill provides immunity from liability to the ad and payment networks that comply with this Act or that take voluntary action to sever ties to such sites. Any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is involved in copyright infringement would be liable for damages.
Supporters of the bill include the Motion Picture Association of America, pharmaceuticals makers, media businesses, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They state it protects the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites. They cite examples such as Google\\\'s $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.
Opponents state that it violates the First Amendment, will cripple the Internet.
In October, 2011, co-sponsor Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee\\\'s Intellectual Property sub-panel, told \\\'\\\'The Hill\\\'\\\' that SOPA is a rewrite of the Senate\\\'s bill that addresses some tech-industry concerns, noting that under the House version of the legislation copyright holders won\\\'t be able to directly sue intermediaries such as search engines to block infringing websites and would instead need a court\\\'s approval before taking action against third parties.
Manager\\\'s amendment
On December 12, 2011 a revised version of the bill was tabled. Titled the \\\"Manager\\\'s Amendment\\\", it contained a number of changes in response to criticism of the original. As part of the revisions, the definition of sites that might be subject to enforcement was narrowed: the amendment limited such actions to sites that are designed or operated with the intent to promote copyright infringement, and it now only applies to non-US sites.
Goals
Protecting intellectual property of content creators
According to Rep. Goodlatte, \\\"Intellectual property is one of America\\\'s chief job creators and competitive advantages in the global marketplace, yet American inventors, authors, and entrepreneurs have been forced to stand by and watch as their works are stolen by foreign infringers beyond the reach of current U.S. laws. This legislation will update the laws to ensure that the economic incentives our Framers enshrined in the Constitution over 220 years ago—to encourage new writings, research, products and services— remain effective in the 21st century\\\'s global marketplace, which will create more American jobs.\\\"
Rights holders see intermediaries—the companies who host, link to, and provide e-commerce around the content—as the only accessible defendants.
Sponsor Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said, \\\"Millions of American jobs hang in the balance, and our efforts to protect America\\\'s intellectual property are critical to our economy\\\'s long-term success.\\\" Smith added, \\\"The Stop Online Piracy Act helps stop the flow of revenue to rogue websites and ensures that the profits from American innovations go to American innovators.\\\"
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) representative who testified before the committee said that the motion picture and film industry supported two million jobs and 95,000 small businesses.
Protection against counterfeit drugs
Pfizer spokesman John Clark testified that patients could not always detect cleverly forged websites selling drugs that were either mis-branded or simply counterfeit.
RxRights, a consumer-advocacy group, issued a statement saying that Clark failed \\\"to acknowledge that there are Canadian and other international pharmacies that do disclose where they are located, require a valid doctor\\\'s prescription and sell safe, brand-name medications produced by the same leading manufacturers as prescription medications sold in the U.S.\\\" They had earlier said that SOPA \\\"fails to distinguish between counterfeit and genuine pharmacies\\\" and would prevent American patients from ordering their medications from Canadian pharmacies online.
Bill sponsor Smith accused Google of obstructing the bill, citing its $500 million settlement with the DOJ on charges that it allowed ads from Canadian pharmacies, leading to illegal imports of prescription drugs. Shipment of prescription drugs from foreign pharmacies to customers in the US typically violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act.
Impact on online freedom of speech
See also
Mentioned on the Texas Insider, President Obama \\\"will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression\\\", said interviewer Jay Carney.~
On \\\'\\\'TIME\\\'\\\'\\\'s \\\'\\\'Techland blog\\\'\\\', Jerry Brito wrote, \\\"Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities\\\' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech?\\\" Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology warned, \\\"If SOPA and PIPA are enacted, the US government must be prepared for other governments to follow suit, in service to whatever social policies they believe are important—whether restricting hate speech, insults to public officials, or political dissent.\\\"
Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would \\\"undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment\\\".
The AFL-CIO\\\'s Paul Almeida, arguing in favor of SOPA, has stated that free speech was not a relevant consideration, because \\\"Freedom of speech is not the same as lawlessness on the Internet. There is no inconsistency between protecting an open Internet and safeguarding intellectual property. Protecting intellectual property is not the same as censorship; the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks.\\\"
Autocratic countries
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, proxy servers, such as those used during the Arab Spring, can also be used to thwart copyright enforcement and therefore may be regulated by the act.
John Palfrey, co-director of the [[Berkman Center for Internet
