Everyone scoffs at adverts before movies warning viewers of the seriousness of electronic piracy. Are SOPA and PIPA – two pieces of federal legislation aimed at combating this problem – the teeth that officials need to reduce piracy or do they go too far in limiting the freedom of internet users? (note: much of the following information was taken from http://bit.ly/zCsGDg)
So what exactly are SOPA and PIPA?
Media companies are always looking for new ways to fight piracy. They've tried suing individual users, getting Internet service providers to take action against subscribers, and working with the U.S. government to shut down domains based in the United States. But none of those actions can stop overseas websites like The Pirate Bay and MegaUpload from infringing copyrights, or prevent Internet users from accessing those sites.
Enter SOPA, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PIPA, in the U.S. Senate. Both bills are aimed at foreign websites that infringe copyrighted material. The bills are commonly associated with media piracy, but may also apply to counterfeit consumer goods and medication.
Originally, both bills provided two methods for fighting copyright infringement on foreign websites. In one method, the U.S. Department of Justice could seek court orders requiring Internet service providers to block the domain names of infringing sites. For example, Comcast could prevent its customers from accessing thepiratebay.org, although the underlying IP address would still be reachable. This ISP-blocking provision was a major concern among Internet security experts, and both SOPA and PIPA have dropped it.
The other tool would allow rights holders to seek court orders requiring payment providers, advertisers, and search engines to stop doing business with an infringing site. In other words, rights holders would be able to request that funding be cut off from an infringing site, and that search links to that site be removed. The site in question would have five days to appeal any action taken.
Although the House and Senate bills are similar, SOPA is the more extreme of the two. It defines a "foreign infringing site" as any site that is "committing or facilitating" copyright infringement, whereas PIPA is limited to sites with "no significant use other than" copyright infringement.
Arguments Against SOPA and PIPA
Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither piece of legislation does enough to protect against false accusations. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues, provisions in the bill grant immunity to payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites based on a reasonable belief of infringement, so even if claims turn out to be false, only the site suffers. Because this can get pretty technical, I'd suggest checking out the PCworld.com link above for more details on this.
Meanwhile, sites that host user-generated content will be under pressure to closely monitor users' behavior. That monitoring already happens on larger sites such as YouTube, but it could be a huge liability for startups, the EFF argues.
Arguments For SOPA and PIPA
SOPA and PIPA supporters argue that tales of a broken Internet are overblown. Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, writes that SOPA clearly defines infringing sites based on Supreme Court holdings and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and requires rights holders to follow a strict set of rules when trying to get payment cut off to an infringing site.
What’s Next?
Support for both bills has waned this week. The authors of the bill have decided to remove the provisions that require Internet service providers to block the domain names of infringing sites. SOPA, has stalled. Voting on PIPA, however, is scheduled to begin in the Senate on January 24
The Takeaway: The idea behind SOPA and PIPA – that copyrighted content shouldn’t be stolen – is a good one. Unfortunately, the way that SOPA and PIPA are written, there could be serious unintended consequences if they were passed. It was only a matter of time until issues like ownership and free-access collided in the cyber world. Moving forward, this struggle will most likely continue, albeit in different forms. However, for now it seems that SOPA and PIPA will not pass.
These bills seem to be dying, and good riddance! SOPA and PIPA aim to take away much more than just sites that violate copyright content, they aid in media companies taking control of...well... media! The RIAA and MPAA provide support to these bills because the big time record labels have suffered GREAT financial losses with the growth of the Internet. These major media companies seek to regain control of the industry by any means necessary and look to Congress to aid in their fight. So the question is... haven't the artists lost money too?? I would say no. Artists make most money off touring and merchandise at shows, not necessarily the records (unless they’re going platinum). It’s an easy argument to say they have made more with the ability to spread their names around. With these websites and freelance media efforts, countless numbers of artists have been discovered. These bills being put through Congress could greatly dampen the amount of artists being discovered via the Internet. In my opinion we as consumers, artists, and people lose more of our rights by letting these bills pass.
ReplyDelete