Copyright bills in the 112th United States Congress

Last updated

There were different but similar copyright bills in the 112th United States Congress: The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate. A typical route for legislation like this is to pass some version in both houses (so called companion bills [1] ), then refer the two bills to a conference committee, which would produce a single bill likely to pass both houses.

Contents

These bills were motivated by concerns of copyright holders that their copyright protection in being undermined by the illegal dissemination of copyrighted information via the Internet. Opponents of the proposed legislation say that the proposed remedies are far worse than the problem they are intended to solve.

Economic impact of SOPA / PIPA

Negative impact on web hosting services

Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon argued that making companies liable for users' actions could have a chilling effect on user-generated sites like YouTube. "The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar". [2] The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned that Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo all seem likely to shut down if the bill becomes law. [3] According to critics, the bill would ban linking to sites deemed offending, even in search results [4] and on services such as Twitter. [5] Many cloud computing and Web hosting services may leave the US to avoid lawsuits. [6]

The Motion Picture Association of America claimed the act's effect on business would be slight, noting that at least 16 countries block websites, and the internet still functions in those countries. [7] Denmark, Finland and Italy blocked The Pirate Bay after courts ruled in favor of music and film industry litigation, and a coalition of film and record companies has threatened to sue British Telecom if it does not follow suit. [8]

A news analysis in the information technology magazine eWeek stated, "The language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the alleged crimes that this bill could effectively kill e-commerce or even normal Internet use. The bill also has grave implications for existing U.S., foreign and international laws and is sure to spend decades in court challenges." [9] It was similarly claimed that, "any US consumer who uses a website overseas immediately gives the US jurisdiction the power to potentially take action against it." [10]

On October 28, 2011, the EFF called the bill a "massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation," and said, "This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed." [11]

Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, stated that "The bill attempts a radical restructuring of the laws governing the Internet," and that "It would undo the legal safe harbors that have allowed a world-leading Internet industry to flourish over the last decade. It would expose legitimate American businesses and innovators to broad and open-ended liability. The result will be more lawsuits, decreased venture capital investment, and fewer new jobs." [12] A similar claim was made by CrowdFlower. [13]

Booz & Company on November 16 released a study, funded by Google, finding that almost all of the 200 venture capitalists and angel investors interviewed would stop funding digital media intermediaries if the House bill becomes law. More than 80 percent said they would rather invest in a risky, weak economy with the current laws than a strong economy with the proposed law in effect. If legal ambiguities were removed and good faith provisions in place, investing would increase by nearly 115 percent. [14]

Civil liberties issues with SOPA / PIPA

There were concerns that the bills were too vague and could be used for prior censorship. If WikiLeaks were accused of distributing copyrighted content, U.S. search engines could be served a court order to block search results pointing to WikiLeaks. Requiring search engines to remove links to an entire website altogether due to an infringing page would raise free speech concerns regarding lawful content hosted elsewhere on the site. [15] proxy servers, such as those used during the Arab Spring, can also be used to thwart copyright enforcement and therefore may be made illegal by the act. [16]

The bills could allegedly be used to block any web site with a page that was identified in the U.K. or France as containing hate speech or violations of celebrities' privacy. [17] 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." [18]

From the other side, the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida stated that free speech was not a relevant consideration, because "The First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks." [12]

Floyd Abrams said “The Protect IP Act neither compels nor prohibits free speech or communication… the bill sets a high bar in defining when a website or domain is eligible for potential actions by the Attorney General…”. [19]

Google chairman Eric Schmidt has stated that the measures called for in the PROTECT IP Act are overly simple solutions to a complex problem, and that the precedent set by pruning DNS entries is bad from the viewpoint of free speech and would be a step toward less permissive Internet environments, such as China's. [20]

A group of Law professors said that the PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy bills could have the opposite of the intended impact, by driving users to unregulated, alternative DNS systems, and it could hinder the government from conducting legitimate Internet regulation. [21] They question the constitutionality of both bills, believing they could have potentially disastrous technical consequences and would make US internet law more like the laws of repressive regimes. [21] Both bills provide "nothing more than ex parte proceedings—proceedings at which only one side (the prosecutor or even a private plaintiff) need present evidence and the operator of the allegedly infringing site need not be present nor even made aware that the action was pending against his or her 'property.' This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." [21]

Technical issues regarding SOPA / PIPA

The DNS filtering provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the Internet", according to whitepaper [22] by five Internet engineers. Other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

One particular concern expressed by network experts was that hackers would offer workarounds to private users to allow access to government-seized sites, but these workarounds might also jeopardize security by redirecting unsuspecting users to scam websites. Supporters of the bill argued that widespread circumvention of the filtering would be unlikely. The DNS provisions were compared to car door locks, noting that while they aren't foolproof against thieves, we should still use them. [27] [28] A browser plugin called MAFIAAFire Redirector already exists that redirects visitors to an alternative domain when a site's primary domain has been seized. The Mozilla Foundation says that United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested by phone that Mozilla remove the plugin, a request with which they have not yet complied. Instead, Mozilla's legal counsel has asked for further information from the DHS, including legal justification for the request. [29]

Related Research Articles

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is a Washington, D.C.–based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organisation that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression. CDT seeks to promote legislation that enables individuals to use the internet for purposes of well-intent, while at the same time reducing its potential for harm. It advocates for transparency, accountability, and limiting the collection of personal information.

Internet censorship in Australia is enforced by both the country's criminal law as well as voluntarily enacted by internet service providers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce content restrictions on Internet content hosted within Australia, and maintain a blocklist of overseas websites which is then provided for use in filtering software. The restrictions focus primarily on child pornography, sexual violence, and other illegal activities, compiled as a result of a consumer complaints process.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Computer & Communications Industry Association</span>

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is an international non-profit advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, United States which represents the information and communications technology industries. According to their site, CCIA "promotes open markets, open systems, open networks, and full, fair, and open competition." Established in 1972, CCIA was active in antitrust cases involving IBM, AT&T and Microsoft, and lobbied for net neutrality, copyright and patent reform and against internet censorship and policies, mergers or other situations that would reduce competition. CCIA released a study it commissioned by an MIT professor, which analyzed the cost of patent trolls to the economy., a study on the economic benefits of Fair Use and has testified before the Senate on limiting government surveillance and on internet censorship as a trade issue.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act</span>

United States Senate Bill S.3804, known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was a bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on September 20, 2010. It proposed amendments to Chapter 113 of Title 18 of the United States Code that would authorize the Attorney General to bring an in rem action against any domain name found "dedicated to infringing activities," as defined within the text of the bill. Upon bringing such an action, and obtaining an order for relief, the registrar of, or registry affiliated with, the infringing domain would be compelled to "suspend operation of and lock the domain name."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Music piracy</span> Copying and distribution of music without the consent of creators or copyright holders

Music piracy is the copying and distributing of recordings of a piece of music for which the rights owners did not give consent. In the contemporary legal environment, it is a form of copyright infringement, which may be either a civil wrong or a crime depending on jurisdiction. The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw much controversy over the ethics of redistributing media content, how much production and distribution companies in the media were losing, and the very scope of what ought to be considered piracy – and cases involving the piracy of music were among the most frequently discussed in the debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT IP Act</span> US Senate Bill

The PROTECT IP Act was a proposed law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S. The bill was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 11 bipartisan co-sponsors. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the bill would cost the federal government $47 million through 2016, to cover enforcement costs and the hiring and training of 22 new special agents and 26 support staff. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, but Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed a hold on it.

Bill S.978 or the Commercial Felony Streaming Act was a bill that was introduced to the United States Senate. It was proposed by Amy Klobuchar, Chris Coons, and John Cornyn on May 12, 2011. It would have been an amendment to US Code Title 18 Section 2319, that would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted material for the purpose of "commercial advantage or personal financial gain", a felony. The penalty could include up to five years of prison-time. The bill defined illegal streaming as streaming ten or more times in a 180-day period. Furthermore, the value of the illegally streamed material would have to be greater than $2,500, or the licensing fees would have to be over $5,000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop Online Piracy Act</span> Failed United States bill

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a proposed United States congressional bill to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods. Introduced on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), provisions included 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 websites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites. The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act</span> Unpassed United States bill

The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act is a bill introduced in the United States Congress proposed as an alternative to the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act, by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and Representative Darrell Issa of California, a Republican. The text of the bill is available for public comment at keepthewebopen.com.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protests against SOPA and PIPA</span> Series of protests in 2012

On January 18, 2012, a series of coordinated protests occurred against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). These followed smaller protests in late 2011. Protests were based on concerns that the bills, intended to provide more robust responses to copyright infringement arising outside the United States, contained measures that could possibly infringe online freedom of speech, websites, and Internet communities. Protesters also argued that there were insufficient safeguards in place to protect sites based upon user-generated content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ley Sinde</span>

Ley Sinde, is a provision in Spain's Sustainable Economy Act designed to address internet copyright infringements. The bill passed the final legislative hurdle and was made law Friday December 30, 2011. The law created a new intellectual property commission designed to review requests from copyright holders about websites that they claim infringe upon their copyright. The commission has the authority to determine whether to take action against the website or content intermediaries such as the internet service provider (ISP) or hosting provider. The commission's ruling is evaluated by a judge, with the goal of completing the entire review process within 10 days. The law has a provision that also requires content intermediaries to respond more quickly than under previous law: websites determined to be in violation of copyright law must be taken down within 48 hours. Finally, the law has a significant impact on individual privacy rights: it allows impacted parties to seek the identity of those they believe to have infringed on their copyright. This clause reversed precedent set by a 2008 European Court of Justice’s ruling in Promusicae v. Telefónica barring IP holders from demanding the identity of copyright infringers from ISPs. There was strong international pressure, predominantly from the United States, for the creation of this legislation while it was strongly opposed by bloggers, journalists and tech professionals in Spain. Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría said that the aim of the law was "to safeguard intellectual property, boost our culture industries and protect the rights of owners, creators and others in the face of the lucrative plundering of illegal downloading sites."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act</span> Unpassed United States bill

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act was a proposed law in the United States which would allow for the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies. The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S. government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattacks.

Domain Name System blocking, or DNS blocking / filtering, is a strategy for making it difficult for users to locate specific domains or websites on the Internet. It was first introduced in 1997 as a means to block spam email from known malicious IP addresses.

Demand Progress is a US-based internet activist-related entity encompassing a 501(c)4 arm sponsored by the Sixteen Thirty Fund and a 501(c)(3) arm sponsored by the New Venture Fund. It specializes in online-intensive and other grassroots activism to support Internet freedom, civil liberties, transparency, and human rights, and in opposition to censorship and corporate control of government. The organization was founded through a petition in opposition to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, sparking the movement that eventually defeated COICA's successor bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act, two highly controversial pieces of United States legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation In Our Sites</span>

Operation In Our Sites is an ongoing effort by the U.S. government's National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center to detect and hinder intellectual property violations on the Internet. Pursuant to this operation, governmental agencies arrest suspects affiliated with the targeted websites and seize their assets including websites' domain names. Web users intending to access targeted websites are directed to the server operated by the U.S. government, and greeted with a graphic bearing the seals of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protecting Lawful Streaming Act</span> United States law prohibiting large-scale streaming of copyrighted material

The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 is a United States law that makes it a felony to engage in large-scale streaming of copyright material. The bill was introduced by Senator Thom Tillis on December 10, 2020. The bill was added to the omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), and is located in Division Q, Title II, § 211 of the CAA. The CAA passed the house and the senate on December 21, 2020, and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 27, 2020.

References

  1. ↑ companion bill Senate Glossary
  2. ↑ Rebecca MacKinnon (November 15, 2011). "Stop the Great Firewall of America". New York Times. Retrieved November 18, 2011.
  3. ↑ Parker Higgins (November 15, 2011). "What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That SOPA Could Put at Risk". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  4. ↑ Corynne McSherry (October 26, 2011). "Disastrous IP Legislation Is Back – And It's Worse than Ever". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  5. ↑ Markham C. Erickson (November 1, 2011). "H.R. 3261, "Stop Online Piracy Act" ("SOPA"): Explanation of Bill and Summary of Concerns" (PDF). NetCoalition. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  6. ↑ Grant Gross (November 15, 2011), Lawmakers seek alternative to Stop Online Piracy Act: Opponents of the legislation also complain that sponsors are railroading it through Congress, Network World, archived from the original on 2012-01-12, retrieved 2011-12-19
  7. ↑ Mike Palmetto (November 18, 2011). "Notes from the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act" . Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  8. ↑ Zack Whittacker (November 4, 2011), British ISP told to block Pirate Bay torrent site, or face court, ZDNet, retrieved 2011-12-19
  9. ↑ Wayne Rash (November 16, 2011). "House SOPA Hearings Reveal Anti-internet Bias on Committee, Witness List". Cloud Computing News. eWeek. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  10. ↑ Dominic Rushe (November 16, 2011), "Sopa condemned by web giants as 'internet blacklist bill': Google, Twitter and eBay say controversial Stop Online Piracy Act would give US authorities too much power over websites", The Guardian, retrieved 2011-12-19
  11. ↑ Corynne McSherry (October 28, 2011). "SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet" . Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  12. 1 2 Nate Anderson (November 16, 2011), At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for "pro-pirate" Google, Ars Technica, retrieved 2011-12-19
  13. ↑ Tim Donnelly (November 17, 2011). "Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA". Inc. Retrieved November 18, 2011.
  14. ↑ "Angel Investors and Venture Capitalists Say They Will Stop Funding Some Internet Start-Up Business Models if Tough New Rules Are Enacted, Finds Booz & Company Study". November 16, 2011. Archived from the original on October 12, 2014. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  15. ↑ Phillips, Abigail (12 May 2011). "The "PROTECT IP" Act: COICA Redux" . Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  16. ↑ Peter Eckersley (November 11, 2011). "Hollywood's New War on Software Freedom and Internet Innovation". Deep Links. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  17. ↑ Jerry Brito (November 7, 2011). "Congress's Piracy Blacklist Plan: A Cure Worse than the Disease?". Time.
  18. ↑ Cynthia Wong (November 18, 2011). "US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights". Center for Democracy and Technology. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  19. ↑ Letter from Floyd Abrams, to Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Senator Hatch, (May 23, 2011), Letter of Support Archived 2012-03-31 at the Wayback Machine (accessed June 23, 2011)
  20. ↑ Halliday, Josh (18 May 2011). "Google boss: anti-piracy laws would be disaster for free speech". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
  21. 1 2 3 Lemley, Mark; Levine, David S.; Post, David G. (December 19, 2011). "Don't Break the Internet". Stanford Law Review. Archived from the original on December 23, 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
  22. ↑ PROTECT IP Technical Whitepaper; May 12, 2011
  23. ↑ Debunking DNS Filtering Concerns; High Tech Forum; June 24, 2011
  24. ↑ Engineers: Protect IP Act would break DNS Archived 2012-05-12 at the Wayback Machine ; PC World - Australia; July 15, 2011
  25. ↑ David Kravets (2011-05-31). "Internet Researchers Decry DNS-Filtering Legislation". Wired.com.
  26. ↑ Declan McCullagh (2011-06-07). "Protect IP copyright bill faces growing criticism". CNet News.
  27. 1 2 Stopping the Pirates Who Roam the Web; The New York Times; June 17, 2011
  28. ↑ Internet Bill Could Help Hackers, Experts Warn Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine ; NationalJournal; July 14, 2011
  29. ↑ Mozilla fights DHS over anti-MPAA, RIAA utility; CNET News; May 6, 2011
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.