The Internet is the backbone of everything we love–entertainment, protests, news, and information are mere facets of a medium that unwaveringly grows in both size and influence. That said, it is easy to see how the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Act pose tremendous threats to the free and open communication that defines the Internet.
The stated motive behind of these two dangerous acts is simple and seemingly harmless: private companies want the ability to shut down websites that give people free access to movies, TV shows and music. Since many of these sites are based outside U.S borders, PIPA uses several different tactics in order to shoot down infringing domain.
The proposed acts would have given U.S Internet providers the ability to block violating domain names without any warning or legal recourse. If links to infringing sites are provided on a blog, for example, the relevant parties are able to sue that particular domain until the links are removed. This is incredibly menacing for it can quite easily be stretched to apply to search engines–like Google. Further, PIPA would give the government the right to cut off funds to any infringing websites by forcibly removing any U.S-based endorsements or advertisements from the domain in question.
PIPA’s wording is ambiguous enough that our beloved social networks–and many other trailblazing websites–could easily be labeled as havens for piracy by a judge with an agenda. For example, clips on YouTube filled with copyrighted material could cause problems for YouTube and the author at hand, even if the author did not intend to use such material maliciously. Similarly, SOPA explicitly states that companies will be liable for everything that users post on their sites. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the like would all be responsible for Bob repeatedly referencing his favorite song lyrics in his status updates, video comments, or tweets.
The idea of the government having the ability to deem what is or is not acceptable over the Internet–and then act without due process or recourse–begs the question: how does their power extend? This question is all the more troubling because the decision making power seems to be in the hands of those who frankly have no idea what is going on. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s cluelessness–“what is the difference between an email and a pager”–is typical.
The government already has a fair amount of control over piracy. For example, we have all heard the horror stories of children getting caught for downloading music illegally over LimeWire and similar file-sharing mediums. Authorities can easily shoot down sharing sites that lead to piracy and remove copyrighted material when it does not belong (often, copyrighted audio is removed from YouTube videos that do not have rights to that particular material). But it is entirely possible that neither bill would actually do much to stop piracy. After all, if a website domain name is blocked under either bill, it is still directly accessible through the site’s IP address.
Luckily, massive mobilization efforts across the Internet have taken some of the wind out of the proposed legislation. FightForTheFuture’s online petition was able to garner an incredible 10,000,000 signatures and generate 3,000,000 emails. Over 150,000 websites participated in an “online black out” that included popular sites like Wikipedia and Reddit. Other sites, like Google, added awareness raising banners that encouraged users to preserve Internet freedom by opposing the pending legislation.
This massive mobilization has apparently paid off. After the Obama administration announced their opposition to the bills by issuing a formal veto threat, Congress shelved SOPA—which put off action on the bill indefinitely (at least in its current form).
As of January 20, Texas Representative Lamar Smith (the author of SOPA) said that he is postponing consideration of the bill in response to the widespread criticism that the bill would lead to censorship. Rep. Smith admitted that “it is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how to best address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.” Proponents of the Protect IP Act followed suit; Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared that he would halt consideration of measure.
It appears as if Congress has realized that people care about this issue much more than they had initially thought, as momentum on both bills has slowed considerably and the White House Technology policy team has spoken out against them stating that “While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cyber security risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet” [Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet: Espinel, Chopra, and Schmidt].
Although it is possible that revised version of either bill could arise in the future, it seems that both the public and Congress have realized the stifling implications of passing such a bill.
