A recent House of Representatives bill is causing everyone, from political leaders to technology innovators, to ask the question: what is more important? preventing online piracy or keeping the internet uncensored? The legislation at issue, the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 1361), was introduced on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 in the House of Representatives. Introduced by a bipartisan group, the bill seeks to protect American intellectual property by removing “rogue” sites or websites containing copyright-infringing material from the internet. One of the main aims of the bill is prevent foreign websites from posting or using counterfeit and pirated products. The bill would give the Justice Department the authority to seek injunctions against foreign sites containing pirated material. After presenting evidence, government lawyers have the power to obtain court issued injunctions that would give internet providers 5 days to prevent subscriber access to infringing foreign sites. A similar legislation known as the Protect IP Act was passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee in early 2011, however concerns of free speech violations caused it to be placed on hold by Senator Ron Wyden.
While the Stop Online Piracy Act seeks to protect intellectual property holders, it also gives them a lot of power. The most controversial section of the bill is being referred to as the “E-Parasite Act.” This portion gives intellectual property holders the power to have credit card payment processors, online networks, and other web venues end their connections with these rogue websites. The section permits the government and copy right holders to notify payment processors, advertisers, and other similar groups, of the infringement. After receiving specific facts about the infringed property from the copyright holders, the networks would then be required to take action against the website. The website would only be able to get service restored if they file a counter notification. This process marks a departure from old system where intellectual property holders would have to request their material be taken down. It is this large power that has critics enraged as well as supporters satisfied.
Many of the supporters of the bill see its value in protecting American innovators and jobs. Representative Lamar Smith notes that the bill would ensure that American copyright holders receive their profits while also protecting American citizens. He says “the bill prevents online thieves from selling counterfeit goods in the U.S., expands international protections for intellectual property, and protects American consumers from dangerous counterfeit products. “ Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Goodlattee believes that the bill could help jobs remain in the United States while strengthening protection of American creators and content.
He noted that “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.” In additional to congressional support, the bill has also gained approval from the entertainment and retail industries with the National Music Publishers’ Association calling it an “important bill.”
"The winner will more than likely be the player who can show their view has more answers, more benefits, and more protections."
On the other hand, the opposition believes that the bill is censorship and would have a deadly effect on the internet. Executive director Markham Erickson, of NetCoalition, a group that includes Google and Yahoo, says that while they oppose rogue websites and support the goal of combating online infringement, “we do not believe that the solution lies in regulating the Internet and comprising its stability and security.” The opposition has strong supporters including Representative Zoe Lofgren who believes the bill could be “an end to the internet as we know it.” Many other tech companies, public interest organizations, free-speech advocates, and e-commerce giants oppose the new legislation creating a strong and diverse group.
On purely aspirational level, this bill has good intentions of protecting intellectual property holders. Whether it passes or not will depend on its content and specifically the section that gives copyright holders’ unprecedented power. Similar, the Senate’s Protect IP bill, critics will cite the SOPA as a free speech violation. While there are benefits in the bill, do the benefits outweigh the detriments? If we impose the possibility of foreign injunctions, what would that mean for global relations and the success of American products abroad? While we do not want to censor internet users, the current report and take down method can be argued ineffective. What other solutions are out there? These are some of the major questions facing both the creators of the bill and the opponents. The winner will more than likely be the player who can show their view has more answers, more benefits, and more protections.
Comments
Post new comment