Stop S.O.P.A

SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, respectively. SOPA is short for the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” and PIPA is an acronym for the “Protect IP Act.” ("IP" stands for “intellectual property.”) In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringements committed by foreign websites within the U.S.

Some entrepreneuriallysuccessful online organizations like Google, Yahoo!, eBay,Amazon, and Wikipedia have chosen to oppose these bills by reducing access to their online services.That is because they are concerned that passing these bills in the U.S. parliament will severely inhibit people's access to online information available on the Internet. In contrast, Hollywood, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) strongly supports the passing of both these bills. Also, the bill’s passage is openly supported by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and several law enforcement groups. The question that still remains unclear to many is what do these bills contains that the U.S. entertainment industry remains divided?

First, why are these bills needed? There are already U.S. laws on the books to combat domestic websites trafficking in counterfeit or pirated goods, but there exists little to counter foreign violators. For example, Creative America, a coalition of Hollywood studios, networks and unions, says foreign content theft costs U.S. workers $5.5 billion a year. The pharmaceutical industry loses billions to Internet sellers of drugs that are falsely advertised and may be harmful.These bills are meant to allow the U.S. Justice Department, and copyright holders, to seek court orders against foreign websites accused of perpetrating or facilitating copyright infringement in the U.S.

While there is little the U.S.coulditself do to take down those websites (as they are located in foreign countries), the bills would bar online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as credit card companies and PayPal from doing business with an alleged violators. It also would forbid U.S. search engines, like Google, from linking to such sites. In addition, SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site it links to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put Wikipedia in danger of being forced offline. Thus, these bills save billions of dollars lost by Hollywood and pharmaceutical companies in piracy and thefts each year.

Next, what is the opposition saying? According to the critics of these bills, these bills aremeant to constrain free speech, curtail innovation, and discourage new digital distribution methods. For example, NetCoalition, a group of leading Internet and technology companies, says they could be forced to pre-screen all user comments, pictures, and videos, thereby effectively killing social media. Search engines, Internet service providers, and social networks could also be forced shut down websites linked to any type of pirated content.In addition, critics suggest that young, developing businesses and smaller websites could be saddled with expensive litigation costs. And, they believethat existing rights holders could impede new investment in the technology sector.

According to Michael O’Leary, a senior vice president at the MPAA and a key supporter of the legislation, “we would never support any legislation that would limit the fundamental American rights.” Neither PIPA nor SOPA “implicate free expression but focus solely on illegal conduct, which is not free speech.”

What is happening to these bills right now? The current impetus for the bills has slowed, giving the edge to the Silicon Valley giants over the Hollywood. The bills for sure show the growing ability of online websites to be able to influence the passing of anti-piracy outcomes in the U.S. parliament.

The Senate, as its first major business when it returns to session next Tuesday, is to vote on whether to take up the bill. Sixty votes are needed to clear that legislative hurdle. It is unclear whether supporters have these votes currently. For example, the House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday said it was “pretty clear to many of us that there is a lack of consensus at this point.”At least three Senate Republicans who had previously cosponsored the Senate bill — Orrin Hatch of Utah, Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Boozman of Arkansas — issued statements Wednesday saying they were withdrawing their support.On the House side, Rep. Rick Larsen, Democratic-Washington, issued a statement that he had heard from many of his constituents and come to the conclusion that the House and Senate bills “create unacceptable threats to free speech and free access to the Internet.” Thus, the current impasse might make it difficult to pass these bills.