U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

October 27, 2011 -

On Wednesday Lawmakers in the United States introduced "The Stop Online Piracy Act," a bill that would give the government the ability to block web sites in the United States and abroad who traffic in counterfeit goods, illegal software, and other copyrighted goods.

The bill has managed to garner bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and is a tweaked version of a bill introduced in the Senate in May called the "Theft of Intellectual Property Act" or "Protect IP Act." Naturally the bill has the support of movie studios, the music industry, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and many other lobbyists groups.

It does not have the support of digital rights and free speech advocacy groups because it allows law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to unilaterally shut down access to website here and abroad, without due process.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) thinks the bill is important. He claims that it "helps stop the flow of revenue to rogue websites and ensures that the profits from American innovations go to American innovators.

"Rogue websites that steal and sell American innovations have operated with impunity," Smith said in a statement. "The online thieves who run these foreign websites are out of the reach of US law enforcement agencies and profit from selling pirated goods without any legal consequences. The bill prevents online thieves from selling counterfeit goods in the US, expands international protections for intellectual property, and protects American consumers from dangerous counterfeit products.

Bill co-sponsor Howard Berman (D-California) says it is "an important next step in the fight against digital theft and sends a strong message that the United States will not waiver in our battle to protect America's creators and innovators."

The Center for Democracy and Technology said the House bill "raises serious red flags" because it contains "the most controversial parts of the Senate's Protect IP Act, but radically expands the scope. They claim that "any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs."

"Internet Service Providers would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior," the CDT said in a statement. "Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rightsholders allege hasn't done enough to police infringement. The bill represents a serious threat to online innovation and to legitimate online communications tools."

The House Judiciary Committee is to hold a hearing on the bill November 16.

Source: Breitbart

Image provided by Shutterstock.com. All rights reserved.

 


Comments

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

America, police of the world!

America, everything is ours (and our lobbyist!)

What I want to know is why when they made three branches of government, they never took under consideration that they could all be bought at the same time...

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

Well that is it lets pack up and go back to the cave!


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

Yes so where is the bill that lets them shut down the entire shopping mall because one guy decides to sell burned CDs out back? 

This gives plenty of ways to just destroy online businesses in general.  I mean find one person out of thousands selling the wrong thing, or posting the wrong thing, and there goes the site.  You know larger companies would hire someone just to scan competitors sites for things like that.


Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

They already have that power. It is called civil forfeiture and it is abused regularly. Just ask this motel owner:

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_19181168

The government is attempting to seize his motel because some people decided to hold a drug deal there. He was not a party to it, but because it happened there, he is on the hook.

The government is not above taking the property of people who do no crime.

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

I could see someone taking these transcripts to a judge when the law is challenged by pointing to block of non-commercial sites and saying 'see, lawmakers intended this to be used against people SELLING counterfit goods, so use on free sites is not intended!'

Grr... the spell check in this box is rapidly making it annoying to post on GP....

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

Do you feel that your speech is discriminated against by the little red lines? lol

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

so basically they'd need to shut down the entire web, especially art, social, and news sites that repeatedly post and repost copyrighted materials..

this would also make amazon and ebay illegal wouldn't it?

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

...allows law enforcement agencies in the U.S. unilaterally shut down access to website here and abroad, without due process.

Not that they have not been doing this already, of course, what with arbitrarily shutting down websites with .com, .net, and .org domains - regardless of whether or not they infringed or were deemed legal in their host countries such as España. We'll also ignore the broad-reach that it employs. No, sir, I cannot support this bill. Strike it down hard.

----
Papa Midnight

Re: U.S. Congress Introduces 'The Stop Online Piracy Act'

Good thing we've got Ron Wyden in our corner.  Come on Ron, block this one too!

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenNow, having said that, what sites are you reading that are claiming that if "you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem" or that gamers are "obligated to stop harassment"? Or was that hyperbole too?09/21/2014 - 1:03am
Andrew EisenFirst of all, ONE person in the Shout box suggested an obligation to call harassers out on their harassing but only after YOU brought it up. Plus, Techno said "when you see it happening." If you don't see it, you're not under any obligation.09/21/2014 - 1:02am
Sleaker@Craig R. - at this point I don't even know what the hashtags are suppsed to be in support of. what does GamerGate actually signify.09/21/2014 - 12:21am
Sleaker@AE - Hyperbole for the first 2, but it seems like some of the comments in the shout are attempting to place blame on fellow gamers because they aren't actively telling people to stop harassing even though they don't necessarily know anyone that has.09/21/2014 - 12:16am
Andrew EisenSleaker - Who the heck are you reading that is claiming "all gamers are bad," we "need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers," that if "you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem," or that gamers are "obligated to stop harassment"?09/20/2014 - 9:44pm
erthwjimhe swatted more than just krebs, I think he swatted 30 people http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/teen-arrested-for-30-swattings-bomb-threats/09/20/2014 - 9:31pm
Craig R.Btw, the guy who swatted security expert Brian Krebs? He got picked up recently. It can be done.09/20/2014 - 8:55pm
Craig R.Such things are not done in a vacuum... hence why the 4chan and other logs show what fools you've all been, tricked into doing the trolls' work09/20/2014 - 8:49pm
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician