Today the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, that so many rely on for its expediency and wealth of information, went dark for the duration of the day in an effort to protest the anti-piracy bills, SOPA and PIPA. Students crashing last-minute papers are most certainly missing it right about now.
Wikipedia, Google, Wired, TwitPic, Reddit, Flicker, WordPress, along with many others sites, also blacked out pages and temporarily shut down. Even LOL cats are protesting! These websites argue innovation, free speech, and the promotion of new technology will be crippled if the bills are passed. Techies are worried this kind of legislation could allow feds to shutdown sites without due process, potentially limiting the Internet's collective ability to provide a platform for free speech.
SOPA, which stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, an acronym for Protect IP Act, are working their way through Congress in an effort to eradicate online piracy and infringement. In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was put into effect with the purpose of making copyright infringement illegal. But the act does not protect against overseas sites. Each year, the American people pay the price for such infringements in the ballpark of billions of dollars. These two bills are aimed at stopping the illegal downloads and streaming of movies and TV shows.
Expectedly, Motion Picture Association of America which advocates to protect the intellectual property of its members who include Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., to name a few, is in full support of SOPA.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: MSNBC.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and Comcast/NBC Universal. Microsoft publicly opposes SOPA in its current form, while Comcast/NBC Universal is listed as a supporter of SOPA on the House Judiciary Committee website.)
Chairmen and CEO of MPAA, former Senator Chris Dodd, referred to websites blacking out their pages as an "abuse of power."
"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today," said Dodd in a statement. "It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg fiercely opposes the bills. He released his own statement, posted to his Facebook wall, of course:
The Internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can't let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the Internet's development. Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the Internet. The world today needs political leaders who are pro-Internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-Internet.
In lieu of the massive web blackout, support for SOPA and PIPA appears to be waning. MSNBC.com reported at least six lawmakers dropped their support of the bills, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a PIPA co-sponsor.
Many more lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed their opposition via Twitter. Finally, something they can agree upon.
Do you support SOPA and PIPA? Give us your take in the comment section below or tweet us.
— By Bonnie Jordan
Leave a Comment:
In my humble opinion, anyone who writes an art piece, a song or poem or makes a movie, publishes it for profit. And he gets that profit the first thirty days of publishing it. Once a consumer buys the product, the price of the product is supposed to have a markup for profit. The designer, or the artist should have no more rights to it. Possession is 9 parts of the law. The person who bought the product should have the right to do with it as he or she pleases. They is nothing to writing a law that says the piece should stay away from the internet for at least a year but if it is allowed in the internet then it is free. The internet user pays for internet, and still get bombarded with commercials. I think that production companies can keep their work out of the internet but they leave it even they themselves providing the medium to downloads just to have the right to sue for money. If they want to they can demand the provider to keep to close the site and art work out of the internet, but if it in the internet then it should be FREE. Otherwise is it entrapment.
This is Great! Good Job Chris!
Ditto.
Good job Chris.
The current intellectual property protection process is as follows.
This process is not broken. It works just fine. Ignorant people don't know that. It is not complicated.
The whois service can be used to identify the site owner (http://www.whois.net/).
You can consult cybercrime.gov to locate an enforcement branch if the site owner does not cooperate (http://www.cybercrime.gov/reporting.htm). Sites that are personally owned can be discussed with the district attorney identified using the whois service. If the site is incorporated, then the Secretary of State can also be contacted for the corporation. The site must have an internet service provider, which can be identified using whois service on the raw IP address. ISPs always cooperate because the FCC can pull their plug.
Most countries have similar law enforcement organizations.
Site owners in countries without copyright laws don't always respect this (I'm looking at you Mexico). Luckily, that includes only a few English speaking countries.
If you are an author and your work is pulled down, there are many free services that allow you to administer your own site so that will not happen again. Unfortunately, that would put you in direct contact with law enforcement if someone gets serious. Best to incorporate if you do this.
Internet censorship is not the answer because that has consistently started flame wars since before public access first began.
PIPA and SOPA would add no value to this existing infrastructure, but it would motivate some very bright people that are currently not breaking the law to do so in a big way.
Forgot to mention accountability.
For privately published copyrighted material - must request permission from the author and follow their wishes when posting. Generally OK to post material on a site if you own the site when the author fails to respond within a week.
For digital items published on the web at no cost - must cite the source and clearly identify the author for any "borrowed" material (traceability). Generally a bad idea to borrow entire unaltered original works. Generally OK if minor items are used.
For open source - courtesy demands that the author be credited if possible, but open source items are generally free to use without restriction depending on licensing entitlement.
Generally safe if disputed material is pulled down within 48 hours after being contacted by the author with a protest. You might get a temporary reprieve if you demand proof of identity and ownership traceability before pulling down the material. People that fail to file with USPTO or copyright will not be able to defend their work.
Serious work requires web authors to keep a list of references for material posted in a public forum.
Blogger allows private forums were copyright is not going to be an issue when you have a private audience.
The people spoke. And finally, congress listened.