{"id":18986,"date":"2011-11-04T14:13:19","date_gmt":"2011-11-04T18:13:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-04-03T13:04:04","modified_gmt":"2014-04-03T17:04:04","slug":"growing-chorus-of-opposition-to-stop-online-piracy-act","status":"publish","type":"insight","link":"https:\/\/cdt.org\/insights\/growing-chorus-of-opposition-to-stop-online-piracy-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Growing Chorus of Opposition to “Stop Online Piracy Act”"},"content":{"rendered":"
Reaction to the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) – as well as its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) – has been severe. Here are some of the highlights from the growing chorus of opposition \u2013 in Letters to Congress<\/a>, In the Press<\/a>, in Blog Posts and Statements<\/a>, and in Long-form Analysis<\/a><\/p>\n Here is a list of organizations and individuals<\/a> expressing concern with SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP.<\/p>\n [We have reviewed the bills] and believe that the DNS filtering\/redirection mandates . . . 1) are unlikely to be effective, 2) would negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity<\/span> and Internet functionality, and 3) would delay the full adoption of DNSSEC<\/span> and its security improvements over DNS.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry\u2019s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation\u2019s cybersecurity<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [SOPA<\/span> and PIPA<\/span> threaten to] require web services, like the ones we helped found, to monitor what users link to, or upload. This would have a chilling effect on innovation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Under SOPA<\/span>, the process required to respond to litigation or a complaint would likely absorb an average small host\u2019s entire yearly profit. Given the small business nature of the hosting industry, hosting businesses are not in a position to absorb the litigation costs associated with SOPA<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the ‘prior restraint’ doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In sum, SOPA<\/span> is a dangerous bill. It threatens the most vibrant sector of our economy \u2013 Internet commerce. It is directly at odds with the United States\u2019 foreign policy of Internet openness, a fact that repressive regimes will seize upon to justify their censorship of the Internet. And it violates the First Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As drafted, SOPA<\/span> radically alters digital copyright policy in ways that will be detrimental to online expression, innovation, and security.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n By instituting this practice in the United States, SOPA<\/span> sends an unequivocal message to other nations that it is acceptable to censor speech on the global Internet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is our longstanding dedication to First Amendment rights that drives our opposition to SOPA<\/span>. Navigating the balance between copyright and free speech demands precision, and in seeking to protect the interests of copyright holders, the First Amendment requires Congress to adopt the least restrictive intrusion on speech available.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Global Network Initiative (GNI<\/span>) is concerned that provisions of the proposed U.S. law H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA<\/span>) and related legislation could have dangerous unintended consequences for freedom of expression and economic innovation in the U.S. and around the world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Under this bill, a foreign or domestic Internet site that has broken no\u00a0U.S. law can nevertheless have its economic lifeblood cut off upon a single [allegation] from a copyright or trademark owner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Two provisions of section 201\u2014the definition of willfulness in section 201(c) and the expansion of criminal penalties to public performances in section 201(a)\u2014are troubling. While each provision is problematic in its own right, the two together could threaten important library and educational activities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Online services providing innovative educational content or services require the legal certainty and protections defined in the DMCA<\/span>. The proposed legislation would undermine legal certainty and in turn chill the creation of innovative learning opportunities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We are concerned that some of the measures proposed by this bill and the breadth of its scope could make it more likely to harm consumers\u2019 interests. In particular, we are worried the bill could close off online exchanges that provide lower prices for consumers; reduce online security; and allow for anti-consumer practices by online service providers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Certain of the Act\u2019s provisions would have a dire impact on the socio-\u00adeconomic interests and civil rights of members of various marginalized communities and other underserved intellectual property stakeholders.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unfortunately, the amendments to SOPA<\/span> do not resolve the fundamental flaws in this legislation; the bill will still undermine cybersecurity<\/span> including the robust implementation of DNS Security Extensions, known more commonly as DNSSEC<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Although H.R. 3261 takes aim at the problem of online piracy, its regulatory approach does so in such a way that could threaten many features that make the internet function well and which allow users to access, create, share, and pay for online content.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If passed, they will be devastating to the growth of the Internet economy in the United States, will take jobs overseas and will have a chilling effect on innovation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This legislation, if passed as currently written, would have a chilling effect on the economy of the United States.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Our business model is built on making it extremely easy for small businesses and individuals to affordably create, edit, and manage websites [\u2026] SOPA<\/span> would radically change the landscape and make offering a service like ours impossible, squelching a valuable service and vehicle for free speech.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As a national non-profit that supports artists and arts organizations, we write to you today with concerns regarding legislation currently being considered to deal with websites and services that traffic in the unauthorized distribution of American intellectual property, including copyright. Fractured Atlasr<\/span> epresents<\/span> over 20,000 organizations and individuals from a diverse background that includes performers, filmmakers, musicians, composers, writers and more. We are compelled to weigh in because too often, trade groups representing powerful entertainment conglomerates are seen as speaking for all creators on such crucial issues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n House leaders assured Silicon Valley they would correct serious defects in the Senate bill. Unfortunately,\u00a0SOPA<\/span>\u00a0does just the opposite. . . . If passed, the bill would give media companies unprecedented new powers to shape the structure and content of the Internet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Online piracy is the bane of the Internet. Still, bills proposed in the House and the Senate have overreached. The legislation needs to be tightened to protect intellectual property without hindering online speech and innovation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The potential result [of SOPA<\/span>] is that fewer companies would try to create the next YouTube . . . And there would probably be a chilling effect on speech as sites block some fair uses of copyrighted content just to avoid ending up in court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are times when Silicon Valley really can help you understand the complexities of legislation that will affect the tech industry – and the world economy. The raging debate over the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act is one of those times. . . . It’s not just the future of the industry that’s at stake here. It’s national security.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Congress, under pressure to take action against the theft of intellectual property, is considering misguided legislation that would strengthen China\u2019s Great Firewall and even bring major features of it to America.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Virtually every traditional media company in the United States loudly and enthusiastically supports SOPA<\/span>, but that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s good for the rest of us. The open consumer Web has been a motor of American innovation and the attempt to curtail some of its excesses could throw sand in the works of a big machine on which we have all come to rely.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These bills would go so far to protect copyright that they would strangle the Internet with regulation. The Web would be transformed from a permissive technology where innovation is welcome to one where websites are shut down first, questions asked later.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [SOPA<\/span> pushes stakeholders] even further apart. . . . There’s consensus to be had on combating the likes of The Pirate Bay, but it’s not to be found in HR 3261.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As Internet advocates and leading online companies have been pointing out, the measures have fatal shortcomings. They’re so sloppily drafted that they would expose not merely “rogues” but largely innocent websites such as YouTube and Facebook \u2014 any site, in fact, that allows users to post content online themselves \u2014 to heavy-handed enforcement by government and private entities alike.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The most worrying aspect of these bills is that they would distort the architecture of the internet in ways that would cripple its capacity for enabling innovation \u2013 something that has been eloquently pointed out to senators and congressmen by many of the network’s original architects.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Congress is considering sweeping Internet legislation that purports to target “rogue websites” with the intent of cracking down on the theft of everything from movies to songs to designer handbags. While the goal is laudable, too many innocent websites would wind up in the crosshairs<\/span>. These bills (the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA<\/span>, in the House) would do more harm than good to cybersecurity<\/span>, the Internet economy, and online free expression.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The SOPA<\/span> bill (and DNS blocking) is what happens when someone with the title of anti-piracy or copyright lawyer has greater clout than your head of new technology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA<\/span>) \u2014 a bill currently before the House Judiciary Committee \u2014 is a threat to America\u2019s ability to lead the Internet, and must be defeated before it has a chance to damage America\u2019s ability to generate jobs and economic growth online.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n SOPA<\/span> wouldn\u2019t just be costly and futile: It would deter innovation, interfere with legal speech protected by the First Amendment and (as the geeks at Sandia<\/span> put it) ‘negatively impact US and global cybersecurity<\/span> and Internet functionality.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ‘In China “copyright” is one of many excuses to crack down on political movements,’ a Chinese blogger, Isaac Mao, told us. ‘If a new law like SOPA<\/span> is introduced in the U.S., the Chinese government and official media will use it to support their version of “anti-piracy.”‘<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [SOPA<\/span>] would rope intermediaries into law enforcement to an unprecedented degree, and give rights-holders exceptional power.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The bottom line here is that, as currently drafted, SOPA<\/span> and the PROTECT IP Act have the potential to negatively affect innovation and Internet security, and enshrine into law the principle that a website hosting user-generated content is liable for any infringing content posted to it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It would chip away at critical safeguards that have shaped the Internet as we know it today, and many worry it would make it far more difficult for the next YouTube, Facebook or Craigslist to emerge and succeed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The powers proposed in SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP do not secure the Internet or protect the overwhelming number of U.S. companies, from tech startups to law firms, with IP concerns. Yes, Congress needs to think about how government and industry must cooperate on protecting IP, but it needs to do so in a manner that accepts technological reality and embraces the innovative, entrepreneurial nature of the Internet ecosystem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n SOPA<\/span> targets search engines, Internet service providers, ad networks and payment networks precisely because those components are so central to the functioning of the Internet. Those are digital forces that should be messed with only with the greatest of care.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as ‘domestic’ for U.S. law purposes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a>Letters to Congress<\/h2>\n
Sandia<\/span> National Laboratories: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
83 Internet Inventors and Engineers: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
Nine Major Internet Companies: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
17 Prominent Internet Company Founders: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
Hundreds of CEOs, Founders, Entrepreneurs, and Independent Businesspeople: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
110 Law Professors: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
13 Advocacy and Nonprofit Organizations: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
41 International Human-Rights Groups: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
American Society of News Editors: Letter regardubng<\/span> SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Global Network Initiative:\u00a0Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
CCIA<\/span>,\u00a0NetCoalition<\/span>, and CEA<\/span>:\u00a0Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Library Copyright Alliance:\u00a0Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
104 Educators: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
U.S. Consumer-Rights Groups: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Institute for Intellectual Property & Social Justice: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Vint<\/span> Cerf<\/span>, One of the “Fathers of the Internet”: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Rey Ramsey, CEO, TechNet<\/span>: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
David Ulevitch<\/span>, CEO, OpenDNS<\/span>:\u00a0Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
Andrew Lee, CEO, ESET<\/span> North America:\u00a0Letter regarding SOPA<\/span> and PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
Haroon<\/span> Mokhtarzada<\/span>, CEO, Webs, Inc.: Letter regarding SOPA<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
Adam Huttler<\/span>, Executive Director, Fractured Atlas: Letter regarding PROTECT IP<\/a><\/h4>\n
<\/a>In the Press<\/h2>\n
Larry Downes<\/span>, CNET: SOPA<\/span>: Hollywood’s latest effort to turn back time<\/a><\/h4>\n
Editorial, The New York Times: Going After the Pirates<\/a><\/h4>\n
Editorial, Los Angeles Times: Piracy vs. an open Internet<\/a><\/h4>\n
Editorial, San Jose Mercury News: Congress should kill online piracy bill<\/a><\/h4>\n
Rebecca MacKinnon<\/span>, The New York Times: Stop the Great Firewall of America<\/a><\/h4>\n
David Carr, The New York Times: The Danger of an Attack on Piracy Online<\/a><\/h4>\n
L. Gordon Crovitz<\/span>, Wall Street Journal: Horror Show: Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley<\/a><\/h4>\n
John Healy, Los Angeles Times: A bipartisan attempt to regulate the internet<\/a><\/h4>\n
Michael Hiltzik<\/span>, Los Angeles Times: Big guns take aim at Web piracy<\/a><\/h4>\n
John Naughton<\/span>, The Observer: Sopa<\/span> and Pipa<\/span>: don’t let big business break the internet<\/a><\/h4>\n
David Sohn<\/span> and Andrew McDiarmid<\/span>, The Atlantic: Dangerous Bill Would Threaten Legitimate Websites<\/a><\/h4>\n
Steve Blank, The Atlantic: SOPA<\/span> Is a Symbol of the Movie Industry’s Failure to Innovate<\/a><\/h4>\n
Neil Stevens, The Daily Caller: SOPA<\/span> is a threat to American Internet leadership<\/a><\/h4>\n
Julian Sanchez, New York Post: Killing the Internet to Save Hollywood<\/a><\/h4>\n
Ivan Sigal<\/span> and Rebecca MacKinnon<\/span>, CNN: Online piracy laws must preserve Web freedom<\/a><\/h4>\n
The Economist: Rights and wronged<\/a><\/h4>\n
Alex Howard, O’Reilly<\/span> Radar: Congress considers anti-piracy bills that could cripple Internet industries<\/a><\/h4>\n
James Temple, San Francisco Chronicle: Stop Online Piracy Act would stop online innovation<\/a><\/h4>\n
Chris Bronk<\/span>, Houston Chronicle: The wrong way to stop online piracy<\/a><\/h4>\n
Nancy Scola<\/span>, Salon: Congress seeks to tame the Internet<\/a><\/h4>\n
Michael Geist<\/span>, Toronto Star: Internet belongs to us, U.S. argues <\/a><\/h4>\n
Mark