8/13/2019 The Call to Stop PIPA and SOPA

1/1

1Protect IP Act of 2011. Retrieved at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf

2Stop Online Piracy Act. 2011. Retrieved at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

Laurice Nicole P. Villarino | 10-1138 | Scl

The Call to Stop PIPA and SOPA

PIPA (PROTECT IP / The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity Intellectual

Property Act of 2011) and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) gained public interest when both bills were first

introduced to the public in 2011; PIPA on May 12, 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy and SOPA on October 26, 2011

by US Rep. Lamar Smith. Essentially, the foremost objective of both bills is to combat online piracy. However

constructive the Senates and House of Representatives intentions were, both bills sparked controversy because

the public and the Internet community strongly opposed the provisions therein.

According to Sec 3 of PIPA1, the Attorney General is allowed to file a suit against (A) a registrant of a

nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or (B) an owner or operator

of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name. In case the

court finds no person to be held liable, they can initiate an in rem action against the nondomestic domain. [See

Sec 3 (a)]. The nondomestic domain name then will be barred from public access. Intermediary parties such as

Financial Transaction Providers, Internet Advertising Services, and Information Location Toolswill also be asked

to suspend their services to the accused site.

Meanwhile, critics say that SOPA is the worse version PIPA. Under SOPA, the Attorney General and the

Rights Holder have the power to file a complaint against sites they deem as those that engage in, enable, orfacilitate intellectual property infringement even without court hearing. Unlike the previous anti -online piracy laws,

the Rights Holder can now ask a website to be shut down if he/she believes that it commits intellectual property

theft. He/she can order the Internet Service Providers to prevent access by its subscribers located within the

United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order. [See Sec 102 (c)2].

Internet Search Engines are also required to remove any hyperlink link directing to the foreign infringing site within

5 days after receiving the court order. Payment Network Providers and Internet Advertising Services are also

required to suspend their services to the foreign infringing site. [See Sec 102]. Immunity from liability and lawsuits

is given to intermediary parties and all concerning parties that comply to the court order. Immunity is also given to

parties that voluntarily take actions against domestic and foreign infringing sites. However, they can be held liable

if they do not address with the Rights Holders complaint.On the contrary, the accused may still send a counter

notification to the intermediary parties to defend his website s case but these parties have no obligation to

address or respond to the defendants explanations. Furthermore, SOPA talks about criminalizing the streaming

of copyrighted works without consent for 10 or more times. A criminal offense such as this incurs a 5-year jail term

as punishment.

Although both bills want to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating

the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes,the public does not believe its champions motivations. They

fear that these bills when passed as laws can be detrimental to the growth of humanity. The bills can hamper the

societys creativity, innovative capacity, and eventually result to a chilling effect where no one wants to speak up

and express himself. Also the bills violate the First Amendment which guarantees the peoples right to freedom of

speech and expression. The public also believes that there are many issues in the bills that are contentious such

as wordings that are too vague. It can jeopardize the whole Internet community when the law says: (a) sites that

engage in, enable, or facilitate infringementor (b) a portion of your site. Both bills also have low standards for

immunity. Any party who voluntarily takes action against an accused site will receive immunity, meaning there is apossible high risk of abuse. As a result, on the 18

th of January 2012, the Internet Community went on strike.

Among those who went dark were Wikipedia, Reddit, Wordpress, Tumblr, and a lot more.

I believe both bills are unnecessary and unconstitutional. Although there is a need to combat online

piracy, it doesnt mean that we have to suppress the rights that are inherent to man i.e. freedom of expression.

Furthermore, the U.S. government is implementing DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Although DMCA has

its own imperfections and controversy, it has more humane provisions than the two pending bills. These bills also

violated too many human rights that it would be detrimental to the peoples growth if the bills are passed as laws.