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. 1 According to Sec 3 of PIPA , 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 Tools will 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, or facilitate 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 2 United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion t hereof) that is subject to the order. [See Sec 102 (c) ]. 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 infringement or (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 a th possible high risk of abuse. As a result, on the 18 of January 2012, the Internet Community went on strike. Among those who went dark were Wikipedia, Reddit, Wor dpress, 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.

1 2

Protect IP Act of 2011. Retrieved at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf Stop Online Piracy Act. 2011. Retrieved at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf