SOPA did not make it. The bill lauded as the cure to online piracy did not pass, but has it really gone away? Most internet users were confronted with many popular web sites self-censoring in protest of the act. This protest was successful as both SOPA and PIPA did not make it into law. So, what was the uproar about?
At first glance, both bills seem like they were legitimate solutions to the issues of online piracy. SOPA, short for Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, short for Protect Intellectual Property Act, had several flaws that overshadowed any positive potential.
The bills targeted web sites primarily foreign websites which peddle or cater to the pirate market. Such sites were frequently labeled, "rogue." As with many bills, the devil was in the details of SOPA. On the surface, who wouldn't want to stop piracy of any form? The real issues came in the fine print. Much of the verbage, as it was authored, was open to interpretation and that could mean much trouble for many online.
For example, if web sites were reported or found to be dedicated to piracy of intellectual property, the major search engines would be forced to completely remove them. This would also mean legitimate web sites could indeed be on the chopping block.
Technically, copyrighted works are already protected on the internet. An act called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed in 1998 and it clearly dictates enforcement measures. SOPA goes beyond that. Supporters of SOPA say the DMCA has no influence or jurisdiction against overseas entities.
SOPA takes web regulation up to a new level. If web sites, believed to be illegally distributing copyrighted works, refuse to take the content down, other measures can be taken. What if you can also stop companies in the United States from offering services to those web sites? What if you can restrict their traffic, through the search engines, to the point that no clients in the United States can even find those web sites?
SOPA made web sites responsible for what users do. For example, an overseas version of YouTube could be held accountable if one of their members posts a work that is considered to be copyright infringement. The broad use of language prompted many to take drastic and immediate action against the bill.
It is believed the overzealous nature of the bill would grind the internet to a halt. Tech companies and like-minded individuals were concerned that innocent sites might be penalized before any due process is observed.
The process is stringent. Every network operator in the arena of payments or advertising must arrange a process to verify that no sites within the company or its customers is infringing upon intellectual property. If such a site is located, the service provider has 5 days to cut off all service to that particular customer. Could people charge rival web sites with infringement? Absolutely, they could. The owner of the web site accused would also be responsible for the burden of proof as well as all fines, fees and legal charges that stem from fighting those allegations.
Perhaps, the greatest bit of information we can take away is that while the act did favor the copyright owner, it could also strip innocent web site owners of their rights.
Reality Overtakes Fiction: We Are Already at War, Albeit Electronic, But War All the Same An Explanation of CISPA for Small Businesses Protect Your Privacy With Reputation Management Top 5 Reasons to Check Website Security
0 comments:
Post a Comment