Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act

The SOPA and PIPA bills were intended to deal with online piracy, but they stirred a lot of controversy in the US Congress.

Many people and critics believed it compromised internet’s freedom while supporters said it was important for violent piece of property infringement.

The arguments and protests that followed to find out what was more important, digital rights or copyright prosecution, were difficult to resolve relatively to the balance that needed to be maintained.

This article also acts as a guide regarding the stop online piracy act and protect ip act.

What is SOPA: The U.S. Congress’s Attempt to Combat Online Piracy

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was aimed at providing more powers to US authorities in case of online copyright infringement activities and fake goods’ sale on the Internet, which was suggested in a bill in US Congress.

Presented by the Texas Rep Lamar Smith on October 26, 2011, the bill sought to seek court permissions to stop ad networks and payment processors from providing services to infringing copyright sites.

The bill called for abandonment of such links and termination by internet providers of the user’s access to them.

To broaden the existing legislation, the illegal broadcasting of copyrighted content on the internet without permission would become an actionable offense with up to five years in prison.

Supporters of SOPA believed it would safeguard intellectual property, support related industries, jobs, and revenue, and emphasised the need for stronger copyright law enforcement, especially concerning websites based outside the U.S.

They pointed out the inadequacies in current laws that don’t address foreign sites and highlighted instances where U.S. search engines actively promoted such rogue sites.

The bill garnered widespread bipartisan backing in both the House and the Senate. It was also endorsed by various organisations and groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Governors

Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, the AFL–CIO, 22 trade unions, and the National Consumers League.

What is Protect IP Act?

The Protect IP Act was crafted to combat websites dedicated to infringing activities, irrespective of their location.

These websites, often anonymously operated, pose challenges for U.S. copyright or trademark owners due to the high costs associated with tracking and disabling them.

The Act proposed a streamlined process to shut down such websites by disabling many of the tools these websites rely on.

• Criteria for Infringement: The website must primarily focus on infringement. It must have “no significant use” other than engaging in copyright infringement, violating DMCA protections, or promoting counterfeit goods. The definition of “significant” remains ambiguous.
• Remedies: If a website is proven to be dedicated to infringing activities, several remedies can be invoked:
  • DNS server operators might be required to block the domain name.
  • Financial transaction providers could be mandated to cease business with the website for U.S. customers.
  • Internet advertising services would be prohibited from providing ads to the website.

Shifting Focus from Content to Platform: The Implications of SOPA and PIPA

Existing laws, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), already offer protection to copyrighted materials.

However, while the DMCA primarily aims at eliminating specific unauthorised content from the web, SOPA and PIPA shift their focus to the platform or the website hosting this unauthorised content.

These proposed bills would empower the Justice Department to pursue foreign websites that deliberately engage in or aid intellectual property violations, often referred to as rogue websites, for instance, The Pirate Bay.

Consequently, the United States government could compel domestic entities, including Internet service providers, credit card firms, and online advertisers, to sever their associations with these infringing sites.

Why Content Providers Want Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act?

Content providers, such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and business representatives like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, advocate for SOPA and PIPA because they believe that innovation and jobs in content-creating industries are threatened by the rising tide of digital piracy.

They argue that overseas websites have become sanctuaries for Internet pirates who profit from their content.

These foreign website operators are currently beyond the reach of U.S. law, and SOPA and PIPA are seen as tools to curb this illegitimate Internet activity.

According to the Global Intellectual Property Center, which is affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sectors that are intensive in intellectual property employ over 19 million people in the U.S. and contribute $7.7 trillion in gross output.

The main concern is that while there are existing laws to protect copyrighted material, they are deemed inadequate, especially when dealing with websites that are owned or based outside the U.S.

The proposed legislation would help address these challenges by providing more robust tools to combat online piracy, especially from foreign-based sites.

Primary Goals of SOPA and PIPA

The goals of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) were primarily centered around the protection of intellectual property rights, especially in the digital realm.

Here are the main goals of SOPA and PIPA:

Protecting Intellectual Property of Content Creators:

One of the primary goals of SOPA was to safeguard the intellectual property of content creators. Rep. Goodlatte emphasised that intellectual property is a significant job creator for America and plays a crucial role in the global marketplace.

The legislation aimed to ensure that the incentives for creating new writings, research, products, and services, which were established over 220 years ago in the Constitution, remain effective in global digital marketplace.

The intent was to ensure that profits from American innovations benefit American innovators.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) also highlighted that the film and motion picture industry supports millions of jobs and numerous small businesses.

Protection Against Counterfeit Drugs:

Another significant goal was to protect consumers from counterfeit drugs sold through cleverly disguised websites.

Pfizer, a major pharmaceutical company, emphasised the challenges consumers face in distinguishing genuine pharmacies from counterfeit ones.

The legislation aimed to prevent American patients from ordering medications from potentially unsafe foreign pharmacies online.

Combatting Online Piracy:

The legislation aimed to empower the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders against websites, especially those outside U.S. jurisdiction, that were accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.

This included actions like barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with infringing websites, preventing search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to these sites.

Comparison of SOPA, PIPA, and DMCA Safe Harbor

SOPA, and PIPA, provisions all address secondary liability for parties who indirectly facilitate copyright infringement. These statutes share similarities in holding third parties accountable, but they differ in their scope, objectives, and enforcement mechanisms.

Below is a comparison that highlights the key distinctions between SOPA, and PIPA.

Aspect	SOPA	PIPA
Objective	Targets non-US websites that are intentionally designed or operated to promote copyright infringement and counterfeit sales (after amendment).	Targets sites with little or no other use than engaging in infringement or selling counterfeit goods.
Approach	Copyright holder sends notice; can then sue the direct infringer or a third party if preventive measures aren’t taken.	Attorney General or copyright holder can act against direct infringers; can take down the domain if infringing activity is present and the infringer is unreachable.
Targets (Direct Infringing)	Owner/operator of the domain or website where infringement occurs.	Owner/operator of the domain or website; the domain name itself (both domestic and foreign).
Accountability for Indirect Infringement	Internet search engines, financial transaction providers, online advertisers, domain name registrars.	ISP, financial transaction providers, online advertising services, providers of information location tools (e.g., search engines, online directories).
Action Required for Exemption	Must take preventive measures upon receiving a court order.	Must take preventive measures upon receiving a court order or Attorney General order.

Impact of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) on Websites

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was an attempt at United States legislation aimed at increasing the effectiveness of tools against piracy. It sought to require internet companies to block access to unauthorised U.S. copyright law websites.

Here’s how it could have impacted websites:

Blocking Foreign Websites: SOPA sought to force internet companies to block access to foreign sites that hosted material infringing on U.S. copyright laws.

Criminalising Unauthorised Streaming: The bill proposed making unauthorised streaming of copyrighted material a criminal offense with prison for up to five years for ten violations within six months.

Empowering the U.S. Government: SOPA would enable American government and rights holders to obtain court orders against sites that were believed to obstruct U.S. copyright laws.

Restrictions on Business with Infringing Sites: U.S. based payment processors like PayPal and American advertisers would be mandated to stop doing business with foreign sites that are considered infringing sites.

DNS Blocking: Internet Service Providers would be required to block the ability for Internet users to reach particular websites with the use of DNS Blocking. This, along with other provisions of the bill, was meant to be removed due to the dire consequences that could arise from it.

Protection of Intellectual Property: Supporters believed SOPA would safeguard the intellectual property market and the associated industry. Companies, especially those in the entertainment sector, supported the bill as they had interests in preventing unauthorised sharing of films, music, and software.

Concerns for Websites Hosting Content: Critics argued that the legislation could lead to internet censorship and jeopardise free speech.

They believed that SOPA and PIPA could grant the U.S. government and rights holders excessive powers to shut down sites they perceive as hosting protected content, without a clear definition of “hosting.”

For instance, a user comment with infringing material on a news site could be grounds for a takedown.

Anti-circumvention Provision: Both SOPA and PIPA included a provision that would criminalise informing users about how to access blocked sites. This could pose risks for websites with user-generated content, like Facebook or YouTube, if they failed to promptly detect and remove such information.

Immunity for Voluntary Blocking: The bill proposed granting immunity to internet services that voluntarily block certain websites based on “credible evidence” of their involvement in the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

However, critics pointed out the potential for misuse since immunity would be granted even if the blocked websites were only believed, not proven, to be involved in such activities.

Protests and Controversies: The Impact of SOPA & PIPA on Internet Freedom

The resistance against SOPA and PIPA is definitely a key moment concerning the history of American internet governance.

There was a widespread protest on January 18, 2012 in the united states of America against these two legislative proposals which was driven by a few central points.

Digital Speech and Community Concerns: Although the primary scope of copyright infringement is to curtail copyright infringement emanating from outside the US, these bills sought to establish robust mechanisms to safeguard against free expression on the internet.

The concern was that these legislations could go too far and injure whole websites, digital communities and the internet as a whole. It was claimed that the measures taken to protect platforms that facilitate user-generated content were too strict.

Organised Digital Dissent and Web Shutdowns: The anti-SOPA/PIPA campaign received initial impetus from the activist group called Fight for the Future.

They ‘ve changed a number of important websites such as English Wikipedia so that it would go offline temporarily or change their front page to display anti SOPA messages.

Meanwhile Google, Reddit, Mozilla, and many other firms showed pity to the protest.

According to Fight For The Future, the online protest was attended by more than one hundred and fifteen thousand websites.

On-the-Ground Protests: Parallel to the digital dissent, on-the-ground protests sprang up in several U.S. cities, including New York City and San Francisco, aiming to amplify the concerns about SOPA and PIPA’s potential repercussions.

International Spotlight and Responses: As the protests escalated, they gained attention from international media which they had not been receiving earlier.

The impact of these protests was felt when the White claimed that it would never support any kind of bill that would limit the freedom of speech or harm the innovative nature of the internet.

On this day, millions of people were actively searching for more information, signing petitions, and detailing their objections for the proposed bills.

Aftermath: The period after the protests was characterised by marked changes in the political climate.

Numerous lawmakers who had previously been in favor of the bills started to withdraw their support or started to voice their concerns about the new laws.

There was some talk that there may be changes made to the bills, however, the general mood seemed to be that they had been put on the back burner due to public opposition to these laws.

Voices of Critique and Praise: All these protests were largely successful, but they were still not off the hook criticism.

The Motion Picture Association of America, for example, deemed the massive blackout of websites as an unacceptable sanction.

However, some major publications like The New York Times took the events as a watershed moment for the technology industry which now seemed to be coming to terms with its consequential position in politics.

What’s Next?

The SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) debates marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of the internet and the battle over copyright.

These proposed legislations, aimed at enhancing copyright enforcement and taking action against websites, especially rogue websites outside the U.S., sparked a massive internet blackout, with numerous websites, including giants like Wikipedia and Reddit, protesting the potential implications of the bills.

The technology industries were at the forefront of this opposition, emphasising the potential harm to freedom of speech, innovation, and the very architecture of the internet.

The proposed legislations were seen by many as an attempt to create an internet blacklist, undermining the principles of an open and free web.

While SOPA and PIPA were designed to strengthen American copyright law, the widespread protests highlighted the complexities and challenges of balancing copyright enforcement with the preservation of internet freedom.

The global response to these bills underscored the internet’s role as a shared global resource and the collective responsibility to protect its integrity.

Ready to elevate your digital security? Bytescare offers unparalleled protection against the digital threats of piracy, defamation, and impersonation. Book a demo today and take the first step towards a secure digital future.

FAQs