|
A few weeks back there was a great uproar on the internet over the introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which was introduced in the US that on one hand will undermine free speech and due process but it will also protect America's creative class from thieves as well.
SOPA has a sister legislation called the Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act (PIPA), in the Senate. Both are designed to tackle the problem of foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and other products. This means that Federal law enforcement has the authority to shut down U.S. based websites that offer pirated content, but they can't directly do the same to foreign sites like Pirate Bay. The Motion Picture Association of America, the legislation's main backer, estimates 13% of American adults have watched illegal copies of movies or TV shows online, and it says the practice has cost media companies billions of dollars.
The bills intend to stop piracy with the method to stop U.S. companies from providing funding, advertising, links or other assistance to the foreign sites. The bills would give Justice Department prosecutors new powers to prevent pirate sites from getting U.S. visitors and funding. New powers are given to the Justice Department to seek a court order requiring U.S. Internet providers to block access to foreign pirate websites. Access could be blocked either by making it impossible for users to type a simple web address into an Internet browser to reach the site or by requiring search engines like Google to disable links to the sites. The attorney general could also seek a court order requiring credit-card processors to stop processing payments to the sites and requiring advertising networks to stop placing ads on the sites or taking ads from the pirated websites for display elsewhere.
In addition, both bills would allow Hollywood studios and other content owners to take private legal action against websites that are alleged to be hosting pirated material. The legislation would allow content owners to ask a court to require credit-card companies and advertising networks to stop payments to sites allegedly hosting pirated material.
If most of you wondered why sites frequented by users such as Wikipedia had temporarily shut down their sites as a means of protest is because the bill paves way for "censorship without due process" meaning that the language in the House bill is so broad that it would allow content owners to target U.S. websites that aren't knowingly hosting pirated content. This has been a particular concern of bill opponents Facebook, Wikipedia and Twitter, all of which have sites that depend heavily on content uploaded by users. In an extreme case, opponents say, media companies could get a court order blocking payments to an innocent site, with the effect of shutting it down and stripping it of its rights to free speech. Also, they say the legislation would encourage authoritarian countries that have already been trying to block content on the Internet they don't like.
The bill also undermines cybersecurity protocols in place with companies such as Google & eBay since the provision that in some instances would require "DNS blocking." The domain-name system, or DNS, is an integral part of the Internet, ensuring traffic goes where it's supposed to when users type in a Web address like www.wsj.com or www.whitehouse.gov. Those addresses are converted into the series of numbers that make up a site's Internet protocol address. The original legislation would have required Internet providers to redirect traffic away from pirate websites by blocking the conversion system. The problem, according to cybersecurity experts, is that such redirection is also sometimes used by hackers to deceive Internet users and commit cybercrimes. In English, it simply spells out that there would be no more free downloads from torrent sites or availability of contents we now enjoy so freely would become scarce and limited. So far there have been a number of sites that have shutdown permanently due to the bill including megaupload of which its owner is in the midst of a legal battle in NZ as well as fighting off extradition to the US.
Newer news items:
Older news items:
|
