Stop SOPA at Yale Covers SOPA’s Congress Markup Debate
On December 15, 2011 Congress held a markup debate for SOPA. To view Stop SOPA at Yale’s live commentary of the debate please visit:
SOPA: Hazardous to Your Health
With Congress gearing up for a showdown over the Stop Online Piracy Act, much has been discussed concerning the act’s implications for a free and open internet, as well as its proposed effects on digital piracy. Politicians have conveniently skimmed over a less well known, but arguably more important part of the bill related to every American’s health. SOPA contains measures that would make acquiring prescription drugs from other companies like Canada illegal in certain cases, placing millions of sick Americans in dire financial situations. As shown below, patients can often obtain expensive prescriptions from Canada at a significantly reduced cost, and SOPA aims to place an even greater financial burden on these patients.
Considering the highly contentious nature of nationalized or universal healthcare is in the United States, it seems odd that Conservatives have made no noise about this part of the bill, which introduces a restriction on commercial transactions in a manner that seemingly violates free market principles. Furthermore, the balooning cost of services like Medicare has been well publicized in recent years, and nearly every expert believes that these programs are headed for insolvency.
Why would congress make obtaining prescriptions drugs more expensive (by eliminating a cheaper option) in a time when healthcare costs are already through the roof? One problem is SOPA’s definition of an institution that endangers the “public health” is so vague as to essentially include normal Canadian pharmacies. Nobody opposes a restriction that prevents the selling of counterfeit drugs that may endanger patient safety, but this provision simply serves the profit interests of pharmaceutical comapnies. As collateral damage, Americans will have to shoulder the burden of more expensive drugs. For example, more than 90,000 people in Florida alone would lose access to affordable prescription drugs if SOPA were implemented.
More specifically, the drafters of SOPA simply ignored the difference between “real” and “rogue” online pharmacies. Pharmacies accredited by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association are just as safe as walk-in pharmacies in the United States. The problem here lies in the mode fo transaction. Because these pharmacies offer their services online, the transaction stinks (to regulators) of a structure in which territorial restrictions are bypassed. Combine this with a powerful pharmaceutical industry with great sums of money at stake, as well as lost state sales taxes to upset state officials, and the SOPA prescription drug measure begins to look like a perfect storm of corporate greed, regulatory arrogance, and societal ignorance.
This country struggled through a politically contentious process when Congress and the President passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in large part because so many Americans cannot afford basic medical necessities. Prescription drug coverage accounts for much of America’s total health care expenditures, and placing a SOPA-like restriction that so severely affects drug price negatively impacts the American public’s health. This country has fought over the last 24 months for greater accessibility to healthcare, and SOPA threatens to erase that progress. If Americans are wise enough, they will see through the political-corporate collusion and quash SOPA, for the good of their own health.
Sources:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111104005215/en/Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-SOPA-Fails-Distinguish
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/15345616781/sopa-will-have-grave-effects-health-hundreds-thousands-americans.shtml
The SOPA Manager’s Amendment: Too Little Too Late
Recently, representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), the main backer of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has released a “manager’s amendment” that he hopes will appease the bill’s numerous opponents (see the post “To those who actually support SOPA, expose yourself!…….Anyone??” below). In the Manager’s Amendment, Smith reworks some of the more egregious parts of the bill, most notably including the power for a private actor to effectively cut off payment processing for websites with a simple notice (a concept that probably wasn’t too hard to imagine in a Communist society like the USSR but one that is truly a horrible concept to imagine in the current United States).
No Internet for You
The authors of the amendment also eliminated the more dangerous language that would put sites under threat if even a single page was linked to infringement (which would presumably allow for sites like Google or basically any other search engine to continue to function). The bill also hopes to narrow the range of targets to non-U.S. sites.
Don’t be fooled people. This isn’t enough. In fact, the EFF even believes that some of the extreme language and ideas contained in the pre-Manager’s Amendment version of SOPA was included with the specific purpose of removing it later, so as to give the impression of a sort of compromise. Beware! This is all going according to their plan…
SOPA is still dangerous, anti-Internet freedom poison, plain and simple. It still gives the U.S. Attorney General and rights-holders of copyrighted materials the ability to obtain blacklist order. In fact, after the Manager’s Amendment, there might even be more ambiguity as to how the blacklist will be enforced. The language in the amendment will still be extremely ambiguous, requiring numerous law suits in order to determine how its meaning will be interpreted. All the while, Internet freedom and freedom of speech in general, therefore, will be under attack.
This bill cannot be fixed. It must be killed. Representative Smith, this is simply too little, too late. You cannot both save this bill and keep the Internet open.
Representative Smith- You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat it Too
Free Speech vs. Copyright Protection: Which would you choose?
Free speech. It is a freedom that we cherish online and have fought again and again to protect. And yet, SOPA threatens free speech, but the bill is still being pushed through by Congress. Why? One might argue that copyright protection outweighs the need for free speech. However, I completely disagree. Numerous court cases have proved that free speech online is more important to the public than any other issue. Plus, the recent movement of “Pirate Parties” in Europe is a clear reflection of public sentiment towards online freedoms. Thus, while the issue of online copyright protection does need to be resolved, SOPA is not the answer.
An examination of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1995 and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 are exemplary illustrations of the high regard that the American public has for their First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and freedom of the press), and the public’s expectation that these rights will be protected even in an online setting. In 1995 and 1998, the CDA and COPA were passed by Congress with one goal: to protect minors from viewing obscenities and pornography online. However, after numerous court cases, the Supreme Court found both acts unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment. Additionally, in the Supreme Court’s ruling, the majority opinion pointed out that there were alternative and better means of protecting minors online. These alternative means included internet filtering technology which parents could employ and the passage of less restrictive, narrower laws by Congress to address distinct online issues, such as prohibiting misleading domain names.
In addition to the Supreme Court’s ruling, one key passage of the CDA survived: section 230. Section 230 of the CDA protects internet service providers (ISPs) and internet users from being liable for comments and posts of other users. Essentially, this section allows the interactive internet of social media, online forums, blogs, etc. that society has come to expect to exist. Without this section, literally any online service provider (such as Youtube, Facebook, the New York Times online, and bloggers) would find itself liable for the comments and videos posted by their users. Thus, not only were the CDA and COPA found unconstitutional for violating our First Amendment rights, but also the sole remaining section of the CDA aimed to protect service providers to ensure that online, interactive spaces in which free speech could flourish would be able to exist.
So why is an understanding of the CDA and COPA so important? How do these acts relate to the newest form of internet legislation, SOPA? First of all, these two unconstitutional acts help to put SOPA into perspective. Protecting children from pornography online was not a strong enough motive to infringe on our First Amendment rights, so is copyright protection (or protecting the entertainment industry’s pocketbooks) really a more viable reason? Personally, I do not think copyright protection in any way trumps protecting children, and I am sure that many people would agree. Secondly, in the previous cases, alternative solutions to the issues which would not prohibit free speech were sought out. Consequently, if we could find alternative solutions to help protect children, why are we not seeking alternative solutions to SOPA in order to protect copyright while maintaining our First Amendment rights?
Finally, and most importantly, with section 230 of the CDA a precedent was set. The protection from liability given to ISPs and internet users encouraged them to create online spaces in which people could interact and express themselves. Thus, not only was free speech protected, but it was ENCOURAGED. If service providers were not afforded this protection, it is likely that they would not have created online forums in an attempt to avoid legal battles. Now, with SOPA, not only does the bill go against this precedent of the importance of free speech, but the bill will also completely undermine section 230. If SOPA passes, any site can be instantly blocked for any possible infringing material, posted by the provider or by its users, whether it truly violates copyright or not. Not only will the site be blocked, but search engines will also be expected to censor search results so that blocked sites do not appear, or they too will be in violation of SOPA. Does this sound a bit extreme to you? It should. These are clearly not steps forward. Rather, our First Amendment rights online are being stripped, and the growth of the internet into an interactive space of expression will be severely halted if not completely obliterated.
On a final note, let’s take a moment to examine the “Pirate Parties” in Europe. First of all, the term “Pirate Party” is completely misleading. We view pirates as thieves and troublemakers who go against the norms of society. However, the Pirates Parties International which includes parties from Sweden, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain advocates for rights that the public wants including: online privacy, data protection, transparency in politics including prohibiting online censorship, and online freedoms such as the freedom of speech. In relation to copyright protection, these Pirate Parties support filesharing and feel that copyright laws need to be reformed in light of the new internet age. And clearly, the public, especially younger generations, agree. This previous September, a major upset occurred in the Berlin state election: the Berlin Piracy Party secured 8.9 percent of the vote gaining seats in the Berlin electorate.
Perhaps we need a similar Pirate Party movement in the United States. Many of our representatives are woefully unknowledgeable when it comes to current technology, thus how can their decisions reflect what the American public wants? While the platforms of the Pirate Party may seem unimportant to older generations, those of us who have grown up online feel otherwise. SOPA clearly reflects this break in understanding between generations. The bill not only aims to end our internet freedom, but will also undermine the very structure of the web. Clearly, alternative measures to SOPA need to be pursued and new political representation is needed so that as a society we can continue to move forward in this digital age.
A Bill to Protect Intellectual Property – At All Costs
Hi All,
We thought we’d let you in on a sneak-peek of an Op-Ed which we plan on publishing in the Yale Daily News next semester. Let us know what you think! Any support would be appreciated- we’re all in this together!
There is a menace coming— pirates. Now these aren’t your regular pirates; they have neither weapons nor eye-patches. They don’t speak in a strange manner, nor do they travel in ships. They do, however, steal treasure. Or, more accurately, they take treasure and, through acts of computer alchemy, transmute it into more treasure. Not only does this transmutation lead to others receiving this treasure without payment, but also dilutes the value of the original treasure. This isn’t your standard macroeconomic treasure. There’s no inflation going on. However, some of the recipients of the treasure might’ve considered buying the treasure otherwise (or working for it) meaning the treasure makers get paid less due to the transmutation. These pirates are a real menace, cutting deep into the profits of Hollywood studios, music producers, and drug companies.
Fortunately, a simple act, proposed by Lamar Smith (R-TX) in the House of Representatives, would solve this problem expeditiously and apply far beyond mere internet transmutation. It’s called the “Stop Online Piracy Act” or SOPA for short. This bill would not only stop the pirates in their tracks (think Peter Pan on steroids), it would preserve our first amendment rights! In fact, on the second page of 112 HR 3261 (the official name of the bill) we find that “nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution.” Sounds good so far. It also defines “including” to mean “including, but not limited to.” Hmm, fascinating.
This act would use an incredibly effective site-censoring method for infringing sites called DNS blocking. It’s already been tried and tested with high levels of success in several incredibly successful countries with a strong track record of preserving human rights and freedom of speech— Iran, Syria, and China. I mean, if it works in China (and they have three times our population) it must work here! Some have speculated that this practice could diminish internet security and innovation, a small price to pay for intellectual property protection.
In all seriousness, SOPA could potentially be a huge problem. It broadly defines the category of “infringing sites” to prevent any confusion or inability to block sites that have violated Internet privacy as quickly as possible. Any site that links to an infringing site or infringing content or any other site that somehow facilitates copyright infringers (perhaps by providing email services, search engine services, advertising services, internet services, financial services, there are lots of options to pursue) can also be cutoff, resulting in huge fines and prison sentences for anyone associated with the link (the hosting website or the poster). If these service providers choose not to discontinue services to a potential infringer, they risk full liability. This isn’t baseball either – a single copyright or trademark owner who alleges a single instance of enabling or facilitating infringement by a third party can shut down a site, and all of its revenue (ie. paypal and google adsense payments). “Three strikes, you’re out” is simply un-American.
Unfortunately, this act could affect sites that have become somewhat popular in recent years. These sites, including Google, Facebook, Mozilla (as in firefox), Yahoo, Twitter, eBay, AOL, LinkedIn, and even Zynga (that’s right they’ve taken time off their farms for this), are seemingly ungrateful to the content creators who strive to make their networks more valuable. They’ve started speaking out against SOPA – a selfish act of hubris. Their own Silicon Valley representative (Zoe Lofgren D-CA) even went as far as referring to the bill as “the end of the Internet as we know”. The end of the Internet? More like the end of pirates.
If, for some reason, you remain unconvinced of the benefits of SOPA and think there might be a better way to protect intellectual property, we encourage you to visit and like our facebook page at on.fb.me/tcGMH2, check outhttp://americancensorship.org/ andhttps://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173where you can learn more about SOPA and contact your senators and representatives.
This threat must be stopped. Organization like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and others who value freedom of the Internet are on the front lines fighting this bill. Join us! The consequences are simply too dire to ignore.
To those who actually support SOPA, expose yourself!…….Anyone??
If you have been keeping up with the SOPA debate then you are probably well aware of the core arguments that unify each side of the discussion. If not, here are the CliffNotes (Cliffnotes might be able sue me for that link soon…): As the bill exists TODAY – SOPA is unconstitutional, SOPA (illegally?) restricts free speech online, SOPA permits website restrictions/removals before due process, SOPA would prevent the creation of online startups, SOPA would compromise both small and predominant websites alike, SOPA’s scope for criminal “rogue” sites is unjustifiably broad, SOPA would strip countless online company workers of their jobs (which there are A LOT of), SOPA would impose legal accountability on innocent people/sites that may not even be responsible for the infringement, SOPA will monitor every link you send/share online, SOPA targets U.S. companies and web users (NOT the intended international criminals who pirate copyrighted materials), SOPA stifles innovation, SOPA’s current provisions will effectively kill the internet.
The goal of this post, however, is not to reiterate the Anti-SOPA arguments that uncover the ridiculous consequences it would have (all of which have been flooding the web and are, in fact, absurd). I would like to shed light on something else that augments the weight of the opposing argument. It is an aspect/theme/trend/source of opposition surrounding SOPA that has not received enough specific attention. While the substantive arguments behind the public outcry emerging from this bill are convincing, I see something far more powerful at work. That is, the obscenely obvious indication of the majority opinion among American people and businesses. And correspondingly, the overwhelming volume and diversity of Anti-SOPA protesters. This in itself should raise red flags and excessive caution for Congress (the hypothetical red flags say: “Uhh, what about us!?” (*us = the blatant majority of Americans)). After all, America is supposed to be the most upstanding democracy in the world.
With that in mind, I want to illustrate just how comprehensive the Anti-SOPA movement is in terms of its composition of members.
- American People. It is clear that the majority of regular American Internet users oppose this legislation. Put simply, frequent web users will vehemently resist something that will control their freedom in what they can do/watch/share/create online. They have made it unavoidably clear on online blogs, articles, social networking sites, public protests, etc…
- Online Giants/Leaders of Web. Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo, and Zynga (among many others) have all voiced their concerns with SOPA. Resource-wise, these tech companies are probably the most powerful source of opposition. Wikipedia is considering the possibility of temporarily shutting down/blacking out to protest the bill.
Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, is pondering a Wikipedia shutdown to protest SOPA.
- Politicians. “An early glimpse of how this issue could unite ideologically diverse politicians came when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) and Representative Ron Paul (R) both indicated their opposition to the bill.” Many a politician has spoken publically against SOPA. More importantly, this also became very evident in SOPA’s Congressional markup today.
- Civil Liberties and Human Rights Groups. This one is obvious.
- Journalists & Mainstream Newspapers. Example: The American Newspaper Editors Association (ASNE) sent congress a letter requesting SOPA’s termination. I would like to point out that the ASNE, a group of professional journalists whose work is originally published for purchase, is a “copyright intensive industry”…aka, an industry of people who technically should support SOPA. The NY Times and LA Times let their voices be heard as well, publishing editorials which condemned the SOPA bill.
- Workers’ Unions. One of the stated political motives behind SOPA is the objective to improve unemployment in the U.S., i.e. this bill would create more jobs. No no, au contraire. SOPA will get rid of even more jobs by seriously endangering web and tech based companies.
- (HARVARD) LAW SCHOOL Professors. A legal educator for the very (second) best LAW school in the country, Laurence Tribe, who also happens to be known as one of the top constitutional experts in the country, wrote a letter to Congress outlining SOPA’s unconstitutional provisions.
- Even some of the official content creators that the bill is designed to protect. I cannot claim that representation on this front is substantial, for SOPA is fueled by and designed to protect content creators (the leading SOPA supporters are the Motion Picture and Music Recording Associations). BUT, perhaps creating a threshold and a catalyst for content creators to recognize the realities of the bill, The Writer’s Guild of America, unquestionably characterized as an organization of content creators, recognizes that SOPA is a destructive piece of legislation. It may be hopeful, but WGA’s voice that the bill goes too far could influence content-creating organizations to pull a 180.
My question is, besides the MPAA, RIAA, particular politicians, and massive media corporations, who actually supports SOPA? I do not wish to deny the existence of SOPA supporters, but I deny that I have seen any transparent, substantial presence.
As a proud American, I would find myself extremely discouraged and disappointed if, at the end of this process, Congress passes this bill and demonstrates it is really that incapable of reflecting popular opinion. You know…the whole “consent of the governed” thing from the founders of the Constitution…
In closing, I would like to clarify my stance on the issue itself. In no way do I support piracy of copyrighted material. I fully recognize and agree that copyright infringement and piracy are unacceptable under the law. Just like material goods, intellectual property deserves protection against theft. I actually do support the political movement to address these issues at the government level. My source for concern is that, if left unamended, the current SOPA bill will cause unjustified damage to the ENTIRE internet and every American who uses it. In this day and (digital) age, I could not imagine a more worrisome threat to cultural innovation, and subsequently, to society. The biggest flaw is in SOPA’s overtly broad scope. If Congress can find a way to refine the bill’s provisions to DIRECTLY TARGET illegal theft of copyright in a much more strict and narrow way, then I would absolutely hop on board. I also wouldn’t have to delete my Facebook account to avoid getting arrested or sued for all that I’m worth.
Help to stop SOPA by contacting your U.S. Representative!
1. ) Go to:
https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173
2.) Enter your zip code.
3.) Copy and paste the following letter into the text box.
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House). I am deeply concerned by the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation. The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
As a current student at Yale University, many of my academic and extracurricular pursuits hinge on the services of various websites and internet-based companies. While I recognize the value of intellectual property protection and do believe our methods must be improved and adapted to take into account the changes that have come from the internet, these bills will likely have many unintended consequences.
These bills give undo power and incentive to copyright and trademark holders to make unfounded and gratuitous allegations of infringement that lead to the blanket removal of non-infringing content and sites that unknowingly have unintended infringinging content. In addition, as a result of this extensive Domain Name System (DNS) filtering, it is likely that many internet users will unknowingly fall victim to malware and phishing scams in their attempt to access legitimate sites.
These bills, similarly, place an undue burden on website owners and internet-based companies to patrol their services for potential infringement. This will have the effect of raising barriers to entry for new companies as well as preventing innovation and growth of more mature companies. This stemming of growth is precisely the opposite of what we need to propel our economy forward and decrease unemployment.
Adaptation to new developments is frequently a challenge, however, it is these times that define true character. We stand at a critical point at the frontier of the internet’s path. How we choose to adapt and improve intellectual property protection has the potential to pave a successful trajectory forward or, conversely, allow us to be surpassed by other countries and deny our fundamental beliefs about democracy and free speech. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither and will receive none.“ The world and the American people are watching.
4.) Fill out your information and click “Send Your Message.”
Thanks for all of your help!
