Stop Online Piracy Act: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Provisions== | ==Provisions== | ||
Under the proposed bill, the Department of Justice through the Attorney General is authorized to ask for a court order against the owners, operators, domain name registrants of foreign websites to stop their operations if found conducting or facilitating online piracy including copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services. | Under the proposed bill, the Department of Justice through the Attorney General is authorized to ask for a court order against the owners, operators, domain name registrants of foreign websites to stop their operations if found conducting or facilitating online piracy including copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services. <ref> | ||
Section 102 of the bill stipulated that search engines, [[ISP]], and other services ordered to stop doing business with suspected violators of online piracy and counterfeiting cannot be sued in court while Section 103 of the bill gives copy right holders the right to ask an injunction for third parties such as payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with suspected websites selling pirated products. Under | [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/Dd112:23:./temp/~bdOZ3u::|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112| Bill Summary & Status 112th Congress H.R.3261]</ref> | ||
Section 102 of the bill stipulated that search engines, [[ISP]], and other services ordered to stop doing business with suspected violators of online piracy and counterfeiting cannot be sued in court while Section 103 of the bill gives copy right holders the right to ask an injunction for third parties such as payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with suspected websites selling pirated products. Under section 104, domain name registrar, registry, ISPs, search engines, internet advertisers, etc. that voluntarily take action and stop doing business with infringing websites are given legal immunity. In addition, any copyright holder who misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement or a if a respondent to an infringement claim knowingly misrepresents that a site is not dedicated to infringement will be liable for damages including attorneys fees and court costs.<ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/244011/the_us_stop_online_piracy_act_a_primer.html The US Stop Online Piracy Act: A Primer]</ref> | |||
==Supporters== | ==Supporters== | ||
Revision as of 21:03, 15 December 2011
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or H.R. 3261 is a bipartisan bill introduced at the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and co-sponsored by 31 other Representatives including John Conyers (D-Mich.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.) on June 26, 2011.[1] The bill aims to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes such as intellectual property rights protection of U.S. businesses particularly in the film, music and software industry against online piracy and counterfeiting.[2]
Provisions
Under the proposed bill, the Department of Justice through the Attorney General is authorized to ask for a court order against the owners, operators, domain name registrants of foreign websites to stop their operations if found conducting or facilitating online piracy including copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services. [3]
Section 102 of the bill stipulated that search engines, ISP, and other services ordered to stop doing business with suspected violators of online piracy and counterfeiting cannot be sued in court while Section 103 of the bill gives copy right holders the right to ask an injunction for third parties such as payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with suspected websites selling pirated products. Under section 104, domain name registrar, registry, ISPs, search engines, internet advertisers, etc. that voluntarily take action and stop doing business with infringing websites are given legal immunity. In addition, any copyright holder who misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement or a if a respondent to an infringement claim knowingly misrepresents that a site is not dedicated to infringement will be liable for damages including attorneys fees and court costs.[4]
Supporters
The Stop Online Piracy Act is supported by different organizations including:[5]
- Motion Picture Association of America
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Better Business Bureau
- National Consumers League
- 43 State Attorneys General
- National Fraternal Order of Police
- AFL-CIO, the Independent Film and Television Alliance
- American Federation of Musicians
- Directors Guild of America
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters
- Screen Actors Guild
Oppositions
Several organizations are against the bill citing that it could put individuals and companies under suspicion by just linking an article to a suspected infringing websites. They also argue that it could harm businesses providing web services. Opposing organizations include:[6]The US Stop Online Piracy Act: A Primer</ref>
- Yahoo
- eBay
- Human Rights Watch
- Public Knowledge
- Free Press
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Computer and Communications Industry Association
- Consumer Electronics Association
- Americans for Job Security
- Demand Progress and Consumers Union