Changes

'''Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)''' or '''H.R. 3261''' is a bipartisan bill introduced at the United States House of Representatives by   Congressman [[Lamar Smith]], House Judiciary Committee Chairman  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.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/house-introduces-internet-piracy-bill/2011/10/26/gIQA0f5xJM_blog.html House introduces Internet piracy bill]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf The Bill-H.R. 3261]</ref>  

'''Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)''' or '''H.R. 3261''' is a bipartisan bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Congressman [[Lamar Smith]], House Judiciary Committee Chairman  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.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/house-introduces-internet-piracy-bill/2011/10/26/gIQA0f5xJM_blog.html House introduces Internet piracy bill]</ref> 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|intellectual property]] rights  protection of U.S. businesses particularly in the film, music and software industry against online piracy and counterfeiting.<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf The Bill-H.R. 3261]</ref>  

A legislative hearing was conducted by the House Judiciary Committee on November 16, 2011 to examine the various issues related to proposed Stop Online Piracy Act.<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11162011.html Committee on the Judiciary-Hearing Information]</ref> According to the statement released by Cong. Lamar Smith, the bill is not targeting technology but it is concentrated on ''"preventing those who engage in criminal behavior from reaching directly into the U.S. market to harm American consumers."'' He pointed out that ''"protecting America’s intellectual property will help the country's economy, create jobs, and discourage illegal websites."'' <ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/news/Statement%20HR%203261.html Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Hearing on H.R. 3261, the “Stop Online Piracy Act”]</ref>

A legislative hearing was conducted by the House Judiciary Committee on November 16, 2011 to examine the various issues related to proposed Stop Online Piracy Act.<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11162011.html Committee on the Judiciary-Hearing Information]</ref> According to the statement released by Cong. Lamar Smith, the bill is not targeting technology but it is concentrated on ''"preventing those who engage in criminal behavior from reaching directly into the U.S. market to harm American consumers."'' He pointed out that ''"protecting America’s intellectual property will help the country's economy, create jobs, and discourage illegal websites."'' <ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/news/Statement%20HR%203261.html Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Hearing on H.R. 3261, the “Stop Online Piracy Act”]</ref>

A full committee mark-up was held on Dec. 15, 2011 and lawmakers rejected 20 amendments intended to address the concerns raised by technology companies and civil liberty organizations most particularly the amendments introduced by Cong. Darrel Issa, which aims to resolve the [[DNS]] security problems. The committee also rejected theamendment requiring copyright holders to pay for all court costs if the accused violator of copy right infringement wins legal charges. The proposed amendment to remove the provision providing legal immunity to [[ISP]]s, domain name registrars, payment processors, and other businesses that voluntarily take action against accused websites was also rejected. <ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html Mark-up Information]</ref> <ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/article/246354/house_committee_appears_headed_toward_approving_sopa.html House Committee Appears Headed Toward Approving SOPA]</ref>

A full committee mark-up was held on Dec. 15, 2011 and lawmakers rejected 20 amendments intended to address the concerns raised by technology companies and civil liberty organizations, particularly the amendments introduced by Cong. Darrel Issa, which aimed to resolve the [[DNS]] security problems. The committee also rejected the amendment requiring copyright holders to pay for all court costs if the accused violator of copy right infringement wins legal charges. The proposed amendment to remove the provision providing legal immunity to [[ISP]]s, [[Registrar|domain name registrars]], payment processors, and other businesses that voluntarily take action against accused websites was also rejected. <ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html Mark-up Information]</ref> <ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/article/246354/house_committee_appears_headed_toward_approving_sopa.html House Committee Appears Headed Toward Approving SOPA]</ref>

   

   

On December 16, 2009, the House Judiciary Committee postponed the hearing on the proposed legislation because of strong oppositions from internet engineers, cyber security experts, large technology companies and other organizations. According to Cong. Smith, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and proponent of the bill, he will consider a hearing or a classified briefing to tackle the impact of SOPA on cybersecurity. Congressman Jason Chaffetz from Utah stressed that it is imperative for the legislators to hear from internet engineers and cybersecurity experts before voting for the final passage of the bill.<ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246433/house_committee_postpones_action_on_sopa.html House Committee Postpones Action on SOPA]</ref>

On December 16, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee postponed the hearing on the proposed legislation because of strong oppositions from internet engineers, cyber security experts, large technology companies and other organizations. According to Cong. Smith, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and proponent of the bill, he will consider a hearing or a classified briefing to tackle the impact of SOPA on cybersecurity. Congressman Jason Chaffetz from Utah stressed that it is imperative for the legislators to hear from internet engineers and cybersecurity experts before voting for the final passage of the bill.<ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246433/house_committee_postpones_action_on_sopa.html House Committee Postpones Action on SOPA]</ref>

   

   

==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. <ref>

Under the proposed bill, the Department of Justice, through the Attorney General, is authorized to ask for a court order against the owners, operators, and 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>

[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>

[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>

Section 102 of the bill stipulated that search engines, [[ISP]]s, and other entities 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 copyright 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, [[Registrar|domain name registrars]], [[Registry|registry]], [[ISP]]s, 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==