The day after Professor Jean Keller assigned a Wikipedia article to her Adoption Ethics class %u2014 the first time she had ever used Wikipedia for an assignment-her students encountered a problem: Wikipedia had blacked itself out for the day.
Any student who used Google or Facebook on Wednesday, January 18th invariably encountered some protests against the House of Representative’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or the Senate’s Protect IP Act (PIPA). Multiple sites with user-based content (such as Wikipedia and Reddit) sent a clear message of how the Internet would be changed by blacking out their sites and stopping users from accessing pages that would be affected by the bills.
But for many, it remains unclear what exactly caused the virtual uproar and what was actually the truth and what was simply rhetorical overreach. SOPA was initially introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), and has since received bi-partisan support from 23 other members of the House, including from Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), Chairwoman of the DNC.
The major goal of SOPA and PIPA is to protect intellectual property. Instead of removing unauthorized content from the Internet, like previous congressional acts, SOPA and PIPA target the site hosting unauthorized content. This would give the Justice Department the ability to track down foreign sites committing intellectual property theft and force American companies – like advertisers and online payment services – to sever ties with the sites.
Proponents of SOPA and PIPA include the Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, NBCUniversal and Nike. These companies all argue that creativity and jobs are threatened by Internet piracy. Former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, who is now Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, called the blackout a gimmick.
“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services,” Dodd said.
While many members of congress have crossed party lines to support SOPA and PIPA, the acts have received even more bipartisan opposition. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Ron Paul vocally oppose the bill, along with the rest of the remaining Republican nominees for President.
There was even an official statement on the White House blog denouncing the acts.
“While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,” said top White House technology officials Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra and Howard Schmidt.
These officials, along with many tech companies, fear that instead of combating piracy, SOPA and PIPA would badly injure the innovation and job market created by the internet.
SOPA and PIPA made it possible for the Justice Department and internet service providers to block any site infringing copyright laws, which would make social media sites liable for what users post.
The acts would also allow companies to sue U.S.-based search engines, blogs and forums to have links to offending sites removed.
Opponents argue this would cripple Internet startups, as they would have to be prepared to fight costly legal battles against major corporations- or, “you might have your pants sued off you,” as Staff Director for the Senate Finance Subcommittee on international trade Jayme White said.
The blacked-out Google website logo read “Tell Congress: Please don’t censor the web,” which opponents feared would be the likely outcome if SOPA and PIPA passed.
However, the bills have been postponed indefinitely in both the House and the Senate, which seems like a victory for the anti-SOPA/PIPA camp. But there are still safeguards in place for owners of copyrighted material, such as the Digital Mililenium Copyright Act (1998), The Pro-IP Act (2007), and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (2011), which will allow them to continue fighting Internet piracy.