Fallout of SOPA and PIPA
By: Nate Nelson
For
the Internet…
With
the rise of the internet in the 21st century, popular websites like
YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter have given users the opportunity
express themselves, organize protests and share information freely. These sites enable people to have their own
voice, share links, and discuss what matters to them. It is also a great way for individuals to
print something and share it with their friends without having to pay for space
in a local newspaper. In the past year,
however, a proposed law has come forward in the U.S. House of Representatives
called SOPA, or the “Stop Online Piracy Act”.
In the Senate it is PIPA or,” Protect IP Act.” These companion bills would give the
government the power to shut down any website that has copyrighted material or
links to copyrighted material. The idea
behind this law is to protect other’s work and property. The question it raises is, however, is
whether the consequences of enacting SOPA and Protect
IP will outweigh the advantages of protection, and whether the law is
constitutional
Laws like this can cripple the
internet and our individual free speech. It can
mean an end to social networking, and to any blog that has links to copyright
material. “The legislation would allow
copyright holders and the Justice Department to seek court orders against
websites associated with copyright infringement. SOPA, the House version,
applies to both domestic and foreign websites, while PIPA targets foreign
websites. If that court order is
granted, the entire website would be taken down” (Johnson,
2012). The most disturbing fact
about this law is that “the entire website can be condemned without a trial or
even a traditional court hearing” (Johnson, Luke
2012). This would violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution;
by “depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable
opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of
the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment” (Lemly, Levine, & Post, 2011).
This law also allows the US
government to block foreign websites that have been classified as illegal or
have been known to have copyrighted material on them. This process is known as (DNS)
blocking/filtering. Internet service
providers would be required to block these websites from customers. “Mandated
DNS filtering would be minimally effective and would present technical
challenges that could frustrate important security initiatives”(
Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson,
Vixie, 3,2011). It would be only a matter of time
before techniques and software loopholes will be created to get around the DNS
filtering. Any action like this would
put in jeopardy the DNS’s ability to
provide universal naming a primary source of the Internet’s value as a single,
unified, global communications network”( Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, Vixie, 3,2011).
SOPA and Protect IP allow the
government to seize a webpage without notice or due process. The biggest concern is how we deal with
allowing websites to be shut down while we figure out whether they are breaking
the law or not, and the consequences of an illegal shutdown to the owner. For instance, if a website is seized, and is
found not to have copyrighted material on it, will the site owner
be reimbursed for income lost during the down time?
Under SOPA, if you post copyrighted material, or even
have links to copyrighted material on your Facebook page, personal blog or
YouTube account, you are subject to imprisonment for up to five years if
convicted. It is not only the government looking for
these sites, but the entertainment industry
as well. That means if you take a video of yourself singing along to song in
the background and post it to YouTube, you would arguably be in violation of
SOPA, and the entertainment industry could bring a
civil suit against you.
Part
1: Explanation/over-view on “What is SOPA and PIPA and what might be the consequences of
enacting such bills?
On
January 18th 2012 there were 80 supporters for SOPA and PIPA with
only 30 opposing (See Appendix 1 , showing
members of Congress for and Appendix 1.1 against
it). In
outrage and protest over PIPA and SOPA, sites like Reedit, Boing Boing, and
Wikipedia all closed their sites on January 18, 2012 for 24 hours to warn
internet users that if PIPA and SOPA pass, this is what the internet will look
like. If users wanted to use their
sites, they were redirected to a page explaining why the site was down and
asking them to “Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web” and protest this
bill. Google, who is also protesting this bill, did not close its site but displayed
a black bar covering its name, representing censorship. The online protest
worked. Users all over the United States young and old called their senators
and representatives to complain about what this bill would do. In less than 24 hours, the internet community
raged against the government and brought upon it the largest protest in U.S.
history… solely over censorship of the internet. On January 19, 2012, the
protest was considered a success. Senators
and Representatives from all 50 states listened. There was a shift from 80 in support to 31
against, to 101 against to 65 in support (See Appendix 2 for example).
On January 20th, senate majority leader Harry Reid shelved
the bills indefinitely. But, are the
Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP bills really gone? The bill continues to
change its name, from SOPA/PIPA to ACTA and perhaps more names to come. After suspending the bill, Senator Reid said
that “There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this
bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy
billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry
alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs”(Propublica, 2012). Reid makes a valid point wanting to protect copyrighted
material, however it is no coincidence that he has been receiving generous
donations from TV/Movies/Music and Computer/Internet companies and is so
adamant about passing this bill. Reid currently ranks 2nd place with
highest donations from the entertainment industry; California Senator Barbara
Boxer comes in first. The table below
shows Reid’s campaign donations for the years 2008-2010. (Table source:
Propublica, 2012)
Industry
|
Election Cycle
|
Amount
|
Computers/Internet
|
2010
|
$299,448
|
2008
|
$116,767
|
|
TV/Movies/Music
|
2010
|
$500,300
|
2008
|
$84,60
|
Currently both of the bills have been stopped, which gives the
free and open internet a few months respite. Senator Reid has said even though SOPA and
PIPA are suspended right now, he is “optimistic that we can reach a compromise
in the coming weeks” (Propublica, 2012).
If Reid’s and the entertainment
industry’s dream does come true, what will that mean for the internet and free
speech, and the public domain? With SOPA and PIPA, a bill not many understand,
what would the consequences be of enacting SOPA PIPA or something like it?
The language in SOPA is vague and undefined. Not many people know
exactly what it means and what the consequences of violating these laws are. “Tiffiniy
Cheng, director of the online-freedom
advocacy group “Fight for the Future, “says both the SOPA and the Senate bill
as written "give corporations too much power to take down entire sites
over what they consider a copyright infringement. And the language in the bills is really vague
when it comes to 'enabling copyright infringement” (May,2012).
Part
2: If SOPA/PIPA passed what could happen to the internet?
At first glance, SOPA deals primarily with the entertainment
industry stopping internet users from illegally downloading copyrighted content
and making sure the rightful owners are protected. It is the kind of goal which
brought Republicans and Democrats together.
In reality, SOPA is doing nothing like this. Because the bill is so
broad, SOPA actually will give “every copyright and trademark owner a mechanism
to cut off the financial lifeblood of any site the rights owner thinks is
facilitating infringement. A simple
allegation submitted to financial and advertising networks would be sufficient
to start the process” (Sohn, 2011). All a copyright
holder would need to do is claim, for instance, that “website A has my content,
and I will use it against Google.” This
claim alone could very well get Google shut down just because of a link to the
site with the copy righted material. Originally the Senate version of the bill was
to apply only to international websites, because we already have a law to
protect copyright infringement within the United States. However, the House version of this bill also
applies to websites here in the U.S. These two bills are not here to protect
property rights, but to enable government agencies to control the whole internet.
What this bill would do is prevent “newer, smaller online communications tools
might be unable to bear the costs of doing that”(newer application of this
bill) “and never get off the ground” (Sohn,
2011). As the Daily Beast explains, if you are a small company, and this
bill or ones similar to it come into effect, all it would take is a allegation
of linked content to another website that has copyrighted material on it, and that
site would be taken down. No small
company would be able to stay on line or
do business if it is faced with crushing legal expenses, whether justified or not. That is one of the major
problems of this bill: it is meant to crush the small websites so the larger
ones can survive.
SOPA is a potential death warrant for social networks such as
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and many others. It would be nearly impossible for Facebook or
Twitter to monitor the millions of links posted and shared every day. “Yet if
they didn’t do that, they could be labeled as hosts to any infringing content
that’s posted and subject to any or all of the penalties described above” (Laudenslager, 2012). This would likely be the end
to all of the social networking sites on the web today. It is not just content text that SOPA with
eliminate, but video as well. Assume
you take a video of your child singing along to one of Britney Spears ‘songs,
without the actual song playing in the background, and you upload it to
YouTube. Spears’ record company and
other associates under that label can have that video removed from YouTube. Other videos can be removed just by having the
radio on in the background.
Websites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube claim that they
are not responsible for the content that is added. “60 hours of video are uploaded every minute,
or one hour of video is uploaded to YouTube every second” (YouTube Statistic). It would be impossible for YouTube to monitor
every single second to make sure nothing is classified as “copyrighted”
material. However, according to SOPA
that is irrelevant. Under this bill, if
copyrighted material is uploaded to a website, the owner and the host of the
website are legally responsible. That means if the content was on YouTube, the
site will be taken down; if someone tweeted it, twitter can say good bye; and
if it was posted to a wall on Facebook, that site would cease to exist as well.
Second, “Communications that would qualify as
“fair use” under copyright law, and anything else with even a whiff of legal
uncertainty, would likely get booted from mainstream sites” (Sohn, 2011). Consider, for example, what may happen if a
users puts up a clip for a news article saying “what Anderson Cooper is saying
is 100% wrong”. This is perfectly legal,
but all it would take is one allegation that it is not legal and SOPA would
allow that site to be wiped off the face of the cyber world. Not only can the companies do this, but SOPA
allows them to work with the justice department. Sohn explains that “It would empower the
Justice Department to seek court orders compelling a number of third
parties-–Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, financial networks,
and ad networks-–to take action to cut off “rogue” websites based outside the
United States” (Sohn, 2011). The bill defines “rogue” so broadly it could
include any site that allows users to participate by posting, commenting or
uploading material to “networking platforms, cloud storage services, and online
communications tools” (Sohn, 2011). What that means is if a commenter comes to
your site and posts a link to a different website that has copyrighted material
anywhere in its site, your site is subject to being shut down. This is a bill
that will allow the government, other agencies, any large company and even some
small companies to control the internet. If they do not like your website, the authors
can come in and shut down that particular site under the allegation that you
are “rogue” and your site might be linking to copyrighted material. Internet
search data bases like Google could also be shut down if your site comes up in
a search.
Internet laws like SOPA and PIPA are comparable to killing a
fly with a bazooka. It may get the job
done, but will also cause massive collateral damage, just to protect a TV show,
a DVD, or Justin Beiber‘s new song. A
law like that is not worth giving up one’s First Amendment right to free
speech.
To explain SOPA and PIPA more simply, picture Joe Copyright, selling
DVD’s out of his news stand on a busy street in downtown LA. What SOPA and PIPA would do is blow up every
road, bike path, tunnel and tram car that leads to his news stand. The stand
where he is selling the DVDs is left unharmed but all of the traffic can no
longer reach him. Keep in mind other
traffic might need to travel these destroyed roads to get to “work” (aka a
website). Sites like Google and other
search engines would be forced to cut all ties to that website, just to prevent
sharing of media content.
What
do SOPA and PIPA really mean? As we have discussed earlier, SOPA is a House of
Representative bill, and PIPA is a Senate bill. Though the names are very
different, they both closely resemble each other (See Appendix 3, below, ((Marwick,
2012)) for comparison). And while the
bills are similar, PIPA seems to have more legal precedent involved, especially
in the court system. PIPA unlike SOPA require a court order before a site can
be taken down, which can take as little as several hours. PIPA gives private corporations in the United States
the ability to shut down or suspend unauthorized sites where people download
movies, music, and television shows. Most of this content comes from websites
and servers outside the U.S. What
Protect IP will do is allow the government to block access to infringing domain
names (DNS) by bringing suit against U.S. search sites, forums and directories
like Google as well as suing to have links removed. That means if you search
for “Facebook” in Google, nothing will come up. PIPA will also cut off funds to
infringing websites.
This
bill does not just censor the internet.
According to Congressman Andre Carson “SOPA would adversely affect
critical service providers like Wikipedia, eBay and PayPal, opening them up to
civil and criminal prosecution” (Targeted News
Service, 2012). Because eBay and PayPal
are huge companies and operate internationally, SOPA could put an end both of
these companies indefinitely. SOPA “would prohibit U.S. companies and
online services from doing business with so-called "rogue sites" by
cutting off digital ties to those sites” (SOPA and the bigger issue). EBay could be ruined overnight if one
customer posted a “copied” CD for sale on ebay.
Under SOPA , eBay would be distributing copyrighted material, and the
government could use this as a basis for shutting down the website. Think of a website as a college or public
library. If there are 100,000 books
stored throughout the library and just one was found to be obscene under a law
like SOPA, the government can come in and lock the doors to the library . “PayPal
would be forced to stop processing credit card transactions to or from accused
sites” (SOPA and the bigger issue). Giving the government power like this would
cripple the right of free speech, and most importantly would create a chilling
effect to bloggers, Facebook, Twitter, and other free expression websites. A ”chilling effect” is when an author is not sure if he is able
to print an article out of fear he will be sued. When there is a chilling effect, many users
may refrain from what is otherwise legal activity because of the consequences.
More simply explained, these two bills, “SOPA and PIPA are, simply, an attempt
to create a privatized form of international censorship, and because the
censorship would have to be nearly total to be effective, they would have a
profound and chilling effect on any form of public conversation among ordinary
citizens”(Shirky 32, 2012).
The negative side of this is that a big IP company can make a false
claim against a website, drag it through the court system, costing that site
thousands in court fees, internet downtime, loss of advertisers, and still be
proven innocent; the website can do nothing about it. This can pose a major
problem for small companies competing against large corporations. Take for
example, Big Company X, which wants to eliminate Small company B. All it would take is a false claim against
Small Company B and PIPA would come in and seize the website. To warrant a
seizure under PIPA, it would only take a post, a link, or even an advertisement
to copyrighted material. This would make it easy for anyone to make a false
claim against a person or a company just to get the site taken down for a while
until it is fought out in court. Large companies would find this law ideal for
the fact that it would be easy for them to get their competition’s website shut
down for a while, thus loss of business. “SOPA does include a provision that
penalizes copyright holders who do this “knowingly” including making them
liable for damages and legal costs” (Marwick, 2012).
Declan McCullagh, Chief
Political Correspondent of Cnet.com, explains that the process of the
government shutting down a website does not take days, weeks, or months; it
only takes a few hours. First, the
copyright holder complains to the Department of Justice. Second, the holder
will go to a judge and plead their case.
If the judge agrees, he can authorize removal of the website from the internet.
What is troubling is that only the copyright holder’s side is presented. The judge will “not know if there is any
exaggeration going on, or maybe it’s not the piracy website it’s the privacy
website” (G4, 2011). This makes it easy for an injustice to occur.
“Since American law cannot directly touch such sites, SOPA would
allow copyright holders to ask American sites to take down links to them,
payment processors and ad networks to stop doing business with them, and
internet-service providers to block traffic to them via a technique known as
DNS filtering” (The Economist Intelligence Unit,
2012). To better explain what DNS filtering is let’s assume a company called
“Free Knowledge Inc.” is an internet based company that provides internet to 5
million customers. If a copyright holder finds his or her work on a foreign or
domestic website he can have the internet provider block access to that
particular address. This is known as DNS
filtering. The internet service provider may block access to this site, however,
the website still exists. Users can get
around this by using a proxy service. A proxy service is a program or another
website that masks the web address so it can bypass the internet service
providers (ISP) filtering. What the bill “SOPA would do is impose Domain
Name System (DNS) blocking, which can be used to prevent all users from accessing
a website” (SOPA must die, 2012). When a website is blocked, everyone in the
internet community would not be able to access that particular site, however,
there is a way around it. First, a company called MafiaaFire has developed a
Firefox browser plugin that automatically redirects users requesting a seized
domain to the desired site’s new domain or server IP address” (Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, Vixie, 9,2011). Simply put; if the government takes down a website, this
add on, will automatically redirect you so you are allowed to use it again;
granted, it does not work 100 percent for every web page. The next few options
of getting around blocked websites may take some skill other than downloading
an app to a web browser. An advance user can edit the host’s file (a host’s
file is a web address www.google.com) which is in a text format to a IP address. This is very
difficult because many people do not know how to rewrite the host’s file name. Normally,
the DNS server you are connected to is set automatically from your internet
service provider (ISP), but individuals can change that address. Users can
change the address so they are connecting to an offshore server before connecting
to a website. Doing it this way can hid what country a user sits in. “If
the Internet moves towards a world in which every country is picking and
choosing which domains to resolve and which to filter, the ability of American
technology innovators to offer products and services around the world will
decrease” (Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, Vixie, 10,2011). Recently, computer
companies are developing software that will be made available to the public to
circumvent any blocked websites.
Because of these tactics, users will be at an increased risk of cyber security attacks. “Both users and operators of infringement sites will likely respond to DNS filtering by redirecting users’ DNS settings to point outside of the United States” (Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, Vixie, 10,2011). Once users start redirecting their DNS, that user is at risk for multiple attacks that they are unaware of. Take for instance a family computer: if a one user decides to redirect the DNS to download movies or music and does not change it back, that computer is left open for attack. Once a parent decides to do online banking, that information is rerouted to that offshore server, putting that information in jeopardy. Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, and Vixie explain that for users with redirected DNS settings, every time they connect to that possible rogue sever, that server is collecting bank information allowing the rogue site the opportunity to hijack it and “every email, every game, every Internet application that someone might use to be productive would potentially be exposed to manipulation” and allow the rogue server “the opportunity to impersonate it” (2012).
Because of these tactics, users will be at an increased risk of cyber security attacks. “Both users and operators of infringement sites will likely respond to DNS filtering by redirecting users’ DNS settings to point outside of the United States” (Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, Vixie, 10,2011). Once users start redirecting their DNS, that user is at risk for multiple attacks that they are unaware of. Take for instance a family computer: if a one user decides to redirect the DNS to download movies or music and does not change it back, that computer is left open for attack. Once a parent decides to do online banking, that information is rerouted to that offshore server, putting that information in jeopardy. Crocker, Dagon, Kaminsky, McPherson, and Vixie explain that for users with redirected DNS settings, every time they connect to that possible rogue sever, that server is collecting bank information allowing the rogue site the opportunity to hijack it and “every email, every game, every Internet application that someone might use to be productive would potentially be exposed to manipulation” and allow the rogue server “the opportunity to impersonate it” (2012).
As
we have discussed, if PIPA passes it will cause a major threat to U.S. security
by allowing these sorts of rogue DNS servers and other servers to start popping
up. Assume a user checks their online
banking at “zerostarbank.com. After some
use, the rogue server will gather enough information to make a fake
“zerostarbank.com” website and trick the user on giving over their banking
information, in turn empting their account.
A bill like SOPA would infringe upon the right
to due process and impose prior restraints on free speech on the internet. As the Financial
Express explains it, “the proposed laws will eliminate due processes of
protecting copyright under existing laws and have been made so broad, vague and
far-reaching that the laws, if passed, would grant unusually sweeping powers to
law enforcers and corporations to filter the Internet and block access to tools
to get around those filters - kind of prerogatives that despots and oppressive
regimes would love to use to suppress their subjects” (Financial Express, 2012).
We have all heard “you are innocent until proven guilty.” This is how our court
system works, and to have effective due process we must continue to follow this
principle at all costs. As discussed above, PIPA and SOPA would allow a
copyright holder to go straight to the justice department, make their
complaint, and have the site taken down if the judge sees fit, without hearing
from the other side. This is a
fundamental denial of due process. “Yet under PIPA, a judge decides whether to
block a domain after hearing only from the government” (Lee, 2011). PIPA and SOPA also give extreme power to the
attorney general to cut off “access to search engines, advertising networks,
and credit card payments” (Lee, 2012), all without a proper trial. These two
bills will undermine everything due process stands for. Each side is entitled
to be heard before any action is taken. There is no irreparable harm that would be
suffered by the copyright holder in the interim that warrants action prior to
hearing from the other side. The Supreme
Court points out that “the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint—limiting
access to speech before a court has provided due process to the defendant”
(Lee, 2012).
SOPA and PIPA won’t stop piracy but will allow abuse and make
the web less safe and unreliable. We can first look at the example of a website
that streamed Football, American football, Basketball, Rugby, Hockey and many
more sports related content live over the internet. The government seized four
of company’s domain names, firstrow.tv, firstrowsports.com, firstrowsports.net,
firstrowsports.tv, all linking to the same website. As we have discussed
earlier, the government only takes the domain name away, usually not the servers
on which the content is stored. Several
days later, after the government took down Firstrowsports site, it was back up
again and continues to operate as http://www.firstrowsports.eu/
Internet security is everything. It insures that once we logon to facebook.com,
we are actually taken to the official Facebook website. “Depending on how it’s
implemented, SOPA could demolish the cohesive structure of the internet by
damaging the core functionality of the Domain Name Service (DNS) system”. As stated by Extreme Tech, “DNS is what
enables your web browser to find any given site using a text string instead of
an IP address. Each client requests
information on where to find a particular domain from the DNS server it
connects to. Type in "pirates.com," and your web browser communicates
with your ISP's DNS server, which informs it that the IP address for that site
is 12.130.102.11. Your web browser
directs you to the IP address while displaying the typed domain”. So far, so good. The problem with SOPA is that
the only way to block US users from visiting certain websites is to create a
list of disallowed addresses, then block only US citizens from accessing them”
(Hruska, 2011). A bill like SOPA can kill the
high speed internet that every user wants. We can explain this first by the
technical example. Let’s say for example that SOPA was never around and the
internet is operating smoothly like it is today. If I dial up YouTube, my
computer first Pings the address through my interconnection. It first reaches
my ISP; their filtering software can either choose to scan the ping/packet to
see where it is going or just leave it. If I am connecting to an illegal site,
the ISP just blocks the ping/packet and no connection is made. Think of a
ping/packet like someone knocking on the door to see if anyone is home. Once the
ping/packet leaves the ISP servers, it will reach one of Google’s servers then
a fire wall to make sure the Ping (or person knocking) is not a bad virus (or a
robber if you will). If everything
checks out, YouTube responds by sending a small packet back saying “ I am here”
and the website opens to YouTube. All of this happens in a matter of .001 of a
second. If SOPA did pass, it will force
the ISP to search every single packet of information that goes through their
servers.
Take airport security for example. Before 9/11 you could pass
though the metal detector pretty freely, although every so often someone might
get pulled off to the side and searched. Post 9/11, everyone is searched top to
bottom. With more and more people trying
to get through security, it bogs down security personnel, and requires you to
get to the airport several hours before your flight leaves just to compensate
for the security screening. Now, picture that for websites; should you need to
get up early just to sit in a queue to load Google and again for the link you
are looking for? As the map of the internet (pictured below) illustrates,
that’s a lot of traffic to be filtered.
(Hrusk, 2011).
The second major issue, as Dyn [a computer based IT company,
specializing in the internet] discusses, is the question of how these lists are
to be maintained, communicated, and adjusted. Any attempt to maintain a
comprehensive blacklist could turn into a game of chicken between foreign DNS
providers registering new domains and copyright holder’s attempts to block US
access” (Hrusk, 2011). Dyn notes that if anyone could crack into the server
holding the list names, they would have nearly an unlimited license to bring
general destruction to the internet here in the U.S.A list server holding all
of these domain names might keep things secure, however tech savvy web users
who have a profound understanding of the internet could proxy around SOPA by
using offshore DNS hosts. Hrusk emphasizes
that if this would happen, the major problem would be that “this scenario…inevitably
devolves into an increasing spiral of censorship and filtering in the name of
protecting dubious copyrights that may not legally exist” (Hruskt,, 2012). He
goes on to explain that “Any attempt to implement the filtering
SOPA suggests will weaken the internet by creating artificial gateways that are
themselves susceptible to attack. There’s no way to plug the holes SOPA leaves
open without further draconian measures that would require offshore DNS
providers and ISPs to agree to uphold SOPA’s restrictions” (2012).
If
SOPA or PIPA pass, we can say good bye to a robust public domain. “Public
domain refers to works whose intellectual property rights have expired, been
forfeited, or are inapplicable” (Wikipedia). As Eric Hoyt, PhD candidate at the
University of Southern California, puts it, having “a robust public domain
ensures that old works can freely circulate and remain available for artists to
remix and use as the basis for new creative works” (Hoyt, 2012). “A robust public domain opens the potential
for more projects like the Media History Digital Library, which digitizes
historic magazines and trade papers for broad public access. The public domain
also unleashes creative possibilities for these projects”, explains Hoyt
(2012). The Hollywood backed legislation that brought attention to users all
over the internet about a bad piece of legislation and made several members of
Congress reconsider how they will vote. But what many people don’t know is “On
the same day, though, the Supreme Court decided in a 6-2 [Golan v. Holder]
ruling that Congress could constitutionally remove works from the public domain
in order to comply with international copyright treaties” (Hoyt, 2012). The key
word in this is “could”. Once again this is a very vague word and we do not
know what it actually means. This agreement sounds just like the bill PIPA. As
we have discussed multiple times, PIPA is meant to protect online privacy,
mostly overseas. The only difference is that Congress can bring the complaint,
not a company. No matter how you look at it, it is the same bill, however this
time people will complain to Congress, donate money, or offer other favors to Congress
so the complainer will get their way. The Supreme Court decision is a major “setback
for American culture and the balance copyright law needs to strike among the
interests of owners, artists, and the public” says Eric Hoyt. “Congress should
not be able to embark on the slippery slope of restoring copyrights to works
that have already entered the public domain” (Hoyt, 2012). If this is done by Congress,
what will that say about the information we rely on each day. It is sad to say
that money, campaign contributions, and powerful corporations like Hollywood
are the ones calling the shots. These
people don’t care about public domain because they own every piece of media in
some way on the web. It’s all about how
much power a studio can build up. These
studios complain about all the money and jobs being lost by piracy; if this was
a major issue maybe all of the “donations” the studios are giving out should go
to keeping jobs, not buying votes.
SOPA
is vague on its stance towards public domain and fair use dealing with the
media. If all it takes is one complaint from the
copyright holder to get a site shut down, what will that do towards media sites
like Fox News, CNN, CBS and many others when dealing with fair use? Fair use,
broadly stated, gives a user the right to use another author’s copyrighted
material in a reasonable manner without his or her permission. When news stories are released, news stations
want to be the first one to publish the story. With SOPA, it will destroy how
news stations report new media. Sascha
Meinrath, Director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative
told the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Ranking
Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), that if SOPA and PIPA would pass “would
be detrimental to freedom of expression worldwide” (Targeted News Service, 2011). Sascha Meinrath “goes on to explain
how SOPA's remedies are so overly broad that they would encompass far more than
bad actors profiting from copyright infringement. SOPA's creation of an
unprecedented private right of action would undermine key provisions in the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and put all websites at risk of losing
access to online payment systems and ad networks if a rights holder determines
they are not taking sufficient step to 'confirm' users are not violating
copyright” (Targeted News Service, 2011)..
The United States should be very proud that we have such a free and open
internet and we are free to post, talk about, and criticize our elected
leaders, actions which in other countries would lead to imprisonment or even
death. We must not become like these countries. This bill would indefinitely cut off our
free speech and open press around the world. James Losey, a policy analyst at the New
America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative says “Ensuring the openness of
the Internet must be a priority of domestic policy as well as foreign policy.
Requiring the tools of Internet censorship undermines free speech in the United
States and sets a dangerous precedent around the world" (Targeted News Service, 2011). The letter is
backed, supported and signed by American Library Association, Association of
Research Libraries, Center for Democracy & Technology, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Demand Progress, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom
House, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Internews, New America
Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, Public Knowledge, and TechFreedom.
“The (organizations listed above) recognize the importance of addressing truly
illicit behavior online. We share the overall goals of many of SOPA's
supporters - preventing large-scale commercial infringement and ensuring that
creativity and expression thrive. Intellectual property infringement breaks the
law online or off, but SOPA is not the right way to stop it. As drafted, SOPA
radically alters digital copyright policy in ways that will be detrimental to
online expression, innovation, and security (Targeted
News Service, 2011).
Part 3: Has copyright law kept pace with changing technology? Do
we need to overhaul
the law on conflicts between copyrights and the First Amendment?
The First Amendment is like America’s solid gold football; we have
it and there should never be anything that can take it away from us. It
guarantees us a free press to criticize our government, practice whatever
religion we want, and exercise freedom of assembly. SOPA and PIPA, while directed
at the internet and copyright problems, indirectly affect the right of free
speech granted to every American in the First Amendment. As we have discussed earlier, SOPA and PIPA
would allow basically anyone to make a copyright claim against another with
little or no evidence at all. For
instance, assume I am recording a video review about the newest 3rd
generation iPad. Currently the new iPad is having WiFi connection problems, and
thousands are being recalled. I
criticize the poor craftsmanship in the device, calling it an “overpriced piece
of junk that doesn’t work as promised.” I also make sure all of my twitter
followers know that the iPad is junk and tell them not to buy it. Under “fair
comment and criticism” (which permits an author to criticize a product, without
being sued) I am allowed to make these comments towards a product. I may be
protected under the fair comment and criticism law, however, if SOPA and or
PIPA pass, Apple could file a removal injunction on my video just by purposely
posting a link to copyrighted material. Under SOPA, this would justify the
video being deleted, and poses a high probability that all of YouTube could be
removed as well. SOPA and PIPA don’t indirectly mean to destroy free speech;
however, corporations that are in competition with one another will do anything
to have their opponents shut down or dragged through court for a while in order
to obtain a competitive advantage.
Competitive advantage is not a basis upon which to compromise the
constitutional right to free speech.
Christina Bohannan writes in the Hasting Law Journal that “in
copyright infringement cases, courts should determine whether the defendant’s
use of copyrighted material is likely to cause harm sufficient to reduce a
copyright holder’s incentives to create or disseminate copyrighted works” (Bohannan, 2010). To figure this all out, the
court needs to assess “the harm caused to the copyright holder’s incentives on
a case-by-case basis and weigh any other “harm against the speech value of the
defendant’s use” (Bohannan, 2010).
By contrast, the Eldred Court held that the boundaries of
copyright, especially the idea/expression dichotomy and the fair use doctrine,
strike a balance between ownership of copyrights and freedom of speech.
What’s on the shelf is old technology. This concept applies
especially towards the law because technology is changing so fast, the law has
no chance of keeping pace with it. We can all agree that preventing copyright,
intellectual property rights and forgery of products is a worthy goal. However,
it is not worth censoring free speech and destroying due process. Take for
instance the 1982 case of Beta Max v. VCR Tapes.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), was a Supreme Court decision that ruled
making individual copies of complete TV shows to be watched at a later time
does not qualify as copyright infringement, it is fair use. The Supreme Court
ruled that the sale of the VCR’s to the public does not “constitute
contributory infringement of [Universal's] copyrights. The Court concluded that
there was a significant likelihood that a substantial number of copyright
holders who license their works for free public broadcasts would not object to
having their broadcasts time-shifted by private viewers” (Oyez.org).
The VCR did make it easy to copy your favorite television shows,
just by pressing that little record button off to the side. Since the court ruled this to be fair use, many
home viewers chose to do this because it was a convenient way to watch their
favorite episodes over and over again. When the internet exploded in the late
90’s to early 2000’s, it made it easy for individuals to share content with one
another. The simple invention of a peer-to-peer network (P2P) started, and
users shared everything from pictures, files, games, music and movies all in
one place. Once the big movie studios
found out a lot of their content was being shared for free over the internet, however,
they sued. MGM Studios v. Grokster was basically the re-examination of the
issues in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios but with modern
technology. In Grokster, involving the makers of the P2P file sharing
companies Grokster and Streamcast, the court ruled
unanimously that Grokster was in violation of
promoting and distributing software to infringe copyrights.
It
took nearly 19 years for the law to catch up with the advancement in
technology. Once MGM started suing, all the other studios started going after
any one they could. The point is, once a bill like SOPA or PIPA passes, all it
will take is one person to sue first and many others will jump-in for retaliation or because everyone else is doing
it.
The 1976 Copyright act
“added a broad derivative-works right, which gives copyright holders
exclusive rights not only over the original work but also over any work in
which the original work might be recast, transformed, or adapted” (Bohannan 1130, 2010). The 1976 Act also
changed how the United States dealt with Fair use. Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act
codified fair use for the first time. Until this law was passed, the United
States was using the English common law. Under the new revisions, fair use is
not copyright infringement. When
Congress passed this law computers and the internet were around, however, Congress
did not believe they were of any significance.
Technology once again took off and ran ahead of the law, Congress,
and other lawmakers. The rapid growth of
the internet in the late 90’s changed how everyone did business and received
information. People could log on to the internet and find news, music, and
virtually anything their minds could think up. This became a haven for users to
download copyrighted movies, music, and photographs/images. The holders of the
copyright complained to congress, and in response Congress passed the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, repealing the 22 year old “1976 Copyright Act”.
Congress hoped it would be effective to finally bring “the internet and other
digital media into the copyright law” (Trager,
Russoman & Ross 608, 2011).
Instead of Congress
slowly adapting to the internet , they mostly ignored it. For 22 years the 1976
Act remained on the books while technology grew rapidly, leaving the obsolete
1976 Act in the dust. As technology
advanced and the internet gradually made its way into homes all over the world,
the law governing it remained stuck in the 80’s and unable to keep pace. With passing of the
DMCA, it enacted a handful of new laws to fight internet piracy and copyright.
DMCA not only makes it a crime for
knowingly downloading copyrighted material but also bans “software and hardware
that facilitates circumventing copyright protection technology” (Trager,
Russoman & Ross 608, 2011). For example, it would outlaw any program that
would allow a user to copy a DVD, regardless of whether he or she is the sole
owner of it or not. Title II of the
Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act protects the Internet
service providers (ISPs), from lawsuits, if their users are filed against under
the DMCA and only if the ISPs block or remove the content. The Act also allows for copying software for the
sole purpose of back-up/repair of a computer. Lastly, the DMCA allows for copies for
distance education, the exceptions in the Copyright Act for libraries and for
making ephemeral recordings, “webcasting” of sound recordings on the Internet,
and the applicability of collective bargaining agreement obligations in the
case of transfers of rights in motion pictures” (The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998).
The internet is a theoretical living machine. Every day more and more websites are born,
from illegal ones, to simple blogs that give a user the voice and opinion. Now 14 years later, SOPA and PIPA have made an
appearance. Once again Congress and The House of Representatives have slacked
off and not let the law be reformed and grow as the internet does. In reality, DMCA has allowed copyright holders
sue peer-to-peer (P2P) networking sites out of existence (explained later). However these two bills are lethal injections
for the internet, which will indefinitely kill off free speech.
Unlike SOPA and PIPA, the DMCA says that a copyright holder cannot
go straight to a lawsuit out of the blue.
The copyright holder must first contact the website, prove they are the
holder of the copyrighted material, and then finally ask the host site to take
down its content. This seems a lot better than what SOPA and PIAP will do. Remember that under those two laws, all it
takes is a claim or accusations in order to have the whole site taken down.
Both SOPA and PIPA sound similar to DMCA, but then why the push
for two more copyright bills? First SOPA and PIPA do not have to deal with
contacting the website; the copyright holder can immediately file a lawsuit,
even if it’s a false or a “mistaken” claim. Second, it is the entertainment
industry that is pushing for the bill to pass, not the artists. The
entertainment industry took in around $30 billion in 2007, which gives studios
and executives a lot of pull in congress due to their generous donations (Mahanta & Baumann, 2012). “Since the beginning of the 2010 election
cycle, SOPA's 32 sponsors took in nearly four times as much in campaign
contributions from the entertainment industry than from the software and
Internet industries (nearly $2 million versus a little over $500,000)” (Mahanta & Baumann, 2012). This really shows that all it takes is a $1,700
campaign donation from “movies/music/TV” for Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), a U.S. House
member to support PIPA and SOPA. The
more high profile Senators command higher donations, such as Howard Berman (D-CA), who took a $286,400
donation, for which he returned the favor by supporting SOPA (Refer to Appendix
4 for the Roll Call of the U.S. House and their
positions regarding SOPA and Appendix 5 for
PIPA).
First Amendment scrutiny should be applied where the speech value
of the copying clearly outweighs the harm or where copyright law burdens speech
in structural ways that cannot be addressed in individual infringement cases (Bohannan
1132-33, 2010).
Part 4
What about this business of allowing websites to be shut down
while we figure out whether they’re breaking the law? What rulings have been
handed down on that? Is it a prior restraint? A heckler’s veto?
As we have touched on earlier, what happens when the government
allows websites to be shut down while we figure out whether they’re breaking
the law? This has happened to a number of sites, and SOPA and PIPA never
passed, the government just came in and said “good bye!” On January 19, 2012,
one day before the bill was even voted on, the Justice Department announced
that it “has charged Megaupload Ltd., operator of content-hosting website
MegaUpload.com, along with seven of its employees and a holding company used by
Megaupload’s founder, with criminal copyright infringement and related crimes”(Lynn, pg 7, 2012). Indictments came down from
“a grand jury in Virginia for racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit
copyright infringement and other charges. Authorities also seized 18 domain
names and an estimated $50 million in assets, including servers run in Virginia
and Washington, D.C” (Fritz, 2012).
Megaupload, based out of
Hong Kong, was a website that allowed users to upload any content to their
servers and share it with their friends. This could be pictures from a family
vacation, a funny drawing of your friend or maybe a material classified as
copyrighted. Megaupload.com counted for 4% of the internet traffic and hosted
around 50 million users a day. The
government said that “the Justice Department’s action against Megaupload “shows
what law enforcement can do to protect American intellectual property that is
stolen through domestic websites” (Lynn, pg 8,
2012). This is one example of a DNS take down of a webpage. The domain
name (megaupload.com) is blocked for U.S. servers. Instead of the government
issuing a removal of their content, the government came in and took the entire
site down. Megaupload.com is supported by various music artists like P Diddy,
Kanye West, Chris Brown, Jamie Foxx, Kim Kardashian, Lil John and many more,
all claiming that they “love megaupload.”
The U.S. attorneys for the cases deny all of the governments
allegations. Attorney Ira Rothken said
“We believe that the allegations are without merit and Megaupload is going to
vigorously defend against the case” (Gross, 2012). The websites owners have
denied they have done anything wrong, “and their attorney has said the site was
wrongly shut down before its owners were allowed to address the charges against
them” (Gross, 2012). The owners say that it is possible to upload illegal
content however, under the terms and conditions it forbids any illegal upload
or download. Megaupload offered a feature or “a tool to report
"abuse," [it] gave copyright holders the ability to hunt for illegal
content and registered with the U.S. government under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act” (Gross, 2012). This allowed users or companies to flag
copyrighted material to warn Megaupload to take it down. The website was so
large it would be impossible to monitor every piece of content uploaded to
their site. Sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have the same service and
they have not been shut down. Many believe that the take down of Megaupload was
just to show of the government’s power of overseas web page take down. Other
users are very upset because many of them used the site for legitimate use,
posting work files and documents so they can be accessed anywhere they go; all
of these files are forever lost.
If we look past the law and how professionals should deal with
this, a law such as PIPA and SOPA would never have to exist. A professional can
be defined just as a normal site moderator. It is his job to look through video
or uploaded content to see if it violates a copyright law. This would keep the
government out of our business and allow websites to be controlled internally
versus having an outside source snooping at all times.
Take YouTube for example; if a company brings a suit against one
of the videos on YouTube’s site, the site moderator will investigate it, as
well as allowing the author of the video to fight for his rights. According to
YouTube, they claim that many of their users have won their battle against
large studios, proving either fair use or that the studio’s claim has nothing
to do with a copyright violation. The studio only wants the video down because
it is viral and is trashing their summer blockbuster movie. This seems like a
fair and reasonable way to conduct business and has been ever since there was a
complaint line for a product. The only reason SOPA and PIPA would need to pass
is because it would happen immediately (over several hours), versus having the
parties fight it out to see who is really right or not. Some of these
professionals, including the media, will need to be well informed, since
experts cannot catch everything. The internet is alive, which means it is
always going to be changing. People will find different ways to circumvent
security protocols. Remember YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and all other social
networking sites are all user run. That is why every page, post, video and photo
has a “report” clickable to red flag the content to a site admin. We the people
run the internet, not the government.
SOPA and PIPA are very difficult topics to understand, not because
the two bills are overly complicated, but rather because SOPA and PIPA are
overly broad. We do not understand what
their real intention is. We have seen that once protests are made, senators and
representatives went from supporting the bill to opposing it, realizing what
they were voting for was truly a death wish for free and open speech, the First
Amendment, Due Process, and security concerns for the whole web.
There is no doubt that preventing
copyright infringement is a worthy goal for the government, however the way
SOPA and PIPA pursue this goal will destroy the rights of American citizens. The only supporters are the media and large
studios, who claim they are losing money, when in reality it will be another
piece of “property” they can claim as their own. We must remember how Hollywood
works: the more you own, the more you control. The more Hollywood controls, the greater
power it has to lobby Congress in any direction they please.
Part 5: Look beyond changing
the law. What should a professional do who has to work in this field? What are
some issues professionals must be aware of? Concluding thoughts.
The proper way this should be
handled is the way it is currently being handled, i.e., by website moderators
and the normal everyday users. The “report”, “report abuse”, and “red flag”
buttons really work. Unlike SOPA and
PIPA these people spend their time investigating these reports to make sure
that the accusation is fair and true, not made up and a waste of time.
The internet will always have stolen material on it. So, for that matter, will pawn shops, garage
sales, and other merchants selling various items. Some of the items these people have for
sale may in fact be stolen, but unless it can be proven that they are aware of
this, that is no excuse to kill their business, or their website. As we have said earlier, SOPA and PIPA is
like going after a fly with a Bazooka; it may get the job done, but the
collateral damage is excessive and unreasonable. Congress needs to draft a more finely crafted
bill that will accomplish the goal of preventing copyright infringement,
without infringing on the peoples’ right to free expression. The law should be fairly and evenly applied;
it should not be drafted to favor the interests of large Hollywood studios. This
bill must protect our constitutional rights of free speech and due process, and
restrict the government from taking down a website based on the allegations of
only one party. We, the “users” of the
internet, and our elected representatives in Congress can craft a better law in
which legitimate copyright concerns are addressed, and people continue to have a
voice on the internet. If we allow Congress to pass bill such as SOPA and PIPA,
your favorite page you visit every day, will soon look like this cover page.
Make sure you Senator’s and Representative’s know how you feel about internet
censorship; tell them “if you vote for internet censorship, I’ll vote you out
of office. Support a free and open internet for all.
Appendix 1: The original list of supporters who
are in favor of SOPA/PIPA on and before January 18, 2012 (Photo Source (Mick, 2012).
Appendix 1.1: The original list who
previously opposed the bill: SOPA/PIPA on and before January 18, 2012. (photo
source (Mick, 2012)).
Appendix 2
Appendix 3:
Shows the difference between SOPA and PIPA.
Source: (Marwick, 2012).
Appendix 4
The SOPA Bill
H.R.3261
– Stop Online Piracy Act
The current
tally of U.S. House members
who have (or haven't) taken a public stance regarding SOPA
(See the full list)
(See the full list)
Support
|
24
|
Oppose
|
117
|
Leaning No
|
51
|
Unknown
|
241
|
Latest
Action
Upcoming
Action
Summary
SOPA allows
the U.S. attorney general to take action against foreign websites found to be
"dedicated" to copyright infringement. U.S. based companies,
including search engines and domain name registrars, can be ordered to block
access to these infringing sites.
The measure is backed by media and entertainment companies, as well as labor groups and manufacturing industries,
including pharmaceutical companies seeking to stop counterfeit drug marketers.
Online companies,including Google and Facebook, argue that SOPA's enforcement is tantamount to censorship
and will stifle innovation.
27
Co-sponsors: Mark Amodei (NV), Joe Baca (CA), John Barrow (GA), Karen Bass (CA), Howard L. Berman (CA),Marsha Blackburn (TN), Mary Bono Mack (CA), Steven J. Chabot (OH), Judy Chu (CA), John Conyers Jr. (MI), Jim Cooper (TN), Ted Deutch (FL), Elton Gallegly (CA), Robert W. Goodlatte (VA), Tim Griffin (AR), Tim Holden (PA),Peter T. King (NY), John B. Larson (CT), Ben Ray Lujan (NM), Tom Marino (PA), Alan Nunnelee (MS), Bill Owens (NY), Dennis Ross (FL), Adam B. Schiff (CA), Brad Sherman (CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Melvin Watt (NC)
(Note: Not full list of U.S. House Members,
table is for example only)
This is the not the full list of members in
the U.S. House and their positions regarding SOPA. Click on a row to read more details about a
lawmaker.
Name
|
Party
|
State
|
2010 Campaign $
Movies/Music/TV |
2010 Campaign $
Computers/Internet |
Years Served
|
SOPA /
PIPA Stance |
D
|
$286,400
|
$73,539
|
30
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$173,890
|
$30,926
|
16
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$148,150
|
$31,547
|
38
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$117,190
|
$41,150
|
32
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$109,600
|
$72,920
|
2
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$103,700
|
$122,650
|
12
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$101,350
|
$38,076
|
26
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$97,500
|
$18,800
|
16
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$94,500
|
$14,000
|
58
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$90,944
|
$28,200
|
20
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$90,850
|
$47,250
|
26
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$86,600
|
$62,593
|
20
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$85,750
|
$16,750
|
10
|
No
|
||
D
|
$84,591
|
$73,983
|
48
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$76,950
|
$63,475
|
24
|
No
|
||
D
|
$70,600
|
$23,169
|
8
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$69,700
|
$19,500
|
6
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$69,600
|
$48,250
|
14
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$66,500
|
$24,400
|
24
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$65,750
|
$45,658
|
38
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$64,350
|
$46,000
|
30
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$62,700
|
$6,250
|
12
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$58,500
|
$27,150
|
28
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$57,500
|
$6,500
|
14
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$56,725
|
$26,400
|
16
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$56,500
|
$67,819
|
20
|
Yes
|
Appendix: 5
The PIPA Bill
S.968
– Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of
Intellectual Property Act of 2011
The current
tally of U.S. Senate members
who have (or haven't) taken a public stance regarding PIPA
(See the full list)
(See the full list)
Support
|
31
|
Oppose
|
22
|
Leaning No
|
15
|
Unknown
|
32
|
Latest
Action
12/17/2011 – Motion to proceed in consideration of bill (which
was approved by the committee in May).
Upcoming
Action
Summary
PIPA, a shorthand term for the PROTECT-IP Act, is theSenate version of SOPA.
Sites such as Google would be ordered to remove listings of "rogue
websites operated and registered overseas" that are found to be dedicated
to copyright infringement.
PIPA is a rewrite of last
year's Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits
Act (also introduced by Sen.
Patrick Leahy), which didn't reach a full Senate vote. Forty senators have co-sponsored PIPA but it faces a filibuster attempt by Sen. Ron Wyden. Wyden has also proposed an
alternative bill called the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital
Trade Act.
34
Co-sponsors: Lamar Alexander (TN), Michael Bennet (CO), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA),Thad Cochran (MS), Christopher A. Coons (DE), Bob Corker (TN), Richard J. Durbin (IL), Michael B. Enzi (WY),Dianne Feinstein (CA), Al Franken (MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Lindsey Graham (SC), Charles E. Grassley (IA), Kay Hagan (NC), Johnny Isakson (GA), Tim Johnson (SD), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Herb Kohl (WI), Mary L. Landrieu (LA), Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), John McCain (AZ), Robert Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Jim Risch (ID), Charles E. Schumer (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Tom Udall (NM), David Vitter (LA), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
This is the not full list of members in
the U.S. Senate and their positions regarding PIPA. Click on a row to read more details about a
lawmaker.
Name
|
Party
|
State
|
2010 Campaign $
Movies/Music/TV |
2010 Campaign $
Computers/Internet |
Years Served
|
SOPA /
PIPA Stance |
D
|
$571,600
|
$348,691
|
19
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$500,300
|
$299,448
|
25
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$494,325
|
$291,384
|
13
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$367,733
|
$162,575
|
3
|
Leaning
No
|
||
D
|
$360,541
|
$217,750
|
3
|
Leaning
No
|
||
D
|
$346,056
|
$140,620
|
37
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$154,166
|
$64,238
|
1
|
No
|
||
D
|
$154,066
|
$52,150
|
1
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$111,150
|
$92,976
|
31
|
Leaning
No
|
||
R
|
$104,472
|
$116,318
|
25
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$99,900
|
$61,500
|
43
|
Undecided
|
||
D
|
$99,166
|
$363,129
|
19
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$97,915
|
$80,300
|
7
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$97,400
|
$74,000
|
7
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$92,700
|
$23,950
|
3
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$88,900
|
$30,300
|
3
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$81,265
|
$148,500
|
1
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$75,900
|
$49,850
|
3
|
Leaning
No
|
||
D
|
$75,800
|
$12,100
|
5
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$74,850
|
$26,502
|
7
|
No
|
||
D
|
$67,200
|
$189,350
|
16
|
No
|
||
R
|
$67,150
|
$66,288
|
7
|
Leaning
No
|
||
R
|
$56,500
|
$50,950
|
7
|
No
|
||
R
|
$55,900
|
$59,216
|
1
|
No
|
||
R
|
$55,050
|
$94,107
|
1
|
No
|
||
D
|
$54,750
|
$33,300
|
19
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$53,150
|
$33,500
|
6
|
Leaning
No
|
||
R
|
$50,900
|
$19,050
|
11
|
No
|
||
D
|
$46,700
|
$23,250
|
27
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$44,475
|
$24,300
|
5
|
Leaning
No
|
||
R
|
$43,500
|
$82,222
|
1
|
No
|
||
R
|
$41,500
|
$25,800
|
7
|
Leaning
No
|
||
R
|
$37,500
|
$41,355
|
1
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$37,300
|
$20,500
|
35
|
No
|
||
R
|
$36,800
|
$7,500
|
1
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$36,255
|
$153,050
|
3
|
No
|
||
R
|
$36,200
|
$26,714
|
1
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$34,200
|
$33,750
|
3
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$33,500
|
$53,670
|
13
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$32,200
|
$25,823
|
5
|
Yes
|
||
D
|
$31,000
|
$7,500
|
27
|
Unknown
|
||
R
|
$28,000
|
$101,250
|
25
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$27,400
|
$2,000
|
27
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$24,200
|
$2,000
|
11
|
Undecided
|
||
R
|
$23,250
|
$16,743
|
1
|
No
|
||
D
|
$22,866
|
$51,050
|
25
|
Leaning
No
|
||
R
|
$22,500
|
$10,000
|
17
|
Undecided
|
||
R
|
$21,993
|
$5,250
|
9
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$21,250
|
$7,600
|
5
|
Yes
|
||
R
|
$21,200
|
$30,250
|
27
|
Unknown
|
||
D
|
$21,000
|
$15,000
|
3
|
Yes
|
