An Updated Analysis: Why SOPA & PIPA Are A Bad Idea, Dangerous & Unnecessary
from the enough-of-the-bull dept
Okay. A few months back, I wrote up what I called "the definitive" post on why SOPA & PIPA were very bad bills. Some things have changed since then, so I thought it might be useful to do an updated post on the subject. On top of that, one of the key claims by supporters of these bills is that those of us opposed have been spewing false claims to increase the hysteria. While it's true that there is some misinformation making the rounds, I've seen no evidence that it's limited to the anti-SOPA/PIPA crowd. In fact, it appears to be worse on the part of supporters. While some anti-SOPA/PIPA folks may be misinformed about the specifics, they are at least speaking honestly. The pro-SOPA/PIPA forces appear to be deliberately misstating the facts.So, let's look at the facts. PIPA & SOPA are (now) very similar bills, both with significant problems. In fact, the remaining "differences" in the bills each have serious problems, which is why neither bill is a "better" bill, since both are terrible. The claimed purpose behind these bills is to give both law enforcement and private individuals/companies tools to go after "foreign" websites that are offering infringing (either copyright or trademark) content. The bills offer two ways to do this: via the Attorney General taking action against the sites, or via a "private right of action," in which copyright or trademark holders take direct action themselves against a site they believe is dedicated to infringement.
The bill does require a half-hearted attempt to "contact" the operators of the sites being accused, but if the AG or rightsholders feel they can't reach the owners, they can then go directly after "the site" itself (an "in rem" process, rather than an "in personam"). Following a (literally) one-sided court hearing, a judge can then put the accused site on what is effectively a blacklist. If it's the AG bringing the action, it means that search engines or (under PIPA) "information location tools" -- a broad term that covers an awful lot of the internet -- have to magically figure out ways to block any and all links to the site in question. If it's either the AG or private rightsholders, then payment processors and ad networks would be forced to stop doing business with the sites on the blacklist.
Under both bills, the definitions of what is a "site dedicated" to "infringement" or "theft of US property" are pretty broad and open to abuse. While supporters of the bills love to insist they're narrowly tailored, a simple look at PIPA shows that's wrong. It notes that you can be dedicated to infringement if the key service you offer facilitates infringement. Think about that for a second. Pretty much every user generated content site or communication tool... or... computer, can "facilitate" infringement. Now, supporters of the bill insist that most sites are safe because the bill says that there's "no significant use other than... enabling or facilitating" infringement. But, again, note they're not saying that it has no significant use other than infringement. It says no significant use other than enabling or facilitating infringement. That's pretty much the entire internet there. A site may only rarely be used to infringe, but its primary function can still 'facilitate' infringement.
In addition, SOPA has an anti-circumvention rule, which makes it incredibly risky to provide any kind of service that that accidentally gets you around the blacklist. (VPN provider? Too bad!) Even worse, the anti-circumvention provision is not limited to foreign sites.
The "only impacts foreign sites" claim is also a red herring. It's a favorite of the pro-PIPA/SOPA folks, but it's a lie. While the current bill targets foreign sites, all of the remedies and enforcement require compliance by domestic sites. That's costly. I recognize that policy analysts, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians who have never actually run a business think this stuff is simple, but for those of us who actually run companies, this is terrifying. We now have to worry about staying in compliance with a broad law that's almost impossible to comply with in any realistic manner. In our debate yesterday, the US Chamber of Commerce's Steve Tepp insisted that there was "no liability" for any domestic site. This is ridiculous. What he meant was no direct monetary liability. Leave it to an out of touch policy guy to think that it's only a liability if there's the potential to cost you money in court. The liability is in the possibility of being dragged to court over this. It's in the possibility of facing additional punishment/sanctions for failing to obey an impossible-to-obey court order to cut off certain users. That is a tremendous liability.
There are additional provisions that are troubling, including SOPA's inclusion of "felony streaming" provisions, that could lead to jail time for those who lip synch over songs and put that up in a YouTube video, or those who embed infringing YouTube videos on their own site. PIPA does not have that directly, but there is a companion bill in the Senate that has similar things.
So why, specifically, are these two bills so bad:
- They will not do anything to solve the problem. This is the biggest point. In the past 35 years, dating back to the 1976 Copyright Act, the legacy content industries have gone back to Congress an astounding sixteen times and gotten them to expand copyright law in some form or another to deal with their own inability to adapt. That's just about every two years. And what has any of it done to reduce the amount of infringement? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But now this is suddenly the magic bullet?
More to the point, multiple studies have shown that "piracy" is almost always a "service" issue -- in that people resort to infringing options when no good options exist. A detailed four-year study on this issue around the globe found, consistently, that infringement was never an "enforcement" issue -- but exclusively a business model issue. Provide services that give people what they want, and watch piracy decline. Lots of people have shown the industry how this works, and they still ignore it. A perfect example is how Valve Software saw lots of piracy in Russia -- a hotbed of infringement -- and used that as free market research to establish a presence in Russia, which is now a huge moneymaker for them. Not by "enforcing" against infringers, but by offering a better legitimate service.
- Putting massive liability and compliance costs on startups will hinder the most necessary innovation and jobs. As described above, these bills work by making tech companies responsible for creating/policing the blacklist. That's expensive and daunting. Many startups won't even bother to work on innovative services because the legal fees will just be too high. Others will simply start elsewhere. At a time when startups are the only net creator of jobs these days, do we really want to burden them all with significant new compliance costs and liability? These bills are jobs and innovation killers.
- These bills go against American principles of freedom of speech. Over 100 law professors -- including one of the most respected Constitutional scholars, Laurence Tribe -- have made this point repeatedly. Creating a blacklist is not where the US should be going -- and it specifically goes against our messaging to other countries on the importance of an open internet and basic internet freedoms. Sure, supporters of the bills will point out that censoring "political speech" is different than censoring sites that have some infringing content, but that ignores reality. We've seen oppressive regimes abuse copyright law to oppress dissidents. SOPA & PIPA give those regimes the perfect cover story for doing more of that: just claim they violated copyright law, and the US says it's just dandy to censor and suppress speech.
- The immunity provisions in the bill sneak through broad powers by pretending they're "voluntary." Supporters insist that these bills will only be used against the worst of the worst. But they're purposely ignoring the broad immunity provisions in the bill -- and the history of similar immunity provisions. The immunity provisions basically say that, if you become aware of a site that may be infringing, you will get full immunity if you take the actions prescribed in the bill (i.e., cutting them off). As we've seen with the DMCA, such a grant of immunity means that if you hear of a site that is accused, you are very, very likely to cut them off, just to make sure you retain that immunity. Why risk it otherwise? Only a few sites may stand up to the worst abuses. The rest will want to make sure they don't have any future legal fight and will quickly cut the site off -- at which point there's no real recourse.
- These bills will be abused. Just like every copyright law that's been passed. It's common knowledge that the DMCA is widely abused to take down content that is not infringing. But, at least with the DMCA it's targeted at specific content. With SOPA, entire sites will be taken down. Supporters insist that a "court reviews" these, and so there's no worry there. Tell that to Dajaz1.com, the blog that was incorrectly seized and censored for over a year with no due process under existing law (something we should definitely be revisiting). How can we say the new law won't be abused when the old law is already regularly abused?
Yes, the DNS blocking provisions of the original bills made these even worse, but delaying (not removing) these provisions doesn't fix all of those other problems.
As for some of the misinformation -- including the claims that SOPA would be used to take down US sites -- well, that's the supporters' own damn fault. They pushed to make SOPA so bad that that absolutely was the case with the original bill, and only changed after massive pushback from the online community. If they hadn't pushed to include that in the first place, perhaps this wouldn't be an issue. But, really, worrying about the takedown of American sites is an issue that's separate from SOPA/PIPA... in that it's already allowed under US law. Just witness the Dajaz1 case we mentioned above... and worry about the fact that we didn't have this day of protest before the ProIP Act was approved, which sneakily allowed that to happen.
These bills do not solve the problem, because they're targeting the wrong problem. And, to make matters worse, they do so in a way that creates tremendous collateral damage. This is no way to regulate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bad laws, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Error 0118
Error 0118: Stop Internet Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/
And strictly speaking, they shouldn't even be threatened by it - they only release links to books and media IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. But they know how bad this is! And it will only take ONE jackass in the publishing industry to figure, "Nobody will buy our new edition of "Jane Eyre" if they can get it for free! DIE!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares if it only targets foreign sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares if it only targets foreign sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares if it only targets foreign sites?
Sorry for invoking Godwin, but it's as if they said, don't worry about this unjust law, it'll only apply to Gypsies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares if it only targets foreign sites?
Pirate Bay violates the Netherland's version of SOPA/PIPA, hey we can use the provisions of TPP (if they can sneak such a provision is and Netherlands actually signed onto an agreement like TPP) to shut them down in the US.
YouTube violates India's version of SOPA/PIPA, we can use the provisions of TPP (agian assuming they get such a provision through and India signed on) to shut them down in the US.
And if you don't think they are going to try to push such a provision in TPP (or whatever "trade agreement" they work on after TPP) you clearly haven't been paying a lot of attention to what they are doing (or your being dishonest).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The History of Anti Innovative legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The History of Anti Innovative legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The History of Anti Innovative legislation
Also, the train industry gets bailed out because it doesn't want to compete with planes. It's far easier to get money as a subsidy than to try to earn the trust of the people.
And I could go on and on and on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The History of Anti Innovative legislation
Incumbents have been fighting competition for centuries with laws. This book is very thorough, if not rather academically dry:
http://amzn.to/y8UKL5
Entitled "Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates" by University of Chicago professor Adrian Johns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The History of Anti Innovative legislation
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111005/03430716204/riaa-law-lets-law-enforcement-ignore -4th-amendment-search-private-property-with-no-warrants.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The History of Anti Innovative legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ABC renames SOPA
SOPA == Stop Online Privacy Act
A better name, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ABC renames SOPA
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/sopa-protest-wikipedia-dark-15376960
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you think are the odds that these bills were never intended to be passed as they are written, but rather they are collectively just a cats-paw intended to get a slightly-less-awful version by as a "reasonable compromise"*? Given the cartoonish, over-the-top policies outlined in SOPA/PIPA, that seems more and more likely to me as the debate drags on and the "manager's amendments" pile up.
*There is no such thing as "reasonable" with this kind of prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They just assume that because the general population has remained largely passive so far, that they will always remain largely passive. As it even says in the Declaration of Independence:
and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
They fail to take into account that at some point their actions become no longer sufferable, but by then they are too ingrained into their behavior to be willing to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we only had "THIS" it would solve all our problems. If you do not think things through, "THIS" does nothing, it just leads to an Epic Fail and another round of seeking a new "THIS".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jobs
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_207.htm
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
PBS ran an piece on this last night and Rick Cotton, executive president at NBC Universal and chair of the Chamber of Commerce Coalition Against Piracy was hyping the hyperbolic jobs thing again. Unfortunately Ben Huh, CEO of Cheezburger, did not go far enough in refuting this issue.
Also, unfortunately, Ray Suarez was woefully unprepared for the segment, and allowed this bogus rant to go unchallenged.
I look to PBS to give me balanced information (unlike FOX anything), and I have felt that they have in the past (20+ years of supporting PBS and NPR). For the first time, I actually know more about the issue than they do (thanks to Techdirt, I have a full cup of both sides). I am now VERY concerned that the Newshour is running off the cuff reporting instead of actually investigating the issues.
I did send them an email back on or about Jan 6 with regard to their Jan 5 report suggesting that the do some further research, with a link to one of your pages. Apparently they don't listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs
Let's face it, most people that watch the Newshour are probably older, less likely to be aware of these issues, and more likely to buy the kind of garbage that the **AA's are selling. So I see this piece as exactly the sort of thing we need to get the issues out there to the wider public. I don't think we need Ray Suarez to take one side or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jobs
My father was a journalist, and as I grew up, I watched him agonizing about being able to report as many sides to the story as possible. There were times when his life was in danger, due to his dedication to the truth. He covered the 1957 Little Rock schools issue, and was beaten by the crowd, and tossed in jail by the police (for his protection, they said), and still printed the reality, not the lies or (locally at least) status quo.
I expect a high standard from PBS/NPR, and have been seriously disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Half-hearted? WTF Fudboy. The requirement for contacting the accused sites are the same as the standard applied to all federal civil litigation. So your problem seems to be with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure not some "half-hearted" requirement unique to this bill that you have just invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality check: The issues are not going to go away just because people like to recite memes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facilitating
I think I'm still overall against PIPA, due to the other arguments listed and because it appears that the government doesn't really know enough about the internet to apply a law like this correctly even if the provisions were reasonable. But I think it is an overstatement to say that most sites on the internet would be properly understood as "dedicated to infringement" under just application of the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facilitating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it nothing short of remarkable that the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate are able to craft legislation consistent with the US Constitution, something so many here seem to believe Congress is incapable of doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an amendment for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an amendment for you...
Aside: these bills are proof of the lie that ACTA would not change US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's an amendment for you...
And for those that say that such a system would be unfair to those making the accusations, I'll just say this: if they only target ACTUAL PIRATES/CRIMINALS, then they would have nothing at all to worry about. Therefore it's only 'unfair'(and I'm having to stretch the meaning of that word to the breaking point to fit it here) in the sense that they would have an actual penalty for attempting to destroy a legitimate website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an amendment for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IN PROTEST OF SOPA AND PIPA,
WE HAVE MAYBE 12 hours TO BLACK OUT THE INTERNET!
I MEAN THE WHOLE INTERNET, ALL OF IT!
Can't be too difficult if every acted with a minimum of effort?
BLACK OUT TO REESTABLISH AN ACTIVE CIVILIAN PRESENCE ON THE INTERNET!
BLACK UP AGAINST CENSORSHIP AND UNLAWFUL INTRUSIONS!
BLACK OUT AGAINST IT CORPORATE ABUSES!
BLACK OUT IN A PRESENCE WHERE THE CORPORATE ELITE IS MEANINGLESS!
I see an internet I want it painted BLACK
BEFORE TODAY IS OVER, I want it painted BLACK
I WANT NO THE PROFILE PHOTOS In their cheerful tones
ON FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE PLUS
PROFILES SHOULD BE BLACKED OUT!
http://zito.biz/fuckyou/?p=2630
http://templeofreason.org/news/?p=2787
██ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██. ███ ███ This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IN PROTEST OF SOPA AND PIPA,
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone please explain this in a bit more detail? As I understand the bills, the remedies would only impact payment processors and advertisers that are servicing foreign websites that are found to be dedicated to infringing activities (the DNS filtering seems to be out now, so its impact is moot). Mike has repeatedly stated that compliance would have a major impact on startups. I guess I'm just missing the connection.
I can certainly see how payment processors and advertisers might be impacted, but how (specifically) would the bills impose major compliance burdens on any other companies?
Thanks for the explanation in advance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Purpose
other sites with further information. This also means no re-
posting of copyrighted material. Money in politics is needed to pay for access to the narrow casters - broadcast tv and radio conglomerates along with the big name cable/satellite
news shows providers. If these were boycotted because of the
political ads (I'll watch your deodorant commercials but not
your "candidate infomercials") the money is useless. Social
media would then rule the political discourse and not Super-Pacs. Your actions would dislodge the supremacy of these companies to control our government. This is a real threat to an established order. You people participating on
this site and others really have that power - for now.
Boycott.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice
Aside: these bills are verification of the lie that ACTA might not transform US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]