iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

SOPA, PIPA Headed For Major Makeover

Sopa Pipa

First Posted: 01/16/12 05:23 PM ET Updated: 01/17/12 08:44 AM ET


By Sarah McBride

(Reuters) - U.S. legislation aimed at curbing online piracy, which had appeared to be on a fast track for approval by Congress, appears likely to be scaled back or jettisoned entirely in the wake of critical comments over the weekend from the White House, people familiar with the matter said.

The legislation, known as SOPA in the House of Representatives and PIPA in the Senate, has been a major priority for entertainment companies, publishers, pharmaceutical firms and many industry groups, who say it is critical to curbing online piracy that costs them billions of dollars a year.

The legislation is designed to shut down access to overseas websites that traffic in stolen content or counterfeit goods.

Internet companies have furiously opposed the legislation and have ramped up their lobbying efforts in recent months, arguing the legislation would undermine innovation and free speech rights and compromise the functioning of the Internet.

Some Internet advocates have called for a boycott of any companies that support the legislation, and several popular websites, including community-edited encyclopedia Wikipedia and the social media site Reddit, have vowed to black out their sites this Wednesday in protest.

With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills.

The White House said in a blog post over the weekend that it wouldn't support "legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain, a person familiar with the matter says. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing.

But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated.

Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers.

Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realization they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions.

Before the holidays, an amended version of the House bill had added a "kill switch," or provision that service providers wouldn't have to block a site if it did "impair the security or integrity of the system."

On Thursday, Senator Patrick Leahy, who is sponsoring the Senate bill, said he planned to propose amending it so that the ramifications of blocking access to a site be studied before implementation.

On Friday, Representative Lamar Smith, who is sponsoring the House bill, said he planned to remove altogether the provision that would require service providers to block access to infringing foreign websites.

A Google official said in Congressional testimony in November that the company did not necessarily oppose disabling search engine links and cutting off advertising.

But it is not clear if eliminating the DNS-blocking provisions alone will be enough to mollify critics.

"Like many other tech companies, we believe that there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking U.S. companies to censor the Internet," a Google spokeswoman told Reuters on Monday.

In addition to concerns about the technical ramifications of DNS blocking and the practical issues associated with disabling services to individual websites, many in the Internet business fear the bills create far too much leeway to shut down websites without sufficient due process.

But supporters of the legislation are just as adamant that something needs to be done. Over the weekend, News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch, whose holdings include Fox, complained that the White House had caved.

"So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery," News Corp's chairman and chief executive officer posted on his personal Twitter account on Saturday."

The debate seems likely to intensify in the coming weeks. The White House said it would soon host a conference call among opponents of the existing bill.

(Reporting by Sarah McBride in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Ilaina Jones; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Sandra Maler)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

By Sarah McBride (Reuters) - U.S. legislation aimed at curbing online piracy, which had appeared to be on a fast track for approval by Congress, appears likely to be scaled back or jett...
By Sarah McBride (Reuters) - U.S. legislation aimed at curbing online piracy, which had appeared to be on a fast track for approval by Congress, appears likely to be scaled back or jett...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
PenguinLinux
got root ?
04:51 PM on 01/18/2012
Open question to all: If you are for the freedoms afforded by Net Neutrality and against the loss of those same freedoms via acts like SOPA/PIPA, why do you use freedom-stealing operating systems like Windows and Mac OS X?

Freedom begins at home and on your PC which is part of the Internet.

Windows and Mac OS X cost you not only in money, but in freedom (freedom as in Libre, not Gratis). Gratis is nice, and yes, FOSS OSes are usually Gratis as well as Libre, but Libre freedom is more important between the two. Mac OS X and Windows are not Libre (or even Gratis) OSes. They limit your capabiliti­es even if you have the ability to change something, they take away your capability to do so.
01:07 PM on 01/18/2012
To make life simple...Its best to be against Anything Rupert Murdoch says. He has a history of abusing technology and loopholes. He lies regularly about everything his companies and he stand for. So he makes it easy.. If Rupert Murdoch wants something changed, ammended, or Looked at.. its prob something that will harm neuter or restrict something that is important to you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steelsil
Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!
05:36 AM on 01/18/2012
If Murdoch is for something, that should be enough to make any Democratic administration against it. He who would sup with the Devil should bring a long spoon.
01:09 AM on 01/18/2012
When the pirates threatened an American citizen, we didn't blow up Somalia out of the world map, instead, we killed the pirates. Likewise, when "intellectual pirates" threaten an American Citizen, we shouldn't give the government the power to "regulate" FREE and OPEN internet, instead, those individuals should be prosecuted.
10:21 PM on 01/17/2012
Isn't recording a television show on tivo to watch at a later date basically the same thing they are trying to outlaw on the internet ? Yet the cable company will supply you with a box at a nice price to do it.And what would happen if hollywood made a blockbuster movie but no one went to see it....interesting
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Y Woodman Brown
live & let live
06:39 PM on 01/17/2012
This is the best corporate-political news I've heard in a decade.
photo
nypoet22
Psychology Ph.D., Civics Teacher, Songwriter
06:27 PM on 01/17/2012
of course murdoch favors this legislation, he's firmly against allowing the thievery of someone else's intellectual property. why, that's almost like hacking someone's voice-mail!

oh wait...
photo
IndyGuy
Et tu, Brute?
09:07 PM on 01/17/2012
Luv it!:)
04:24 PM on 01/17/2012
Senator Orrin Hatch Co-Authored PIPA and Co-Sponsored SOPA. Look at how much he HATES the Internet: http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/
Hatch would blow up computers without due process.
He's also taking tens of thousands of dollars to push these through Congress: http://blog.experts-exchange.com/ee-tech-news/sopa-update-blackouts-pacs-and-a-little-bit-of-irony/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sensimilla
Lead with your heart, and your mind will follow...
03:09 PM on 01/17/2012
Using copyrighted media materials without consent is NOT piracy, it is unauthorizedl use. Also, studies show that this unauthorized use actually INCREASES profits for media companies, and does not take billions out of their bottom line...

Corporatism is rampant in America. Time to get back to legislation that helps the American people instead.
01:40 PM on 01/17/2012
The assumption many of the corporate supporters have is that those pirating would have purchased the item in question. This is a falacy. Instead of trying to keep an old business model alive, these companies, RIAA and MPAA specifically, need to take advantage of the technology shift before its too late.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Runey
religion is why we can't have nice things.
11:56 AM on 01/17/2012
oh there's a huge surprise, news corp supports the bill and decries common sense.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:27 AM on 01/17/2012
"U.S. legislation aimed at curbing online piracy, which had appeared to be on a fast track for approval by Congress, appears likely to be scaled back or jettisoned entirely in the wake of critical comments over the weekend from the White House"

Untrue. This became the case before any comments by the White House.
09:49 AM on 01/17/2012
The same people who use the term "Hollywood" as a derogatory smear against progressive interest groups are outraged at opposition to bills actually championed by Hollywood. Now I suppose the progressive bogeyman is "Silicon Valley".

As a contributor to free and open source software projects, I understand the importance of copyright, not only for protecting proprietary works but also for protecting free works distributed under reciprocal ("copyleft") licenses. However, copyright must be enforced in the context of an appropriate definition for the act of distribution.

The Internet (and especially application protocols such as HTTP) is a layered system, subject to routing, caching, buffering, aggregation, replication, tunneling, and other middleware elements which are interposed between the logical sender and recipient. Many if not most Internet-facing applications process and redistribute data that originates from users or other applications.

The DMCA, in spite of its flaws, contains an essential provision called the "safe harbor" which protects services from being liable for the propriety of user-generated content. This is the legal foundation of the modern Internet and all of its social applications, including this web forum. Without this liability shield, all of these applications are effectively illegal.

Copyright enforcement on the Internet must treat services as part of the network medium, engaged in the business of moving bits, albeit with some fancy manipulation. The infringing act must be traced back to the willful origin, when the work was first injected into the swarm (to borrow terminology from the BitTorrent protocol). That original actor is the liable party.

I'm greatly relieved that the DNS blocking provisions have been dropped, but the next most egregiousness aspect of SOPA/PIPA is the treatment of user-generated content and the revocation of safe harbor. We can't relax and let them criminalize social content platforms.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:32 AM on 01/17/2012
Yep. That's what most people fail to understand. When you cut through all the hype around these bills, they are essentially just tools being used to short circuit the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Whats funny is that the DMCA was largely just a tool to short circuit what was considered "legal copying" under the Audio Home Recording Act. This is how you got the nonsense where software was attacked because, while it wasn't illegal to make a backup copy of a copyrighted work one owned, it was illegal to circumvent copy protection schemes under the DMCA.
09:41 AM on 01/17/2012
Things like SOPA, PIPA and anti-due process provisions in the Defense Authorization bill are power grabs by a very worried Congress and the corporate elite who back them (repub and Dem). They are trying to close down open channels to democracy, civil and economic rights in feat that they will lose their grip on power..