Today is the scheduled hearing for Congress to discuss SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) legislation. The legislation, HR 3261, allows copyright owners to compel the government to shut down websites that host or display content that is "reasonably believed" to infringe on copyright, without independent judicial review. The bill has the support of the US Copyright Office, 24 bipartisan members of Congress, and many large content holders in the movie and music industry, but is opposed by large tech companies like Google, Facebook, Youtube, Zynga, and a number of human rights organizations such as EFF and Journalists without Borders.
I have not read the actual verbage in the legislations so with that in mind...
My concern is with "reasonably believed" and "without independant judicial review". What level of evidence will be required to support a reasonable belief that copyright infringment has occured? With this legislation will there be sites shut down just because it is "resonably believed" there was a copyright violation? Will there no longer be any burden of proof?
I do not condone copyright infringment. This legislation may help the little guy who finds his work copied onto another site. However, I am concerned about what power this may give large corporate entities who I see as the primary benefactors of such legislation.
The bill does not say what kind of evidence is required, other than identification of "specific facts" to support the assertion that the ISP is hosting infringing material and a statement of "good faith belief" that the use of the copyrighted material is unauthorized.
Keep the damn government out of my business, I will take care of my issues with my lawyer. The government is the one who will be fining people and the little guy will get his image taken down and nothing more. Screw them and their new laws. I have one of my clients that has had issues with their website already and if the gov clowns get put in charge they will screw this up like they do everything else they touch.
Issa (R) and Pelosi (D) are opposed to the bill, and for good reason.
"Congress is realizing there are so many unintended consequences that they can't just use Google as a piņata and bash on it here. There is a very broad coalition from far left to far right who realize this will hurt innovation, something we can't afford to do. And there are other ways to accomplish what they say is their goal." - Issa
It didn't help that at least one RIAA lobbyist pointed out that China has been able to effectively use similar legal and technical machinery to manage internet access in their country.
What does "shut down" mean in this circumstance? What does "independent judicial review" mean...that is to say, what does the adjective "independent" mean when connected to "judicial review?" Is there such a thing as a non-independent judicial review? Would the "shut down" be temporary pending a judicial review, or would there never be a judicial process?
Does this law really mean that a someone whose copyright is being infringed would merely get a temporary injunction (bandage the financial hemorrhage) without going through an expensive and time-consuming process first?
mdude85 wrote:
It could mean that, but it could mean that someone could get a temporary injunction without actually proving that copyright was infringed.
Well, they wouldn't need an injuction after they've proved copyright was infringed. They'd be awarded damages at that point.
That's why I'm asking if this law isn't, essentially, operating as a temporary injunction until an actual infringement hearing.
RDKirk wrote:
Well, they wouldn't need an injuction after they've proved copyright was infringed. They'd be awarded damages at that point.
That's why I'm asking if this law isn't, essentially, operating as a temporary injunction until an actual infringement hearing.
Injunctive relief is a type of remedy for infringement, along with damages. 17 USC 502.
The SOPA law empowers the US attorney general to seek temporary injunctive relief against an alleged infringer. But since it forces internet service providers and search engines to take action to prevent users from searching or accessing alleged infringing material, a lot of non-infringing material could be taken down in the process. For instance non-infringing material that is hosted on the same IP as alleged infringing material.
The bill would authorize the U.S Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General (AG) could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws and take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to prevent access to the infringing site. The AG could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites.[11]
The bill also establishes a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.[11]
The bill provides immunity from liability to the ad and payment networks that comply with this Act or that take voluntary action to cut ties to such sites, allowing them to block websites and cut services before legal action is mobilized. Any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement would be liable for damages.[4]
The second section increases the penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials or consumer goods. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony.[11]
.....
The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.
