We at HillTop Records strive to keep our readers informed on all current issues pertaining to the music industry. SOPA, which was primarily constructed to protect the interests of copyright holders on the Internet, could drastically effect the way music is purchased and traded online--and we'd like you to have all the facts. What follows is a break-down of the controversial Act, including the reasons why so many people are for and against it.
First: What exactly is SOPA?
The Stop Online Piracy Act was proposed to address the issues of copyright infringement on the Internet by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content. Copyright infringement is of course already illegal in the United States, and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out enforcement measures; however, it is no secret that these measures are rarely carried out. Despite a few significant wins for the legislation (remember Napster?), little headway has been made in the battle against piracy. The problem with the 1998 Act is that the U.S. Government has no legal jurisdiction when it comes to websites whose physical address is outside of the country--and these days, the majority of pirated content is being imported.
Take, for example, The Pirate Bay. Just like its name indicates, the website offers a treasure trove of illegal downloads--from hit TV shows to blockbuster movies, even before commercial release. If the website was based in the U.S., it would have been shut down years ago. However, because its servers are physically located in Sweden, the government cannot regulate it. So how to stop "rogue" sites like these, based in foreign countries, from distributing pirated material in America? Well, SOPA tackles the problem by taking U.S. government authority up the chain--to the American sites that facilitate access to these pirating sites. By holding U.S. search engines, advertising networks and other providers (including payment processors, like PayPal) accountable for the content displayed on sites it links to, SOPA hopes to limit access to pirated material.
Both sides of the issue--those pro-SOPA, and those against it--agree that piracy is a serious issue, and that the protection of intellectual (and other types of) property is a worthy goal. However, the debate over whether or not SOPA is the right step to take is becoming increasingly heated.
The Aruguments Against SOPA
The logic behind SOPA is that if Americans cannot find these rogue websites via trusted search engines, or conveniently pay for pirated material online, they won't use them. And that makes sense, right? It also makes sense that someone be held accountable for transporting foreign-manufactured pirated material into the United States. Since Congress can't legislate servers overseas, it must target the websites it can. These websites include online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, ecommerce sites like eBay and Craigslist, and social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Myspace. These websites, as well as many others across the country, have joined forces with powerful figureheads on both sides of the political spectrum (including Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and Al Gore) to denounce the bill. They reason that SOPA intends to regulate the flow of information, thereby violating the public's First Amendment Rights (to date, the U.S. is only one of seven countries that does not regulate the Internet.) They also argue against the bill's broad scope, saying that it puts further limitations than what is necessary to combat sites peddling counterfeit goods. Additionally, the tech world criticizes the bill for its crudely ineffectual tactics; they argue that those behind SOPA do not understand the fundamental architecture of the Internet--and therefore do not understand the bill's possible repercussions.
Silicon Valley's main argument against SOPA comes, however, from an economic standpoint. Most websites--even some of the most major--do not generate enough income to employ the manpower it would cost to enforce the bill's stringent content regulations. Take, for example, YouTube: The popular website publishes millions of user-uploaded videos each week. Under the current law, a copyright holder can send a "takedown notice" (aka, a DMCA warning) to YouTube's administration if he or she comes across a song or video that has not been authorized for publication. The website then has to remove the offending content, and is protected against liability as long as it complies within a reasonable timeframe. When it gets a DMCA warning, YouTube has to also notify the user who uploaded the content--and that user has the right to file a counter-motion, demonstrating that the content does not infringe on any copyrights. However, SOPA places the burden of proof on the accused--thus doing away with this possible back-and-forth. Under SOPA, the reported song or video must be taken down within five days--with the site operators possibly facing a hefty lawsuit. "YouTube would just go dark immediately," Google public policy director Bob Boorstin said of SOPA's effects at a conference last month. "It couldn't function."
NetCoalition, a very vocal anti-SOPA trade group, has also added that the "legislation systematically favors a copyright owner's intellectual property rights and strips the owners of accused websites of their rights."
The Arguments For SOPA
While the voices backing the bill may not be as loud as the opposition's, they are certainly just as powerful. SOPA's supporters (which include Time Warner and the Motion Picture Association of America) dismiss accusations of censorship, saying that the legislation intends to revamp a broken system that does not adequately protect intellectual property or prevent criminal behavior. However, many who originally supported the bill are now publicly admitting to feelings of skepticism--and today, under the obvious pressures of a Web-wide protest, legislators are proposing revisions and amendments so as to better protect website owners. As originally written, SOPA would have required Internet service providers to completely block access to sites that law officials deemed suspect. However, the White House is now saying that their analysis of the proposed laws "suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity," and that they are attempting to alter the bill so as not to mandate a manipulation of the Internet's technical architecture.
It will most certainly take some time, but there is common ground on the horizon. Government officials plan to revise the bill in February, and several politicians have proposed alternative methods for combating Internet piracy. One thing remains clear: Broadcast and major media companies, record and movie producers, and other copyright holders have reached the end of their rope. They will no longer stand idly by as their intellectual and creative works are bootlegged across the Web. While SOPA may still have a ways to go before it meets with public approval, it is a giant step in the right direction. Keep checking back with us here at HillTop Records as we keep you posted on further developments.
