Impact of SOPA and PIPA Bills - Coursework Example

ID # Impact of SOPA and PIPA Bills Media industries have always been trying to identify and implement effective and result-oriented techniques to stop online piracy. In fact, up till now they have adopted a lot of mechanisms to achieve this goal for instance they have tried taking strict actions again individual users, corking in collaboration with the United States government to shut down domains based in the United States, putting pressure on Internet service providers (ISPs) to implement strict measures against subscribers to ensure piracy. However, none of these actions have actually been successful in stopping the local websites for instance MegaUpload and The Pirate Bay from infringing copyrights, or stopping Internet users from visiting these web sites. In this scenario, an intense amount of pressure has been faced by the U.S. government, particularly from the computer software publishing and entertainment industries for years to invent and implement an effective mechanism for stopping the online piracy that allows the internet users to have copies of their products free of charge. Though, it seems certainly logical for the reason that no one wants to see something for which they have spent a lot of time and effort on to create be disrespected by people having access to it free of charge and without permission (Newman; Jamal). This paper will discuss the initiatives of the government trying to regulate the internet with SOPA and PIPA bills and how it would affect the internet service providers and the internet users.   An Overview of SOPA and PIPA These days, we can see the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the top headlines. In fact, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act are getting a great deal more negative response from different organizations. In addition, some of the major web based businesses for instance Wikipedia have responded against these laws by protesting the bills with blackouts. Additionally, Google Corporation has also joined the movement, by placing a link on its homepage illustrating the reason why the organization opposes the legislation. Both the bills SOPA (presented in the U.S. House of Representatives) and PIPA (presented in the U.S. Senate) are intended for overseas websites that break copyrighted stuff. In addition, both the bills are generally linked with media piracy however can also be applied to counterfeit medication and consumer goods (Newman; Magid). In the beginning, both the SOPA and PIPA bills included two important ways to fight exclusive rights violation on overseas websites. In this scenario the first way allows the U.S. Department of Justice to ask for court orders and instructions forcing ISPs to shut down the domain names of the suspected web sites. For instance, Comcast can stop its customers from accessing the contents of www.thepiratebay.org, even though the given IP address can be accessed and works properly. In this scenario, this ISP blocking terms was one of the key concerns among Internet security experts, at the same time as both PIPA and SOPA have ignored it. On the other hand, the other way allows rights owners to ask for court orders and instructions to force the advertisers, payment providers and search engines to stop carrying out business activities in cooperation with the suspected web sites. In this scenario, rights owners would be allowed to demand that funds be charged from the suspected web site and that investigate links to that site be detached. However, the suspected site would be given five days to appeal any action taken (Newman; Magid). In simple words, the basic purpose behind the implementation of these bills is to stop from connected to any sites that are dedicated to the theft of U.S. property. In addition, these bills would also stop the business organizations and individuals from putting on the sites and shut down payment processing companies such as MasterCard, Visa and PayPal from sending money to the site. However, one of the most critical problems with these bills is that the entire site would be affected, instead of that piece that is responsible for advertising the transmission of prohibited material. In addition, it would be similar to the scenario in which the manager of a flea market is required to shut down the entire market for the reason that some of the dealers were selling fake goods. In this scenario, the bill would also deduct charges by keeping out payment services from dealing with suspected sites (Magid; Newman). The basic goals of these bills In light of the above discussion it is clear that both these bills were designed to ensure the credibility of the information owners. The basic purpose of these bills is to increase the confidence level of web site owners. This is all for the reason that these two are aimed at making it difficult for the people and web sites particularly those are not located inside the United States to distribute or sell pirated copyrighted data and information for instance music and movies and a wide variety of other physical products and goods for instance watches and counterfeit purses. In fact, the majority of PIPA and SOPA’s biggest opponents show their appreciation for the targets of these bills at the same time as deploring what it might in reality do. In actual fact, opponents of PIPA and SOPA bills accept as true that none of these bills provide a considerable support to defend against the fake charge. In this scenario, the Electronic Frontier Foundation gives arguments against these bills. According to its viewpoint, requirements in the bill funding immunity to ad networks and payment processors that shut down web sites depending on a sensible principle of violation, therefore even though arguments become counterfeit, simply the site goes through. In addition, According to EFF, "the standard for invulnerability is extremely low as well as the possibility of violence is off the charts". In this scenario, the web sites that accept and maintain the user-created material will be on the spot to strictly keep an eye on their users actions. Additionally, the EFF also claims that some of the larger web sites such as YouTube already strictly monitor the actions of their users; however it could be a huge legal responsibility for startups (Magid; Newman; Jamal). Opposition and Favoritism Moreover, according to some of the major progressive gurus media companies are always trying to legalize their operations of what is actually a business-model crisis. In this scenario, TechDirts Mike Masnick believes that without a doubt the most flourishing violation in opposition to piracy is an overwhelming new web based applications and platforms that provide their users with what they want, for instance Netflix and Spotify. On the other hand, PIPA and SOPA bills have also got the positive attention from many media companies. In addition, the supporters of these bills believe that prediction of a broken Internet is exaggerated. In this scenario, Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, believe that both these bills without a doubt describe infringing sites founded on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Supreme Court holdings as well as force rights owners to strictly follow the defined set of rules and regulations when trying to get funds cut off to a suspected web site. However, false claims can cause serious damages such as attorneys fees and additional expenditures (Magid; Newman; Jamal). The sponsors of these bills have said they would need to make changes to the bills, for the reason that currently presented SOPA allows the U.S. Attorney General to try to find a sanction to force a service provider or a site owner to put into practice theoretically reasonable and feasible actions aimed preventing access by its users located inside the boundaries of the United States to the overseas suspected site. In this scenario, one important solution to this problem could be to remove the domain name server (DNS) material or information that refer to the site, however that condition can possible be eliminated following the Obama’s direction considering the problem, declaring that “any endeavor to defend piracy over the Internet must look out in opposition to the threat of online censorship of legally recognized action as well as must not slow down improvement by our dynamic small, medium and large businesses.” In addition, the administration also kept in mind the issues pointed out by various security professionals, such as some anti-malware firms that the bill could interrupt the fundamental architecture of the Internet (Magid). Comparison with other laws Without a doubt, there are already a wide variety of laws and regulations that are designed to defend copyrighted content. In this scenario, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is one of the most commonly seen laws but it focuses on removing or hiding the particular, suspected and unlawful material from the Internet. On the other hand, both the PIPA and SOPA target the entire web site or platform, to be precise, the site on which the illegal material is displayed. As discussed above, the bills would enable the Justice Department to target overseas websites intentionally facilitating and commending intellectual property theft, rogue web sites such as The Pirate Bay. In this scenario, these laws will enable the government to force U.S.-based firms and web sites, such as credit card companies, Internet service providers and online advertisers, to stop cooperating with those sites (Condon; Jamal). Why content providers want SOPA and PIPA As discussed above, many organizations are in favor of these bills. For instance, content groups such as business representatives such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) believe that originality in content-creating sector is in danger due to increasing Internet piracy. According to their belief, overseas websites are a most helpful platform for Internet pirates and decreasing the profits of their content. In addition, Global Intellectual Property Center, which is a sub-division of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, discusses some of the interesting facts. According to their fact, the intellectual property-intensive industries provide work for over 19 million people in the USA as well as generate the revenue of approximately $7.7 trillion per year. In this scenario, overseas website owners presently beyond the boundaries of U.S. law, PIPA and SOPA would help put down unlawful Internet actions (Condon; Jamal). Why Internet companies oppose SOPA and PIPA? Internet companies and their financiers normally argue that they are having the "pass out" to defend their business interests as well as all rapidly increasing Internet-based economy. Additionally, if the PIPA or SOPA are implemented, small businesses especially the start ups would not be able to afford the expenditures that go together with protecting their sites in opposition to potential threats and violations. In this scenario, these web sites would not afford to pay the charges of lawyers that some of the other well developed websites such as Facebook or Google can afford. In addition, these bills target only the overseas firms whose basic function is to put up for sale fake or stolen goods or products but actually domestic firms could also be held legally responsible for involving to their content. According to Brad Burnham, who is managing partner at the venture capital fund Union Square Ventures, his organization has decided to stay away from spending funds in companies associated with the music industry for the reason that of the copyright risks however underneath the intended laws, this risk would hit almost any Internet company. In addition, the SOPA and PIPA count the risk of playful proceedings of every part of the Internet. However, it should be a serious concern when more than 21 percent Internet users of financial growth are among developed countries. Additionally, the effects can cross the boundaries of the economy if blogging platforms are encouraged to keep an eye on their content that could have a marvelous frightening impact on people trying to carry out political conversation and trying to making use of content in a reasonable user perspective (Condon; Jamal). In the light of the above discussion, we can perceive that these laws can have negative impacts on the internet service providers and the general public. They can destroy the business of ISPs and discourage the Internet users. I have outlined below some of the negative impacts of the SOPA and PIPA on people: (Jamal; Fox) In view of the fact that the government feels affection for bloggers and blogs, as a result it is only expected to believe that they will get a great deal extraordinary attention. In this scenario, these actions make it the blog owner’s liability for the contents that are presented on their site, including the comments of visitors. Thus, in according to these laws bloggers will have to use reasonable comments and words, which will affect the expression power of the individuals (Jamal). As a result of the implementation of these laws, there would be no YouTube, Facebook, MediaFire, SoundCloud, DropBox, Twitter or any other platform or social network that can be under attack as a place where online piracy could come to pass. Thus, what the Internet would be like without sites like this? (Jamal) According to these laws, the web site on which child would have posted the video on will be forced to deal with this issue, or face their site being pretend the blacklist. In this scenario, this child as well as his family could also face a court case with either the record label the song or the site (Jamal). Both the SOPA and PIPA would be very serious job-killers for the reason that they would cause the creation of a new age of doubt for American business. In view of the fact that the Law-abiding U.S. internet firms would have to keep an eye on all the tasks that internet users link to or upload or face the risk of long proceedings. In this scenario, some of the largest internet firms such as EBay, AOL, Google, Facebook, IAC, Mozilla, LinkedIn, Twitter, Zynga and Yahoo wrote a letter to Congress declaring these bills “create a serious risk to our industry’s constant reputation of job-creation opportunities and novelty (Google). Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has presented an overview of two bills SOPA and PIPA recently presented in the Senate and Parliament of the USA. The basic purpose of these bills is to defend the Internet piracy. In addition, these bills force the ISPs to block the overseas web site which displays the illegal contents. As a result, these bills are causing serious losses for the Internet Service Providers. On the other hand, they have also created several serious problems for the individuals. This paper has discussed some of the scenarios where these bills can negatively affect the common people. In short, the government should spend some time on analyzing the impacts of these bills. Works Cited Condon, Stephanie. SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know. 18 January 2012. 01 June 2012 . Fox, Zoe. PIPA and SOPA Co-Sponsors Abandon Bills. 18 January 2012. 03 June 2012 . Google. More about SOPA and PIPA. 2012. 02 June 2012 . Jamal. How SOPA/PIPA Can Affect You. 14 December 2011. 03 June 2012 . Magid, Larry. What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All The Fuss? 18 January 2012. 01 June 2012 . Newman, Jared. SOPA and PIPA: Just the Facts. 2012. 02 June 2012 . Read More