Google is one of several internet-based companies campaigning against SOPA and PIPA.
Members of Congress have proposed legislation that is intended to limit piracy and theft of intellectual property, but its measures could unreasonably harm the way the Internet operates today. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) are under consideration in the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. The editorial staff of the Mountaineer encourages Congress to vote down both of these bills. Amending them is not enough; it would be preferable to make a new bill from scratch with clearer goals and definitions.
The major issue with these bills is that the wording is vague on numerous key points. It is unclear what, exactly, will be targeted in the move to stifle file sharing sites and programs, and it is unclear how individuals and organizations found to be in violation of SOPA or PIPA will be punished.
For example, one of the largest concerns is whether popular websites will be held responsible for user content that violates copyright law. The bill states that only websites that are “primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” illegal activity are subject to enforcement, but it is difficult to draw the line. The federal government would have the power to do so, and without knowing more clearly where that line will fall, it is inadvisable to support SOPA.
YouTube has a large amount of original video, but it also hosts countless pieces of copyrighted material from songs, films, and television. Additionally, original content and copyrighted content frequently mix, resulting in videos that have their audio disabled due to complaints from record labels. Proponents of SOPA have said that the bill would not target ordinary people using copyrighted material, such as an infant dancing to a popular artist’s song. However, CNET reported that Universal Music Group once successfully convinced YouTube to remove a video of Stephanie Lenz’s daughter dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.” The decision was later reversed, but under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, service providers are already obligated to remove material when notified by copyright owners.
The DMCA is sufficient for YouTube, but SOPA and PIPA would be excessive for the entirety of the internet. In their effort to undermine file sharing, officials enforcing the bills may harm much of the legitimate and benign internet usage that is a part of citizens’ daily lives.
Lamar Smith (R-TX), the congressman who introduced the bill to the House of Representatives, actually violated copyright law himself. TIME Magazine reported that Smith’s website used a photograph and did not attribute it to anyone. The man who took the photograph, DJ Schulte, told VICE.com that he did not recall giving Smith permission, and his office did not ask for it. Although Smith’s office made a relatively minor error, SOPA’s lack of detail makes it difficult to discern to what extent such an act would be punished.
Piracy is illegal, but SOPA’s attempt to punish it is not effectively articulated and would not bode well for the day-to-day operations of our most frequently used internet sites. To learn more about the bills, the Library of Congress has the full text of both SOPA and PIPA available on its website. Wikipedia, which has opposed the bill by “blacking out” its service for 24 hours, also has information on the bills on their website. ProPublica.org has listed members of Congress who have publicly declared their support or opposition to the bill in their respective house. We encourage our readers to contact their local congressional representatives in opposition to SOPA and PIPA; Wikipedia has provided a tool to see which congressmen serve in your area here.
Matthew Medina
News Editor
Loading...
