Ever hear of STOPA or PROTECTIP? Here’s what the initials in those strange acronyms stand for: STOPA is the U. S. House of Representatives Stop Online Piracy Act, and PROTECTIP is the U. S. Senate’s Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. (With elephantine cleverness, the acronym says Protect IP, meaning Protect Intellectual Property. )
Both blunderbluss bills aim to protect intellectual property — copyrights and the like — and both are directed against what the sponsors call “rogue” websites and “foreign pirates” who use the web to steal US intellectual property. That certainly a fine goal and supporters say the bills are necessary pieces of legislation, and actually, in the words of one legislator, “patriotic.”
At Critical Pages we’re strongly for protection of intellectual property rights. But we’re against these badly written pieces of misguided legislation. The Motion Picture Association of America is for the bills, as is the Chamber of Commerce. On the other side, eBay and Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yahoo, and Zynga are against it. Such bills would make business, domestic as well as foreign, virtually impossible for sites that depend on user-generated material, sites such as YouTube or Tumblr. The Electric Frontier Foundation, an old and distinguished private watchdog group, is also against the bills.
As for you, while you’re surfing the web, it would put you in the position of a typical Internet user in China or Iran. Certain sites would be blocked because the government determined that they’re “rogue” sites belonging to “foreign pirates.”
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, in a statement to the House Judiciary Committee, expressed our own thoughts on the matter:
“Yes, the Internet needs reasonable laws and bad actors need to be pursued, but the freedoms of billions of individual Internet users should not be sacrificed in the interest of easing that pursuit. The decisions we make to police the Internet today will also govern how this relatively new medium will continue to develop and shape our world. And yes, giving moneyed interests a louder voice and a greater ability to determine what that online world will look like would fundamentally alter the Internet which currently treats all voices as equal.
As I have said before, this is not an issue where we should use a bunker-buster bomb when a laser beam would do. And that is not just my opinion, venture capitalists who fund Internet start-ups, the biggest and smallest actors in the tech community, law professors concerned with speech, Internet technologists, security experts and mainstream and new media have all expressed concerns about the legislation advancing in Congress.”