SOPA Strike:
http://sopastrike.com/
I'm blogging this in several places, because I want to be sure as many
folks as possible are aware of what's coming. Basically, the SOPA
legislation about which we've all heard so much is at the point of
push coming to shove. The big vote is approaching. The supporters and
opponents are becoming ever more fervent. The word is spreading. A
number of influential much-used websites on which folk commonly depend
are joining in a blackout. The general idea is to give folk a taste of
what might happen if the bill actually passes, what kind of
information could theoretically be shut down by the courts. Wikipedia,
Boingboing, Tucows, Wordpress, Reddit, Mozilla, Minecraft and many
many more sites are shutting down for the day. There are rumors that
Youtube, Twitter, maybe even Google might be participating. Oh, what
day? Wednesday, January 18. So, plan your work accordingly, because
there are a lot of things you might have trouble doing that day. In
the meantime, here is more information about WHY this is happening.
Preparing for the #SOPAstrike:
http://etechlib.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/preparing-for-the-sopastrike/ Open Congress: S.968 – PROTECT IP Act of 2011:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show "Establishes a system for taking down websites that the Justice
Department determines to be "dedicated to infringing activities." The
DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action
against the alleged infringer and the DoJ would be allowed to demand
that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services
block access to the targeted site. In some cases, action could be
taken to block sites without first allowing the alleged infringer to
defend themselves in court."
Fight for the Future: Protect the Internet Act:
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa "It'll give the government new powers to block Americans' access
websites that corporations don't like. The bill would criminalize
posting all sorts of standard web content -- music playing in the
background of videos, footage of people dancing, kids playing video
games, and posting video of people playing cover songs.
This legislation will stifle free speech and innovation, and even
threaten popular web services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook."
Public Knowledge: Act Now : This Bill Seriously Screws with the Internet:
http://publicknowledge.org/e-parasite-stop-online-piracy-act#pipa "PIPA is overbroad. By including "information location tools," it
makes nearly every actor on the Internet a potential violator.
PIPA is bad international precedent. By sanctioning government
interference with DNS, it would be used as justification for other
countries to hinder freedom of expression of online.
PIPA is ripe for abuse. By creating a "private right of action,"
rights holders could directly go after payment processors and ad
networks.
PIPA speeds fragmentation of the Internet. By targeting DNS, it could
lead to a fragmentation of the Internet, running contrary to the U.S.
government's commitment to advancing a single, global Internet."
Professors’ Letter in Opposition to “Preventing Real Online Threats to
Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011”
(PROTECT-IP Act of 2011, S. 968) July 5, 2011:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59241037/PROTECT-IP-Letter-Final "The undersigned are 108 professors from 31 states, the District of
Columbia, andPuerto Rico who teach and write about intellectual
property, Internet law, innovation,and the First Amendment. We
strongly urge the members of Congress to reject thePROTECT-
IP Act (the “Act”)."
The PROTECT IP Act Will Slow Start-up Innovation:
http://www.usv.com/2011/06/the-protect-ip-act-will-slow-start-up-innovation.php "While we understand PIPA was originally intended to deal with "rogue"
foreign sites, we think PIPA will ultimately put American innovators
and investors at a clear disadvantage in the global economy. For one,
services dedicated to infringement will simply make their sites easy
to find and access in other ways, and determined users who want to
find blocked content will simply shift to services outside the reach
of U.S. law, in turn giving a leg up to foreign search engines, DNS
providers, social networks, and others. Second, PIPA creates a
dangerous precedent and a convenient excuse for countries to engage in
protectionism and censorship against U.S. services."
NetCoalition Letter Regarding the Private Right of Action in PROTECT IP Act:
http://publicknowledge.org/netcoalition-letter-regarding-private-right-action "We believe that the currently proposed private litigation-based
process will, however unintentionally, become a one-sided litigation
machine with rights owners mass- producing virtually identical cases
against foreign domain names for the purpose of obtaining orders to
serve on U.S. payment and advertising companies. Not only do we
believe that this will be a significant driver of new litigation in
federal courts, and will result in an endless stream of court orders
imposing duties on U.S.-based companies, but we also believe that this
litigation-based regime will significantly reduce the incentive that
rights owners have to participate in a cooperative manner in the
processes created by payment and advertising companies to address
illegal activities by third parties. We are confident that upon
further review you will not support creating a private litigation
regime that appears so open to abuse and which will undermine the
prospects for private sector cooperation."
NY Times: Internet Piracy and How to Stop It:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/opinion/09thu1.html?_r=1 "The broadness of the definition is particularly worrisome because
private companies are given a right to take action under the bill. In
one notorious case, a record label demanded that YouTube take down a
home video of a toddler jiggling in the kitchen to a tune by Prince,
claiming it violated copyright law. Allowing firms to go after a Web
site that “facilitates” intellectual property theft might encourage
that kind of overreaching — and allow the government to black out a
site. ... The bill before the Senate is an important step toward
making piracy less profitable. But it shouldn’t pass as is. If
protecting intellectual property is important, so is protecting the
Internet from overzealous enforcement."
LA Times: Policing the Internet:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/07/opinion/la-ed-protectip-20110607 "The main problem with the bill is in its effort to render sites
invisible as well as unprofitable. Once a court determines that a site
is dedicated to infringing, the measure would require the companies
that operate domain-name servers to steer Internet users away from it.
This misdirection, however, wouldn't stop people from going to the
site, because it would still be accessible via its underlying
numerical address or through overseas domain-name servers."
Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering
Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill:
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf "Technical Challenges Raised By Mandatory DNS Filtering
* DNS Filtering in Tension with DNSSEC
* The Proposed DNS Filters Would Be Circumvented Easily
* Circumvention Poses Performance and Security Risks
- Users Will Face Increased Cybersecurity Risk
- ISPs Will Lose Visibility into Network Security Threats
- CDNs Would Likely Face Degraded Performance
* DNS Interdependencies Will Lead to Collateral Damage"
Public Interest Letter to Senate Committee on the Judiciary in
Opposition to S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011:
http://publicknowledge.org/Public-Interest-Letter-PROTECT-IP-Act "Furthermore, the new inclusion of “information location tools” (also
referred to as the “search engine” portion of the bill) has expanded
the legislation’s reach. The term "information location tools" appears
to encompass "director[ies], index[es], reference[s], pointer[s], or
hypertext link[s].” With this provision in place, S. 968 makes nearly
every actor on the Internet potentially subject to enforcement orders
under the bill, raising new policy questions regarding government
interference with online activity and speech.
We continue to urge the Committee to proceed cautiously given the
concerns of the undersigned and we look forward to working with you
and your colleagues in a constructive manner on improving S. 968.
Sincerely,
American Association of Law Libraries
Association of College and Research Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
Center for Democracy and Technology
Demand Progress
EDUCAUSE
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Human Rights Watch
Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
Public Knowledge
Reporters sans frontières / Reporters Without Borders
Special Libraries Association"
