|
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a controversial United States bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods. Provisions included the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the websites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites. The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed. The bill received strong, bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It also received support from the following organizations: Fraternal Order of Police, the National Governors Association, The National Conference of Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, The National Association of Attorneys General, the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, the AFL-CIO and 22 trade unions, the National Consumers League, and over a hundred associations representing industries throughout the economy which claim that they are being harmed by online piracy. Opponents claimed that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire Internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. They also claimed that SOPA would bypass the "safe harbor" protections from liability presently afforded to websites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Some library associations also claimed that the legislation's emphasis on stronger copyright enforcement would expose libraries to prosecution. Other opponents claimed that requiring search engines to delete domain names violated the First Amendment and could begin a worldwide arms race of unprecedented Internet censorship. On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia, Google, and an estimated 7,000 other smaller websites coordinated a service blackout, in protest against the bill. Wikipedia said more than 162 million people viewed its banner. Other protests against SOPA and PIPA included petition drives, with Google stating it collected over seven million signatures, boycotts of companies and organizations that support the legislation, and an opposition rally held in New York City. In response to the protest actions, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stated, "It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users and arm them with misinformation",〔 and "it's very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform."〔 Access to websites of several pro-SOPA organizations and companies such as RIAA, CBS.com, and others was impeded or blocked with denial of service attacks which started on January 19, 2012. Self-proclaimed members of the "hacktivist" group Anonymous claimed responsibility and stated the attacks were a protest of both SOPA and the United States Department of Justice's shutdown of Megaupload on that same day. Some opponents of the bill support the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) as an alternative.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=OPEN: Online Protection & Enforcement of Digital Trade Act )〕 On January 20, 2012, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Smith postponed plans to draft the bill: "The committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation ... The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution."〔 ==Overview== Bill 3261 or , is a proposed law that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors.〔 Presented to the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).〔 The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. A court order requested by the DOJ could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from conducting business with websites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual-property laws, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites.〔 The bill establishes a two-step process for intellectual property-rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.〔 The second section covers penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials, or consumer goods. The bill would increase penalties and expand copyright offenses to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content and other intellectual-property offenses. The bill would criminalize unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content if they knowingly misrepresent the sites activity, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The copyrighted content can be removed, and infringements can lead to the site being shut down.〔 In July 2013, the Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force issued a report endorsing "()dopting the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted works to the public as now exists for criminal reproduction and distribution."〔 〕 The bill provides immunity from liability to the ad and payment networks that comply with this Act or that take voluntary action to sever ties to such sites. Any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is involved in copyright infringement would be liable for damages.〔 Supporters include the Motion Picture Association of America, pharmaceuticals makers, media businesses, and the United States Chamber of Commerce. They state it protects the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites.〔 They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.〔 Opponents state that it violates the First Amendment, is Internet censorship,〔 will cripple the Internet,〔 and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions.〔〔 In October, 2011, co-sponsor Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property sub-panel, told ''The Hill'' that SOPA is a rewrite of the Senate's bill that addresses some tech-industry concerns, noting that under the House version of the legislation copyright holders won't be able to directly sue intermediaries such as search engines to block infringing websites and would instead need a court's approval before taking action against third parties.〔 On December 12, 2011 a revised version of the bill was tabled. Titled the "Manager's Amendment", it contained a number of changes in response to criticism of the original. As part of the revisions, the definition of sites that might be subject to enforcement was narrowed: the amendment limited such actions to sites that are designed or operated with the intent to promote copyright infringement, and it now only applies to non-US sites. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Stop Online Piracy Act」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|