Intellectual Property Theft: Is SOPA the Solution?
February 28, 2012 By Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Call the Attorney at (866) 981-5596 
Free Consultation
Call the Attorney at (866) 981-5596 Free Consultation
The Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, is a United States bill introduced in October of 2011 in order to help combat the online theft of intellectual property and its injurious consequences, both for large companies and for artists personally. While supported by movie studios in California, the Act became the focus of widespread criticism and an online protest. A lawyer explains the Act, its controversy, and examines whether it could serve as a solution to the problem of online piracy.
Understanding SOPA
In the United States, laws concerning copyrighted material protect the intellectual property of major film companies in California, recording studios, and artists and authors personally from the injurious consequences of piracy, explains a lawyer. The Internet, however, has created a hotbed of copyright violations.
Most everyone is familiar with problems created by the illegal distribution of music, and with famous cases against music sharing sites such as Napster. Despite repeated efforts by the Recording Industry of America (RIAA), the Motional Picture Association, as well as by numerous others with an interest in protecting intellectual property, courts and legislatures have been largely unsuccessful at stopping copyright violations.
One reason that stopping copyright violations has proved difficult is because the Internet connects people from around the globe. Certain nations do not enforce copyrights as stringently as the U.S. does, and websites hosted offshore in these areas—called rogue sites—are very difficult to shut down.
SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, was created to help address this problem. SOPA, as originally proposed, would allow both individual copyright holders and the Department of Justice to obtain court orders against any website that enabled or facilitated the infringement of a copyright or that linked to sites enabling copyright infringement.
According to the terms of the Act, the Department of Justice would have the authority to obtain a court order requiring search engines to stop linking to off shore sites containing infringing material and requiring Internet service providers (ISPS) to block such sites. Further, ad networks would also be prohibited from paying such sites. Essentially, the idea would be to make these offshore infringing websites disappear from the Internet.
In addition to establishing a method for copyright holders and the DOJ to compel ISPS, search engines and ad-networks to cut off infringing sites, SOPA also established stiff penalties for sites that stream copyrighted video, and for sites selling counterfeit drugs or consumer goods.
In response to criticism, an amendment referred to as the Manager's Amendment was proposed and narrowed the situations in which action could be taken to compel a site to be blocked. Under the revised amendment, action could be taken only when the infringing site was a non-U.S. site specifically designed for the purpose of infringing or promoting infringement of copyrights.
The Controversy Surrounding SOPA
Despite support from drug companies, movie studios in California, and the Motion Picture Association of America, SOPA was met with widespread disapproval. Many claimed that even the revised version of the Bill was a violation of First Amendment rights, explains a lawyer. Further, major Internet websites including Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Yahoo, AOL and LinkedIn have been vocal in their opposition of the Bill and have warned that it poses potentially injurious consequences for innovation, job creation and cyber security. Some personally opposed the Bill believing that it would cripple the Internet.
The alleged risks of SOPA go beyond simply a danger that the act would have a chilling effect on YouTube or other user-generated sites, and even beyond fears that too much responsibility is placed on website owners to identify and police potential copyright infringement. Among the fears cited by SOPA opponents is the risk that other governments would follow the lead taken by the U.S. but would act to censor sites for public policy reasons other than preventing copyright violations, such as to prevent speech that promotes political dissent. Further, proxy servers that are used to fight against oppressive regimes by allowing access to blocked material or posting of material anonymously might be affected, since these sites are sometimes used to violate copyright laws.
To protest against the passage of SOPA, on January 18, 2012, Wikipedia and many other sites "went black" or took down the site for the day. These sites provided a link explaining SOPA and urging everyone to take action and contact their representatives. Other sites, such as Google, did not go black but also protested and encouraged visitors to contact their Congressman. Google, for instance, placed a black box over its logo that linked to a page where users could sign a petition.
The Results of the Protest
In response to the protests, the Texas congressman who first sponsored SOPA announced that he was pulling the bill from consideration until a more widespread agreement on a solution could be reached.
Rogue sites that steal creative content attract in excess of 52 billion visits per year according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter to the editor published in The New York Times. The theft of intellectual property on the Internet is a serious problem with injurious consequences for large companies in California and elsewhere and for artists and authors personally, explains a lawyer. A solution does need to be reached. However, SOPA is likely not the solution to that problem. Any solution that does exist must be careful to balance the important interest in protecting the intellectual property of copyright holders with other fundamentally important aims, such as the goal of protecting free speech and free sharing of information.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jim Ballidis
Lawyer and managing partner of California law firm Allen, Flatt, Ballidis, and Leslie, James Ballidis has written extensively on issues concerning civil law, including online privacy, transportation safety, and the personal injury claims process.
Copyright Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
More information about Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
In the United States, laws concerning copyrighted material protect the intellectual property of major film companies in California, recording studios, and artists and authors personally from the injurious consequences of piracy, explains a lawyer. The Internet, however, has created a hotbed of copyright violations.
Most everyone is familiar with problems created by the illegal distribution of music, and with famous cases against music sharing sites such as Napster. Despite repeated efforts by the Recording Industry of America (RIAA), the Motional Picture Association, as well as by numerous others with an interest in protecting intellectual property, courts and legislatures have been largely unsuccessful at stopping copyright violations.
One reason that stopping copyright violations has proved difficult is because the Internet connects people from around the globe. Certain nations do not enforce copyrights as stringently as the U.S. does, and websites hosted offshore in these areas—called rogue sites—are very difficult to shut down.
SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, was created to help address this problem. SOPA, as originally proposed, would allow both individual copyright holders and the Department of Justice to obtain court orders against any website that enabled or facilitated the infringement of a copyright or that linked to sites enabling copyright infringement.
According to the terms of the Act, the Department of Justice would have the authority to obtain a court order requiring search engines to stop linking to off shore sites containing infringing material and requiring Internet service providers (ISPS) to block such sites. Further, ad networks would also be prohibited from paying such sites. Essentially, the idea would be to make these offshore infringing websites disappear from the Internet.
In addition to establishing a method for copyright holders and the DOJ to compel ISPS, search engines and ad-networks to cut off infringing sites, SOPA also established stiff penalties for sites that stream copyrighted video, and for sites selling counterfeit drugs or consumer goods.
In response to criticism, an amendment referred to as the Manager's Amendment was proposed and narrowed the situations in which action could be taken to compel a site to be blocked. Under the revised amendment, action could be taken only when the infringing site was a non-U.S. site specifically designed for the purpose of infringing or promoting infringement of copyrights.
The Controversy Surrounding SOPA
Despite support from drug companies, movie studios in California, and the Motion Picture Association of America, SOPA was met with widespread disapproval. Many claimed that even the revised version of the Bill was a violation of First Amendment rights, explains a lawyer. Further, major Internet websites including Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Yahoo, AOL and LinkedIn have been vocal in their opposition of the Bill and have warned that it poses potentially injurious consequences for innovation, job creation and cyber security. Some personally opposed the Bill believing that it would cripple the Internet.
The alleged risks of SOPA go beyond simply a danger that the act would have a chilling effect on YouTube or other user-generated sites, and even beyond fears that too much responsibility is placed on website owners to identify and police potential copyright infringement. Among the fears cited by SOPA opponents is the risk that other governments would follow the lead taken by the U.S. but would act to censor sites for public policy reasons other than preventing copyright violations, such as to prevent speech that promotes political dissent. Further, proxy servers that are used to fight against oppressive regimes by allowing access to blocked material or posting of material anonymously might be affected, since these sites are sometimes used to violate copyright laws.
To protest against the passage of SOPA, on January 18, 2012, Wikipedia and many other sites "went black" or took down the site for the day. These sites provided a link explaining SOPA and urging everyone to take action and contact their representatives. Other sites, such as Google, did not go black but also protested and encouraged visitors to contact their Congressman. Google, for instance, placed a black box over its logo that linked to a page where users could sign a petition.
The Results of the Protest
In response to the protests, the Texas congressman who first sponsored SOPA announced that he was pulling the bill from consideration until a more widespread agreement on a solution could be reached.
Rogue sites that steal creative content attract in excess of 52 billion visits per year according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter to the editor published in The New York Times. The theft of intellectual property on the Internet is a serious problem with injurious consequences for large companies in California and elsewhere and for artists and authors personally, explains a lawyer. A solution does need to be reached. However, SOPA is likely not the solution to that problem. Any solution that does exist must be careful to balance the important interest in protecting the intellectual property of copyright holders with other fundamentally important aims, such as the goal of protecting free speech and free sharing of information.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jim Ballidis
Lawyer and managing partner of California law firm Allen, Flatt, Ballidis, and Leslie, James Ballidis has written extensively on issues concerning civil law, including online privacy, transportation safety, and the personal injury claims process.
Copyright Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
More information about Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
View all articles published by Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
