language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters - Jan. 17, 2012 us digital millennium copyright act 1998 definition

  comments SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters By Julianne Pepitone @CNNMoneyTech January 20, 2012: 12:44 PM ET

SOPA's backers say the sweeping anti-piracy bill is us-digital-millennium-copyright-act-1998-definition-rid-0.html. moncler monaco sneakerneeded to squash sites like The Pirate Bay (left), but the tech industry says the bill is rife with unintended consequences.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The tech industry is abuzz about SOPA and PIPA, a pair of anti-piracy bills. Here's why they're controversial, and how they would change the digital landscape if they became law.

What is SOPA? SOPA is an acronym for the Stop Online Piracy Act. It's a proposed bill that aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content.

Print Comment

SOPA's main targets are "rogue" overseas sites like torrent hub The Pirate Bay, which are a trove for illegal downloads. Go to the The Pirate Bay, type in any current hit movie or TV show like "Glee," and you'll see links to download full seasons and recent episodes for free.

Content creators have battled against piracy for years -- remember Napster? -- but it's hard for U.S. companies to take action against foreign sites. The Pirate Bay's servers are physically located in Sweden. So SOPA's goal is to cut off pirate sites' oxygen by requiring U.S. search engines, advertising networks and other providers to withhold their services.

That means sites like Google wouldn't show flagged sites in their search results, and payment processors like eBay's ( EBAY , Fortune 500 ) PayPal couldn't transmit funds to them.

Both sides say they agree that protecting content is a worthy goal. But opponents say that the way SOPA is written effectively promotes censorship and is rife with the potential for unintended consequences.

Silicon Valley woke up and took notice of the implications when SOPA was introduced in the House of Representatives in October. But its very similar counterpart, PIPA (the Protect IP Act), flew under the radar and was approved by a Senate committee in May. PIPA had been scheduled for a vote on January 24.

But after a massive pushback from tech companies and their supporters, both SOPA and PIPA were officially "postponed" on January 20.

Isn't copyright infringement already illegal? Yes. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out enforcement measures.

Let's say a YouTube user uploads a copyrighted song. Under the current law, that song's copyright holders could send a "takedown notice" to YouTube. YouTube is protected against liability as long as it removes the content within a reasonable timeframe.

When it gets a DMCA warning, YouTube has to notify the user who uploaded the content. That user has the right to file a counter-motion demonstrating that the content doesn't infringe on any copyrights. If the two sides keep disagreeing, the issue can go to court.

The problem with DMCA, critics say, is that it's useless against overseas sites.

SOPA tackles that by moving up the chain. If you can't force overseas sites to take down copyrighted work, you can at least stop U.S. companies from providing their services to those sites. You can also make it harder for U.S. Internet users to find and access the sites.

But SOPA goes further than DMCA and potentially puts site operators -- even those based in the U.S. -- on the hook for content that their users upload. The proposed bill's text says that a site could be deemed a SOPA scofflaw if it "facilitates" copyright infringement.

That very broad language has tech companies spooked.

Sites like YouTube, which publishes millions of user-uploaded videos each week, are worried that they would be forced to more closely police that content to avoid running afoul of the new rules.

"YouTube would just go dark immediately," Google public policy director Bob Boorstin said at a conference last month . "It couldn't function."

Tech companies also object to SOPA's "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.

The bill requires every payment or advertising network operator to set up a process through which outside parties can notify the company that one of its customers is an "Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property." Once a network gets a notification, it is required to cut off services to the target site within five days.

Filing false notifications is a crime, but the process would put the burden of proof -- and the legal cost of fighting a false allegation -- on the accused.

As the anti-SOPA trade group NetCoalition put it in their analysis of the bill: "The legislation systematically favors a copyright owner's intellectual property rights and strips the owners of accused websites of their rights."

Who supports SOPA, and who's against it? The controversial pair of bills, SOPA and PIPA, have sparked an all-out war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. In general, media companies have united in favor of them, while tech's big names are throwing their might into opposing them.

SOPA's supporters -- which include CNNMoney parent company Time Warner ( TWX , Fortune 500 ), plus groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America -- say that online piracy leads to U.S. job losses because it deprives content creators of income.

The bill's supporters dismiss accusations of censorship, saying that the legislation is meant to revamp a broken system that doesn't adequately prevent criminal behavior.

But SOPA's critics say the bill's backers don't understand the Internet's architecture, and therefore don't appreciate the implications of the legislation they're considering.

iReport: Share your SOPA view

In November, tech behemoths including Google ( GOOG , Fortune 500 ) and Facebook lodged a formal complaint letter to lawmakers, saying: "We support the bills' stated goals. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities [and] mandates that would require monitoring of web sites."

Where does the bill stand now? SOPA was once expected to sail quickly through committee approval in the House.

But tech companies, who largely oppose the bills, mobilized their users to speak out. Wikipedia and Reddit launched site blackouts on January 18, while protesters hit the streets in New York , San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Google ( GOOG , Fortune 500 ) drew more than 7 million signatures for a petition that it linked on its highly trafficked homepage.

The bills lost some of their Congressional backers as a result of the backlash. Both SOPA and PIPA were tabled on January 20.

If the bills do come back up for discussion, they will likely be extensively reworked.

One major tenet of the original SOPA legislation has already been removed. As originally written, SOPA would have required Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to sites that law enforcement officials deemed pirate sites.

But the White House said its analysis of the original legislation's technical provisions "suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity," and that it wouldn't support legislation that mandates manipulating the Internet's technical architecture.

The White House's statement came shortly after one of SOPA's lead sponsors, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, agreed to remove SOPA's domain-blocking provisions.

0:00 / 2:36 What is SOPA?

What are the alternatives? One option, of course, is that Congress does nothing and leaves the current laws in place.

Alternative legislation has also been proposed. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) on January 18 -- the same day as the Wikipedia site blackout.

Among other differences, OPEN offers more protection than SOPA would to sites accused of hosting pirated content. It also beefs up the enforcement process. It would allow digital rights holders to bring cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), an independent agency that handles trademark infringement and other trade disputes.

California Republican Darrell Issa introduced OPEN in the House, and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden introduced the Senate version. OPEN's backers had posted the draft legislation online and invited the Web community to comment on and revise the proposal .

SOPA supporters counter that the ITC doesn't have the resources for digital enforcement, and that giving it those resources would be too expensive.

Smith, one of SOPA's lead sponsors, released a scathing statement about OPEN immediately after it was introduced.

"The OPEN Act does not do enough to combat online piracy, and may make the problem worse," Smith wrote.  

First Published: January 17, 2012: 2:08 PM ET
us digital millennium copyright act 1998 definition

moncler baby jas outlet
us digital millennium copyright act google
moncler monaco nylon sneaker
moncler 18-24 months
official moncler outlet sale Fair use doesn

Home › Legal Forms › Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") Notice

Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") Notice

This notice is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. If you believe that your intellectual property rights have been infringed upon, or if a notice of infringement has been filed against you, you should immediately seek legal counsel.

This website (see our website's Terms and Conditions of Use for definitions), including all text, HTML, scripts, and images are copyrighted and owned by The Foster Institute, Inc.. All rights reserved.

No part of this website may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, electronic, or otherwise, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, or transmitted by e-mail, or used in any other fashion without the express prior written permission of the website owner.

This, of course, excludes the downloading and temporary caching of this website on a personal computer for the explicit purpose of viewing this website, as well as any information clearly marked as reproducible. This copyright notice applies to everyone, including all visitors to this website.

DMCA PROVISIONS The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, found at 17 U.S.C. § 512 ("DMCA"), provides recourse for owners of copyrighted materials who believe that their rights under United States copyright law have been infringed upon on the Internet.

Under the DMCA, the bona fide owner of copyrighted materials who has a good faith belief that their copyright has been infringed may contact not only the person or entity infringing on their copyright, but may also contact the designated agent of an Internet service provider to report alleged infringements of their protected works, when such alleged infringements appear on pages contained within the system of the Internet service provider ("ISP").

The owner of this website and the ISP are committed to complying with international trade law, international trade practices, all United States laws, including United States copyright law. Upon receipt of a properly filed complaint under the DMCA, the owner and/or the ISP of this website will block access to the allegedly infringing material. The website owner and/or the ISP will forward a copy of the notification of claimed copyright infringement to the alleged infringer. Anyone who believes in good faith that a notice of copyright infringement has wrongfully been filed against them, may submit a Counternotice to the website owner and/or the ISP.

NOTIFICATION OF CLAIMED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Please send DMCA notifications of claimed copyright infringement to:


Copyright Agent The Foster Institute, Inc. P.O. Box 30 Napa, CA, 94559 USA


Copyright Agent, Inc. 14455 N. Hayden Rd. Suite 219 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 USA mike@ 480-505-8877

To file a notice of infringement with either the website owner or the ISP, you must provide a written communication that sets forth the items specified below. You will be liable for damages (including damages, costs, and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that the website or a web page is infringing your copyright. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether certain material of yours is protected by copyright laws, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following format (including section numbers):

Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon. Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above. (You must include the URL(s) (the location(s) of the page(s) that contains the allegedly infringing material and also include a description of the specific content which you claim is infringing on your copyright.) Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit the website owner to contact you (e-mail address and a phone number are required at a minimum). Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. I also affirm that as the copyright owner, I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by me, my agent, or the law." The signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. You may send your notice via email provided such notice includes a proper electronic signature. The signature or electronic signature must be that of the copyright owner, or a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive copyright that has allegedly been infringed.

For details on the information required for valid notification, see 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3).

COUNTERNOTIFICATION TO CLAIMED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT If a notice of copyright infringement has been filed with the website owner and/or the ISP against you, the owner and/or the ISP will attempt to notify you and provide you with a copy of the notice of copyright infringement. If you have a good faith belief that you have been wrongfully accused, you may file a counternotification with the website owner and/or the ISP. If website owner and/or the ISP receives a valid counternotification, the DMCA provides that the removed or blocked information will be restored or access re-enabled.

The website owner and/or the ISP will replace the removed material and cease disabling access to it in not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counternotification, unless the website owner and/or ISP first receives notice from the complaining party that such complaining party has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the alleged infringer from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on this website.

Please be advised that United States copyright law provides substantial penalties for a false counternotice filed in response to a notice of copyright infringement. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether certain material of yours is protected by copyright laws, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

© 2010 The Foster Institute, Inc., and licensed for use by the owner of this website at Rights Reserved. No portion of this document may be copied or used by anyone other than the licensee without the express written permission of the copyright owner.