Stop Online Piracy Act: Malsamoj inter versioj

[kontrolita revizio][kontrolita revizio]
Enhavo forigita Enhavo aldonita
prilaborenda tradukaĵo por pretigi dum la fermiteco de la angla vikipedio
 
Neniu resumo de redakto
Linio 1:
'''Stop Online Piracy Act''' (mallonge, '''SOPA''') estas usona leĝpropono, kiu celas reguligi kaj limigi la liberan uzadon de materialoj en la Interreto.
<!--
{{Redirect|SOPA||Sopa (disambiguation){{!}}Sopa}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2012}}
:''For details on the Wikipedia blackout that is planned for January 18, 2012, please see [[Wikipedia:SOPA initiative]].''
{{Current related|date=January 2012}}
{{pp-semi-vandalism|small=yes}}
 
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = Stop Online Piracy Act
| fullname = "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." —H.R. 3261<ref name="house" />
| acronym = SOPA
| nickname = House Bill 3261
| enacted by = <!--Not enacted yet--><!--
| title amended = --><!--US code titles changed--><!--
| sections created = <!--{{USC}} may be used--><!--
| sections amended =
| leghisturl =
| introducedin = House
| introducedbill = {{USBill|112|H.R.|3261}}
| introducedby = [[Lamar S. Smith|Lamar Smith]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]-[[List of United States Representatives from Texas|TX]])
| introduceddate = October 26, 2011
| committees = House Judiciary Committee
}}
--><!--
The '''Stop Online Piracy Act''' ('''SOPA'''), also known as House Bill 3261 or {{USBill|112|H.R.|3261}}, is a [[bill (proposed law)|bill]] that was introduced in the [[United States House of Representatives]] on October 26, 2011, by [[House Judiciary Committee]] Chair [[United_States_House_of_Representatives#Membership.2C_qualifications_and_apportionment|Representative]] [[Lamar S. Smith|Lamar S. Smith]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]-[[List of United States Representatives from Texas|TX]]) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and [[copyright]] holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted [[intellectual property]] and [[Counterfeit consumer goods|counterfeit goods]].<ref name="washingtonpost" /> 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]].<ref name="house1" />
 
The originally proposed bill would allow the [[U.S. Department of Justice]], as well as copyright holders, to seek [[court order]]s against websites accused of enabling or facilitating [[copyright infringement]]. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring [[online advertising]] networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring [[search engine]]s from linking to such sites, and requiring [[Internet service provider]]s to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized [[streaming media|streaming]] of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.<ref name="pcworld" />
 
Proponents of the bill say 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.<ref name="SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it?" /> 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.<ref name="lamar" />
 
Opponents say that it violates the [[First Amendment]],<ref name="LHTribe">{{cite web |last=Tribe |first=Laurence H. |title=THE "STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT" (SOPA) VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1 |date=December 6, 2011 |publisher=[[Scribd]] |accessdate=January 10, 2012 }}</ref> is [[Internet censorship]],<ref name="albanesius" /> will cripple the Internet,<ref name="Will Online Piracy Bill Combat 'Rogue' Web Sites or Cripple the Internet?" /> and will threaten [[whistle-blowing]] and other [[free speech]] actions.<ref name="LHTribe" /><ref name="Proposed Copyright Bill Threatens Whistleblowing and Human Rights" /> Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, [[boycott]]s of companies that support the legislation, and planned service blackouts by [[English Wikipedia]] and major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next [[Congressional hearing]] on the matter.
 
The [[House Judiciary Committee]] held hearings on November 16 and December 15, 2011. The Committee was scheduled to continue debate in January 2012,<ref name="postpone" /> but on January 17 Chairman Smith said that "[d]ue to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, [[Markup (legislation)|markup]] of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February."<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/us-usa-internet-piracy-house-idUSTRE80G29K20120117 "House to take up anti-piracy bill in February"] [[Reuters]] 17 January 2012</ref>
 
==Contents==
The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.<ref name="pcworld" /> After delivering a court order, the [[U.S. Attorney General]] could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks, and payment processors to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws. The Attorney General could also bar [[Web search engine|search engines]] from displaying links to the sites.<ref name="CRS Summary">{{cite web |url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@D&summ2=m& |title=Bill Summary by Congressional Research Service |publisher=Thomas – Library of Congress |date=October 26, 2011 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/643NehNoc |archivedate=December 19, 2011 |accessdate=November 21, 2011 }}</ref>
 
The bill also 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.<ref name="CRS Summary" />
 
The bill provides immunity from liability to the ad and payment networks that comply with this Act or that take voluntary action to cut ties to such sites. Any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement would be liable for damages.<ref name="pcworld" /> The second section increases the penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials or consumer goods. The bill would increase the penalties for unauthorized [[streaming media|streaming]] of copyrighted content {{clarify |pre-text=for uploaders, downloaders, or hosts? |date=December 2011}} and other intellectual property offenses.<ref name="CRS Summary" />
 
At the end of October co-sponsor Representative [[Bob Goodlatte]] (R-VA), chairman of the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]]'s [[United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet|Intellectual Property sub-panel]], told ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]'' that SOPA is a rewrite of the [[PROTECT IP Act|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 like search engines to block infringing websites and would instead need a court's approval before taking action against third parties.<ref name="thehill" />
 
==Goals==
===Protecting intellectual property of content creators===
According to Rep. Goodlatte, "Intellectual property is one of America's chief job creators and competitive advantages in the global marketplace, yet American inventors, authors, and [[entrepreneur]]s have been forced to stand by and watch as their works are stolen by foreign infringers beyond the reach of current U.S. laws. This legislation will update the laws to ensure that the economic incentives our Framers enshrined in the Constitution over 220 years ago—to encourage new writings, research, products and services— remain effective in the 21st century's global marketplace, which will create more American jobs."<ref name="HousePress" />
 
Rights-holders see intermediaries—the companies who host, link to, and provide [[e-commerce]] around the content—as the only accessible defendants.<ref name="Rights and wronged">{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/21540234|title=Rights and Wronged|work=The Economist|date=November 26, 2011|accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
Sponsor Rep. [[John Conyers]] (D-MI) said, "Millions of American jobs hang in the balance, and our efforts to protect America's intellectual property are critical to our economy's long-term success."<ref name="HousePress" /> Smith added, "The Stop Online Piracy Act helps stop the flow of revenue to rogue websites and ensures that the profits from American innovations go to American innovators."<ref name="HousePress" />
 
The [[Motion Picture Association of America]] (MPAA) representative who testified before the committee said that the motion picture and film industry supported two million jobs and 95,000 small businesses.<ref name="CNET-Hollywood" />
 
===Protection against counterfeit drugs===
[[Pfizer]] spokesman John Clark testified that [[patient]]s could not always detect cleverly forged websites selling drugs that were either mis-branded or simply counterfeit.<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Clark%2011162011.pdf Testimony of John P. Clark]; House Judiciary Committee Hearing; November 16, 2011; Pg. 3</ref>
 
RxRights, a consumer advocacy group, issued a statement saying that Clark failed "to acknowledge that there are Canadian and other international [[pharmacy|pharmacies]] that do disclose where they are located, require a valid doctor's [[Medical prescription|prescription]] and sell safe, brand-name medications produced by the same leading manufacturers as prescription medications sold in the U.S."<ref name="dosodisclose" /> They had earlier said that SOPA "fails to distinguish between counterfeit and genuine pharmacies" and would prevent American patients from ordering their medications from Canadian pharmacies online.<ref name="nocanada" />
 
Bill sponsor Smith accused [[Google]] of obstructing the bill, citing its $500 million settlement with the DOJ on charges that it allowed ads from Canadian pharmacies, leading to illegal imports of prescription drugs.<ref name="lamar" /> Shipment of prescription drugs from foreign pharmacies to customers in the US typically violates the [[Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act]] and the [[Controlled Substances Act]].<ref name="because" />
 
==Impact on online freedom of speech==
On ''[[Time (magazine)|TIME]]'''s ''Techland blog'', Jerry Brito wrote, "Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech?"<ref name="techland">{{cite web |url=http://techland.time.com/2011/11/07/congresss-piracy-blacklist-plan-a-cure-worse-than-the-disease/#ixzz1eG1bPxLM |title=Congress's Piracy Blacklist Plan: A Cure Worse than the Disease? |author=Jerry Brito |work=Time |date=November 7, 2011 |accessdate=December 28, 2011 }}</ref> Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology warned, "If SOPA and PIPA are enacted, the US government must be prepared for other governments to follow suit, in service to whatever social policies they believe are important—whether restricting hate speech, insults to public officials, or political dissent."<ref name="US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights" />
 
[[Laurence H. Tribe]], a [[Harvard University]] professor of [[constitutional law]], released an [[open letter]] on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the [[First Amendment]].”<ref name="LHTribe" /><ref name="NYT-20120101">{{cite news |last=Carr |first=David |title=The Danger of an Attack on Piracy Online
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/media/the-danger-of-an-attack-on-piracy-online.html |date=January 1, 2012 |work=New York Times |accessdate=January 10, 2012 }}</ref>
 
The [[AFL-CIO]]'s Paul Almeida, arguing in favor of SOPA, has stated that free speech was not a relevant consideration, because "Freedom of speech is not the same as lawlessness on the Internet. There is no inconsistency between protecting an open Internet and safeguarding intellectual property. Protecting intellectual property is not the same as censorship; the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks."<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Almeida%2011162011.pdf Statement of Paul E. Almeida, President, DEPARTMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO]; Before the Committee on the Judiciary, November 16, 2011</ref>
 
===Autocratic countries===
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, [[Proxy server#Bypassing filters and censorship|proxy servers]], such as those used during the [[Arab Spring]], can also be used to [[Proxy server#Accessing services anonymously|thwart]] copyright enforcement and therefore may be outlawed by the act.<ref name="eff" />
 
[[John Palfrey]], co-director of the [[Berkman Center for Internet & Society]], expressed disagreement with the use of his research findings to support SOPA. He wrote that "SOPA would make many [DNS] circumvention tools illegal," which could put "dissident communities" in autocratic countries "at much greater risk than they already are." He added, "The single biggest funder of circumvention tools has been and remains the U.S. government, precisely because of the role the tools play in online activism. It would be highly counter-productive for the U.S. government to both fund and outlaw the same set of tools.<ref name="palfrey">{{cite web|url=http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2011/12/22/sopa-and-our-2010-circumvention-study |title=John Palfrey » Blog Archive » SOPA and our 2010 Circumvention Study |publisher=Blogs.law.harvard.edu |date= |accessdate=2012-01-17}}</ref>
 
Marvin Ammori has stated the bill might make [[The Tor Project]] illegal. Funded by the [[State Department]]{{Citation needed}}, the Tor Project creates [[encryption]] technology used by dissidents in repressive regimes (that consequently outlaw it). Ammori says that the US Supreme Court case of [[Lamont v. Postmaster General]] 381 U.S. 301 (1965) makes it clear that Americans have the First Amendment right to read and listen to such foreign dissident free speech, even if those foreigners themselves lack an equivalent free speech right (for example under their constitution or through Optional Protocols under the United Nations [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]).<ref>{{cite web|last=Ammori |first=Marvin |url=http://ammori.org/2011/12/14/first-amendment-stop-online-piracy-acts-managers-amendment-some-thoughts/ |title=First Amendment & Stop Online Piracy Act’s Manager’s Amendment: Some Thoughts « Marvin Ammori |publisher=Ammori.org |date=2011-12-14 |accessdate=2012-01-17}}</ref>
 
==Impact on websites==
===Websites that host user content===
Opponents have warned that SOPA would have a negative impact on online communities. Journalist [[Rebecca MacKinnon]] argued in an [[op-ed]] that making companies liable for users' actions could have a [[chilling effect (law)|chilling effect]] on user-generated sites such as [[YouTube]]. "The intention is not the same as [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|China’s Great Firewall]], a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar," she says.<ref name="Stop the Great Firewall of America" /> The [[Electronic Freedom Foundation]] (EFF) warned that websites [[Etsy]], [[Flickr]] and [[Vimeo]] all seemed likely to shut down if the bill becomes law.<ref name="What's On the Blacklist?">{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/whats-blacklist-three-sites-sopa-could-put-risk |title=What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That SOPA Could Put at Risk |author=Parker Higgins |work=Deeplinks blog |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref> Policy analysts for [[New America Foundation]] say this legislation would enable law enforcement to take down an entire domain due to something posted on a single blog, arguing, "an entire largely innocent online community could be punished for the actions of a tiny minority."<ref name="The Internet’s Intolerable Acts">{{cite web |url= http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/stop_online_piracy_act_and_protect_ip_act_a_pair_of_bills_that_threaten_internet_freedom_.html |title=The Internet’s Intolerable Acts |author=James Losey & Sascha Meinrath |publisher=Slate Magazine |date=December 8, 2011 |accessdate=December 11, 2011 }}</ref>
 
Additional concerns include the impact on common Internet functions such as [[hyperlink|linking]] or access data from the cloud. EFF claimed the bill would ban linking to sites deemed offending, even in search results<ref name="eff1" /> and on services such as [[Twitter]].<ref name="cdt" /> Christian Dawson, [[Chief Operating Officer]] (COO) of Virginia-based hosting company [[ServInt]], predicted that the legislation would lead to many [[cloud computing]] and Web hosting services moving out of the US to avoid lawsuits.<ref name="Lawmakers seek alternative to Stop Online Piracy Act" /> The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] have stated that the requirement that any site must self-police user generated content would impose significant liability costs and explains "why venture capitalists have said en masse they won’t invest in online startups if PIPA and SOPA pass."<ref>{{cite web |last=Timm |first=Trevor |title=How PIPA & SOPA Violate White House Provisions Supporting Free Speech and Innovation |publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] |date=January 16, 2012 |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech |accessdate=January 18, 2012}}</ref>
 
Proponents of the bill countered these claims, arguing that filtering is already common. Michael O'Leary of the MPAA testified on November 16 that the act's effect on business would be more minimal, noting that at least 16 countries already block websites, and that the Internet still functions in those countries.<ref name="hearingnotes" /> MPAA Chairman [[Chris Dodd]] noted that Google figured out how to block sites when China requested it.<ref name="Dodd slams Google over legislation">{{cite web |url=http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047080 |title=Dodd slams Google over legislation|author=Ted Johnson |publisher=Variety Magazine |date=December 8, 2011 |accessdate=December 11, 2011 }}</ref> Some ISPs in Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Italy blocked [[The Pirate Bay]] after courts ruled in favor of music and film industry litigation, and a coalition of film and record companies has threatened to sue [[British Telecom]] if it does not follow suit.<ref name="British ISP" /> [[Maria Pallante]] of the [[US Copyright Office]] said that Congress has updated the [[Copyright Act of 1976|Copyright Act]] before and should again, or "the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail." Asked for clarification, she said that the US currently lacks jurisdiction over websites in other countries.<ref name="hearingnotes" />
 
===Weakening of "safe harbor" protections===
The 1998 [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA) includes the [[Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act]], that provides a "safe harbor" for websites that host content. Under that provision, copyright owners who felt that a site was hosting infringing content are required to request the site to remove the infringing material within a certain amount of time.<ref name="ars">{{cite news |author=Matthew Lasar |title=Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit |url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/google-beats-viacom-in-billion-dollar-lawsuit.ars |accessdate=November 7, 2011 |newspaper=Ars Technica |date=June 23, 2010 }}</ref><ref name="dcma" /><ref name="Tech Industry Open Letter">{{cite web |title=Tech Industry Open Letter |url=http://politechbot.com/docs/sopa.google.facebook.twitter.letter.111511.pdf |accessdate=November 17, 2011 }}</ref> SOPA would bypass this "safe harbor" provision by placing the responsibility for detecting and policing infringement onto the site itself, and allowing judges to block access to websites "dedicated to theft of U.S. property."<ref name="sf chronicle editorial">{{cite news |title=Stop Online Piracy Act would stop online innovation |url=http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-02/business/30353433_1_sopa-craigslist-internet-service-providers |accessdate=November 7, 2011 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |date=November 2, 2011 |author=James Temple }}</ref>
 
According to critics of the bill such as the [[Center for Democracy and Technology]] and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], the bill's wording is vague enough that a single complaint about a site could be enough to block it, with the [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] resting on the site. A provision in the bill states that any site would be blocked that "is taking, or has taken deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation." Critics have read this to mean that a site must actively monitor its content and identify violations to avoid blocking, rather than relying on others to notify it of such violations.<ref name="What's On the Blacklist?" /><ref name="dangerously broad">{{cite web |url=http://www.cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/2710house-copyright-bill-casts-dangerously-broad-net |title=House Copyright Bill Casts Dangerously Broad Net |author=David Sohn |publisher=Center for Democracy and Technology |date=October 27, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
Law professor Jason Mazzone wrote, "Damages are also not available to the site owner unless a claimant 'knowingly materially' misrepresented that the law covers the targeted site, a difficult legal test to meet. The owner of the site can issue a counter-notice to restore payment processing and advertising but services need not comply with the counter-notice."<ref name="mazzone">{{cite web |url=http://torrentfreak.com/the-privatization-of-copyright-lawmaking-111112/ |title=The Privatization of Copyright Lawmaking |author=Jason Mazzone |date=November 12, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
Goodlatte stated, "We're open to working with them on language to narrow [the bill's provisions], but I think it is unrealistic to think we're going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision. Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things. But we are very open to tweaking the language to ensure we don't impose extraordinary burdens on legitimate companies as long as they aren't the primary purveyors [of pirated content]."<ref name="hill" /><ref name="Downes" />
 
O'Leary submitted written testimony in favor of the bill that expressed guarded support of current DMCA provisions. "Where these sites are legitimate and make good faith efforts to respond to our requests, this model works with varying degrees of effectiveness," O'Leary wrote. "It does not, however, always work quickly, and it is not perfect, but it works."<ref name="CNET-Hollywood" />
 
===Web-related businesses===
An analysis in the information technology magazine ''[[eWeek]]'' stated, "The language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the alleged crimes that this bill could effectively kill e-commerce or even normal Internet use. The bill also has grave implications for existing U.S., foreign and international laws and is sure to spend decades in court challenges."<ref name="EWeek" />
 
Art Bordsky of advocacy group [[Public Knowledge]] similarly stated, "The definitions written in the bill are so broad that any US consumer who uses a website overseas immediately gives the US jurisdiction the power to potentially take action against it."<ref name="guardian" />
 
On October 28, 2011, the EFF called the bill a "massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation," and said, "This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed."<ref name="SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet" />
 
Gary Shapiro, CEO of the [[Consumer Electronics Association]], spoke out strongly against the bill, stating, "The bill attempts a radical restructuring of the laws governing the Internet," and that "It would undo the legal safe harbors that have allowed a world-leading Internet industry to flourish over the last decade. It would expose legitimate American businesses and innovators to broad and open-ended liability. The result will be more lawsuits, decreased venture capital investment, and fewer new jobs."<ref name="At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for 'pro-pirate' Google" />
 
[[Lukas Biewald]], founder of [[CrowdFlower]], stated, "It'll have a stifling effect on venture capital... No one would invest because of the legal liability."<ref name="Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA" />
 
[[Booz & Company]] on November 16 published a Google-funded study finding that almost all of the 200 [[venture capitalist]]s and [[angel investor]]s interviewed would stop funding [[digital media]] intermediaries if the bill became law. More than 80 percent said they would rather invest in a risky, weak economy with the current laws than a strong economy with the proposed law in effect. If legal ambiguities were removed and good faith provisions in place, investing would increase by nearly 115 percent.<ref name="booz" />
 
As reported by [[David Carr (journalist)|David Carr]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' in an article critical of SOPA and PIPA, Google, Facebook, Twitter and other companies sent a joint letter to Congress, stating "We support the bills’ stated goals – providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign ‘rogue’ Web sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. However, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action and technology mandates that would require monitoring of Web sites.”<ref name="NYT-20120101" /><ref name="NYT-20111116">{{cite web |author=[[AOL]], [[eBay]], FaceBook, [[Google]], [[LinkedIn]], [[Mozilla]], Twitter, [[Yahoo]], [[Zynga]] |title=We stand together to protect innovation |url=http://boingboing.net/2011/11/16/internet-giants-place-full-pag.html |date=November 16, 2011 |publisher=[[NYTimes]] and [[BoingBoing]] |accessdate=January 10, 2012 }}</ref> Smith responded, saying, the article "unfairly criticizes the Stop Online Piracy Act," and, "does not point to any language in the bill to back up the claims. SOPA targets only foreign Web sites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. Domestic Web sites, like blogs, are not covered by this legislation." Smith also said that Carr incorrectly framed the debate as between the entertainment industry and high-tech companies, noting support by more than "120 groups and associations across diverse industries, including the [[United States Chamber of Commerce]]."<ref name="NYT-20120109">{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Lamar |title=Fighting Online Piracy (Letter) |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/opinion/fighting-online-piracy.html |date=January 9, 2012 |work=New York Times |accessdate=January 10, 2012 }}</ref>
 
===Users uploading illegal content===
Lateef Mtima, director of the Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice at [[Howard University School of Law]], expressed concern that users who upload copyrighted content to sites could potentially be held criminally liable themselves, saying, "Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the bill is that the conduct it would criminalize is so poorly defined. While on its face the bill seems to attempt to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial conduct, purportedly criminalizing the former and permitting the latter, in actuality the bill not only fails to accomplish this but, because of its lack of concrete definitions, it potentially criminalizes conduct that is currently permitted under the law."<ref name="internet giants">{{cite web |url=http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11974 |title=Internet giants oppose bill that could make posting online videos a crime |author=Jack Minor |work=Greely Gazette |date=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
An aide to Rep. Smith said, "This bill does not make it a felony for a person to post a video on YouTube of their children singing to a copyrighted song. The bill specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal or infringing activity. Sites that host user content—like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter—have nothing to be concerned about under this legislation."<ref name="internet giants" />
 
In January 2012, bloggers claimed that Smith's own website had apparently used a copyright protected image without attributing it to the photographer who took it, with [[Time (magazine)|Time]] noting, "It doesn’t seem like a huge violation, but that’s the point; if SOPA passes, who knows how minor infractions like this will be handled."<ref>[http://techland.time.com/2012/01/13/irony-alert-congressman-who-wrote-sopa-violated-copyright-law/ Irony Alert: Congressman Who Wrote SOPA Violated Copyright Law]; Time; January 13, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/author-sopa-is-also-copyright-violator-sort-of/47338/ The Author of SOPA Is Also a Copyright Violator (Sort of)]; The Atlantic Wire; January 12, 2012</ref>
 
===Internal networks===
A paper by the [[Center for Democracy and Technology]] claimed that the bill "targets an entire website even if only a small portion hosts or links to some infringing content."<ref name="dcma" />
 
According to A. M. Reilly of ''Industry Leaders Magazine'', under SOPA, culpability for distributing copyright material is extended to those who aid the initial poster of the material. For companies that use [[VPN|virtual private networks]] (VPN) to create a network that appears to be internal but is spread across various offices and employees' homes, any of these offsite locations that initiate sharing of copyright material could put the entire VPN and hosting company at risk of violation.<ref name="The Stop Online Piracy Act: What Industry Leaders Can Do About It" />
 
Answering similar criticism in a [[CNET]] editorial, [[Recording Industry Association of America]] (RIAA) head Cary Sherman wrote, "Actually, it's quite the opposite. By focusing on specific sites rather than entire domains, action can be targeted against only the illegal subdomain or Internet protocol address rather than taking action against the entire domain."<ref name="RIAA chief">{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57320417-93/riaa-chief-copyright-bills-wont-kill-the-internet/ |title=RIAA chief: Copyright bills won't kill the Internet |author=Cary Sherman |date=November 8, 2011 |accessdate=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
==Impact on web-browsing software==
The Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed concern that free and open source software ([[FLOSS]]) projects found to be aiding [[online piracy]] could experience serious problems under SOPA.<ref name="waylay FLOSS">{{cite web |url=http://www.itworld.com/security/223845/piracy-bill-could-waylay-floss-projects |title=Piracy bill could waylay FLOSS projects: If enacted, the SOPA bill in the U.S. House would target software vendors |author=Brian Proffitt |publisher=IT World |date=November 14, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref> Of special concern was the web browser [[Firefox]],<ref name="eff" /> which has an optional extension, [[MAFIAAFire Redirector]], that redirects users to a new location for domains that were seized by the U.S. government.<ref name="Mozilla stirs netizens against US anti-piracy law: Dancing cats take-down threat" /> In May 2011, Mozilla refused a request by the [[Department of Homeland Security]] to remove MAFIAAFire from its website, questioning whether the software had ever been declared illegal.<ref name="Feds Demand Firefox Remove Add-On That Redirects Seized Domains" /><ref name="Questions to Department of Homeland Security April 19, 2011" />
 
==Potential effectiveness==
Edward J. Black, president and CEO of the [[Computer & Communication Industry Association]], wrote in the ''[[Huffington Post]]'' that "Ironically, it would do little to stop actual pirate websites, which could simply reappear hours later under a different name, if their numeric [[web address]]es aren't public even sooner. Anyone who knows or has that web address would still be able to reach the offending website."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/stop-online-piracy-act-vote_b_1145949.html |title=Internet Users, Free Speech Experts, Petition Against SOPA |author=Edward J. Black |work=Huffington Post |date=December 13, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
An editorial in the ''[[San Jose Mercury-News]]'' stated, "Imagine the resources required to parse through the millions of Google and Facebook offerings every day looking for pirates who, if found, can just toss up another site in no time."<ref name="congress should kill">{{cite web |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19369009 |title=Mercury News editorial: Congress should kill online piracy bill |date=November 19, 2011 |publisher=San Jose Mercury-News |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
John Palfrey of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society commented, "DNS filtering is by necessity either overbroad or underbroad; it either blocks too much or too little. Content on the Internet changes its place and nature rapidly, and DNS filtering is ineffective when it comes to keeping up with it."<ref name="palfrey" />
 
==Technical issues==
===Deep-packet inspection and privacy===
According to Markham Erickson, head of NetCoalition, which opposes SOPA, the section of the bill that would allow judges to order [[internet service provider]]s to block access to infringing websites to customers located in the United States would also allow the checking of those customers' [[IP address]], a method known as [[IP blocking]]. Erickson has expressed concerns that such an order might require those providers to engage in "[[deep packet inspection]]," which involves analyzing all of the content being transmitted to and from the user, raising new privacy concerns.<ref name="SOPA's latest threat">{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57328045-281/sopas-latest-threat-ip-blocking-privacy-busting-packet-inspection/ |title=SOPA's latest threat: IP blocking, privacy-busting packet inspection |author=Declan McCullagh |date=November 18, 2011 |work=Privacy Inc |publisher=CNET |accessdate=November 18, 2011 }}</ref><ref name="Dangerous Bill Would Threaten Legitimate Websites">{{cite web |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/dangerous-bill-would-threaten-legitimate-websites/248619/ |title=Dangerous Bill Would Threaten Legitimate Websites |author=David Sohn and Andrew McDiarmid |date=November 17, 2011 |work=The Atlantic |accessdate=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
Policy analysts for [[New America Foundation]] say this legislation would "instigate a data obfuscation arms race" whereby by increasingly invasive practices would be required to monitor users' web traffic resulting in a "counterproductive cat-and-mouse game of censorship and circumvention would drive savvy scofflaws to darknets while increasing surveillance of less technically proficient Internet users."<ref name="The Internet’s Intolerable Acts"/>
 
===Domain Name System===
The [[Domain Name System]] (DNS) servers, most often equated with a [[telephone directory]], translate browser requests for domain names into the [[IP address]] assigned to that computer or network. The original bill requires these servers to stop referring requests for infringing domains to their assigned IP addresses. DNS is robust by design against failure and requires that a lack of response is met by inquiries to other DNS servers.<ref name="baker-Dec14">{{cite web|title=SOPA-rope-a-dopa|url=http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2011/12/the-sopa-rope-a-dope.html|publisher=[[Stewart Baker]]|accessdate=January 14, 2012|date=December 14, 2011}}</ref>
 
Andrew Lee, CEO of [[ESET]] North America, objected that since the bill would require internet service providers to filter DNS queries for the sites, this would undermine the integrity of the Domain Name System.<ref name="ESET Open Letter" />
 
According to [[David Ulevitch]], the San Francisco-based head of [[OpenDNS]], the passage of SOPA could cause Americans to switch to DNS providers located in other countries who offer encrypted links, and may cause U.S. providers, such as OpenDNS itself, to move to other countries, such as the [[Cayman Islands]].<ref name="OpenDNS">{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57327341-281/opendns-sopa-will-be-extremely-disruptive-to-the-internet/ |title=OpenDNS: SOPA will be 'extremely disruptive' to the Internet |author=Declan McCullagh |work=Privacy Inc. |publisher=CNET |date=November 17, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
In November 2011, an anonymous [[top-level domain]], .bit, was launched outside of [[ICANN]] control, as a response to the perceived threat from SOPA, although its effectiveness (as well as the effectiveness of other [[alternative DNS root]]s) remains unknown.<ref name="dimnet">{{cite web |url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/anonymous-bit-dimnet-tries-to-be-a-hedge-against-dns-censorship.ars |title=Anonymous "dimnet" tries to create hedge against DNS censorship |author=Sean Gallagher |publisher=Ars Technica |date=November 17, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
On January 12, 2012, [[Patrick Leahy|Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)]], Chairman of the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] overseeing PIPA,<ref name="National Journal">{{cite web |last=Gruenwald |first=Juliana |title=Leahy Offers Major Concession On Online Piracy Bill |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/leahy-offers-major-concession-on-online-piracy-bill-20120112/ |date=January 12, 2012 |publisher=[[National Journal]] |accessdate=January 13, 2012 }}</ref><ref>[http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=721ddff6-3399-4d56-a966-bca3f848759b Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Internet Service Providers And The PROTECT IP Act]; Press Release – Leahy; January 12, 2012</ref> and House sponsor Lamar Smith announced<ref name="Wired-20120112a">{{cite web |last=Kravets |first=David |title=Rep. Smith Waters Down SOPA, DNS RedirectsOut |url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/dns-sopa-provision/ |date=January 12, 2012 |publisher=[[Wired (magazine)]] |accessdate=January 12, 2012 }}</ref> that provisions related to DNS redirection would be pulled from their respective bills.<ref name="ArsTechnica Jan13"/><ref name="smith">{{cite web |last=Smith |first=Lamar |title=Smith To Remove DNS Blocking from SOPA |publisher=Congressman Lamar Smith |date=January 13, 2012 |url=http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=274902 }}</ref>
 
===Internet security===
A [[white paper]] by several internet security experts, including [[Steve Crocker]] and [[Dan Kaminsky]], wrote, "From an operational standpoint, a resolution failure from a nameserver subject to a court order and from a hacked nameserver would be indistinguishable. Users running secure applications have a need to distinguish between policy-based failures and failures caused, for example, by the presence of an attack or a hostile network, or else downgrade attacks would likely be prolific."<ref name="Whitepaper1" />
 
===Domain Name System Security Extensions===
[[Stewart Baker]], former first Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security and former [[General Counsel]] of the [[National Security Agency]], stated that SOPA would do "great damage to Internet security"<ref name="baker-Dec14" /> by undermining [[Domain Name System Security Extensions]] (DNSSEC), a proposed security upgrade for DNS, since a [[Web browser|browser]] must treat all redirects the same, and must continue to search until it finds a DNS server (possibly overseas) providing untampered results.<ref name="baker-Dec14" /> On December 14, 2011 he wrote that SOPA was "badly in need of a knockout punch" due to its impact on security and DNS:<ref name="baker-Dec14" />
 
{{quote|from the <nowiki>[</nowiki>Attorney General]’s point of view, the browser’s efforts to find an authoritative DNS server will look like a deliberate effort to evade his blocking order. The latest version of SOPA will feed that view. It allows the AG to sue “any entity that knowingly and willfully provides ... a product ... designed by such entity or by another in concert with such entity for the circumvention or bypassing of” the AG’s blocking orders. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that this provision is aimed squarely at the browser companies. Browsers implementing DNSSEC will have to circumvent and bypass criminal blocking, and in the process, they will also circumvent and bypass SOPA orders.}}
 
DNSSEC is a set of protocols developed by the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]] (IETF) for ensuring internet security. A white paper by the [[Brookings Institution]] noted, "The DNS system is based on trust," adding that DNSSEC was developed to prevent malicious redirection of DNS traffic, and that "other forms of redirection will break the assurances from this security tool."<ref name="Cybersecurity in the Balance">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx |title=Cybersecurity in the Balance:Weighing the Risks of the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act |author=Allan A. Friedman |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=December 28, 2011 |publisher=Brookings Institution }}</ref>
 
On November 17, [[Sandia National Laboratories]], a research agency of the [[U.S. Department of Energy]], released a technical assessment of the DNS filtering provisions in the House and Senate bills, in response to Representative [[Zoe Lofgren|Zoe Lofgren's]] (D-CA) request. The assessment stated that the proposed DNS filtering would be unlikely to be effective, would negatively impact internet security, and would delay full implementation of DNSSEC.<ref name="Lofgren Releases Letter">{{cite press release |url=http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=670&Itemid=130 |title=Lofgren Releases Sandia Labs Letter on SOPA |publisher=US House of Representatives |date=November 17, 2011 |accessdate=December 28, 2011 }}</ref><ref>Leonard M. Napolitano, Jr., [http://lofgren.house.gov/images/stories/sopa/napolitano_reply_nov_16_2011.pdf Sandia Nat'l Labs Letter], November 16, 2011</ref>
 
On November 18, [[United States House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies|House Cybersecurity Subcommittee]] chair [[Dan Lungren]] stated that he had "very serious concerns" about SOPA's impact on DNSSEC, adding, "we don't have enough information, and if this is a serious problem as was suggested by some of the technical experts that got in touch with me, we have to address it."<ref name="new flap">{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57326228-281/new-flap-over-sopa-copyright-bill-anti- |title=Lungren Wants Hearing On SOPA'S Cyber Impact |author=Tony Romm |publisher=Politico |date=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
==Transparency in enforcement==
[[Brooklyn Law School]] professor Jason Mazzone warned, "Much of what will happen under SOPA will occur out of the public eye and without the possibility of holding anyone accountable. For when copyright law is made and enforced privately, it is hard for the public to know the shape that the law takes and harder still to complain about its operation."<ref name="mazzone" />
 
==Supporters==
===Legislators===
{{Main |List of legislators who support SOPA or PIPA}}
[[File:Lamar Smith, Official Portrait, c112th Congress.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Lamar S. Smith|Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)]]]]
The Stop Online Piracy Act was introduced by Representative [[Lamar S. Smith|Lamar Smith]] (R-TX) and was initially co-sponsored by [[Howard Berman]] (D-CA), [[Marsha Blackburn]] (R-TN), [[Mary Bono Mack]] (R-CA), [[Steve Chabot]] (R-OH), [[John Conyers]] (D-MI), [[Ted Deutch]] (D-FL), [[Elton Gallegly]] (R-CA), [[Bob Goodlatte]] (R-VA), [[Timothy Griffin]] (R-AR), [[Dennis A. Ross]] (R-FL), [[Adam Schiff]] (D-CA) and [[Lee Terry]] (R-NE). As of January 16, 2012, there were 31 sponsors.<ref name="govtrack" />
 
===Companies and organizations===
{{Main |List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act}}
The legislation has broad support from organizations that rely on copyright, including the [[Motion Picture Association of America]], the [[Recording Industry Association of America]], [[Macmillan Publishers (United States)|Macmillan US]], [[Viacom]], and various other companies and unions in the cable, movie, and music industries. Supporters also include trademark-dependent companies such as [[Nike, Inc.|Nike]], [[L'Oréal]], and [[Acushnet Company]].<ref name="politico" /><ref name="theglobalipcenter" />
 
Both the AFL-CIO and the [[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]] support H.R. 3261, and many industries have also publicly praised the legislation.
 
In June 2011, former [[Bill Clinton]] press secretary [[Mike McCurry (press secretary)|Mike McCurry]] and former [[George W. Bush]] advisor [[Mark McKinnon]], business partners in Public Strategies, Inc., started a campaign which echoed McCurry's earlier work in the [[network neutrality]] legislative fight. McCurry represented SOPA/PIPA in ''Politico'' as a way to combat theft on-line,<ref>Mike McCurry, [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56984.html "Congress must combat online theft"], ''Politico'' opinion piece, June 14, 2011. Retrieved November 30, 2011.</ref> drawing a favorable comment from the MPAA.<ref>Howard Gantman, [http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2011/06/15/Mike-McCurry-in-Politico-on-Need-for-Congressional-Action-Against-Online-Theft.aspx "Mike McCurry, in Politico, on Need for Congressional Action Against Online Theft"], ''blog.mpaa.org'', June 15, 2011. Retrieved November 30, 2011.</ref> On the 15th, McCurry and Arts + Labs co-chair McKinnon sponsored the "CREATE – A Forum on Creativity, Commerce, Copyright, Counterfeiting and Policy" conference with members of Congress, artists and information-business executives.<ref name="arts and labs" />
 
On September 22, 2011, a letter signed by over 350 businesses and organizations—including [[NBCUniversal]], [[Pfizer]], [[Ford Motor Company]], [[Revlon]], [[NBA]], and [[Macmillan Publishers (United States)|Macmillan US]]—was sent to Congress encouraging the passage of the legislation.<ref name="politico" /><ref name="theglobalipcenter" /> Fightonlinetheft.com, a website of The Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (a project of the United States Chamber of Commerce [[Global Intellectual Property Center]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thecacp.com/ |title=Global Intellectual Property Center }}</ref>) cites a long list of supporters including these and the [[Fraternal Order of Police]], the [[National Governors Association]], the [[U.S. Conference of Mayors]], the [[National Association of Attorneys General]], the [[Better Business Bureau]], and the [[National Consumers League]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://fightonlinetheft.com/voices-of-support/labor |title=Voices of support |work=fightonlinetheft.com |accessdate=December 28, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/14/sopa-fixes-isolate-opponents-especially-google/ |title=SOPA Fixes Isolate Opponents, especially Google |author=Scott Cleland |work=Forbes |date=December 14, 2011 |accessdate=December 28, 2011 }}</ref>
 
On November 22 the CEO of the [[Business Software Alliance]] (BSA) said, "valid and important questions have been raised about the bill." He said that definitions and remedies needed to be tightened and narrowed, but "BSA stands ready to work with Chairman Smith and his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to resolve these issues."<ref name="Tech coalition backs off SOPA support" /><ref>[http://blog.bsa.org/2011/11/21/sopa-needs-work-to-address-innovation-considerations/ SOPA Needs Work to Address Innovation Considerations]; Business Software Alliance; November 21, 2011</ref>
 
On December 22, [[Go Daddy]], the world's largest domain name registrar, stated that it supported SOPA.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sopa/?isc=smtwsup |title=Go Daddy’s Position on SOPA |date=December 22, 2011 }}</ref> Go Daddy then rescinded its support, its CEO saying, "Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation&mdash;but we can clearly do better. It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."<ref name="GoDaddy1">{{cite web |url=http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup |title=Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA |date=December 23, 2011 }}</ref>
 
In January 2012, the [[Entertainment Software Association]] announced support for SOPA.<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/31/video-game-industry-still-supports-anti-piracy-bill-despite-reports/ Video game industry still supports anti-piracy bill] – Raw Story, December 31, 2012</ref> Some association members expressed opposition to SOPA.<ref name="Games industry Jan 12">{{cite news|last=Curtis|first=Tom|title=Game industry unrest swells as SOPA hearing approaches|url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39628/Game_industry_unrest_swells_as_SOPA_hearing_approaches.php|accessdate=January 14, 2012|newspaper=Gamasutra|date=January 13, 2012}}</ref>
 
==Opposition==
===The White House===
On January 14, 2012, the Obama administration responded to a petition against the bill, stating that it would not support legislation with provisions that could lead to Internet censorship, squelching of innovation, or reduced Internet security, but encouraged "all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating [[Legal_aspects_of_computing#Jurisdiction|beyond U.S. borders]] while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response."<ref name="WH-Report-20120114">{{cite report |last1=Espinel |first1=Victoria |last2=Chopra |first2=Aneesh |last3=Schmidt |first3=Howard |title=Combating Online Piracy While Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet |url= https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet |date=January 14, 2012 |publisher=[[White House]] |Accessdate=January 14, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="WH-Blog-20120114">{{cite web|last=Phillips |first=Mark |title=Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA and Online Piracy |url= http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy |date=January 14, 2012 |publisher=[[White House Blog]] |accessdate=January 14, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="NYT-20120114">{{cite news |last=Wyatt |first=Edward |title=White House Says It Opposes Parts of Two Antipiracy Bills |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html |date=January 14, 2012 |publisher=[[NYTimes]] |accessdate=January 15, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="AP-20120114">{{cite news |last=Thomas |first=Ken |title=White House concerned over online piracy bills |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120114/D9S8SL501.html |date=January 14, 2012 |agency=Associated Press |accessdate=January 14, 2012 }}</ref>
 
===Legislators===
[[House Minority Leader]] [[Nancy Pelosi]] (D-CA) expressed opposition to the bill, as well as Representatives [[Darrell Issa]] (R-CA) and presidential candidate [[Ron Paul]] (R-TX), who joined nine [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] to sign a letter to other House members warning that the bill would cause "an explosion of innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation."<ref name="Strange bedfellows: Nancy Pelosi, Ron Paul join SOPA opposition" /> "Issa said the legislation is beyond repair and must be rewritten from scratch," reported ''The Hill''.<ref name="issa" /> Issa and Lofgren announced plans for legislation offering "a copyright enforcement process modeled after the [[U.S. International Trade Commission]]'s (ITC) patent infringement investigations."<ref name="Lawmakers seek alternative to Stop Online Piracy Act" /> [[Politico]] referred to support as an "election liability" for legislators.<ref name="Politico pro">{{cite news |last=Martinez |first=Jennifer |title=SOPA becoming election liability for backers |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71284.html |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=Politico Pro |date=January 10, 2012}}</ref> Subsequently proponents began hinting that key provisions might be deferred with opponents stating this was inadequate.<ref name="Techdirt Toxic" /><ref>{{cite news |last=Cheredar |first=Tom |title=Not even a shift to full SOPA opposition can stop Go Daddy from hemorrhaging customers |url= http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/29/not-even-a-shift-to-full-sopa-opposition-can-stop-go-daddy-from-hemorrhaging-customers/ |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=Venturebeat |date=December 29, 2011}}</ref>
 
===Companies and organizations===
[[File:EFF Filtered.png|thumb|right|250px|[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]] home page with American Censorship Day banner]]
Opponents include [[Google]], [[Yahoo!]], [[YouTube]], [[Facebook]], [[Twitter]], [[AOL]], [[LinkedIn]], [[eBay]], [[Mozilla Corporation]], [[Roblox]], [[Reddit]],<ref name="reddit" />
the [[Wikimedia Foundation]],<ref>{{cite web |author=Geoff Brigham |title=How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia |url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/ |work=Wikimedia Foundation Blog |date=December 13, 2011 |accessdate=December 16, 2011 }}</ref> and human rights organizations such as [[Reporters Without Borders]],<ref name="Domestic Reality Does Not Match Bold Words on Internet Freedom of Expression" /> the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF), the [[ACLU]], and [[Human Rights Watch]].<ref name="SOPA: Opponents" />
 
[[Kaspersky Lab]], a major computer security company, demonstrated its opposition to SOPA and "decided to discontinue its membership in the [[Business Software Alliance|BSA]]."<ref>{{cite web |author=Elinor Mills |title=Kaspersky dumps trade group over SOPA|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57336961-38/kaspersky-dumps-trade-group-over-sopa/ |publisher=CNET |date=December 5, 2011 |accessdate=January 17, 2012 }}</ref>
 
On December 13, 2011, [[Julian Sanchez]] of the [[Libertarianism|Libertarian]] [[think tank]] [[Cato Institute]] came out in strong opposition to the bill saying that while the amended version "trims or softens a few of the most egregious provisions of the original proposal... the fundamental problem with SOPA has never been these details; it’s the core idea. The core idea is still to create an Internet blacklist..."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/people/julian-sanchez |title=Julian Sanchez &#124; Cato Institute: Policy Scholars |publisher=Cato.org |date= |accessdate=2012-01-17}}</ref>
 
The Library Copyright Alliance (including the [[American Library Association]]) objected to the broadened definition of "willful infringement" and the introduction of felony penalties for noncommercial streaming infringement, stating that these changes could encourage criminal prosecution of libraries.<ref name="Re: Stop Online Piracy Act, H.R. 3261" />
 
On November 22, Mike Masnick of [[Techdirt]] called SOPA "toxic"<ref name="Techdirt Toxic">{{cite news |last=Masnick |first=Mike |title=As SOPA/PIPA Becomes Toxic, Frantic Congress Test Runs Dropping DNS Blocking Provisions |url= http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/09293817377/as-sopapipa-becomes-toxic-frantic-congress-test-runs-dropping-dns-blocking-provisions.shtml |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=TechDirt |date=January 11, 2012}}</ref> and published a detailed criticism<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml |title=The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas |author=Mike Masnick |publisher=Techdirt |date=November 22, 2011 |accessdate=December 28, 2011}}</ref> of the ideas underlying the bill, writing that "one could argue that the entire Internet enables or facilitates infringement," and saying that a list of sites compiled by the entertainment industry included the personal site of one of their own artists, [[50&nbsp;Cent]], and legitimate internet companies. The article questioned the effect of the bill on $2&nbsp;trillion in [[GDP]] and 3.1 million jobs, with a host of consequential problems on investment, liability and innovation.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.infoworld.com/d/networking/controversial-anti-piracy-bill-nears-house-approval-why-you-should-care-181965?page=0,1 |title=Controversial anti-piracy bill nears House approval: Why you should care |date=December 16, 2011 |author=Sarah Jacobsson |publisher=Infoworld |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref> [[Paul Graham (computer programmer)|Paul Graham]], the founder of venture capital company [[Y Combinator (company)|Y&nbsp;Combinator]] opposed the bill, and banned all SOPA-supporting companies from their "demo day" events. "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea," he asks, "how could they be good investors?"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supporters-are-no-longer-welcome-at-y-combinator-events/ |title=Paul Graham: SOPA supporters are no longer welcome at Y Combinator events |date=December 22, 2011 }}</ref> Prominent pro-democracy movement, [[Avaaz.org]] started a petition in protest over SOPA and so far has got over 1.2 million signatures worldwide. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?slideshow/ |title=Avaaz.org petition against SOPA|date= 17th February, 2012}}</ref>
 
The Center for Democracy and Technology maintains a list of SOPA and PIPA opponents consisting of the editorial boards of ''[[The New York Times]]'', the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', 34 other organizations and hundreds of prominent individuals.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa |title=List of Those Expressing Concern With SOPA and PIPA |publisher=Center for Democracy and Technology |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
[[Zynga|Zynga Game Network]], creator of Facebook games ''[[Texas HoldEm Poker (Zynga game)|Texas HoldEm Poker]]'' and ''[[FarmVille]]'', wrote to the sponsors of both bills highlighting concerns over the effect on "the DMCA's safe harbor provisions ... [which] ... have been a cornerstone of the U.S. Technology and industry's growth and success," and opposing the bill due to its impact on "innovation and dynamism."<ref>{{cite news |last=McCullagh |first=Declan |title=Google, Facebook, Zynga oppose new SOPA copyright bill |url= http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57325134-281/google-facebook-zynga-oppose-new-sopa-copyright-bill/ |publisher=CNet News |accessdate=January 14, 2012 |date=November 15, 2011}} ([http://politechbot.com/docs/sopa.google.facebook.twitter.letter.111511.pdf direct link to letter])</ref>
 
===Other===
Computer scientist [[Vint Cerf]], one of the founders of the Internet, now Google vice president, wrote to Smith, saying "Requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented 'censorship' of the Web," in a letter published on CNet.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/founder-internet-fears-unprecedented-web-censorship-from-sopa/ |title=Founder of Internet Fears 'Unprecedented' Web Censorship From SOPA |publisher=Fox News |date=December 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57344028-281/vint-cerf-sopa-means-unprecedented-censorship-of-the-web/ |title=Vint Cerf: SOPA means 'unprecedented censorship' of the Web |author=Declan McCullagh |publisher=CNet |date=December 15, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}} (includes original text of letter by [[Vint Cerf]])</ref>
 
On November 18, 2011, the [[European Union]] [[European Parliament|Parliament]] adopted by a large majority a resolution that "stresses the need to protect the integrity of the global Internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names."<ref name="European Parliament Joins Criticism of SOPA">{{cite web |url= http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/244247/european_parliament_joins_criticism_of_sopa.html |title=European Parliament resolution on the EU-US Summit of November 28, 2011 |publisher=European Parliament |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref><ref name="European Parliament Resolution Including SOPA">{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P7-RC-2011-0577&language=EN |title=European Parliament Joins Criticism of SOPA |author=Jennifer Baker |publisher=PC World |date=November 18, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
On December 15, 2011, a second hearing was scheduled to amend and vote on SOPA. Many opponents remained firm even after Smith proposed a 71-page amendment to the bill to address concerns. NetCoalition, which works with Google, Twitter, eBay and Facebook, appreciated that Smith was listening, but says it nonetheless could not support the amendment. Issa stated that Smith’s amendment, "retains the fundamental flaws of its predecessor by blocking Americans' ability to access websites, imposing costly regulation on Web companies and giving [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]]'s Department of Justice broad new powers to police the Internet."<ref name="Groups Still Oppose SOPA After Proposed Amendment" />
 
In December 2011, film and comics writer [[Steve Niles]] spoke out against SOPA, commenting, "I know folks are scared to speak out because a lot of us work for these companies, but we have to fight. Too much is at stake."<ref>{{cite news |last=Armitage |first=Hugh |title=Steve Niles speaks out against Stop Online Piracy Act |publisher=[[Digital Spy]] |date=December 31, 2011 |url=http://www.digitalspy.com/comics/news/a357876/steve-niles-speaks-out-against-stop-online-piracy-act.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Gold |first=Mike |title=MIKE GOLD: Steve Niles’ Courageous Act |publisher=[[ComicMix]] |date=January 4, 2012 |url=http://l.wbx.me/l/?p=1&instId=31475212-8b66-4de5-93cd-d30be501a8e2&token=0ae08c16b51fe61e41911f3c02c7db2517dc47e900000134a0351ab9&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicmix.com}}</ref>
 
In January 2012, novelist, screenwriter and comics writer [[Peter David]] directed his ire at the intellectual property pirates whose activities he felt provoked the creation of SOPA. While convinced that the then-current language of SOPA would go too far in its restricting free expression, and would likely be scaled down, David argued that content pirates, such as the websites that had posted his novels online in their entirety for free downloads, as well as users who supported or took advantage of these activities, could have prevented SOPA by respecting copyright laws.<ref>{{Cite web|author=[[David, Peter]]|url=http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2012/01/17/where-i-stand-on-sopa/|title=Where I stand on SOPA|publisher=peterdavid.net |date=January 17, 2012}}</ref>
 
===Protest actions===
[[File:MozillaStopCensorshipDoodle-cropped.png|thumb|right|Mozilla's SOPA protest, displayed in [[Firefox]] on November 16, 2011]]
[[File:Wikimedia Foundation SOPA War Room Meeting 1-17-2012-1-9.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[Sue Gardner]] at the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] on the evening of January 17, 2012, discussing the English Wikipedia Blackout]]
On November 16, 2011, [[Tumblr]], Mozilla, Techdirt, the [[Center for Democracy and Technology]] were among many Internet companies that protested by participating in [[American Censorship Day]]. They displayed black banners over their site logos with the words "STOP CENSORSHIP."<ref name="'American Censorship Day' Makes an Online Statement: The Ticker" />
 
In December 2011, [[Wikipedia]] co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] initiated discussion with editors regarding a potential [[knowledge blackout]], a protest inspired by a [[Italian Wikipedia#2011 mass blanking protest|successful campaign by the Italian-language Wikipedia]] to block the Italian [[DDL intercettazioni]] bill, terms of which could have infringed the encyclopedia's editorial independence. Editors and others<ref>Charlie Osborne, [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/would-a-wikipedia-blackout-be-such-a-bad-thing/13726 "Would a Wikipedia blackout be such a bad thing?"], ''iGeneration'' on [[ZDNet]], December 13, 2011, 11:04&nbsp;am PST. Retrieved January 5, 2012.</ref> mulled interrupting service for one or more days as in the Italian protest, or alternatively presenting site visitors with a blanked page directing them to further information before permitting them to complete searches.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jimmy-wales/8953273/Wikipedia-co-founder-threatens-blackout-over-anti-piracy-law.html |title=Wikipedia co-founder threatens blackout over anti-piracy law |work=The Telegraph |date=December 13, 2011 |author=Christopher Williams |accessdate=December 28, 2011}}</ref><ref name="itnews wikipedia mulls blackout">{{cite news |url=http://www.itnews.com.au/News/284285,wikipedia-mulls-blackout-to-protest-sopa.aspx |title=Wikipedia mulls blackout to protest SOPA |publisher=itnews |date=December 13, 2011 |accessdate=December 13, 2011 |author=Brett Winterford |quote=Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has threatened a knowledge “blackout” of the online encyclopedia to protest a US anti-piracy bill that could have serious ramifications for online service providers. }}</ref> On January 16 it was announced that the English-language Wikipedia will be blacked out for 24 hours on January 18 (see [[2012 Wikipedia blackout]]).<ref>{{cite news | title = Wikipedia to go dark in piracy protest | date = January 17, 2012 | work = [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-17/wiki-to-go-dark-in-piracy-protest/3778452 | accessdate = January 17, 2012 }}</ref> On January 17 Chairman Smith, SOPA's sponsor in the House, called Wikipedia's decision a "publicity stunt" saying that "[i]t is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act." Smith went on to insist that SOPA "will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites."<ref>Brendan Sasso (17 January 2012), [http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204629-gop-chairman-wikipedia-blackout-a-publicity-stunt "Sponsor of online piracy bill calls Wikipedia blackout a 'publicity stunt'"] ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''</ref>
 
Markham Erickson, executive director of NetCoalition, told [[Fox News]] that “a number of companies have had discussions about [blacking out services]” last week<ref>Alec, Liu, [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/ "Will Google, Amazon, and Facebook Black Out the Net?"], ''FoxNews.com'', December 30, 2011. Retrieved January 5, 2012.</ref> and discussion of the option spread to other media outlets.<ref>{{cite news |last=McMillan |first=Graeme |title=SOPA: What if Google, Facebook and Twitter Went Offline in Protest? |work=Time |date=January 5, 2012 |url= http://techland.time.com/2012/01/05/sopa-what-if-google-facebook-and-twitter-went-offline-in-protest/ |accessdate=January 5, 2012}}</ref>
 
In January 2012, Reddit announced plans to black out its site for twelve hours on January&nbsp;18, as company co-founder [[Alexis Ohanian]] announced he was going to testify to Congress. "He’s of the firm position that SOPA could potentially 'obliterate' the entire tech industry," Paul Tassi wrote in ''Forbes''. Tassi also opined that Google and Facebook would have to join the blackout to reach a sufficiently broad audience.<ref>{{cite news |last=Tassi |first=Paul |title=Reddit's SOPA Blackout Admirable, But Google and Facebook Must Follow |work=Forbes |date=January 11, 2012 |url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/11/reddits-sopa-blackout-admirable-but-google-and-facebook-must-follow/ |accessdate=January 11, 2012}}</ref> Other prominent sites that are reported to be participating in the January&nbsp;18 blackout are [[Cheezburger]] Sites,<ref>https://twitter.com/#%21/benhuh/status/157538541155516416</ref> [[Mojang]],<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/4447/article/notch-joins-january-18-anti-sopa-protest/ |title=Notch Joins January 18 Anti-SOPA Protest |publisher=Gameranx.com |accessdate=January 14, 2012}}</ref> [[Major League Gaming]],<ref>{{cite news |author=John Gaudiosi |url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/13/major-league-gaming-joins-sopa-blackout-pulls-100-godaddy-com-domain-names/ |title=Major League Gaming Joins SOPA Blackout, Pulls 100 GoDaddy.com Domain Names |work=Forbes |date=January 13, 2012 |accessdate=January 14, 2012}}</ref> and [[Boing Boing]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Doctorow |first=Cory |url=http://boingboing.net/2012/01/14/boing-boing-will-go-dark-on-ja.html |title=Boing Boing will go dark on Jan 18 to fight SOPA |publisher=Boing Boing |date=September 30, 2010 |accessdate=January 15, 2012}}</ref>
 
Wider protests have been considered and in some cases committed to by major internet sites, with high profile bodies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, [[Amazon.com|Amazon]], [[AOL]], Reddit, Mozilla, [[LinkedIn]], [[IAC (company)|IAC]], eBay, PayPal, [[Wordpress]] and Wikimedia being widely named as "considering" or committed to an "unprecedented"<ref name="unprecedented">{{cite news |last=Rachel Bennett and J. Sebe Dale IV |title=Internet giants consider blackout to protest SOPA |url= http://www.wtol.com/story/16464577/internet-giants-consider-blackout-in-opposition-of-anti-piracy-bills |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=WTOL.com |date=January 9, 2012}}</ref> internet blackout on January&nbsp;18, 2012.<ref name="unprecedented" /><ref>{{cite news |last=Burgess |first=Rick |title=Reddit prepares for anti-SOPA blackout, others may follow |url=http://www.techspot.com/news/47013-reddit-prepares-for-anti-sopa-blackout-others-may-follow.html |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=TechSpot |date=January 11, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Hornshaw |first=Phil |title=Gaming community joins SOPA protests with Jan. 18 blackouts |url=http://www.gamefront.com/gaming-community-joins-sopa-protests-with-jan-18-blackouts/ |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=GameFront.com |date=January 13, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=E. Kain |title=WordPress Comes Out Against SOPA |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/11/wordpress-comes-out-against-sopa/ |accessdate=January 13, 2012 |newspaper=[[Forbes]] |date=January 11, 2012}}</ref>
 
On January 17 a Republican aide on [[Capitol Hill]] said that the protests were making their mark, with SOPA having already become "a dirty word beyond anything you can imagine."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/01/17/gIQA4WYl6P_story_1.html "SOPA protests to shut down Web sites"] ''[[The Washington Post]]'' January 17, 2012</ref>
 
==Legislative history==
===November 16 House Judiciary Committee hearing===
At the House Judiciary Committee hearing, there was concern among some observers that the set of speakers who testified lacked technical expertise. Technology news site CNET reported "One by one, each witness—including a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America—said they weren't qualified to discuss... DNSSEC."<ref name="new flap" /> Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at the [[Mercatus Center]], similarly said, "The techno-ignorance of Congress was on full display. Member after member admitted that they really didn't have any idea what impact SOPA's regulatory provisions would have on the DNS, online security, or much of anything else."<ref name="techno-ignorance" />
 
Lofgren stated, “We have no technical expertise on this panel today.” She also criticized the tone of the hearing, saying, “It hasn’t generally been the policy of this committee to dismiss the views of those we are going to regulate. Impugning the motives of the critics instead of the substance is a mistake.”<ref name="House Holds One-Sided Hearing on Piracy Bill">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/house-holds-one-sided-hearing-piracy-bill-136575 |title=House Holds One-Sided Hearing on Piracy Bill |author=Katy Bachman |date=November 16, 2011 |publisher=Adweek |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
Lungren told Politico's ''Morning Tech'' that he had "very serious concerns" about SOPA's impact on DNSSEC, adding "we don't have enough information, and if this is a serious problem as was suggested by some of the technical experts that got in touch with me, we have to address it. I can't afford to let that go by without dealing with it."<ref name="lungren wants">{{cite web |url= |title=Lungren Wants Hearing On SOPA'S Cyber Impact |author= Declan McCullagh |publisher=CNET |date=November 16, 2011 }}</ref>
 
Gary Shapiro, CEO of the [[Consumer Electronics Association]], who had wanted to testify but was not invited, stated, "The significant potential harms of this bill are reflected by the extraordinary coalition arrayed against it. Concerns about SOPA have been raised by [[Tea Party movement|Tea Partiers]], progressives, computer scientists, human rights advocates, venture capitalists, law professors, independent musicians, and many more. Unfortunately, these voices were not heard at today's hearing."<ref name="At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for 'pro-pirate' Google" />
 
An editorial in ''[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]'' wrote, "This is just another case of Congress doing the bidding of powerful lobbyists—in this case, Hollywood and the music industry, among others. It would be downright mundane if the legislation weren't so draconian and the rhetoric surrounding it weren't so transparently pandering."<ref name="stacking the deck" />
 
===December 15 markup of the bill===
Since its introduction, a number of opponents to the bill have expressed concerns. The bill was presented for [[markup (legislation)|markup]] by the [[House Judiciary Committee]] on December&nbsp;15.
 
An aide to Smith stated that "He is open to changes but only legitimate changes. Some site[s] are totally capable of filtering illegal content, but they won’t and are instead profiting from the traffic of illegal content.”<ref name="He is open to changes" />
 
====Markup outcome====
After the first day of the hearing, more than 20 amendments had been rejected, including one by Issa which would have stripped provisions targeting search engines and Internet providers. ''[[PC World (magazine)|PC World]]'' reported that the 22–12 vote on the amendment could foreshadow strong support for the bill by the committee.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/246354/house_committee_appears_headed_toward_approving_sopa.html |title=House Committee Appears Headed Toward Approving SOPA |author=Grant Gross |publisher=PCWorld |date=December 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
The Committee adjourned on the second day agreeing to continue debate early in 2012.<ref name="postpone">{{cite news |author=Hayley Tsukayama |title=SOPA online piracy bill markup postponed |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/sopa-online-piracy-bill-markup-postponed/2011/12/20/gIQA6s7a7O_blog.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=December 20, 2011 }}</ref><ref name="CBS4">{{cite web |author=Corbett B. Daly |title=SOPA, bill to stop online piracy, hits minor snag in House |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57344536-503544/sopa-bill-to-stop-online-piracy-hits-minor-snag-in-house/ |publisher=CBS |accessdate=December 17, 2011 }}</ref> Smith announced a plan to remove the provision that requires Internet service providers to block access to certain foreign websites.<ref name="smith" /> On January&nbsp;15, 2011, Issa said he has received assurances from Rep. Eric Cantor that the bill would not come up for a vote until a [[consensus decision-making|consensus]] could be reached.<ref name="NYT-20120115">{{cite news |last1=Wortham |first1=Jenna |last2=Sengupta |first2=Somini |title=Bills to Stop Web Piracy Invite a Protracted Battle |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/technology/web-piracy-bills-invite-a-protracted-battle.html |date=January 15, 2012 |publisher=[[NYTimes]] |accessdate=January 16, 2012 }}</ref>
 
===January 24, related PROTECT IP Act to be voted on in Senate===
Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] plans to bring the Senate's version of the legislation (the Protect IP Act (PIPA)) to a vote on January&nbsp;24. Reid rejected a request by six Senators for a postponement, saying "this is an issue that is too important to delay."<ref name="CNET Jan14"/>
 
==See also==
{{Portal|Government of the United States|Internet|Crime}}
*[[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement]] (ACTA)
*[[Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act]] (COICA)
*[[Bill S.978|The Commercial Felony Streaming Act]]
*[[Copyright Term Extension Act]] (CETA)
*[[Digital Economy Act 2010]] (in the UK)
*[[DNS cache poisoning]]
*[[Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act]] (OPEN Act)
*[[Splinternet]]
--><!--
==References==<references />
{{reflist|30em|refs=
 
<ref name="ArsTechnica Jan13">Timothy B. Lee, (January 13, 2012) [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/under-voter-pressure-members-of-congress-backpedal-on-sopa.ars "Under voter pressure, members of Congress backpedal (hard) on SOPA"] ''[[Ars Technica]]</ref>
 
<ref name="CNET-Hollywood">{{Cite journal|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57325783-261/hollywoods-sopa-testimony-links-job-loss-to-piracy/ |title=Hollywood's SOPA testimony links job loss to piracy |author=Greg Sandoval |date=November 16, 2011 |publisher=CNET |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="British ISP">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/british-isp-told-to-block-pirate-bay-torrent-site-or-face-court/571 |title=British ISP told to block Pirate Bay torrent site, or face court |author=Zack Whittacker |date=November 4, 2011 |publisher=ZDNet |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for 'pro-pirate' Google">{{Cite journal|url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/at-web-censorship-hearing-congress-guns-for-pro-pirate-google.ars |title=At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for "pro-pirate" Google |author=Nate Anderson |publisher=Ars Technica |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="The Stop Online Piracy Act: What Industry Leaders Can Do About It">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.industryleadersmagazine.com/the-stop-online-piracy-act-what-industry-leaders-can-do-about-it/ |title=The Stop Online Piracy Act: What Industry Leaders Can Do About It |author=A. M. Reilly |work=Industry Leaders Magazine |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="Whitepaper1">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf |title=Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill |author=[[Steve Crocker]] |author2=Danny McPherson |author3=Dan Kaminsky |author4=David Dagon |author5=Paul Vixie |date = May 2011|publisher=CircleID |accessdate=December 19, 2011 |authorlink3=Dan Kaminsky |authorlink5=Paul Vixie}}</ref>
 
<ref name="arts and labs">{{cite web |url=http://blog.artsandlabs.com/2011/06/artslabs-presents-create----protecting-creativity-from-the-ground-up.html"Arts+Labs Presents: CREATE – Protecting Creativity from the Ground Up" |title=Arts+Labs blog |date=June 1, 2011 |accessdate=November 30, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="guardian">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/16/sopa-condemned-internet-blacklist-bill |title=Sopa condemned by web giants as 'internet blacklist bill': Google, Twitter and eBay say controversial Stop Online Piracy Act would give US authorities too much power over websites |author=Dominic Rushe |work=The Guardian |location=UK |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="Lawmakers seek alternative to Stop Online Piracy Act">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/111511-lawmakers-seek-alternative-to-stop-253139.html |title=Lawmakers seek alternative to Stop Online Piracy Act: Opponents of the legislation also complain that sponsors are railroading it through Congress |author=Grant Gross |date=November 15, 2011 |publisher=Network World |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="issa">{{cite web |url=http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/194635-gops-issa-effort-to-grease-the-skids-for-online-piracy-bill-has-failed |title=GOP's Issa: Effort to 'grease the skids' for online piracy bill has failed |author=Gautham Nagesh |publisher=The Hill |date=November 18, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Feds Demand Firefox Remove Add-On That Redirects Seized Domains">{{cite web |url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/firefox-add-on-redirect |title=Feds Demand Firefox Remove Add-On That Redirects Seized Domains |author=David Kravaets |publisher=Wired |date=May 5, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="stacking the deck">{{Cite journal|url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sopa/ |title=Why the House is stacking the deck on Internet piracy |date=November 17, 2011 |publisher=CNN |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="EWeek">{{cite web |url=http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Cloud-Computing/House-SOPA-Hearings-Reveal-AntiInternet-Bias-on-Committee-Witness-List-222080/ |title=House SOPA Hearings Reveal Anti-internet Bias on Committee, Witness List |work=Cloud Computing News |author=Wayne Rash |publisher=eWeek |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Mozilla stirs netizens against US anti-piracy law: Dancing cats take-down threat">{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/mozilla_sopa/ |title=Mozilla stirs netizens against US anti-piracy law: Dancing cats take-down threat |author=Gavin Clarke |publisher=The Register |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Tech coalition backs off SOPA support">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/tech-coalition-backs-off-sopa-support/2011/11/22/gIQAAp95kN_blog.html |title=Tech coalition backs off SOPA support |author=Hayley Tsukayama |work=Washington Post |date=November 22, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref>
 
<ref name="Proposed Copyright Bill Threatens Whistleblowing and Human Rights">{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/proposed-copyright-bill-threatens-whistleblowing-and-human-rights |title=Proposed Copyright Bill Threatens Whistleblowing and Human Rights |author=Trevor Timm |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=November 2, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Questions to Department of Homeland Security April 19, 2011">{{cite web |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/54218316/Questions-to-Department-of-Homeland-Security-April-19-2011 |title=Questions to Department of Homeland Security April 19, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it?">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop |title=SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? |author=Beth Marlowe |work=Washington Post |date=November 17, 2011 |accessdate=November 17, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="because">{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/24/google_five_hundred_million_doj_settlement_over_illegal_pharmecies/ |title=Google settles illegal drug ad probe for $500 million |author=Cade Metz |date=August 24, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Strange bedfellows: Nancy Pelosi, Ron Paul join SOPA opposition">{{cite web |url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/strange-bedfellows-nancy-pelosi-ron-paul-join-sopa-opposition.ars |title=Strange bedfellows: Nancy Pelosi, Ron Paul join SOPA opposition |author=Timothy B. Lee |publisher=Ars Technica |date=November 17, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights">{{cite web |url=http://cdt.org/blogs/cynthia-wong/1811us-piracy-law-could-threaten-human-rights |title=US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights |author=Cynthia Wong |publisher=Center for Democracy and Technology |date=November 18, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA">{{cite web |url=http://www.inc.com/articles/201111/why-start-ups-are-scared-of-the-stop-internet-piracy-act.html |title=Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA |author=Tim Donnelly |publisher=Inc. |date=November 17, 2011 |accessdate=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="albanesius">{{cite web |author=Chloe Albanesius |url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396518,00.asp?obref=obinsite |title=SOPA: Is Congress Pushing Web Censorship? &#124; News & Opinion |publisher=PCMag.com |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="cdt">{{cite web |url=http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/NC-Analysis_of_HR3261_FINAL.pdf |title=H.R. 3261, "Stop Online Piracy Act" ("SOPA"): Explanation of Bill and Summary of Concerns |author=Markham C. Erickson |publisher=NetCoalition |date=November 1, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="eff">{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/hollywood-new-war-on-software-freedom-and-internet-innovation |title=Hollywood's New War on Software Freedom and Internet Innovation |author=Peter Eckersley |work=Deep Links |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=November 11, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="eff1">{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever |title=Disastrous IP Legislation Is Back – And It's Worse than Ever |author=Corynne McSherry |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=October 26, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="house">[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act]; House Judiciary Committee; October 26, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="pcworld">[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/244011/the_us_stop_online_piracy_act_a_primer.html The US Stop Online Piracy Act: A Primer]; PC World – Business Center; November 16, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="thehill">{{cite web |url=http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/190781-tech-groups-say-online-piracy-bill-would-create-nightmare-for-web-and-social-media-firms |title=Tech groups say online piracy bill would create 'nightmare' for Web and social media firms |author=Gautham Nagesh |publisher=The Hill |date=October 31, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref><!-- This reference needs to be watched for possible vandalism. -->
 
<ref name="lamar">{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-22/house-judiciary-chairman-says-google-obstructs-piracy-bill.html |title=House Judiciary Chairman Says Google Obstructs Piracy Bill |author=Eric Engleman |work=Bloomberg BusinessWeek |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="washingtonpost">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/house-introduces-internet-piracy-bill/2011/10/26/gIQA0f5xJM_blog.html House Introduces Internet Piracy Bill]; Washington Post; October 26, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="'American Censorship Day' Makes an Online Statement: The Ticker">{{cite web |title='American Censorship Day' Makes an Online Statement: The Ticker |url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/-american-censorship-day-makes-an-online-statement-the-ticker.html |work='American Censorship Day' Makes an Online Statement: The Ticker |publisher=Bloomberg |accessdate=November 17, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="CNET Jan14">Greg Sandoval (January 14, 2012), [http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57359306-261/momentum-shift-sopa-pipa-opponents-now-in-drivers-seat/ Momentum shift: SOPA, PIPA opponents now in driver's seat] ''[[CNET]]'' News</ref>
 
<ref name="Domestic Reality Does Not Match Bold Words on Internet Freedom of Expression">{{cite web |title=Domestic Reality Does Not Match Bold Words on Internet Freedom of Expression |url=http://en.rsf.org/etats-unis-domestic-reality-does-not-match-02-11-2011,41324.html |date=November 2, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Downes">{{cite news |author=Larry Downes |title=SOPA: Hollywood's latest effort to turn back time |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20128239-38/sopa-hollywoods-latest-effort-to-turn-back-time/ |accessdate=November 9, 2011 |newspaper=CNET News |date=November 1, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="ESET Open Letter">{{cite web |title=ESET Open Letter |url=http://blog.eset.com/2011/11/15/sopa-and-pipa-and-dns-an-open-letter-to-congress |accessdate=November 17, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="HousePress">[http://judiciary.house.gov/news/HR%203261%20Introduced.html Press Resources]; Commitee on the Judiciary; October 26, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="Re: Stop Online Piracy Act, H.R. 3261">{{cite web |url=http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-sopa-8nov11.pdf |title=Re: Stop Online Piracy Act, H.R. 3261 |author=Brandon Butler |date=November 8, 2011 |format=PDF |publisher=Library Copyright Alliance |accessdate=November 10, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet">{{cite web |title=SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/sopa-hollywood-finally-gets-chance-break-internet |author=Corynne McSherry |date=October 28, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="SOPA: Opponents">{{cite web |title=SOPA: Opponents |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57325134-281/google-facebook-zynga-oppose-new-sopa-copyright-bill/ |author=Declan McCullagh |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Will Online Piracy Bill Combat 'Rogue' Web Sites or Cripple the Internet?">{{cite web |url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395653,00.asp#fbid=6r9KNM2Ĥ7x |title=Will Online Piracy Bill Combat 'Rogue' Web Sites or Cripple the Internet? |author=Chloe Albanesius |date=November 1, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="govtrack">[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261 Bill H.R.3261]; GovTrack.us; November 4, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="hill">{{cite news |author=Nagesh Gautham |title=Tech groups say online piracy bill would create 'nightmare' for Web and social media firms |url=http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/190781-tech-groups-say-online-piracy-bill-would-create-nightmare-for-web-and-social-media-firms/ |accessdate=November 9, 2011 |newspaper=The Hill |date=October 31, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="house1">[http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html H.R. 3261, STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT]; House Judiciary Committee; October 26, 2011</ref>
 
<!-- Commented out to suppress reference error, currently unused. Uncomment if you want to use the ref.
<ref name="house2">{{cite web |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11162011.html |title=Hearing on: H.R. 3261, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" |author=USA House Of Representatives Committee on The Judiciary |date=November 16, 2011 }}</ref>
-->
 
<ref name="politico">[http://politico.pro/qSV8Lp Chamber Presses Gas Pedal on IP Push] {{registration required}}; Politico – Morning Tech; September 22, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="reddit">{{cite web|url=http://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/me5e9/american_censorship_day_stand_up_for/ |title=American Censorship Day – Stand up for ████ ███████ : announcements |publisher=Reddit.com |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=January 15, 2012}}</ref>
 
<ref name="theglobalipcenter">[http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/pressreleases/letter-359.pdf Letter to Congress in Support of Legislation]; Chamber of Commerce Global IP Center; September 22, 2011</ref>
 
<ref name="booz">{{cite web |url=http://www.booz.com/global/home/press/article/49953717 |title=Angel Investors and Venture Capitalists Say They Will Stop Funding Some Internet Start-Up Business Models if Tough New Rules Are Enacted, Finds Booz & Company Study |date=November 16, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="hearingnotes">{{cite web |url=http://infojustice.org/archives/6182 |title=Notes from the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act |author=Mike Palmetto |date=November 18, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="dcma">{{cite web |url=http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/NC-Analysis_of_HR3261_FINAL.pdf |title=H.R. 3261, "Stop Online Piracy Act" ("SOPA") Explanation of Bill and Summary of Concerns |author=Markham C. Erickson |date=November 1, 2011 |publisher=Center for Democracy and Technology |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="techno-ignorance">{{cite web |url=http://techliberation.com/2011/11/16/sopa-selective-memory-about-a-technologically-incompetent-congress/ |title=SOPA & Selective Memory about a Technologically Incompetent Congress |author=Adam Thierer |publisher=Technology Liberation Front |date=November 16, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="dosodisclose">{{cite web |url=http://www.rxrights.org/your-thoughts/2011/11/16/rxrights-statement-in-response-to-house-judiciary-committee-hearing-on-stop-online-piracy-act-sopa |title=RxRights statement in response to House Judiciary Committee hearing on Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) |date=November 16, 2011 |publisher=RxRights.org |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="nocanada">{{cite web |url=http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-SOPA-bw-1492775023.html?x=0 |title=Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Fails to Distinguish "Rogue" from "Real" International Online Pharmacies |publisher=Yahoo Finance |date=November 2, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="He is open to changes">{{cite web |url=http://infojustice.org/archives/6248 |title=SOPA Markup Scheduled for Dec. 15 As Opposition to the Bill Grows |publisher=Mike Palmedo |date=November 28, 2011 |accessdate=December 19, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Groups Still Oppose SOPA After Proposed Amendment">{{cite web |url=http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246146/groups_still_oppose_sopa_after_proposed_amendment.html |title=Groups Still Oppose SOPA After Proposed Amendment |publisher=PCWorld |date=December 13, 2011 }}</ref>
 
<ref name="Stop the Great Firewall of America">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html |title=Stop the Great Firewall of America |author=Rebecca MacKinnon |work=New York Times |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=November 18, 2011 }}</ref>
 
}}
--><!--
==External links==
{{Commons category}}
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03261: H.R. 3261 on Thomas – Library of Congress] ([http://www.webcitation.org/643NEmTcC archive])
*[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261 H.R. 3261 on GovTrack]
*[http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ Individual congressmen and senators' positions on SOPA]
*[http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx Brookings Institution white paper]
*[http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1647302 What DNS Is Not]
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Stop Online Piracy Act}}
[[Category:2011 in the United States]]
[[Category:2012 in the United States]]
[[Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles]]
[[Category:Computer law]]
[[Category:Copyright enforcement]]
[[Category:Domain name system]]
[[Category:Internet access]]
[[Category:Internet in the United States]]
[[Category:United States proposed federal legislation]]
-->
[[Kategorio:Usonaj leĝproponoj]]