1oz61wa

Appendix
b) Statements in Opposition
Since the bill was introduced, several organizations have opposed the bill, articulating concerns
about interference with the DNS, potentially overbroad application to web sites located in the U.S.
and potential restrictions on free speech. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has
issued statements opposing the bill immediately after its introduction. Shortly after the markup was
introduced, their opposition remained, but they acknowledged that some improvements had been
made in the new version:
CDT has expressed its concern with this approach, and particularly with the portions of the bill that
try to use the domain name system (DNS) to control ‘rogue websites,’ in previous blog posts and
congressional testimony. The Committee today made a few modest but generally positive changes,
such as improving transparency via annual oversight reports and tightening some language
designed to prevent the bill from undermining the crucial copyright liability ‘safe harbor’ under
section 512 of the DMCA. But CDT’s core concerns remain. 22
Similarly, an association of groups wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee expressing concerns
with the bill. 23 The signatories were the American Association of Law Libraries, Association of
College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries,
Center for Democracy and Technology, Demand Progress, EDUCAUSE, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Human Rights Watch, Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America
Foundation, Public Knowledge, Reporters sans frontières / Reporters Without Borders and Special
Libraries Association. While we have not confirmed that each of these organizations continues to
oppose the legislation, it is believed that they have not changed their positions. For instance, the
American Library Association posted an article on its blog “applauding” the Internet blackout on
January 18, 2012, in protest against both the PROTECT IP Act and SOPA. 24
Google opposed the bill, having actively participated in the January 18, 2012 blackout protesting
both the PROTECT IP Act and SOPA. In addition, Google recently stated, “Like many businesses,
entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut
down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet.” 25
B. The Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) (H.R. 3261)
1. AG’s Right of Action vs. Private Right of Action
SOPA is similar to its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT IP Act in several respects. The bill maintains
the private right of action that was introduced by the PROTECT IP Act. Further, SOPA continues
to provide immunity for companies that voluntarily take certain measures against rogue
websites. Finally, the bill maintained the AG’s power to seek injunctive relief against a rogue
website.
Among the similarities is the structure provided to sort Internet intermediaries into four categories.
For instance, both bills allow the AG to serve a court order enjoining the illegal conduct on four
Internet intermediaries, although the bills use different names for some of these intermediaries. The
PROTECT IP Act uses the terms (i) operators, (ii) financial transaction providers, (iii) Internet
advertising services and (iv) information location tools, while SOPA refers to (i) service providers,
(ii) payment network providers, (iii) Internet Advertising Services and (iv) Internet search engines.
In both bills, private IP rightsholders are limited to taking action against two of these types of
intermediaries: (i) financial transaction providers (a.k.a. payment network providers) and (ii)
Internet advertising services. SOPA also introduces a new concept for defining which sites come
under the purview of the Act. Rather than targeting sites “dedicated to infringing activities” (which
100