1oz61wa

Legislative History (COICA, PIPA and SOPA)
stifle free speech or the free flow of information.” 42 However, as the debate continued, Microsoft
reversed its position stating that it opposed the bill as currently drafted. 43
Opponents also have objected specifically to the DNS blocking provision in SOPA, articulating
concerns of potential Internet security risks in addition to the potential for government censorship
mentioned above. 44 This provision would mandate DNS filtering and redirection to help identify
and block infringing sites. Opponents argue this would not only undermine security protocols
without any appreciable impact on anti-piracy efforts, but could ultimately expose consumers to a
greater potential cybersecurity threat. On Jan. 13, 2012, Rep. Lamar Smith announced that the DNS
blocking provisions would be removed from SOPA as a result of consultations with industry
representatives. 45
David Sohn, Policy Counsel for The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), has been
quoted as saying that this bill “radically expands” the scope of the PROTECT IP Act, such that
“any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could
end up in its cross-hairs.” Id. Mr. Sohn added that “Payment processors and ad networks would be
required to cut off business with any website that rightsholders allege hasn’t done enough to police
infringement.” Id.
Opponents have argued that the bill would require ISPs to block non-infringing material that
happens to be hosted on the same servers as infringing content, in violation of the First Amendment.
Some industry and trade organizations, including the Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA), the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetCoalition have
published objections to the bill based on the possibility that as worded, it permits a single instance
of counterfeiting or infringing to justify the shutdown of the site following a single notice. 46
Public interest groups have also challenged the bill, arguing principally that the bill would
interfere with the domain name system and that by “creating conflicts between DNS servers, it
would make you more vulnerable to hackers, identity theft, and cyberattacks,” leading to more
censorship and increased liability for copyright infringement. 47
The Obama White House has adopted a policy whereby it provides a public response to citizen
petitions that gain more than 25,000 signatures in a 30 day period. In response to a petition
opposing SOPA, the White House has issued a statement about what the administration would, and
would not, support in a bill of this sort. 48
Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn calls the bill “sweeping” and “draconian” and believes
“anyone who writes about, or links to, a site suspected of infringement could also become a target
of government action.” 49 Public Knowledge further finds that the bill is “significantly worse than
its Senate cousin” as “it makes fundamental changes to who faces liability for copyright infringement.”
50 Opponents contend that the bill would require search engines to be barred from linking to
content (infringing or not), on certain websites, and that it will replace traditional secondary
liability doctrines with a new and vague “facilitation” standard. 51
In addition to freedom of speech and due process concerns, which were similarly voiced in relation
to PROTECT IP Act, opponents have also raised “human rights” concerns. Electronic Frontier
Foundation (“EFF”) believes the bill could negatively impact human rights advocates and
whistleblowers “who depend on online tools to protect their anonymity and speak out against
injustice.” 52 Because payment processors would cut off service to such sites, which may be suspected
of copyright infringement as a result of its practice of masking IP addresses when downloading
copyrighted content, EFF fears that such organizations would lose much of their ability to raise
donations online and would be forced to shut down entirely. 53
105