1oz61wa

Civil Remedies
employ DNSSEC, which was thought to be likely, it would expose the user to potential malware attacks and
other security threats. Id.
It should be noted that the above-mentioned Internet security concerns were not universally shared by Internet
engineering experts—some thought the concerns were wrong-headed, misleading or overblown. See, e.g.,
George Ou, “My DNS Filtering Research before House SOPA Panel,” HighTech Forum (Dec. 16, 2011)
(available at http://www.hightechforum.org/my-dns-filtering-research-before-house-sopa-panel/); George Ou,
“DNS Filtering is Essential to the Operation of the Internet,” HighTech Forum (June 24, 2011) (available at
http://www.hightechforum.org/dns-filtering-is-essential-to-the-internet/). These experts argued that only the
small percentage of websites (i.e., PFWs) and users (i.e., users of PFWs) would be affected by the DNS
blocking and redirect provisions of SOPA and PIPA, that Congress need not be overly concerned with selfimposed
internet security risks incurred by users of PFWs, and that eliminating the redirect requirement so that
ISPs were required only to block access to PFWs (as a late Manager’s Amendment to PIPA provided) would
virtually eliminate any remaining risk of harm to the DNSSEC system. Id. For other arguments responding to
criticisms of SOPA/PIPA’s site-blocking provisions, see Daniel Castro, “PIPA/SOPA: Responding to Critics
and Finding a Path Forward”, Information and Technology Foundation at 5-13 (Dec. 2011) (available at http://
www.itif.org/files/2011-pipa-sopa-respond-critics.pdf).
7. See note 239 (discussing U.S. copyright law provisions for blocking).
8. The so-called “Article 8(3)” legal regime employed by the member states of the European Union is
particularly instructive in this regard. Article 8(3) of the European Union’s Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC
[“EUCD”]) requires member states to “ensure that rightsholders are in a position to apply for an injunction
against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.” European
Union Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, Chapter IV, Article 8(3) (available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:NOT). Member state implementations of EUCD
Article 8(3) have successfully been invoked by private rightsholders to obtain no-fault injunctive relief against
ISPs (as well as hosting providers) all over the continent. Specifically, orders requiring ISPs to block access to
Predatory Foreign Websites, using various types of blocking, have been obtained against ISPs in Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK. Information about the EUCD can be
found here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/copyright-infso/index_en.htm.
9. A technical overview is available here: http://www.securityweek.com/dnssecs-time-here-sopa-presentschallenges.
See also Steve Crocker, et al., “Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering
Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill,” CircleID (May 2011) (available at http://www.circleid.com/pdf/
PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf).
10. See Lauren Mack, “DNS Filtering to Fight Internet Piracy Violates the First Amendment,” Jurist (Jan.
2011) (available at http://jurist.org/dateline/2012/01/lauren-mack-DNS-filtering.php).
11. See, e.g., Testimony of Katherine Oyama, Copyright Counsel, Google, Inc., before the House of Rep.
Committee on the Judiciary at 2-3 (Nov. 16, 2011) (available at http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/
Oyama%2011162011.pdf) . Although Google is on record as opposing mandatory de-indexing by search
engines, evidence suggests that it de-listed a notorious pirate streaming site named www.Allostreaming.com and
related sites on the French version of its search engine in September 2011, following receipt of an August 2011
complaint and significant supporting evidence from several associations of French rightsholders. See Enigmax,
“Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, ISPs, All Served With Streaming Site Blocking Demand,” Torrent Freak (Dec. 1,
2011) (available at http://torrentfreak.com/google-microsoft-yahoo-isps-all-served-with-streaming-site-blockingdemand-111201/).
In addition to a number of French ISPs, Google’s fellow search engines Yahoo! and Bing
received the same complaint and evidence. Id. Although not reported in the cited article, it appears that Yahoo!
and Bing also subsequently de-indexed the same sites on the French versions of their respective search engines.
Most recently, the French court before which the evidence was presented has ruled that all French search engines
are required to de-index a total of 16 complained-of sites, including but not limited to www.Allostreaming.com
and related websites. A description of the decision is available at http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/frenchcourt-orders-google-and-others-to-block-16-video-streaming-sites/921936
(Nov. 30, 2013).
12. See, e.g., “Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA and Online Piracy,”
The White House Blog (Jan. 14, 2012) (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obamaadministration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy).
13. For instance, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual
Property Act of 2011 (S. 968, the “PROTECT IP Act of 2011” or “PIPA”) described the websites to be
addressed by the Bill as “the nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activi-
33