Difference between revisions of "Stop Online Piracy Act"
(In political terms, such a statement means that the politician may sign the bad bill but then claim it does not harm anything.) |
(SOPA is a bill demanded by wealthy liberals in Hollywood and the music industry, who are massive contributors to the Democrat Party) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The '''Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)''' (also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261) is a bill | + | The '''Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)''' (also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261) is a bill demanded by wealthy [[liberals]] in [[Hollywood]] and the music industry, who are massive contributors to the [[Democrat Party]]. If passed, this bill would impose a number of controversial measures for dealing with online piracy including the distribution of copyrighted material via the [[internet]]. The Attorney General would be able to close down websites that infringe copyrights, and ban the site from online payment mechanisms such as [[PayPal]] and [[Visa]]. He could also prohibit the sites' online advertising, and disable [[Google]] from ranking and linking to infringing sites. |
| − | It is supported by [[liberal]] Senator [[Harry Reid]] (D-NV). | + | It is publicly supported by [[liberal]] Senator [[Harry Reid]] (D-NV), who enables it to be pushed through the [[U.S. Senate]]. [[Barack Obama]] is probably signaling his support behind the scenes, while publicly pretending to be reasonable. House Judiciary Committee Chair [[Lamar Smith]] (R-TX) has also supported it. |
Proponents of the bill claim that it exists to protect the intellectual properties, and revenue of copyright holders, and is necessary to enforce copyright laws in the US. However, opponents state that it violates the [[First Amendment]], that it will cripple and ultimately destroy the [[internet]], and will threaten online free speech. Some critics have likened this bill to China's [[Great Firewall]]. | Proponents of the bill claim that it exists to protect the intellectual properties, and revenue of copyright holders, and is necessary to enforce copyright laws in the US. However, opponents state that it violates the [[First Amendment]], that it will cripple and ultimately destroy the [[internet]], and will threaten online free speech. Some critics have likened this bill to China's [[Great Firewall]]. | ||
Revision as of 05:03, January 18, 2012
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261) is a bill demanded by wealthy liberals in Hollywood and the music industry, who are massive contributors to the Democrat Party. If passed, this bill would impose a number of controversial measures for dealing with online piracy including the distribution of copyrighted material via the internet. The Attorney General would be able to close down websites that infringe copyrights, and ban the site from online payment mechanisms such as PayPal and Visa. He could also prohibit the sites' online advertising, and disable Google from ranking and linking to infringing sites.
It is publicly supported by liberal Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who enables it to be pushed through the U.S. Senate. Barack Obama is probably signaling his support behind the scenes, while publicly pretending to be reasonable. House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) has also supported it.
Proponents of the bill claim that it exists to protect the intellectual properties, and revenue of copyright holders, and is necessary to enforce copyright laws in the US. However, opponents state that it violates the First Amendment, that it will cripple and ultimately destroy the internet, and will threaten online free speech. Some critics have likened this bill to China's Great Firewall.
Those supporting the bill include television and music companies (and their trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America), whilst critics include Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yahoo!, and Mozilla, the creators of Firefox.
The Obama Administration released a statement which read, in part, "we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet. Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."[1] In political terms, such a statement means that the politician may sign the bad bill but then claim it does not harm anything.