Difference between revisions of "Stop Online Piracy Act"
(remove speculation as to Obama's position per Conservapedia:Commandments, clearly not "true and verifiable") |
(It is dishonest to put Reid first and then only claim that Smith only "supports" the bill rather than introduced it. Also, added some links including the Judiciary Committee's decision on the bill.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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]]{{Citation needed}} and the music industry, who are massive contributors to the [[Democratic 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. | 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]]{{Citation needed}} and the music industry, who are massive contributors to the [[Democratic 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 | + | The bill was introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chair [[Lamar Smith]] (R-TX)<ref>http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf</ref> who continues to support it both in Congress and through the press.<ref>http://www.statesman.com/opinion/smith-law-needed-to-control-cyber-piracy-1997704.html Lamar Smith Editorial</ref> It is also supported by [[liberal]] Senator [[Harry Reid]] (D-NV), who enables it to be pushed through the [[U.S. Senate]]. |
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]]. | ||
| − | 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]]. | + | 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."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy]</ref> In political terms, such a statement means that the politician may sign the bad bill{{Citation needed}} but then claim it does not harm anything. | + | 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."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy]</ref> In political terms, such a statement means that the politician may sign the bad bill{{Citation needed}} but then claim it does not harm anything. The administration has also released a statement implying that it will veto the legislation should it reach the president's desk. |
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 13:22, 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[Citation Needed] and the music industry, who are massive contributors to the Democratic 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.
The bill was introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX)[1] who continues to support it both in Congress and through the press.[2] It is also supported by liberal Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who enables it to be pushed through the U.S. Senate.
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."[3] In political terms, such a statement means that the politician may sign the bad bill[Citation Needed] but then claim it does not harm anything. The administration has also released a statement implying that it will veto the legislation should it reach the president's desk.