The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US: potentially disastrous for the internet in general

Posted on January 18th, 2012. Written by Rico.

We at Technograph focus more on tech stories as they’re relevant to Filipinos, avoiding the bandwagons set by mainstream sites like Engadget and Gizmodo. But when a US bill threatens to affect the internet in general, we have no choice but to join the naysayers.

What is SOPA?

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a piece of legislation making its way through the US House of Representatives (the lower house of the country’s Congress). The objective of the proposed law: make it easier for intellectual property (IP) holders—and the US law enforcement—to take action against websites that enable or promote copyright infringement.

As an example: a movie studio can use SOPA to go after websites that facilitate the unauthorized distribution of their latest film. A record company can minimize the sharing of that new hit single or album. Makers of luxury goods would use the act to shutdown online stores that sell counterfeit goods, and pharmaceutical companies could do the same for purveyors of fake drugs.

Going after copyright violations isn’t bad per se. There are however many problems with SOPA, some of which are detailed below.

Depriving online services of due process

The bill will deprive due process to the online services suspected of infringement. “Defendant” websites will have no way of fighting the accusations—no matter how unfounded—before harsh action is taken.

That’s because once a copyright holder makes a “good faith” complaint of infringement, those who manage the underlying structure of the internet itself have to cut all access to the website or online service, even before the infringement has been proved without a reasonable doubt. It’s like sending a suspected thief to prison, before all the evidence has been reviewed, based on the say-so of a complainant.

It’s important to note the term “good faith”. That’s legalese for taking action without any malice whatsoever, and any lawyer will tell you that it’s hard to prove the otherwise. So even if SOPA contains provisions that punish copyright holders that make frivolous complaints, claiming “good faith” would protect the accusers from whatever they damage the cause their targets. The alleged thief would be deprived of freedom, and his reputation will be affected. But hey, it was all a mistake!

Goodbye YouTube

The potential consequences for many of the online services we enjoy and rely on are severe. Imagine if someone posted an entire episode of Modern Family on YouTube. The copyright holder of that hit US sitcom can just file a complaint and cut off all parts of the online video site from the rest of the internet. That means no one can watch other videos posted on YouTube, even the ones that don’t infringe on copyright whatsoever.

This places the burden on online services to monitor everything that’s posted on their sites. With over 8 years worth of videos uploaded on YouTube everyday, that’s impractical even for a large and profitable corporation like Google. The company may just decide to shut down the service, to avoid the headaches SOPA would bring.

Hurting the small guys

What about sites that don’t have large operational budgets? What about a small forum maintained just out of passion, by a community of common interest? A few years ago, we helped a friend set up The Conquest, a site for local fans of a tabletop strategy game called Mage Knights.

Mage Knights is based on common fantasy themes, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if one of its 91 members posted a screenshot from a fantasy movie like Lord of the Rings to illustrate their point.

LOTR’s copyright owner can just file a SOPA complaint against the The Conquest and have the site cut off, without providing a chance for the site’s operators to rectify the infringement. The Conquest members will find itself without a venue to interact, plan future tournaments, and discuss a common passion.

Limiting free speech

Granted, not everyone will miss the chance to talk about their favorite Mage Knight figurine. Yet those against SOPA make a good point: the bill can be used to silence criticism, limit free speech, and practice outright censorship.

What if a whistleblower came across documents that showed his employer was engaged in fraud, or was breaking the law? Let’s say he or she copied the information and posted it on the web. The employer could claim copyright infringement—internal documents are proprietary information after all—and shut down any and all online venues employed by the whistleblower. Even if the revelation serves the public interest.

Copyright infringement is bad, but so is SOPA

Now we’re not saying that websites and online services should facilitate copyright infringement at whim. The profit incentive goes beyond making money from the movies you film, the music you compose, the books you write, and whatever goods (virtual and physical) you produce and sell.

Just ask companies who rely on copyright to earn from their new developments—such as life-saving drugs, and other discoveries that make life a bit easier. Would they be willing to spend money on costly research projects, if someone else can just take all their hard work and share it on the internet (or worse, profit from it themselves)?

Yet the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act contains provisions that threaten the internet itself. It puts the ability to limit all that in the hands of people who will act only in their own interests. It gives them free reign to act without responsibility, and will curtail many online services that have made the internet what it is today: a worldwide network that allows the free flow of information, something that has made many of the last three decades’ advances possible.

What action you can take against SOPA

The SOPA will undergo debate this month by the US House Judiciary Committee, a group under the lower house that considers bills that would be applied through US courts if enacted.

The act will have to make it through this stage, back to the House of Representatives and the US Senate (the upper house) for further consideration, approved by legislative vote, and survive Presidential veto (or win a veto override if Obama nixes the bill) before it can become law.

Yet the effects of SOPA are bad enough that all effort must be made—even by those based in different countries. A reason why the SOPA could affect the internet in general, even though if it would be a law applicable only in the US: if the bill becomes law, a precedent is set for other governments to follow. They would have a template to base their own versions on.

Think about it. The US government can also apply pressure on its Philippine counterpart to follow suit, with threats of cancelling trade agreements that would affect our export industry.

How can Filipinos affect a legislative debate in the US after all? Only one thing comes to mind, though it might be enough to make a difference.

Just reach out to any Filipino relatives and friends living in the US as legal citizens. Tell them about SOPA and its potential effects. If they agree that the bill will have severe consequences on the internet as we know it, tell them to share their opinions with the members of the House Judicial Committee.

We’ve said so much about why SOPA shouldn’t become law, but we’re not even sure if our proposed course of action is the most effective one for Filipinos. If you’ve got a better idea, do share in the comments below.

Further Reading

Check out “Stop the Internet Blacklist Legislation” by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Save Tom’s, Stop SOPA by Tom’s Hardware. The latter makes a great argument about the bill about not addressing the problem it’s designed for:

The intent of the legislation is to stop piracy, which isn’t affected in the least by this approach. The DNS censoring method is circumvented by navigating to the IP directly, and many have already installed Anti-SOPA browser extensions that do this automatically. Unfortunately the legislation in the House and Senate has a wide margin of bi-partisan support and looks likely to pass after the holidays. We strongly oppose the censorship of the internet and strongly encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators to voice your opposition. Believe it or not, your Congress-critters do count the number of calls and emails they get on a particular issue, and most of the time only the people in their jurisdiction (read- you) can sway their opinion on something – so your action on this is important.

Addendum: Why does one country have so much control over the internet?

The web grew out of a network called ARPANET. It was developed by the US Department of Defense in the 1970s as a collaboration tool for research laboratories and universities, and a communications network for military commands in the event of nuclear war.

ARPANET was designed to be redundant. Even if an enemy attack knocked out several nodes of the network, the remaining ones remained in contact with each other—a crucial failsafe for maintaining the command structure in the event of nuclear war.

The great irony is that while ARPANET grew in scale and became the web, a large part of the internet backbone is still based in the US. If a large-scale attack destroyed the US, the internet would be crippled. At least until other countries develop their own replacements for what was lost, but that would take tim.

The machines that direct users to the websites and online services they’re visiting—the same machines that can prevent access to anything covered by a SOPA complaint? They’re under the control of a non-profit corporation called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) ICANN.

While the ICANN is independent in theory, the US Department of Commerce exercises significant influence on its operation.