S.968 - PIPA

A bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes. view all titles (6)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 as introduced.
  • Short: PROTECT IP Act of 2011 as introduced.
  • Short: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 as reported to senate.
  • Short: PROTECT IP Act of 2011 as reported to senate.
  • Popular: PIPA.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 147 total comments.

  • wrenwren 07/31/2011 11:21pm

    This goes far beyond intellectual property protection, this would be disastrous allowing any agency to decide to shut down a site based on vague reports. then TAXPAYER money would be spent on enforcing this and finding ways to implement control of the internet and deal with every “infringing” site

    this bill seems like a case of overstepping boundaries and having tunnel vision that would ultimately hurt intellectual property and the internet. this is not a sound solution.

  • greatumpire83 08/10/2011 10:40am
    Link Reply
    + 15

    Sanityscraps,

    “Okay. We’re talking about intellectual property protection here.”

    Actually we are not, we are actually talking about censorship. Just because the bill is called “Protect IP” does not mean that it actually about that subject, I can call something “An Act for the Protection and Preservation of Puppies” when it actually is about drowning dogs and then stuffing them for my mantle. Actually that is quite apt here.

    The act allows US courts to impose preliminary injunctions (a legal tool that is supposed to be used only in the most extreme circumstances) on websites that are claimed to be “Dedicated to infringing activities.” This does not mean that the website is actually dedicated to such activities, which would require an actual trial, but rather that an American company has claimed that they are pirates. This amounts to giving intellectual property holders the POWER OF CENSORING WEBSITES.

  • greatumpire83 08/10/2011 10:51am

    (cont)

    In fact censorship is the most likely outcome of this bill. S. 968 is dedicated to foreign websites which are most likely run by individuals in foreign countries. Under this bill a website owner would have to fly to America (or hire an American attorney) to even defend against the injunction.

    But even worse this amounts to a chilling prior restraint on speech. Traditionally the Supreme Court has said that you are not allowed to inhibit free speech with preliminary injunction. But this bill uses copyright and trademark law to turn Free Speech jurisprudence on its head. The copyright-holder making the claim would not have to prove infringement before getting your site shutdown, they would just have to claim infringement. Intellectual property could just be a pretense as well, the real aim could be silence dissent. When China does this we call it ‘a violation of human rights’ in this bill it is called ‘Protecting IP’

  • jlutz2007 09/09/2011 6:48pm
    Link Reply
    + 12

    It’s a foot in the door to censorship. Government regulating internet browsers and search engines? Are you kidding me? It’s the responsibility of the content providers to adequately protect their intellectual property, not the strong arm of the federal government, and they have the ability to create the technology to do so. The federal government isn’t even supposed to have general police powers, according to the Constitution. Not that I would expect anyone who supports this bill to know anything about that, though.

  • kratkatomas 10/18/2011 12:14pm

    You like youtube? You can’t go on that site anymore. It will be blacklisted by this bill

  • Comm_reply
    walker7 10/27/2011 3:09pm

    That’s one reason why this bill must get destroyed ASAP!

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 7:32pm

    Another example of liberal fascism masquerading as “protection”.

  • Comm_reply
    noonprotectip 11/02/2011 6:27am

    The bill is bipartisan. But it is absolutely fascism.

  • Comm_reply
    Ceader 01/10/2012 10:10pm

    Boo the other guys go our team? This bill has bipartisan support in congress and bipartisan opposition from the public. If you stop recognizing the chances to cooperate they will slowly die away.

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 7:35pm

    Listening to downloaded music is infringing on “intellectual property”??
    You’ve GOT to be kidding. What’s next, making us pay to hear music on the radio? This is nuts. It’s another tactic by the current socialist regime to shut down any and all internet freedom.

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 7:41pm

    Listening to downloaded music is infringing on “intellectual property”??
    You’ve GOT to be kidding. What’s next, making us pay to hear music on the radio? This is nuts. It’s another tactic by the current socialist regime to shut down any and all internet freedom. It’s Big Brother intrusion.
    The Left desperately wants to gain control of what it sees as a threat to its narrative; Fox News, the internet, and talk radio.

    Don’t be fooled by the claims of “neutrality”, “freest”, and “prevent Internet providers from discriminating”. What that means is the FCC will FORCE websites to allow the intrusion of unwanted traffic. This is a direct violation of the rights of individual and private websites.

    http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/big-brother-socialist-gets-net-neutrality/

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 8:06pm

    This is what I sent to Rob Portman (R-OH). I won’t bother with the Dems. They won’t listen anyway.

    I oppose S.968 – PROTECT IP Act of 2011, and am tracking it using OpenCongress.org, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability.
    This proposed bill is another example of Big Government intrusion into our internet freedom and freedom of speech. Patrick Leahy, the sponsor of this censorship bill, was already defeated in his last attempt:
    “The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) would have permitted a blanket takedown of any domain alleged to be assisting activities that violate copyright law, based upon the judgment of state attorneys general.”

    To his credit, it was a democratic senator, Ron Wyden (OR) who blocked the passage of this ominous crap.

    “Oregon Senator Ron Wyden could very well go down in the history books as the man who saved the Internet.

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 8:07pm

    CONT:
    A bill that critics say would have given the government power to censor the Internet will not pass this year thanks to the Oregon Democrat, who announced his opposition during a recent committee hearing."

    Patrick Leahy, who is one of the biggest crapweasels in Senate, thinks it’s just a matter of “intellectual property”:

    “Few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who co-sponsored the bill.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oregon-senator-vows-block-internet-censorship-bill/”

    Here’s the REAL reason this was proposed in the first place:

    “COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 8:08pm

    CONT:
    The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank.

    Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea."
    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/coica-web-censorship-bill/all/1

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 8:10pm

    CONT:
    Speaking of compensation, the recording industry (RIAA) are the same greedy, nasty malfeasants who screwed their own contracted entertainers out of royalties for years, and in 2007, claimed that it had the rights to ALL royalties:
    http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

    They also wanted royalties for used CDs.
    http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/4942

    And they wanted to track songs on the internet:
    The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Thursday announced a project to develop a worldwide standardized system for identifying digital music files so that the owner of the recording’s copyright can easily track its use and collect royalties.
    https://www.pcworld.com/article/31742/riaa_wants_to_track_music_files.html

    The RIAA wanted public radio to pay royalties:
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7427

  • SFCMAC 10/23/2011 8:11pm

    CONT:
    In short, the RIAA wants control of every single song, musician, and private citizen’s access to music.
    The RIAA is a mafia. The statutes under the RICO Act fit them perfectly.

    Sincerely,
    SFC MAC

  • walker7 10/27/2011 3:03pm

    As I have said, please oppose this bill at all costs!

    There is the possibility that this Bill could destroy YouTube, Twitter, and other sites that rely on user-generated content.

    I oppose bill S.968 one trillion percent.

  • kellina 10/30/2011 11:03pm

    Free speech my aSS! Would any member of congress please take the time to address why exactly I have 2 rods and 6 pins in my spine fighting for this country’s freedoms when our very government is the ones who need to be knocked off their high horse and given a bath; you are all pretty dirty for the bills you have passed previously. This bill proposal is something we’d expect from the original al-Jazeera, now it’s America, Inc. turn to impose those restrictions on us? For your information the people must give their consent to be governed, and that consent can be revoked at anytime.

  • darthgoon 11/01/2011 7:36pm

    You know… people will find a way to steal or download whatever they want regardless of this bill. And simply because these organizations spend all their money suing people instead of protecting their content.

    This is a giant waste of time. And only exists because some bean counter at some point said “No, we don’t need to spend more money securing the content”.

    All those organizations who support this bill, and are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to congress-people…
    Spend that money making your organization SMARTER than the downloaders.

    If I leave my garage open, and keys in the car EVERY NIGHT. Whats smarter, spending millions suing all the joy-riders, or closing the garage and buying a $10 masterlock?

    Who wants to bet that piracy increases, and this bill adversely affects sites like YouTube if it passes?

  • noonprotectip 11/02/2011 6:22am

    Free speech and the free flow of information that the internet provides are my most cherished rights. They must be protected.
    This bill is an abomination and must be stopped. Our government is acting in a totalitarian manner by censoring the internet and the information that citizens can view – which we ironically criticize China for doing. There is massive potential for this bill to be grossly misused by the government and other agencies which no citizen should be comfortable with.

  • Spam Comment

  • Mystyy 11/03/2011 1:30am

    Sometimes i need to remember just to bookmark such relevant posts. Course Work | Assignment writing

  • piccolo113 11/05/2011 12:46pm

    It is absolutely disgusting that this sort of thing is even taken seriously and being considered.

    Ever notice how it’s the INTERNET BASED COMPANIES that oppose this? Interesting.

    Ever notice how they don’t bother to get the opinion of the public at all? Also interesting.

  • Comm_reply
    eelaw 11/16/2011 9:16pm

    Of course companies are going to support whichever side they think will financially benefit them.

    Ever notice how it is all of the artists, recording industries and people who own these copyrights that support this? Don’t they have rights?

    Ever notice how Congress never checks in with each and every citizen to make sure a bill is ok with them? It is not just this bill, it is all bills. Some just get more media coverage than others. If you want to find out what new bills are in Congress that could affect you, the information is publicly available. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php.

    I agree that government transparency is a problem, just don’t make it out to be like this is the only bill that we haven’t been told about that affects us.

  • theman222 11/11/2011 12:04am

    I Think The S.968 Bill Needs to Be Rejected!!!!!!

  • Comm_reply
    walker7 11/16/2011 2:49am

    I totally agree. We will find out what happens very soon. Keep your fingers crossed!

  • Bamzaaier 11/15/2011 5:49pm

    Please don’t get me wrong, but it would be fun/interesting to see this law actually make it. I can’t stop imagining the size of the absolute chaos that would immediately follow the implementation. Would it the effect be a similar kind of nation-wide disorder as the Prohibition in the 20’s? It would be mayhem to say the least, because try to imagine a widely used site as Youtube being entirely banned from the internet due to “copyright infringement”.
    If this is a joke, then Hollywood beats Jay Leno. Haha.

  • Inkling 11/16/2011 2:20am

    You don’t realize, there wouldn’t be threats for theft if you didn’t post it on the internet in the first place. That’s completely self-grave digging. Nintendo supports this? FUCK nintendo, you idiots obviously don’t USE the internet you want to regulate. You will never get this to pass.

  • Comm_reply
    eelaw 11/16/2011 9:11pm

    I disagree. While things are much easier to steal if they are already posted, there is most definitely threat of theft even if you never touch the internet. People can do things like rip songs off a CD and post it online. The artist, publisher, and record company could never post any part of a recording on the internet themselves and it could be stolen using the internet, fitting in the scope of this bill.

  • lorrodriguez 11/16/2011 10:42am

    If this bill does go through and goverment does have a control over a majority of websites….what if that power gets into the wrong hands? hackers or terrorist then they will have a control over everything that keeps us moving every day cyber war is real!…Please dont allow this to go through for the sake of our country!


Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

27 in favor / 2237 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments