S.968 - PIPA

A bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes. view all titles (7)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: PIPA as .
  • 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 91-120 of 147 total comments.

sehrule 11/18/2011 2:49am
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

did you read anything about this bill besides the words ‘intellectual property’?
read the comment under you.

example: some guy pirates a movie, and posts part on youtube. youtube is then shut down/sued out of existence for.. copyright infringmint?

8 years of videos are uploaded to youtube everyday. they have about 60 employees.

the current laws allow youtube to be informed of this content and immediately remove it.

but there are millions of sites this applies to, not just youtube or video sites.


patrickrhodesmartin 11/17/2011 5:42pm
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

This is not a win win this is a question of net nutrality and censorship the internet is a free medium, by all means deal with the problem through the courts but don’t shut down a website without a warrant!

SadFaceGuy 11/17/2011 2:43pm

My concern of this bill’s contents leads me to some questions

From what I see, if one piece of illegally obtained & copyrighted material is posted on a site for viewing: Youtube, Livejournal, Myspace, Facebook, Blogger, or any others of the category, the site has to immediately remove the content and ban the user, or risk getting shut down. Also the person who posted that material gets filed under violations of copyright infringement with penalties I do not know of.

I have a comic site hosted by Blogger. The comic is made to be a fan fiction of a game I love, but my understanding believes that the sprite art used can be a violation.

But will I be held responsible by this bill if:

1)The game itself is free to download by the official company?

2)The sprite art can be accessed, edited, and converted from the game into .jpg, .png, or .bmp formats with certain programs, made by other people?

3)I’m not selling the user-created content I make with the materials I got?


FSFopensource 11/17/2011 2:42pm

I’ve signed the petition, I’ve called my congressmen, and I can’t say it louder.


I think one of two things are happening. Either the people in charge know exactly how powerful our unbridled freedom of speech on the internet is, and they’re scared; or they’re entirely clueless. Both are terrifying.

We have more power here on the internet than Thomas Pane when he wrote Common Sense, or when the Federalist Papers were written. Yes, is abused, but it was abused before we had this technology too; Propaganda was a malicious use of communication, and piracy is less harmful.

Let the people speak. Let our voices roar in the open forum that is the internet. Once you pass this bill you silence the very sites that can help those voices grow.

If this had been passed before facebook, or myspace, or youtube were huge, they wouldn’t exist today. Worse yet, they’re not immune to this. If this passes, the government could shut them down entirely.

Let us be free.

mattk2811 11/17/2011 7:35am
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

what? Did read the details? lets say one person post a video on YouTube that has copyrighted music in it. no longer does just that video come down, but the company who owns the rights to the video can both take down all of YouTube and block it from search engines. One person! You might not have watched it, most of the community might have not watched it but every one gets affected. Companies would have to the right to take down entire sites (the bill specifically states this) just for a piece of content or link to content posted on it. people here aren’t worried about piracy sites getting taken down but sights that let anyone post what they want on it. In-fact if some one were to span links to pirate sites on this very site, companies would have the right to take Opencongress.org down. A single person who is not actually affiliated with the site can take it down, that’s what we are worried about. The sites most at risk are YouTube, twitter, and blog sites. Are you against these?

patrickrhodesmartin 11/17/2011 12:44am

“In some cases, action could be taken to block sites without first allowing the alleged infringer to defend themselves in court.”


Bill of rights
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

TMc51 11/17/2011 12:41am
in reply to Tntsp1 Jul 15, 2011 12:03am

This is just blatant circumvention of the DMCA.

wibob1234 11/17/2011 12:22am
in reply to eelaw Nov 16, 2011 8:37pm

Just one question, how old are you? To the older generation it is not that bad. The newer generation on the other hand it means the end to you tube and other sites that are similar. Times are growing, its about time the younger generation take a stand for what they believe in. Besides we were born on the internet we live on the internet and we shop on the internet. If the younger generation stopped using the internet the economy would fall fast.

wibob1234 11/17/2011 12:16am

I can see how this would help the internet by making it safer. It makes it safer by getting rid of the copyrighted material that most people download causing data stilling viruses. On the other hand it restricts most of the Internets true purpose and power. This bill will give the government to much power, it will cause us to be like china. I see the good in this bill but the cons out way the pros. Its a good idea because of the increasing internet usage, but the bill just puts to much power into government and bigger businesses.

joeventures 11/16/2011 10:00pm
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

If it’s already illegal, why create another law? This bill is totally unnecessary, and causes a lot of damage to the internet that we today take for granted.

ktel1218 11/16/2011 9:24pm
in reply to matth35 Jul 09, 2011 2:16pm

I sure hope you’re right. But while we’re being distracted, lets talk about how bogus the copyright laws are even when they’re not being applied to potential website shutdowns. There’s an amazing article that made the rounds a while back about the copyright laws one breaks in normal, day to day activities written by John Tehranian from Southwestern Law, which can be downloaded here . The famous description is on page 8.

eelaw 11/16/2011 9:16pm
in reply to piccolo113 Nov 05, 2011 12:46pm

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.

eelaw 11/16/2011 9:11pm
in reply to Inkling Nov 16, 2011 2:20am

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.

eelaw 11/16/2011 9:07pm
in reply to lorrodriguez Nov 16, 2011 10:42am

How would this give hackers and terrorists control of anything? All it does it let owners of copyrighted material to begin a lawsuit. The ISPs, not the government, are the ones that control the access. The government only issues a mandate to the ISPs. There is no increased risk of hackers and terrorists getting access under this bill than there already is without it.

eelaw 11/16/2011 9:04pm
in reply to eelaw Nov 16, 2011 9:03pm

Remember intellectual property is not free. Just because you grew up in the age of Napster and Limewire (both of which were illegal and shut down) does not mean you deserve to be able to download and access whatever you want for free just because you have the ability. It is no different than the electronic version of bringing a camera into a movie theater and selling tapes. Of course the government would shut you down if you did that. This is the internet equivalent and gives incentive for the ISPs to police themselves because they can largely escape liability under the DMCA.

I think it very likely that the law would have dealt with these issues if it could have contemplated the far-reaching capabilities of the internet. Unfortunately, nobody has that kind of foresight so we end up having to take remedial measures.

eelaw 11/16/2011 9:03pm
in reply to eelaw Nov 16, 2011 8:47pm

This bill does not stop you from being creative and posting content you create or other creative content. What it does is stops you from pirating.

Also, the supporters on either side are not good indicia for whether it is a good or bad bill.
Of course Google opposes it because it wants to be able to profit without having to make sure they aren’t facilitating theft. Just as a pawn shop owner would prefer to not be liable for dealing stolen items. It makes these companies’ business faster and cheaper without regulation.
And of course the RIAA supports it because recording artists get royally screwed over (like multi-million dollar advertising) when people do things like stealing and releasing album songs early. But this also applies to the little guys like small artists and indie bands that rely on things like CD sales to get by.

eelaw 11/16/2011 8:47pm
in reply to eelaw Nov 16, 2011 8:37pm

Furthermore, you aren’t automatically taken down.

The bill says that a plaintiff would have a right to sue you and when he does, he must apply to the court to get them to grant a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction. A judge must make the determination and it is not an easy burden to overcome. Injunctions are serious legal remedies and are not granted willy-nilly.

However, (and this is the only part that seems troubling to me) the bill does say that ISPs can avoid liability by taking precautionary action against these websites. So it is more likely that your ISP will shut you down than the government itself in order to avoid liability in a lawsuit.

eelaw 11/16/2011 8:37pm

Did any of you nay-sayers even bother to read the text of the bill?
I don’t think it is as objectionable as many of you believe.

For instance:
(7) the term `Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’ means an Internet site that
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the . . . reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement

So this does not apply to you blog unless it has no significant use other than to infringe copyright. What this does apply to is your website that hosts streaming for your illegal copy of whatever movie. It also does not apply to uncopyrighted works.

What is a significant noninfringing use will have to be determined by the court.

Capsrock 11/16/2011 6:30pm
in reply to lorrodriguez Nov 16, 2011 10:42am

Government hands ARE the wrong hands. The internet is safest when it’s free and open.

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!

aejay 11/16/2011 10:25am
in reply to Inkling Nov 16, 2011 2:21am

I was reading an article about Javascript security and code obfuscation, and the guy said something similar:

“No amount of security is going to protect your content/code on the internet. If you’re really wanting to protect your content, unplug your servers.”

walker7 11/16/2011 2:49am
in reply to theman222 Nov 11, 2011 12:04am

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

Inkling 11/16/2011 2:21am
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

Don’t want it stolen, don’t put it on the net. Simplicity.

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.

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.

theman222 11/11/2011 12:04am

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

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.

Mystyy 11/03/2011 1:30am

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

Spam Comment

noonprotectip 11/02/2011 6:27am
in reply to SFCMAC Oct 23, 2011 7:32pm

The bill is bipartisan. But it is absolutely fascism.

Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

27 in favor / 2238 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments