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 61-90 of 147 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    Capsrock 11/16/2011 6:30pm

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

  • Comm_reply
    eelaw 11/16/2011 9:07pm

    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 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.

  • Comm_reply
    eelaw 11/16/2011 8:47pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    eelaw 11/16/2011 9:03pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    eelaw 11/16/2011 9:04pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    wibob1234 11/17/2011 12:22am

    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.

  • patrickrhodesmartin 11/17/2011 12:44am

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

    V.S.

    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.”

  • FSFopensource 11/17/2011 2:42pm

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

    DO NOT LEGISLATE THE INTERNET.

    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.

  • 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?

    SadFaceGuy@gmail

  • SomeCallmeGod 11/18/2011 8:19am

    Perhaps you should remember that many of the websites that condone sharing copyrighted content, have no problem adding viruses to the illegal content. Perhaps you should also remember how much of the world hollywood also controls. The intention of the movie was merely a form of control to keep you from doing anything stupid for a duration of 2 hours. When you take away from their profits, you take away your safety. Dont be ignorant, Support the Bill.

  • DMSlayer 11/18/2011 5:42pm

    H.R.3261 is the House Version of this bill …. This bill Needs to be rejected … It has nothing overall to do with intellectual Property Protection and more to do with corporate control. This would Effect All aspects of what we are used to with the Internet and Open the Flood Gate of legal problems in direct concerns for this bill.

    This gives way to an American version of Censorship that China now currently has, in the guise of “Protection”.

    The effects of this bill are far reaching … It will not only just effect Youtube, Facebook, Google and so forth .. it will also effect community PHBB boards, Ezboard, Yuku.. and the list can go on.

    This bill gives no consideration to Individual rights.

  • vanherrington 11/19/2011 5:33am

    This Bill specifically targets Internet websites where Americans exercise their First Amendment Right of Free Speech.

    Considering:
    (1) all other Federal Rights are founded on our First Amendment Right of Free Speech;
    (2) the Internet was formed as an exercise of that Federal Right; and
    (3) a Government attack on websites where free speech is encouraged under the guise of ‘copyright protection’ is an unreasonable attack on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because there are already millions of websites, to police all of them would be impossible.

    This legislation only opens the door to selective prosecution against any ‘undesirable speech’ and therefore cannot stand.

    The Internet

  • aldrus 11/19/2011 12:02pm

    The problem is that this doesn’t remove copyrighted materials, just removed the links to websites that are “dedicated to infringing activities.”. It gives the DoJ and any copyright owner rights to do a sweeping purge of the internet for any link to any “infringing activities” websites, without taking the accused website to court. Now not as popular as the first, the sixth amendment is still in the bill of rights stating “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”

  • walker7 11/28/2011 5:48pm

    Here is the message that Ron Wyden said to Demand Progress about SOPA & PIPA:

    “The filibuster affords senators an opportunity to stand up for what they believe in and there are few things I believe in more than ensuring that every American has a voice and an opportunity to get ahead.

    Right now, the Internet gives every American that voice while making it possible for every entrepreneur, thinker and innovator to compete alongside the biggest and most moneyed interests.

    It is my hope that — with your help – my colleagues in Congress will realize that a free and open Internet is something that we as Americans should celebrate and not allow those special moneyed interests to quash.

    It is my hope that – with your help – my colleagues in Congress will realize that PIPA/SOPA are the wrong way to protect intellectual property because the price they exact on the Internet is too high."

    …to be continued…

  • Comm_reply
    walker7 11/28/2011 5:50pm

    …continued from the last post…

    “With your help, I believe we can get that word out and prevent these misguided bills from every reaching the House and Senate floor, but if they do reach the floor you can count on me to stand up and make our voices heard.”

  • nzo 12/15/2011 8:45am

    I can not believe that there are 24 completely misinformed people who actually support this bill. As P.T.Barnum stated… there really is one born every minute.

  • Lyall050287 12/16/2011 6:45pm

    Though it may surprise people, even though I studied cyber crime I am opposed to this bill. The issue of people pirating stuff and protecting intellectual property can be handled a lot better then by this. Surprisingly I have a family member in favor of this bill and wanting to see it pass

  • Spam Comment

  • CurtisNeeley 12/30/2011 7:16am

    The robots.txt protocol makes internet wire communications much easier to regulate than TV.
    Internet wire communications will be AS REGULATED AS TELEVISION when my Federal Court case(s) resolve(s).

    Why not follow the robot.txt protocol on my website?
    jpg site:curtisneeley.com GOOG MSFT

    I am not waiting for some Mickey-Mouse wire communication IP law to be passed in the IP-BACKWARDS USA.

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

  • CurtisNeeley 12/30/2011 7:53am

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, will have as much an effect on internet wire communications as Roe v Wade had on abortion!

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/02/2012 8:17pm

    ALL DIGITAL PHOTO FILES OR WEBSITES CAN HAVE "META-DATA” DESCRIBING THE BINARY MACHINE-READABLE DATA INCLUDED RESULTING IN DISPLAY OF ART.

    This has been true since before internet wire communications were developed to generally replace telegraph wire communications internationally. See 47 USC §153 ¶(52)

    All photo files can be marked as to the binary content resulting in the photograph being displayed by the application whether that be a web browser or offline application. These are similar to the optional alt tags in HTML. Most internet wire communication are illegal already and this will soon be addressed.

    The obvious definition is linked above from law.cornell.edu.

    SOPA and EVERY other IP bill will soon become entirely insignificant in comparison to enforcing laws already passed and ignored.

    FREE SPEECH will finally occur online and “rights” to exclusively control attribution of copies will occur.

  • walker7 01/03/2012 8:13am

    Here is an article on how the PIPA vote will work:

    http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/pipa%E2%80%99s-january-24th-vote-and-how-filibuster-w

    To help destroy PIPA, the following senators would be the best ones to call:

    Harry Reid: (202) 224-3542
    Ron Wyden: (202) 224-5244
    Jerry Moran: (202) 224-6521
    Maria Cantwell: (202) 224-3441
    Rand Paul: (202) 224-4343

    Please call as much as you can between now and January 24. During your call, please address the following points about SOPA for consideration:

    (1) The bill is deeply flawed and would cause crippling, lasting damage to the Internet.
    (2) It is one of the worst pieces of IP legislation; this would be an incentive for it not to pass.
    (3) This bill is deemed unconstitutional and could affect freedom of speech.
    (4) If PIPA is defeated, the general public will feel relieved.
    (5) On OpenCongress.org, 98.4% of users oppose PIPA.

    …to be continued…

  • Comm_reply
    walker7 01/03/2012 8:20am

    …continued from last post…

    (6) The cell-phone robocall bill (H.R.3035) has already been defeated, and was not brought to the floor for a vote; the same thing could happen to PIPA.
    (7) It would be a step backward in the Internet revolution if PIPA was passed.
    (8) It is not certain whether the President will veto PIPA, should the bill make it onto his desk.
    (9) It would destroy innovation and small businesses.

    Try to call as often as you need to. The more people that call Congress, the sooner we can get rid of PIPA.

  • CurtisNeeley 01/04/2012 9:02pm

    For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire []so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire []communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire []communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire []communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/04/2012 9:07pm
    • Wire Communications*

    The term “wire communication” or “communication by wire” means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.

    Hmmm why are internet wire communications not regulated by the FCC?

  • walker7 01/05/2012 9:35pm

    Our best chance to stop PIPA and/or SOPA can be done if you have an in-person meeting with your senators. Make sure that we get at least 41 senators to agree to block the vote. The address is:

    http://act.fightforthefuture.org/page/m/2e1f206a/1d1430a9/71cb3912/f863e52/2427177326/VEsH/p/eyJKU1ZUVkVGVVJWOUJRa0pTSlNVPSI6Ik5DIn0=/

    Please make sure you tell them that PIPA (1) will cripple the Internet; (2) it’s the worst piece of IP legislation, an incentive for it not to pass; (3) it’s deemed unconstitutional; (4) if these bills are defeated, the general public will be relieved; (5) it would be a step backward in the Internet revolution if it was passed; (6) it isn’t certain whether the President will veto this bill; (7) it would destroy innovation and small businesses; and (8) Darrell Issa and Ron Wyden already have the alternative to both bills, which is OPEN.

    If we succeed, we will no longer have to worry about PIPA and/or SOPA.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/06/2012 7:20pm

    1) how will ANYTHING cripple wire communications?
    2) Worst by who’s standards? DMCA encourages IP theft.
    3) Who DEEMED it unconstitutional. What portion does it violate?
    4) I will not care at all nor will millions.
    5) Evolution has no direction.
    6) VETO doesn’t matter.
    7) Innovation of ways to “hack” and circumvent these laws has already begun.
    8) OPEN just replaces the justice department with the immigration department and gives all US sites a free pass as is unconstitutional on its face.

    Your best chance to stop these 2 bills is if your elected idiots believe the whining masses who “click” protests and call or email numbered lists of idiotic allegations like @walker7 has posted are voters. AACK Ha

    “internet” wire communications are mostly illegal now. FCC ignores the mission to regulate ALL wire communications. Whine louder but 2 + 2 can only be 4. See 47 USC § 151 and whine more.


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