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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

CurtisNeeley 01/02/2012 8:17pm
in reply to CurtisNeeley Jan 02, 2012 7:29pm


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.

CurtisNeeley 01/04/2012 9:07pm
in reply to CurtisNeeley Jan 04, 2012 9:02pm
  • 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?

WasMiddleClass 01/20/2012 8:34pm

Good job everyone!!!

I wish I could give a medal of honor to all those that helped win this battle!

That goes to show what We The People can do when we come together on a common cause.

The war is far from over though…

Now…if we can just take our country back from big money…

WasMiddleClass 01/20/2012 8:33pm

SOPA and PIPA postponed indefinitely after protests

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — When the entire Internet gets angry, Congress takes notice. Both the House and the Senate on Friday backed away from a pair of controversial anti-piracy bills, tossing them into limbo and throwing doubt on their future viability.

The Senate had been scheduled to hold a proceedural vote next week on whether to take up the Protect IP Act (PIPA) — a bill that once had widespread, bipartisan support. But on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was postponing the vote “in light of recent events.”
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives said it is putting on hold its version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The House will “postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said in a written statement.


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.

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”

vanherrington 11/19/2011 5:33am

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

(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

CurtisNeeley 12/30/2011 7:53am

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


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

CurtisNeeley 01/02/2012 7:29pm

“You do realize nobody is paying attention to you anymore right?”

Did they EVER pay attention?

Online and offline pornography will soon require authenticated adult viewership and viewership dates/times being stored to the computer used to display adult art.

Did you catch the online AND OFFLINE part of the above? It is already technically trivial and has been trivial for twenty years or more.

Michael Henri Page Esq misled the Western District of Arkansas Magistrate Judge Honorable Erin L Setser and described the Google Inc search engine as, “For one thing, search is completely automated. It goes out, it crawls the web, it sees what’s there, and it reports it back. The machine has no way of knowing whether a picture is nude…”, as is totally incorrect and malicious. See Dkt 216 pp(71-75) and read the fairytale told by Google Inc in open Court.

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

CurtisNeeley 01/15/2012 7:04pm
in reply to walker7 Jan 14, 2012 4:27pm

from p12 in conclusion of *"REPLY BRIEF":http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/2011-2558/2558_DocketPDFs/2558%20REPLY%20BRIEF_stamped.pdf linked<<<<

3. The sweeping international impact of this case will, no doubt, require further consideration of the relevant issues but several factual issues will require trial. The Supreme Court will eventually be faced with requiring wire communications disguised as the Internet to be regulated by the FCC. This injunctive relief requested currently from the Eighth Circuit will, in fact, increase the Free Speech nature of wire communications as well as making wire communications more internationally accessible.


Spam Comment

CurtisNeeley 01/15/2012 7:05pm
in reply to CurtisNeeley Jan 15, 2012 7:04pm

from p12 in conclusion of REPLY BRIEF linked<<<<

3. The sweeping international impact of this case will, no doubt, require further consideration of the relevant issues but several factual issues will require trial. The Supreme Court will eventually be faced with requiring wire communications disguised as the Internet to be regulated by the FCC. This injunctive relief requested currently from the Eighth Circuit will, in fact, increase the Free Speech nature of wire communications as well as making wire communications more internationally accessible.


CurtisNeeley 01/20/2012 6:33pm
in reply to CurtisNeeley Jan 20, 2012 10:34am


“et al” is currently Google Inc and they will lose this case very soon and PIPI and SOPA will both be very irrelevant. United States’ Copy[rite] Act will be found unconstitutional as could not be more obvious to the common photographer or citizen. Copy[rite] has been unconstitutional since the HOAX was signed by George Washington in 1790.

Wire communication regulation is one of the reasons the FCC exists and regulating analog broadcast transmissions is a tiny portion of their statutory authority.
Cable subscription television and internet wire communication regulations are now demanded begun!
It is trivial to regulate display of adult material to adults and will be required within months. I hope a Supreme Court petition is not required but am ready if so.

Spam Comment

kab13820 01/12/2012 9:21am
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

Hope you don’t like Youtube, Pandora, Spotify. They will all cease to exist if this is passed. Post a like to a song you like to twitter, facebook, myspace or any other and you are in violation also. Next you can’t listen to music in your house or car with the windows open so other people hear it. Small bands doing cover songs will be next on the hit list. After awhile all you will have access to is government run web sites and then they will start telling you what to think.

CurtisNeeley 01/20/2012 10:34am
in reply to WasMiddleClass Jan 18, 2012 10:35pm

sure @WasMiddleClass- you guys have lost already so post whatever makes you feel better. Did the Justice who wrote the ruling graduate HS before the first nuclear bomb existed. Probably so…


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 01/20/2012 10:27am


Bill or no bill, these “pirates” may go to jail for life.

shadowAaron34 01/19/2012 11:05am
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

Have you not been reading ANY of the comments on this page? There are even Senetors in congress right now who KNOW that this Bill would be nothing but an absolute obstruction to the flow of information on the internet. If it is passed, then we wont even be able to fgiht back at all! say if this bill does get passed, and theres an internet website made to oppose it, the componies who are in favor of this bill and dont want it down will just send some lowrate employeee to post some sort of piracy on it and poof! no more website because its blocked by the bill. do you really want that? no, i dont think so. It goes against the freedom of speech/Information laws that are already up and passed now!

WasMiddleClass 01/18/2012 11:05pm

To all those out there fighting these bills:

As I watched CBS national news on my TV tonight report the blackout all I could think was WTF when Scott Pelley reported that CBS supports these bills!

What the hell happened to fair and impartial news!? That is not impartial reporting!!!

I will NEVER watch CBS news again!

WasMiddleClass 01/18/2012 10:35pm
in reply to CurtisNeeley Jan 15, 2012 7:05pm

What about the rulings by the Supreme Court a few years back that struck down most of another law that tried to do the same thing because it violated the First Amendment ?

Shall I post it again, over here?

WasMiddleClass 01/18/2012 9:35pm

SOPA, PIPA lose support from lawmakers on Capitol Hill amid blackout

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) — Six U.S. lawmakers dropped their support for Hollywood-backed anti-piracy legislation as Google Inc., Wikipedia and other websites protest the measures.
Co-sponsors who say they can no longer support their own legislation include Senators Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, and Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat. Republican Representatives Ben Quayle of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, and Dennis Ross of Florida also said they would withdraw their backing of the House bill.


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