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 1-30 of 147 total comments.

  • sanityscraps 06/09/2011 1:56am

    Okay. We’re talking about intellectual property protection here. How could you possibly oppose this? It’s a win-win for everyone except intellectual thieves.

  • Comm_reply
    Dizzylemon 10/29/2011 2:47am
    Link Reply
    + 34

    Do you understand the details of this bill? If there is one item on a webPAGE that breaks the S.968 act rules then the entire SITE can be shut down. Also the government can then block that site from search engines so no one can visit that entire site again without already knowing the direct address. This is the same thing Americans criticized China for. The government has already agreed to block people from donating to Wikileaks because they want to end the funding they receive. This act puts America on the fast track to a police state when it comes to sharing information.

    Also if one person uploads pirated content to a site the site can be held liable. No more Youtube or twitchtv. It is not only about protecting intellectual property. It is also about controlling information.

  • Comm_reply
    aegold 09/17/2013 7:37am

    actually, every signal intended for human ears eventually becomes an analog signal. after it leaves jual jaket online itu ada di website ini the device into a wire leading to a speaker or headphones it becomes as recordable as any old school radio signal.

  • Comm_reply
    Inkling 11/16/2011 2:21am

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

  • Comm_reply
    aejay 11/16/2011 10:25am

    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.”

  • Comm_reply
    michaelsafyan 11/22/2011 12:50am

    Actually, I would say the opposite; if you don’t want it stolen, make it easily, legally accessible on the Internet. When it is very easy for users to buy something legally online, they will do so. Most users will only pirate content when it is easier and more convenient for them to do so than it is for them to legally purchase that content.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/30/2011 7:05am

    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 won’t GOOG et al follow the robot.txt protocol on my website?

    jpg site:curtisneeley.com GOOG MSFT

    Not waiting for 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)

  • Comm_reply
    joeventures 11/16/2011 10:00pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    mattk2811 11/17/2011 7:35am

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    patrickrhodesmartin 11/17/2011 5:42pm

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    sehrule 11/18/2011 2:49am

    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.


  • Comm_reply
    isarmstrong 11/21/2011 3:11pm

    This bill takes reactivist thinking to a whole new level. It provides for total government control of information based on exceedingly vague and often legally thin statutes. All one has to do is look at the patent war between Apple and Samsung to understand why you don’t want to give the government this much arbitrary power.

    If this bill had been drafted and passed 15 years ago we would still be listening to CDs and compressed music (like MP3) would be illegal.

  • Comm_reply
    michaelsafyan 11/22/2011 12:48am

    This isn’t intellectual property protection. It is very easy for this to be subverted by pirates*, while at the same time, this legislation introduces huge legal uncertainties for companies that run websites with user-generated content. If you like YouTube, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, or any site with user-generated content, then you will oppose this bill, as this sort of legislation (and its even worse twin, SOPA) potentially put the viability of those websites at risk.

    *See my public Google+ post on how to easily subvert the proposed DNS-based blocking mechanism:

  • Comm_reply
    malice936 12/21/2011 12:01pm

    It’s because of how its worded sanityscraps. It along with its sister bill SOPA make it to where the US government has the right to say “screw free speech screw creative commons and screw anything that the people lining our pockets don’t like”. As far as I’m concerned piracy isn’t even as bad as these major corporations make it out to be if anything its idiotic that some company is going after a 15 year old for downloading an $80 game trying to get thousands of dollars from him/her when they don’t even see the $80 because all the money they get will go to some lawyer, they lose a person that would SUPPORT someone buying the game, and not to mention these are the same people who have MILLIONS because they’re fleecing over the american public. Even some of the “creators” of the intellectual property oppose this bill because they understand not EVERYONE can afford the movies and music and games.

    So you tell me how does this do anything but protect people who are screwing over you and me!

  • Comm_reply
    nwchick 12/29/2011 12:15pm

    I agree that protecting intellectual property is good, but this bill allows the government to shut down any site without allowing the ‘offending’ party even a day in court – so no proof is even need for the Government to say shut that site down. It could be used for pretty much anything by the government cart blanch, so it gives them way too much power. Right now it’s easy to get copyrighted material off the internet by just emailing the offending party with a threat of court. I do it all the time for a company I work for – the material comes down immediately usually. Copyright laws already cover this, so there is no need to give the Government such power on top of it. Laws already exist and are typically followed. This is just overkill.

  • Comm_reply
    kab13820 01/12/2012 9:21am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    x37cloud 01/18/2012 9:40am

    Yup, but that is not it, eventually theyll see any website against them as a threat or find some stupid way to censor it to, infact we might not be able to post anything on our mind at all on the internet.

  • Comm_reply
    shadowAaron34 01/19/2012 11:05am

    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!

  • mathiasthebold 06/10/2011 9:55am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    It is not a win win for everyone. It is a win for record companies, but a loss for everyone who wants to use the internet without hassle and obstruction. Using

  • mathiasthebold 06/10/2011 9:57am
    Link Reply
    + 24

    the strong arm of the government to redirect traffic is something I’d expect to see coming out of China, not the land of the free.

  • shad0w 07/02/2011 4:59pm
    Link Reply
    + 32

    How could anyone support this? Unless you are getting your pockets lined with money from the recording industry that is.

    Not only a significant breach of human rights, but would put institutionalize government censorship of the internet. Totally ridiculous and I’m shocked this bill has even been thought of in our so called “free” democracy.

  • matth35 07/09/2011 2:16pm
    Link Reply
    + 14

    This bill is a joke. It wont pass. Even with companies like walmart backing it. This is a clear violation of freedom of self expression. If you are doing something to express your self artistically or for sheer entertainment value and not making money off of it then there is absolutely no way the law can step in. If this were to pass, which again…it wont. You can say good by to karaoke night at the local pub or American idol. There is to much money to be made illegally for the government to let this pass and the government knows that. Its more than likely just a distraction from something bigger to come down the road. Its nothing more than a Joke. A poorly executed one at that.

  • Comm_reply
    ktel1218 11/16/2011 9:24pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    BMXbringer 01/18/2012 9:31am

    Walmart might not be supporting this bill since any of the Walmart brand items being sold from their online site might get them in a legal bind since some of their items have been changed in a way to where they still fall in place of a name brand item with their logo on the label. Or does the bill not pertain to that?

  • Tntsp1 07/15/2011 12:03am

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

    No, bad bill, everyone should have the right to defend themselves in court. One shouldn’t take down random sites because they are “dedicated to infringing activities”. The previous statement is also unclear on what exactly “Infringing Activities” are.

  • Comm_reply
    TMc51 11/17/2011 12:41am

    This is just blatant circumvention of the DMCA.

  • SirLeadhead 07/22/2011 12:23am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    Well, let me try and play devil’s advocate for this bill…

    Nope, can’t do it. It won’t pass, and everyone should email their congressman to make SURE it doesn’t pass. The writer’s and supporters of this bill either do not understand it’s full ramifications, or are trying to push some sort of agenda. I’m sure they MEAN well enough, but honestly, their own families would break this law every day, were it to pass. Every single person in America would become an accidental felon.

    Unless that’s what they are going for, in which case, shame on them!

  • SirLeadhead 07/22/2011 12:27am

    Do you even know what you’re talking about? Say you make a video and post it on youtube. In it, you quote your favorite movie, maybe do an impression, just for fun. Or you sing a few bars from a song your kids taught you this morning.

    Bam. You are now a felon.

    You support that kind of control?

  • Comm_reply
    alkrauss 01/07/2012 3:02pm

    Actually, fair use allows for many of the day to day unauthorized uses of copyrighted material. However, the boundaries between fair use and infringement are not always clear. Part of the reason this legislation would cause so much damage is that it would cause a chilling effect on fair use, because it forces those who host websites to self-police and error on the side of not permitting fair use. Those who do not self-police run the risk of truly dire consequences, quite possibly without even a day in court.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/08/2012 3:25pm

    Folsom v Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342

    Fair-Use or the exception to author and inventor exclusive rights to a creation or discovery made the Copy[rite] Act unconstitutionally vague in 1976 in addition to the fact that the rite was not accessible for paupers. The Act had been a rite or regulation for copying art and discoveries for the “Barons and Nobles” in the United States that was only enforceable by courts if “licenses to sue” had been purchased.

    Google Inc Attorney, Michael Henry Page Esq, stated purchase of “licenses to sue” are required for enforcement of copy rites although copy[rites] occur when a camera’s shutter is released.
    Yes, RITES and NOT “rights”.

    SOPA alleges to encourage copy[rite] enforcement and Google is fundamentally opposed as should be expected. Google Inc exists exclusively because of unfair uses of §107 or unconstitutional United States’ fair-use.

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