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.

Dizzylemon 10/29/2011 2:47am
Link Reply
+ 34
in reply to sanityscraps Jun 09, 2011 1:56am

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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


“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

greatumpire83 08/10/2011 10:51am


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’

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.

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.

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 6:27am
in reply to SFCMAC Oct 23, 2011 7:32pm

The bill is bipartisan. But it is absolutely fascism.

michaelsafyan 11/22/2011 12:50am
in reply to Inkling Nov 16, 2011 2:21am

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.

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 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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

walker7 10/27/2011 3:09pm
in reply to kratkatomas Oct 18, 2011 12:14pm

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

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 7:32pm

Another example of liberal fascism masquerading as “protection”.

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.

SFCMAC 10/23/2011 8:11pm

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.


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!

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