H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. view all titles (7)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: SOPA as .
  • Popular: Stop Online Piracy Act as introduced.
  • Short: Stop Online Piracy Act as introduced.
  • Official: To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act as introduced.
  • Popular: E-PARASITE Act as introduced.
  • Popular: SOPA.

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 151-180 of 495 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/07/2011 6:52pm

    Dragon software needs to be spell checked sometimes…



  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/08/2011 12:30am

    SOPA does not molest jobs, money, rights, or life unless you are violating another “persons” rights. Violating another’s “rights” is wrong. This bill/law will be irrelevant entirely when the FCC is ordered to regulate ALL wire communications as directed by law NOW! The FCC is now ignoring wire communications they are supposed to regulate.

  • raichu 12/08/2011 9:19pm

    This bill has been completely overhyped by the media. The bill does not in anyway take down the Internet. It very specifically states that the bill only applies to sites that are solely for the purpose of illegal actions. These sites are already illegal and this bill just makes it easier to prosecute them. It again differentiates between them and normal websites. This not apply to the vast majority of the Internet. Businesses like Google are against it simply because they would be too lazy to adjust their search engines.
    These websites are again already illegal and do not have a right to exist. The bill is therefore not at all that bad. I feel it should be divided into separate bills for its many sections for better detail, but it is not a censorship bill. Its wording is not vague at all but actually very specific.

  • Comm_reply
    GamerLEN 12/11/2011 4:10am

    Funny. I thought the media were the guys backing the bill… I know the Motion Picture Association of America is one of the main ones. Pity none of them know how computers work otherwise they’d see that it’ll be like throwing a snowball into a furnace for stopping piracy.

  • walker7 12/08/2011 11:57pm

    Everyone, there are less than 24 hours to go in the Avaaz petition to block SOPA. As of now, there are 988,610 signatures. Senator Ron Wyden said he will filibuster or block any vote on the bill by reading out the petition names until the clock runs out!


    And here’s the new alternative bill, called OPEN:


  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/09/2011 6:50pm

    Senator Ron Wyden is almost Google’s employee. How much GOOG stock does he own? How long is an Eighth Circuit Appeal normally pending? This bill will be inconsequential after the FCC is ordered to begin regulation of “communications by wire” as clearly listed as duty of the Federal Communications Commission now being ignored.

    The Copy[rite] Act will finally be ruled void for vagueness ETC and spur United States revising copy[rites] to protect the personal “rights” of artists to control creations as provided for in, -
    Berne Protocol Article 6bis. An individual personal right that can’t be sold or owned by corporations. This individual right expires 50 years after the artist dies according to international treaty signed by the BACKWARDS United States but stretched to 70 years as desired by various corporations WHO ARE NOT INDIVIDUALS but treated as “persons” here in the USA.

  • CurtisNeeley 12/09/2011 7:13pm

    Pending since September 19, 2011
    To be “affirmed” violating common laws interpreted using grammar as explained plainly in the REPLY BRIEF free below. BUT HOW?

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558 )<< See three years in court.

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)

  • walker7 12/11/2011 6:47pm

    Here’s an update on SOPA:


    This Thursday will be the opportunity to get rid of this bill. Don’t forget that Ron Wyden will choose to do that filibuster if the bill does come up for a vote.

  • walker7 12/12/2011 5:00pm

    This week, please visit these sites to stop Internet Censorship:


  • walker7 12/12/2011 11:45pm

    Good news: Lamar Smith has just recently narrowed the scope of the SOPA down considerably.


    Sites that end with .com, .net, or .org are not in danger, and only foreign sites are in danger. And now, a judge would be required to take action when dealing with infringement sites.

    PIPA and OPEN (the alternative bill to SOPA) should likewise reduce their scopes, as well, if they haven’t already.

    But right now, we still need to kill SOPA.

  • CurtisNeeley 12/13/2011 4:23pm

    This bill does nothing to address the fact that the Federal Communication has responsibility to regulate ALL interstate and international wire communications. Simply put for those here who are not able to read the law it is The Communications Act where wire communications are defined EXACTLY as follows.
    47 USC §153(52) Wire communication
    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.
    Internet wire communications should already be REGULATED by the FCC and I have asked the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to order this done.

  • Comm_reply
    Irisiridescent 12/15/2011 2:50pm

    I’ve been reading your posts and I am sorry that you feel you have had your work stolen but this is NOT the way to go about it.

    The way this is worded, any sight that the government decides they don’t like or any corporation doesn’t like can be shut down for little or no reason.

    Consider this, someone goes over to your house and places a stolen item in your house. The said item is stolen, and they call the police and say that you have the stolen item. Without reading your rights, or even hearing your story, they arrest you and convinct you on the spot and put you in jail for stealing. You don’t get a court date, you don’t get an attorney, you just get thrown in jail.

    That’s what this bill is doing, among many other things.

    Also, regulating internet wire communications is an infringment on a right. I don’t want the FCC peeking into what I’m doing online. I’m not doing anything wrong, but you wouldn’t want anyone going through your drawers in your house, would you?

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/15/2011 8:59pm


  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/16/2011 2:20am

    “Also, regulating internet wire communications is an infring[e]ment on a right. I don’t want the FCC peeking into what I’m doing online. I’m not doing anything wrong, but you wouldn’t want anyone going through your drawers in your house, would you?”

    Incorrect. accessing anything that is “obscene” already should require that you claim to be an adult. Claiming to be an adult WAIVES the expectation of a right to privacy. This was already ruled by the Supreme Court.

    Even viewing artistic nudity will require assertion of being an adult and waiving privacy when my lawsuit against NameMedia Inc, Microsoft Corporation, Google Inc and the FCC inch towards resolving.

  • Comm_reply
    Irisiridescent 12/16/2011 1:49pm

    You completely ignored my argument about this bill. What does China using the internet have to do with this? You seem to be forgetting something. We’re NOT China.

    Also, China has terrible problems with hackers and viruses. Also, the Constitution has said that they can’t go through our stuff unless they have a Search Warrent. I have worked in the legal field. I know how it goes.

    If you want us to become like China so much, why don’t you move there? And you’re suing those companies. Good, don’t expect the government to do it for you. What this bill is doing is allowing any picture, video, music, or even a text word to be censored and shut down an entire site. Saying the word Google and Microsoft, under this law, can make you a felon.

    Again, it is sad that you have been burned, but why would you support something that will punish legit sites just to try to catch the bad ones? It’s like imprisoning innocent ten people, just to convict one.

  • Comm_reply
    Irisiridescent 12/16/2011 1:55pm

    And yes, the amount of typoes I made in that sentance appauled me before anyone points it out. Sorry about that. It’s what happens when I type too fast.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/16/2011 2:40pm

    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF OF Google Inc (14 pgs)

    Nothing new magically became illegal. IP theft is made easier to stop.
    The illegal actions done via a legit site makes the “legit” site a conspirator. Is that too hard to understand? IP theft is NOT robbing from the rich and giving to the poor or some other redeeming rational.

    FRAUD “Saying the word Google and Microsoft, under this law, can make you a felon.” FRAUD
    ^NOT TRUE^

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/15/2011 10:02pm

    Why do you think a law worded in the days when the situation now was only science fiction should be applied now, and could possibly help anything?

    We have tons of arcane federal laws that were never updated to reflect current reality, such as the one that says you can not use any “telecommunication device” to contact anyone anonymously that “annoys” them without being thrown in prison for two years, and fined huge amounts of money.


    And you want another one?

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/16/2011 1:21am

    Yes this portion of the law is ENFORCED AS WRITTEN.
    Laws that have meanings that change are either modified or apply EXACTLY or are ignored like by FCC UNTIL accused of MALFEASANCE.

    Reply Brief PDF

    From p. 12 of the PDF above.
    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.

    List just one. And next time as a link please.


  • WasMiddleClass 12/15/2011 8:58pm

    I always find the money trail informative in politics these days.

    From a little known resource on this site,


  • WasMiddleClass 12/15/2011 9:32pm

    I believe there is a far bigger picture that needs to be looked at here. There is a war brewing between the overwhelming majority of our people, and huge corporations, huge money, and those they purchased in our government so they can make even more money no matter the cost to the many.

    We have seen countless laws, and countless interpretations of laws, and countless attempts on more laws, all taking away the rights of the majority of the American people to use their rights supposedly guaranteed under the first amendment of our constitution to speak their mind, since “terrorists” supposedly became the greatest threat in America, even though there is zero proof that the patriot act, or any of that has made us one bit safer according to the ACLU analysis.

    We already are in a situation where about any person in “law enforcement” can give a “letter” to almost anyone else forcing them to expose everything they know about you with no due process.

  • WasMiddleClass 12/15/2011 9:33pm

    Now they want to be able to throw us in jail for posting portions of articles from other sites, or videos online, to inform more people about things we feel are important, with no intention to make a dime off it?

    This law will allow them to do that.

    This law has nothing to do with protecting individual copyright holders (unless they are rich), no matter what the wording says, and everything to do with censorship.

    Just try using any of our existing laws that are supposedly meant to protect the little guy to fight big money, or government. I have many times!

  • Irisiridescent 12/15/2011 11:16pm

    To be honest, I’m not going to worry too much about this bill passing. Why?

    It has a lot of corporations backing it, but it would be political suicide for EVERYONE if it passed.

    If it passes, hackers would have a field day. Guess who they will go for first? The people who signed this into law. Yes, China does have a DNS filter, but guess what? They have problems with hackers and viruses galore. These politicians need to wise up. Their careers will be done and over with if they sign this into law.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/16/2011 1:46am

    There are roughly 212,646,642 MORE users of the Internet in China than in the United States. They easily use the Internet more than any two countries on earth.

    The SOPA bill was discharged from the subcommittee yesterday.

    Has a political career ever ended because of ONE vote? The SOPA bill is largely irrelevant except to studios or corporations until the copy[rite] act is found unconstitutional since the 1976 vague 4-factor codification of “fair-use”.
    See USC 17 §107

  • Comm_reply
    CentristFiasco 12/20/2011 10:00am

    No it wouldn’t be political suicide if passed because if you actually read the bill and gain an understanding on what’s going in then you would know that this bill is needed.

  • Stephen89 12/16/2011 12:54am

    Lets just adopt North Korea’s internet policies instead and ban the internet, it will have the exact same effect. Welcome to the future, bullshit

  • FreeRoamer 12/16/2011 5:18am

    Wow, look at that, this bill is sponsored by Lamar Smith, the same guy who wrote up the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers act and the same guy who is blocking the legalization of marijuana bill. Go figure, lol man this guy hates civil liberties.

  • GamerLEN 12/16/2011 5:52am

    Hey guys? One thing we all seem to be forgetting.


    Obama has promised to strike down any bills that threaten net neutrality. This is an election year coming up. Obama will gain a ton of support AND VOTES if he blocks this thing.

    Something tells me this bill has a veto in its future.

  • dallasmatt 12/16/2011 10:13am

    Europe is waiting with open arms to accept our fleeing technology sector and all the tech jobs will go with it.

    How come Lamar Smith is working so hard to pass a Hollywood Liberal bill? I thought he was a Republican? Lamar Smith = Pro-Hollywood Liberal

  • Comm_reply
    CentristFiasco 12/20/2011 9:57am

    That’s the problem with folks like you, pal, you don’t get it.

Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

32 in favor / 3129 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments