MPAA Says They'll Tone Down SOPA

Rep. Lamar Smith is a sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Claims that the Stop Online Piracy Act will censor legal activity on the Internet are blatantly false. Enforcing the law against criminals is not censorship.

The Stop Online Piracy Act specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. Often based overseas, these websites are called “rogue sites” because they flout U.S. law and face zero legal consequences for their criminal activity. Rogue sites not only steal America’s products and profits; they steal jobs that rightly belong here at home. This bill cuts off the flow of revenue to rogue sites by preventing criminals from selling and distributing counterfeit products to U.S. consumers.

The bill defines rogue sites as websites that are dedicated to the facilitation of the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit or pirated goods. Websites like Facebook and YouTube that host user content are not “dedicated to” illegal activity and they certainly do not make a business out of “facilitating” the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit or pirated goods.

The Stop Online Piracy Act is a constitutional bill that protects free speech and America’s intellectual property. The First Amendment is not an excuse for illegal activity. Simply because the illegal activity occurs online does not mean that it is protected speech.

this bill authorizes the attorney general to seek an injunction against a foreign website that is dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. The attorney general must go to a federal judge and lay out the case against the site. If the judge agrees, a court order will be issued that authorizes the Justice Department to request that the site be blocked.

This bill does not allow anyone to seek an order to block any website. It affords the same due-process protections provided in all civil litigation in federal courts. If a federal judge agrees that the website in question is dedicated to illegal and infringing activity, then a court order can be issued directing companies to sever ties with the illegal website. Third-party intermediaries, such as credit-card companies and online-ad providers, are only required to stop working with the site. They cannot be held liable for the illegal or infringing actions taken by the rogue website.

Sophisticated criminals take advantage of the Internet to lure unsuspecting consumers to seemingly legitimate websites that sell potentially-dangerous counterfeit products like prescription drugs as well as pirated movies and software with no regard for U.S. law.

I write in support and appreciation for the legislation that the Senate and House Judiciary Committees are crafting to target foreign-based rogue sites - online enterprises that offer counterfeit goods and unauthorized copyrighted works to the public. These sites have business models predicated on the theft of American property. These Congressional efforts should be commended in order to deprive rogue website operators of easy access to American customers and their pocketbooks.

American ingenuity fuels this nation's economic growth, creates millions of new jobs and improves our quality of life. America's economy is based on "big ideas" that are turned into innovative new products. But, these big ideas and innovative products are often the target of criminals, whose counterfeit products rob America of deficit reducing revenue, undermine small businesses, and pose a significant safety risk to consumers.

Consumers, however, aren't the only victims: studies estimate that rogue websites cost legitimate businesses of all sizes $135 billion in lost revenue annually and generate more than 53 billion visits per year. These findings further underscore the urgency of the fight against IP theft online.

If America is to continue to lead the world in innovation, it is imperative that rogue site legislation be a top priority for the Congress. Please act now to protect American consumers and America's innovative ideas by enacting this critical legislation and shutting down these rogue sites.

the MPAA any their likes have no right to try and violate the RFC's and the standards set just because of some inconvience to them...

This is a legislative issue. The players involved need to ensure Congress understands the ramifications on both sides.

Do you not understand my point that you quoted? Congress is a conduit for action that responds to he which speaks loudest.

More like which special interest have the most money.

More like which special interest have the most money.

Do you not understand my point that you quoted? Congress is a conduit for action that responds to he which speaks loudest.

I really don't think they understand, nor do they really care to understand it.

My point was that no one in congress supporting this, probably understands one bit of it...

The MPAA has a right to work towards protecting its property. Having said that, breaking approved and implemented standards to implement that protection is a different story. This is a legislative issue. The players involved need to ensure Congress understands the ramifications on both sides. Right now the MPAA's voice is the loudest.

Fact is provisions of SOPA are incompatible with the DNSSEC standard....the root zone has already been signed...DNSSEC was deigned to prevent exactly what SOPA wants to implement at the DNS level...which is forged DNS responses among other things...

sorry, there is no defense for SOPA; this bill has one purpose and one purpose only: to give the MAFIAA the power to shut down any site on any server in the world that they don't like.

plus, you completely ignore the main point of the article: this bill was written by the MAFIAA and introduced and supported by their paid congress critters.

He also made a pointed jab at tech giant Google, an outspoken critic of SOPA.
"Unfortunately, there are some critics of this legislation who are not serious about helping to protect America's intellectual property. That's because they've made large profits by working with and promoting rogue sites to U.S. consumers. Google recently paid half a billion dollars to settle a criminal case because of the search-engine giant's active promotion of rogue foreign pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients. Their opposition to this legislation is self-serving since they profit from doing business with rogue sites."

Umm why is it up to the MPAA to tone down the law? Why is the MPAA in such a position they can just dictate law?

I don't think any other sector (at least as obviously) pulls the strings of government. I guess I just didn't like the way they worded it in this article. It makes it look like a non government organizatin is drafting law.

"MPAA boss Michael O’Leary says he's been huddling with politicians from both parties" by gressing the wheels and paying brides, oh I mean consulting fees.