The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261 or "STOP Act"), which are currently moving through the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, are designed to protect U.S. rights holders and consumers against commercial, largely foreign websites that steal U.S. intellectual property. It is our hope that with bipartisan support both bills will be combined and passed by both Houses and become law. Let's begin by establishing the reasons for this Congressional effort to better enforce intellectual property protection.
A dizzying array of foreign-based websites have built their businesses around taking and selling U.S. copyrighted works without any compensation to creators and artists, while others endanger American lives with counterfeit goods. The overarching goal of PROTECT IP and STOP Acts is to cut off the flow of money from the U.S. to foreign rogue sites and to protect American jobs, consumers and economic growth. For songwriters, composers and artists, this legislation will have a profound impact. These Acts would direct the Department of Justice to take certain measures against foreign rogue websites that are committing or facilitating criminal activities. These measures, with Federal Court authorization, would include requiring Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") or other look-up services to use filtering to prevent U.S. consumers from accessing rogue sites and further eliminating the financial benefits to that site by requiring payment processors (think Mastercard, Visa or PayPal) and Internet advertising services to cut off the flow of money to rogue sites. This combination of measures would put these so called rogue sites out of business, while protecting legitimate sites. The Acts also enable U.S. rights holders, including owners of copyrights in musical compositions, to take action to cut off the flow of money to these foreign, rogue sites. The Acts contain a variety of measures that aim to prevent abuse. For example, the Acts provide the same notice and other due process protections available in other federal cases, giving the domain name owners or site operators the right to defend themselves.
The bottom line, support for these Acts is a no-brainer for anyone whose livelihood is dependent on the creation of intellectual property.
But the Acts do have very aggressive opponents who have loudly expressed the following opinions. In summary, they oppose any action or attitude that restricts the open and free use of copyrighted material. Our reasoned response follows each opinion.
-
"It will undermine all kinds of consumer rights."
-
The only right it will undermine is the opportunity to profit through criminal infringement.
-
"It will establish a police state, ending free speech."
-
The enforcement provisions of these Acts are only triggered by Federal Court action. The Acts are loaded with safeguards for legitimate sites. Moreover, there is no First Amendment right to sell or distribute stolen content.
-
"With these Acts, the DMCA enacted Safe Harbor provisions would be invalidated."
-
This is not at all true. Not only does the DMCA safe harbor remain, but in fact, Internet intermediaries are given ADDITIONAL immunity from suit for taking voluntary action to prevent IP theft.
-
"The Acts incentivize Internet sites to censor their content from U.S. users in order to limit liability."
-
The bills encourage Internet sites to take "good samaritan" actions to stop criminal activity. This will, in no way, undermine a website's primary incentive to serve the interest of their users.
-
"These Acts will break the Internet."
-
The only thing they will break is the ability of sites dedicated to infringement or engaging in criminal activity to generate illegal revenue.
These arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation are not new-they are the very same arguments offered any time Congress contemplates enacting legislation that protects intellectual property rights. They were the very same arguments offered against the DMCA, which, as we have seen, has neither stifled innovation nor the First Amendment. Given the built-in limitations and due process safe guards in the Acts, the doomsday arguments made by the copyleft groups are red herrings.
ASCAP members are encouraged to raise your voices and be heard on the value of these Acts and the resulting final bill. Get involved with an effort to protect your livelihood!
