Wednesday, Jan. 18 [2012], marked the largest online protest in the history of the Internet. Websites from large to small \u201cwent dark\u201d in protest of proposed legislation before the U.S. House and Senate that could profoundly change the Internet. The two bills, SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate, ostensibly aim to stop the piracy of copyrighted material over the Internet on websites based outside the U.S. Critics, among them the founders of Google, Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, Tumblr and Twitter, counter that the laws will stifle innovation and investment, hallmarks of the free, open Internet. The Obama administration has offered muted criticism of the legislation, but, as many of his supporters have painfully learned, what President Barack Obama questions one day he signs into law the next.<\/p>\n
First, the basics. SOPA stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act, while PIPA is the Protect IP Act. The two bills are very similar. SOPA would allow copyright holders to complain to the U.S. attorney general about a foreign website they allege is \u201ccommitting or facilitating the commission of criminal violations\u201d of copyright law. This relates mostly to pirated movies and music. SOPA would allow the movie industry, through the courts and the U.S. attorney general, to send a slew of demands that Internet service providers (ISPs) and search-engine companies shut down access to those alleged violators, and even to prevent linking to those sites, thus making them \u201cunfindable.\u201d It would also bar Internet advertising providers from making payments to websites accused of copyright violations.<\/p>\n
SOPA could, then, shut down a community-based site like YouTube if just one of its millions of users was accused of violating one U.S. copyright. As David Drummond, Google\u2019s chief legal officer and an opponent of the legislation, blogged, \u201cLast year alone we acted on copyright takedown notices for more than 5 million webpages.\u201d He wrote, \u201cPIPA & SOPA will censor the web, will risk our industry\u2019s track record of innovation and job creation, and will not stop piracy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.org), told me: \u201cThese bills propose new powers for the government and for private actors to create, effectively, blacklists of sites \u2026 then force service providers to block access to those sites. That\u2019s why we call these the censorship bills.\u201d<\/p>\n
The bills, she says, are the creation of the entertainment, or \u201ccontent,\u201d industries: \u201cSOPA, in particular, was negotiated without any consultation with the technology sector. They were specifically excluded.\u201d The exclusion of the tech sector has alarmed not only Silicon Valley executives, but also conservatives like Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz, a tea party favorite. He said in a December House Judiciary Committee hearing, \u201cWe\u2019re basically going to reconfigure the Internet and how it\u2019s going to work, without bringing in the nerds.\u201d<\/p>\n
PIPA sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a press release, \u201cMuch of what has been claimed about [PIPA] is flatly wrong and seems intended more to stoke fear and concern than to shed light or foster workable solutions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sadly, Leahy\u2019s ire sounds remarkably similar to that of his former Senate colleague Christopher Dodd, who, after retiring, took the job of chairman and CEO of the powerful lobbying group Motion Picture Association of America (at a reported salary of $1.2 million annually), one of the chief backers of SOPA\/PIPA. Said Dodd of the broad-based, grass-roots Internet protest, \u201cIt\u2019s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.\u201d<\/p>\n
EFF\u2019s McSherry said, \u201cNo one asked the Internet\u2014well, the Internet is speaking now. People are really rising up and saying: \u2018Don\u2019t interfere with basic Internet infrastructure. We won\u2019t stand for it.\u2019\u00a0\u201d<\/p>\n
As the Internet blackout protest progressed Jan. 18, and despite Dodd\u2019s lobbying, legislators began retreating from support for the bills. The Internet roared, and the politicians listened, reminiscent of the popular uprising against media consolidation in 2003 proposed by then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, the son of Gen. Colin Powell. Information is the currency of democracy, and people will not sit still as moneyed interests try to deny them access.<\/p>\n
When Internet users visited the sixth-most popular website on the planet during the protest blackout, the English-language section of Wikipedia.org, they found this message:<\/p>\n
\u201cImagine a World Without Free Knowledge.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a world with fresh, Internet-fueled revolutions, it seems that U.S. politicians are getting the message.<\/p>\n
______________________<\/em><\/p>\n Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.<\/em><\/p>\n Amy Goodman is the host of \u201cDemocracy Now!,\u201d a daily international TV\/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the author of \u201cBreaking the Sound Barrier,\u201d recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.
\n<\/em>
\n\u00a9 2011 Amy Goodman. Distributed by King Features Syndicate <\/em><\/p>\n