SOPA: The Bill That Wants To Cripple Your Internet

SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, is another one of those bills that sounds like it’s going to do something mildly positive but, in reality, has serious potential to negatively change the internet as we know it. It puts power in the hands of the entertainment industry to censor sites that allegedly “engage in, enable or facilitate” copyright infringement. This language vague enough to encompass sites you use every day, like Twitter and Facebook, making SOPA a serious problem.

Gizmodo AU editor’s note: We’re not yet sure how this bill will affect us in Australia if it passes, but it’s an interesting explainer that’s worth a read.

How Does SOPA Work, and Why Should I Care?

The idea behind SOPA sounds reasonable. It came about in order to try to snuff out piracy online, as the entertainment industry is obviously not excited about the many people downloading their product without their permission. The issue is, however, that it doesn’t really matter whether you’re in support of piracy, against it, or just don’t care. SOPA makes it possible for companies to block the domain names of websites that are simple capable of, or seem to encourage copyright infringement.

This means that if Gizmodo happened to have an article or two that could be interpreted as piracy-friendly, our domain could be blocked so it’s inaccessible by visiting gizmodo.com. What the bill can’t do is block numeric IP addresses, so you could still access Gizmodo, or any other site that could be censored, if you knew that address. This is important because it means this bill can’t do much to stop downloaders of pirated content. If a domain name is blocked, everything will still work via the numeric IP address. Basically, the bill will be no good at stopping piracy — what it was apparently designed to do — but excellent at censoring any website capable of providing its users with the means of promoting pirated content or allowing the process. This includes sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr and many more. If it’s possible to post pirated content on the site, or information that could further online piracy, a claim can be brought against it. This can be something as minor as you posting a copyrighted image to your Facebook page, or piracy-friendly information in the comments of a post such as this one. The vague, sweeping language in this bill is what makes it so troubling.

In the event of SOPA-based censorship, any site can submit an appeal so long as they do so within five days. This isn’t a lot of time to handle a legal matter, and if you’ve ever dealt with a copyright infringement takedown notice you know how ineffective an appeal can be. When a threat of legal action is posed, a company is generally going to prefer to err on the side of caution and remove infringing content indefinitely. It’s far cheaper to run the risk of removing perfectly legal content than to battle the issue in court. If your web host censors your site because of a SOPA-based claim, you can expect the same sorts of problems.

If you want to learn more about how SOPA works, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted a great overview. You can also view the exact contents of SOPA. For a quick overview, be sure to watch the video at the top of this post.

SOPA is on the fast track, so if you want to fight it you need to do so today. We do, however, recommend you get to know the bill so you you can make an informed decision regarding how you feel about it.

Discuss

(9 Comments)
  • [–]

    Shane

    Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:21 AM

    I’m not convinced that the introduction of this bill will hurt the internet. I’m pretty sure it will help the US in its race to international irrelevance though. India or China will readily put their hands up to host the world’s data and the US can refine its focus on Christian fundamentalism and corporate greed. It’s just swings and roundabouts not a collapse of the internet.

    • [–]

      Brad

      Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM

      Unfortunately DNS supersedes content hosting. You’ll still want US DNS to work if you host content on the moon. Unless you don’t want anyone in the US or anyone in a country that the US has established a SOPA agreement with to actually see that content. Assuming of course that at least 1 article of an infinite possible pieces of data on your website has infringed copyright in some way, which could be a random user uploading a video that contains a cover song playing on a radio in the background. Try auto-detecting that :)

      http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

  • [–]

    Adam`

    Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    This bill will be like the supposed net filter, the one they tried to bring into Australia, due to the wording it will have to many opponents to get passed, and anyone who actually pirates movies, games or software from p2p sites will be able to work around it. not saying that I do.the only thing it will do is annoy people when youtube and Facebook and other popular sites on the internet start getting blocked by the entertainment industry, what really needs to get addressed in order to stop pirating is the over pricing of everything, why is something $250 in America 250 euros but 350 in Australia. it is not currency related, as even at our high nothing changed.

  • [–]

    Dan

    Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM

    unfortunately, it will hurt the internet. we have already seen in the past seen the entertainment industry attacks anyone they think might be infringing on copyright laws. that includes legitimate companies that are trying to survive. why should we hand over control of the internet to anyone? what happens when they decide that they want to restrict competition? who is keeping the checks on them?

    • [–]

      Sylver

      Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

  • [–]

    RB

    Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    At least the Australian filters true intentions were disguised in an easily seen through smokescreen to be a act of ‘protecting children and preventing refused classification material from being accessed within Australia’ (which in itself was retarded anyway).

    This US proposal is much, MUCH WORSE!!!

  • [–]

    Brad

    Friday, November 18, 2011 at 6:34 PM

    The domain/ip workaround will only if the domain is configured on a dedicated host ip configured specifically for that domain/user, which nearly all domains are not, even if a server only hosts 1 domain generally a server is not configured to point the host ip to that domain, as that isn’t a sensible host server config. A host server is not a website after all.

    ie. gizmodo.com.au – http://111.118.164.82/

    Poisoning DNS is a perfectly predictable government legislation, but such an idea could only be posited if either you’re a complete moron or your desire was to remove the Internet altogether, which undoubtedly all governments wish to do, though few would have the balls to come up with a proposal outlining an initial plan as poor as SOPA. I’d say they’re just testing the perimeter for weaknesses to see just how much they can control without having full-scale riots. If Google/Facebook/AOL/eBay etc are against it, I’ll eat my hat if it actually passes.

  • [–]

    MotorMouth

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM

    I don’t see this as any different to road laws or any other restrictions we have in society. The entertainment industry has the same rights as anyone to defend it’s property. If people were a little less rapacious in their use of things like P2P, stuff like this wouldn’t be necessary.

  • [–]

    Aiden

    Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 11:13 PM

    Goodbye Youtube.

Join The Discussion