Companies and Lobbyists on Both Sides of SOPA

In mid-November, a number of corporations joined in the debate and lobbying over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261; http://1.usa.gov/rrzNee), a new piece of legislation introduced in October by House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that is being considered by that committee. The legislation is designed to “[t]o promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes,” according to its preamble. (The bill is a companion to the Senate's “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (Protect IP),” S.968, introduced in May by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).) Protect IP passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but was put on hold by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) because, he said in a press release on his website, while he “agree[s] with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods,” he is ” not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective.” (http://1.usa.gov/mLGLYK.)

Pros and Cons

According to a report in The Washington Post, supporters of the bill say it will “help media outlets, software makers and retailers fight the illegal distribution of movies, songs and software” and is primarily “aimed at foreign sites dedicated to pirated material.” (See, “SOPA, Controversial Online Piracy Bill, Gains Support As Lobbying Intensifies,” http://wapo.st/u3qAY1.)

Corporate lobbyists argued vociferously on both sides of the issue. Those representing patent and copyright holders, including the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the bill's efforts to stop their products from being pirated in international markets. Web companies like Google and Facebook claim that the legislation forces them to police the whole Internet.

A Verizon executive told the Post that “the legislation puts too much of the burden on Internet service providers to create new technologies to monitor and stop illegal consumer use of Web content.”

Internet and privacy watchdog group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, www.eff.org), hinted that the Internet community is being shut out of the hearings, pointing to the fact that the Web stream of the hearing was “incredibly poor,” and that only Google Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama was at the hearing to represent the technology industry. (See, “Internet Community Shut Out of Stop Online Piracy Act Hearing ' Again,” http://bit.ly/sPQwbu.)

Avaaz, an international online advocacy group, started an online petition urging Congress to vote against SOPA and Protect IP. At last check-in late November, the petition ' which can be found at www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?slideshow ' had 624,000 of its target of 750,000 signatures.

According to the Post, Michael O'Leary, who represented the MPAA at the hearing, argued that not just actors and directors are affected; piracy also has a ripple effect on thousands of businesses that are associated with the movie business. “Fundamentally, this is about jobs,” he said.

The lawmakers on the committee, too, had different views of how SOPA might impact the marketplace. Post reporter Cecilia Kang writes:

Several lawmakers expressed concern that the illegal exchange of copyrighted movies, software and music is draining U.S. media companies and that current laws don't give law enforcement enough power to stop bad actors.
And some questioned the motives of Web giants fighting the legislation.
Opposition is “really about the bottom line,” said Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC). “Sites that specialize in stolen goods attract lots of users and lots of ads.”

Broadcasting & Cable (B&C), a trade publication for the broadcasting and cable industries, called Google the “elephant in the room” at the committee hearing, noting an extended back and forth between Rep. Watt and Oyama:

Oyama said Google already supported taking down sites, but through a legislative approach of following the money and choking off ad dollars and payment dollars rather than empowering ISPs to take down sites based on what she said were overly broad definitions in the bill.
She did say Google was willing to work with the committee to improve the bill, but seemed always to be saying any bill would have to take that “follow the money” approach. Oyama made the point that if a site was on the Web, it was going to show up in search. Google execs in past hearings have made the point that they were showing the Web as it was, rogue site warts and all as it were, not as some would wish it to be.

“Proponents, Detractors Debate SOPA in House Judiciary Committee Hearing,” http://bit.ly/towyAT.

International Issues

As the debate over SOPA continued, it became clear that there is a general consensus that overseas piracy represents a significant problem for U.S. companies, but there is not yet overwhelming agreement about the best way to tackle the problem.

Talking to B&C reporter John Eggerton after the hearing, NBC Universal general counsel Rick Cotton said: “The tone of today's hearing reflected broad recognition that foreign websites dedicated to massive, wholesale theft, and counterfeiting are killing U.S. jobs. ' The majority of the Committee clearly recognized that it is time to tell the thieves who run rogue sites that we will not let them undermine the U.S. economy.”

Conclusion

Smith told the Post that he hopes to move his legislation to markup before the end of the year. However, SOPA faces opposition from both sides of the aisle in the House. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tweeted: “need to find a better solution than #SOPA.” And Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has told The Hill newspaper that the act has no chance of passage. Congress, he told the paper, is “realizing there are so many unintended consequences that they can't just use Google as a pinata and bash on it here.”

In mid-November, a number of corporations joined in the debate and lobbying over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261; http://1.usa.gov/rrzNee), a new piece of legislation introduced in October by House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that is being considered by that committee. The legislation is designed to “[t]o promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes,” according to its preamble. (The bill is a companion to the Senate's “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (Protect IP),” S.968, introduced in May by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).) Protect IP passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but was put on hold by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) because, he said in a press release on his website, while he “agree[s] with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods,” he is ” not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective.” (http://1.usa.gov/mLGLYK.)

Pros and Cons

According to a report in The Washington Post, supporters of the bill say it will “help media outlets, software makers and retailers fight the illegal distribution of movies, songs and software” and is primarily “aimed at foreign sites dedicated to pirated material.” (See, “SOPA, Controversial Online Piracy Bill, Gains Support As Lobbying Intensifies,” http://wapo.st/u3qAY1.)

Corporate lobbyists argued vociferously on both sides of the issue. Those representing patent and copyright holders, including the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the bill's efforts to stop their products from being pirated in international markets. Web companies like Google and Facebook claim that the legislation forces them to police the whole Internet.

A Verizon executive told the Post that “the legislation puts too much of the burden on Internet service providers to create new technologies to monitor and stop illegal consumer use of Web content.”

Internet and privacy watchdog group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, www.eff.org), hinted that the Internet community is being shut out of the hearings, pointing to the fact that the Web stream of the hearing was “incredibly poor,” and that only Google Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama was at the hearing to represent the technology industry. (See, “Internet Community Shut Out of Stop Online Piracy Act Hearing ' Again,” http://bit.ly/sPQwbu.)

Avaaz, an international online advocacy group, started an online petition urging Congress to vote against SOPA and Protect IP. At last check-in late November, the petition ' which can be found at www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?slideshow ' had 624,000 of its target of 750,000 signatures.

According to the Post, Michael O'Leary, who represented the MPAA at the hearing, argued that not just actors and directors are affected; piracy also has a ripple effect on thousands of businesses that are associated with the movie business. “Fundamentally, this is about jobs,” he said.

The lawmakers on the committee, too, had different views of how SOPA might impact the marketplace. Post reporter Cecilia Kang writes:

Several lawmakers expressed concern that the illegal exchange of copyrighted movies, software and music is draining U.S. media companies and that current laws don't give law enforcement enough power to stop bad actors.
And some questioned the motives of Web giants fighting the legislation.
Opposition is “really about the bottom line,” said Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC). “Sites that specialize in stolen goods attract lots of users and lots of ads.”

Broadcasting & Cable (B&C), a trade publication for the broadcasting and cable industries, called Google the “elephant in the room” at the committee hearing, noting an extended back and forth between Rep. Watt and Oyama:

Oyama said Google already supported taking down sites, but through a legislative approach of following the money and choking off ad dollars and payment dollars rather than empowering ISPs to take down sites based on what she said were overly broad definitions in the bill.
She did say Google was willing to work with the committee to improve the bill, but seemed always to be saying any bill would have to take that “follow the money” approach. Oyama made the point that if a site was on the Web, it was going to show up in search. Google execs in past hearings have made the point that they were showing the Web as it was, rogue site warts and all as it were, not as some would wish it to be.

“Proponents, Detractors Debate SOPA in House Judiciary Committee Hearing,” http://bit.ly/towyAT.

International Issues

As the debate over SOPA continued, it became clear that there is a general consensus that overseas piracy represents a significant problem for U.S. companies, but there is not yet overwhelming agreement about the best way to tackle the problem.

Talking to B&C reporter John Eggerton after the hearing, NBC Universal general counsel Rick Cotton said: “The tone of today's hearing reflected broad recognition that foreign websites dedicated to massive, wholesale theft, and counterfeiting are killing U.S. jobs. ' The majority of the Committee clearly recognized that it is time to tell the thieves who run rogue sites that we will not let them undermine the U.S. economy.”

Conclusion

Smith told the Post that he hopes to move his legislation to markup before the end of the year. However, SOPA faces opposition from both sides of the aisle in the House. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tweeted: “need to find a better solution than #SOPA.” And Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has told The Hill newspaper that the act has no chance of passage. Congress, he told the paper, is “realizing there are so many unintended consequences that they can't just use Google as a pinata and bash on it here.”