Hollywood Believes The Time Is Ripe To Bring Back SOPA and PIPA
owl writes:
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/10/hollywood-believes-the-time-is-ripe-to-bring-back-sopa/
It's been twelve years since the big SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) /PIPA (Protect IP Act) fight. I've been talking with a few folks lately about how it feels like many people have either forgotten that story or weren't paying attention when it happened. Two years ago, we did a 10-year retrospective on the fight, and it feels like some people need a refresher. Most notably, Charles Rivkin, the head of the MPA (formerly the MPAA), certainly appears to need a refresher because he just announced it's time to bring back SOPA.
For the young ones in the audience, SOPA (and its Senate companion, PIPA) were bills pushed strongly by the film (MPA) and recording (RIAA) industries. They were pushing for "site blocking" for websites that the industries accused of being "dedicated to piracy." The law was a slam dunk. It had a huge number of co-sponsors, and the MPA/RIAA combo had convinced Congress to pass ever more expansive copyright laws basically every two to three years for the past 25 years. SOPA was set to become law.
Until it wasn't. Because the public spoke up loudly. I (coincidentally) was at the Capitol on the day of the big Internet Blackout in protest of SOPA/PIPA, and I heard the phones ringing off the hook. I was running up and down the halls of the office buildings, having Reps. tell me how they were removing their names from the co-sponsor list. The public spoke up and it worked.
But it's important to remember why it worked: because the law was a horrific attack on free speech and the open web. And for no good reason.
We spent much time explaining why this would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, you cannot shut down an entire publishing house just because it sometimes has published works that contain, say, defamation. You cannot ban access to a photocopying machine because some users use it to infringe. SOPA was basically built-in prior restraint.
You can only target the actually violative content and not declare entire sites be blocked. That goes way beyond what the First Amendment allows.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.