Wikipedia wrote:SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive.

Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open Internet.

American Public Media wrote:Just before Thanksgiving 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized and closed 81 "rogue sites" for sharing and selling counterfeit goods. Same thing happened just before Black Friday this year, but with 150 sites being shuttered. DaJaz1.com, a hip-hop blog, was one of the sites accused and seized in the 2010 raids. The "goods" in question on DaJaz1's site? Music.

<snip>

Yesterday the government announced that it is abandoning the lawsuit against DaJaz1.

Techdirt wrote:Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine's offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company's printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine's lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year...

<snip>

...this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year -- with the only difference being that, rather than "a printing press" and a "magazine," the story involved "a domain" and a "blog."

Congressman David Price wrote:Dear Mr. Kehn:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I am glad to hear from you.

As you probably know, the Stop Online Piracy Act aims to expand the ability of federal law enforcement to curb the distribution of illegal online content and shut down Web sites and services that use counterfeited or pirated content created by U.S. firms. The bill also includes a provision that could hold third parties, such as payment-processing sites and Internet search engines, responsible for piracy and counterfeiting on other sites.

SOPA builds on the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (PRO-IP Act), which increased civil and criminal penalties for trademark, copyright and patent infringement. Companion legislation currently under consideration in the Senate, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT-IP Act, S. 968), has not yet been brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

Important concerns have been raised over the impact SOPA could have on technology firms, which, under the bill as currently written, could face lawsuits or have their sites shut down by the government for unknowingly hosting copyrighted content. I recognize that online piracy and counterfeiting is a real problem that should be addressed. Our challenge as lawmakers is to balance our efforts to protect intellectual property with the need to safeguard the open and non-discriminatory experience of the Internet. Since its inception, the Internet has allowed anyone with an Internet connection to access or provide information, goods, or services on a relatively equal footing. This open design has been largely responsible for the revolutionary impact that the Internet has had on global commerce, innovation, information-sharing, and so many other aspects of our daily lives.

H.R. 3261 has been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. Should the bill come before the full House for a vote in its current form, I would expect to oppose it.

Again, thank you for contacting me. As Congress debates Internet and intellectual property legislation in the future, I hope you will continue to stay in touch regarding your perspective.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE
Member of Congress

Senator Hagan wrote:Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, more commonly referred to as the PROTECT IP Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

On May 12, 2011, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (S. 968) was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill would allow the Attorney General, or an intellectual property rights owner who has been harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA), also known as a rogue website, to take action against that site. A site would be designated as an ISDIA if their sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, or promote or sale of counterfeited American works.

A recent study suggests that copyright piracy alone costs the American economy as much as $58 billion a year and countless jobs. I strongly support the goal of reducing the theft of intellectual property that is so important to North Carolina's economy, including our budding film industry, which is why I and 40 of my bipartisan cosponsors originally cosponsored this legislation last July.

As with all proposed legislation, legitimate concerns have been raised about some of the specific provisions in this bill. I believe that supporters and opponents of the bill, all of whom agree, after all, on the need to combat the theft of American intellectual property, should work together to address those concerns. As you may know, the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of this legislation later this month, and I intend to approach the debate and amendment process with an open mind. Through a full and robust debate, I believe we can improve the legislation, ultimately reaching an agreement that will protect intellectual property without limiting innovation and creativity or creating unintended consequences.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Kay R. Hagan

Senator Burr wrote:Dear Mr. Kehn:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts on the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (S. 968), also known as the Protect IP Act. I appreciate hearing from you about this bill.

The PROTECT IP Act would establish a definition of an internet site dedicated to infringing activities and provide for the Attorney General or a harmed intellectual property right owner to take action against the owners, operators, and domain names of these sites. While I understand concerns about preventing piracy of intellectual property, I oppose the Protect IP Act as it is written.

This legislation represents a threat to free-speech on the internet and could stifle innovation and economic growth in an industry that employs and directly affects millions of Americans. I agree with the need to address piracy online and protect intellectual property, but I am opposed to the expansive regulations contained in this bill. I hope we can address these concerns in a meaningful way, but limiting the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and stifling innovation is not the way to go about it.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at http://burr.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Richard Burr
United States Senator