Backers defend controversial online copyright bill

Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) says "the problem of rogue websites is real, immediate and widespread." / Getty Images

The first House of Representatives hearing devoted to a controversial online copyright bill began in an unusual way: with politicians defending themselves from charges that the proposal goes too far.

It's "beyond troubling to hear hyperbolic charges that this bill will open the floodgates to government censorship," Rep. Mel Watt, a North Carolina Democrat, said during a House Judiciary committee hearing this morning.

Claiming that the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, will transform the United States into "a repressive regime belittles the circumstances under which true victims of tyrannical governments actually live," said Watt, a SOPA sponsor.

SOPA, which was introduced last month in the House to the applause of lobbyists for Hollywood and other large content holders, is designed to make allegedly copyright-infringing Web sites, sometimes called "rogue" Web sites, virtually disappear from the Internet.

"The notion that this bill threatens freedom of information is insupportable," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the committee's senior Democrat and another SOPA sponsor.

These complaints are a sign that a last-minute campaign by opponents of SOPA may be working. Google, Facebook, Zynga, Twitter, and other Internet companies who oppose the measure took out a full-page ad in the New York Times; Mozilla turned its home page black at midnight in protest; and a slew of other groups publicly came out against the bill yesterday.

SOPA's supporters are surely not delighted that today has been dubbed American Censorship Day, with Web sites including Wikimedia (as in, Wikipedia) charging that SOPA is an "Internet blacklist bill" that "would allow corporations, organizations, or the government to order an internet service provider to block an entire website simply due to an allegation that the site posted infringing content"

With a bit of HTML from AmericanCensorship.org, a Web site supported by the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge, hundreds of Web sites have "censored" themselves to protest SOPA. (Even Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat from Silicon Valley, has joined the fight-censorship protest.)

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the committee, charged that Google opposed his SOPA bill because it profited from piracy.

Google has "disregarded requests to block advertisements from rogue pharmacies, screen such sites from searches and provide warnings about buying drugs over the Internet," Smith said. "Given Google's record, their objection to authorizing a court to order a search engine to not steer consumers to foreign rogue sites is more easily understood."

SOPA is so controversial -- EFF calls it "disastrous" -- because it would force changes to the Domain Name System and effectively create a blacklist of Internet domains suspected of intellectual property violations.

A Senate version of the bill called the Protect IP Act, which a committee approved in May, was broadly supported by film and music industry companies. Google chairman Eric Schmidt was sharply critical, as were prominent venture capitalists, civil liberties groups, and trade associations representing Web companies.

Rep. Lofgren from California said during this morning's hearing that it was a mistake for SOPA's backers to dismiss criticism from people and companies who would be affected by it.

"It hasn't generally been the policy of this committee to dismiss the views of the industries that we're going to regulate," Lofgren said. "I understand why cosponsors of this legislation aren't happy about widespread criticism of this bill," but attacking the messenger isn't the answer.

Lofgren also accused Smith, the panel's chairman, of deliberately stacking the composition of the panel in favor of SOPA. Of the six witnesses invited, "five are in favor and one is against," she said. "That's not a balanced panel."

Last updated at 9:26 a.m. PT

[realAlkiDavid]

As a copyright owner of many titles, I would be all for SOPA but I am suspicious when a company like CBS Interactive is run by a man who doesn't understand or respect copyright law. A man who at the same time acts like the czar of intellectual property, whilst his own organisation is shamelessly profiting from widespread copyright infringement... This makes me angry.

But Les Moonves is probably not to blame. Because Plaintiffs in the copyright infringement lawsuit Alki David v. CSB Interactive have pointed out that Shelby W. Bonnie held seats simultaneously on the boards of both CBS/CNET and Warner Music for two years. During this time Warner was complaining about the huge monetary damage it had inflicted upon his company while at the same time having a sitting board member who was also serving as a director of the exclusive distributor of Limewire software, more than 300 million copies in fact.

[hightjesse]

The CBS eyeball is really starting to scare me about right now.

[CassyClark]

Many people can not see that this bill, if passed, would be in violation of the Constitution. Basically, and also a bit ironically, it would be infringing our rights. It would pretty much be taking away your Right to Free Speech, your Right to Freedom of the Press, not to mention others as well. There is no way that this will be passed.

[KnowerseekerReturns]

Sites shouldn't be getting shut down based upon a *suspicion* that they are doing something illegal.

[AttyFAM]

True, but we are know in the era of extremist ideological reactionary politics - rather like the French Revolution, except this is coming from the right. "J' accuse" is once again all that is needed.

[bobnjersey]

[The first House of Representatives hearing devoted to a controversial online copyright bill began in an unusual way: with politicians defending themselves from charges that the proposal goes too far.]
---------------------------------------------
so ... they've balanced the budget ... eliminated the debt ... ended the wars ... got rid of earmarks ... and reduced unemployment w/ increased job growth already?

[difiyah]

"Rogue Web Sites"= Anyone who doesn't agree with government propaganda. Must be rid of them to further implement the new dictatorial America! But not to worry, the trolls posting from govt. and CBS offices will be here soon to assure us that it's all so wonderful and good. They just love us!

[robbyr1955]

Fair and balanced journalism? Right. Its one thing to hold someone accountable for piracy of intellectual property. Its quite another thing to allow Corporate America to take down anything and everything they don't like by claiming its their intellectual property. Any congressman who votes for this- and a majority will- should be kicked out of office next November.

[Imthaid2]

One more corporate bought bill. This bill is a total disgrace to this country. And, why won't it work? Because ISP's will lose MILLIONS of customers if it is enforced.

[syrik]

Intellectual property rights laws are ridiculous now, the last thing we need is something that makes them worse.

As is, intellectual property (the ownership of an idea) grants the "owner" more rights than the owner of tangible property. That is just insane. Vote out any congressman that supports this bill. Take their jobs.

[Adam_Smith100]

Unlike tangible property, there is no natural basis for so-called "intellectual property". That leads to the rules for enforcing it being unavoidably arbitrary. Examples: for how long should it run? What is "fair use"? What about independent developers? etc. Arbitrary laws leave scope for favoritism, corruption and undue influence of special interest. The world would be better off without "intellectual property". What is lost in monopolistic incentive would be made up by freer dissemination and use.