Let’s define some terms here. The Internet censorship bills have different names depending on which chamber of Congress you’re talking about. The House bill is called SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act. That bill is currently in the committee process and has not yet cleared the Judiciary Committee. Observers thought this would happen at the end of last year, but House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith cancelled the conclusion of the markup at the last minute.
But in the Senate the Judiciary Committee has already cleared their version of the legislation known as PIPA, the Protect Intellectual Property Act. And what I didn’t realize until today is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on PIPA at the end of last year. So that will be the first item on the agenda in 2012. In fact, there’s already a date scheduled for the motion to proceed: January 24, at 2:15pm.
Sen. Ron Wyden already placed a hold on the bill objecting to moving it through by unanimous by unanimous consent, which is why there will be a cloture motion. Apparently holds are only honored with a delay in the vote when Republicans do them. Nevertheless, Wyden has at least three colleagues from both parties opposed to cloture – Jerry Moran, Maria Cantwell and Rand Paul. They will need a lot of help to block the 60 votes needed to clear cloture and get PIPA to the floor.
Public Knowledge games this out:
If 60 Senators do not vote yes on cloture, then Senators Wyden, Moran, Cantwell, and Paul will be allowed to continue to speak in opposition to PIPA forever. That being said, what would likely happen in the aftermath if PIPA fails to gain 60 yes votes is the bill is withdrawn and a compromise is negotiated. If no compromise is possible, then the bill officially dies [...]
It is also possible that PIPA never makes it to the January 24th vote, but that depends on the public weighing in with their U.S. Senators before they come back to Washington D.C. To begin countering the $94 million spent in lobbying in support of PIPA and SOPA, more than a million Americans have contacted Congress in opposition and citizen boycotts have forced corporations to withdraw their support of passage. Now Senators are home and away from the D.C. lobby, which is the perfect time for citizens to ask their Senators to voice their opposition to PIPA before they return to Washington D.C. If enough Senators publicly object to PIPA, then it is likely that consideration would be delayed in order to begin negotiating a compromise. So it is important that the public try to meet with their two Senators and their home state staff and inform them on where they stand and ask their Senators to represent the public interest by standing with them.
This is a major test for the grassroots coalition opposed to Internet censorship (background here and here). They have three weeks to turn the tide.





16 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Heinous bill.
The really bad part: If you get caught doing something wrong on the interwebs, PBHO can have you indefinitely detained.
Good times. Hope and Change.
I just emailed both of my Senators, Akaka and Inouye, I’m hopeful that Akaka might vote against cloture, but Inouye is such a tool that I fear he’ll vote for it…! 8-(
Too bad we can’t try the Swedish approach.
Chrome Extension Warns You When You Browse A SOPA-Supporter’s Website
Is the text substantially the same of the two bills?
I assume PIPA would also allow the shutting down of, say a blog, say for example, Firedoglake, if a commenter posted a link to a copyrighted youtube or something. Right?
Okay. I didn’t realize it was coming up so soon; making a note to call tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up.
anyway fatster!
*heh* Tithe them enough for some beefy Servers…! ;-)
reddit has been doing most of the heavy lifting. Apparently congress people scour the internet to make sure they aren’t cutting off their clay feet before the vote.
If you have domains with godaddy, move them.
Sounds like a great way to the Internet Highway, huh?
Okay, catch me up:
Interwebs?
PBHO?
Indefinitely detained?
I have a web page that uses names of various airplane manufacturing companies, airlines, and toys. It is an information page for collectors. I was once hit with an email from a rep of the largest airplane manufacturer in the world telling me I couldn’t use the name of their company without permission. They were under the impression I was selling product, and they wanted a cut. I blasted them back and they changed their tone. However, will that tone return, with action, if they decide I shouldn’t use their brand name, even though I’m not selling anything? All of us who are running free web pages for enthusiasts have to know where we stand.
I want to be a Censor in DC. Does it pay well?
Chances are you rely on an ISP, and you’ve agreed to its TOS. Also that you run someone’s proprietary software (eg. Windows, Apple — though maybe Linux) and have promised not to violate its TOS. We’ve acquiesced to private law for nearly two generations. So I ask: Did GM threaten to take your Chevy away if you modified its engine, transmission, or body?
But everyone clicked ‘Agree’. But it may be too late to cry over spilled private law.
These bills ought to become law so they can be ruled idiotic in the first court that hears a case.
There already is plenty of law protecting copyright, patents, and the rest of intellectual property; so these bills must be designed to stop freeloading on the EZ-Net.
Piracy and counterfeiting are wholly separate from copyright or patent infringement.
If these laws reach the courts it’s possible that private law applied to copyright will be visited for the first time.
But my yes has up to now has allowed me to run my web page. Will that change?
TOS language is primarily hold-harmless stuff for ‘them’ since you’ve agreed to abide by its terms which include abiding by all local and federal laws blah-blah. No one can deny anyone the right of Fair Use as it’s defined in the Copyright Act. If copyright is infringed on the Internet, the laws in effect now work well enough. There is no such defense as inadvertent plagiarism (plagiarism isn’t much of a legal issue, anyway, plus something in the Public Domain without copyright can be plagiarized), even though inadvertent plagiarism is commonplace. Same goes for copyright infringement and so-called inadvertent infringement, although that can become a legal issue — copyright is federal.
Piracy and counterfeiting are crimes of theft, not infringements of exclusive rights. They are willful acts, never inadvertent, and have always been punishable under the law.
Consequently, if these new, stupid, very bad bills become law, and your ISP or web host deems you to be in violation, you can be closed down or worse, most likely since you won’t pay the legal costs to fight (and win).
(What you don’t know makes lawyers rich.)
So when copyrighted material say a video clip is utilized to make a political point, say here on FDL, on the complete utter hypocritical nature of a politician or some corporate scum fucker, the politicians and corporate scum fuckers, will utilize the concept of property, to preclude use of the clip to make a political point, usurping protected free speech?
Fascism 101.
‘Internet censorship bill’. Great frame! Now let’s replace ‘right to work’.