The Case for SOPA Legislation - hallthosed

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has perpetually been described every bit "controversial." But if you've been reading a great deal from the tech part of the web, you'ray probably wondering what's so controversial just about it–after each, information technology seems comparable nobody really supports it, except for several U.S. House of Representatives representatives.

However, the charge, which was introduced October 26, is in reality largely braced on both sides. While the tech industry and many journalists may be play off SOPA, claiming that information technology's too maladroit and that it would essentially "respite" the Internet, the Motion Picture Affiliation of America (MPAA), Transcription Manufacture Association of America (RIAA), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are all in support of the bill.

Several tech industriousness members also initially supported SOPA, including Apple, Dell, Intel, Adobe, Microsoft, and Symantec, though they withdrew their support after reviewing the bill in its actual form.

[Note: The US House Judiciary Committee Friday postponed further debate on SOPA until afterwards Congress' vacation break ends.]

Now, it's not difficult for SOPA criticizers to see why the MPAA and the RIAA support the vizor. And with name calling like the RIAA on board, information technology's not surprising that very much of masses who learn about SOPA take a gut-reaction to not support the measure–after all the RIAA is perhaps well-nig famous for its ruthless pursuit of pirates who illegally download its artists' songs.

Spell many people discord with piracy, it's difficult to remain neutral when a large, multi-million dollar corporation is taking an "Average Jane" type candidate–such as Jammie Thomas-Rasset, WHO was establish liable of infringing 24 songs in 2007 and who has since been organized to pay variable amounts in statutory damages, ranging from $54,000 to $1.92 million.

Not Conscionable Buccaneering

But SOPA isn't near piracy. It's almost intellectual property–all property.

"Our mistake was allowing this romantic word–plagiarisation–to take hold," Tim Rothman, Co-CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment, told the New York Times last week. "It's very robbery–it's theft–and that theft is being combined with consumer fraud. Consumers are purchasing these goods, they'Re sending their credit notice and info to these anonymous offshore companies, and they'atomic number 75 receiving defective goods."

Though Rothman may be the cobalt-CEO of an entertainment company, what he's saying is correct–it's not close to piracy. E.g., a alien site selling knock-sour designer purses or dresses to Americans would also be covered below SOPA. This type of intellectual attribute theft is dangerous for individual reasons. As Rothman points out, "defective" goods are detrimental to brands. E.g., if you purchase a fake Joseph Louis Barrow Vuitton bag–but Don't know it's fake–so it waterfall isolated after two months, that's harmful to Louis Vuitton's brand because you will associate the brand with poor quality ware.

Spell Louis Vuitton has a reputation that precedes it, little businesses and innovators do non. Imagine the like site, but with a small start-upwardly that's struggling to build its image as a provider of quality goods. It's some more difficult for this part with-adequate to build its brand supported quality if intellectual property thieves are allowed to slip its ideas and recreate them in resourceless-quality form.

Fake Goods Damage American English Businesses

Steve Tepp, U.S. Chamber of Commerce — Steve Tepp, U.S. Sleeping room of Commerce

In a guest mail service for Forbes, chief intellectual attribute counsel for the Global Intellectual Property Center at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Steve Tepp argues in support of SOPA. Tepp points exterior that 150 illegal online enterprises were shut down last month by the Section of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement–and fewer than five of these sites infringed happening intellectual belongings that belonged to the amusement industry. In unusual words, few than five of these 150 sites were about "plagiarisation," and the majority of them sold-out forged consumer goods.

These sites were shut pour down as part of the "Operation in Our Sites" domestic campaign against theft of intellectual place, but Operation in Our Sites cannot tight belt down adulterating websites. Hence, Tepp argues, Acts of the Apostles suchlike SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act (Genus Pipa) are necessary. Because the U.S. has no jurisdiction to shut down foreign sites, all it tush do is block access to these sites and hope that Americans are not duped into purchasing fake goods.

"We would not tolerate for a moment a put in that was dedicated to selling illegal and stolen products," Tepp writes. "So why would we ever give criminals a free go to cozen American consumers and hurt our most innovative and productive industries in the Internet mart?"

Follow Sarah on Twitter, Facebook, OR Google+.