With H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) vote just weeks away, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has made it clear which side of this contentious issue she is coming down on.
In a published statement, Congresswoman Lofgren blasted the Judiciary Committee for the panel of witnesses that were convened for a hearing on the issue of SOPA as “severely inadequate”.
"Civil libertarians and law professors have said this bill is inconsistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Network engineers and security experts have said that the bill could imperil cybersecurity and the technical infrastructure of the Internet.
Consumer groups have expressed worries that the bill could raise the prices we pay for goods online. Human rights advocates have said that the bill could legitimize Internet censorship by repressive regimes around the world.
Libraries and educational institutions have expressed concern that they could face new criminal and civil liability for innocent conduct. Venture capitalists and technology entrepreneurs have said that H.R. 3261 could stifle investment in legitimate Internet businesses and online services", she said.
However, she adds, “None of these voices are represented at our hearing”.
“In their place, a single Internet company – Google – was invited to testify, on a panel with five other witnesses testifying in defense of H.R. 3261.”
Citing portions of the bill she describes as “deeply flawed”, Lofgren points out that SOPA would overturn critical safeguards in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cloud computing and any website that provides a platform for user-generated content, including everything from photo and video sharing to social networking, blogging and beyond.
Under section 103 of SOPA, Lofgren explains, “Such websites will face a new legal risk that they will be terminated by their payment and advertising providers, based on an accusation that they are dedicated 'to the theft of U.S. Property'” and that the safe harbor provisions of DMCA under Title 17, section 512(c) of the United States Code could no longer be used as a defense.
Lofgren also went on to deride the domain filtering scheme, a proposal under SOPA to block certain websites, as so ineffective that “any ten year old child” could defeat it by typing the IP address, instead of the domain name, of any website blocked under this plan.
“Under this bill, the United States would construct an unprecedented Internet filtering scheme to block foreign websites. This is likely to have major costs and unintended consequences, while doing little to achieve the laudable goal of reducing online piracy.”
While Lofgren agrees with the goal of fighting online copyright infringement she believes that SOPA is too broad in scope and needs to be more specific.
“Narrowly targeted legislation that does not ensnare legitimate websites or undermine the Internet's technical and security infrastructure should be pursued.”
Comments