At this rate, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” isn’t going to be passed any time soon.
Four hours into the second hearing on the controversial anti-piracy bill, the bill’s primary architect and the hearing’s leader, House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) admitted temporary defeat, calling a recess at just before 2 pm ET.
At that point, only the first four of about 60 amendments to SOPA had been debated, and only two accepted by lawmakers, including the one Smith himself introduced that would narrow the definitions of websites that could be blocked under the bill. If this pace continues, the markup hearing will last several days.
Ahead of the hearing, Smith released a statement saying the bill had “broad bipartisan support,” but admitted that it could be a lengthy fight to get it passed.
“[W]hile I am hopeful that the bill will be approved on Thursday, the committee is prepared to extend the markup into Friday,” Smith said, Politico reported.
The slow pace of the markup hearing is arguably worse for SOPA supporters, including Hollywood and the AFL-CIO, as opposition is likely to mount the longer the hearing drags on.
The House Judiciary Committee needs to vote to move the bill out of committee and to the entire House floor for a vote before it can take another step towards passage.
A coalition of opponents of the bill, including Google, Facebook and Demand Progress, were hoping to kill SOPA in the cradle and avoid the hearing in the first place by encouraging constituents to flood Congress with calls against it.
Now that the markup hearing is underway, SOPA opponents best hope is getting enough members of Congress to move against it, introducing amendments and motions to slow the process down, which is precisely what they’re trying to do.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), one of the House’s leading critics of SOPA, forced a full reading of all 70 pages of Smith’s amendement , which occupied the first hour of the hearing.
“The public doesn’t know in many cases what’s even in this amendment,” Lofgren said, “We’ve only had one hearing, with only one witness present in opposition. We ought to have a hearing on the amendment.”
Nonetheless, after the reading of of Smith’s amendment, the House voted unanimously to accept it, despite the fact that numerous critics of the legislation don’t believe it does enough to address their concerns that the bill is fundamentally flawed and could resulted in the forced, prolonged shutdown of law-abiding websites and small businesses.
Another amendment designed to exclude U.S. websites operating under U.S. jurisdiction from SOPA’s domain was briefly introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) then quickly withdrawn after other members raised questions about whether the definition was too narrowly drawn.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), the only member of Congress present at the hearing with any tech experience, having founded several web companies, introduced two amendments: one to exclude universities and non-profits from being subject do having to shut down their own domain servers if accused of piracy under SOPA, and the other to exempt dynamic IP addresses, such as those found on web-enabled printers. Both were voted down.
Polis pointed out that SOPA and Smith’s amendment already excluded certain operators of sub-domains, such as GoDaddy.com, from being subject to shutdowns under SOPA.
“If companies like GoDaddy.com are exempt, why aren’t non-commercial domain servers exempt?” Polis asked.
Polis also pointed out that the House’s own sub-domain servers could also be subject to shutdown if they were the accused of copyright infringement.
Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), one of the bill’s most vociferous defenders, countered that Polis’s exemption would essentially give universities and non-profits immunity from copyright-infringement claims.
“If they are stealing my property, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it,” Watt said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re a university, a non-profit, or whoever. If we were doing it in the House, it still wouldn’t be legal. Give me break!”
Watt, who openly admitted he was an “old-fashioned guy,” earlier compared the Internet to Las Vegas, saying there were some who thought that it should remain essentially lawless “what goes on there stays there,” but that it should be treated more like a “pawn shop” and subject to raids from law enforcement.
Over and over again, opponents of the bill repeated the phrase that at the very least, the bill “wasn’t ready for prime time,” because it hadn’t included the input of technical experts, let alone addressed their complaints or concerns, and that there was no reason to rush it through the House.
Still, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), pointed out another reason for urgency.
“The House feels like it’s time to get something done, before we enter into election season,” Johnsons said. “That’s a legitimate political concern.”
However, he added: “I’m troubled we are making a decision without adequate data,” and said “haste makes waste.”
Broadly speaking, SOPA would give the U.S. Justice Department the power to seek court orders forcing U.S. websites and payment companies to cut off all ties with foreign-based domains accused of hosting pirated content.
The hearing started-up again at 3:00 pm ET. Stay tuned.
Correction: This article originally misattributed the quotes about “old-fashioned guy” and regulating the Internet like a “pawn shop” to Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), when in fact, they were said by Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC). Thanks to a reader, the error was brought to our attention and has since been corrected. We regret it.
Carl Franzen
Carl Franzen is TPM Idea Lab's tech reporter. He used to work for The Daily, AOL and The Atlantic Wire (though not simultaneously, thankfully). He's never met a button that didn't need to be pressed. He can be reached at carl@talkingpointsmemo.com.
test000003062 Isn't the primary sponsor of this bill a Republican?
villadwellertest000003062 Republicans can be liberals, just as the neoCons.
villadwellertest000003062 And the only rep there with technical experience is a Democrat. This should surprise no one.
test000003062 American left-liberals tend to favour a system where the government does not intrude much on the lives of individuals, but does provide a safety net for the poor and regulate business for the protection of the general populace. While we don't like SOPA, disliking SOPA is not inconsistent with left-liberal positions - SOPA intrudes on the lives of individuals and protects business interests at the expense of the interests of the general populace.
I also have to laugh 'cuz you can bet that Google and Facebook would be first in line at the courthouse to defend their patents and trademarks.
BTW, nearly every pirate website out there has their own Facebook "page." Makes it easy to "share" links so they can generate more of the cyberlocker CASH rewards for their efforts. Piracy pays everyone except the rightsholders.
Tomgrrrl
Piracy can and does benefit rightsholders. It gets their work out there to millions who would have never seen their work otherwise, leading to plenty of people who will either A.) Pay for the work they pirated OR future works or B.) Like that genre and look up others like it, eventually finding one they do pay for.
Personal experience:
I pirated the game Morrowind. I had never played an elder scrolls game and wasn't sure what to expect. I pirated it, played it, and loved it. I had no job at the time thus no means and would have never paid for the game. It put the series in my mind though.
When Oblivion came out, I remembered Morrowind and because I had a job, I simply bought it on release. I subsequently bought every DLC for it as well.
When Skyrim came out, I purchased it as well, paying more for the collector's edition.
If not for piracy, I would have never purchased software from a series that I had no idea about.
neveraghostTomgrrrl That is the purpose of a "demo" or "trial" version when it comes to video-games / software. for books / movies, libraries / video rental shops respectively. For music, grooveshark and its ilk. These are the legal alternatives for this tactic.
Tomgrrrl "Piracy pays everyone except the rightsholders"
This guy is a fucking moron and has no idea what so-called "piracy" has done to actually increase revenue for companies. If you don't know what the inner-workings (and outter) then shut-the-fuck-up and take your illiterate opinions elsewhere.
Ben Boyer How much has YOUR income been increased by piracy of works that you hold copyright in? Do you have any actual evidence to back up your claim?
The (limited - I don't have the ability to read the minds of everyone who's ever warezed or purchased my software) dataset available to me strongly suggests that piracy hurts my income slightly. It doesn't hurt that much, because almost all warezd00ds download a lot more than they would get if they had to buy it all, and many (perhaps most?) warezd00ds occasionally buy something they've warezed first.
While warez does increase the revenue for _some_ companies dramatically, I can assure you that Rapidshare and Piratbayran and the like are not paying *ME* (or most other content authors) dime one of the ad money they make by warezing my stuff.
I'm against SOPA, but I'm not against it because I labour under the delusion that warez HELPS me - I'm against it because I hate censorship with a passion, and am willing to put up with the occasional warez if that's the price of free speech. (The mandatory minimum million-dollar fines for trade secret theft are also a Bad Thing.)
Tomgrrrl Most Google software that I know of is open source, and Google and Facebook both get their money from the platform they provide rather than their code. SOPA would not give them much if any benefit; but it would increase their costs, as they'd have to lay on additional employees for compliance.
Tomgrrrl Obvious troll is obvious
Tomgrrrl Google and Facebook would be first in line to defend their patents, but here they're in line to defend their existence- this bill is *not* about piracy.
Tomgrrrl Have you ever wonderred who sponsored the distribution of software that facilitaes piracy downloads?
t.ferreeTomgrrrl
ANY piece of software that allows you to copy files can facilitate warez; adding anti-warez features to a file transfer program will make it much less useful for everyone, including legal users. There's not really much need for special sponsorship of warez software. The handful of programs that are used mostly for warez are predominantly funded by advertisers. Usually dodgy ones.
Yep, love me some Google being against SOPA. Duh. They make billions off their ad networks and guess what? Many of those ads are on pirate sites. Their cries of "free speech" ring hollow. The internet is a special place, but it's not sacred and it's about time for the law to evolve and catch up with the online black market. Content creators at every level are being slammed by pirates who steal and PROFIT from their theft. Legislation is long overdue. Work together, fix the issues and GET IT DONE!
Tomgrrrl you're a moron. They don't allow advertising on pirating sites and if they find out that the site their advertisements appear on has illegal content they suspend the Adsense account of that person and seize their earnings.
You're fucking idiot. die in a fire.
Tomgrrrl This person is nothing more than a troll. If you're going to sit here and make up dumbass responses then GTFO; also, TYPING LIKE THIS DOES NOT GET ANY POINT ACROSS IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT. This website that you're talking on right now would be blocked if SOPA was passed, your church website you constantly visit would be blocked... Oh and looking at your web history, it would appear that you have in-fact pirated some music... Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Dipshit.
Tomgrrrl You're clearly missing the point and commenting to further your own agenda. The issue with SOPA is not that people like piracy, it's that the bill allows censorship in the name of profit. Furthermore, it's ineffective against the largest vehicle of piracy, peer to peer networks. If the bill actually wanted to address piracy, it would address that. It doesn't. This bill is about censorship. For your sake, I hope you somehow stand to benefit from this, because if not, you're terribly naive and very indoctrinated. The issue with the bill is not because the bill is bad for profit (which it is; beside the point) , it's that the bill is just bad.
Tomgrrrl You cannot stop criminal behavior. If we could, we would have eliminated it long ago. All this law does is make it intollerable for every one else. There are already tools in place to punish pirates. Your arguements and SOPA are manipulative and deceitful.
Tomgrrrl So you're all defending a bill thats going to ruin the internet, a bill thats made by a bunch of 60 year old idiots who cant even use a keyboard, and a bill that will make no difference due to the fact that anyone who pirates and knows how to use a computer will find a way around it? sick life dudes.
"Polis, who openly admitted he was an “old-fashioned guy,” earlier compared the Internet to Las Vegas, saying there were some who thought that it should remain essentially lawless “what goes on there stays there,” but that it should be treated more like a “Pawn Shop” and subject to raids from law enforcement."
That quote came from Watt, not Polis: https://twitter.com/#!/declanm/status/147356243198095360 According to CNET
I think SOPA stands for "Stop Online Privacy Act", no?
melior That's pretty much a guarantee that it will have no effect on "online piracy."
rpjohnstmelior not true: If no online, then no online piracy.
If this passes, websites/blogs that are against this bill should immediately blackhole all IP addresses originating from .gov (and state domains as well-no reason for them not to participate.)
SOPA just goes torrenting on...
Re: SOPA Hearing Will Never End.
It never should have begun. These "representatives" so fundamentally misunderstand the open internet and it's net positive implications for society it's absurd. I also see that they are representing large conglomerates who's only concern is shareholder value uber alles.PLEASE write and call your congresscritter, especially if they are supporting this nonsense.
"A legitimate political concern"
That explains a lot about why this country is headed in the wrong direction. The permanent campaign and the crushing inability of our politicians to distinguish policy and politics (usually accompanied by a crushing inability to judge the merits of either).
Here's a story. Does the actual congressman proposing this bill HAVE PERMISSION from the website "The Hill" to link to an article about SOPA?
Taken from Lamar Smith's website: Texas Author Lauds Smith's Work to End Digital Piracy December 13, 2011 From "The Hill" December 13, 2001 "I am an author living in Texas. My Congressman, Lamar Smith, introduced a bill this fall to help protect copyrights online. I wish this effort every success...." Read Full Blog Here: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/...
Anyone know The Hill editors and if they gave permission for this link? I do declare! Why, it's exactly what SOPA is supposed to be a'stoppin'!
Cynner Bigger question is, does the congressman that's proposing this bill even know how the internet works? Has he even been on the internet? All of the congressmen supporting SOPA have zero technical background, most are so fucking old that if you check their elementary school year book you could find that Jesus himself signed that. Fuck this, it's time to recall all these stupid fucks in congress and have them hung in public for being the pieces of shit they are (This includes the godaddy CEO)
You don't need permission to link to an article. Under Fair use you can even print a portion of an article, but you HAVE to liink to it. I have a fairly in-depth but highly understandable interpretation of U.S. Copyright and Fair use as it stands today on my website's Terms of Service page http://adamjustice.me/policy/terms-of-service/ . Since half of my living comes as an Internet writer, I've went to great links to learn about copyright, and I've sent out over 100 DMCA notices (I've refrained from sending out about 500 because the ambiguous nature of the legality). Something that is very interesting: GoDaddy is good about responding to the DMCA, and they will remove content that is in violation themselves. Google keeps Scraper sites in their SERPS even after several writers file DMCAs with the hosts, the site owners and Google. DOn't mis-understand, the DMCA is effective, and writers are as anti- SOPA as anyone, but Google is anti-creative.
I'd like to stick a couple of these guys someplace where they have to watch themselves when they bend over to pick up the SOPA in the shower.
Visit each and every one of your elected officials websites, and point out to them that "law abiding SOPA supporters" should NOT be linking to new site video's, that photo's taken by the AP should be credited as such, and just kinda point out that you will sincerely enjoy reporting their websites and PRAY that they spend one more year in jail than Michael Jackson's doctor. Goose, meet your internet gander. We're not paying for stupid any longer.
“The House feels like it’s time to get something done, before we enter into election season”
Oh, bullcrap.
There's no way in hell that his bill is any kind of high priority winner with voters. Anybody outside of the vested business interests trying to get it rammed through either doesn't care or is appalled by it. Meanwhile, there's almost a year before the real election.
richard_thunderbay “The House feels like it’s time to get something done, before we enter into election season”
Translates to: "If we don't pass this, those big media companies aren't going to give me money for my campaign."
johnpatricksmith You hit the nail on the head.!Couldn't have said it better, sir!
SOPA, the ultimate solution in search of a problem... http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/15/the...
Every time Congress tries to deal with issues related to the Internet and communications, they seem to hand it off to guys who think "computer" is a job description, "wireless" means the transmission of messages in Morse code via radio waves and music recordings are those paper rolls that go into player pianos. At least, that's what you gather when you read the resulting laws.
NCSteve 3.0 It's not just a series of tubes!
To be fair, that was how one was to describe internet service to the un-techie when I worked for a provider...I know, I know... but that's what the cable company taught us to do when explaining capacity. (really just BS for slow speeds)
Thank all that is good for this one. SOPA should just fade away. It is not the right thing for anybody concerned.
Maybe liberals will learn why big government/big law is bad now?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like