A bill designed to help stop the decline of the U.S. entertainment industry by preventing sharing and streaming of video content online could have far reaching implications for major websites and the everyday Internet user. As all users of the Internet are aware, HTML links are the very basis of how we navigate our way across the Web. If a bill that is currently being scrutinized by the U.S. government comes into force, however, you may want to think twice about what you link to. The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP) focuses on websites that include or link to copyright infringing content. It would give the U.S. Department of Justice the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing website, and then “expeditiously” render the website invisible by demanding “information location tools,” defined as a “directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link,” according to the bill. In simple terms this means if you searched for a site on Google that, for example, hosted a leaked government document, it would not show up in Google’s results. More specifically, this act would make hosting a link on a website to pirated copyrighted content illegal even if the content wasn’t actually hosted on that website. The act will also give courts the right to order the website hosting the link to remove the link or be shutdown completely, without notification. This means that websites such as YouTube and even the search engine giants such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing could come under huge pressure to completely change the infrastructure of their search business and start censoring searches. PROTECT IP is the revised successor to the failed COICA bill (2010) which was originally introduced by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and backed by a large swathe of U.S. entertainment industry bodies, not least of all by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). On the opposing side, Senator Ron Wyden was largely accountable for preventing a full vote on COICA in the Senate. Wyden stated in a press release, “COICA’s at-all-costs approach to protecting intellectual property would have inflicted collateral damage on the foundations of the Internet, trampled free speech, stifled innovation and given license to foreign regimes to further censor the Internet for political and commercial purposes. The costs far outweighed the benefits.” Critics of the bill say it violates human rights and would damper the U.S. government’s ability call for global Internet freedom. An open letter from nine organizations including Human Rights Watch and Reporters without borders, regarding COICA, states the bill “will result in serious unintended consequences for freedom of expression and human rights on the Internet, undermining global Internet freedom abroad.” Protect IP has been criticized for its ambiguity as to what constitutes an infringing website. To illustrate this, websites such as The Pirate Bay and WikiLeaks who have been accused of distributing copyrighted content in the past, could have all of their search results blocked on search engines, effectively making them invisible. This raises serious concerns about free speech when the blocked website also hosts legitimate and lawful content. Under the act, these blocks can be enforced without notifying the infringing site and therefore eradicates the presumption of innocence. The threat for everyday users goes beyond this with message boards, forums, and blog comments all being potential areas were sharing a link could see you unknowingly break the law and harming the website the link was posted on. This is possible by just sharing a link to a video you found posted on a website, you may not be aware that video content is copyright protected, but you could be liable nonetheless. In Europe, similar initiatives are struggling to come to fruition. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported on August 5 that Spanish courts and U.K. regulators have both ruled against acts that would see the blocking of websites. The Court of Appeals of Barcelona (Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona) in a recent case has clarified that merely providing a link is not “making available” content, and does not infringe copyright. Whilst in the U.K., the communications regulator Office of Communications (OFCOM) “concluded the provisions as they stand would not be effective” after reviewing the Digital Economy Act with the result being “the Government will not bring forward the Act’s site-blocking provisions at this time.” Next...Global Crackdown
Protect IP Could Have Far-reaching Impact on Digital Freedom
A bill designed to help stop the decline of the U.S. entertainment industry by preventing sharing and streaming of video content online could have far reaching implications for major websites and the everyday Internet user.
By Jaya Gibson
8/10/2011
Updated: 10/1/2015