SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

SOPA and PIPA: Ignoring Media Policy Basics and Infringing upon Canadas Communication Rights
Author: Max von Kleist

Photo attributed to 404systemerro.com

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

Table of Contents
Section Introduction Part 1: Background A Timeline of the SOPA and PIPA Bills Part 2: Functions and Problems The Function of SOPA and PIPA and the Problems They Present
Increased Enforcement Cutting off Cash Flow Suspending Financial Service Providers Restricting Advertising Blocking Access Search Engine Censorship

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.4

Part 3: SOPA, PIPA, and Media Policy How SOPA and PIPA Disregard the Basics Free Speech The Public Interest The Marketplace of Ideas Part 4: PIPA and SOPA s Effect on Canadians SOPA, PIPA, and Communication Rights in Canada Right to Freedom of Expression and Opinion Right to Access Right to Information Right to Privacy Conclusion 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

Introduction
As communication and digital technologies expand, so does the field of media policy. The internet is, perhaps, the area within communication and digital technologies that has experienced the most expansion over the past decade. As a result, it has become a global tool in which people from all over the world are able to communicate, share ideas and information, and enjoy a level of freedom that does not always exist in the physical world. Sadly, there is always someone who views these freedoms not as an opportunity or human right, but rather as a threat. In the case of the internet, this person is the United States government and the entertainment industry. Over the past two-and-a-half years, two pieces of U.S media policy have been in the process of discussion and attempted approval. These are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP Act (PIPA) bills. If passed, these bills will restrict access to foreign websites distributing pirated material, such as The Pirate Bay, as well as domestic websites that contain content subject to copyright infringement, such as Facebook. The primary goal of the two bills is to protect intellectual property, much if which is currently being distributed without any credit or financial compensation given to the creators. In order to do so, SOPA and PIPA include provisions that would give the U.S government the authority to increase enforcement towards websites and individual the restriction of

cash flow going to website operators, censorship of search engine results to prevent particular website links from being accessible, and the blockage of access to certain websites altogether. These two pieces of media policy, while legitimate in reason, present a number of implications that extend past the protection of intellectual property, and McGannon Communication Research Center Director, Philip Napoli, in his working paper, Media Policy: An Overview of the Field In doing so, SOPA and PIPA pose rights and freedoms. To focus on Canada, SOPA and PIPA, if passed, will infringe upon Canadian communication rights, gravely opinion, right to access, right to information, and right to privacy. edom of expression and

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

Part 1: Background
1. Timeline of the PIPA and SOPA Bills
On September 20, 2010, United States Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Protect-IP Act, or PIPA for short. prevent online threats to economic creativity and S.968-PIPA, 2011) and to combat the problem of foreign websites distributing pirated content. For the next few days, PIPA gained many co-sponsors and, on May 26th, was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary committee to move forward (SOPA/PIPA, 2012). On October 26th, a new bill similar to PIPA was introduced to the US House of Representatives by Texas Representative and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (SOPA/PIPA, 2012). This bill is known as the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA for short. SOPA promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by

combating the theft of U.S. property H.R.3261-SOPA, 2011). It, as does PIPA, aims to do so by restricting pirated content and content that violates copyright law. From this point forward, SOPA and PIPA moved their way through US Congress as a joint effort, receiving sponsorship from a number of US Senators over the next two months (SOPA/PIPA, 2012). Despite having early success with gaining support, opinions towards SOPA and PIPA took a turn on November 14 th when California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren partook in an interview with technology magazine, IEEE Spectrum (SOPA/PIPA, 2012). During the interview, Lofgren voiced her concern for many of provisions that both SOPA and PIPA include, specifics of which are discussed in Part 2. Leading into January 2012, many Senators stepped forward stating their opposition to the bills, including many who had once shown support (SOPA/PIPA, 2012).

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

On January 18 th, over 7,000 websites including Wikipedia, Reddit, and WordPress, took part in what was referred to as the Internet Blackout Day (Couts, 2012). That day, they all shut down their services to protest SOPA and PIPA. Also on that day, and that day alone, Google held an online petition in protest of the two bills that obtained over 4.5 million signatures (Kerr, 2012). On January 20 th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, announced that the critical vote for the PIPA and SOPA bills scheduled for January 24 th would be postponed (SOPA/PIPA, 2012). SOPA and PIPA had been put on the shelf for the time being.

Part 2: Functions and Problems

2. Functions of PIPA and SOPA and the Problems they Present
SOPA and PIPA have the same goal to protect the intellectual property of content

produced by large entertainment and media corporations such as Comcast, Viacom, and Disney, as well as individual publishers and artists whose work is also being distributed and consumed illegally. SOPA and PIPA include a number of provisions that would enable the government to goal but in doing so, many problems arise that go much further than protecting intellectual property. These provisions include: 2.1 Increased Enforcement If SOPA and PIPA are approved, the ability for the U.S government and IP providers to receive court orders to prosecute individuals partaking in acts of piracy and copyright infringement will be made much easier. Stiffer penalties will also be put in place, including large monetary fines and potential jail time. SOPA and PIPA [in which individuals] become subject to punishment without the due process protections

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

citizen

Baker, 2012). This means that at any time, you could be charged with

a steep penalty without explanation or notice. In 2010, Minnesota woman Jammie ThomasRasset was charged with a $1.5 million dollar fine for downloading just 24 songs (Kreps, 2010). Thomas-Rasset maintained that she was not the computer user who downloaded the songs; however, she was still able to be prosecuted and, eventually, found guilty despite there being no evidence that tied her personally to the crime. This level of enforcement was excessive to say the least, and that was without SOPA or PIPA in place. Problem: As you can imagine, if SOPA and PIPA are approved, situations like what happened to Jammie Thomas-Rasset will become much more commonplace and will carry even larger penalties. SOPA and PIPA will give far too much power to the government and law enforcement, resulting with internet users around the world living in constant fear of being pursued by the law for something as little as downloading a song or posting an MP3 to Facebook without getting permission from the artist (Seriously?). 2.2 Cutting-off Cash Flow 2.2.1 Suspending Financial Service Providers SOPA and PIPA would give the U.S government and IP providers the authority to demand financial service providers such as PayPal and MasterCard to discontinue their services to websites that distribute pirated material and/or infringe upon copyright (S.968PIPA, 2011). This provision aims to block cash flow to these types of websites, resulting with them
being forced to shut down.

2.2.2 Restricting Advertising SOPA and PIPA would also restrict advertising on websites distributing pirated material or containing material subject to copyright infringement (H.R.3261-SOPA, 2011). This provision aims to eliminate the financial benefits of selling advertising space on these types of websites, discouraging people from getting involved.

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

Problem: These provisions present two problems. First, websites that are built on user-

generated content will also be subject to the law. Websites such as Facebook, WordPress, and all other blogging and social media websites risk being financially sequestered because of the infringing content that their users often upload. These websites will be forced to defend themselves arguing that, while some of the content being uploaded through their services is infringing, most of it is completely legal. Despite this valid argument, the government and IP

potentially destroying the ability to access the websites for everyone. Even if the websites were to regulate and delete infringing material uploaded by users, they could still be pursued (NewLeftMedia, 2012). Secondly, these provisions will limit innovation and make it more difficult for start-ups and emerging online services to enter the market. Out of fear of being pursued and prosecuted by the law, they may even not bother to enter the market at all. 2.3 Blocking Access SOPA and PIPA would also give the government and IP holders the power to block access to particular websites altogether. This would be accomplished by blacklisting domain names. When people type in the domain name, or web address, instead of being sent to the site, the Domain Name System (DNS) will redirect the individual to either a page displaying an error, or a different site altogether. (NewLeftMedia, 2012). Problem: The problem this provision presents lies within censorship and security. Censoring nternet infringes upon their freedoms. In democratic societies such as the U.S and Canada, rights to access and freedoms are relied upon. This provision impinges upon both these rights. In terms of security, David Sohn from the Center of Democracy & Technology states that a fundamental flaw of DNS redirection would lead to more and more people being exposed to cyber-attacks and online scams (NewLeftMedia, 2012). As stated previously, DNS redirection involves users being re-routed to an error page when

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

typing in a blacklisted web address. This, however, does not mean that the website is not still accessible. According to Sohn, a way for people to get around this is by using a third party DNS provider that would route them to the blacklisted site. These third party DNS providers are, however, unsafe. Assuming the role of a third party DNS provider, Sohn gives an insight into how they can pose a threat if we occasionally take some of them and route them to fake banking sites and try to get their ID information? (NewLeftMedia, 2012). This phishing technique will become commonplace as more and more internet users begin turning to third party DNS providers because of the redirection and access-blocking SOPA and PIPA will introduce. 2.4 Search Engine Censorship Along with censoring access to websites, SOPA and PIPA would also censor search engine results that consisted of queries related to pirated material and websites that provide it such as The Pirate Bay. This provision will inhibit the ability for internet users to locate pirated material on the web. Problem: freedoms and their right to access information. By not being able to search what they want to is, oppressed because in the virtual world, the keyboard is a

Part 3: SOPA, PIPA, and Media Policy

3. How SOPA and PIPA Disregard the Basics:
Media policy, as described by Philip Napoli, is, in a sense, in a state of evolution. As the technological environment is experiencing rapid change along with the internet, Napoli acknowledges that the boundaries between traditional and digital technologies are becoming

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

more and more unclear (Napoli, 2007, pg. 2). Despite these blurred boundaries, Napoli states that at the core of media policy are, what he calls, the fundamental building blocks of effective , 2007, pg. 7). As long as the are built into policies,

the policies will be effective. They are free speech, the public interest, and the marketplace of ideas all of which SOPA and PIPA completely ignore. 3.1 Free Speech Free speech is regarded by Napoli as one of the key components of media policy. As made

speech (Napoli, 2007, pg. 6) their right to think and speak freely and their ability to voice their opinions without fear of being pursued by the law. The SOPA and PIPA bills both disregard this right entirely. By giving the government and IP providers the authority to block access to websites and legally pursue individuals who post material subject to copyright infringement, SOPA and PIPA The internet has created a culture in which usergenerated content has become commonplace. Websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and Reddit, all contain massive amounts of user-generated content, much of which is subject to copyright infringement, including YouTube videos, music, and photos. Individuals, for the most part, do not post this type of content with commercial intent, but rather for personal use. Sharing content has become the way the current generation communicates and if SOPA and PIPA are passed, the current generation, and all other citizens for that matter, will lose the ability to communicate in this way. 3.2 The Public Interest The public interest is referred to by Napoli as the primary standard for which media policy makers are expected to abide by during the creation of policy (Napoli, 2007, pg. 9). Instead of satisfying the interests of particular interest groups or stakeholders, policies should reflect the views of the public and be created in a way that best serves the public as a whole (Napoli, 2007,

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

pg. 9). This infers that a democratic process be taken. The construction of SOPA and PIPA, however, has been created through a process more recognizable of a dictatorship. Lamar Smith and Patrick Leahy, creators of SOPA and PIPA, respectively, both created the bills without consideration of . Instead, both bills were created to serve the interests of

large corporations such as Comcast, Viacom, and Disney and individual stakeholders such as Metallica who want their work to be protected. In 2010, campaign contributions from the entertainment industry tallied $18 million and in 2011, a whopping $91 million from the industry was put towards lobbying Congress (NewLeftMedia, 2012). Clearly, the entertainment industry has a lot of power in SOPA and PIPA journey through Congress and, clearly, the government On January 18th, just the first day, received more than 4.5 million signatories (Kerr, 2012). This shows what the public interest truly is and, according to Napoli, this is whom Smith and Leahy should be listening to. 3.3 The Marketplace of Ideas Napoli describes t policymaking as the theme that supports free

enterprise in media, minimal regulation, and the circulation of ideas (black slide 17). Defined by liberal theorist John Mi opinions are able to collaborate, Smith, 1981). SOPA and PIPA are restraining to say the least. If passed, SO freedom of the internet. In censoring what we know as the freedom of speech, the free flow of ideas that the

internet currently enables will be disrupted. When people share videos and music online, s regarding the popular music mash-up artist, Greg Gillis, otherwise known as Girl Talk. states that great ideas are often created by expanding on ideas of the past (Lessig, 2008). Girl -known songs and mashes them together, creating a unique piece of work. He was one of the first people

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

to do this and, as a result, has sparked the emergence of a new style of music. Under the provisions of SOPA and PIPA, however, be considered illegal. His Similar things would happen regarding upcoming technologies on the internet. SOPA and PIPA clearly jeopardizes the marketplace of ideas.

Part 4: PIPA and SOPAs Effect on Canadians

4. SOPA and PIPA s Intrusion on Canadian Communication Rights
So how would SOPA and PIPA affect us Canadians? ericans do is their SOPA and PIPA law would reach far into Canada. Canadians rely on U.S based websites for information, entertainment, and communication just as much as Americans do. In a 2011 study conducted by UBC Graduate 60 per cent of Canadians the equivalent of more than 15 million people (Social Media Transforming, 2011). All of these social networking sites are considered to be under U.S jurisdiction since Schwartz, 2012). All of them would be primary targets for SOPA and PIPA regulation because of the abundance of user-generated content that is often subject to copyright infringement. Also, the fact that IP addresses are assigned by regional providers, not national, also brings Canada into the mix. For example, along with assigning IP addresses to America, The American Registry for Internet Numbers also assigns IP addresses for Canada, all of which considered U.S domestic (Schwartz, 2012). This means that the provisions of SOPA and PIPA will be directly applicable to many Canadians as their internet activity is under U.S jurisdiction.

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

Communication Rights have been developed and elaborated upon at the global level. The core of Communication Rights lie within the framework of several human rights documents, primarily, the International Bill of Rights, which Canada is a signatory of (Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg. 26). Article 19 of the International Bill of Rights directly addresses information and sion; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg. 29). The communication rights that the International Bill of Rights invoke which are jeopardized by the SOPA and PIPA bills include the rights to freedom of expression and opinion, access, information, and privacy (Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg. 30). These universal communication rights are intrinsically Canadian communication rights, and provide a framework to protect Canadian citizens and provide them with the democratic environment in which they live. SOPA and PIP, infringe upon these rights. 4.1 Right to Freedom of Expression and Opinion Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes Canadians with ught (Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg.

64). SOPA and PIPA, if approved, will severely impact this important Canadian right. Because Canadians use many U.S based websites such as Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and Reddit to communicate, they will be directly affected by the provisions of the two bills. Canadians will be just as liable for posting material subject to copyright to these websites as Americans, and will be forced to censor what they say on the internet. This is problematic because the Canadian voice and perspective is an important part of global communication. Restricting it will diminish the Canadian influence on the wor -speaking

nation. If Canadians are restricted by what they can say and do online and are pursued by the law if they if they say or do something outside of SOPA and PIPA provisions, how is that any different than the oppression and unruly justice that takes place in other areas of the world where the right to freedom of expression and opinion do t exist? Simply puti

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

4.2 Right to Access Canadians netration of telephony, household cable, and Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg. 75). This means that most Canadians have access to the internet. This right to access has become a strong point of the Canadian identity. Currently, the Canadian government does not regulate or restrict its access to areas of the internet. Canada is good that way, but unfortunately, if SOPA and PIPA are to be approved, the Canadian government will have no power in the restriction of access that its citizens will be su right to access, in this case large

portions of the internet, will be infringed upon and nothing will be able to be done. 4.3 Right to Information Similar to Canadians right to access, a communications right important to the Canadian identity is the right to information. Canada provides its citizens the right to information through the ability to openly visit libraries in search of whatever they desire, having free use of the internet without censorship, and being privy to governmental decisions. If SOPA and PIPA are approved, the latter two points will be affected, as libraries are not a topic of discussion regarding the two bills. In terms of having free use of the internet without censorship, hopefully this paper has made clear how this Canadian right will be impacted to censor search engines and block websites at will would disallow Canadians to seek out the unrestricted variety of information they are priv 4.4 Right to Privacy with protection of their personal information regarding online activity. With the introduction of SOPA and PIPA, Canadian cit providers added authority to monitor Canadian-generated content on American-based websites. ion are difficult and requires a lengthy process. With SOPA and PIPA, that process would shorten substantially and, as a result,

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

accessed and monitored much more frequently. There is also the heightened risk that Canadians private online data is released to the public. In 2006, AOL accidently released a plethora of

Arrington, 2006). With SOPA and PIPA making it easier for the U.S government and IP providers to access user information, the likelihood of instances like the AOL mishap would greatly increase.

Conclusion

For the past two years, SOPA and PIPA have been moving through Congress in an attempt to obtain approval. Along the way, they have both gained a considerable amount of support and opposition from members of government, as well as a massive support from the entertainment industry. Meanwhile, U.S and Canadian citizens have shown their strong opposition to the bills in the form of widespread online protests as well as by signing online petitions. SOPA and PIPA have been created with the purpose to protect intellectual property, restricting access to websites distributing pirated material and regulating all domestic websites containing content that is subject to copyright infringement. In reality, they do much more. In their development, Texas Representative and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and U.S Senator Patrick Leahy, respective creators of SOPA and PIPA, ignored the fundamental building blocks of media policy put forth by Philip Napoli as discussed in Part 2. Both bills inhibit free speech, restrict the marketplace of ideas, and have been developed with the government a Because SOPA and PIPA have been created with disregard to media policy basics, widespread repercussions are a major threat if they were to be passed. Both pieces of policy, if passed, would not only infringe upon many American rightsthey would infringe upon Canadian Communication Rights as well. The long arm of U.S law would reach far into

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

Canada, affecting privacy.

access, information, and

communication rights intact, immediate action is necessary. Canadians participation in petition was just the first step. From this point forward, citizens need to up the ante and let their opposition be known. They need to let the U.S government know that the approval of SOPA and PIPA would result in the infringement of would severely impact the rights of people all around the world. If Canada is to continue as a free nation, action needs to be taken now. If Canada is to continue as a free nation, SOPA and PIPA must be stopped.

SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights

Max von Kleist

References
(2011, April 27). Social media transforming how Canadians get the news, study finds. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/04/27/social-media-transforming-how-canadians-get-the-news-studyfinds/ Arrington, M. (2006, August 6). AOL Proudly Releases Massive Amounts of Private Data. TechCrunch. Retrieved June 2, 2012 from http://techcrunch.com/2006/08/06/aol-proudly-releases-massive-amounts-of-user-search-data/ Baker, M, (2012, January 17). PIPA/SOPA and Why You Should Care. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/01/17/pipasopa-and-why-you-should-care/ Couts, A. (2012, January 17). SOPA/PIPA blackout: A quick guide. Digital Trends. Retrieved June 2, 2012 from http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/january-18-sopapipa-blackout-a-quick-guide/ H.R.3261-SOPA, (2011, October 26). OpenCongress. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/text -SOPA petition. CNET News. Retrieved May 30, 2012, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57361565-93/millions-sign-googles-anti-sopa-petition/ Kreps, D, (2010, November 4). Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs. Yahoo Canada. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://ca.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/minnesota-mom-hit-with15-million-fine-for-downloading-24-songs.html Lessig, L, (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Great Britain: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Napoli, Philip. (2007). Media Policy: An Overview of the Field, pages 2-20 NewLeftMedia (2012, January 18). Understanding PIPA/SOPA & Why You Should Be Concerned. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBy7yooz3MM Media Divides: Communication Rights and the Right to Communicate in Canada, pages 3-41. S.968-PIPA, (2011, May 26). OpenCongress. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112s968/text Schwartz, D. (2012, January 18). Canada would feel effect of proposed U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act. CBC News. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/17/f-sopa-canada.html Smith, J, (1981, June). Freedom of Expression and the Marketplace of Ideas Concept From Milton to Jefferson. Journal of Communication Inquiry. Vol. 7, no. 1. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://jci.sagepub.com/content/7/1/47.extract SOPA/PIPA Timeline. (2012, January 24). ProPublica. Retrieved May 29, 2012 from http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/timeline