eMedia Law Insider - Insight & Commentary on Internet Marketing & Online Media

I have received some flack for not coming out stronger against SOPA and PIPA in my original post explaining the controversy back in December.  Like many of you, I tend to align myself with the entities and groups who have come out against the law.  I support Internet freedom, innovation and a general laissez fare approach to the government and the Internet — but then again, I read the proposed bill and also represent businesses.

Don’t get me wrong, the versions being discussed back in December appear flawed.  The Congressional hearing in December was comical when some Congressmen explained they don’t understand the Internet, how the law would work, but think this law should be implemented.  PIPA, the Senate’s version, was brough to the floor in two weeks with little to no debate because the Senate was sold on its ability to preserve American jobs without much deliberation. 

Fortunately, everyone has taken a breather. The proposals are a decent starting point.  I applaud the Internetophiles for raising public awareness about these bills and challenging them.  Many of the controversial parts are being amended.  But, it is time folks accept the fact some version of the bill will become law.  It is time to stop waiving over the entire proposal with an American flag and yell the sky is falling.  Instead, point to a specific provision you don’t like, and suggest an alternative. 

To have a serious debate on the issue is complex and does not fit the mold of a thirty-second soundbite.  But, this is the Internet.  There is no limited newspaper space or air-time.  Analyze the bill and provide sensible alternatives that make sense.  Tell me below what you specifically don’t like about the bill.  Read H.R. 3261. 

Here is my News 92.1FM Radio Interview with Scott Braddock from the new all news radio station in Houston.

Here is an updated article on today’s Internet blackout day.  Wikipedia won’t send you to results today.  Google’s front page graphic is below which contains a link to Google’s End Piracy, Not Liberty page.

For those that prefer radio, NPR’s piece from last night’s All Things Considered.

THE ORIGINAL POST FROM DECEMBER

Plenty has been written about the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the industry press with some coverage in the mainstream media. Like many controversial proposals, SOPA discussions seem to be stoked in rhetoric.  So, I thought I would break down what it does, the pros and cons and what it means for you.

The Bill

Texas Republican Lamar Smith introduced SOPA in October with bipartisan support.  The purpose of the bill is to give more power to U.S. law enforcement to fight the online selling of copyrighted materials (movies, music) and counterfeit goods (high end purses and drugs).  

Under SOPA, the Department of Justice or copyright owners could seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.  The relief can include anything from preventing credit cards or PayPal from processing orders from those sites, preventing search engines from listing the sites and forcing Internet Service Providers to block access to the sites.  

Supporters

It was not easy to find supporters of the bill on the internet because it appears most of the online community opposes it.  Your large content producers (music and movies), brand name manufacturers, drug companies, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support it claiming it protects their intellectual property and is necessary to allow the U.S. Government to take actions against people it can control within our borders to stop ”rogue foreign sites.”  They cite the number of jobs and commerce that depends on the protection of copyrights and trademarks.

Detractors

Those opposing SOPA include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Brookings Institution the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU.  Their main complaint is that the law is overly broad and ultimately ineffective because true pirates will set up new sites.  They suggest the bill will prevent innovations, move internet sites and services offshore, scare away investors and make it difficult for sites as common as Google and Twitter to operate.

These are both gross over-simplifcations of the issues, but each side could write 50-page white papers advocating their position.  The Wikipedia page on SOPA is a decent start for more information.

What does it mean?

Unfortunately, it is too early to tell.  A compromised version of SOPA, that will include some of the language from the Senate’s companion, PIPA, will get serious consideration and possibly become law. 

Looking just at the selfish interests of brick and mortar companies, it may be welcomed.  Whether you sell valves, records, books or other products, you should have less to worry about cheap knock-offs from overseas.  I’ve fielded calls from clients have had their sites mimmicked by foreign entities and this may provide one avenue of preventing those sites from making any headway in the U.S.  Otherwise, we’ve been forced to shoehorn DMCA claims to prevent this conduct quickly.  If you engage in e-commerce, then you may have mixed feelings.

For online businesses, there are some safe harbor-type protections, but you need to be prepared to act and act swiftly if you receive a takedown or are the subject of a takedown.  Imagine the damage to your business if for a couple of days you cannot process payments or can’t be located on Google.   There are some protections that would allow you to sue should the person filing the complaint ”knowingly misrepresent” the allegations — a pretty difficult hurdle to overcome if you are truly a victim.

The real concern, in my opinion, goes to innovation and investment on the Internet.  The phenomenal growth of the Internet is a result of a largely hands-off government approach.  I would hesitate to invest in something that can be taken away by the DOJ or a complainant.  YouTube and Facebook have been promised they are safe, but how hard is it to imagine a similar service won’t be considered a facilitator of copyright infringement.

Tomorrow may bring some new development in the debate and hopefully a more artfully, clearer and narrower crafted law, if one is even necessary.

To the video

First the supporters.

Now, here is some video agianst it.

We continue our video series on the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act with the reasoning behind the FTC’s proposed changes.  

You can also read my overview of COPPA.  

Today, we continue our series on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Last time, we talked about the basic pitfalls of contracting with minors online.  You can also read my overview of COPPA. 

This video discusses COPPA and online privacy as it relates to minors.

I did a Lawlines CLE entitled Online Marketing to Minors: Legal Pitfalls & Ramifications.  Over the next couple of weeks, I will be posting some clips from the presentation here that should give you a good idea of proposals the FTC is making to update the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act. For a basic introduction of COPPA, go here.

I opened the presentation with a Contracts 101 lesson about why courts refuse to honor contracts with minors and invalidate them.  This first clip takes a look at how this accepted rule comes into play in a more modern online world.

Bloomberg News is reporting that ShopCity.com has filed an antitrust complaint against Google claiming Google favors its own sites over those of ShopCity in the search engine’s results.  Google is already the subject of antitrust inquiries in the U.S. and in Europe for related behavior. 

ShopCity is a website that helps local businesses sell products that owns thousands of geo-domain names.   Claiming Google favored its own sites, such as Google Places, ShopCity filed a complaint with the FTC on November 11.  

Google, meanwhile, claims that ShopCity is a victim of recent “improvements” to the search engine results.  Google has been downgrading sites it claims engage in content farming, duplication and other black hat conduct because, Google says, its customer don’t want to see those sites.    The Marketing Pilgrim has an interesting take on the complaint suggesting ShopCity choose a legal fight rather than good old fashioned hard SEO work to improve its rankings.

From the Bloomberg report, it appears the FTC investigation could be heating up as investigators begin to request information from Google competitors and other marketplace sites.  Googlers, meanwhile, whisper Microsoft is the moving force behind this as the same law firm seems to represent many of the complainants and plaintiffs (go click on the Marketing Pilgrim post).

While the top placement of Google Places, Google-related marketplaces and travel sites raises some questions, I can report it does not appear Google monkeys with news results.  I first read about this on my Google Reader and then gathered more information by entering ”antitrust complaints Google.”  At least, Google has that going for it.