WebProNews

Tag: OPEN Act

  • Is OPEN Better than SOPA?

    Is OPEN Better than SOPA?

    During the initial SOPA hearings, the mockery that they were, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of the loudest opponents to the Stop Online Piracy Act, suggested an alternative method of regulating the Internet, one both Google and Facebook endorse. Is Wyden’s suggestion — The OPEN (Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade) Act — a satisfactory alternative to the entertainment industry-backed SOPA?

    We’ve profiled the OPEN Act when Wyden and Congressman Issa launched the KeepTheWeb#OPEN site/project, but now that SOPA is essentially twitching its remaining lifeforce away, the OPEN Act is becoming a legitimate option, if, for nothing else, because of some well known tech industry giants have endorsed the legislation, meaning it’s highly unlikely these companies would black their services out in order to protest its potential passing.

    Aside from Google and Facebook, other notable endorsers of the OPEN Act include Mozilla, LinkedIn, Yahoo, and Twitter, all of which opposed both SOPA and PIPA. In fact, these companies formed a consortium of their own to protest the previous Internet regulation bills.

    The question is, with the Internet industry giants giving support to the OPEN Act, is it a better alternative? Some, including The Daily O’Collegian, thinks so:

    There needs to be clear and sensible legislation protecting the intellectual property of Americans. OPEN is such a bill, for it focuses on illegal activity and does not cause collateral damage to the web.

    One of the primary reasons these Internet giants are openly supporting OPEN (pun intended) can be explained quite well with the following excerpt from the bill (PDF) itself:

    EXCLUSIONS: An Internet site is not an Internet site dedicated to infringing activity

    (i) if the Internet site has a practice of expeditiously removing, or disabling access to, material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity after notification by the owner of the copyright or trademark alleged to be infringed or its authorized representative;

    (ii) because the Internet site engages in an activity that would not make the operator liable for monetary relief for infringing the copyright under section 512 of title 17, United States Code; or

    (iii) because of the distribution by the Internet site of copies that were made without infringing a copyright or trade mark.

    The fact these designations exist at all is what helps separates OPEN from its predecessors, SOPA and PIPA. Another, which was pointed out by the The Daily O’Collegian concerns an allowance for a reasonable amount of time to remove infringing content, something both PIPA and SOPA ignored:

    The best solution is the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act, which is an alternate to SOPA. OPEN has the support of Google and Facebook because it contains exceptions for websites that remove pirated content in a reasonable time. This exemption would allow YouTube, Facebook and many other websites to remain unmolested.

    The question is, is the the kind of Internet regulation you’ll embrace, especially if companies like Google and Facebook are offering support? A comment from the DO’C’s article reveals another line of thinking:

    Alexander Cardosa
    OPEN does not sound any better than SOAP. We have a small part of the economy dictating what is going to happen to the Internet. Its all bad!

    Does this sum up your feelings, or does the support Google, Facebook and other industry giants give the OPEN Act the endorsements you need to accept it into your life?

  • The OPEN Act Becomes Truly Open

    The OPEN Act Becomes Truly Open

    The OPEN Act, the less insane version of SOPA and PIPA, is up for public scrutiny and changes.

    Representative Darrell Issa has created Keep the Web Open to allow citizens the opportunity of making revisions and suggestions to the bill as is. The Web site also features a rundown of SOPA and PIPA, and what sets OPEN apart from them.

    For anybody familiar with Wikipedia and its community, it’s almost the same thing here. Users can submit direct suggestions that change the wording of the bill, while other users can submit questions and comments that seek to further clarify the wording in the bill or make indirect suggestions.

    The OPEN Act, alongside SOPA and PIPA, seek to essentially write a Bill of Rights for the Web. In that spirit, the editing tool used on the OPEN Act’s Web site is named after James Madison, the author of the original Bill of Rights. The Web site for the OPEN Act displays a quote from Madison as a pretense for the public interaction with the bill: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

    As we’ve reported earlier, the OPEN Act is the brainchild of Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Ron Wyden. The bill seeks to give jurisdiction over foreign rogue Web sites to the International Trade Commission. SOPA and PIPA would have given this power to the Justice Department who could take down any Web site without due process.

    Unlike SOPA and PIPA, OPEN has the support of the major players in the tech industry including Google, Facebook and Zynga. It also has the support of other organizations such as the Consumer Electronic Association and the American Library Association.

    If you want to take part in helping write the bill that the tech industry actually supports, go here and start reading.

  • Meet The Global Online Freedom Act Of 2011

    Alongside SOPA, PIPA and OPEN, H.R. 3605 has joined the party.

    H.R. 3605, otherwise known as the Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 was drafted and introduced to the House on December 8 by Representative Christopher Smith from New Jersey.

    The bill’s wording states:

    To prevent United States businesses from cooperating with repressive governments in transforming the Internet into a tool of censorship and surveillance, to fulfill the responsibility of the United States Government to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to restore public confidence in the integrity of United States businesses, and for other purposes.

    The bill currently has two co-sponsors in Representative Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan and Frank Wolf of Virginia. Both men are Republicans.

    The bill has been referred to committee according to govtrack.us and was sent to the subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

    The most important thing in this bill is that it explicitly states that it promotes “freedom of expression on the Internet.” It’s also noteworthy that it seeks to “restore public confidence in the integrity of United States businesses.”

    The bill could be a partner with the Senate’s OPEN Act that seeks to put the ITC in charge of shutting off cash flows to foreign infringing Web sites.

    The Global Online Freedom Act was brought to the House before in 2006, 2007 and 2009 but never made it past committee. Rep. Smith may be using the hostility towards SOPA to get it passed this time around.

    The bill’s past attempts aren’t very promising, but its new wording and renewed focus (even if unintentional) against SOPA might give this bill a chance to get through.

  • SOPA Necessary To Protect Our Safety, According To RIAA VP

    As staunch supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act, it comes as no surprise that the RIAA would scoff at the OPEN Act, a measure proposed by Congressman Darrell Issa and Senator Ron Wyden.

    It’s just the argument that is unbelievable, although nothing at this point should really be unbelievable.

    The OPEN Act is a sort of alternative to SOPA that is similar in many ways and vastly different in others. The main difference that RIAA Executive Vice President Mitch Glazier touches on in a recent blog post has to do with what arm of the federal government aids in the enforcement of copyright infringement claims, and how they go about it.

    Basically with SOPA, we all know that sites deemed “rogue” and perpetrators of illegal activity will face annihilation with the simple accusation of wrongdoing. With SOPA, the Department of Justice would be responsible in enforcing the “infringements.” We’ve extensively discussed the potential damage that SOPA could do the the free web, and fully oppose it in every way possible.

    With OPEN, rights-holders that feel infringed upon would file a petition with the International Trade Commission, an independent agency that, among other things, deals with patent disputes. They would investigate, and actions would only be taken once the accused sites were deemed “rogue sites.”

    That’s too slow of a process for Mitch Glazier, who writes that we can’t sit around waiting while filesharing threatens our safety and security. As Jamie Keene at The Verge points out, Glazier’s blatant fearmongering basically amounts to calling online piracy a threat to national security.

    Check out the blog post in its entirety:

    The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently reported that it will delay ruling on an important patent infringement claim brought by well-known camera company Kodak against smartphone makers Apple and Research In Motion (RIM). The case, originally filed in January 2010, now anticipates a ruling in September 2012. The delay now means that the ITC will have taken 33 months to decide on a high-stakes and time-sensitive issue. So this is the “expedited” process SOPA opponents are embracing as an alternative in the proposed OPEN bill?

    SOPA was introduced to address the devastating and immediate impact of foreign rogue sites dealing in infringing and counterfeiting works and products. Every day that these sites operate without recourse can mean millions of dollars lost to American companies, employees, and economy, and an ongoing threat to the security and safety of our citizens. Why in the world would we shift enforcement against these sites from the Department of Justice and others who are well-versed in these issues to the ITC, which focuses on patents and clearly does not operate on the short time frame necessary to be effective? In addition, the remedy traditionally offered by the ITC – an exclusion order to prevent foreign criminals from accessing the US market – is precluded under the OPEN Act.

    More proof why the OPEN Act is not a meaningful solution to a serious problem.

    Ars Technica has a good overview of what’s good and bad about OPEN, and the act definitely has its flaws. But according to Mitch Glazier, one of those flaws is basically the “letting the terrorists win” argument, in sharper language.

    No, screw the OPEN ACT. Let’s roll with SOPA, because given the track record of the DOJ when it comes to censoring sites as of late, it only makes sense to give them a hair trigger.

  • SOPA Update: Introducing OPEN and Twitter Reaction

    No, the SOPA battles have not gone away, in fact, in the houses of the United States government, they are still going strong, something the newly-launched OPEN Act counterpoint demonstrates quite clearly.

    Drafted by SOPA/PIPA opponents Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Darrell Issa, the OPEN Act offers an alternative to the strong-arm tactics discussed in the original pieces of legislation. Not only have Issa and Wyden drafted their own version, they also launched a website for like-minded individuals can keep up with the events associated with Internet regulation. The site goes by the KeepTheWebOpen.com TLD, and it offers a copy of the bill as well as a participation section.

    The Online Protection & ENforemnt of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) bill, which can be downloaded here, is a direct opponent to SOPA/PIPA. One of the main areas of focus has to do with offering more protection for site owners in regards to being investigated. An example:

    LIMITATION ON INVESTIGATIONS OF DOMAIN NAMES; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Commission may not initiate an investigation under paragraph (1) with respect to a domain name if the operator of the Internet site associated with the domain name
    (A) provides in a legal notice on the site accurate information consisting of
    (i) the name of an individual authorized to receive process on behalf of the site;
    (ii) an address at which process may be served;
    (iii) a telephone number at which the individual described in clause (i) may be contacted; and
    (iv) a statement that the operator of the site
    (I) consents to the jurisdiction and venue of the United States district courts with respect to a violation under section 506 of title 17, United States Code, a criminal offense under section 1204 of title 17, United States Code, for a violation of section 1201 of such title, or a violation of section 2320 of title 18 of such Code; and
    (II) will accept service of process from the Attorney General with respect to those violations and the offense set forth in subclause (I); and
    (B) upon the filing of any civil action in the appropriate United States district court
    (i) for infringement of copyright under section 501 of title 17, United States Code,
    (ii) under section 1203 of title 17, United States Code, for a violation of section 1201 of such title, or
    (iii) under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, accepts service and waives, in a timely manner, any objections to jurisdiction as set forth in the statement described in subparagraph (A)(iv).

    As you can see, embedded within all that government speak/legalese is protections for site owners that has not been provided by either SOPA or PIPA. For those who think SOPA opposition is all about protecting the ability to download without intervention, think again, at least when in regards to the OPEN Act:

    3) IDENTIFICATION OF, AND NOTICE TO, ENTITIES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
    (A) IDENTIFICATION. A complaint filed under paragraph (1) shall identify any financial transaction provider or Internet advertising service that may be required to take measures described in subsection (g)(2) if the Commission issues an order under subsection (f) with respect to the complaint and the order is served on the provider or service pursuant to subsection (g)(1).
    (B) NOTICE. Upon filing a complaint under paragraph (1), the complainant shall provide notice to any financial transaction provider or Internet advertising service identified in the complaint pursuant to subparagraph (A) or any amendments to the complaint.
    (C) INTERVENTION.
    (i) IN GENERAL. A financial transaction provider or Internet advertising service identified in a complaint pursuant to subparagraph (A) may intervene upon timely request filed with the Commission in
    (I) an investigation initiated under subsection (c) pursuant to the complaint; or
    (II) pursuant to subsection (f)(5), an action to modify, suspend, or vacate an order issued pursuant to the complaint.
    (ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Failure to intervene under clause (i) in an investigation under subsection (c) does not preclude a financial transaction provider or Internet advertising service notified of the investigation from subsequently seeking an order to modify, suspend, or terminate an order issued by the Commission under subsection (f).

    Essentially, if a infringing site is receiving advertising money, the group that’s being infringed upon has recourses that don’t include the destruction of the DNS protocol. Both officials offered videos explaining their positions and why they adopted OPEN. First, Congressman Issa:


    Followed by Senator Wyden’s thoughts:


    Twitter has also been a fount of great reaction concerning SOPA, as with all things trendy. With SOPA, however, many seem to have a good idea of what’s going and instead of trying to be apart of a current Twitter trend:

    @kevinmarks
    Kevin Marks    #SOPA @paulvixie “I’ve been working on keeping DNS running for 30 years. This used to mean writing code, now it means fighting this law” 14 hours ago via Echofon · powered by @socialditto

    @creativecommons
    creativecommons    “The Internet’s Intolerable Acts” talks about how #SOPA and #PIPA threaten free speech and human rights online http://t.co/ELzpcJwq 42 minutes ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto

    @JohnDurandal
    Durandal    @johnrobb @techdirt Yeah well with #SOPA and the Indefinite Detention Act, we’re on the verge of becoming the PRC… 4 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    @techdirt
    techdirt    MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet http://t.co/CH5WaZQh 2 hours ago via dlvr.it · powered by @socialditto

    @digiphile
    Alex Howard    “blog wrongly blocked for a year on false infringement charges; but remember, #SOPA isn’t censorship!”-@normative http://t.co/pFnHNtYF #PIPA 2 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    @SLWorona
    Steve Worona    Music manager on #SOPA: “The best way to combat piracy is to provide consumers with easier access to desired content.” http://t.co/pvR9Bj9p 15 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    @MarietjeD66
    Marietje Schaake    Dont want #SOPA & #PIPA? Please have your company, NGO, MEP sign my letter to Members of US Congress http://t.co/BCAxTa7Q 1 day ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Marietje Schaake is a member of the European Parliament. This is not her first tweet about SOPA, either:

    @MarietjeD66
    Marietje Schaake    “@StateDept: #SecClinton: Governments that have erected barriers to #NetFreedom will eventually find themselves boxed in #iFreedom” 41 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

    @MarietjeD66
    Marietje Schaake    “@freepressunltd Freedom on the internet is too important to leave to governments & corporations, we need the citizen’s voice” #ifreedom” 3 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

    It’s safe to say Schaake would be on the side of Wyden and Issa. In fact, one hopes much of Europe is of the same mind as Switzerland.

    Lead image courtesy.