Trump Invites Rodrigo Duterte to the White House

President Donald Trump has invited Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte to the White House–a move that has stunned human rights advocates. Now the administration is preparing for an expected wave of criticism and both the State Department and the National Security Council will likely raise objections internally. The administration described Trump’s phone call with the Filipino leader as a “very friendly conversation.” But Duterte is a controversial figure. He has led a crackdown on suspected drug criminals by allowing police to kill them. He has also admitted to killing suspects himself and called President Obama a “son of a whore.”

Trump White House praises Duterte’s drug-fighting efforts while neglecting minor matter of thousands of executions. https://t.co/XKDyilIeib pic.twitter.com/nFju5oiOo1

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) May 1, 2017

“By essentially endorsing Duterte’s murderous war on drugs, Trump is now morally complicit in future killings,” said John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus said that cultivating a better relationship with Southeast Asian nations is important, because it will help the U.S. deal with North Korea.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Wikipedia Zero project was launched in 2012, with the goal of sharing Wikipedia via mobile phones across the world without forcing users to burn up their data. The program is specifically designed for users in developing countries where mobile data is incredibly expensive. Operators “zero-rate” Wikipedia and its affiliate projects don’t register as websites that users need data to access. Wikipedia Zero is active in 59 countries, and made headlines this week after partnering with Asiacell to launch the program in Iraq.

Wikipedia’s mission is similar to initiatives like Mark Zuckerburg’s Internet.org and Facebook Free Basics. Internet access is rarely prioritized in communities where access to food, clean water, housing, and healthcare are all lacking–yet connection to the internet means greater opportunities for business, education, and political participation.

While the project has the best of intentions, it has been criticized for copyright infringement as users in Bangladesh and Angola have used Wikipedia Zero and Facebook’s Free Basics to share copyrighted files. Wikipedia editors have tried to monitor and block this file sharing but it’s a daunting task that may not be possible without completely shutting down the project. Wikipedia Zero’s copyright infringement issues came to be because users realized they could manipulate the system in place–but internet piracy happens around the world, and these countries are hardly breaking the mold. Does the project really deserve to be shut down just because a portion of its users are engaging in piracy?

The internet is inextricably linked with development, so shutting down projects like Wikipedia Zero can only be a step backwards.  Yet as projects like Facebook Free Basics and Wikipedia Zero expand, they have to grapple with the consequences of users manipulating the tools they are given.  Beyond that, these companies have to recognize what expanding their audience means, as an audience with limited internet access may rely on them as their only source of information. Think about how fake news on Facebook has a genuine impact on public opinion–that fake news can be accessed globally, not just within the U.S., and suddenly a story that has no grounding in reality has been publicized across the globe. Wikipedia faces a similar problem as virtually anyone can edit or add to a Wikipedia page, which is why fact checkers and researchers generally shudder at its use as a resource. False information is being disseminated at a far greater rate when it seems to have been vetted by a brand name and Wikipedia’s branding is global.

It would be ideal if a more credible site like Encyclopedia Britannica or a useful news site like Reuters could be granted the “zero-rate”–but those sites simply aren’t as easy to access and navigate as the straightforward Wikipedia page, nor do they have the same foundational interest in spreading their content without financial gain that Wikipedia has. There are valid arguments for condemning or rolling back Wikipedia Zero, but what should it be replaced with? Unless governments can take on the herculean task of funding mobile data for their citizens, this may be as good as it gets.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Strange Case of Wikipedia Zero appeared first on Law Street.

On February 8, Wikipedia editors unanimously voted to ban The Daily Mail from being used as a factual reference in their articles. The editors stated that the tabloid has a “reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism” and is “generally unreliable.”

The ban comes at a time when the credibility of online sources is under heavy scrutiny. However, in the age of “alternative facts” and “fake news,” it’s hotly contested what constitutes credibility.

While misinformation ought to be combated, it is unclear who should lead the fight. In response to widespread concern over the reliability of internet sources, numerous organizations have announced plans aimed at curbing the proliferation of misinformation.

Having previously denied any editorial responsibility over what is shared through their respective sites, Google and Facebook have since announced efforts to prevent the spread of false stories. Both of the internet giants have promised to ban sites found guilty of publishing false stories from using their ad services.

Facebook is piloting a program that would allow users to report stories they believe to be fake, and has also announced plans to team up with major media outlets to fact check circulating stories. Meanwhile, the BBC has established a team whose mission is to “cut through the spin and concentrate on the facts.”

The degree to which these measures will reduce the spread of falsities remains to be seen. However, it is likely some corners of the internet will cry foul regardless of the outcome.

The term “fake news” lost meaning as quickly as it entered the public lexicon. At first, “fake news” meant exactly what it sounds like it means. The likes of President Trump and his followers have since co-opted the term to refer to any news outlet or piece that does not confirm their biases.

While Trump is an extreme example of someone stuck in an echo chamber, many are guilty of mistaking “credibility” with “agreeability.” Before tackling the issue of credibility, there must be some sort of consensus on what it means to be credible. We as a society must also be careful of who we allow to lead this discussion.

The internet is at an ethical impasse. The spread of misinformation is undoubtedly dangerous. Nevertheless, trusting organizations like Facebook and Google to decide what constitutes fact could be a mistake. No matter how good their intentions may seem, Facebook and Google are entities with their own independent agendas.

An outlet does not necessarily need to lie in order to misinform or to craft a narrative bias. Selecting truths can be just as damaging as spreading lies. How can we trust that these newly implemented editorial policies aimed at stemming lies won’t later be used to curate truths? In fighting misinformation, it is important that we do not carelessly privilege the ability to define and police “credibility.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet’s Fight Against Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Innocent Googlers just trying to figure out the definition of “pathological lying” were subjected to internet trolling on Monday, when users edited its Wikipedia page to include presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s picture.

Everyone Google the words – Pathological Lying – right now. This is what I got – no joke. pic.twitter.com/jX7m1krIE3

— Brett R. Smith (@BrettRSmith76) October 31, 2016

Typically when Google users put in their search query, the first result is often a brief section of the query’s corresponding Wikipedia page. Because of this feature, the first search result users saw alongside the Wikipedia page for “pathological lying” was Hillary Clinton’s photo.

The Wikipedia revision history for the “pathological lying” page shows the many different users who meddled with the article. The first of these changes occurred on October 28, by an anonymous user who “Added the only person who has a proven track record for being a Pathlogical [sic] liar. References can be easily looked up on wikileaks, most media sites, and thru [sic] congressional hearings.”

IP addresses are used to identify anonymous users who make changes or additions to Wikipedia posts. From a search on the internet, the aforementioned user’s IP address was located in Bedminster Township, New Jersey at the time of the search, only 10 minutes from the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster. Interesting.

On October 29, a different anonymous user added the photo of Clinton to the page. This IP address is located in Boise, Idaho, where Clinton is far behind Trump in multiple polls.

Users went back and forth reverting each other’s edits until October 31 when moderators locked the page until November 3, citing “persistent vandalism.”

As of November 1, moderators had locked the page until after the election, writing, “Changed protection level of Pathological lying: make protrection [sic] consistent with other articles being attacked, until after the election.”

In similar fashion, the first result when users search “45th U.S. president” is the Wikipedia page for “United States presidential election, 2016,” which briefly showed a picture of only Trump. Wikipedia moderators also chose to lock this page due to a wave of recent edits.

@triplejHack What in the Wide World of Sports is going on with Google!? pic.twitter.com/PJHC23CzDK

— Dilo on Fire (@FireDilo) October 31, 2016

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Rigged Election, A Rigged Search Engine, and Rigged Wikipedia appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an interesting case that refuses to die. Described by NPR as “the legal saga of the monkey selfie,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick just issued a provisional opinion that a macaque named Naruto can’t legally copyright some selfies he snapped in a nature reserve in 2011.

The pictures in question do have all the attributes of a selfie.

Judge rules on whether monkey owns rights to famous “monkey selfie” photographs https://t.co/b6vY3jDLiupic.twitter.com/bSNKXtdivi

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 7, 2016

They were taken with wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera, in a wildlife reservation on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. However, Slater wasn’t the one who “took” the pictures, Naruto did. PETA, who filed the lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, claimed that the monkey knew what he was doing. The lawsuit argues that Naruto had seen guests to the reserve taking photos, and that his actions included “purposely pushing the shutter release multiple times (and) understanding the cause-and-effect relationship between pressing the shutter release, the noise of the shutter, and the change to his reflection in the camera lens.”

But Slater claims that he has the rights to the pictures, and that he was holding onto the tripod while Naruto took the photos. He used it in a 2014 book of wildlife photography, and has a British copyright license for it. But some media sites, including Wikipedia, have argued that the photos are public domain because no one owns the copyright.

But despite all that confusion, one thing is clear: Orrick wasn’t going to let PETA get away with filing a copyright on behalf of a monkey. Although a formal opinion will be issued by the judge later, he did issue a provisional opinion Wednesday. Orrick stated: “while Congress and the President can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act.” On that note, the U.S. Copyright Office has actually officially started listing “a photograph taken by a monkey” as something that specifically cannot be copyrighted. 

So, it doesn’t seem like we’ll be seeing an influx of monkey (or for that matter, other animal) copyrights anytime soon. But since monkeys can apparently take selfies, maybe this is a law that Congress will need to consider changing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Monkeys Can’t Copyright Selfies…Yet appeared first on Law Street.

Popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia has found itself a new enemy: the Russian government. Russian internet service providers were just ordered to block the site, another interesting move by a regime that is increasingly veering into the field of internet censorship.

Russia’s grudge against the online information hub was sparked by one article regarding a marijuana product called hashish, or in Russian, “charis.” Roscomnadzor​, the section of the Russian police that has jurisdiction over the internet and media, flagged this particular page on charis because it believed it contained enough information for a reader to learn how to produce the drug. Providing information about how to produce drugs is illegal in Russia; this law was solidified by a court ruling in June that specifically pertained to instructions for making charas.

Last week, Roscomnadzor put a statement out about Wikipedia that implied that not taking down the charas page could have serious consequences:

In the event that [Wikipedia] refuses to comply with the court‘s ruling, Roskomnadzor will block the webpage on Russian territory using the registry of illegal information. In this case, insofar as Wikipedia has decided to function on the basis of https, which doesn’t allow restricting access to individual pages on its site, the entire website would be blocked.

Essentially, Roskomnadzor doesn’t want to block all of Wikipedia, but the way that Wikipedia is set up basically makes it an all-or-nothing deal. Officials have stated that if Wikipedia just takes down that one page, the rest of the site won’t be affected. But the head of Wikipedia Russia, Stanislav Kozlovsky, isn’t going down without a fight. According to RT he said on Friday:

His company was aware of the situation and that its staff had assessed the situation and decided not to comply with the authorities’ demands. He claimed that the sources of the information on the banned page were legitimate and taken from open and reputable sources, such as the United Nations’ website, and added that Wikipedia was prepared for the website’s blockage in Russia.

Wikipedia did try to change the URL of the article, but Roskomnadzor still deemed that insufficient and the site is still under threat.

It’s no secret that there are high levels of internet censorship and government oversight in Russia, particularly under current President Vladimir Putin’s leadership. For example, any blogger or website that has 3,000 or more daily readers has to register with the government. Additionally, like posting about how to produce certain types of drugs, other resources are blocked by the Russian government. Most notoriously, Russia bans “homosexual propaganda” from being posted online–essentially any positive information about LGBT rights or individuals is prohibited. Banning Wikipedia is just the latest restrictive move, and it almost certainly won’t be the last.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wikipedia Banned in Russia: Internet Censorship Continues appeared first on Law Street.

There have been edits made to Wikipedia pages about some high profile deaths at the hands of police in New York City. Those edits have now been traced to 1 Police Plaza, the headquarters of the New York Police Department (NYPD).

The edits seem to have focused on the pages regarding three of those deaths–Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Eric Garner was killed on July 17, 2014, after being put into a chokehold by an NYPD officer. While in the chokehold, he wasn’t able to breathe, lost consciousness, and passed away. Sean Bell died after being shot by an NYPD officer in Queens in 2006. He and two friends were shot a total of 50 times after leaving his bachelor party. Amadou Diallo was shot at approximately 41 times by NYPD officers and passed away in 1999. These three instances are often cited as examples of profiling, discrimination, and racial biases in the ranks of NYPD.

Most of the edits to those entries attempted to diminish the seriousness of the situations, and downplay the allegations levied against NYPD after each of them. For example, the Garner entry was edited so that “chokehold” was changed to “respiratory distress.” There was also an instance in the Garner entry where the sentence “use of the chokehold has been prohibited” was edited to read “use of the chokehold is legal, but has been prohibited.” The explanation of what happened before the takedown was changed from “Garner raised both his arms in the air” to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.” The line “Garner, who was considerably larger than any of the officers, continued to struggle with them” was also added. While some of these changes seem subtle, they are clear attempts to imply that the NYPD’s actions against Garner were justified.

There was also an attempt to delete Sean Bell’s page altogether. According to Capitol New York, the user made a note on Wikipedia’s list of “articles for deletion” saying:

He [Bell] was in the news for about two months, and now no one except Al Sharpton cares anymore. The police shoot people every day, and times with a lot more than 50 bullets. This incident is more news than notable.

There were also attempted edits or edits made to other pages, including NYPD’s very controversial “stop-and-frisk” policies. Capitol New York pointed out (bolding theirs):

‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department to stop, question and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conduct a frisk of the person stopped.’ was changed to ‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conducts a frisk of the person stopped.’

This was also added to the entry on stop-and-frisk:

The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio.

An internal review is being conducted due to the edits. At this point, it’s not known who was involved or how many pages were affected. A watchdog Twitter account has been set up to tweet whenever Wikipedia edits are made from a computer with an NYPD IP address, although it has yet to catch anything since it was created. It may have been inspired by one of those for Congress, called @congressedits. That account tweets anytime a computer with a Congressional IP address edits a Wikipedia entry.

The NYPD’s edits look bad–it’s an attempt to downplay legitimately dark spots in its history. Its time and resources would certainly be better served working to prevent incidents like the deaths of Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo in the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Caught Editing Negative Wikipedia Entries appeared first on Law Street.

Previous fun facts about French life have let us in on a little secret: French people are picky. Each French city’s mayor or maire possesses the authority to establish policies that maintain public order. In Paris, rules vary according to arrondissement, or district.

So, the French are detail oriented. They like their rules and that’s okay.

However, their latest regulation—on copyright—is so strict that it’s funny. La Tour Eiffel, the Eiffel Tower’s official website states that although snapping some photos of the famous landmark is alright in the daylight, pictures are off limits when the sun goes down. My deepest condolences to anyone who ever dreamed of having a nighttime Parisian wedding photo shoot. The website explains, “its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the “Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel.”

The structure of the Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain. What isn’t in the public domain is the show put on at night during which different color lights are projected onto the landmark. That, instead, belongs to an artist who takes liberties and utilizes style to determine which lights, colors, speed the illuminations take place. Therefore, a reproduction of the work would require permission—and perhaps compensation—of said artist.

Essentially, it’s a time issue. The Eiffel Tower was built long before pretty lights were shone on it. This EU Information Society Directive includes a clause asserting that buildings in public spaces are to be in the public domain. However, France is one of the countries that refrained from adopting the directive into its law.  Italy and Belgium also refused the directive and retained their stricter policies. Belgium experiences the same issues with its Atomium, delineating on its website that “the image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions…Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose.”

One must ask: when copyright law restricts something so large, so famous, and so iconic, how can it truly be enforced?

Wikipedia pages are being careful about it. Atomium pages include censored images or photographs of Atomium models. Poor Instagram will probably never see the legal light show. Illegal, however, can be found by a simple search of #eiffeltower. Google Images is chock-full o’ examples.

Ultimately, the regulation probably isn’t causing any tourists severe angst. That doesn’t, however, detract from the fact that it is copyrighted and nighttime Eiffel Tower pictures constitute infringement. We may take for granted our ability to legally Instagram post Lady Liberty at 3:00am with abandon.

The post Your Nighttime Eiffel Tower Pictures Are Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has ever been to school or needed a simple explanation of a complicated subject, or just needed any information ever, can appreciate Wikipedia. It’s a great resource for background info. Don’t use it for your papers, kids, but feel free to use it for pretty much everything else. Most of the time Wikipedia can be trusted, as long as you’re using it as a resource and not a legitimate source. But every now and again, people mess with the entries to make them incorrect. Usually they’re corrected pretty quickly. If the edit was particularly bad, Wikipedia has the ability to track the IP address and figure out where the offending edit came from.

Here’s a concrete example: on the Orange is the New Black Wikipedia page, the Advocate, a well known LGBT publication, is quoted saying that OITNB “contains the first ever women-in-prison narrative to be played by a real transgender woman.” This sentence was referring to Laverne Cox. Well last week, there was a disturbing edit made to this entry — the phrase “transgender woman” was changed to “a real man pretending to be a woman.”

Not only is that fundamentally incorrect, it’s ridiculously insensitive, disgusting, and bigoted. So what asshole decided to make that edit?

Someone working in Congress, of course.

This has to be an isolated incident, right? There’s no way that Congressional staffers, funded by our tax dollars, sit around and edit Wikipedia pages, sometimes pretty offensively, instead of working to fix a Congress that has an approval rating that is languishing in the low teens.

Nope. That appears to be a lot of what they do — edits from Congressional IP addresses are pretty common. A Twitter bot called @congressedits collects all of them, and it’s had a kind of busy summer. Here are some of my favorites:

Tranny Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives http://t.co/SkIIKhDxBu

— congress-edits (@congressedits) August 20, 2014

Oh look another case where someone in Congress edited an article to do with transgender people…incorrectly and offensively! In case you were wondering, the edit was to change the phrase “assigned sex” to “biological sex.” That’s incorrect. Great job, random Congressional staffer, that was a worthy use of your tax-funded paycheck.

Chrisley Knows Best Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives http://t.co/39F07XgCoU

— congress-edits (@congressedits) August 19, 2014

This one is benign at least. It’s an edit on a Chrisley Knows Best Wikipedia page, an American TV show. Someone with a Congressional IP address thought it was essential that we know exactly what suburb of Atlanta is the setting for the show. Which is at least correct, I presume, but again, not a good use of time or money.

UFO sightings in Russia Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives http://t.co/IsWVBxNqVC

— congress-edits (@congressedits) August 4, 2014

Oh, look, here’s one where the article UFO Sightings in Russia was edited anonymously from a Congressional IP address. A particular incident where a UFO sighting was reported in Russia was added to the article. Why does someone who works in the Capitol Building have such an encyclopedic knowledge of UFO sightings in Russia? I’m not sure, but that seems healthy.

There’s also more edits than can be counted on members’ pages, bills, etc…many of which are incorrect, argumentative, or biased. Wikipedia administrators have blocked anonymous edits from Congressional IP addresses multiple times because of these issues. The IP address used to make the Laverne Cox edits, and many of the edits to do with transphobia, has been blocked three times this summer. While it’s probably the same incredibly immature staffer/intern, there’s no way to actually know.

So real talk, guys. I know that work can be kind of boring in Congress, especially during recess. But seriously, stop with the edits. Play 2048, or prank your coworkers, or take a nap, I don’t care! But this whole editing-Wikipedia thing looks really bad. Just stop.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Johann Dréo via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good News! Your Tax Dollars Go to Bad Wikipedia Edits appeared first on Law Street.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a bill  proposed in Congress in 2011 that immediately made headlines because opponents argued that it was too restrictive and had the potential to hamper free speech. It did not end up passing, but the ideas and motivations behind it still remain up for debate. Read on to learn about SOPA, the legislative battles surrounding it, and where we stand now.

What was SOPA?

The provisions of the bill primarily included increased federal enforcement of copyright laws and increased government action against entities involved in copyright infringement. These provisions include allowing both the U.S. Department of Justice and private copyright holders to obtain injunctions against copyright infringement by foreign-based entities. The bill would have allowed the Justice Department to bar internet advertising networks and payment network providers from servicing infringing websites e.g. torrent websites, sites that allow streaming of copyrighted movies or TV shows, etc. SOPA also would have prevented search engines from providing links to those websites.

SOPA aimed to increase the criminal penalties infringers face under the law.  For example, the penalties for economic espionage would have been a maximum of 15-20 years imprisonment and fines up to $5 million. The bill would have increased the realm of copyright crimes to include those perpetrated by “electronic means.”  Criminal penalties would have increased for IP infringement of government information or infringement that results in harm to government personnel or interests.

SOPA also would have had major implications for IP civil jurisprudence. Private entities are given rights against infringers as well. If a private entity is damaged by infringement and wishes to exercise SOPA rights they could have sent written notification to payment agents and advertising networks connected with the alleged offending site who then have to inform them and cease service unless the alleged infringer can respond with a counter-notification, indicating that they are not infringing. The copyright holder would have been able to bring an action for injunctive relief against the infringing site’s owners if either a counter-notification was provided or payment networks continue serving the alleged infringer without a counter-notification. Applying SOPA rights to foreign sites would have required them to consent to U.S. jurisdiction to determine if they are dedicated to infringement.

What was the argument for SOPA?

Proponents of the bill believed that SOPA could have created a lot of benefits for the public. It created major difficulties for perpetrators of IP crime because it would have given private companies the means and authorization to enforce and protect their own intellectual property rights. This allowed IP crimes to be remedied more quickly and at a far lower cost to the public because it could be done without the time constraints and expense of adjudication. This would improve the economy by decreasing government spending on investigating and prosecuting IP crimes. The fear of facing civil litigation under SOPA and the strengthened criminal penalties would have created a strong disincentive for many forms of infringement. Furthermore, by hamstringing IP infringement SOPA would make the U.S. more attractive to authors and innovators and reinvigorate the economy with increased job creation.

What was the argument against SOPA?

Opponents highlighted SOPA’s drawbacks. Under the law, even when a valid counter-notification would have been sent, third-party servicers were not required to resume serving accused websites.  SOPA also insulated the third parties from all lawsuits except those initiated by the copyright holder.  Therefore, the law allowed and perhaps even incentivized companies to limit other companies’ legal and commercial rights without judicial oversight, leaving SOPA vulnerable to the objection that it violates individuals’ constitutional due process. Non-infringing companies may be damaged by having valuable business relationships taken away from them without a meaningful opportunity to be heard and without legal recourse. This is because even if a company is found to be non-infringing there is no requirement that the discontinued services be reinstated. Finally, SOPA would not have accounted for the proportionality of the alleged infringement relative to the alleged infringer’s website. For example, under SOPA if one person uploaded an allegedly infringing video on Facebook and the owner exercised his SOPA rights he could potentially bring SOPA action against Facebook in its entirety.

What happened with SOPA?

There was a lot of backlash against SOPA from high-profile and much-used websites. On a few different days websites blacked themselves out to protest SOPA. The blackouts not only called attention to the issue, but also served as a sort of warning to consumers that if they did not get involved in stopping SOPA, some of their favorite websites would be threatened. Participants included Wikipedia, WordPress, and BoingBoing. Eventually, SOPA ended up failing. There were attempts to revive it about a year later, but nothing really came of those.

SOPA is the perfect example of the disconnect between technology and the people making our laws. On paper the idea sounded good, but in practice there were significant problems with the proposed law. While the debate over copyright and technology is far from over, SOPA almost certainly is.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Constitution: Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

House of Representatives: H.R. 3261, the “Stop Online Piracy Act”

Additional

100gf: Why SOPA Might be the Best Thing That’s Ever Happened to the Internet

Vulture: Polone: Why I’m for SOPA, and How the Entertainment Industry Blew It

Venture Beat: Top 5 Reasons to Support SOPA

Cracked: The Only Argument on the Internet in Favor of SOPA

Washington Post: SOPA Died in 2012, But Obama Administration Wants to Revive Part of it

Mashable: Why SOPA is Dangerous

TechDirt: Supporters of SOPA/PIPA Make Arguments That Make No Sense

CDT: US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights

SOPA Strike: Homepage

Christian Science Monitor: SOPA and PIPA Bills: Old Answers to 21st Century Problems

Masur Law: Summary of SOPA and PIPA

CNN: SOPA Explained: What it is and Why it Matters

NickEhrenberg: The Arguments For and Against SOPA/PIPA (and now CISPA)

PC World: SOPA Controversy Explained

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOPA: The Argument is Over, but the Dust Hasn’t Settled appeared first on Law Street.