In advance of the European Union-United States summit scheduled for the end of this month, the European Parliament adopted a “joint motion for a resolution” that seems to reject the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) under consideration in the House Judiciary Committee.
The EU moved for a position that “stresses the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names.” SOPA would empower federal courts to “order Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engines not to link or connect users” to websites deemed in violation of copyright or counterfeiting laws, explained Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas., and Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., in a letter advocating the bill.
SOPA has significant bipartisan support and opposition. Smith and Conyers, respectively the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, support the bill, which has 11 other co-sponsors. Smith believes that SOPA “expands international protections for intellectual property, and protects American consumers from dangerous counterfeit products.”
Internet piracy has figured in national politics as Republican presidential candidates have denounced the intellectual property violations prevalent in China. President Obama, in a speech before the Australian Parliament that seemed directed at China, called for “he intellectual property and new technologies that fuel innovation are protected.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., opposes the bill, however, saying it “will hurt innovation, something we can’t afford to do. And there are other ways to accomplish what they say is their goal.” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tweeted her opposition, “need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreaktheInternet.”
Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, also opposes the bill. He subscribed with nine Democrats to a letter arguing that “if enacted as currently written, this legislation would cause substantial harm to innovation and economic opportunities created by the internet.”
The bill has also been criticized as a foundation for online censorship by the federal government, which could effectively kill websites based on copyright infringement. Smith defends it as a way to prevent “IP theft [which] costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs.”
