SOPA: Anti-Piracy or Anti-Internet?

You have to wonder, at least I did when I was younger, as to why control of the internet is valued so greatly by the government bodies of this world.  From China to the Middle East's "Arab Spring" last year, there is great power in controlling what your people can (or even more so cannot) see or do on the internet.  Controlling the gathering of your people, in any sense, also controls independent thinking and the collective powers that happen when a people gather.  You're probably asking, "What does this have to do with SOPA?"  I'm getting to that part but first let me build a "platform" of understanding for those who don't clearly realize how the most powerful tool in the world originated. 

As a bit of history (sorry to those of us who know this already) that the internet was founded in this country in the 1950's by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), under the Department of Defense.  Thanks to some really bright fellas at MIT, the first networks and email were created shortly after.

Also, the truest forms of "freedom of speech" were founded in this country as well.  So it makes sense that the highest volume of internet traffic with the largest percentage of websites is located at the home of the internet.

The irony here is the internet was initiated (in part) by a Department of Defense initiative during the tail end of the cold war as an answer to the governments fear of losing military communication systems if we were bombed by Russia.  Those fears never came to pass but because of it, we now have the worlds most connected and most powerful tool, the information super highway.  Countries who control this flow of knowledge and connectivity also control their people's understanding of everything around them.  They control the global community influence and their peoples connectedness to the world around them. 

Now enters two bills, SOPA, an anti-piracy bill that has seen many attempts at passing since the Bush administration and PIPA, a protect IP initiative. 

What is SOPA?  As quoted from Luke Johnson at The Huffington Post:

"...it is to force ISP's to shut down any website that may contain copyrighted content as outlined by the issuing entertainment bodies. The legislation would allow copyright holders and the Justice Department to seek court orders against websites associated with copyright infringement. SOPA, the House version, applies to both domestic and foreign websites.  If that court order is granted, the entire website would be taken down. Internet users who typed in the site's URL address would receive an error message, and for all appearances, the site would never have existed. Importantly, the court does not need to hear a defense from the actual website before issuing its ruling. The entire website can be condemned without a trial or even a traditional court hearing.
Copyright holders, like movie studios, simply invoke the "private right of action" against just about any company that does business with a website that copyright holders believe to be involved in copyright infringement. Copyright holders can demand that payment processors cutoff the flow of money to a website or that search engines eliminate links to it -- without ever entering a courtroom. Movie studios and record labels can also require online advertising networks on the website and Internet service providers from hosting the site."
Companies can protest any of these directives from copyright holders, but must get involved in a court action to object. If they choose to simply follow orders from movie studios, both SOPA and Protect IP would give these companies legal immunity for cutting off any legitimate websites that were falsely accused of copyright infringement. Internet service providers and payment processors could not be sued for taking action against sites that were not, in fact, doing anything improper.
For example, if a website was streaming "The Hangover" without permission, Warner Bros. could ask the Justice Department to obtain a court order for to shut down the entire site -- not merely remove the specific film, as required under current law. Alternatively, Warner Bros. could force credit card companies to stop processing payments to the site, make Google to remove it from search results, and the force the site's ISP from hosting it on the Web.
The language in the bill is vague, however, and could spark the shutdown of many websites that accidentally use snippets of copyrighted material that they believed to be available for free under "fair use" standards.
The legislation poses a significant risk to social media. If links to pirated movies were posted on Twitter or Facebook, the Justice Department could seek to shutdown the entire social media website, while Hollywood and other copyright owners could use their private right of action to severely limit the site's functionality.

Critics emphasize that copyright holders frequently abuse even existing copyright infringement tools that require websites to remove improper content, and believe those problems would be dramatically escalated by SOPA and Protect IP. "We would get a lot of erroneous...takedown notices, even on our own trailers for our own films put up on YouTube, because keywords would match," said Reddit general manager Erik Martin recently, who previously worked at an independent film production company. "Especially when companies are using automated tools -- it's a script, and human beings aren't even looking at this -- the potential for abuse [under Protect IP and SOPA] is huge."

The Justice Department would engage in a process called DNS (Domain Name System) blocking to shut down sites, a tactic which internet experts warn could harm the functionality and stability of the web. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has said that he will include a provision in the final bill requiring a study of the potential effects of the practice--however, it would still require DNS filtering after the study concludes.
SOPA makes it a felony to stream copyrighted video without permission, punishable by prison time.
Under current law, companies that think that their material has been improperly used can request for it to be removed, but cannot ask for entire websites to be taken down--hence the frequent sight of videos no longer available on sites like YouTube."

That's quite a mouthful but the end result is one of the harshest and most unbelievable attempts to control websites in America on record.  To take down a business because of an unproven belief they may have copyrighted content rolls us legislatively back nearly 70 years to when it was legal to charge, indict and convict people because it was a "common belief" (cough{{hearsay}}) they may be a communist. 

I'm not against finding a way to control copyrighted content from being illegally reproduced or used for purposes other than it's intent but to forgo proper legal channels of timely notice and legal action is absurd to me.  America built this great legal "empire" steeped in pleadings, complaints and summons that encourages all people to believe their personal rights are protected with the many layers of the legislative processes at hand, and all under the guises of fairness.

To me, SOPA has completely ignored the basic rights of its people, the right to defend themselves before a judgement is passed.  Innocent until proven guilty.  This bill needs a re-do.