On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, or against a registrant of such domain name, or the owner or operator of such Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, if. . .
. . . the Internet site—conducts business directed to residents of the United States; and harms holders of United States intellectual property rights.That’s the key text of the PROTECT IP Act, and what it means is that if a website is judged to be doing bad stuff in terms of copyright infringement — read: file-sharing — it can be kicked off the internet. Pow.Of course this is bad, representing in no uncertain terms the pull of a restricted, policed internet. The act, put forth by a bipartisan smattering of name-brand Senators (Feinstein, Hatch, Graham, and more), passed out of committee this morning and looked to be heading toward a vote. Would it have passed? I dunno. Maybe. The Senate’s full of old, wealthy business people. Not exactly intellectual property deep-thinkers.No matter. This afternoon, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden — who rules in many other respects too — put a hold on the bill. His office released this statement:In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA's prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.
The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America's economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.Pow. Tell ’em motherfuckers, Ron. (Also, if this “hold” concept seems, well, wtf, read here.)Reach this writer at michaelb@motherboard.tv.
Advertisement
