The end of January marked a historic moment politcally and for information technology. Two bills were presented to Congress– the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA)– in an attempt to stop copyright infringement. SOPA, created in the House of Representatives, was intended to expand the capabilities of law enforcement to regulate websites that host or link to known sites that have violated intellectual property rights. This would allow the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies to blacklist websites, cut off advertisement income for websites, and limit search results of sites known to have violated copyright laws. Alternatively, PIPA, developed in the Senate, was designed to specifically target websites overseas that are known to violate copyright laws by means of Domain Name System (DNS) blocking. A similar strategy is currently being used in China to censor the Internet and block access to Facebook, Twitter, or other American websites. Among reactions to these bills were online protests and blackouts of popular websites, most notably Wikipedia. Major websites do not dismiss the need to stop online piracy; however, SOPA and PIPA would allow government the ability to regulate search results and force websites to police all possible hyperlinks. For example, if a Wikipedia page has a link in the references section leading to a domain that has any copyright violations, then all of Wikipedia would be forced to shut down until that link is terminated. Several protests have brought to light such flaws in these two bills. Since the protests and blackouts, the bills have been shelved and are not going to a vote. The possibility still exists for amendments and another attempt to vote on SOPA and PIPA or similar bills.After SOPA and PIPA were rejected from the Congress on January 18th, 2012, Republican Darrell Issa introduced a draft of a new Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) to the House of Representatives.This proposal is an effort to settle public unrest about the two previous bills as well as an attempt to increase protection for intellectual property rights. In contrast with SOPA and PIPA, which would give power to content owners and the Department of Justice, OPEN would cast over the International Trade Commission. With this new international focus, all foreign-based websites subjected to intentional publication of copyright infringing content would have to pay fines, in addition to having all financial activities that encourage the illegal acts cut off.Currently, a draft of the OPEN bill is posted online for “open” discussion at http://keepthewebopen.com/. When accessing the website, users will be able to edit individual sections of the draft, as well as insert personal comments on the direction the bill should be heading towards. So far, the new Act has acquired support from major technology companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
When he was asked about the OPEN Act’s outlook, Rep. Issa confidently told the press, “OPEN is a targeted, effective solution to the problem of foreign, rogue websites stealing from American artists and innovators.” However, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the main proponent of SOPA and PIPA, is not in favor of the new bill, saying that OPEN is too lenient on the piracy problem. Similarly, Rep. Lamar Smith, who drafted SOPA and PIPA, expressed his opposition , “The OPEN Act creates loopholes that make the Internet even more open to foreign thieves that steal America’s technology and IP without protecting U.S. businesses and consumers.”Two sides of the argument both have their merit, and are fighting relentlessly for their goal. Yet, whose goal is the most beneficial to this country, is a question that can only be answered by the people of the United States of America.

(Sources: “The OPEN Act Introduced”,SOPA, PIPA: What You Need to Know, and Why We’ve Censored Wired.com)