PIPA letter
Yeah, so if anyone wants to write their senator(s) regarding PIPA , I'm giving you free permission to copy and paste my letter. Yes, PIRATE AWAY, my dears. Now I'm aware that my letter is not a glowing work of literary merit, so if there are things you wanna change, go ahead, whatever. I'm pretty sure my facts are correct, but if there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Dear Senator_______,
My name is ________, and on January 24, I urge you to vote "no" on S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA. Although the bill is designed to target "rogue websites" operating overseas, it would in fact have an impact on sites far beyond those that are simply "dedicated to infringing activities."
The current text of PIPA indicates that a site can be targeted if the key service that it offers "facilitates" infringement. Under this definition, virtually any website, located either in the United States or abroad, could become a potential target. Most notably, any sites that provide links to so-called offending sites would be ordered to remove these links or otherwise disable access to them. This would impact sites like Google, Wikipedia, and any other sites that contain links to external websites deemed to be blacklisted. In addition, user-generated sites, such as Youtube, would be especially affected because they would be forced to become liable for each of its users' actions. In essence, under the bill, sites would be required to proactively monitor the content that they feature, which is a near impossibility in today's Internet environment.
This bill has the chilling potential to stifle innovation. Not only would it require start-ups to take significant costs to comply with its provisions, but it would also have the potential to shut companies down because rights holders could threaten them under the private rights of action in the bill. Furthermore, this bill has the potential to threaten free speech because it could limit or restrict access to any sites that are considered to be "rogue." The nebulous definition of sites that could fall under the infringing category, moreover, could result in innocuous websites being blocked.
Therefore, I urge you to consider the potential impact of this bill on America's economy and freedom of speech and oppose this legislation by voting "no" on cloture.
This entry was originally posted at http://frogally.dreamwidth.org/1816.html
Dear Senator_______,
My name is ________, and on January 24, I urge you to vote "no" on S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA. Although the bill is designed to target "rogue websites" operating overseas, it would in fact have an impact on sites far beyond those that are simply "dedicated to infringing activities."
The current text of PIPA indicates that a site can be targeted if the key service that it offers "facilitates" infringement. Under this definition, virtually any website, located either in the United States or abroad, could become a potential target. Most notably, any sites that provide links to so-called offending sites would be ordered to remove these links or otherwise disable access to them. This would impact sites like Google, Wikipedia, and any other sites that contain links to external websites deemed to be blacklisted. In addition, user-generated sites, such as Youtube, would be especially affected because they would be forced to become liable for each of its users' actions. In essence, under the bill, sites would be required to proactively monitor the content that they feature, which is a near impossibility in today's Internet environment.
This bill has the chilling potential to stifle innovation. Not only would it require start-ups to take significant costs to comply with its provisions, but it would also have the potential to shut companies down because rights holders could threaten them under the private rights of action in the bill. Furthermore, this bill has the potential to threaten free speech because it could limit or restrict access to any sites that are considered to be "rogue." The nebulous definition of sites that could fall under the infringing category, moreover, could result in innocuous websites being blocked.
Therefore, I urge you to consider the potential impact of this bill on America's economy and freedom of speech and oppose this legislation by voting "no" on cloture.
This entry was originally posted at http://frogally.dreamwidth.org/1816.html