Intro: "Misguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there's a lot less to worry about."
Barack Obama, the first truly digital president. (photo: Reuters)
Obama Announces Opposition to SOPA
16 January 12
isguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there's a lot less to worry about.
At issue are two related bills: the Senate's Protect IP Act and the even more offensive Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, both of which are generating intense opposition from tech giants and First Amendment advocates. The first sign that the bills' prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.
The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration's chief technology officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, "We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet." It added that any proposed legislation "must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet."
Until now, the Obama administration had not taken a position on the issue. The response was published yesterday as part of the online "We The People" petition initiative launched by the White House last year.
Though the administration did not issue a formal veto threat, the White House's opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.
A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.
"While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House," Issa said in a statement. "Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote."
It's possible that a related version of SOPA could come back at some point down the road - though probably not this year - but for now, the push against the bill has succeeded beautifully.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
A Snake in the Grass!
How? Don't publish at all?
Barbara, piracy IS a big problem on the internet...but SOPA was a terrible vehicle for combating it (I signed a few petitions against it).
There are numerous examples of people downloading music, images, and writing that are copyrighted. There should be penalties to the people uploading things that don't belong to them...but NOT to the sites where this occurs -- unless they solicit this type of material.
Downloading a song without paying for it is like swiping a record from the record store (I'm showing my age).
Protect content -- don't stifle the internet. These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
our future is at stake
I guess everyone here expects artists, musicians, and writers to work for free. Make 'em get a job somewhere else, huh?
If you read my post thoroughly, you'd see I said I was against stifling the internet, but I didn't think we should throw out copyright laws for the creators.
Maybe one of you thumbs-downers could explain what I said that was so reprehensible.
P.S. I don't own any copyrights, and I know but one person whom holds ONE....but I'm not a thief, so I don't infringe on them, do you?
As a matter of fact, if you post a copyrighted item on the internet, the site is more likely to suffer prosecution than you are for posting it -- and they did nothing but provide a forum which you used illegally. THAT'S why we need new laws -- to PROTECT the internet.
So a creator should have to give up rights to ownership after 10 years? What do you do for a living, Dusty? How about we stop paying you for your work after ten years?
Or maybe after ten years ALL ownership should be negated. So I can move into your house after you've owned it for ten years.
Give me a break, you're gettin' something for free that you used to have to pay for, and now you don't want to give up that freebie.
You forgot something.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN --- remember?
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
our future and livelihoods are at stake
Also, how could anyone think it was a good idea to elect Darryll Issa? Maybe those behind the scenes with the big money? [MichaelAngelo] "We need to keep track of the convicted criminal and proven liar, the unctuous and insincere Darryl Issa, who is the real snake in the grass."
RSS feed for comments to this post