The letter highlights the same problems many people have already pointed out. In a summary of the letter, they say SOPA will:
- Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of inducement in a! way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.
- Allow the government to block Internet access to any web site that "facilitated" copyright or trademark infringement - a term that the Department of Justice currently interprets to require nothing more than having a link on a web page to another site that turns out to be infringing.
- Allow any private copyright or trademark owner to interfere with the ability of web sites to host advertising or charge purchases to credit cards, putting enormous obstacles in the path of electronic commerce.
It lists specific problems the professors have with the law, including an apparent conflict with the US Constitution:
Suppressing speech without notice and a proper hearing: The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action to suppress speech taken prior to "a prompt final judicial decision ... in an adversary proceeding" that the speech is a presumptively unconstitutional "prior restraint," the "most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amdendment rights," permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution "require[s] a court, before material is completely removed from circulation, ... to make a final determination that material is [unlawful] after an adversary hearing."
They also express concern that SOPA would effectively break the framework of the Internet and stifle innovation:
Breaking the Internet's infrastructure: If the government uses the power to demand that individual Internet service providers make individual, country-specific decisions about who can find what on the Internet, the interconnection principle at the very heart of the Internet is at risk.
...Moreover, the practical effect of the Act would be to kill innovation by new technology companies in the media space. Anyone who starts such a company is at risk of having their source of customers and revenue - indeed, their website itself - disappear at a moment's notice.
Finally, they say it would be a black eye for the US in terms of supporting freedom around the world:
Undermining United States' leadership in supporting and defending free speech and the free exchange of information on the Internet: The Act represents a retreat from the United States' strong support of freedom of expression and the free exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, the Act would incorporate into U.S. law - for the first time - a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law.
Read the full text of the letter:
var ua = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase(); var isAndroid = ua.indexOf("android") > -1; if(isAndroid) { document.write('
Tip: Don\'t miss our news - install AfterDawn\'s own Android app! Get it now! (100% free!)'); }
Written by: Rich Fiscus @ 16 Nov 2011 11:05
