Information Technology News

Will US really censor search engines and browsers?  Read about COICA 2.0, the Internet Censorship Bill.

The PROTECT IP Act
Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost American creators and producers billions of dollars and to result in hundreds of thousands in lost jobs annually. This pervasive problem has assumed an especially threatening form on the Internet. Consumers are increasingly lured to well-designed websites that are devoted almost exclusively to unauthorized downloads and streaming of copyrighted content or sale of counterfeit goods. These rogue Internet sites are often outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement because they are foreign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar. The illegal products offered at these websites are wide-ranging, from the latest movie or music hits to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. Today, both the Justice Department and rights holders are limited in the remedies available to block these infringing websites, even when the website is directed at American consumers and steals American owned intellectual property. Even those infringing domestic Internet sites that the Justice Department seized through its Operation In Our Sites initiative are at risk for reconstituting under an identical, but foreign-registered, domain name, which would then fall outside the reach of American authorities. The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (“PROTECT IP Act”) authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the sites dedicated to infringing activities. For an order to issue, the Justice Department must also show that the Internet site is directed at U.S. consumers and harms holders of U.S. Intellectual Property. The Department would be required to serve notice of the action promptly after filing. If the court issues an order against the registrant, owner, or domain name, resulting from Theydon-initiated suit, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order on specified U.S. based third-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site (in the case of an Internet service provider or search engine), or cease doing business with the Internet site (in the case of payment processor or advertising network). The Act similarly authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement to bring inaction against the owner, registrant, or Internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domestic or foreign, and to seek a court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domain name. However, if the order issues, the rights holder must seek the court’s permission to serve that order and may only do so on a payment processor or online advertising network, and not an Internet service provider or search engine (as available for a DOJ-initiated action). The Act ensures that third-parties are not overly burdened to comply with an order by stipulating that the party is not required to take action beyond what is technically feasible and reasonable. Additionally, an Internet service provider is never required to modify its network or facilities to comply with a court order. The plaintiff can request the court to compel third-party compliance only where the third party does not make reasonable and good faith efforts to comply with an order. The third-party would not be liable for any action or inaction, unless in contempt of court. The Act includes safeguards to allow the domain name owner or site operator to petition the court to suspend or vacate the order, including in the situation in which the Internet site at issues no longer, or never was, dedicated to infringing activities; or the interests of justice require it. Similarly, as site operators subject to an order transition the infringing websites to new domain names, the Justice Department or private party is authorized to bring a related action against there constituted domain name, site owner, or registrant, in the same Federal court. The Act further protects payment processors and Internet advertising networks that voluntarily cease doing business with infringing websites, outside of any court ordered action. Those parties are immunized from damages resulting from actions taken against an Internet site where they have a good faith belief on credible evidence it is dedicated to infringing activities. Additionally, the legislation protects consumers against counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded pharmaceutical products sold on the Internet by providing a safe harbor for domain name registries, registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks to take voluntary action against any infringing website that “endangers the public health” by offering such dangerous medication. The Act includes a savings clause explicitly stating that it does not limit or expand civil or criminal remedies, or enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability under title 17(including section 512). Additionally, failure to take voluntary action under the Act does not constitute liability for any party, including vicarious or contributory liability. The Act also provides that nothing in the Act shall serve as a basis for determining the application of section 512 of title 17.The Act will also help law enforcement identify and prevent counterfeit products from being imported into the Unites States by ensuring law enforcement can share samples of packaging or labels of suspected counterfeits with the relevant rights holders to determine whether the shipment should be seized at the border. Similarly, it ensures that law enforcement can hereunto-circumvention devices that have been seized with affected parties.

Source: IP Protect Act

Read More and Sign Petition if you disagree...
Another Petition