You may have noticed that many websites, like Wikipedia, have gone black screen to protest proposed legislation that will effect everyone who uses the internet.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would sign off on a law that appears to be aimed at fighting copyright infringement, but, its many detractors claim, would in fact lead to censorship.

Congress postponed a vote on the act, but it’s still hanging, supported by the usual mix of corporate, right-wing and fundamentalist Christian lobbying groups.

For the latter pair, SOPA is the thin end of the wedge to further control what we see or can access. As usual, they cite terrorism and protecting children as their rationale.

A vote was scheduled for SOPA, but the bill is now to be debated in February.

If it was passed it would have to go to the House of Representatives and the Senate before President Barack Obama makes the decision to sign off on it – or not.

If the law is passed as it stands, the US government or copyright owners would be able to shut down any website suspected of hosting copyrighted material, possibly without a court warrant. This could signal the end for websites like YouTube that hosts a heady mix of content, much of which is in the gray zone when it comes to copyright. After all, YouTube hosts other people’s content, so it can hardly say that it produced it.

Corporate content providers in Hollywood and major broadcasters are obviously keen for the act to pass because it means they will have a stranglehold on content and thereby increase profits.

That’s the commercial angle.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice would be encouraged to seek court orders against “rogue” websites outside the US that stand accused of copyright infringement. So, it’s not just a US issue.

The free speech angle appears to be a reaction to whistle blower websites like WikiLeaks, which host content belonging to both private and government institutions and arguably, therefore, infringe on copyrights.

I say, arguably, because there could be a public interest dimension to publishing such material. But the law would brook no argument, because the government wouldn’t have to take the case to court. It would be a fait accompli.

Internet and website pioneers have, almost to a man, come out against the proposed law. For instance, Google co-founder Sergey Brin was moved to say: “Imagine my astonishment when the newest threat to free speech has come from none other but the United States.”

Companies like Yahoo, eBay and Netscape claim the bill will “undermine the framework” of free expression, while Wikipedia has threatened to temporarily blank out its pages to draw attention to the controversial act.

It’s a huge issue and affects anyone connected to the Internet. All of us, basically. Not that we have any say.

It would assert the suzerainty of the US over all other countries when it comes to the Internet and possibly lead to the World Wide Web becoming a fragmented shadow of what it is.

What are SOPA and PIPA?

SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” and PIPA is an acronym for the “Protect IP Act.” (“IP” stands for “intellectual property.”) In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites.

SOPA and PIPA are badly drafted legislation that won’t be effective at their stated goal (to stop copyright infringement), and will cause serious damage to the free and open Internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won’t have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn’t being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won’t show up in major search engines. And, SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression. (Wikipedia)