Hollywood, Silicon Valley spar over online piracy bill

Nov 16, 2011 by Chris Lefkow
Hollywood sparred with Silicon Valley in the US Congress on Wednesday at a hearing on a controversial bill intended to crack down on online piracy.

Hollywood sparred with Silicon Valley in the US Congress on Wednesday at a hearing on a controversial bill intended to crack down on online piracy.

Internet search giant Google, an opponent of the legislation, was pitted alone against five supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) at the three-and-a-half hour hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill has received the backing of the (MPAA), the , the , the and others.

But it has come under fire from digital rights groups and Internet heavyweights such as Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo!, as well as Google, who say it raises censorship concerns and threatens the very architecture of the Web.

The bill would give the US authorities more tools to crack down on foreign "rogue" websites accused of piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of .

It would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs), search engines, payment providers and advertising networks served with court orders to block access or sever ties with websites accused of copyright or .

Opening the hearing, Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who chairs the Judiciary Committee and is a co-sponsor of SOPA, said "the problem of rogue websites is real, immediate and widespread.

"Since the United States produces the most intellectual property, our country has the most to lose if we fail to address the problem of these rogue websites," said Smith, who lashed out at Google from the outset accusing it of seeking to "obstruct" the bill.

"Perhaps this should come as no surprise given that Google just settled a federal criminal investigation into the company's active promotion of rogue websites that pushed illegal prescription and on ," he said.

One of the witnesses backing the legislation, Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice president of the MPAA, said Google should be doing more to combat piracy.

"There are legitimate services out there now," O'Leary said, providing legal downloads or streams of movies and television shows.

"The problem is that when you go to Google and you punch in the name of a movie those legitimate sites are buried on page eight of the search results," he said.

"There is a better-than-average chance that Pirate Bay is going to end up ahead of Netflix," O'Leary said. "That's a fundamental problem no matter how many legitimate sites are out there that we can't overcome.

"If we could get Google to reindex those sites in a way that favored legitimacy... then consumers would be getting to those first," O'Leary said. "That's a practical problem that could be addressed today."

Reminding the panel at one point that does "not control the World Wide Web," the company's copyright counsel Katherine Oyama backed a "follow the money" approach to dealing with copyright and trademark infringers, choking them off from payment providers and from advertisers.

"If you can cut off their financial ties they won't have a reason to be in business anymore," Oyama said. "If you look at WikiLeaks that is how they've been taken out, by cutting off the money."

As for the bill in its current form, "there is a tremendous concern in the technology community about some of the remedies being proposed and some of the unintended consequences they would have," she said.

"Casting the net too broadly threatens collateral damage to legitimate businesses and activities online, while letting the rogues wriggle free," Oyama said.

Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California whose congressional district includes San Jose, home to many leading high-tech companies, expressed displeasure with the composition of the panel and the bill.

"We've got six witnesses here," Lofgren said. "Five are in favor and only one against and that troubles me.

"The point is that search engines are not capable of censoring the entire World Wide Web. We need to go after the people who are committing crimes in a way that would work. This bill would not do that."

Explore further: Facebook 'newspaper' spells trouble for media

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

'Rogue websites' bill introduced in US House

Oct 27, 2011

US lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites accused of piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

US lawmakers to push for online piracy bill

Apr 05, 2011

Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress pledged Monday to pass legislation that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music and the ...

US Senate committee approves online piracy bill

Nov 18, 2010

The US Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill on Thursday that would give US law enforcement more tools to crack down on websites abroad engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music.

'Rogue websites' bill returns to US Senate

May 13, 2011

US senators re-introduced a bill Thursday that would give the US authorities more tools to crack down on websites selling pirated movies, television shows and music and counterfeit goods.

Recommended for you

YouTube goes online for second Music Awards

Nov 20, 2014

The YouTube Music Awards are undergoing an overhaul for their second edition next year, scrapping a star-studded gala and instead looking at videos' online buzz.

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eric96
4 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2011
"If we could get Google to reindex those sites in a way that favored legitimacy... then consumers would be getting to those first," O'Leary said. "That's a practical problem that could be addressed today."

Incorrect. Free speech and Free expression come first. If Google's complies; there is no freedom. The US has too much undue power over the internet. They try to distract your mind, and say Hey we produce the most movies....that's nice and all, but this legislation would crack down on any copyright material you see fit; nice red hearing a** w****. Hollywood is certainly paying off the right people to have recent trends progress so quickly; that certainly flies much easier in the US then it would in other countries. Law is the WILL of the people; well the people WILL free content. Poor Multi-billionaire Hollywood losing a few millions, poor you you aristocratic peace of *****.


Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2011
This bill is sheer madness!
Decimatus
not rated yet Nov 17, 2011
I agree with the follow the money approach. They crushed wikileaks in a matter of months yet pirate bay and whatnot have been around for years.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
Only calling companies as witnesses... You have your problem right there!

If no company like Google had anything to gain from opposing this bill, they would hear 5 companies for it and 0 against?!

Who runs that country, after all?
sherriffwoody
not rated yet Nov 17, 2011
Yeah right, I can see this happening. By the time a lock and permissions are made to block a server the abuser will be using a new server. I agree, this is total madness.
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice president of the MPAA, said Google should be doing more to combat piracy.

Why is it Googles responsibility to protect your source of revenue? If you cannot control your own industry then it is on you to change or adapt. Ah but in the US it is easier to make ludicrous laws, that force others to enforce other ludicrous laws, than it is to enforce those other ludicrous laws yourself.
"There is a better-than-average chance that Pirate Bay is going to end up ahead of Netflix," O'Leary said.

Coincidently there is a better-than-average chance that the Pirate Bay was the desired search result.
"If we could get Google to reindex those sites in a way that favored legitimacy... then consumers would be getting to those first," O'Leary said.

Doesnt China do censoring...err I mean reindexing? Well f*** China, and f*** you too Michael O'Leary.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
A DNS block like they're proposing doesn't affect criminal sites directly, because they can always set up rogue DNS servers, or the users can refer to the site by a straight IP address.

It will only serve getting the site out of sight, and into the "dark web" that is invisible to google, and consequently invisible for law-enforcement as well.

They can't block IP addresses because it would cause too much collateral damage. At least until IPv6 comes around, which serves everyone a private IP, and makes people easily trackable because a part of every IPv6 address is formed from the MAC address of the device that's connected to the internet.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.