Stop Online Piracy Act Research Articles

Fighting for the Internet: Online Blackout Protests and Internet Legislation in the United States, 1996-2018

Fighting for the Internet: Online Blackout Protests and Internet Legislation in the United States, 1996-2018

Are Social Media Emancipatory or Hegemonic? Societal Effects of Mass Media Digitization in the Case of the SOPA Discourse

Mass media digitization is an unfolding phenomenon, posing novel societal opportunities and challenges that researchers are beginning to note. We build on and extend MIS research on process digitization and digital versus traditional communication media to study how and to what extent social media—one form of digital mass media—are emancipatory (i.e., permitting wide-spread participation in public discourse and surfacing of diverse perspectives) versus hegemonic (i.e., contributing to ideological control by a few). While a pressing concern to activists and scholars, systematic study of this issue has been elusive, owing partially to the complexity of the emancipation and hegemony concepts. Using a case study approach, we iteratively engaged with data on the discourse surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and source literature to identify six facets of interpretive media packages (i.e., competing social constructions of an issue) as measurable constructs pertinent to emancipation and hegemony. These facets included three structural constraints (on authorship, citation, and influence) and three content restrictions (on frames, signatures, and emotion). We investigated propositions regarding effects of social versus traditional media and lean versus rich social media on these interpretive media package facets by comparing the SOPA discourse across two lean traditional and social media (newspapers and Twitter) and two rich traditional and social media (television and YouTube). Our findings paradoxically revealed social media to be emancipatory with regard to structural constraints, but hegemonic with regard to an important content restriction (i.e., frames). Lean social media mitigated structural advantages and exacerbated content problems. These findings suggest that, as with traditional media, some inevitable evils accompany the societal benefits of social media and that mass media is having a detrimental effect on public discourse. We offer practical steps by which private and public institutions may counter this effect, theoretical implications for wider consideration of the six interpretive media package facets proposed here, and encouragement to MIS researchers to increase their efforts to compare different digitized processes so that a more comprehensive theory of the effects of different forms of digitized processes can be developed.

Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate

This article investigates the public debate over proposed U.S. legislation designed to give prosecutors and copyright holders new tools to pursue suspected online copyright violations. We compiled, mapped, and analyzed a set of 9,757 stories published over 16 months relevant to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). This study applies a mixed-methods approach that combines text and link analysis with human coding and informal interviews to map the evolution of the controversy over time and to analyze the mobilization, roles, and interactions of various actors. We find a vibrant, diverse, and decentralized networked public sphere that exhibited broad participation, leveraged topical expertise, and successfully reframed a debate and focused public sentiment to shape national public policy. A network of small-scale commercial tech media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals fulfilled the fourth estate function; traditional media then amplified the work of these actors. The campaign involved substantial experimentation and rapid development of mobilization strategies. We observe an increased public awareness of an agenda originating in the networked public sphere, which emerged successfully despite substantial expenditures attempting to produce a mass media narrative that favored the legislation. Moreover, we witness what we call an attention backbone, in which more trafficked sites amplify less-visible individual voices on specific subjects. The data suggest that, at least in this case, the networked public sphere enabled a dynamic public discourse that involved both individual and organizational participants and offered substantive discussion of complex issues contributing to affirmative political action.

What influences online deliberation? A wikipedia study

In this paper we describe a study aimed at evaluating and improving the quality of online deliberation. We consider the rationales used by participants in deletion discussions on Wikipedia in terms of the literature on democratic and online deliberation and collaborative information quality. Our findings suggest that most participants in these discussions were concerned with the notability and credibility of the topics presented for deletion, and that most presented rationales rooted in established site policies. We found that factors like article topic and unanimity (or lack thereof) were among the factors that tended to affect the outcome of the debate. Our results also suggested that the blackout of the site in response to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) law affected the decisions of deletion debates that occurred close to the event. We conclude by suggesting implications of this study for broader considerations of online information quality and democratic deliberation.

Free Speech in Cyberspace: A Rhetorical Analysis of SOPA and PIPA Cyberprotests

On January 18, 2012 cyber-industrialized leaders blacked out their sites to protest proposed congressional legislation. They opposed Protection IP Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), two laws that would grant unprecedented power to the U.S. government to regulate the Internet. The protests offer an important rhetorical moment in protest rhetoric as it illuminates the ways in which a brief rupture to normal operating procedures can impact significant change. The 24-hour protest, led by power brokers in the industry, did not encourage civil disobedience but promoted petitioning government, leading to an unparalleled awareness of the issue and the failure to pass the legislation.

The US SOPA and PIPA − a European perspective

According to US House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, ‘the theft of American intellectual property costs the American economy over $100 billion annually … and thousands of jobs’. Both houses of the US congress have been working on corresponding bills intending to give the US government and copyright holders more effective tools to curb access to so-called rogue websites that disseminate copyright-infringing content, especially those registered outside the US. Following a wake of protest, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) by the Senate and its counterpart in the House of Representatives, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), were postponed ‘until there is wider agreement on a solution’. This paper examines how the bills tried to strengthen the ability of US law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. It will also outline the recent developments and assess the implications that the bills have for freedom of speech online and cybersecurity, not only in the US but also in Europe.

Protecting Open Access to Taxpayer-Funded Research: The Rise and Defeat of the Research Works Act

The library community has long been an advocate of free access to publicly funded research, yet Congress regularly considers bills that would prevent the public from accessing such information. In an age where bills such as Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) are brought forth only to receive heavy criticism from all parts of society, this article investigates the potential impact the Research Works Act (RWA) might have caused on academic publishing. While the RWA was defeated, similar pieces of legislation will rise again. As librarians, we must be aware of such acts to prevent the damage they seek to impose.

Stealing From the Rich to Entertain the Poor?: A Survey of Literature on the Ethics of Digital Piracy

The backlash against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)/Protect IP Act (PIPA) legislation brings to light a battle that has been raging between Hollywood and Silicon Valley ever since technology made it easy to illegally copy and distribute copyrighted material. Many studies have been done on digital pirates in order to create a demographic, psychological, and ethical profile of them. This article compares these studies and examines the assumption that many of them are based on; namely, that digital piracy is always unethical or criminal in today's world. It also discusses alternative delivery methods that have been used by content creators and the implications for the future.

A Post‐SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) Shift in International Intellectual Property Norm Creation

Since the creation of the Statute of Anne in 1710, the development of intellectual property (IP) norms has been primarily influenced by large actors in the private sector. This influence has expanded in the twentieth century to a global scale with the emergence of a number of international treaties aimed at harmonizing IP norms. This work argues that the 18 January protests of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) marks a shift in the norm‐creation process to smaller, more public‐minded influencers. This shift is happening for three primary reasons. While the introduction of empirical evaluation in the IP norm creation process and the apparent ideological inconsistencies of the previous paradigm have harmed the credibility of the present IP norm influencers, the internet has afforded novel participation in the norm‐creation process for a broad range of actors.

Copyright Lawmaking and the Public Choice: From Legislative Battles to Private Ordering

On January 18th, 2012, the Web went dark in the largest online protest in history. Two anti-piracy Bills – The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and The Protect IP Act (PIPA) – attracted waves of opposition from the Internet community, which culminated on January 18th in an unprecedented 24-hour Web strike, followed by a decision to shelve the Bills indefinitely. The tech industries’ recent rise to be one of the most influential lobbies in copyright legislative arena, and social networks’ ability to lower mobilization costs of individual users set the foundation for the overwhelming accomplishment of the SOPA/PIPA uprising. An established line of commentary has employed public choice theory to explain the perspective that corporate copyright holders have had disproportionate influence on copyright lawmaking to the detriment of the general public. Following the successful opposition to the antipiracy bills, voices arguing a revolution in copyright legislation and policymaking began speaking out. Contrary to those voices, this Article argues that since the laudable display of the power of the public in the SOPA/PIPA case was of a unique context, it is too soon to part ways with the public choice model of copyright lawmaking. The public should be looked at as a ‘sleeping giant’ whose potential awakening, as paramount as it could be, is merely a potential. Furthermore, this Article claims that even if the public could mobilize into action more frequently, previous resort to private ordering in the form of cross-industry partnerships, which are often kept away from the public eye, would regularly impede public opposition. Cross-industry partnerships, while little-discussed in legal commentary, make perfect economic sense for corporate players, and they can be as influential and effective as public legislation, without the fear of a prospective public backlash.

Illegal online drug sellers: How to stop them?

Illegal online drug sellers: How to stop them?

SOPA and the Future of the Internet

The US legal system reflects the world within which it was designed to operate: law (by and large) respects borders. The Internet (by and large) does not, however: How do we bring law to this border-disrespecting place? The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was meant to reduce access to foreign Internet sites that infringe US copyright. SOPA would have authorized federal prosecutors, and private rightsholders in certain circumstances, to bring in rem actions against the domain names associated with infringing sites—allowing the court, in effect, to “seize” the domain names. SOPA is unworkable because the network architecture virtually guarantees that evasion will be widespread and rather simple to accomplish. It is unjust because a principle undergirding the US legal system is that you may not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Moreover, what gives the Internet its extraordinary and transformative power is precisely the fact that it has no borders, that it is a single global network that connects everyone as peers. Chopping it up into pieces would destroy it. Copyrighted works are important and worth protecting. They are not, however, sacred objects that we should protect at any cost. The damage SOPA would have done to the technical and legal infrastructure of the Internet is immense, and its benefits would have been negligible.

The Research Works Act: a comment

It’s been a tale of two ‘opens’; recent events in US political life suggest a reconciliation with the concept of open marriage but a relationship with open access to scientific research that may be headed for splitsville. In a rare feat of bipartisanship during a Congress famed for partisan pettiness, the Research Works Act (RWA) has received cross-party sponsorship in the House and is now being heard in Committee. The Act, in its own words, seeks to prevent Federal agencies from requiring that authors ‘assent to network dissemination of a privatesector research work’. Translation? It will be illegal for Federally funded research grants to have open access strings attached. This includes a bar on policies insisting on deposition in public repositories; in fact, it will be illegal to ‘cause’, ‘permit’ or ‘authorize’ such a deposition. RWA has not attracted the same volume of headlines as the equally controversial SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), which was another recent bill pertaining to internet freedoms. But although the opponents of RWA cannot rival the political and global reach of the likes of Google and Wikipedia, a spirited, academia-led campaign against RWA is underway on the blogosphere and Twitter. As with many grassroots protests in the social media era, the RWA rebutters have mixed a sense of genuine outrage with mischievous and irreverent humor.