Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) chief Cary Sherman on Tuesday defended a controversial bill intended to crack down on pirated content online, urging detractors to "take a deep breath."
Sherman penned an editorial for CNET in response to a column from writer Molly Wood, who asserted that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) proves "that the MPAA is evil and Hollywood wants the Internet to die."
For years, regulators have tried to come up with an effective way to shut down Web sites that contain pirated content. However, the anonymity of the Web, as well as the fact that many offending sites are located overseas, have complicated the matter. Congress has pushed several legislative solutions, including the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act and the Protect IP Act, but the latest proposed solution is RIAA- and MPAA-backed SOPA.
Among the more controversial provisions is a section that would allow rights holders to contact the financial institutions that do business with a particular Web site and ask them to shut down access because of infringing content. If you ran a Web site that used PayPal or accepted payment via MasterCard, for example, and someone thought your site contained pirated content, they could contact PayPal or MasterCard and have those companies cut off access to your site, effectively shutting down your business.
Detractors insist that the bill will do more harm to the Internet than good. CNET's Wood argued that "SOPA is the latest—and perhaps the most brazen—effort in a string of attempts by the MPAA and RIAA to bend the Internet to their corporate will and undermine all kinds of consumer rights."
Sherman, however, warned against such "hyperbole" and said the bill "affords even more legal safeguards to overseas-based sites than the constitutional process in place under current law for domestic sites." There are certain parameters a site must meet before being declared "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property," he continued.
Further, victims must "follow a strict set of rules when notifying payment processors or ad networks that are funding the rogue site," Sherman said.
Wood said the bill allows for the blocking of entire domains because of a single link on one page. Sherman, however, said focusing on a single link ensures that an entire domain is not brought down over one infringing site. " Cutting off funding or access to only the illegal part of the site while leaving the rest of the site intact promotes legitimate expression," he wrote.
"It is ironic sometimes that we are faulted for protecting our rights," Sherman continued. "Yet technology companies like Apple are among the most litigious defenders of their intellectual property patent rights. I suspect that regardless of what we do, some critics, like Ms. Wood, will attack us."
Opponents, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, still have concerns. In a Monday blog post, the EFF's Trevor Tim said SOPA is, above all else, a blacklist bill.
"Of course the word 'blacklist' does not appear in the bill's text—the folks who wrote it know Americans don't approve of blatant censorship," Tim wrote. "However, provisions that encourage unofficial blacklisting remained, and they are still alive and well in SOPA."
Tim said section 104 of the bill "allows payment processors to cut websites off voluntarily—even if they haven't received a notice."
"The potential for rampant abuse is obvious—whether it's a frivolous claim that wouldn't withstand the scrutiny of the official process or an attempt to put an emerging competitor at an extreme disadvantage," he wrote.
The Center for Democracy & Technology has also voiced its opposition. "The bill puts the Internet in the crosshairs and, if passed, would do major damage," the group said Tuesday.
The CDT will hold a press briefing next Tuesday to discuss the aspects of the bill it finds most troubling.