Which came first sopa and pipa

Let's say a YouTube user uploads a copyrighted song. Under the current law, that song's copyright holders could send a "takedown notice" to YouTube. YouTube is protected against liability as long as it removes the content within a reasonable timeframe.

That user has the right to file a counter-motion demonstrating that the content doesn't infringe on any copyrights. If the two sides keep disagreeing, the issue can go to court.

SOPA tackles that by moving up the chain. If you can't force overseas sites to take down copyrighted work, you can at least stop U. You can also make it harder for U. Internet users to find and access the sites. The proposed bill's text says that a site could be deemed a SOPA scofflaw if it "facilitates" copyright infringement. Sites like YouTube, which publishes millions of user-uploaded videos each week, are worried that they would be forced to more closely police that content to avoid running afoul of the new rules.

The bill requires every payment or advertising network operator to set up a process through which outside parties can notify the company that one of its customers is an "Internet site is dedicated to theft of U. Filing false notifications is a crime, but the process would put the burden of proof -- and the legal cost of fighting a false allegation -- on the accused.

As the anti-SOPA trade group NetCoalition put it in their analysis of the bill: "The legislation systematically favors a copyright owner's intellectual property rights and strips the owners of accused websites of their rights.

Who supports SOPA, and who's against it? In general, media companies have united in favor of them, while tech's big names are throwing their might into opposing them.

The bill's supporters dismiss accusations of censorship, saying that the legislation is meant to revamp a broken system that doesn't adequately prevent criminal behavior. But SOPA's critics say the bill's backers don't understand the Internet's architecture, and therefore don't appreciate the implications of the legislation they're considering. In November, tech behemoths including Google GOOG , Fortune and Facebook lodged a formal complaint letter to lawmakers, saying: "We support the bills' stated goals.

Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities [and] mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. A more cautious approach requires a more open process. Treading cautiously will require, first and foremost, avoiding both the reality and the perception that legislation is the product of backroom dealing by and for industry lobbyists.

The anger regarding PIPA and SOPA spread online as the perception grew that powerful industries and congressional leaders were coming together to cut deals for the benefit of specific industries — with little regard for the general impact on the open Internet. Hearings on the legislation seemed more aimed at greasing the skids than at exploring real concerns. As opposition began to increase, the bills' proponents responded by trying to rush the bills through as quickly as possible.

Any changes to address concerns were to be at the sole discretion of those who authored the bills, with little time for scrutiny or consensus building. Some of this may be business as usual in Congress; bill sponsors work hard to pass their legislation and don't readily grant naysayers attention or time to generate momentum. But in future matters regarding the Internet, business as usual won't be sufficient. When there is a broad and diffuse group of Internet users who view themselves as stakeholders, a more open, inclusive and deliberative process must be the first order of business with the Internet community at the table.

Ignorance about how the Internet works is no longer an option. Congress needs to engage with the technical community and take its advice seriously. A major theme of the opposition was that Congress was simply ignorant of the technical implications of its proposals. Sandia National Labs said it would undermine cybersecurity.

Yet in December, a majority of the House Judiciary Committee appeared content to profess its ignorance of the Internet and proceed regardless, without further input from technical experts. As a widely circulated article observed, it is "no longer OK" for members of Congress to profess their own lack of technical understanding of the Internet even as they cast votes on Internet legislation.

Future Internet policy debates need to reflect both better technical understanding and more reliance on true technical experts. Overreaching Internet related legislation is no longer a successful strategy.

Yet they still tried hard to "future proof" the legislation by including multiple and overlapping enforcement tools and open-ended definitions designed to make sure that no future "rogue site" would escape its reach. The end result was sweeping discretion for law enforcement and major concerns about potential overbreadth.

When Internet legislation tries to be address every perceived harm, it sacrifices its ability to be narrowly targeted and draws in a broad swath of lawful Internet actors into the enforcement tent. The DOJ needs a court order before it can proceed, which it can obtain if the site in question is operated by an organization outside of the U. Once a court order has been served, there are three main tools these bills give the DOJ and copyright holders for blocking websites.

Authors of both bills have wavered on their stance when it comes to DNS blocking. The second method of blocking involves mandating that major search engines Google, Bing, Yahoo de-index an accused site from their search results. And finally, the third way prohibits any site accused of piracy from doing business with other services, such as PayPal or any advertising platform.

The same is true for ad networks. That ambiguity alone has many Internet companies concerned. This is a dangerous precedent, even though the proposed legislation is only trying to de-index sites that commit acts of piracy. Google has already faced legal opposition overseas — for instance, China places restrictions on what content Google can present in search results — and a U.

That may be the case. It makes sense from this perspective , and piracy is a real and growing problem. The majority of major media companies Comcast, News Corp.