Key Takeaways

  • The Protect IP Act (PIPA) and its companion bill, SOPA, were designed to combat foreign websites that facilitate copyright infringement and piracy.
  • SOPA targeted foreign infringing sites broadly, while PIPA focused on sites with no substantial purpose other than infringement.
  • Supporters argued these laws were necessary to protect intellectual property and the U.S. economy, while critics highlighted risks to innovation, free speech, and due process.
  • Major tech companies, advocacy groups, and the public opposed the bills, leading to widespread protests, online blackouts, and eventual withdrawal.
  • The debate around PIPA and SOPA reflects the broader challenge of balancing intellectual property protection with internet freedom.

The Protect IP Act pros and cons are numerous. This legislation and its companion, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), are part of the fight against the violation of copyrighted material and intellectual property. They are aimed specifically at overseas violators. Though developed specifically for media materials, these acts can also apply to goods and medicines.

Media companies have tried many approaches, including suing individuals, asking internet service providers (ISPs) to go after subscribers involved in piracy, and working with the United States government to take down violating domains. While these efforts have helped domestically, they are ineffective against overseas sites, like The Pirate Bay and Megaupload.

Terms of SOPA and PIPA

SOPA and PIPA originally included two methods of protection. The first process involves the United States Department of Justice filing for court orders to force ISPs to block the domain names of sites committing infringement. An ISP, like Comcast, might block customers from accessing a particular website reported for infringement of intellectual property, though the IP address would still be available through another ISP.

The second method of protection allows the owner of the intellectual property to get a court order to prevent advertisers, search engines, and payment providers from doing business with an offending entity. The link would then disappear from search results and money would stop flowing to the company. The penalized site has five days to appeal.

Legislative Background of the Protect IP Act

The Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act), often called PIPA, was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2011. Its primary goal was to give the federal government and rights holders stronger tools to curb access to foreign websites that hosted or facilitated copyright infringement.

The Act was seen as an expansion of prior enforcement efforts, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), but went further by allowing domain blocking and cutting off financial ties to infringing sites.

The legislation was strongly supported by the film, television, publishing, and music industries, which argued piracy caused billions in lost revenue. Hollywood, in particular, viewed the Protect IP Act as critical to safeguarding creative jobs and protecting intellectual property exports

Differences Between SOPA and PIPA

  • SOPA and PIPA have slightly different focuses. SOPA applies to "foreign infringing sites" that "commit or facilitate" infringement on copyrighted media.
  • PIPA is aimed at sites with "no significant use other than" committing acts of infringement. Between PIPA and SOPA, the SOPA is the more aggressive of the two.
  • The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was developed in the House of Representatives, authored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and backed by 31 cosponsors.
  • PIPA was authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and supported by 40 co-sponsors in the Senate.
  • ProPublica has a visualized list of supporters in both the House and Senate.

Potential Impact on Internet Infrastructure

Opponents warned that PIPA and SOPA’s enforcement mechanisms could alter how the internet operates. By requiring internet service providers to block access to certain domain names, the legislation risked undermining the Domain Name System (DNS), which is foundational to online security and navigation. Experts suggested this could unintentionally compromise cybersecurity and interfere with legitimate online activity.

Additionally, critics argued that smaller websites and startups could be disproportionately affected, as they might lack the resources to monitor user content or defend against wrongful infringement claims. This risk of over-blocking and collateral damage raised concerns about stifling innovation in the tech industry

Opposition to SOPA and PIPA

Critics feel that these acts don't do enough to protect against false accusations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) agrees and points out that payment processors and advertisers have immunity as long as they have a reasonable belief that infringement is taking place. That means that when an allegation turns out to be false, only the site suffers losses. The bar for establishing a reasonable belief of infringement is very low, so the potential for abuse is high.

Some argue that these laws pose too great a burden on sites that allow content generated by users. Such sites will have to monitor that behavior very stringently, which is something that companies like YouTube already have to do. However, this is much harder for a startup or smaller company to do. Many major companies, like Google and Wikipedia, have protested these pieces of legislation with blackouts and placed statements of opposition on their web pages.

Still, others don't believe that there is a legislative answer to the problem and point to the need for a change in the business model instead. Experts like Mike Masnick from TechDirt point out that the best way to battle piracy is to give customers what they want. Companies like Spotify and Netflix are examples of how successful this can be.

Public Response and Internet Blackouts

The public outcry against the Protect IP Act and SOPA reached an unprecedented level. On January 18, 2012, major websites including Wikipedia, Reddit, and thousands of others participated in a coordinated blackout to raise awareness. Google displayed a black censorship bar over its logo, directing users to oppose the legislation. These protests mobilized millions of internet users to contact their representatives, creating one of the largest online activism campaigns in history.

This grassroots response played a pivotal role in halting the legislation, as lawmakers quickly withdrew support following the demonstrations. The episode demonstrated the growing political power of the internet community and highlighted the tension between traditional media industries and emerging digital platforms.

In Support of SOPA and PIPA

As passionately as some oppose SOPA and PIPA, supporters of the legislation feel just as strongly. They call the dangers outlined by the EFF exaggerated. Cary Sherman is the CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. He writes that SOPA has clear definitions of what constitutes infringement, defined even further by Supreme Court decisions and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Copyright holders have to follow precise rules in order to stop payments from flowing to a site.

Sherman also points out that anyone making false claims faces "damages, including costs and attorneys' fees." In the tech world, cases against alleged infringing sites, like MGM v. Grokster in 2005, caused similar predictions of doom. However, the world of digital music has only bloomed in the years since.

Ongoing Policy Debate After PIPA’s Defeat

Although the Protect IP Act was shelved in 2012, the underlying debate remains unresolved. Intellectual property industries continue to lobby for stronger protections against online piracy, emphasizing its impact on the U.S. economy and jobs. Conversely, digital rights groups argue that enforcement strategies must safeguard innovation, free expression, and due process rights.

Subsequent proposals, such as international agreements like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and other trade negotiations, have attempted to revive similar enforcement tools. However, the legacy of the Protect IP Act has made lawmakers more cautious, knowing that overreaching measures risk public backlash and may harm the open architecture of the internet.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the main purpose of the Protect IP Act?

The Protect IP Act sought to block access to foreign websites dedicated to copyright infringement and piracy, aiming to protect U.S. intellectual property industries.

2. How was PIPA different from SOPA?

SOPA broadly targeted foreign sites that committed or facilitated infringement, while PIPA focused on sites with no significant purpose other than infringement.

3. Why did tech companies oppose the Protect IP Act?

Tech companies feared the law would stifle innovation, create excessive liability for platforms, and undermine the security of the internet’s domain system.

4. What role did public protests play in defeating PIPA?

Mass online protests, including Wikipedia’s blackout and Google’s campaign, mobilized millions of users to pressure lawmakers, leading to the bill’s withdrawal.

5. Is the Protect IP Act still being considered today?

No, PIPA was shelved in 2012, but the broader debate about balancing copyright enforcement with internet freedom continues in new legislative proposals.

If you need help making sense of the pros and cons of SOPA and PIPA, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.