When is sopa voted on

One major tenet of the original SOPA legislation has already been removed. As originally written, SOPA would have required Internet service providers ISPs to block access to sites that law enforcement officials deemed pirate sites.

But the White House said its analysis of the original legislation's technical provisions "suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity," and that it wouldn't support legislation that mandates manipulating the Internet's technical architecture.

What are the alternatives? One option, of course, is that Congress does nothing and leaves the current laws in place. Alternative legislation has also been proposed. It also beefs up the enforcement process. It would allow digital rights holders to bring cases before the U. International Trade Commission ITC , an independent agency that handles trademark infringement and other trade disputes. OPEN's backers had posted the draft legislation online and invited the Web community to comment on and revise the proposal.

SOPA supporters counter that the ITC doesn't have the resources for digital enforcement, and that giving it those resources would be too expensive. Print Comment.

Did Apple save Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine just in time? How to make good TV for the web, according to Amazon. The decision to postpone the votes was made in light of "recent events", Reid said — taken to be a reference to Wednesday's day of action in which Wikipedia led the way with a hour blackout.

The online demonstration, which was aimed at Pipa and Sopa led to a drop-off in support for the proposed legislation. GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney said the law was "far too intrusive" and could hamper job creation and would harm the economy. His main rival, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, said existing laws were sufficient to allow an aggrieved copyright holder to sue, while libertarian Ron Paul said the bill threatened freedom.

The Obama administration had earlier indicated that it was not happy with the bills in their present forms. The party line on SOPA is that it only affects seedy off-shore torrent sites. That's false. As the big legal brains at Bricoleur point out , the potential collateral damage is huge. And it's you. Because while Facebook and Twitter have the financial wherewithal to stave off anti-circumvention shut down notices, the smaller sites you use to store your photos, your videos, and your thoughts may not.

If the government decides any part of that site infringes on copyright and proves it in court? Your digital life is gone, and you can't get it back. What's saddest about SOPA is that it's pointless on two fronts.

We've all seen enough "video removed" messages to know that it works just fine. As for the foreign operators, you might as well be throwing darts at a tse-tse fly. The poster child of overseas torrenting, Pirate Bay, has made it perfectly clear that they're not frightened in the least. And why should they be? Its proprietors have successfully evaded any technological attempt to shut them down so far.

Its advertising partners aren't US-based, so they can't be choked out. But more important than Pirate Bay itself is the idea of Pirate Bay, and the hundreds or thousands of sites like it, as populous and resilient as mushrooms in a marsh. Forget the question of should SOPA succeed. It is available here. It was introduced in December. It can be read here. The bills are designed to tackle so-called rogue websites that are devoted to infringing US IP rights. These include sites that illegally stream movies, TV shows, music and sport as well as those that sell counterfeit goods such as pharmaceuticals that are targeted at US consumers.

Over the past two years US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE — another acronym has led a high-profile campaign called Operation In Our Sites to close down and seize domains that host or offer for sale infringing content. While the operation has had some success, many operators simply start new sites every time an old one is closed down. Moreover, many of the most egregious sites are hosted outside of the United States, so the operators are out of the reach of US courts and cannot be fined or imprisoned.

The bills aim to tackle that. Crucially, the bills seek to block access to pirate sites by allowing courts to make orders against intermediaries such as ISPs, search engines, credit card companies and advertising sites. The DMCA was passed before the growth of social media and online video and the increase in broadband speeds. Today, for example, it is estimated that 48 hours of video are uploaded on to YouTube every minute.

Opponents of the bills include free speech and open source campaigners, as well as operators of websites who fear they will be caught by the legislation despite not being involved in piracy. Google has been the most high-profile company to challenge the bills. Opponents argue that the proposals amount to censorship, will disrupt the internet, punish innocent parties and impose unreasonable burdens on intermediary websites.

In the light of a recent decision to extradite a UK man accused of copyright piracy, there are also worries that they would extend the jurisdiction of US courts to other countries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has summarised its specific concerns. Second, it says the Act would encourage overblocking by service providers who wish to receive immunity Section a.