The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been a hot topic of discussion over the previous couple of weeks. Hundreds of websites have voiced their disapproval of the legislation, while many media outlets and American politicians have stressed the need for tighter controls over internet piracy. The main argument against the legislative bill is that it endangers freedom of speech and will harm well-meaning websites more than those actively distributing illegal content. But what exactly does the bill propose, and what are the implications of such changes?

The History of the Bill So Far

The bill was first introduced to the House of Representatives on the 26th of October 2011, by Texas Governor Lamar Smith. While the bill, if passed, would be an American law, it would have wider implications for other parts of the world, due to the global nature of the internet.

The bill would allow copyright holders and the US Department of Justice to inflict much more serious penalties on websites hosting and distributing copyrighted material. The new law would potentially force search engines, such as Google and Yahoo, to stop linking to these sites, as well as forcing online advertisers to remove any content from the websites.

On the 18th January 2011, the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, the blogging platform WordPress, and hundreds of other websites staged a 24-hour blackout in protest of the bill, which they hoped would help represent the implications that the bill may have on these websites.

Support for the Bill

Support for the bill outside of the House of Representatives has primarily come from large companies who have suffered from websites using their copyrighted content without their permission. These businesses include NBC, Nike, Ford, McMillan Publishers and more. These companies have argued that online piracy is putting jobs at stake, because of the loss of income that is seen as a result of this piracy.

Media outlets and production companies have been the most vocal in their support for the bill, because online piracy has a direct impact on their business. Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation, has been particularly vocal about the bill, expressing his support over Twitter.

Opposition of the Bill

Opposition has been widespread, because many feel that the bill has potential for a much more widespread impact. Google and Yahoo are two of the biggest companies opposed to the legislation. This is because part of the bill says that search engines must not link to any illegal or pirated content. Google and Yahoo have argued that, with the sheer volume of links, it would be impossible to enforce this.

This was supported by Edward J. Black, who argued in an article for the Huffington Post that it is too easy for those distributing material to change domains. He said: “Ironically, it would do little to stop actual pirate websites, which could simply reappear hours later under a different name, if their numeric web addresses aren’t public even sooner. Anyone who knows or has that web address would still be able to reach the offending website.”

The Obama administration and the White House have also come out in opposition of the bill. A response from the White House stated that it “would not support legislation with provisions that could lead to Internet censorship, squelching of innovation, or reduced Internet security.” However, it did stress that it encourages all sides to work together to create a legislation that helps to stop piracy.

What Happens Now?

In recent days, support from the bill has waned considerably, and the bill was shelved on 20th of January to allow for a rethink. While this is good news for many opponents of the bill, there will very likely be a redraft. File-sharing website Mega Upload was shut down on the 19th of January by the FBI for illegal activities, which is a sign that the idea of copyright protection and privacy prevention is far from over.

The major concerns of the bill have been centered around the potential for putting a stop to the creativity and innovation on the internet, through fear of reprisals if a company falls foul of any potential bill. However, while opposition of SOPA is fierce, most of these organisations and individuals agree there is a need for clamping down on internet piracy, but stress that SOPA is not the way forward.

Search giant Google has yet again taken a controversial step with the introduction of ‘Search plus your World’, a new feature that integrates search results with Google+ social networking. This new feature has highlighted the progression of the internet as it gives a search engine the ability to combine social elements with everyday search, theoretically providing search results that are tailored to fit your interests and needs. Google is importing content from its six month old Plus service into its regular searches, a clear shot across the broadsides of Facebook and Twitter.

The Good
Features of the approach include recommending additional companies and people to follow on Plus, based on your search results. It will bring up the profiles of other Google+ users and celebrity Google+ accounts depending on your interests, according to Google. This will make searching much more efficient for many users who want to find relevant information quickly and Google can almost guess what their customers are looking for, bringing up the most useful information. This is taking searching to a whole new level on the internet by providing an integrated service. However in the world of social networking and search giants; we can always find flaws …

The Bad
Many internet users may enjoy having a broad access to the internet, for purposes of work and research they may not want their search engine to define their searches to bring up things that they are only interested in. If they want to search across their interests they may already be signed up to other browser add-ons such as StumbleUpon which does exactly that. However Google has responded to this possibility and you can turn off the new feature by adjusting your search settings. The search engine will also not present results from rival social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, therefore creating controversy and possibly unfair competition by leveraging their separate search facilities to boost the decidedly unpopular Plus.

The Ugly
The question on many critics’ lips was whether Google are unfairly exploiting their online dominance of internet searches to promote their own social network. They are prioritising Google+ data and the social network is having a very easy ride on the back of the dominant search engine. It can be understood from Twitter’s point of view when they lashed out against the new feature, arguing that it is going to be harder to use Google to find Twitter posts about breaking news, like protesters writing tweets from countries like Syria and Egypt. Facebook has not yet responded to the recent announcement by Google, but as they have had a recent privacy deal, Facebook could not let Google index all of their information which users think is going to stay private not really giving them an argument against the Google giants.

In regards to Google’s defence it seems that any company should have the right to push its own products before anyone else’s and in fact use their success to promote its other features. Facebook is now coming up to its 8th birthday and has over 800 million active users; in reality would it really affect them a great deal if Google were to push Google+? Although it does rival Facebook and Twitter, social networking is one of the biggest growing ways of communication, and the landscape is expected to shift over time. Overall the success of the new Google feature is yet to be seen, and with the Twitter backlash and Facebook yet to speak up, anything could happen as the social networking titans collide; watch this space.