The online revolt against the Senate's Protect IP Act (PIPA) and its counterpart in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is having a major impact:
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said on Thursday he would remove a controversial provision from his bill that aims to crack down on piracy and counterfeiting on foreign websites.
Leahy told Vermont Public Radio he would be willing to remove language that would allow a court to order service providers to redirect U.S. users away from websites that are primarily used to offer pirated music, movies and other content and counterfeit goods. Critics, which include major tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, argue the provision in the Protect IP Act could undermine the integrity of the Internet and efforts to bolster the security of the domain name system. The website-blocking provision is similar to a tool now used by U.S. law enforcement to go after domestic websites that offer pirated or counterfeit products.
“I’ve authorized my staff to tell … the other senators that I’m willing to hold that back in the final piece of legislation,” Leahy said. “That in itself will remove a lot of the opposition that we now have.”
This is big, but it does not actually make the bill worth passing. Sen. Ron Wyden, PIPA's main opponent in the Senate, is still opposed. Also, no advocacy organizations or tech companies that oppose the bill have switched their positions as a result of Leahy's announcement. For example, Public Knowledge issued the following statement over email:
"We appreciate the action Chairman Leahy is taking to improve his legislation. Even with that change, however, the bill would still be unacceptable. The definitions in the bill are still far too sweeping, it still grants too much enforcement power to private parties, and still confers inappropriate blanket immunity for private companies.
Still, this development shows that the grassroots activism of hundreds of thousands of opponents of SOPA and PIPA, including 50,000 members of the Daily Kos community, is working. You guys have helped substantively alter this legislation.
Please, keep emailing your senators telling them to oppose Protect IP. The first key vote in the Senate is on Jan. 24.
Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 7:56 AM PT: Here is a link to Sen. Leahy's statement on the change in the bill. It actually says the DNS portion will be studied before possible implementation, so it is not necessarily dropping it from the bill entirely.
Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM PT (Barbara Morrill): Via Brainwrap, Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, and Tom Coburn have sent a letter to Senator Harry Reid:
We write to express our concerns with your decision to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the PROTECT IP Act (S, 968), We strongly believe that the theft of American intellectual property is a significant problem that must be addressed to protect property rights. However, for both substantive and procedural reasons, the process at this point is moving too quickly and this step may be premature. [...]
While we remain fully committed to addressing outstanding issues with S. 968, we believe that, at this point, the scheduled consideration of the bill on January 24, 2012, may not permit Oslo work through many of the concems that have been raised.
... while Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) has released a statement:
“I have heard from many constituents in person, online, and through calls and correspondence regarding the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). Individuals and groups continue to meet with my staff and provide detailed information that is helpful as we seek to find a better path forward. There is a common awareness that something must be done to stop this theft of American intellectual property. [...]
“As the remaining portions of PIPA progress, I will continue to seek out meaningful amendments and alternative proposals to address the bill’s current flaws. Since I am no longer a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, remaining a cosponsor of the bill provides me the opportunity to be an active participant in the process of addressing the most serious concerns raised by my constituents. I would not vote for final passage of PIPA, as currently written, on the Senate floor.”