Wikipedia

「PROTECT IP Act」の版間の差分

履歴の双方向閲覧
← 古い編集新しい編集 →
削除された内容 追加された内容
ビジュアルウィキテキスト
{{修正2}}
脚注・関連項目修正、{{修正2}}{{翻訳中途}}{{現在進行}}とる
(同じ利用者による、間の4版が非表示)
1行目:
{{修正2|6|英文のまま翻訳されない部分が半分以上|date=2012年2月}}
{{翻訳中途|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PROTECT_IP_Act&oldid=472380162 英語版 "PROTECT IP Act" 04:46, 21 January 2012‎ (UTC)]|date=2012年1月}}
{{現在進行|date=January 2012}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = PROTECT IP Act
90 ⟶ 87行目:
 
== 支持者 ==
=== 議員 ===
[[File:Leahy2009.jpg|thumb|right|[[パトリック・リーヒ]]上院議員（[[民主党 (アメリカ)|D]]-[[バーモント州|VT]]）]]
知的財産保護法案（PROTECT IP Act）は[[パトリック・リーヒ]]上院議員の下で超党派議員の支持を得ており、2011年12月17日時点で40人の上院議員が賛成の意見を表明している。<ref>Bill Summary & Status 112th Congress (2011–2012), “S.968 Cosponsors,” [http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@P Bill Summary & Status] 共同提案者となった上院議員は以下の通り。: [[ラマー・アレクサンダー]]、[[ケリー・エイヨット]]、[[マイケル・ベネット (政治家)|マイケル・ベネット]]、[[ジェフ・ビンガマン]]、[[リチャード・ブルーメンソール]]、[[ロイ・ブラント]]、[[ジョン・ボーズマン]]、[[バーバラ・ボクサー]]、[[シャーロッド・ブラウン]]、[[ベンジャミン・カーディン]]、[[ロバート・ケーシー・ジュニア]]、[[サクスビー・チャンブリス]]、[[サド・コクラン]]、[[クリストファー・コーンズ]]、[[ボブ・クロッカー]]、[[リチャード・ダービン]]、[[マイケル・エンジ]]、[[ダイアン・ファインスタイン]]、[[アル・フランケン]]、[[キルスティン・ジルブランド]]、[[リンゼイ・グレアム]]、[[チャック・グラスリー]]、[[ケイ・ヘーガン]]、[[オリン・ハッチ]]、[[ジョニー・イサクソン]]、[[ティム・ジョンソン]]、[[エイミー・クロブシャー]]、[[ハーブ・コール]]、[[メアリー・ランドリュー]]、[[ジョー・リーバーマン]]、[[ジョン・マケイン]]、[[ロバート・メネンデス]]、[[ビル・ネルソン]]、[[ジム・リッチ]]、[[マルコ・ルビオ]]、[[チャールズ・シュメール]]、[[ジーン・シャヒーン]]、[[トム・ウダル]]、[[デイヴィッド・ヴィッター]]、[[シェルダン・ホワイトハウス]]、[[ジェリー・モラン]]</ref>
 
===議員 支持企業・団体 ===
[[File:Leahy2009.jpg|thumb|right|[[Patrick Leahy|Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)]]]]
知的財産保護法案（PROTECT IP Act）は[[パトリック・リーヒ]]上院議員の下で超党派議員の支持を得ており、2011年12月17日時点で40人の上院議員が賛成の意見を表明している。<ref>Bill Summary & Status 112th Congress (2011–2012), “S.968 Cosponsors,” [http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@P Bill Summary & Status] The co-sponsoring senators include: [[Lamar Alexander]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[Michael F. Bennet]], [[Jeff Bingaman]], [[Richard Blumenthal]], [[Roy Blunt]], [[John Boozman]], [[Barbara Boxer]], [[Sherrod Brown]], [[Benjamin L. Cardin]], [[Robert P. Casey Jr.]], [[Saxby Chambliss]], [[Thad Cochran]], [[Christopher A. Coons]], [[Bob Corker]], [[Dick Durbin|Richard Durbin]], [[Michael B. Enzi]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Al Franken]], [[Kirsten E. Gillibrand]], [[Lindsey Graham]], [[Chuck Grassley]], [[Kay Hagan]], [[Orrin G. Hatch]], [[Johnny Isakson]], [[Tim Johnson (U.S. Senator)|Tim Johnson]], [[Amy Klobuchar]], [[Herb Kohl]], [[Mary L. Landrieu]], [[Joseph I. Lieberman]], [[John McCain]], [[Robert Menendez]], [[Bill Nelson]], [[James E. Risch]], [[Marco Rubio]], [[Charles E. Schumer]], [[Jeanne Shaheen]], [[Tom Udall]], [[David Vitter]], [[Sheldon Whitehouse]], and [[Jerry Moran]]</ref>
 
===支持企業・団体===
PIPA法案は著作権や商標に強く関わる企業・労働団体の広範な支持を受けており、既に{{仮リンク|全米有線テレビ事業者連盟|en|National Cable & Telecommunications Association}}、{{仮リンク|独立映画・TV同盟|en|Independent Film & Television Alliance}}、{{仮リンク|全米劇場経営者協会|en|National Association of Theatre Owners}}、[[アメリカ映画協会 (業界団体)|アメリカ映画協会]]（MPAA）、[[全米監督協会]]（DGA）、{{仮リンク|米国音楽家連盟|en|American Federation of Musicians}}、{{仮リンク|米国テレビラジオ放送芸術家連盟|en|American Federation of Television and Radio Artists}}、{{仮リンク|国際映画劇場労働組合|en|International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees}}、[[映画俳優組合]]（SAG）、{{仮リンク|全米トラック運転組合|en|Teamsters}}、{{仮リンク|国際ナッシュビル作曲家協会|en|Nashville Songwriters Association International}}、{{仮リンク|アメリカ作曲家組合|en|Songwriters Guild of America}}、[[バイアコム]]、政策刷新機関（[http://www.ipi.org/ Institute for Policy Innovation]）、{{仮リンク|マクミラン出版社|en|Macmillan Publishers}}、{{仮リンク|アクシュネット・カンパニー|en|Acushnet Company}}、[[アメリカレコード協会]]（RIAA）、著作権同盟（[http://www.copyrightalliance.org/ Copyright Alliance]）、[[NBCユニバーサル]]が賛同の意を表明している。<ref>{{cite web|title=A Broad Coalition Indeed!|url=http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2011/05/12/A-Broad-Coalition-Indeed!.aspx|accessdate=11 June 2011|date=12 May 2011|author=Spence, Kate}}</ref><ref>[http://image.exct.net/lib/fee913797d6303/m/1/110525_MultiIndustry_S968_PROTECTIPAct_Senate.pdf In Support of "Protect IP Act"]; May 25, 2011</ref>
 
The [[{{仮リンク|アメリカ商工会議所|en|U.S. Chamber of Commerce]] and }}と[[AFL-CIOアメリカ労働総同盟・産業別組合会議]] have come together in support of the bill. In May and September （AFL-CIO）は一体となってこの法案を支持している。2011, two letters signed by年5月と9月には"ならず者" 不正サイトを閉鎖し米国の知的財産を保護するため、それぞれ170 and と359 businesses and organizations, respectively—including the の企業・団体が法案への支持を表明する書簡に署名し、議会に送付された。署名した企業・団体のうち、主なものに{{仮リンク|全米製造業者協会|en|National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Small}}、中小企業・起業家評議会（Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Nike, Council）、[[ナイキ]]、1-800 Pet Meds, L’Oreal, Rosetta Stone, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company, Revlon,Meds（ペット用品通販）、[[ロレアル]]、[[ロゼッタストーン (企業)|ロゼッタストーン]]、[[ファイザー]]、[[フォード・モーター]]、[[レブロン]]、[[NBA, and Sony—were sent to Congress which endorsed the Act and encouraged the passage of legislation to protect intellectual property and shut down rogue websites.]]、[[SONY]]などがある<ref>[http://politico.pro/qSV8Lp Chamber Presses Gas Pedal on IP Push]; Politico – Morning Tech; September 22, 2011</ref><ref>[http://image.exct.net/lib/fee913797d6303/m/1/Rogue+Site+Senate+Markup+Letter+-+Revised+Final+5.26.11.pdf Endorsement by 170 Businesses]; Chamber of Commerce Global IP Center; May 25, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/pressreleases/letter-359.pdf Letter to Congress in Support of Legislation]; Chamber of Commerce Global IP Center; September 22, 2011</ref> David Hirschmann of the Chamber of Commerce complained about the state of the political debate in January 。米商工会議所のデビッド・ハーシュマンは、2012, saying that talk of lost of freedoms and censorship "has nothing to do with the substance of the bills." Hirschmann promised "to use every tool in our toolbox to make sure members of Congress know what’s in these bills."年1月の政治議論に不快感を示し、自由が失われるとかネット検閲だとかの主張は「この法案の本質とはまったく関係が無い」と反論した<ref>Jenna Wortham (17 January 2012), [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/technology/web-wide-protest-over-two-antipiracy-bills.html "Protest on Web Uses Shutdown to Take On Two Piracy Bills"] ''[[The New York Times]]''</ref>。
 
===Others===
Constitutional expert [[Floyd Abrams]], representing the [[MPAA]] and related trade groups, wrote a Letter to Congress stating that the proposed PROTECT IP Act is constitutionally sound.<ref name="Abrams1"/>
 
Daniel Castro of the [[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]] (ITIF), a think tank funded in part by the [[Information Technology Industry Council]] and the publisher of a 2009 report titled "Steal These Policies"<ref>(15 December 2009) [http://www.itif.org/events/steal-these-policies-strategies-combating-digital-piracy Steal These Policies: Strategies for Combating Digital Piracy] ''[[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]]''</ref> that formed the basis for both SOPA and PIPA, defended PIPA's predecessor bill ([[COICA]]) in March 2011, saying "nobody's talking about taking down someone's personal website because they happen to use a copyrighted photo."<ref name="Ars Technica 20009">Nate Anderson (March 2009), [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/why-the-us-needs-to-censor-pirate-websites.ars Why the US needs to blacklist, censor pirate websites] ''[[Ars Technica]]''</ref> In January 2012 ITIF Senior Research Fellow Richard Bennett said that criticism of the legislation was misinformed and overblown: "[t]he critics either don't understand what the bills do or are misrepresenting what the bills do. There's sort of a hysterical climate of criticism where people are objecting to something the bills don't do and are promoting noble causes like free speech and democracy but there is not much connection between what they are complaining about and what's in the legislation."<ref>Carolyn Lochhead, (16 January 2012) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/16/MN4B1MQ3PV.DTL#ixzz1jhUco4ZL Debate over Internet piracy legislation heats up] [[San Francisco Chronicle]]</ref>
 
=== その他 ===
==Opponents==
憲法学専門で[[MPAA]]および関連商業団体の代理人である弁護士{{仮リンク|フロイド・エイブラムス|en|Floyd Abrams}}は、米連邦議会に宛てて「知的財産保護法案（PIPA）は憲法上問題が無い」とした書簡を送っている<ref name="Abrams1"/>。
[[Image:Wikipedia Blackout Screen.jpg|thumb|The English-language Wikipedia page on 18 January 2012, illustrating its international blackout in opposition to [[SOPA]] and PIPA.]]
 
2009年に、後にSOPA・PIPA 両法案の理論的根拠となった報告書「Steal These Policies」を刊行した<ref>(15 December 2009) [http://www.itif.org/events/steal-these-policies-strategies-combating-digital-piracy Steal These Policies: Strategies for Combating Digital Piracy] ''[[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]]''</ref>{{仮リンク|情報技術・イノベーション財団|en|Information Technology and Innovation Foundation}}（略称: ITIF。{{仮リンク|米国情報技術工業協議会|en|Information Technology Industry Council}}の一部出資によって設立されたシンクタンク）のダニエル・カストロは、2011年3月に「オンラインにおける権利侵害および偽造防止法（COICA法）」を擁護して、「誰も『意図せず著作権を有する写真を掲載した個人サイトも削除する』なんて言っていない」と述べている<ref name="Ars Technica 20009">Nate Anderson (March 2009), [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/why-the-us-needs-to-censor-pirate-websites.ars Why the US needs to blacklist, censor pirate websites] ''[[Ars Technica]]''</ref>。2012年1月、ITIFのシニア・リサーチ・フェロー（上級研究員）リチャード・ベネットは、同法案への批判はその内容を誤解しまた誇張しているとして次の様に述べた。「（同法案への）批判は、法案によって何が為されるか理解していないか、誤って伝えているかのどちらかだ。批判の論調はややヒステリックなもので、法案でやろうとしていないことに対して異議を唱え、言論の自由とか民主主義といった高尚な理念を掲げているが、実際のところその異議の内容と法案に書かれていることの間にはあまり関係がない<ref>Carolyn Lochhead, (16 January 2012) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/16/MN4B1MQ3PV.DTL#ixzz1jhUco4ZL Debate over Internet piracy legislation heats up] [[San Francisco Chronicle]]</ref>。」
===Legislators===
[[Oregon]] Senator [[Ron Wyden]] (D) has publicly voiced opposition to the legislation, and placed a [[Senate hold]] on it in May 2011, citing concerns over possible damage to freedom of speech, innovation, and Internet integrity.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=33a39533-1b25-437b-ad1d-9039b44cde92 |work=wyden.senate.gov |title=Wyden Places Hold on Protect IP Act |date=May 26, 2011 }}</ref> Massachusetts Senator [[Scott Brown]] (R) has also publicly voiced his opposition to the legislation as well as its sister bill in the House, SOPA.<ref>{{cite web|title=Senator Brown Says He'll Vote 'No' on Anti-Piracy Bills|url=http://westroxbury.patch.com/articles/senator-brown-says-he-ll-vote-no-on-anti-piracy-bills|accessdate=17 January 2012}}</ref>
Congressional opponents of PROTECT IP have introduced an alternative bill called the [[Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act]] (OPEN Act).<ref name="thehill1">{{cite web|last=Sasso |first=Brendan|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200313-sen-wyden-pushes-anti-piracy-alternative|title=Sen. Wyden pushes anti-piracy alternative |work=Hillicon Valley|publisher=The Hill |date=December 19, 2011 |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref><ref name="open1">{{cite web|url=http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa-vs-open |title=SOPA vs PIPA vs OPEN|publisher=KeepTheWebOpen.com |date= |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref>▼
 
== 反対者 ==
===Companies and organizations===
[[Image:Wikipedia Blackout Screen.jpg|thumb|2012年1月18日、[[英語版ウィキペディア]]が[[SOPA]]・PIPA法案への抗議として24時間のサービス停止を行った際に表示された画面。]]
The legislation is opposed by the [[Mozilla Corporation]],<ref name="openletter1">{{cite web|url=http://www.protectinnovation.com/downloads/letter.pdf|title=Letter of concern}}</ref> [[Facebook]],<ref name="openletter1"/> [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]],<ref name="eff01">{{cite web|last=Phillips|first=Abigail|title=The "PROTECT IP" Act: COICA Redux|url=http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/protect-ip-act-coica-redux|accessdate=22 May 2011}}</ref> [[Yahoo!]], [[eBay]], [[American Express]], [[reddit]], [[Google]],<ref name="wyden-halt">{{cite web | url=http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2011/05/senate-committee-passes-protect-ip-act-but-wyden-issues-quick-halt/ | title=Senate Committee Passes PROTECT IP Act But Wyden Issues Quick Halt | publisher=Broadband Breakfast | date=May 27, 2011 | accessdate=May 28, 2011 | author=Gaitonde, Rahul}}</ref> [[Reporters Without Borders]], [[Human Rights Watch]],<ref name=PubIntrest>{{Citation|title=Public Interest Letter to Senate Committee on the Judiciary in Opposition to S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011|url=http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/Publicinterest%20968letter.pdf|year=2011|author=The Undersigned|pages=1–2|accessdate=2011-05-30}}</ref> [[English Wikipedia]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout|title=English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout|accessdate=2012-01-17}}</ref>, [[Uncyclopedia]]{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}, and many more. Internet entrepreneurs including Reid Hoffman of [[LinkedIn]], [[Twitter]] co-founder Evan Williams, and [[Foursquare]] co-founder Dennis Crowley signed a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to the legislation.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/180217-tech-entrepreneurs-oppose-online-copyright-bill Tech Entrepreneurs Oppose Online Copyright Bill]; ''The Hill''; September 8, 2011</ref> The [[Tea Party Patriots]] have argued that the bill "is bad for consumers".<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/183999-overnight-tech-tea-party-group-slams-online-copyright-bill Tea Party Group Slams Online Copyright Bill]; ''The Hill''; September 26, 2011</ref> A letter of opposition was signed by 130 technology entrepreneurs and executives and sent to Congress to express their concern that the law in its present form would "hurt economic growth and chill innovation in legitimate services that help people create, communicate, and make money online".<ref>[http://opinion.latimes.com/files/entrepreneurs-worried-about-pipa.pdf Opinion File pdfs]; ''Los Angeles Times''; September 4, 2011</ref> English-language Wikipedia sites joined other Internet sites on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 in protesting the PIPA and SOPA legislation by staging a "blackout" of service for 24 hours. Known websites performing this include some websites such as: Wikipedia, CNet, Cheezburger network sites, and many more. In order to perform this, many websites denied access to their websites altogether.<!-- コメントアウト: 参照先は実行前の記事 <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57359763-93/wikipedia-to-join-web-blackout-protesting-sopa/ Wikipedia to join Web blackout protesting SOPA]; CNet; January 16, 2012</ref> -->▼
=== 議員 ===
[[オレゴン州]]選出[[ロン・ワイデン]]上院議員（民主党）は、法案に反対する姿勢を明確にしており、2011年3月の審議では言論の自由、イノベーション、ネットの統合性を損なう可能性があるとの懸念を表明して同法案を[[ホールド (米国連邦議会)|ホールド]]した<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=33a39533-1b25-437b-ad1d-9039b44cde92 |work=wyden.senate.gov |title=Wyden Places Hold on Protect IP Act |date=May 26, 2011 |accessdate=2012-02-08}}</ref>。[[マサチューセッツ州]]選出の[[スコット・ブラウン (政治家)|スコット・ブラウン]]上院議員（共和党）もPIPA法案に反対し、また姉妹法案であるSOPAにも反対を表明している<ref>{{cite web|title=Senator Brown Says He'll Vote 'No' on Anti-Piracy Bills|url=http://westroxbury.patch.com/articles/senator-brown-says-he-ll-vote-no-on-anti-piracy-bills|accessdate=17 January 2012}}</ref>。
▲CongressionalPIPA法案反対議員らは、代案としてOPEN法案（{{仮リンク|Online opponentsProtection ofand PROTECTEnforcement IPof haveDigital introduced anTrade alternative bill called the [[Act|en|Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act]] (OPEN Act).}}）を提出した<ref name="thehill1">{{cite web|last=Sasso |first=Brendan|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200313-sen-wyden-pushes-anti-piracy-alternative|title=Sen. Wyden pushes anti-piracy alternative |work=Hillicon Valley|publisher=The Hill |date=December 19, 2011 |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref><ref name="open1">{{cite web|url=http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa-vs-open |title=SOPA vs PIPA vs OPEN|publisher=KeepTheWebOpen.com |date= |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref>。
 
===Others 企業・団体 ===
▲The legislation is opposed by the [[Mozilla Corporation]],<ref name="openletter1">{{cite web|url=http://www.protectinnovation.com/downloads/letter.pdf|title=Letter of concern|accessdate=2012-02-08}}</ref> 、[[Facebook]],<ref name="openletter1"/> 、[[Electronic Frontier Foundation電子フロンティア財団]],<ref name="eff01">{{cite web|last=Phillips|first=Abigail|title=The "PROTECT IP" Act: COICA Redux|url=http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/protect-ip-act-coica-redux|accessdate=22 May 2011}}</ref> 、[[Yahoo!]], 、[[eBay]], 、[[American Expressアメリカン・エキスプレス]], 、[[reddit]], 、[[Google]],<ref name="wyden-halt">{{cite web | url=http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2011/05/senate-committee-passes-protect-ip-act-but-wyden-issues-quick-halt/ | title=Senate Committee Passes PROTECT IP Act But Wyden Issues Quick Halt | publisher=Broadband Breakfast | date=May 27, 2011 | accessdate=May 28, 2011 | author=Gaitonde, Rahul}}</ref> 、[[Reporters Without Borders国境なき記者団]], 、[[Human Rights Watchヒューマン・ライツ・ウォッチ]],<ref name=PubIntrest>{{Citation|title=Public Interest Letter to Senate Committee on the Judiciary in Opposition to S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011|url=http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/Publicinterest%20968letter.pdf|year=2011|author=The Undersigned|pages=1–2|accessdate=2011-05-30}}</ref> 、[[English Wikipedia英語版ウィキペディア]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout|title=English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout|accessdate=2012-01-17}}</ref>, 、[[Uncyclopediaアンサイクロペディア]]{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}, and many more. Internet entrepreneurs including Reid Hoffman of 、など多数の企業・団体が法案に反対している。[[LinkedIn]],の設立者{{仮リンク|リード・ホフマン|en|Reid Hoffman}}、[[Twitter]] co-founder Evan Williams, and の共同設立者[[Foursquareエヴァン・ウィリアムズ]] co-founder 、[[foursquare]]の共同設立者{{仮リンク|デニス・クローリー|en|Dennis Crowley signed a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to the legislation.}}らは法案に反対を表明した書簡に署名した<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/180217-tech-entrepreneurs-oppose-online-copyright-bill Tech Entrepreneurs Oppose Online Copyright Bill]; ''The Hill''; September 8, 2011</ref> The [[。{{仮リンク|ティーパーティー・パトリオッツ|en|Tea Party Patriots]] have argued that the bill "is bad for consumers".}}は、「消費者の不利益になる」として法案に異を唱えた<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/183999-overnight-tech-tea-party-group-slams-online-copyright-bill Tea Party Group Slams Online Copyright Bill]; ''The Hill''; September 26, 2011</ref> A letter of opposition was signed by 。また連邦議会宛には、130 technology entrepreneurs and executives and sent to Congress to express their concern that the law in its present form would "hurt economic growth and chill innovation in legitimate services that help people create, communicate, and make money online".ものIT起業家・幹部らが署名し、現行の法案の内容では「経済成長を阻害し、ネットでの創作・コミュニケーションやお金儲けを可能にしてきた合法的サービスにおけるイノベーションの活力を削ぐ」と訴えた法案反対の書簡が送られた<ref>[http://opinion.latimes.com/files/entrepreneurs-worried-about-pipa.pdf Opinion File pdfs]; ''Los Angeles Times''; September 4, 2011</ref> English-language Wikipedia sites joined other Internet sites on Wednesday, January 。英語版ウィキぺディアは2012年1月18, 2012 in protesting the 日他のインターネットサイトと共同でPIPA and およびSOPA legislation by staging a "blackout" of service for 法案に抗議して24 hours. Known websites performing this include some websites such as: Wikipedia, CNet, 時間のサービス停止（ブラックアウト）を行った。この抗議運動に参加したサイトにはウィキペディアの他、Cnet、Cheezburger network sites, and many more. サイトなどがある。<!--In order to perform this, many websites denied access to their websites altogether.<!-- コメントアウト: 参照先は実行前の記事 <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57359763-93/wikipedia-to-join-web-blackout-protesting-sopa/ Wikipedia to join Web blackout protesting SOPA]; CNet; January 16, 2012</ref> -->
Law professors [[Mark Lemley|Mark Lemley (Stanford University)]], [[Elon_University_School_of_Law#Notable_Advisory_Board_and_Faculty_Members|David S. Levine (Elon University)]], and [[Temple_University_Beasley_School_of_Law#Faculty|David G. Post (Temple University)]] have criticized the PROTECT IP Act and [[SOPA]].<ref name="standfordlaw">{{cite web|last=Lemley |first=Mark |last2=Levine |first2=David S. |last3=Post |first3=David G. |url=http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet |title=Don't Break the Internet |publisher=Stanford Law Review |date=December 19, 2011 |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref>
 
==Reception=その他===
[[スタンフォード大学]]法学教授マーク・レムリー（[[:en:Mark Lemley|Mark Lemley]]）、[[エロン大学]][[助教]]デイヴィッド・レヴィン（David S. Levine）、[[テンプル大学]]法学教授デイヴィッドポスト（David G. Post）らはPIPAおよびSOPA法案を批判している<ref name="standfordlaw">{{cite web|last=Lemley |first=Mark |last2=Levine |first2=David S. |last3=Post |first3=David G. |url=http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet |title=Don't Break the Internet |publisher=Stanford Law Review |date=December 19, 2011 |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref>。
On January 14, 2012, [[White House]] officials posted a statement saying, "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small", and "We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet."<ref name="WH-Report-20120114">{{cite report |last1=Espinel |first1=Victoria |last2=Chopra |first2=Aneesh |last3=Schmidt |first3=Howard |title=Combating Online Piracy While Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet |url= https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[White House]] |Accessdate=2012-01-14 }}</ref><ref name="WH-Blog-20120114">{{cite web|last=Phillips |first=Mark |title=Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA and Online Piracy |url= http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[White House Blog]] |accessdate=2012-01-14 }}</ref><ref name="NYT-20120114">{{cite news |last=Wyatt |first=Edward |title=White House Says It Opposes Parts of Two Antipiracy Bills |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[NYTimes]] |accessdate=2012-01-15 }}</ref><ref name="AP-20120114">{{cite news |last=Thomas |first=Ken |title=White House concerned over online piracy bills |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120114/D9S8SL501.html |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[Associated Press]] |accessdate=2012-01-14 }}</ref>▼
 
== 問題点 ==
===Technical objections to DNS blocking and redirection===
▲On January 2012年1月14, 2012, 日、[[White Houseホワイトハウス]] officials posted a statement saying, "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small", and "We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet."は「オンライン海賊行為対策が合法的行為に対するネット検閲であってはならず、また大小さまざまなビジネスの活力を削ぐようなことはあってはならない」、また「サイバーセキュリティーを脅かしたり、インターネットの基盤を台無しにするような事態は避けねばならない」とする声明を発表した<ref name="WH-Report-20120114">{{cite report |last1=Espinel |first1=Victoria |last2=Chopra |first2=Aneesh |last3=Schmidt |first3=Howard |title=Combating Online Piracy While Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet |url= https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[White House]] |Accessdate=2012-01-14 }}</ref><ref name="WH-Blog-20120114">{{cite web|last=Phillips |first=Mark |title=Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA and Online Piracy |url= http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[White House Blog]] |accessdate=2012-01-14 }}</ref><ref name="NYT-20120114">{{cite news |last=Wyatt |first=Edward |title=White House Says It Opposes Parts of Two Antipiracy Bills |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[NYTimes]] |accessdate=2012-01-15 }}</ref><ref name="AP-20120114">{{cite news |last=Thomas |first=Ken |title=White House concerned over online piracy bills |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120114/D9S8SL501.html |date=14 January 2012 |publisher=[[Associated Press]] |accessdate=2012-01-14 }}</ref>。
The bill originally contained measures which would allow the stripping of rogue websites out of the Internet’s virtual "phone book." Under what is technically known as [[Domain Name System]] (DNS) redirection, users would be directed by DNS to a government warning instead of to rogue web sites.<!-- コメントアウト: 参照先に該当記述無し <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/01/17/gIQA4WYl6P_story_1.html "SOPA protests to shut down Web sites"] ''[[The Washington Post]]'' January 17, 2012</ref> -->
 
=== DNSブロッキング・リダイレクトに対する批判 ===
According to Sherwin Siy of ''[[Public Knowledge]]'', past attempts to limit copyright infringement online by way of blocking domains have always generated criticism that doing so would fracture the [[Domain Name System]] (DNS) and threaten the global functionality of the Internet, with this bill being no different. By design, all domain name servers world-wide should contain identical lists; with the changes proposed, servers inside the United States would have records different from their global counterparts, making [[URL]]s less universal.<ref name=publicknowledge>{{cite web|last=Siy|first=Sherwin|title=COICA v. 2.0: the PROTECT IP Act|url=http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/coica-v-20-protect-ip-act|work=Policy Blog|publisher=Public Knowledge|accessdate=24 May 2011}}</ref><ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/228774/senate_panel_approves_controversial_copyright_bill.html Senate Panel Approves Controversial Copyright Bill]; PC World; May 26, 2011</ref>
当初この法案には、不正サイトをインターネットの仮想”電話帳”（=[[DNS]]）から除去する手法が含まれていた。これはDNSリダイレクトと呼ばれ、ユーザーが不正サイトにアクセスしようとすると、DNSが同サイトの代りに政府の警告画面へとリダイレクトするという仕組みである<!-- コメントアウト: 参照先に該当記述無し <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/01/17/gIQA4WYl6P_story_1.html "SOPA protests to shut down Web sites"] ''[[The Washington Post]]'' January 17, 2012</ref> -->。
 
NPO団体[[パブリック・ナレッジ]]のシャーウィン・シー（Sherwin Siy）によると、かつてドメインをブロックすることでオンライン著作権侵害を防ごうとした際、DNSの破壊行為でありインターネットのグローバルな機能性を脅かすとして批判を招いた件があるが、この法案はそれと大差ないという。世界中のドメインネームサーバは同一リストをもつことになっているが、PIPA法案に従えば米国内のサーバだけが世界中のサーバとは異なるデータを持つことになり、[[URL]]の普遍性が損なわれることになる<ref name=publicknowledge>{{cite web|last=Siy|first=Sherwin|title=COICA v. 2.0: the PROTECT IP Act|url=http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/coica-v-20-protect-ip-act|work=Policy Blog|publisher=Public Knowledge|accessdate=24 May 2011}}</ref><ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/228774/senate_panel_approves_controversial_copyright_bill.html Senate Panel Approves Controversial Copyright Bill]; PC World; May 26, 2011</ref>。
Five Internet engineers, [[Steve Crocker]], David Dagon, [[Dan Kaminsky]], Danny McPherson, and [[Paul Vixie]] prepared a [[whitepaper]]<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf PROTECT IP Technical Whitepaper]; May 12, 2011</ref> which states that the DNS redirection provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the Internet", while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/59599226/Debunking-DNS-Filtering-Concerns Debunking DNS Filtering Concerns]; High Tech Forum; June 24, 2011</ref><ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/ New tools to combat thieves online]; The Daily Caller; October 25, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/ Engineers: Protect IP Act would break DNS]; PC World - Australia; July 15, 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/#more-26745|title=Internet Researchers Decry DNS-Filtering Legislation|author=David Kravets|publisher=Wired.com|date=2011-05-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/|title=Protect IP copyright bill faces growing criticism|author=Declan McCullagh|publisher=CNet News|date=2011-06-07}}</ref><ref name="Pirates">[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=1 Stopping the Pirates Who Roam the Web]; ''The New York Times''; June 17, 2011</ref> One concern expressed by network experts is that hackers would offer workarounds to private users to allow access to government-seized sites, but these workarounds might also jeopardize security by redirecting unsuspecting users to scam websites. Supporters of the bill, such as the MPAA, have argued that widespread circumvention of the filtering would be unlikely. ▼
 
▲Fiveスティーブ・クロッカー（Steve InternetCrocker）、デイヴィッド・ダゴン（David engineers,Dagon）、ダン・カミンスキー（Dan [[Steve Crocker]], David Dagon,Kaminsky）、ダニー・マクファーソン（Danny McPherson）、[[Dan Kaminskyポール・ヴィクシー]], Danny McPherson, and の5人のインターネット・エンジニアによる[[Paul Vixie]] prepared a [[whitepaperホワイトペーパー]]では<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf PROTECT IP Technical Whitepaper]; May 12, 2011</ref> which states that the 、この法案のDNS redirection provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the Internet", while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit.リダイレクト条項は「技術面およびセキュリティ面での重大な懸念を引き起こし」、「インターネットを破壊」しかねないと言及されたが、一方で他のエンジニアや法案支持者らはこうした懸念は根拠に欠け評価に値しないとしている<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/59599226/Debunking-DNS-Filtering-Concerns Debunking DNS Filtering Concerns]; High Tech Forum; June 24, 2011</ref><ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/ New tools to combat thieves online]; The Daily Caller; October 25, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/ Engineers: Protect IP Act would break DNS]; PC World - Australia; July 15, 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/#more-26745|title=Internet Researchers Decry DNS-Filtering Legislation|author=David Kravets|publisher=Wired.com|date=2011-05-31|accessdate=2012-02-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/|title=Protect IP copyright bill faces growing criticism|author=Declan McCullagh|publisher=CNet News|date=2011-06-07|accessdate=2012-02-08}}</ref><ref name="Pirates">[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=1 Stopping the Pirates Who Roam the Web]; ''The New York Times''; June 17, 2011</ref>。<!-- One concern expressed by network experts is that hackers would offer workarounds to private users to allow access to government-seized sites, but these workarounds might also jeopardize security by redirecting unsuspecting users to scam websites. Supporters of the bill, such as the MPAA, have argued that widespread circumvention of the filtering would be unlikely. -->
A group of Law professors, quoting Crocker's whitepaper, say that the PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy acts could have the opposite of the intended impact, driving users to unregulated alternative DNS systems, and hindering the government from conducting legitimate Internet regulation.<ref name="standfordlaw"/> They question the constitutionality of both bills, believing they could have potentially disastrous technical consequences and would make US Internet law more like those of repressive regimes.<ref name="standfordlaw"/> They go on to state that both bills provide "nothing more than ex parte proceedings—proceedings at which only one side (the prosecutor or even a private plaintiff) need present evidence and the operator of the allegedly infringing site need not be present nor even made aware that the action was pending against his or her 'property.' This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref name="standfordlaw"/>
 
ある法学教授のグループは、クロッカーらのホワイトペーパーを引用し、知的財産保護法案（PIPA）とオンライン海賊行為防止法案（SOPA）は意図していたのと逆の効果をもたらすもので、法案が施行されればインターネット・ユーザーは規制されてない代理DNSを利用するようになり、結果として政府によるインターネット規制実施が困難になるとしている<ref name="standfordlaw"/>。また両法案の合憲性にも疑問を投げかけ、法案によって技術面で破滅的な事態となる可能性があり、また米国のインターネット関連法体制がより抑圧的なものになることを懸念した<ref name="standfordlaw"/>。さらに両法案によって引き起こされるのは「一方的な訴訟以外の何物でもない。つまり一方の側（検事、原告）は証拠を提出する必要がありながら、（"[[被告]]"となるのはサイト運営者ではなくドメインネームそのものであるため）侵害行為をおこなっているとされたサイトの運営者側は裁判に出廷したり、もっと言えば、自分のサイトにおいてある行為が係争中であることを認識する必要すらない。これは、意見を聞く公正な機会を与えることなくその人（運営者）の所有物（サイト）を奪うことであり、単に法手続きの原則に違反するだけでなく、憲法修正第1条で保障された言論の自由の権利を剥奪する違憲な法律を制定することに他ならない。」としている<ref name="standfordlaw"/>。
A browser plugin called [[MAFIAAFire Redirector]] was created in March 2011 that redirects visitors to an alternative domain when a site's primary domain has been seized. The Mozilla Foundation says that [[United States Department of Homeland Security]] (DHS) requested by phone that [[Mozilla]] remove the plugin, a request with which they have not yet complied. Instead, Mozilla's legal counsel has asked for further information from the DHS, including legal justification for the request.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20060636-281.html Mozilla fights DHS over anti-MPAA, RIAA utility]; CNET News; May 6, 2011</ref>
 
2011年3月に公開されたFirsfoxのアドオン {{仮リンク|MAFIAAFire|en|MAFIAAFire Redirector}} はドメインを差し押さえられたサイトへアクセスする際代理のドメインにリダイレクトする機能をもつ。[[Mozilla Foundation]]は[[アメリカ合衆国国土安全保障省|米国土安全保障省]]（DHS）からこのアドオンを削除する様に要請をうけたが、Mozilaはこれに対応していない。逆にMozilaの法律顧問は同要請の正当性を示す法的根拠など、情報の開示を国土安全保障省側に求めている<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20060636-281.html Mozilla fights DHS over anti-MPAA, RIAA utility]; CNET News; May 6, 2011</ref>。
The [[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]] (ITIF) argued that concerns about the domain name remedy in the legislation were undercut by the already ongoing use of these approaches to counter spam and malware.<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Castro03142011.pdf Hearings Before the Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet]; Page 10; March 14, 2011</ref> According to Daniel Castro, an ITIF analyst, DNS blocking is practiced in several democracies without "breaking the internet", including the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and South Korea.<ref name="Ars Technica 20009"/> ITIF's CEO compared the DNS provisions to car door locks, writing that even though they aren't foolproof they can still be useful.<ref name="Pirates"/><ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/internet-bill-could-help-hackers-experts-warn-20110714 Internet Bill Could Help Hackers, Experts Warn]; NationalJournal; July 14, 2011</ref>
 
情報技術・イノベーション財団（ITIF）は、この法案におけるドメインネーム救済措置は現状行われている[[スパム (メール)|スパム]]や[[マルウェア]]対策によって効果がないものになるとの懸念を示している<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Castro03142011.pdf Hearings Before the Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet]; Page 10; March 14, 2011</ref>。ITIFのアナリストであるダニエル・カストロによると、DNSブロッキングは、オランダ、オーストリア、ベルギー、フィンランド、韓国などいくつかの民主主義国家で"インターネットを破壊"することなく行われている<ref name="Ars Technica 20009"/>。ITIFのCEOは、DNS条項を自動車のドアロックに例え、確かに完全に信頼をおけるというものではないが、それでもやはり便利ではあると述べている<ref name="Pirates"/><ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/internet-bill-could-help-hackers-experts-warn-20110714 Internet Bill Could Help Hackers, Experts Warn]; NationalJournal; July 14, 2011</ref>。
On January 12, 2012, [[Patrick Leahy|Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)]], Chairman of the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], said he would be willing to remove a controversial DNS-filtering provision from the bill. "I’ve authorized my staff to tell … the other senators that I’m willing to hold that back in the final piece of legislation," Senator Leahy said. "That in itself will remove a lot of the opposition that we now have."<ref name="National Journal">{{cite web |last=Gruenwald |first=Juliana |title=Leahy Offers Major Concession On Online Piracy Bill |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/leahy-offers-major-concession-on-online-piracy-bill-20120112/ |date=12 January 2012 |publisher=[[National Journal]] |accessdate=2012-01-13 }}</ref><ref>[http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=721ddff6-3399-4d56-a966-bca3f848759b Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Internet Service Providers And The PROTECT IP Act]; Press Release - Leahy; January 12, 2012</ref> [[Lamar S. Smith|Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)]], primary sponsor of the related House bill also expressed an intent to remove the DNS blocking provisions from SOPA.<ref name="Wired-20120112a">{{cite web |last=Kravets |first=David |title=Rep. Smith Waters Down SOPA, DNS RedirectsOut |url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/dns-sopa-provision/ |date=12 January 2012 |publisher=[[Wired (magazine)]] |accessdate=2012-01-12 }}</ref>▼
 
▲On January 2012年1月12, 2012, [[Patrick Leahy|Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)]], Chairman of the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], said he would be willing to remove a controversial 日、上院司法委員会委員長のパトリック・リーヒ議員は、論争を呼んだDNS-filtering provision from the bill. "I’ve authorized my staff to tell … the other senators that I’m willing to hold that back in the final piece of legislation," Senator Leahy said. "That in itself will remove a lot of the opposition that we now have."フィルタリング条項をPIPA法案から削除する意向であると発言した。リーヒ議員は「うちのスタッフには他の上院議員に『法案の最後の1ピースは取り止めた』と言っていいと伝えてある」、続けて「そうすることで今ある反対意見の多くがなくなるだろう」と述べた<ref name="National Journal">{{cite web |last=Gruenwald |first=Juliana |title=Leahy Offers Major Concession On Online Piracy Bill |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/leahy-offers-major-concession-on-online-piracy-bill-20120112/ |date=12 January 2012 |publisher=[[National Journal]] |accessdate=2012-01-13 }}</ref><ref>[http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=721ddff6-3399-4d56-a966-bca3f848759b Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Internet Service Providers And The PROTECT IP Act]; Press Release - Leahy; January 12, 2012</ref> [[Lamar S. Smith|Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)]], primary sponsor of the related House bill also expressed an intent to remove the 。関連法案SOPAの起草者であるラマー・スミス下院議員もSOPAからDNS blocking provisions from SOPA.条項を削除する考えであることを明らかにした<ref name="Wired-20120112a">{{cite web |last=Kravets |first=David |title=Rep. Smith Waters Down SOPA, DNS RedirectsOut |url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/dns-sopa-provision/ |date=12 January 2012 |publisher=[[Wired (magazine)]] |accessdate=2012-01-12 }}</ref>。
===Civil liberties issues===
[[First Amendment]] scholars [[Laurence Tribe]] and [[Marvin Ammori]] raised concerns over how the Protect IP act would impact free speech, arguing that the act doesn't target just foreign rogue sites, and would extend to "domestic websites that merely ‘facilitate’ or ‘enable’ infringement. Thus, in their language, the bills target considerable protected speech on legitimate sites such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook."<ref name="Controversial Copyright Bills Would Violate First Amendment–Letters to Congress by Laurence Tribe and Me">{{cite web |last=Ammori |first=Marvin |title=Controversial Copyright Bills Would Violate First Amendment–Letters to Congress by Laurence Tribe and Me |url=http://ammori.org/2011/12/08/controversial-copyright-bills-would-violate-first-amendment-letters-to-congress-by-laurence-tribe-and-me/ |date=8 December 2011 |publisher=[[Marvin Ammori and Friends]] |accessdate=2012-01-08 }}</ref> Ammori says that the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act "would miss their mark and silence a lot of non-infringing speech."<ref name="Should Copyright Be Allowed to Override Speech Rights?">{{cite web |last=Ammori |first=Marvin |title=Should Copyright Be Allowed to Override Speech Rights? |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/should-copyright-be-allowed-to-override-speech-rights/249910/ |date=15 December 2011 |publisher=[[The Atlantic]] |accessdate=2012-01-08 }}</ref> ▼
 
=== 市民的自由の問題 ===
The bill has been criticized by Abigail Phillips of the Electronic Frontier Foundation for not being specific about what constitutes an infringing web site. For example, if [[WikiLeaks]] were accused of distributing copyrighted content, U.S. search engines could be served a court order to block search results pointing to Wikileaks. Requiring search engines to remove links to an entire website altogether due to an infringing page would raise free speech concerns regarding lawful content hosted elsewhere on the site.<ref name="eff01"/>
▲[[First権利章典 Amendment(アメリカ)|憲法修正第1条]] scholars 研究の専門家である[[Laurence Tribeハーバード・ロー・スクール]]教授{{仮リンク|ローレンス・トライブ|en|Laurence and [[Tribe}}と弁護士{{仮リンク|マーヴィン・アモーリ|en|Marvin Ammori]] raised concerns over how the Protect IP act would impact free speech, arguing that the act doesn't target just foreign rogue sites, and would extend to "domestic websites that merely ‘facilitate’ or ‘enable’ infringement. Thus, in their language, the bills target considerable protected speech on legitimate sites such as }}は、法案がターゲットにしているのは海外の不正サイトだけではなく、「単に侵害を‘助長’したり‘可能に’したりした国内のサイト」にまで拡大して適用されうるとして、「したがって、法案の文言によると、YouTube, やTwitter, and Facebook."、Facbookなど合法的なサイトにおける非常に多くの言論が法の対象ということになる」と、PIPA法案が言論の自由に与える影響についての懸念を提起した<ref name="Controversial Copyright Bills Would Violate First Amendment–Letters to Congress by Laurence Tribe and Me">{{cite web |last=Ammori |first=Marvin |title=Controversial Copyright Bills Would Violate First Amendment–Letters to Congress by Laurence Tribe and Me |url=http://ammori.org/2011/12/08/controversial-copyright-bills-would-violate-first-amendment-letters-to-congress-by-laurence-tribe-and-me/ |date=8 December 2011 |publisher=[[Marvin Ammori and Friends]] |accessdate=2012-01-08 }}</ref> Ammori says that the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act "would miss their mark and silence a lot of non-infringing speech."。またアモーリはPIPA・SOPA両法案は「狙いを外し、著作権侵害していない言論を沈黙させてしまう結果になるだろう」と述べている<ref name="Should Copyright Be Allowed to Override Speech Rights?">{{cite web |last=Ammori |first=Marvin |title=Should Copyright Be Allowed to Override Speech Rights? |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/should-copyright-be-allowed-to-override-speech-rights/249910/ |date=15 December 2011 |publisher=[[The Atlantic]] |accessdate=2012-01-08 }}</ref>。
 
[[電子フロンティア財団]]のアビゲイル・フィリップス（Abigail Phillips）も、どういった要件で著作権侵害サイトと特定されるのかが不明確であるとして法案を批判している。例えば、もし[[ウィキリークス]]が著作権で保護されたコンテンツを配布したとして訴えられ、米国の検索エンジンがウィキリークスを示す検索結果を裁判所命令によってブロックしたとした場合、検索エンジンにウィキリークスそのものへのリンクをまるごと除去するよう要請する　ことは、サイトに掲載されている合法的コンテンツに関する言論の自由の問題（ウィキリークスに掲載された合法的な他のコンテンツを閲覧する権利侵害の問題）が浮上することになる<ref name="eff01"/>。
[[Google]] chairman [[Eric Schmidt]] stated that the measures called for in PIPA are overly simple solutions to a complex problem, and that the precedent set by pruning DNS entries is bad from the viewpoint of [[free speech]] and would be a step toward less permissive Internet environments, such as China's. As the chairman of the company that owns the world's largest search engine, Schmidt said "If there is a law that requires DNSs to do X and it's passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it."<ref name=guardian-schmidt>{{cite news|last=Halliday|first=Josh|title=Google boss: anti-piracy laws would be disaster for free speech|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/google-eric-schmidt-piracy|accessdate=24 May 2011|newspaper=The Guardian|date=18 May 2011}}</ref>
 
[[Google]]会長[[エリック・シュミット]]は、PIPA法案で求められている手法は複雑な問題をあまりにも簡単に解決しようとしていると指摘し、DNSエントリを削除するやり方は[[言論の自由]]の観点から問題があり、中国の様な、より寛容さに欠けるインターネット環境への一歩となりうると述べた。世界最大の検索エンジンを運営する企業の会長として、シュミットは「もしDNSにX（何か）をしろと要求する法案が上院・下院を通過し、大統領がそれに署名したとしても、私たちはその法案に同意せず闘い続ける」と述べている<ref name=guardian-schmidt>{{cite news|last=Halliday|first=Josh|title=Google boss: anti-piracy laws would be disaster for free speech|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/google-eric-schmidt-piracy|accessdate=24 May 2011|newspaper=The Guardian|date=18 May 2011}}</ref>。
Constitutional law expert [[Floyd Abrams]] said, "The Protect IP Act neither compels nor prohibits free speech or communication… the bill sets a high bar in defining when a website or domain is eligible for potential actions by the Attorney General…".<ref name="Abrams1">Letter from Floyd Abrams, to Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Senator Hatch, (May 23, 2011), [http://www.fightonlinetheft.com/sites/default/files/file/Voices%20of%20Support/PROTECT%20IP%20Act/Protect%20IP%20Act%20Letter%20by%20Floyd%20Abrams%205%2023%2011.pdf Letter of Support] (accessed June 23, 2011)</ref>▼
 
▲Constitutional law expert 憲法学専門の弁護士[[Floyd Abramsフロイド・エイブラムス]] said, "The Protect IP Act neither compels nor prohibits free speech or communication… the bill sets a high bar in defining when a website or domain is eligible for potential actions by the Attorney General…".は「知的財産保護法案は言論やコミュニケーションの自由を強要したり禁じたりするものではない。…そのウェブサイトまたはドメインが、司法長官が行動を起こすのに適当かを決めるハードルは高く設定されている」と述べている<ref name="Abrams1">Letter from Floyd Abrams, to Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Senator Hatch, (May 23, 2011), [http://www.fightonlinetheft.com/sites/default/files/file/Voices%20of%20Support/PROTECT%20IP%20Act/Protect%20IP%20Act%20Letter%20by%20Floyd%20Abrams%205%2023%2011.pdf Letter of Support] (accessed June 23, 2011)</ref>。
===Concern for user-generated sites===
 
=== ユーザー投稿型サイトに対する懸念 ===
Opponents of the legislation warn that the Protect IP Act would have a negative impact on online communities. Journalist [[Rebecca MacKinnon]] argued in an op-ed that making companies liable for users' actions could have a [[chilling effect (law)|chilling effect]] on user-generated sites like YouTube. "The intention is not the same as [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|China’s Great Firewall]], a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar", she says.{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}} Policy analysts for [[New America Foundation]] say this legislation would enable law enforcement to take down an entire domain due to something posted on a single blog: "Yes, an entire, largely innocent online community could be punished for the actions of a tiny minority."<ref name="The Internet’s Intolerable Acts">{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/stop_online_piracy_act_and_protect_ip_act_a_pair_of_bills_that_threaten_internet_freedom_.html |title=The Internet’s Intolerable Acts |author=James Losey & Sascha Meinrath |publisher=Slate Magazine |date=December 8, 2011 |accessdate=2011-12-11 }}</ref>
反対派は、PIPA法案は[[インターネットコミュニティ]]に悪影響を及ぼしかねないと警告している。例えば、ジャーナリストの[[レベッカ・マッキノン]]はニューヨークタイムズの[[Op-ed|論説]]欄で、企業に利用者の行動の責任を取らせることは[[YouTube]]のような[[Consumer Generated Media|ユーザー投稿型サイト]]を[[萎縮効果|萎縮させる効果]]をもつと論じ、「[[中国のネット検閲]]システムである[[金盾]]と、その目的は違っても、実際的な効果は同じようなものになる」と述べている<ref name="Stop the Great Firewall of America">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html |title=Stop the Great Firewall of America |author=Rebecca MacKinnon |work=[[New York Times]] |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=2012-02-08 }}</ref>。
 
{{仮リンク|新米国研究機構|en|New America Foundation}}の政策アナリストは、この法律は、たった一つのブログの投稿を理由としてドメインすべてを削除するような法の行使を可能にし得るもので、「全体としてほぼ問題のないインターネットコミュニティでも、極僅かな人々のとった行動によってコミュニティ全体が罰せられる可能性がある」と主張している<ref name="The Internet’s Intolerable Acts">{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/stop_online_piracy_act_and_protect_ip_act_a_pair_of_bills_that_threaten_internet_freedom_.html |title=The Internet’s Intolerable Acts |author=James Losey & Sascha Meinrath |publisher=Slate Magazine |date=December 8, 2011 |accessdate=2011-12-11 }}</ref>。
===Business and innovation issues===
 
=== 企業・経済面での問題 ===
A legal analysis by the [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) notes concerns by opponents such as [[American Express]] and [[Google]] that the inclusion of a private cause of action would result in stifled Internet innovation, protect outdated business models and at the cost of an overwhelming number of suits from content producers.<ref>{{citation|web|title=A Legal Analysis of S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act|url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41911.pdf|author=Brian Yeh, Jonathan Miller|publisher=Congressional Research Service|date=July 7, 2011}}</ref> "Legislation should not include a private right of action that would invite suits by 'trolls' to extort settlements from intermediaries or sites who are making good faith efforts to comply with the law," Google vice-president and Chief Counsel Kent Walker has said in Congressional testimony.<ref>{{citation|web|title=Google: don't give private "trolls" Web censorship power|url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/google-private-web-censorship-lawsuits-would-create-trolls.ars|author=Nate Anderson|work=Law and Disorder|date=April 6, 2011}}</ref>
{{仮リンク|米国議会調査局|en|Congressional Research Service}}（CRS）による法的分析では、[[アメリカン・エキスプレス]]や[[Google]]といった反対派の懸念、つまり法案で民事上の訴訟権が認められた場合、コンテンツ製作者からの無数の訴訟が起こされ、時代遅れのビジネスモデルを保護し、その結果インターネットの革新を抑圧することになる、と言及している<ref>{{citation|web|title=A Legal Analysis of S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act|url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41911.pdf|author=Brian Yeh, Jonathan Miller|publisher=Congressional Research Service|date=July 7, 2011}}</ref>。Google副社長・法務責任者のケント・ウォーカー（Kent Walker）は「法案で民事上の訴訟権を認めるべきではない。もし認めたら、”[[荒らし]]”が訴訟を起こして、法を遵守しようと誠実に努力している中間業者やサイトから金を巻き上げようとするような事態になるだろう」と議会公聴会で証言した<ref>{{citation|web|title=Google: don't give private "trolls" Web censorship power|url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/google-private-web-censorship-lawsuits-would-create-trolls.ars|author=Nate Anderson|work=Law and Disorder|date=April 6, 2011}}</ref>。
 
"Rogue sites jeopardize jobs for film and[[アメリカ映画協会 (業界団体)|米映画協会]]（MPAA）は「不正サイトは映画・TV業界の雇用を危機にさらす」として、政府系および独立系調査機関（調査会社''Envisional workers," according to the Motion Picture Association of America, which cites several government and independent industry studies on the effects of online piracy, including a reportLtd.''を含む<ref>[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Technical Report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet]; Envisional Ltd.; January 26, 2011</ref> by ''Envisional Ltd.'' which concluded that one quarter of the content on the internet infringes copyright.）の調査結果をまとめ、ネット上のコンテンツの4分の1は著作権を侵害していると結論づけた<ref>[http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/roguewebsites Rogue Websites]; Motion Picture Association of America; March 30, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.mpaa.org/policy/industry Industry Reports]; Motion Picture Association of America; March 30, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/8c33fb87-1ceb-456f-9a6e-f897759b9b44.pdf The Cost of Content Theft by the Numbers]; Motion Picture Association of America</ref>。[[アメリカレコード協会]]（RIAA）は、オンライン海賊行為による損失額は125億ドルにおよび、70,000人以上の雇用が失われたとする2007年の''Institute Thefor RecordingPolicy Industry Association of America points to a 2007 studyInnovation''（IPI）による調査結果をあげている<ref>[http://www.ipi.org/IPI/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupExecutiveSummary/9631E78559D421458625733E0052D370 Executive Summary]; Institute for Policy Innovation;</ref> by the ''Institute for Policy Innovation'' which found that online piracy caused $12.5 billion dollars in losses to the U.S. economy and more than 70,000 lost jobs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_details_online |title=Who Music Theft Hurts |publisher=Recording Industry Association of America |date= |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref><ref>[http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy-online-scope-of-the-problem Scope of the Problem]; Recording Industry Association of America</ref>。
 
"If we need to amend the DMCA, let's do it with a negotiation between the interested parties, not with a bill written by the content industry's lobbyists and jammed through Congress on a fast track," wrote venture capitalist and 「もし[[デジタルミレニアム著作権法]]を修正する必要があるのなら、関連団体で話し合って決めればよい。コンテンツ産業のロビイストがつくった法案を拙速に議会を通過させるやり方ではなく。」ベンチャーキャピタリストで{{仮リンク|ビジネス・インサイダー|en|Business Insider]] columnist [[}}誌のコラムニスト{{仮リンク|フレッド・ウィルソン|en|Fred Wilson (financier)|Fred Wilson]] in an October }}は、同誌10月29 editorial on the changes that the House and Senate versions of the proposed legislation would make to the safe harbor provisions of the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]]. "Companies like 日版で上院・下院のPIPA/SOPA法案がデジタルミレニアム著作権法のセーフハーバー条項に及ぼす変化についてこのように主張し、「今の時代、主要な輸出企業であり雇用創出の元となっているのは、Apple, 、Google, 、Facebook, and startups like といった大企業、またDropbox, 、Kickstarter, and 、Twilio are the leading exporters and job creators of this time. They are the golden goose of the economy and we cannot kill the golden goose to protect industries in decline,などの新興企業だ。こうした会社は金の卵を産む" he said.金のガチョウ"であって、斜陽産業を保護するために金のガチョウを殺すことはできない。」と述べた<ref>{{citation|news|title=Protecting The Safe Harbors Of The DMCA And Protecting Jobs|url=http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-29/tech/30338451_1_online-piracy-negotiation-dmca|author=Fred Wilson|date=October 29, 2011|work=A VC}}</ref> The impact of the law on small businesses and entrepreneurs may also be disproportionate due to the high costs of complying with its legal, technical and administrative requirements.。法案を遵守するためには法律関係、技術面、管理面で高額なコストがかかるため、小規模ビジネスや新規企業には過度の負担となりえる<ref>{{citation|news|author=Jon Radoff|title="PIPA and SOPA: Bad for Business"|url=http://radoff.com/blog/2012/01/17/pipa-sopa-bad-business/|date=January 17, 2012|accessdate=January 17, 2012}}</ref>。
 
== 法案に対するネット上での抗議活動と採決延期 ==
==Online protests against the bill and announcement of delay==
2012年1月18日、[[SOPA]]・PIPA法案への抗議として[[英語版ウィキペディア]]がサービスを一時停止するなど、ネット上で抗議の輪が広がった。これを受けて議員の中には法案支持を再考するものも現れ、1月20日上院院内総務である[[ハリー・リード]]議員はPIPA法案採決を無期限に延期すると発表した<ref name="NYT-20120120" />。起草者であるリーヒ上院議員も声明を発表し、リード議員の決断に理解を示しつつも、次の様に述べている。「だが、こうした流れを作り出した上院議員たちはいつの日か、きわめて重要な問題に脊髄反射的な反応を取ってしまったことを振り返り、その意味を思い知るだろう<ref>{{Cite web|date=2012-01-23 |url=http://www.computerworld.jp/topics/634/IT業界動向/201527/米国議会、SOPAおよびPIPA法案の裁決を延期 |title=米国議会、SOPAおよびPIPA法案の裁決を延期|publisher=Computerworld |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref>。今も中国やロシアのどこかで、また米国の知的財産に敬意を払わない他の多くの国のどこかでコピー商品や盗んだアメリカ製コンテンツを売ることに明け暮れている犯罪者たちは、米国上院が『どうやって海外の犯罪者が我々の経済に損失をもたらすのを止めさせるかについては議論する価値もない』とした決断をほくそ笑んでみている<ref>[http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=467fb8f0-828d-403c-9b7b-8bf42d583c3e "Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Postponement Of The Vote On Cloture On The Motion To Proceed To The PROTECT IP Act"] ''leahy.senate.gov'' 20 January 2012</ref>。」
On January 18, 2012, widespread online protests against SOPA and PIPA were held that included a [[English Wikipedia blackout|Wikipedia blackout]]. Several lawmakers announced that they would reconsider their support for the bills and on January 20 Senate Majority Leader Reid announced that a vote on PIPA would be indefinitely postponed.<ref name="NYT-20120120" /> Senator Leahy issued a statement indicating that he understood Reid's decision "[b]ut the day will come when the Senators who forced this move will look back and realize they made a knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem. Somewhere in China today, in Russia today, and in many other countries that do not respect American intellectual property, criminals who do nothing but peddle in counterfeit products and stolen American content are smugly watching how the United States Senate decided it was not even worth debating how to stop the overseas criminals from draining our economy."<ref>[http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=467fb8f0-828d-403c-9b7b-8bf42d583c3e "Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Postponement Of The Vote On Cloture On The Motion To Proceed To The PROTECT IP Act"] ''leahy.senate.gov'' 20 January 2012</ref>
 
== 関連項目 ==
* [[Stop Online Piracy Actオンライン海賊行為防止法案]] (SOPA)
* [[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement模倣品・海賊版拡散防止条約]] (ACTA)
* [[著作権延長法]] - 著作権保護期間の延長について新たに定めた法律。1998年制定。
* [[Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act]] (COICA)
* [[環太平洋戦略的経済連携協定]]
<!-- 日本語版に記事のない関連項目をコメントアウト
* [[オンラインにおける権利侵害および偽造防止法案]] (COICA)
* [[Commercial Felony Streaming Act]] ([[Bill S.978]])
* [[Communications Decency Act]], contains pertinent definition of "interactive computer service" 通信品位法
* [[Copyright Term Extension Act]], increased the length of copyright to as much as 120 years in some cases
* [[English Wikipedia blackout]]
* [[PRO-IP Act]], a 2008 law cited as a legal basis for [[Operation In Our Sites v. 2.0|Operation In Our Sites]]
* [[Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011]], another proposed law which may create online privacy issues.
* [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership]]
* [[Trade group efforts against file sharing]]
-->
 
== 脚注 ==
「https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act」から取得