Internet companies led by Google Inc are using their online clout to stoke opposition to Hollywood-backed anti-piracy measures in the US Congress that they say will encourage censorship and chill innovation.
Google, owner of the world’s most popular search engine, placed a link on its home page today opposing the House and Senate bills, joining protests by Wikipedia and other websites. Google had about 400 million daily US searches in December, according to Internet measurement firm comScore Inc, dwarfing the 111 million viewers of last year’s Super Bowl game.
Public criticism led by Google, Facebook Inc and Twitter Inc slowed an initial “smooth glide to passage” for the anti- piracy measures supported by the entertainment industry, Rogan Kersh, an associate dean at New York University’s Wagner School who conducts research on lobbying, said in an interview.
“Google and Facebook and Twitter are part of our daily lives in a way that most of us find very appealing,” Kersh said. “These are sexy brands. If you’re a member of Congress, you don’t want to be on the wrong side of the social media and new media darlings of America.”
Google typically devotes its home page to displaying its own services, not taking stands on legislation, and its “Google” icon is often used to commemorate historical events and individuals. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia where users contribute entries, is shutting the English version of its website for 24 hours to protest the measures.
Microsoft Corp, the world’s largest software maker, said in a statement yesterday that it opposes the House measure as currently drafted. The company said it doesn’t plan to shut down its online services in protest.
More From This Section
Blackout day
The Stop Online Piracy Act in the House and the Protect IP Act in the Senate are backed by the movie and music industries, as a means to crack down on the sale of counterfeit goods by non-US websites. Hollywood studios want lawmakers to ensure that Internet companies such as Google share responsibility for curbing the distribution of pirated material.
The so-called blackout day to protest anti-piracy legislation is “abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today,” Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in an e-mailed statement yesterday.
“It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests,” said Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who served three decades in the Senate.
‘Piracy leader’
News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch called Google a “piracy leader” in a January 14 post on Twitter, saying that it streams movies for free and sells advertisements around them. A day later he wrote in his Twitter account that Google is a “great company doing many exciting things. Only one complaint, and it’s important.”
Miranda Higham, a News Corp spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Samantha Smith, a Google spokeswoman, said the company respects copyright. “Last year we took down five million infringing Web pages from our search results,” she said in an e-mail yesterday.
Murdoch represents a “radioactive” brand and his comments are “terrible timing” for supporters of the anti-piracy legislation, Kersh of New York University said.
“As supervisor of a media empire that is best known at present for hacking into people’s personal phone accounts, this is not someone you want arguing for more government involvement in the lives of the public,” Kersh said.
Senate vote
The Senate is scheduled to hold a procedural vote January 24 to see whether there is enough support to begin debate on its version of the legislation bill.
Representative Lamar Smith, who heads the House Judiciary Committee, said he expects his panel to resume consideration of the House bill in February. The panel began debating the measure in a December session and members offered about 60 amendments.
Smith called the protest by Wikipedia and others a “publicity stunt” that “does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts,” according to an e-mailed statement yesterday.
Andrew Noyes, a Facebook spokesman, didn’t return a call and e-mail asking whether the company has any protest plans. Matt Graves, a Twitter spokesman, didn’t respond to an e-mail.
Administration objections
The administration of President Barack Obama cast some doubt over the legislation’s prospects on January 14, saying in a blog post that it wouldn’t support measures that encourage censorship, undermine cybersecurity or disrupt the structure of the Internet.
The blog post, signed by three White House technology officials, marked the administration’s most significant foray into a fight between content creators and Web companies that has been playing out in Congress.
Obama, who draws support from both Hollywood and the Internet industry, is trying to “steer a line” between the competing interests, Kersh said.
The president received $1.34 million in campaign donations from employees of the computer and Internet industries since January 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks political giving. Obama received $1.02 million from workers in the television, movie and music industries during the same period.
Smith, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said January 13 that he would remove a provision from his bill that would require Internet-service providers, when ordered by a court, to block access to non-US websites offering pirated content.
Senator Patrick Leahy , a Vermont Democrat who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said January 12 that he’s willing to consider dropping a similar provision from the bill he sponsored. Opponents say such website-blocking may harm the stability of the Internet’s domain-name system.