Katherine Oyama, copyrightdeskundige at Google, said Thursday in an attack on the proposed Sopa legislation, a financial embargo is a successful method to web sites offline. As an example, called Oyama Wikileaks.
Oyama returned during a hearing of a Congressional committee against the Sopa legislation. This law, which organizations like the MPAA have lobbied, makes it possible for copyright owners possible, without judicial review of websites that are too little against copyright infringement of internet. Also allow advertisers and payment processors will be forced to end their ties with such sites by cutting. Google claims, however, together with other large internet companies, the legislation goes too far and that it is the innovation disruptive to.
According to Oyama can a government better a financial embargo declare against websites that violate the law. So could websites that are guilty of piracy almost always their income involve from ads or subscribers. As these revenue streams dry up by setting up a financial embargo, such sites disappear, says Google.
Oyama cited Wikileaks as an example. The klokkenluiderssite is after a boycott by U.s. payment processors like Visa, PayPal and MasterCard in major financial problems and the work of Wikileaks but with difficulty to the head above the water.
The copyright expert of Google stated further that the current bill setting up a financial embargo, while it is possible, but the danger of censorship is lurking. As would be indicted web sites just five days to appeal and there is no independent judicial key place for a request for closure. In addition, under other search engines, according to the Sopa law to the relevant websites from their index.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, also a fierce opponent of the bill, according to a spokesman broadly agree with the position of Google. The spokesman did, however, Forbes know that they are the Wikileaks-example unhappy. That’s how he calls the EFF, Wikileaks is not a website that would violate the act, and Google would be the ‘uithongeringsmethode’ in the setting of a boycott by advertisers and payment processors, in principle, not anger.