In early 2011, Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Reddit and others launched a coordinated public relations offensive against the two disputed bills known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Act to Protect Intellectual Property. (PIPE). Consequently, both bills are now considered essentially dead.

The rhetorical barrage in the media was apocalyptic. According to many of the most trafficked websites on the Internet, SOPA and PIPA threatened nothing less than the total annihilation of free speech on the Internet and amounted to fascist censorship.

Meanwhile, supporters of the bills, including most of the major pharmaceutical companies, book publishers, sports leagues, movie studios, and fashion designers, also loudly demanded that SOPA and PIPA be enacted immediately, for fear of irreparable damage caused by Internet pirates who operate foreign websites to sell counterfeit products and offer pirated software, music, and movies to American consumers.

However, the hype and controversy surrounding both bills obscured two fundamental truths.

First, online piracy and counterfeiting by foreign “fake” websites will continue to pose a very serious and growing danger to content creators, brand owners and consumers alike.

Yet even if the controversial proposed laws had been passed in their flawed forms, they likely would have done little to effectively combat online piracy, which is largely fostered by the virtual anonymity that current Internet policy fosters.

Second, while the proposed legislation would have given additional powers to the US Department of Justice to shut down foreign websites that are primarily engaged in counterfeiting and piracy (and third parties who knowingly aid and abet them) , SOPA and PIPA would not have altered existing laws. significantly the law in that sense. In fact, federal courts already have the legal power to shut down foreign websites that are directly engaged in offering illegal products to American consumers.

In numerous cases in which I have litigated on behalf of major fashion brands and other intellectual property owners, federal courts have consistently held that, as long as minimum thresholds of personal jurisdiction and due process are met, anonymous owners” John Doe” from the websites can be sued in the US and receive legal process via email. If they ultimately fail to come forward to defend themselves and thus default, in addition to losing all of the domain names in question, they may owe plaintiffs millions of dollars in damages.

In addition, independent judicial review ensures that each of the targeted malicious websites is engaged in outright forgery and hacking, and that no First Amendment rights to free speech are implicated.

An alternative policy proposal to address ongoing legitimate concerns about online hacking is a relatively minor change to existing law, which requires verification and disclosure of registrant identifying information.

When a person or company registers a new Internet domain name, they must provide administrative and contact information to the private Internet registrar and the official Internet registrar. For most malicious websites, the information provided is obviously fictitious, including many cases where hijacked domain names were registered to “Mickey Mouse” and “Ronald Reagan.”

Additionally, private Internet registrars can protect even this false information from public disclosure (for a recurring fee to the registrar, of course). Under current ICANN policy, Internet registrars and registries have no significant obligation to verify or publicly disclose the true registrant of a domain name.

Consequently, millions of Internet domain names and their related websites remain effectively anonymous and hidden behind a valuable cloak of confidentiality purchased from Internet registrars. However, if forced to provide genuine personal information, even foreign-based registrants could be subject to asset seizures and other serious consequences if they are held responsible for engaging in online hacking and counterfeiting. Additionally, registrars and other Internet providers could reliably discern users involved in IPR infringement and deny them access to their services in the future.

Amending US Internet law and policy to require all Internet registrars and official registries to verify and publicly disclose identifying information about newly created domain name registrants would shine a disinfectant light on the Internet and help go a long way to curbing online piracy and counterfeiting, and without significantly threatening freedom of expression online. We place such strict requirements on our financial and credit institutions, and we should expect no less from Internet registrars, simply because their transactions take place online.