#SOPA Second Thoughts
There's a lot in the news about the two bills currently stuck in Congress that (purport) to protect owners of intellectual property against piracy and counterfeiting.
The best -- and clearest -- description of the current SOPA and PIPA debate is here, at Forbes.com. It's an excellent primer, written by Larry Magid, who has done a great service, to me especially, with his work. I'll except some of it here, but it's really worth it to read the whole thing:
What are SOPA and PIPA and why are people upset?
This is all because of two pieces of legislation: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and its Senate companion bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA). The purpose of these bills is to make it harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States — to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches. Even most of SOPA and PIPA’s strongest opponents applaud the intentions of the legislation while deploring what it might actually accomplish.
Although its sponsors have said that they would amend the bill, as currently written, SOPA would enable the U.S. Attorney General to seek a court order to require “a service provider (to) take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.” Until this weekend, one of the ways to do that would have been to cut the DNS (domain name server) records that point to the site, but that provision is likely to be removed after the Obama administration weighed in on the issue over the weekend, 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.” The administration also echoed concerns raised by a number of security experts, including some anti-malware companies that the bill could disrupt the underlying architecture of the Internet.
The White House statement coincided with sponsors agreeing to remove the DNS blocking provisions. Still, the bill could require search engines like Google to delete any links to the sites.
These are not partisan bills. SOPA and PIPA have proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle.
In a nutshell, it's this:
Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley
These bills have pitted the entertainment industry against the technology industry. “Hollywood” has a legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property. Not only are profits at stake but so are jobs. Thousands of Americans make their living by dreaming up content and selling it to the world and piracy does in fact take money out of their pockets. Silicon Valley has invested billions in creating companies that freely distribute information. While Google and every other Silicon Valley company must respect copyrights, they thrive on helping people find what they want. If, suddenly, every web site that had links to other sites had to worry that they could be in violation of the law by linking to a “banned” site, it could put undo pressure on these companies. There is also worry that SOPA and PIPA could be abused and lead to censorship for purposes other than intellectual property protection.
In today's NYTimes, though, another thoughtful piece suggests that it's not such a clear case of Good Guys (internet guys, Google guys, Silicon Valley guys, open web guys) against the Bad Guys (Hollywood, Big Media, copyright owners). Jaron Lanier writes in the Opinion section:
The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, which is being considered in the House while the Senate looks at a similar bill, is deemed the worst thing ever. Popular sites likeWikipedia staged a blackout on Wednesday to protest the bills. Google put a black banner over its name. Nothing quite like that has ever happened before. This is extraordinary, because it shows that belief in the priority of fighting SOPA is so absolute as to trump the stated nonpartisan missions of these sites.
The legislation has indeed included draconian remedies in various drafts, so I join my colleagues in criticizing the bills. But our opposition has become so extreme that we are doing more harm than good to our own cause. Those rare tech companies that have come out in support of SOPA are not merely criticized but barred from industry events and subject to boycotts. We, the keepers of the flame of free speech, are banishing people for their speech. The result is a chilling atmosphere, with people afraid to speak their minds.
He then reminds us that there isn't really an "open" internet. Content and conversation have simply moved to sites -- like Google and Facebook -- that collect information and sell it to advertisers. Here's his example:
For instance, until a year ago, I enjoyed a certain kind of user-generated content very much: I participated in forums in which musicians talked about musical instruments.
For years, I was warned that old-fashioned control freaks like media moguls might separate me from my beloved forums. Perhaps a forum would be shut down because it was hosted on some server with pirated content.
While acknowledging that this is a possible scenario, a very different factor — proprietary social networking — is ending my freedom to participate in the forums I used to love, at least on terms I accept. Like many other forms of contact, the musical conversations are moving into private sites, particularly Facebook. To continue to participate, I’d have to accept Facebook’s philosophy, under which it analyzes me, and is searching for new ways to charge third parties for the use of that analysis.
At the moment that wouldn’t bother me much, because I know a lot of people at Facebook and I know they are decent. But I’ve seen what happens to companies over time. Who knows who will be using my data in 20 years?
This is an excellent point. And it's worth remembering during all of the high-drama outrage and the hysterical "blackouts" on the web, that we are really talking about two competing business models organized by very large and powerful industries. It's not David vs. Goliath. It's Mothra vs. Godzilla:
We in Silicon Valley undermined copyright to make commerce become more about services instead of content — more about our code instead of their files. The inevitable endgame was always that we would lose control of our own personal content, our own files. We haven’t just weakened Hollywood and old-fashioned publishers. We’ve weakened ourselves.
Read the whole thing. If you're like me, it's just made you a little more confused. Which is a good outcome, frankly.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Here's the alternate bill Rep. Issa is working on. It's not perfect by any means, but it's better. SOPA and PIPA come off like giving a haircut with a scythe.
Apr '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Thanks, Rob. I will pass this on. Very thought provoking.
Oct '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Rob Long:
He then reminds us that there isn't really an "open" internet. Content and conversation have simply moved to sites -- like Google and Facebook -- that collect information and sell it to advertisers.
Are we having an open conversation, and non Google/Facebook monitored conversation here ?
There is a still an open Internet, with thousands of sites like this were conversation can be held in an open and semi-private manner. Just a question of customer choice.
This bit is kind of a stretch.
Dec '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Sorry my post was snottier than I wanted it to be. WIll think on it.
Edited on Jan 19 at 10:28amAug '10
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
His point about discussions moving to privately-owned sites is well-taken. Ricochet itself is an example of this.
Before the graphical Internet really took off in 1996/97, I used to spend an inordinate amount of time on USENET.
Just for fun, I recently took a look at the USENET message groups I used to frequent. Not a single message on any of 'em.
Same goes for the IRC chatrooms I used to inhabit.
I'm not sayin' it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.
Oct '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Misthiocracy: His point about discussions moving to privately-owned sites is well-taken. Ricochet itself is an example of this.
Before the graphical Internet really took off in 1996/97, I used to spend an inordinate amount of time on USENET.
Just for fun, I recently took a look at the USENET message groups I used to frequent. Not a single message on any of 'em.
Same goes for the IRC chatrooms I used to inhabit.
I'm not sayin' it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing. · Jan 19 at 10:24am
AFAIK all conversation have always been on privately owned website, always. But in any case His point about content being sold for marketing purposes doesn't hold for Ricochet, or does it ?
Jan '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Sorry, Rob, but over the years I have developed a conditioned response which has me opposing anything that "Hollywood" favors, and vice versa. My thinking is that anything that weakens those who, living in comfort, seek to impose irrational sacrifices on others, is a good thing. In my opinion, that crowd (with notable exceptions, Rob) is largely responsible for the mess that's plaguing this country. Now, if there was some way to parallel the trend to more broadly encompass the news media, I'd be all for that, too.
Edited on Jan 19 at 10:36amMay '10
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Rob -- You have been an articulate critic of government regulation of the Internet in the past. The fundamental case is that Congress can't possibly a) understand what they are regulating and what the unintended consequences of their actions will be; b) keep current with the regulation in a way that can possibly hope to keep up with the evolution of the Internet; c) resist the urge to create a precedent-setting bureaucracy whose tentacles will grow and grow to ever increasing amounts of oversight and interference.
I want Congress to keep its big, greasy mitts off the Internet, period.
Edited on Jan 19 at 11:05amMay '10
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
As I argue over at the Member Feed, public libraries have been depriving copyright owners of profit for centuries. But they won their PR war long ago. Who doesn't view the local library as a good thing?
But as is the want of folks in the communications business, the studios and the record labels didn't communicate the proper message in the proper tone. If I were the MPAA and the RIAA this what I would have said:
Dear Consumer,
Finding our product on the internet for free is like finding a twenty dollar bill on the street. When you picked it up and put in your pocket you didn't ask if it was stolen.
But if you found hundreds in an envelope, being an honest citizen, you would turn it in. And that's what we're asking you to do. If you find a movie or CD for download, keep it. We won't prosecute. But tell us about it so we can track down the thieves. And there will be more rewards available if you do.
Instead, they went after downloaders. They lost the PR war and made themselves the bad guys.
Edited on Jan 19 at 11:05amDec '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
I dont like laws that are heavy handed in their lack of due process and accountability.
You are asking some party to take a not insignifigant action based upon the determination that maybe possibly (and this is totally not abused at all, and a nigerian prince wants to give you a million dollars) a different party could maybe be engaged in piracy, and totally not something that would be covered under fair use, or some other inoffensive activity. This is not wise.... at all. Its very much the exact opposite of wise.
Edited on Jan 19 at 11:39amNov '10
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
I hate how the debate has turned from "SOPA/PIPA: Bad vs. Good" to "IP: Bad vs. Good." Most pundits (and people who know anything about the bills themselves) can say the bills themselves are bad, for whatever reason (and the DNS-removal thing added pants-on-head stupid on top of it), but then there's always that "BUT," and the conversation turns into a completely different thing; then, all of a sudden, if you are against the bills you are against IP, when they are really separate issues.
May '10
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
My issue here is twofold- 1) there is generally too much IP protection (especially the infinitely extending copyright laws trends), and it is largely the result of legacy company rent-seeking far out of accord with the Constitutional intent, and 2) the burden of proof for any new legislation must be set so that enforcement mechanisms can't put people out of business based on "suspicion". If you have a beef, file suit and collect damages.
Glenn Reynolds- who teaches internet law, in addition to being the most prolific blogger around, has a good suggestion (the link Java box isn't working- http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/135569/): "Yes, it’s about protecting existing companies from new business models, not piracy. But here’s an easy fix for SOPA: Allow anyone whose site is taken down to recover the greater of either $50,000 or five times actual damages imposed if their site is taken down without good reason, or if they can show bad faith. Given that Big Entertainment was robo-signing complaints a decade ago, that seems a reasonable thing to ask. Also make it a felony to sign a false affidavit in these cases, and allow private prosecution. . . ."
Apr '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
I know a guy, a paleoconservative with a streak of libertarianism, who wrote a book in praise of private property. However, he disparaged copyrights and patents. Tom's wife, who was reading the draft, was not happy with this. She told him at dinner that she had really liked one chapter, so she had made a few changes to the Word file and sent it to a friend to publish under her name as a magazine article. Fortunately, she had waited until he had tucked in his napkin. Her ploy didn't exactly change his mind, but it did get him thinking.
I'm with the wife. IP must come under the law of usufruct, a right understood to be non-transmittable. But the SOPA/PIPA approach is typical when-your-only-tool-is-a-hammer suit thinking. They can't reach the real villains, so they beat up on someone they can reach. It's like yelling at the kids because your boss was unreasonable.
Right now the Internet community manages to identify and impede spam sites, and to resolve disputes. It could do the same with IP pirates, possibly without government involvement.
Edited on Jan 19 at 2:29pmSep '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
SOPA and Protect-IP are a glaring example of government overkill--with more than a whiff of Hollywood-funded overkill to boot. Were SOPA to pass, Ricochet could easily be shut down. Here's how.
I create organ music using virtual instruments--and occasionally I will post a link on Ricochet to something new that I've created. Like, for instance, this:
"And Did Those Feet, In Ancient Times"
http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/5407
The link points to a small web site that is hosted in Canada, where you can play an MP3 file of the music. The music was written by Hubert Parry in 1916, and both the words and the tune are in the public domain.
That does not, however, keep more than a half-dozen publishers from claiming copyright on various settings or orchestrations of the work. Any one of whom could, under SOPA, not just petition to have the DNS entries and search engine links of Contrebombarde Concert Hall shut down--wiping out the site--but also to block the DNS entries and search engine results for any web site that LINKS to Contrebombarde. Like Ricochet.
(More to come...)
Sep '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
(Continued from #14)
The SOPA/Protect-IP provision that any site that links to a suspect web site can be turned off marks a radical change in U.S. law. For decades U.S. courts have regarded online communities as "distributors" of content, not publishers. There's an important legal distinction: a publisher is responsible for what he publishes--you can (at least in theory) sue the New York Times if you are libeled. You cannot sue the Harrisburg (Pa.) News Agency for distributing copies of the New York Times that contain libelous material about you. The courts have repeatedly held that online content providers (starting with CompuServe) are distributors, not publishers--and thus cannot be expected to review and evaluate every single comment posted by a member.
SOPA and Protect-IP turn that established legal principle on its head. Now merely providing a forum in which links to suspect comment may be posted can result in (in Internet terms) the death penalty: complete and total shutdown of your site.
Anyone actively participating in, and especially operating, Internet communities that permit posts from community members should be ABSOLUTELY opposed to SOPA. It is an extremely bad idea.
Edited on Jan 19 at 3:14pmSep '11
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Let's demonstrate how the distributor/editor distinction works:
Mollie Hemingway is an editor at Ricochet. She has authority, including the authority to remove comments that are considered contrary to the rules. She can determine what is published, and what is not.
I am a member of the proletariat (one of the 99%!) who has no standing or authority at all. I can post comments, I can edit my own comments, and that's about it.
Suppose, for sake of argument, that Mollie posts something outrageous and defamatory ("Chuck Schumer is a closeted Red Sox fan.") When the scandal breaks, Schumer (who pretends to root for the New York Yankees) will claim that Mollie's calumnies have caused him actual harm, and he can sue Ricochet--because Mollie is an editor, and has editorial authority.
On the other hand, suppose I post something equally scurrilous (Schumer prefers Chicago-style deep dish pizza, and dismisses New York pizza as cheese and tomatoes on cardboard). Schumer cannot sue Ricochet--Ricochet is the distributor of the content--not the publisher.
Under SOPA, that changes--Ricochet is now responsible not just for Mollie's libel, but for mine.
Result? The death of online communities.
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Samuel Amaral
Misthiocracy: His point about discussions moving to privately-owned sites is well-taken. Ricochet itself is an example of this.
Before the graphical Internet really took off in 1996/97, I used to spend an inordinate amount of time on USENET.
Just for fun, I recently took a look at the USENET message groups I used to frequent. Not a single message on any of 'em.
Same goes for the IRC chatrooms I used to inhabit.
I'm not sayin' it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing. · Jan 19 at 10:24am
AFAIK all conversation have always been on privately owned website, always. But in any case His point about content being sold for marketing purposes doesn't hold for Ricochet, or does it ? · 10 hours ago
No it doesn't! That's why it's here, and not on Facebook. But it's fair to say that we're swimming upstream.
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
Trace Urdan: Rob -- You have been an articulate critic of government regulation of the Internet in the past. The fundamental case is that Congress can't possibly a) understand what they are regulating and what the unintended consequences of their actions will be; b) keep current with the regulation in a way that can possibly hope to keep up with the evolution of the Internet; c) resist the urge to create a precedent-setting bureaucracy whose tentacles will grow and grow to ever increasing amounts of oversight and interference.
I want Congress to keep its big, greasy mitts off the Internet, period. · 10 hours ago
Edited 9 hours ago
I don't disagree. But surely intellectual property holders have some rights to some protection, don't they? Or don't they? I'm genuinely undecided here. I don't like SOPA or PIPA, but the content-creator part of me is worried that the "everything free" model is aimed right at my paycheck.
Re: #SOPA Second Thoughts
John Murdoch: Mollie Hemingway is an editor at Ricochet. She has authority, including the authority to remove comments that are considered contrary to the rules. She can determine what is published, and what is not.
I am a member of the proletariat (one of the 99%!) who has no standing or authority at all. I can post comments, I can edit my own comments, and that's about it.
Suppose, for sake of argument, that Mollie posts something outrageous and defamatory ("Chuck Schumer is a closeted Red Sox fan.") When the scandal breaks, Schumer (who pretends to root for the New York Yankees) will claim that Mollie's calumnies have caused him actual harm, and he can sue Ricochet--because Mollie is an editor, and has editorial authority.
On the other hand, suppose I post something equally scurrilous (Schumer prefers Chicago-style deep dish pizza, and dismisses New York pizza as cheese and tomatoes on cardboard). Schumer cannot sue Ricochet--Ricochet is the distributor of the content--not the publisher.
Under SOPA, that changes--Ricochet is now responsible not just for Mollie's libel, but for mine.
Result? The death of online communities. · 5 hours ago
Very clear. Thanks!