News
The Dangers of SOPA and PIPA
UPDATE: The foreign “rogue” website, MegaUpload, has been shut down due to online piracy and several arrests have been made for copyright infringement and conspiracy. SOPA/PIPA supporters have been regurgitating the argument over and over that these bills are needed to fight online piracy abroad. With these arrests and MegaUpload shut down, can there be anymore evidence that SOPA and PIPA are completely unnecessary and will accomplish nothing more than internet censorship?
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html)
Largely unreported by the mainstream media, two very important bills have been working their way through Congress. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the House, and PIPA (Protect IP Act) in the Senate, are similar bills which attempt to “protect” copyright owners (primarily Hollywood) by effectively censoring the internet.
As most are aware, there are many foreign websites which illegally offer copyrighted material, without permission, to the public. Despite the fact that there are already laws in place to protect copyright owners and give them the ability to fight infringement, the solution offered by SOPA and PIPA is to block American citizen’s ability to access these sites. Not unlike the governments of China, Iran, and North Korea, Congress wants to give our government the power to create an internet “blacklist.” Furthermore, these bills would ban advertisers and payment sites (i.e. PayPal) from associating with accused sites, and forbid search engines from listing them.
These bills will not only include websites knowingly participating in copyright infringement, but other sites that may unintentionally host copyrighted material (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) can also be shut down. In other words, say you have a blog which is commented on by someone linking to a site offering illegal movie downloads, you as the blog owner will be responsible and can be censored. If you are a website that posts links to other sites, you would have to ensure that each individual site is not participating in copyright infringement. One can see how this would easily get out of control. If I post a link to your site, while you are linking to another, and they to another which is illegally hosting copyrighted material, are we all shut down?
Supporters claim that foreign “rogue” websites are the focus of these bills. Despite the fact that US laws exist to protect copyright owners, sites operating outside US jurisdiction make it much more difficult to fight infringement. While this may be a legitimate concern, restricting American’s internet access because copyright owners and the US government lack the authority to shut these “rogue” sites down, hardly seems like a reasonable solution. If these issues are really this important, why not attempt to negotiate with the governments where these websites are hosted? It would seem reasonable to expect that all avenues be exhausted before we are expected to accept internet censorship.
The primary supporters of SOMA and PIPA, those in the movie, television and music industries, apparently assume that there is nothing they can do themselves to dissuade customers from seeking their products illegally. Perhaps if they made their products more affordable (i.e. not charging $20-$30 for a DVD), particularly in this economy, more people would be willing to purchase them. There is also the option of making movies, music and television more accessible. With the increasing popularity of streaming video sites like Netflix and Hulu, it has never been easier for studios to feed the modern public’s need for immediate consumption. Perhaps studios should explore different and more creative options to lessen or eliminate the market for these “rogue” websites, rather than immediately lobbying Congress to legislate their troubles away at the expense of the rest of the country.
It may seem like an absurd stretch to suggest that SOPA and PIPA will result in the censoring of those not actively participating in copyright infringement, and supporters claim that these bills will not be that far reaching, but how many other laws have been passed with good intentions only to spiral out of control?
The USA Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9/11 under the guise of giving the government more power to fight terrorism. How could anyone argue against fighting terrorism? Several members of Congress even admitted voting to pass this law without reading it. The problem is, the Patriot Act does not only effect terrorists, it gave the U.S. government the power to, among other things, wiretap American citizens without a warrant, acquire phone and internet records, and secretly enter the homes of Americans (sometimes referred to as “sneak and peek”), without informing the resident(s) or giving them the opportunity to see the warrant first. Needless to say, while proponents claimed this law would only effect those involved in terrorism, the Patriot Act has been used to spy on thousands of American citizens. The FBI has admitted to abuses, improperly obtaining thousands of American’s phone records, even citing emergency situations to obtain records when no such emergency existed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/washington/13cnd-fbi.html).
A second example of a law passed with good intentions but subject to abuse is the Adam Walsh Act and similar laws regarding sex offender registries. Of course rape and child molestation are indefensible and should be punished, nobody is arguing otherwise. Considering though that most children are molested by someone they know, many without a criminal record, one has to wonder what this law seeks to accomplish besides publically branding sex offenders, but if it saves even one potential victim that can certainly be seem as a benefit (although personally I’m still waiting for the “serial killer registry” or “repeat violent offender registry,” but I digress.). The problem is, the sex offender registry is not just a list of rapists and child molesters, one can be branded a sex offender for urinating in public, mooning or streaking. Even children have been forced to register as sex offenders for sending nude photos of themselves to others their own age (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-03-08/news/orl-asec-sexting-030809_1_sexting-face-child-porn-charges-nude-photos).
Are these necessarily good decisions? Of course not, but it seems ridiculous to list a violent rapist in the same category as an immature college student who streaks a football game or a naive teenager who sends a naked photo of themselves to a boyfriend or girlfriend.
Obviously, it is impossible to give the government broad power and expect them to use common sense when enforcing it. The preceding examples were passed under the guise of “protection.” It is a common occurrence to hear politicians telling of the urgency of their latest proposed bill, and how it is needed to “protect.” Protecting the public, protecting the children, or in this latest argument over SOPA and PIPA, protecting copyright holders.
It may seem dramatic to compare the SOPA and PIPA bills to abuses under the Patriot Act, or ridiculous to compare them to teen “sexting,” but it follows the same thought process. If we cannot trust the government to use common sense and discretion when enforcing those laws, how can we trust them to properly enforce what is basically internet censorship? It begins with foreign websites who actively and knowingly participate in copyright infringement, but where does it end?
Interestingly, the sponsor and author of SOPA, Congressman Lamar Smith from Texas who has been leading the charge against copyright infringement (as well as suggesting that opponents must be financially benefiting from illegal activity), has participated in it himself. On his campaign website, he used a copyrighted image without permission and without crediting the owner (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/281037/20120112/lamar-smith-sopa-bill-author-infringing-copyright.htm). Obviously one would assume that this was an unintentional oversight, but under SOPA that would not matter. Congressman Smith would be considered one of the hardened criminals he has been railing against for months. Perhaps Congressman Smith, and other supporters, should take this as a clue that sometimes….shockingly…..it is not necessary to legislate absolutely everything! Particularly when there are already laws in place (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/).
The well known quote “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” seems to be appropriate in this situation (if this quote is copyrighted please inform me before shutting my website down). We have seen over and over again governmental officials abusing their power and Congress passing laws authorizing government intervention into every aspect of our lives from medical decisions to banking, and now we are expected to give them control over the internet. How many times are we going to fall for the “just trust us” argument?
