|
The webmaster considers this police state law a violation
of the First Amendment. But of course who cares,
for all practical purposes the Bill of Rights has been
null and void for years with all the other police state laws
Congress has passed, such as the Patriot Act.
Wikipedia to black out site over anti-piracy bill Jan. 16, 2012 08:52 PM Associated Press Wikipedia will black out the English language version of its website Wednesday to protest anti-piracy legislation under consideration in Congress, the foundation behind the popular community-based online encyclopedia said in a statement Monday night. The website will go dark for 24 hours in an unprecedented move that brings added muscle to a growing base of critics of the legislation. Wikipedia is considered one of the Internet's most popular websites, with millions of visitors daily. "If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States," the Wikimedia foundation said. The Stop Online Piracy Act in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Protect Intellectual Property Act under consideration in the Senate are designed to crack down on sales of pirated U.S. products overseas. Supporters include the film and music industry, which often sees its products sold illegally. They say the legislation is needed to protect intellectual property and jobs. Critics say the legislation could hurt the technology industry and infringe on free-speech rights. Among their concerns are provisions that would weaken cyber-security for companies and hinder domain access rights. The most controversial provision is in the House bill, which would have enabled federal authorities to "blacklist" sites that are alleged to distribute pirated content. That would essentially cut off portions of the Internet to all U.S. users. But congressional leaders appear to be backing off this provision. Tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, eBay, AOL and others have spoken out against the legislation and said it threatens the industry's livelihood. Several online communities such as Reddit, Boing Boing and others have announced plans to go dark in protest as well. The Obama administration also raised concerns about the legislation over the weekend and said it will work with Congress on legislation to help battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy, security and innovation in the Internet. Wikipedia's decision to go dark brings the issue into a much brighter spotlight. A group of Wikipedia users have discussed for more than a month whether it should react to the legislation. Over the past few days, a group of more than 1,800 volunteers who work on the site and other users considered several forms of online protest, including banner ads and a global blackout of the site, the foundation said. Ultimately, the group supported the decision to black out the English version of the site. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia who first announced the move on his Twitter account Monday, said the bills are a threat to the free, open, and secure web. "The whole thing is just a poorly designed mess," Wales said in an email to The Associated Press. Wikipedia is also requesting that readers contact members of Congress about the bill during the blackout. "I am personally asking everyone who cares about freedom and openness on the Internet to contact their Senators and Representative," Wales said. "One of the things we have learned recently during the Arab Spring events is that the Internet is a powerfully effective tool for the public to organize and have their voices heard." Wikipedia will shut down access from midnight Eastern Standard Time (0500 GMT) on Tuesday night until midnight Wednesday. This is the first time Wikipedia's English version has gone dark. Its Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government; the bill did not advance. "Wikipedia is about being open," said Jay Walsh, spokesman for the Wikimedia foundation. "We are not about shutting down and protesting. It's not a muscle that is normally flexed."
Help stop misguided Internet legislation
Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:14 pm | Updated: 1:22 pm, Tue Jan 17, 2012.
By Ken Colburn, Data Doctors | 0 comments
Q: What's the latest with the Internet censorship bills in Congress and what can we do to help defeat them? - Joseph
A: There are two bills currently in Congress that should concern everyone that values an open and uncensored Internet; SOPA (H.R. 3261) which stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House and the Protect IP Act (S. 968) in the Senate.
Both of these bills have on their face the noble cause of fighting Internet piracy, but the way they are written, it's more legislation written by clueless cyber-tards.
When you dig into the details, it's just another example of what is causing so much dissent in our political process; powerful lobbies pushing for legislation that is clearly not in the best interest of the average citizen through legislators that have no clue about technological issues.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) along with most of the power brokers in the television & entertainment industry are the instigators of this overbearing legislation and there seems to be total disregard (or ignorance) for the obvious collateral damage they would cause.
In a nutshell, these bills aim to give any copyright holder an enormous sledge hammer to essentially shutdown access to any website that they deem to be in violation of their copyright with little to no recourse.
The way these bills are written, an entire website could be brought down if a single user posts anything that a copyright holder deems a violation.
Taken to the absurd, a video of your kids dancing around to a Beyonce hit could shut all of YouTube down if they didn't take your video down quickly.
It essentially puts the policing burden on every website, search engine, web hosting company or anyone that allows users to post anything.
There are plenty of laws on the books already that allow copyright holders to force sights to take down individual postings that infringe on their content, but the powerful entertainment industry wants a bigger hammer.
The humorous part of all of this is that the legislation's aim is to fight the very real problem of Internet piracy, but won't do a thing to impact it because of simple circumvention steps that most 13-year old techies already know.
When a website has been identified as one in violation, the law would mandate that it get added to a DNS blacklist that would no longer allow users in the United States to access it and for credit card processors and advertising systems to cut all ties with the site.
The DNS system translates your alpha website requests into the actual numeric equivalent known as the IP address. For instance, piratebay.org is one of the targets of this legislation because of its notoriety for hosting just about any content that you don't want to pay for.
If this legislation passes and they get blacklisted, then typing piratebay.org into your web browser will render a censorship notification, but if you type 194.71.107.15 you would still be able to get to the site.
The pirating community has already created huge lists of the IP addresses for all the websites that they presume will be the target of this legislation, rendering it completely useless for those that don't and will never pay any attention to our laws.
Fighting piracy is critically important, but the unintended consequences of poorly-crafted legislation could have a huge impact on the future of the Internet.
• Ken Colburn is president of Data Doctors Computer Services and host of the Data Doctors Radio Program, noon Saturdays on KTAR 92.3 FM or at www.datadoctors.com/radio. Readers may send questions to evtrib@datadoctors.com.
Experts disagree on reach of anti-piracy bills
By Roger Yu, USA TODAY
Supporters and opponents of anti-piracy legislation stepped up their fight this week ahead of key votes in Congress next week that could dramatically alter the Internet.
The legislation — two similar bills pending in the House and Senate — would empower the Department of Justice and copyright holders to shut down websites that violate intellectual property or sell counterfeit goods. A range of U.S. businesses and their trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pharmaceutical and media companies and publishers, say it would lead to more jobs and revenues and promote consumer safety.
Opponents, including large and small Internet companies and First Amendment advocates, argue that it would stifle innovation and lead to censorship. Here are key issues to consider:
Q: What are SOPA and PIPA?
A: SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, is a House bill introduced in October that aims to expand the powers of U.S. attorneys general and copyright holders to crack down on websites that display or link to copyrighted intellectual property or counterfeit goods. The U.S. Senate has a similar bill pending, the Protect IP Act, called PIPA.
Any website that "engages in, enables or facilitates" copyright infringement could be placed on a list of websites that would be blocked by Internet service providers. Copyright holders could also ask the court to force online advertising companies to stop doing business with the allegedly infringing website, have payment processors cease financial transactions with the site or get search engines to stop listing such sites.
SOPA opponents also say that many provisions in the bills are vaguely written and that websites that display user-generated content are particularly vulnerable.
Q: How likely is it that the bills will pass?
A: The longer they stay in committees, the less likely the bills will pass. SOPA is still being debated in the House Judiciary Committee and will not be put up for a vote without a consensus. PIPA cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has placed a hold on it and said he will filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will try to override the filibuster with a procedural vote on Jan. 24.
Q: What type of websites would be most affected by SOPA?
A: SOPA proponents argue that the bill targets only foreign websites that are aimed at U.S. consumers and whose operations exist mostly to infringe on copyrights or sell illegal goods. "Your experience going to these domestic websites won't change at all," says Sandra Aistars, executive director of the Copyright Alliance, which supports the bill.
She says Facebook Russia, for example, would be exempt because it targets mostly Russians. EBay.co.uk also would not be subjected to it because its operation exists mainly to sell goods, not to engage in illegal activities, Aistars says.
That's debatable, says Marvin Ammori, an intellectual property attorney who opposes the bill. The legal standard for determining whether a website with a foreign domain name targets U.S. consumers is unclear, he says. "Everything is U.S.-directed," he says. The bill is also vague on the legal standard for determining if a website is "dedicated" to illegal activities, Ammori says. YouTube, for example, could be held liable if a handful of individuals upload illegal content, he says.
Q: How would my surfing change?
A: Obviously rogue sites, such as peer-to-peer music-sharing sites, would be "shut down" right away. You would not be able to access the site by typing its usual Web address. But that's "not going to stop people who want infringing work. They're going to find a way," says Julie Samuels, a staff attorney for Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Some popular sites, such as Facebook, Tumblr and YouTube, will have to spend more to monitor possibly illegal content, says Leslie Harris, CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Small companies are more vulnerable because they lack resources to fight back, Samuels says.
Here is what the blacked out wikipedia web page says.
SOPA and PIPA - Learn more
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:SOPA initiative
Why is Wikipedia blacked-out?
Wikipedia is protesting against SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time. Readers who come to English Wikipedia during the blackout will not be able to read the encyclopedia. Instead, you will see messages intended to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA, encouraging you to share your views with your representatives, and with each other on social media.
What are SOPA and PIPA?
SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA is an acronym for the "Protect IP Act." ("IP" stands for "intellectual property.") In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout. GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The EFF has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.
Why is the blackout happening?
Wikipedians have chosen to black out the English Wikipedia for the first time ever, because we are concerned that SOPA and PIPA will severely inhibit people's access to online information. This is not a problem that will solely affect people in the United States: it will affect everyone around the world.
Why? SOPA and PIPA are badly drafted legislation that won't be effective at their stated goal (to stop copyright infringement), and will cause serious damage to the free and open Internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.
Does this mean that Wikipedia itself is violating copyright laws, or hosting pirated content?
No, not at all. Some supporters of SOPA and PIPA characterize everyone who opposes them as cavalier about copyright, but that is not accurate. Wikipedians are knowledgeable about copyright and vigilant in protecting against violations: Wikipedians spend thousands of hours every week reviewing and removing infringing content. We are careful about it because our mission is to share knowledge freely. To that end, all Wikipedians release their contributions under a free license, and all the material we offer is freely licensed. Free licenses are incompatible with copyright infringement, and so infringement is not tolerated.
Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved, and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?
No, neither SOPA nor PIPA is dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. In many jurisdictions around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation that prioritizes overly-broad copyright enforcement laws, laws promoted by power players, over the preservation of individual civil liberties.
How could SOPA and PIPA hurt Wikipedia?
SOPA and PIPA are a threat to Wikipedia in many ways. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced offline.
I live in the United States. What's the best way for me to help?
The most effective action you can take is to call your representatives and tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. Type your zipcode in the locator box to find your representatives' contact information. Text-based communication is okay, but phone calls have the most impact.
I don't live in the United States. How can I help?
Contact your local State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. SOPA and PIPA will affect sites outside of the United States, and actions to sites inside the United States (like Wikipedia) will also affect non-American readers -- like you. Calling your own government will also let them know you don't want them to create their own bad anti-Internet legislation.
Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?
Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.
I keep hearing that this is a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Is that true?
No. Some people are characterizing it that way, probably in an effort to imply all the participants are motivated by commercial self-interest. But it's obviously not that simple. The proof of that is Wikipedia's involvement. Wikipedia has no financial self-interest at play here: we do not benefit from copyright infringement, nor are we trying to monetize traffic or sell ads. We are protesting to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA solely because we think they will hurt the Internet, and your ability to access information online. We are doing this for you, because we're on your side.
In carrying out this protest, is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality?
We hope you continue to trust Wikipedia to be a neutral information source. We are staging this blackout because (as Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee Kat Walsh said recently), although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. For over a decade, Wikipedians have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Wikipedia is a tremendously useful resource, and its existence depends upon a free, open and uncensored Internet. SOPA and PIPA (and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States) will hurt you, because they will make it impossible for sites you enjoy, and benefit from, to continue to exist. That's why we're doing this.
What can I read to get more information?
Try these links:
As of midnight PT, January 18, Google has 3,740 articles about the blackout. Here are a few:
Internet community cheers power of protest by Roger Yu, and Jon Swartz - Jan. 19, 2012 12:21 AM USA Today Score one for tech geeks up in arms. The Internet community's rallying cry against anti-piracy legislation had its intended effect of grabbing the nation's attention Wednesday, though the final outcome remains far from settled. Technology companies staged an online blackout to protest two related bills that would crack down on websites that use copyrighted materials and sell counterfeit goods. Starting at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, hundreds of websites went dark or displayed banners protesting the Stop Online Piracy Act making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate's similar bill, known as the Protect Intellectual Property Act. Between noon and 4 p.m. Wednesday, Twitter said there were 2.4 million tweets related to the pair of bills that Internet and new-media companies say threaten innovation and freedom of speech on the Web. Google says more than 4.5 million people signed its petition online protesting the legislation as word spread to casual Web users who may not have previously paid attention. "It's a long boxing match," says Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Center for Civic Media at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Grass-roots organizers and tech companies "did an excellent job making the point clear. But I'm not ready to declare (the legislation) dead. It's wounded." The Internet cabal started feeling its oats late Tuesday night, when Craigslist, Yahoo's Flickr, Google, the Huffington Post, WordPress and other sites hopped aboard the anti-SOPA bandwagon -- joining Wikipedia, Reddit and others. In all, thousands of sites participated in the 24-hour blackout in some fashion, ranging from prominently displayed messages to outright shutdown. The snowball-like momentum reflected the "weight of big names opposing SOPA (and the influence they had on others) to oppose it," says Greg Sterling, an independent analyst who closely follows social media. "People want to be on the winning side of the issue, and (once they saw) momentum turning, they joined the party." Added Reddit CEO Alexis Ohanian, "It is a testament to how the Internet works. Whether an (interesting) video or a cause, it shows the exponential growth of the Internet." Protests extended beyond the digital world and spilled into the streets of New York on Wednesday, with a similar event in San Francisco. The stunning success of the protest, with its overwhelming impact on Web users, now raises the question: How might the organizers and their supporters flex their new-found political muscle in the future? Organizers will no doubt team up again if members of Congress stitch together new versions of SOPA and PIPA. "This process shows the enormous clout in our industry, and I hope we use it to support other causes," says Michael Fertik, CEO of Reputation.com, a security firm that did not participate in the blackout. "The protest underscores how much of a media power we are." The bills' supporters, including business trade groups, publishers and media companies, downplayed the effects of the blackout, calling it a political stunt. Tom Allen, CEO of the Association of American Publishers, says some protesters operate on misguided information. The bills, he says, target only foreign websites that clearly engage in illegal activities. "The reaction is astonishing," he says. "In all my years in Congress, I rarely saw a demonstration that had so little connection with the legislation at issue. Opponents have vastly overstated what this legislation is about." Beyond the battle of public relations, SOPA opponents also gained real legislative ground. While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., still plans to hold a procedure vote on PIPA Jan. 24, several key backers dropped their support Wednesday, likely killing the prospect of the current versions. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a co-sponsor, announced he had withdrawn his support of PIPA, as did Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. On the House side, Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., also backed out. The bills' sponsors have made overtures to negotiate and will continue to push the legislation forward with a few changes already proposed. After much protest, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who introduced SOPA, said late last week that he plans to scrap a provision in the bill that would have allowed copyright holders and law-enforcement officials to block foreign websites accused of online piracy. Opponents of the anti-piracy legislation aren't backing down despite Wednesday's successful online protest. They contend that the legislation contains other provisions that are troublesome to Internet companies, says Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment attorney. Copyright holders could still ask the courts to force marketers to pull ads from rogue websites, have financial institutions stop payments and get search engines to stop listing such sites. While few lawmakers would admit to changing their position overnight based on an Internet protest, the blackout brought quick results, says Daniel Gervais, an intellectual-property professor at Vanderbilt Law School. "In terms of interest it generated, it changed a couple of votes. I can't prove that, but that's my sense," he says. "But this is not a tool that can be used for everyday policy warfare. At some point, it might lose appeal or become irritating." ---------------- Arizonans oppose bills Several members of Arizona's congressional delegation have come out against legislation aimed at preventing online piracy, following Wednesday's "blackout" protests of the bills by such popular sites as Wikipedia. Amid mounting pressure, four Arizona representatives took to Facebook to criticize the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act. Opposition came from both sides of the aisle. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat, posted that the "legislation has moved beyond protecting legitimate intellectual-property rights and is now headed down a path that would let companies decide what you get to view online." Rep. David Schweikert, a Republican, said "I oppose this legislation and believe the Internet should remain open." They were joined in opposition by Reps. Paul Gosar and Jeff Flake, both Republicans. Republican Rep. Ben Quayle, a co-sponsor of SOPA, withdrew his support Tuesday. Quayle "strongly believes that something must be done to combat rogue websites that steal American intellectual property," spokesman Zach Howell said. "However, Rep. Quayle believes that as the bill currently stands, it could have unintended consequences that need to be addressed before moving forward." Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, a co-sponsor of PIPA, is on a congressional trip to Asia and has not weighed in. -- Compiled by Rebekah L. Sanders of The Arizona Republic's politics team
Bloggers in China sound off on SOPA blackoutSourceBloggers in China sound off on SOPA blackout January 19, 2012 | 1:44 am Bloggers in China sound off on SOPA blackout Watching from China, where web censorship is practically a national hallmark, some can’t help but smirk and crack jokes about the controversy raging over Internet freedom in the U.S. “Now the U.S. government is copying us and starting to build their own firewall,” wrote one micro-blogger, relating China’s chief censorship tool to the U.S. plan to block sites that trade in pirated material. The Relevant Organs, an anonymous Twitter account (presumably) pretending to be the voice of the Chinese communist leadership, quipped: “Don't understand the hoopla over Wikipedia blackout in the U.S. today. We blacked it out here years ago. Where are OUR hugs?” Humor aside, the brouhaha has generated some strong opinions in the country Google fled, not the least because opponents of the SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy bills are conjuring Chinese web censorship to promote their case. The consensus here, however, appears to be this: Americans should try a minute in our shoes before invoking online Armageddon. If anything, Chinese bloggers say, the debate underscores how privileged U.S. web-users and Internet companies are, even in times of duress. “Only an American company could protest the way Wikipedia or Google has to the government,” said Zhao Jing, a closely-followed blogger in Beijing who uses the pen name Michael Anti. “A Chinese company would never get away with that.” Indeed, China’s Internet sector has no choice but to submit to government pressure – be it by censoring their own users or implementing whatever happens to be the state initiative of the moment (the latest may require the real ID registration of 250 million micro-blog accounts despite threats to privacy and the cost burden on web firms). Another distinction Chinese activists note is that the proposed legislation in Washington is being debated openly in public and ultimately has to adhere to U.S. law. Chinese censorship, on the other hand, operates in an opaque space where no one really knows what’s banned, what isn’t and who is calling the shots. “It’s hard for people in the U.S. to understand Internet censorship in China,” said Wen Yunchao, a prominent blogger and outspoken government critic who left mainland China recently for Hong Kong. “In China, all the government decisions are done in a dark box. No one knows what’s going on. There’s never any legal reason cited. If these laws are passed in the U.S., every step of the way it will be more transparent. People can challenge it. There’s no comparison when it comes to censorship in China and in the U.S.” Still, Wen supports U.S. activists challenging the bills, saying it’s a slippery slope to lesser web access. He said China’s so-called Great Firewall, which blocks access to many foreign sites like Facebook and Twitter, was first billed as a strategy to stop piracy and pornography. “Now it’s being abused and extended to thousands of websites,” he said. Ironically, China’s 513 million web-users have relatively free access when it comes to the very sites targeted by the, now faltering, Protect IP Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Those include BitTorrent sites such as Extratorrent and sellers of counterfeit goods like Taobao. “The Chinese Great Firewall is not targeting pirated material,” said the Beijing-based Jason Ng, another popular blogger who has 29,000 Twitter followers. “Look at the Chinese Internet space and it’s all about pirated movies, TV and porn. Everyone just wants to enjoy and be entertained. If the government cut all that off, they’d have a serious problem on their hands.”
SOPA and PIPA: The wrong tools to combat online piracySourceSOPA and PIPA: The wrong tools to combat online piracy By Joshua Topolsky, Published: January 18 My day job is to write about and report on technology. I get paid to create content. Original content. The people I write for make money off the words I commit to paper (or, you know, a Web page). I’m a content creator in the truest sense. That’s how I earn a living. In another life, in another time, I made a different kind of content. I used to produce music, I was in bands, and I traveled the world disc jockeying. I got paid then to create content, putting out records (real, vinyl records) and helping other bands to make the kind of music they wanted to make. An authoritative voice on technology and consumer electronics, Joshua Topolsky is the founding editor-in-chief of The Verge, a technology news and information Web site, and the former editor-in-chief of Engadget. He is the resident tech expert for NBC’s “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg TV and G4’s “Attack of the Show.” A lifelong gadget enthusiast, Joshua used his first computer at age 6 (a Texas Instruments TI-99/4A), and has been breaking apart and reassembling gadgets since phones had rotary dialers. Who’s involved and what are the stakes?: A look at the politicians, companies and lobbying groups involved in the dispute over Stop Online Piracy Act. As a content creator, I fully understand how precious ownership is and how painful theft can be. In fact, a sample of one of my records was used in a snippet of a car commercial in the early 2000s. The song was recorded by a jingle-maker who clearly figured no one would mind that he didn’t produce entirely original content. I was never compensated for what was blatant theft — and you know it’s bad when friends call you up on the phone and tell you they just heard your song on TV. Yet I oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) — two laws that are doing the rounds in Washington — ostensibly meant to protect content creators from theft in the form of piracy. And you should, too. If you don’t know what SOPA is, you should probably spend some time on Wikipedia investigating the bill. Of course, Wikipedia shut down its site Wednesday to voice opposition to the laws (Google, Reddit and several other sites also protested similarly), so I guess that wouldn’t have been a good day to get your facts. If Wikipedia is still unavailable by the time you read this, let me quickly explain the law. (As I said, there are actually two laws making waves, but for the sake of brevity, I’m only going to focus on SOPA.) The gist of the bill is that it gives content creators the power to force ISPs, search engines or payment services to shut down access to a Web site that the owner believes violated its copyright. On its face, the bill is designed to stop access to foreign Web sites that are profiting off of stolen content. (U.S.-based business can simply be dragged into court.) In reality, it’s much more insidious than that. Say a French company just started a social networking site in which users can upload videos of themselves singing. Now let’s say some kids upload a video of themselves singing their favorite Britney Spears song, not even playing back the original recording but simply singing along innocently to a song they like. In the eyes of Spears’s record label or any number of parties associated with her continued cash flow, that might very well look like an instance of piracy — and indeed, major labels have had content pulled off YouTube for similar “violations.” All the label has to do is send a letter to someone such as your ISP and request that the service stop routing traffic to the offending site, and, boom, no more French-sharing site for U.S. Internet users. And what’s really scary is that U.S. Internet service providers have immunity when it comes to what they can pull from their networks, so that French site might not even have a clear path to resolving the issue. Now take that concept and begin to apply it across all the places you could potentially find “infringing” material. Sites about art, sites about movies, sites that let users generate content of all types — some of that content containing pieces of other work that should be considered fair use by any modern standard. Suddenly, a lot of destinations on the Internet will begin to look like island vacation spots — that is, they’re really hard to get to. And the impact won’t just be cultural or legal; the technical workings of the Internet itself will be dramatically affected. As my colleague Nilay Patel said when comparing online piracy to DVD piracy in New York City: It’s “the effective equivalent of blowing up every road, bridge and tunnel in New York to keep people from getting to one bootleg [DVD] stand in Union Square — but leaving the stand itself alone.” Now to my point. The SOPA and PIPA bills are being driven through our government by lobbyists who have been given a mandate to protect private companies and their profits by any means necessary. As a part of a private company that makes its money through content creation and delivery, I understand the sentiment — I just disagree with the solution. SOPA and PIPA are like taking a sledgehammer to something when you need a scalpel. The laws are too far-reaching and too simplistic to accurately police real piracy online, and they have been created by people who either don’t fully understand the Internet or can’t appreciate its value. Free speech and common sense demand a better and more thoughtful law. That law has to come from an organic place, built by the people and companies that live and work on the Internet. Google, Facebook and Twitter, it’s time to get your lobbyists on the phone. Joshua Topolsky is the founding editor in chief of the Verge, a technology news Web site.
|