Wounded animals are supposedly the most dangerous, and the struggling recording industry, along with other media companies, are seeking to save themselves through lobbying for legal controls on Internet content. The so-called SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) bills could be just the ticket to stopping the hemorrhaging of money from record companies and others, but at what cost to what may be the last pillar of economic strength in U.S. and other western nations?
What Are SOPA and PIPA?
Although the matter of intellectual property is not a philosophically simple issue, many people generally recognize some right of content creators (musicians, writers, artists, programmers, moviemakers and so on) to garner some reward for their efforts—at least in accordance with the demand for their products. For digital media, the computers and (particularly) the Internet have greatly simplified unauthorized sharing (i.e., without the permission of the content creator), potentially depriving content creators of income from their work. This situation came to the forefront with the widespread use of MP3 compression for music, which greatly reduced the size of music files, easing their transmission from one party to another.
In response to the perceived threat that content sharing has created, two bills have come to the federal government: SOPA (the House of Representatives version) and PIPA (the Senate version—childishly called, in its full form, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act). These bills seek to reduce unauthorized content sharing online by creating a legal framework that enables entities that believe their intellectual property (IP) rights have been violated to essentially shut down any websites that have committed the ostensible offense. The process is a little more complicated, of course—for detailed information about each bill, see the Library of Congress site for the PIPA bill and for the SOPA bill.
According to the SOPA bill summary, anyone who believes a website has violated that person’s (or organization’s) IP rights can file a notification requiring that payment providers (like PayPal) and advertising providers (like Google) suspend their service to the site. The accused website operator can respond, but the IP right holder can still seek a court order that can ultimately lead to termination of hosting and other services to the website. In other words, by way of a little legal maneuvering, someone can have a website shut down by simply accusing that site (and, maybe, providing a little evidence) of a copyright violation.
This may not sound so bad on the surface, but consider what happens when the “offended party” is a mega corporation. Using high-powered (and highly paid) attorneys, such corporations could conceivably shut down a range of websites—regardless of whether any IP violation really occurred. But those sites can simply go to court to remedy the situation, right? Yes, assuming the lost revenue, lost exposure on the web, tarnished reputation and potentially crushing legal bills are no problem. Large corporations can afford a couple hundred thousand (or even a couple million) dollars in legal fees to crush competition, even if it involves frivolous legal actions. It’s smaller competitors—and anyone who simply doesn’t have access to large stashes of money—that could suffer.
So What’s the Problem?
Setting aside the question of what constitutes intellectual property, the problem is not so much the legal status of unauthorized IP sharing as it is the method of enforcement of laws and regulations in this regard. Unauthorized IP sharing is already illegal, and rights holders have recourse to court actions when they feel their rights have been violated. SOPA and PIPA do not change these facts; instead, they give expanded powers to rights holders that effectively create a “nuclear option” to essentially destroy the web presence of a perceived offender. It doesn’t take much imagination—as illustrated in the above example—to see how such powers could be abused for illegitimate financial gain or even for nefarious political or ideological purposes.
Thus, SOPA and PIPA are a threat to freedom on the Internet. Yes, IP “piracy” may be a problem, but the problem should be dealt with through the standard (and already available) legal channels. Metaphorically, these bills amount to giving a self-espoused victim of theft the right to burn down the accused’s house—in many ways, they undermine due process of law, a principle that protects the innocent as well as the guilty.
Are PIPA and SOPA a Real Threat to the Internet?
These bills would be, if passed, a serious threat to the Internet as it exists now. But the word is out—a variety of websites, Internet companies and others are calling for rejection of this legislation by Congress. The Internet has managed to dodge a number of regulatory bullets in the past, and in all likelihood, it will do so in this case as well. The burdens that these bills place on small webmasters and companies, along with the overreaching powers given to IP rights holders, are probably too draconian to garner enough support in the House and Senate.
Furthermore, Congress would do well to remember that the economy is not exactly running on all cylinders. The Internet is a powerful economic engine—perhaps the most important one today—and throwing a monkey wrench into the works by way of more regulations is a sure way to compound the problems of the struggling economy. Thus, passage of these bills is unlikely. Do look, however, for “kinder, gentler” versions coming down the pike in the future. Big media companies, who are known for seeking crushing financial penalties against small-time IP rights violators, will continue to pursue greater powers, particularly as their incomes suffer increasingly because of the Internet.
Conclusions
PIPA and SOPA are just more in a long line of bad bills aimed at addressing problems through completely out-of-proportion solutions. In an information/knowledge-based economy, the power to effectively shut down websites is the power to control a tremendous channel of both communication and commerce. Although unauthorized distribution of digital content shouldn’t necessarily be condoned, its ubiquity should raise questions about whether legal remedies are truly the best approach to the problem.
Not too many years ago, much ado was made over the arrival of the VCR (yeah, you remember those, don’t you?) and how it would spell doom for television companies. Never happened. People still had an appetite for new content, and for new content as it was first broadcast. (Isn’t it more fun to watch the game live?) The greater challenge for media companies today isn’t so much users’ ability to share content, but the ability of artists and others to create and distribute their content without relying on those companies. Those companies that innovate in light of new technological realities will survive; those that want to stick with the old model (and essentially force compliance with that model) will fade away.
Again, the nature of IP and its scope is a complex topic that should be debated. In the meantime, however, even given a static definition of IP and its legal status, legislation for protecting rights holders should not undermine the basic rights of others, as PIPA and SOPA would likely do, were they to pass the Congress and receive a presidential go-ahead.
Author contact
Related Posts :
About Jeff Clark
Jeff Clark is editor for the Data Center Journal. He holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Richmond as well as master’s and doctorate degrees in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech.
3 Comments