I know, I know, innovating and evolving is difficult.
You have a tried and true system in place and you don't want to change it, no matter how old it is and no matter how much it actually adds fuel to the fire that you're trying to put out.
Piracy, which is what the two laws I'm going to discuss in post is apparently supposed to address, is the result of two things -- companies that are not willing to innovate from an antique business model and a natural progression on the exchange of content. Companies want to maintain the "status-quo" as to how to produce and distribute content, especially the latter, and does not want to do more to do evolve even further in the latter. As we seen throughout history, people take part in illegal activity not only because they can, but because they see the value in it. Online piracy is no different. Not to mention, when it comes to movies, mentioning this as the MPAA is one of the biggest supporters of this bill, companies such as Netflix (i.e., the subscription debacle) and Blockbuster (who waited too long to actually start effectively competing with RedBox) aren't doing any favors for the film industry. Not to mention, the lurid efforts to combat piracy by resorting to attempting to get legal means to be invasive is an illustration of how the MPAA and other media giants fail to get the concept of efficiency.
In other words, as long as the current business model allows for Internet pirates to see value in what they do, well, pirates will still do what they do and other online users will still seek to benefit from the work of the online pirates. I mean, as a society, we always tend to bite from the hand that feeds.
Piracy is no different.
There's two fundamental truths that people on all sides of the debate surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Internet Protocol Act (PIPA) should take note of: piracy is the result of the aforementioned industries not evolving with the times and secondly neither of these laws would stem piracy, but would have unattended (notice, I said unattended and not unintended) consequences. The reason why for the word choice is that the consequences would be intentional -- corporations seeking more proprietary control of the Internet, which would go unattended because of, well, the law.
We cry about how we interpret laws. We've been doing that over the Constitution since 1787. It's a clear and present danger with this legislation because the legislation in its current form (SOPA, as noted by bill author Republican U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, will be revisited in February) is extremely vague and ripe for exploitation by whoever seeks to reap benefits from it. Many of the law's detractors, such as Firefox, Google, Wikipedia, Wordpress, among others, are concerned that it would lead to widespread censorship on the Internet and destroy the personal freedom of choice of obtaining information. This is indeed a fear that is far from being unreasonable.
Not to mention, the bill is so vast and vague that it corporations would be able to take knee-jerk reactions to the courts. So, you make a personal YouTube video blog and in the background you have a certain movie or song playing in the background? With SOPA, a corporation could panic, cry infringement, and get your video taken down -- even if you actually went to Walmart and bought the DVD or CD that was playing. Fair use provisions in the Copyright Act? Torched. Imagine going to Wikipedia to read about the subject, then be unable to have no pictures of that subject because companies would demand for any related pictures to that subject to be taken down -- even if the picture was for educational and non profit purposes only.
I could have numerous websites that I build be taken down if it was suspected that any material was pirated. Granted, I do not use pirated content in the websites that I build and of course, I ban it in my contract. Nonetheless, this law could possibly allow companies to come after me for just being an enabler. PIPA could even censor websites that I build or even my own website because of a perception of being a threat -- either competitively or informatively. The power of liberty that fuels the Internet would be severely compromised, and every one of us would lose.
Jobs will be torched because companies will quit innovating as its even more legal hurdles to overcome (the patent laws are bad enough). As the United States furthers its progression as a service economy, the Internet will grow in greater dependence than it already is. Companies know that, which is why they are pushing for greater legally backed control of it. People need to realize that. It's not about just young, tech-savvy geeks that is speaking out against this bill. It's not just about illegal downloads of movies or music. It's about corporations having the legal pathway to do things and affect your daily life and access to information that it has no business in doing so.
So I plead to each person reading this post to contact your representative member of Congress. Do what you can to stop this egregious act against the freedom of the Internet. It affects all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment