~*~
Yesterday, my SOPA/PIPA cup overflowed (that sounds a little nasty). It seemed every other tweet I read - every other tumblr post - was a retweet/reblog of some STOP CENSORSHIP (a.k.a. "The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!) message.
Let me be clear. Something needs to be done about online piracy and protection of intellectual property. Yes, we have the DMCA, but that legislation is extremely outdated, offers minimal protection, and is often abused. Owners of intellectual property need additional tools to protect their product.
I intended for this post to be a discussion regarding the value of SOPA and PIPA as additional tools - questioning whether they infringe on the rights of others to protect the rights of intellectual property owners ... but then I had a moment of clarity.
My irritation with what I was reading wasn't rooted in the fact that I overwhelmingly supported SOPA/PIPA (let's be honest - there are some significant concerns regarding the DNS provisions in both), but that what I was seeing was uneducated slacktivism that reeks of entitlement.
Uneducated - Many (most?) of those I talked to believe that SOPA would cause them to lose their right to free speech. Tumblr, twitter and other forms of social media would be CENSORED (the favorite go-to word of those who want you all up in arms about something you know nothing about). The internet would be monitored and they somehow wouldn't be able to get whatever it was they wanted to get.
Slacktivism - Most of what I saw yesterday was nothing more than that feel-good online activism that has little (if any) political or social impact. The retweets, reblogs, join this facebook page method of convincing yourself you are eliciting change when in reality you are doing nothing.
That reeks of Entitlement - There seems to be some underlying fear that what people should pay for (music, movies, etc.) and are currently able to secure via internet piracy for free, might be taken away.
OH.MY.GOD!! You mean SOPA/PIPA might make it more difficult for me to download movies illegally?? That's CENSORSHIP!!
No ... that's holding people accountable for their illegal activities ... activities that infringe upon the livelihood of those who own the intellectual property.
"The Internet Should Be Open And Ours" is the new battle cry.
Everyone wants that First Amendment right.
The problem is that they want it without the responsibility that comes with it.
Do you want SOPA/PIPA to go away? Do your best to use the internet responsibly. Pay for the things you should be paying for. Stop looking to get something for nothing. Support the owners of intellectual property rather than supporting the people who are stealing from them.
~*~
19 comments:
I'm glad that you realized that the legislation that you overwhelmingly support is actually indefensible so instead you just decided to attack the people on the other side of the issue and paint us all with the same brush.
Also, stealing is bad. We all know that. We do need to be more responsible in how we use the internet. We shouldn't do things like going on Twitter asking if anyone has a link where we can watch the Rose Bowl online on a website that steals ESPN's feed.
Jay
Jay, I had to attack someone, didn't I?? And I used words like many and most, taking great care to just skirt the line of sweeping generalizations!
And about that Rose Bowl ... ignorance is a valid defense, right?? I seriously did not know those feeds were stolen from ESPN. Now I understand your support of the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement ;)
That's quite a straw man you've concocted there.
Are there some anti-SOPA folks who don't get it, and see this purely as a threat to their ability to stream copyrighted work? I suppose. And shame on them. I am a performing artist who derives income from copyrighted work and they are taking food right off my table. That issue is obviously close to home for me.
But what is actually happening here, in my opinion, is that an overwhelming majority of the thoughtful protest I see readily acknowledges that IP needs to be protected vigorously, but that this tool is far too coarse and the potential downside from abuse makes it too dangerous to accept in its current form. The law is too broad and ambiguous. They can't even define foreign vs domestic clearly; can they be trusted with understanding how CNAME records work?
Refine DMCA? Enforce other existing copyright laws? You bet. But going after DNS records and/or funding for sites that may be in occasional, temporary violation due to their user communities, and doing so without allowing any recourse through the courts, is going way too far. What's wrong with the existing model that, say, YouTube uses? Illicit stuff goes up and never stays for very long. What's wrong with that model?
Maybe you're seeing dissent along the lines of "I want my free stuff!" from places I'm not. For my part, I'm ignoring the noise from teens on tumblr and twitter and focusing on the mainstream tech and human rights writers who see this as a vast overreach. Maybe you could share your sources that lead you to think this is strictly about restricting file sharing.
Okay, calling people uneducated is one thing, but when you don’t actually educate yourself first, you’re just name-calling and not making an argument. The “uneducated” people screaming for their right to free speech – those people read the Constitution. Did you? They are correct that their right to free speech will be threatened by this bill. Any website they own, run, or frequent can be shut down and all the content they posted on the internet will be lost. When the government interferes with speech in a public forum without due process of law, those actions are infringing on someone’s right to free speech. That doesn’t mean they are claiming that the 1st Amendment guarantees them the right to steal other people’s stuff. But SOPA and PIPA don’t care if they do or don’t steal people’s stuff – someone just has to think they are responsible in some fashion for the stealing. They also don’t care if it’s true or not – they still get to shut down someone’s site even for a whiff of a rumor that someone else thought about maybe sorta posting a link to another site where there was some supposedly copyrighted material. The problem with your argument is that you aren't addressing any of the due process arguments that these people are making. No one is arguing that stealing is good and they should be able to steal copyrighted work. What SOPA and PIPA do is allow sites to be shut down without due process of law (something that definitely has to do with the First Amendment and isn't about being free to steal other people's work). THIS is the censorship argument. It's not about the content people are being denied - it's about the laws that protect us in this country and our guaranteed right to due process encoded in our Constitution. THIS is the entitlement you speak of. It's not entitlement to other people's work - it's entitlement to the protections of our Constitution. And we ARE entitled to those protections as American citizens.
I do use the internet responsibly. I pay for the music I download, and I’ve never pirated a movie or a game or any other copyrighted material. So now I’m safe from SOPA and PIPA, according to your argument. Right??? So when someone else posts something that gives them an excuse to erase a site I own or use or post on from the very annals of history, there won’t even be any evidence left to prove you were wrong. Maybe I underestimated your argument in favor of this legislation after all.
John, that straw man that I've concocted is no less stable than the one those who cry censorship have concocted. As I said, the issues with DNS records (as only one example) cannot be ignored. They have "reasonable" potential to cause infrastructure instability - I get that.
But the battle cry of "The Internet Should Be Open And Ours"? That is NOT limited to teens on tumblr and twitter. It has been very mainstream.
edub, I love the way you construct an argument by doing EXACTLY the thing that you are pointing the finger at me for doing.
I am educated on SOPA/PIPA, but I went beyond all of the "SOPA and PIPA are the debil" websites to get my information. I'm sure you did as well. Read the constitution? Not only have I read it, but I have studied in while in several constitutional law classes.
You spend a great deal of time in your argument stating "They will [insert some unsubstantiated claim here]" I'm assuming "they" are the government? As I said, SOPA is not perfect and the language is vague. Due process could be (different than your "will be" assumption) circumvented.
Really, the only difference between your argument and mine is that you are operating under the assumption that the worst case scenario WILL occur, and I am operating under the assumption that the worst case scenario will NOT occur.
I'm operating under the assumption that the worst case scenario CAN occur, and that's scary enough for me. Due process of law is not something I'm willing to give up. I studied that in all my constitutional law classes, too. I'm not okay with vagueness in any law when it can be avoided. I don't want a law that doesn't protect my right to due process when it comes to free speech any more than I want it vague when it comes to my right to a jury of my peers in a criminal trial. When a law is vague, it's not a good law. Maybe it stops some internet piracy, but when it interferes with free speech at the same time, that's too big a price tag for me.
Oh, and here's an analogy for you, illustrating the argument behind "the internet should be open and ours":
The government (city, state, federal, doesn't matter which) is in charge of the streets we walk down, drive down, take a bus down, or travel in some other way down every day. Those are the streets we use to get to work, to go out to dinner, and to meet up with our friends. Some less-savory individuals use those same streets to commit crimes. Imagine that, instead of regulating the internet, SOPA and PIPA regulated streets. The same sort of vagueness in a law regulating the streets would allow government to shut down any street it wants because they think someone used it to commit a crime. Now the streets you use to get to work can all be blocked - preventing you from getting to work - all in the name of preventing someone else from using that street to commit a crime. AND, you don't even get a say in it. Should the streets be open and ours, even though some people use them to commit a crime? How is the argument different when it's a different avenue of communication? People use the internet to get to work, socialize, and take care of their families. Yes, the internet should be open and ours. And that should be a mainstream argument. It certainly is when you're driving to work on open roads.
I don't claim to be an expert on Constitutional law, but in my experience, any law that is vague ON ITS FACE is suspect. Any ounce of ambiguity in a law leaves open the very real possibility that a vague interpretation could strip away freedoms and rights. Without due process, it is impossible to determine what is fair and what is just, no matter WHICH side of this argument the issue falls upon. Lack of due process, where any rights are guaranteed, is an absolute infringement on what is protected under our Constitution.
Do I steal music? No. Do I steal movies? No. Do I express myself in private and public forums in ways that the government may or may not feel are subversive? YES. The ambiguity on the face of this law allows for our government to take away rights *at their discretion* without my being afforded the opportunity to defend myself or my actions. Innocent until proven guilty? It is hard to prove yourself innocent when your proof has been vanished by the federal government on a whim.
tasialynne, "Any ounce of ambiguity in a law leaves open the very real possibility that a vague interpretation could strip away freedoms and rights." Are you serious? Just how would one write a law that eliminates every ounce of ambiguity? I would argue it cannot be done.
So, what's the solution? Assume that the government wants to eliminate our right to free speech at the expense of the owner's of intellectual property? I just ... *shakes my head* ... I can't make that leap!
The solution, in my opinion, is to actually prosecute those who are breaking the law INSTEAD of punishing those who have nothing to do with their actions. By allowing ALL to be punished for the actions of the FEW, an incredibly slippery slope is initiated and there is rarely a point of turning back from that.
As for eliminating ambiguity, a law must be clear on its face, or else it WILL be challenged in court. There cannot be room for ambiguity because then those who are in charge of enforcing the law have far too much discretion when it comes to determining what is "right" and what is "wrong."
These instances (SOPA and PIPA) are just the beginning. If we allow SOME sites to be monitored/shut down/eliminated/erased, who is to say what is the next step in censorship?
You just like to start a fight.
The bottom line is that the bill isn't good enough yet. It's in the interest of the general public that revisions are made before passing something with that potential of abuse on our rights.
Dana,
Just because you cannot make that leap does not make her argument invalid. Just because you trust the government, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree to have our rights infringed upon. And she is talking about ambiguity on the face of the law - not suggesting you could take out every single ounce of ambiguity. But you can sure try, and let the courts interpret it from there. What Tasialynne is saying is that this law is DEFINITELY ambiguous on its face. That means you don't need any court decisions, any other information or interpretations - just that the language actually crafted in the bill is ambiguous by itself. We can do better than that. She's right - prosecute the actual criminals. Don't give the government a blank check to remove anything it wants from the internet. You can't just argue that government MIGHT NOT infringe our rights. Once the law is in place, it can do it. Legally. That's too scary for me.
tasialynne, but they do have something to do with those illegal actions - they host the sites - they allow the crime to occur. Yes, you (said generally) might be the recipient of the fallout. It's kind of like dropping a bomb on known enemy camp - there are no directions on the bomb that say, "Hurt only the enemy."
At some point you have to look at the greater good, and accept that some collateral damage is unavoidable.
And shutting down a site that allows illegal activity is not censorship. If we were talking about websites dedicated to child pornography everyone would agree the government should step in and take them down. But suddenly we are concerned that the government might shut down our beloved Wikipedia??
Knight, *looks around innocently* Me?? I've always admitted to being a pot-stirrer! And I agree, SOPA is not good enough. I should have known I couldn't pull off this post and keep the discussion on topic :)
edub, it's not that the argument is invalid, it's that I don't agree with it, just like you don't agree with mine. And why can't I argue that the government might not infringe on our rights? You are arguing that they might. Same page - different sides.
It's a difference of opinion - nothing else. As I said in the post, there are tangible issues with the content of SOPA, but something has got to be done to protect intellectual property owners as well - those who can literally lose thousands of dollars in revenue in a 24-hour period. Is SOPA the answer? Probably not.
They are not two sides of the coin. I am arguing that the government CAN infringe on our rights, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution leaves no doubt that such a thing cannot exist when there is no due process.
You are not arguing the other side of that coin, which would be that the government CAN'T infringe on them, so therefore it is constitutional.
You are only arguing that they MIGHT NOT. Not the same, not the other side of the coin, and not a difference of opinion or interpretation.
All you are doing is saying the government might be nice to us. I said they might too, but I don't think it's constitutional for a law to exist that says they don't have to be.
edub, this is the point where I default to "we shall agree to disagree", not because I don't have a response to your latest comment (I do) but because at this point what we have is a difference of opinions between two people who are passionate about their position and further response will not sway either of our opinions.
I see your side - I do not agree with it. I will assume the converse of that statement is true too.
There must be some way to stop the illegal activities happening on the Internet. SOPA and PIPA are not close to being solid legs to stand on.
Someone comes onto musiconthecouch.com and posts links to songs illegally downloaded and I can lose my whole site and all my interviews? (well, I have them all, so I would not lose them, but my site would be lost) That is not right.
Any legislation without due process is a flawed, scary legislation
I like edub's street analogy.
Meh, I have problems with protests when it seems like everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, yet they themselves can't really define what it is that they're protesting. SOPA and PIPA are a step, but they really need to be worked on some more before they are implemented. For someone to say that "such-and-so can cause unconsitutional repression of our rights and freedom of speech" complaint can be summed up by the simple knowledge that all it takes is one specific crime or instance of impropriety for a DA to push the boundaries and just a little more of the consitutional rights get shaved off... Does the Internet need better regulations? Yes. Does there need to be some kind of checks and balances shown for illegal content and downloadable content? Yes. Should any and all sites be suspect? Depends. What are your browsing habits? If you don't attempt any kind of questionable behavior while online, then no, your site shouldn't be suspected. However, any given person is quite capable of some seriously disturbing actions. Because of this, how can you trust a nameless faceless person's website?
Cry "Wolf" somewhere else. SOPA and PIPA are crap, and need to be worked on, but the principles behind them are quite sound and need to be implemented very soon.
Post a Comment