While that doesn't sound terrible - because we all know that piracy is a problem, it does not limit the blame to those who are perpetrating the crime - it makes everyone who just happens to have a connection to the building where illegal activities take place an accessory to the crime. That would not be acceptable in the concrete world, so why should it be acceptable in the virtual universe?
So let's take a look at both sides for a moment - because I think that they have been somewhat distorted by the media and I think it behooves us to consider their position in the controversy:
Supporters of SOPA legislation: Mostly these can be characterized as companies and associations of content makers. Here you have the motion picture association, the NFL, many media companies, as well as most of the large record labels.
Opponents of SOPA legislation: Starting at the top are non-profit organizations like Wikipedia and Internet companies. But added to this is a long list of small business owners and individuals.
I understand the problem we have today in gaining access to international criminals - especially in cyberspace. We don't have authority or even reasonable influence in the societies where they are located and their actions are impacting revenue and profits here in the US. To add salt to the wound, many of the individuals who are accessing the content are from the US, and we just have problems identifying them and stopping them. So the SOPA legislation is intended to give us a way to at the very least limit people's access to protected media. That sounds great. The problem in this legislation from my perspective is not the intent, but the mechanism by which it goes about creating protective walls.
As a small internet businesses owner, I have enough to worry about with possible patent infringements - which I'll get to in just a minute. But to now be liable for every link on every website that I have created and that I host in the case that they link to a site where someone can without my knowledge download a 'pirated' piece of media? I would be dead in the water. I am certain I link to many of the stock photo sites and there are lawsuits underway in every state regarding the rights of images on those sites.
Positions about media rights and related industry:
- Copyright and Patent protections are already too generous, limiting availability in many cases (I believe it is life of author plus 70 years)
- The current laws assume that a media owner can control whether or not a created work is available. That assumption worked in the industrial age - but I question it's relevance today.
- Patent processes in particularly should be completely overhauled - the people in the patent office could never keep up with innovation in the Internet technology space and the current process completely supports large businesses who at the time of innovation already have the capital and know how in place to navigate this complex operation.
- Large Media companies need to develop new strategies for revenue and profits - the world has changed and they are resisting the change.
On a final note, I applaud Microsoft for their stance against SOPA. Microsoft has been waging anti-piracy assaults for years because of the rampant illegal use of their software, yet they stand clearly against the broad based methods by which SOPA would actually give them leverage in their fight.
Find Mary Online!
I think the copyright term is lifetime + {however long it's been since Walt Disney died}. Many of the extensions of the copyright period have been lobbied for by the Disney corp because they are out of business the day someone else can draw that mouse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that site owners cannot be held responsible for the behavior of users on sites they link to. What I find egregious is MPAA's position that they can require a site to be shut down without any court proceedings at all. Guilty until proven innocent didn't used to be the law of the land.