Congress has a couple of very bad bills up for consideration. They could completely ruin the Internet as we know it.
The Senate’s PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House are supposed to address copyright infringement and counterfeiting. In reality, they are so technically impractical that they do little to address these problems. They would, however, undermine participatory democracy and human rights, which is why these bills have garnered near-universal condemnation from both human rights groups and technologists.
. . .
Both the PROTECT IP Act and SOPA would create a national firewall by censoring the domain names of websites accused of hosting infringing copyrighted materials. This legislation would enable law enforcement to take down the entire tumblr.com domain due to something posted on a single blog. Yes, an entire, largely innocent online community could be punished for the actions of a tiny minority.
If you think this scenario is unlikely, consider what happened to Mooo.com earlier this year. Back in February, the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security seized 10 domains during a child-porn crackdown called “Operation Protect Our Children.” Along with this group of offenders, 84,000 more entirely innocent sites were tagged with the following accusatory splash page: “Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution.” Their only crime was guilt by association: They were all using the Mooo.com domain.
SOPA would go even further, creating a system of private regulation to shut down websites that are accused of not doing enough to prevent infringement. Keep in mind that these shutdowns would happen before a site owner could defend himself in court—SOPA could punish sites without even establishing whether they are guilty of the charges brought against them.
These acts could bring about the demise of BMG and any other website that is hosted on a domain that also hosts any other site that could be accused of copyright infringement. We would not even have to have any “infringing” material here – if another site on the domain does, BMG could be history.
Please let your Representatives know that these bills are horribly bad.
But, serious question, how would you stop online piracy?
1) I don’t need to have an answer to say this one is dead wrong and will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2) It’s yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated what exactly the scale and economic impact of piracy is. If the solution does more economic harm than the problem causes, is that really a bargain we want to make?
3) To actually hazard a guess to your problem, I would make it easier to track down and punish actual infringers. I would have to think more on exactly what it would take to satisfactorily do this. But there is no need to punish people for things they might do or that other people have done.
I would also alter copyright law to legalize certain no-harm actions such as “pirating” works that were once publicly available and are now out of print (and more than a couple of years old; I am not talking about the gap between being in theaters and being out on DVD). In this digital era there is no excuse for something to be “out of print”; if it is out of print then there can be no economic harm to pirating it.
1/2. No, you don’t, but Congress does. The problem is generally acknowledged to be massive.
3. Is an “actual” infringer only a distributor? That’s not how we usually handle things. If I launder money through your bank, we’re both in trouble.
Your solution amounts to overturning a century of copyright law. Being “out of print” is based on sales and has no relation to copyright. We’ve long had protection for creative works, and digital distribution is a new animal we haven’t wrestled with. I’m so old I remember cassette tapes, but those had an inhibiting factor in the dramatic loss of quality (and the inconvenience of tapes).
“The problem is generally acknowledged to be massive.”
Not true. Generally, p2p file sharing has been a foil for the entertainment industry in response to a changing business climate.
Moreover, it’s hard to make the case that the industries in question have been harmed in any real way by file sharing. In fact, they are doing better than ever and those who engage in file sharing tend to spend more money on content.
There’s only been one proven way to reduce file sharing, and that is to improve the delivery model for content. For instance, it used to be that the only way to get music was to buy a cd. When Napster showed up, there was no legal avenue to buy music online. iTunes completely changed that by offering an incredibly simple interface for legally obtaining music almost instantly online.
The film and television industries still haven’t found their footing with regards to the internet. Options that seem to work well like Netflix and Hulu are still seen as threats, even though they really represent the future of the medium. Just look what happened with Louis C.K.’s self-published stand up video – it’s been a huge hit, despite the fact that he made no effort to hamper piracy other than ask people not to do it.
If file sharing is a problem, SOPA and PIPA are the absolute wrong ways to solve them. In fact, they would do almost nothing to hamper them. Lists are already available with the ip addresses to sites like Pirate Bay and Demonoid. The internet will always find a way around such barriers. Meanwhile, legitimate commerce will be seriously impaired.
And how, exactly, does Louis CK get a following without being seen on traditional broadcast networks? He also has a few clips on YouTube, but so do a lot of people.
I’m not endorsing SOPA. I just think it’s a tricky problem, and widespread theft is essentially tolerated because it’s so widespread.
Actually, that’s exactly the point. Louis got his start in showbiz by writing for tv shows like the Simpsons – but that was well before the internet was around. I personally learned about his individual stand up act through clips on Youtube. In fact, it was a very specific clip – you can watch it here – when he was a guest on Conan’s old late night show.
That crappy quality clip is stolen. Not by him, but by some fan who enjoyed it so much that he wanted to share it with the world. Still, it’s completely illegal and would be a prime example of what would keep Youtube shutdown under SOPA. Furthermore, my linking to it here (even in the comments) would make BlueMassGroup subject to seizure by rights-holders.
But that clip was Louis CK’s big break. It spread across the internet like wildfire, garnering nearly 5 million views to date. Literally millions of people were introduced to Louis CK through that stolen, copyrighted clip, enabling him to find incredible success as a stand up comedian and get his own show on FX.
I guess that answers your question a bit more specifically than you probably anticipated. But it’s not limited to Louis CK. In fact, the one substantive argument I’ve heard for the passage of SOPA is the fact that Justin Bieber was a direct product of Youtube. Nipping that disaster in the bud may have been worth losing the rest of the internet 😉
… and did standup in Boston for years. I like how you say “Conan’s old late night show” as if it wasn’t on a major television network. It was.
Radiohead did something similar last year with their CD — free on their site, pay what you want. But Radiohead became well known through radio air play.
Like I said, it’s a tricky problem. If there’s going to be entertainment, there’s going to be companies that distribute it, and they’re going to need a way to protect the material. Again, this bill is not the solution, but I can see why they’d support it.
I didn’t imply that Conan’s show wasn’t on a network, I was just specifying which show it was on. Your missing the point though. Louis killed in that appearance, and had it not been for the Youtube clip, the performance would have been lost to posterity. But because of the clip, he found much of the success that he now enjoys.
But that whole discussion is a digression from the main topic, which is how to make sure artists and labels are compensated for the material they produce. The question shouldn’t be about stopping piracy unless that piracy has an effect on that compensation. And that link has been disproven.
Now, you could argue that this is a moral issue: “if stealing music is wrong, it should be stopped.” Well, I don’t think that’s a winning battle. The MPAA tried running ads to publicly shame file sharers, but no one bought it. The culture of sharing is already embedded in the younger generation and few below the age of 25 question it as morally corrupt.
Erecting technical limitations won’t solve the problem either, because the internet is built to overcome barriers to data. It will always find another way and Congress and the labels will always be two steps behind. Even China, with its locked down internet has trouble with people routing out to the real world through proxy servers.
There’s only one solution and its the one these industries are least interested in pursuing: Instead of fighting against piracy, entice customers with better services that fit a 21st century model of media consumption. It’s really simple. Stupidly simple. Partner with Google or Apple and create a great experience for the customer. That’s it.
The problem is stated to be massive by the RIAA and MPAA. I have not seen any independent studies on the scale of the problem. A major factor that is generally unacknowledged is, how much actual economic harm is there? I’m not denying it’s wrong, but what, truly, is the scale of the economic harm? How many piraters would have bought the work if not for piracy? It would be good to know the actual effects of the problem before we cripple the online world to try to solve it.
I’m not quite sure where you’re going with your money-laundering example. I’m guessing you’re saying that the ISP or YouTube or whatever should also be held criminally liable for the copyright infringement? Many prior laws addressing these sorts of concerns have involved a “safe haven” concept where, as long as the provider (ISP, YouTube, etc) does not try to filter content, they cannot be held liable for the content users post. If they do try to filter it, they can be held liable. So yes, I was implicitly assuming a safe haven concept; I do not know if such a thing exists in SOPA.
And as I said above, there is no longer any compelling reason for something being “out of print”. It used to be, sure, with limited numbers of printing presses and CD/DVD-making-machinery. You wouldn’t keep printing a pulp sci-fi novel from the late 70s by an author nobody ever heard of, not when there are new George R.R. Martin novels to print! (Well, occasionally there are, anyway.)
But if we are updating copyright laws to reflect the new digital era, then I think this is something as well that should be addressed: “out of print” and “orphan works” (works where the copyright holder cannot be located or is deceased without descendants, etc) can very well be made available digitally with no cost, if fans are allowed to digitize it themselves and share it themselves.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this actual economic harm standard. How would one even measure that, with digital content? If it is taken, without being paid for, it is stolen. I’m also not aware of independent studies, but who the hell would do that besides industry associations? What does your experience tell you about the scope of unpaid downloading of copyrighted material?
The money laundering example is simply one of enforcement. We penalize banks (for example) and make them de facto cops of the financial system. Their intent is irrelevant; they’re supposed to make sure certain people aren’t using their services, or aren’t using them in different ways (like drug dealers making large cash deposits).
I’m not sure we need to update copyright laws; the same principle applies. IRS Records put out R.E.M. long after the band jumped labels, because they owned that music. It’s not an ideal system, but in general it worked out well for R.E.M.
Not different ways.
Much like people who enjoy going to casinos,
or people who are pro-gun ownership,
or sixteen year old drivers who can’t drive with friends for six months,
or on and on and on….
These days, so often the solution to problems is to limit the freedoms of a majority because of “the actions of a tiny minority”.
And for the record…I don’t gamble, I don’t own a gun, and I’m not sixteen; but this type of solution seems common these days. Restrict large groups of people because a small group are irresponsible.
Latest Title: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 5/12/2011) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.R.3261
Latest Major Action: 12/17/2011 Senate floor actions. Status: Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the bill presented in Senate.
Senate Reports: 112-39 COSPONSORS(40), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] – 5/25/2011
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 6/27/2011
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] – 7/25/2011
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] – 10/19/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] – 5/12/2011
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] – 5/23/2011
Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 6/15/2011
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 12/12/2011
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] – 10/20/2011
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 7/13/2011
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 9/7/2011
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 11/2/2011
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 6/23/2011
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] – 5/12/2011
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] – 6/9/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 6/30/2011
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] – 9/7/2011
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 5/12/2011
Sen Franken, Al [MN] – 5/12/2011
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] – 5/26/2011
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 5/12/2011
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 5/12/2011
Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] – 7/5/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 5/12/2011
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 11/2/2011
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 10/3/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] – 5/12/2011
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] – 5/12/2011
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] – 10/17/2011
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] – 7/7/2011
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 7/26/2011
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 10/31/2011
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 9/23/2011
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 11/7/2011
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 5/26/2011
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 5/12/2011
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] – 6/30/2011
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] – 7/7/2011
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 11/7/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 5/12/2011
Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] – 6/23/2011(withdrawn – 6/27/2011)
These “liberals” and “progressives” probably think they are sponsoring a bill to protect Motherhood. Here’s a list of organizations that oppose SOPA:
They have signed a Letter (PDF) which says, in part:
I did no mean to imply that because many of the sponsors are usually good that the legislation is not bad – but I should have said so.
Rather than attempting to scare, it is way past time to inform them in the hopes that some of these Senators can withdraw their support.
What does this do that current law doesn’t? Why is it bad to protect copyright holders? After all, this power even has enumerated status, to wit:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
Does this legislation contradict current “fair use” doctine? Is it a matter of using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would be more appropriate. Honestly, I’m having a hard time figuring out how it censors our writings here since bluemassgroup.com is a specific site rather than a generic domain name that Mooo example above seems to be.
A member posts a comment containing a quote from another website. Nasty Daddy Warbucks, CEO of the conglomerate that publishes said website, doesn’t like the tone in which the quote is used and files suit claiming that the quote is used without permission.
BANG. BMG is dark.
is at this link. Read it, then report back.
It doesn’t have to contradict “fair use” doctrine. Read this for another way in which it enables copyright holders to squash legitimate speech.
In a nutshell, if you violate copyright—or if a copyright holder says you’ve violated their copyright—they can file a notice with VISA, Mastercard, Discover, Paypal, etc, and they will withhold all payments due to you. You can file a counterclaim, but that just moves the process into the courts; it doesn’t actually get you your money back.
has a good run-down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
The problem with Congress making a law like this is that so few of them really understand what happens on the internet or how it works. Most will use email and visit websites, but their knowledge ends there.
There are commercial opponents to the bill. These include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, and Mozilla Corporation.
If I understand it correctly, BMG could be held responsible if I were to link to BTJunkie in a post or a music site that is focused on sharing music. This would be left up to a judge that might no even less about the internet than our Congress.
The fact is that there is nothing that can be done to eliminate illegal sharing of copyright protected material, and it will kill the music industry as we know it. That’s not all bad. For years, I paid $15 for CDs that cost less to make than the vinyl records I had purchased just years before for half that price. Does anyone remember the industry’s attempt to outlaw the selling of used CDs? Or when they tried putting DRM on CDs? The music industry wants to stifle electronic growth to keep their business model. I can’t blame them, but sometimes markets change in ways eliminate industries. I used to spend my free time and money going to book and record stores. I haven’t been in a CD store in at least a year, maybe more. Big box stores killed independent bookstores; the internet is killing big box stores. And come to think of it, it’s hard to find a good blacksmith these days.
The Boston Globe editorialized in support of this dangerous legislation yesterday.
The worst of this terrible piece is in its final two paragraphs (emphasis mine):
“Somehow”? There’s no “slippery slope”, it is instead a precipice — and the Globe would have us power over it full-speed ahead.
The many government attempts to “[crack] down on online child pornography” were heavy-handed and unconstitutional, and required a decade of steadfast opposition to make barely tolerable. Meanwhile, they were, of course, utterly ineffective. Child porn has always been illegal, the government needed no new tools to prosecute child pornographers, and used the bugaboo of “child porn” in its failed attempt to rein in the internet just as it is using “piracy” now.
The laughable attempt to tie this awful legislation to “jobs” is just stupid sentimental nonsense. The free and open commercial marketplace created by the web has created many times more business and entrepreneurial opportunities than it has destroyed (through obsolescence) . Yes, the traditional newspaper business was decimated — not by “piracy”, but in the Globe’s case through sheer arrogance and willful denial. The Globe apparently learned nothing from its reporting of the decline and eventual collapse of Polaroid.
This terrible piece is just one more nail in the coffin of what was once a showplace of good journalism. Such flagrantly self-serving and badly-argued screeds have no place in the modern journalistic community, and speak eloquently to how low the Boston Globe has fallen.