Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Why we are against SOPA
by Geoff Samek, published on January 18, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Storyline: Editorial policy
Loading images
As an owner of Macer Media, publisher of The Sacramento Press, I have never made a political statement on this site. Today I will, out of self-preservation, and a concern for what is just and good for this site, and the people of this community in general.
Wikipedia went black Wednesday due to its strong opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Google also voiced its opposition with a link on its homepage. Many other Interenet companies took similar steps.
So the first question is: What is SOPA?
SOPA is a piece of proposed legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at, you guessed it, stopping piracy. The main proponent of the bill is the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and is sponsored by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). The bill has both strong bipartisan support and strong bipartisan opposition. In other words, this is not at all an issue divided down party lines. Last weekend, the White House came out in opposition to the bill due to concerns about national cyber-security. A very similar bill is to be voted on in the Senate on Jan. 24, called the Protect IP Act (PIPA).
The bill’s proponents claim that the bill is aimed at stopping the piracy of American intellectual property by foreign agents. The Wall Street Journal has an excellent FAQ covering most of the basics of the bill.
So what’s the harm?
Free speech, due process and commercial viability of Internet sites who accept user-generated content are all at risk due to this legislation.
The trouble is in the wording of the bill, which gives the government and copyright holders enormous new powers to stop sites they believe are violating their intellectual property. And while the bill is targeted at foreign agents, nebulous wording would allow for significant compliance and liability costs to be passed along to organizations such as ours. This burden could easily put an organization such as The Sacramento Press out of business.
Even the well-known constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams, who was paid by the MPAA to write a letter touting the bill, admits that, “When injunctive relief includes blocking domain names, the blockage of non-infringing or protected content may result.” Censoring a little free speech can’t hurt that much, right?
Why SOPA?
That’s a good question and one of my biggest problems with the bill. The bill is premised on the idea the piracy is rampant AND that it causes material harm to the United States in the form of lost jobs and lost revenue. The question is, where’s the proof? Tim O’Reilly, owner of O’Reilly Books and a successful digital and print publisher (owner of lots of intellectual property) says it best:
“There's no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?”
I believe that it should be the burden of the proponents of the bill to prove economic harm before seeking a legislative solution.
There has only been one significant independent study done on international piracy concerns, and one of the conclusions it makes is, “…we see little reason to think that changes in IP protection or enforcement will significantly affect (international piracy).”
This is bad legislation that restricts our rights, is aimed a problem that possibly doesn’t exist and will likely do little to prevent what piracy does.
For these reasons, our company strongly opposes SOPA and PIPA.
I’m happy to answer any question and concerns you might have in the conversation below. Here is a link to the full text of the bill.
Disclosure:
I contribute $10 a month to a lobbying effort known as Demand Progress. It currently lobbies against SOPA/PIPA. For more info, visit demandprogress.org.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
As you mention, there are far more fundamental problems with the legislation, including the stifling of permitted activity in the process of targeting the non-permitted activity - it's a baby with the bathwater approach that also happens to toss in the bathtub, the bathroom, the house, the street,....
Current copyright laws and protection don't work and content creators need protections that do work - but SOPA is like ordering a drone attack with cluster bombs to take out a shoplifter.
I do not agree with your statement that, "Piracy can put small businesses out of business just as easily as this legislation could put you out of business." I have seen no evidence of this and there has been no major independent research, that I am aware of, that has concluded this. I am very open to examples of small business that have failed due primarily to piracy.
I am also curious in what ways you feel that copyright laws and protection don't work?
He also has horror stories about enforcing his own rights with online outlets. He has had to fight with youtube, for example, to have a feature film removed, only to end up with a message that says (paraphrased) "content removed because person x complained" - which makes him look like an ass - and without any comment about the fact that the user who originally posted it had no right to do so.
And that's a legitimate, US-based outlet that's relatively responsive to complaints. It's virtually impossible to do anything to sites overseas that make content available online. The MPAA and RIAA can bring in armies of lawyers but the small, independent content creators simply don't have those resources. Protecting your content aggressively can end up stopping you from creating it as you simply have no time to do so, which also destroys your business model as you end up without content to sell.
Enforceable laws are needed to protect intellectual property rights and creative content of all kinds - but SOPA is appallingly broad and, in my opinion, you are right to both fear it and campaign against it. As a festival director, I would be concerned about simple acts like linking to a filmmaker's online film trailer for fear of simultaneously linking to illegal content that might be carried on the same site - or the almost impossible to police risk that the filmmaker themself has included material they don't have rights to in their own work. The downside risks are suddenly alarmingly high, as you have suggested - in that we agree completely.
As far as being wrong, I am often wrong, however I never said anything to the effect of there being no harm caused by piracy, I simply question what that harm is and in response to you asked for specific examples. I found the one you provided interesting and worth exploring more.
First, is the overall industry film growing? Are there more or fewer small film-makers? Are there more or fewer of these kinds of films made and are they of better quality?
Is there a problem in the industry, or one that hurts just small film-makers? It is a result of piracy? Would legislation or enforcement stop such piracy? Would this specific legislation stop such piracy?
And one more thing: is it possible that since distribution in film has traditionally been very hard, digital distribution (including unauthorized file sharing) has helped some film-makers actually make a name for themselves with films that would otherwise gone unnoticed?
Thanks for taking a stand on this one. The other question that needs to be asked is why the current laws are not sufficient. Megaupload was taken down this week in New Zealand in an FBI coordinated operation, all without these SOPA powers. The bar should be set very high to justify limiting free speech and free commerce.
Was good to see all 4 GOP candidates oppose SOPA in the debate Thursday night. Hopefully our president will likewise take a clear position on SOPA as well.