Most of the time, with issues this polarizing, it’s easy to
figure out, after a fairly cursory look, which side is just out of their
heads. Then you can kind of find a
middle ground, somewhere usually on, or at least towards the opposite side. Here, it took a lot more work, but only
because I remembered how awful the DMCA was for we hobbyist programmers who
weren’t interested in pirating movies but, under the new regulations, would be
facing a federal crime writing our own DVD playing program for our own personal
use. So, the last time politicians were trying
to stop piracy, personal liberty and innovation took a hard blow, and the
shrill arguments against this year’s incarnation of Governments Against Rampant
Piracy rang truer than they often would.
Reading about the Stop Online Piracy Act wasn’t going to get me any
closer to the answers, either. So I choked down the full text of the SOPA, and I can tell you this: it is chock-a-block
full of loopholes and vagaries, which are good for at least two types of
people: lawyers and pirates.
On their face, the opposition of SOPA may as well be
doomsday prophets, and while I doubt it will go that far personally, it
actually could. Not all the way to doomsday, obviously (Mayans have that covered), but their claims are far from as far-fetched as I'd like.
There are two problems here, and they are, I think,
fundamental to understanding the problem SOPA tries to stop. First, pirates are motivated, and not just by
not spending money- many are ideologues who have embraced freedom of speech or
something similar as their vanguard, armored in self-righteousness and fighting
the good fight, thriving on the persecution layered upon them. Some are just motivated by the challenge,
others by the sheer thrill of breaking the law.
But they all have strong personal reasons (strong, not necessarily good
or right) for doing what they do. And,
as mentioned above, they often thrive on their persecution, but more
importantly, they survive it; they learn how to strike from the shadows. They learn how not to get caught.
Legal vagueness (along with plenty of off-shore servers
eagerly awaiting paltry sums of American dollars) only helps them evade capture- and while this bill does an admirable job of attempting to ensure quick
action, they would be caught up in a legal quagmire as thousands of reports
rolled in, many legitimate sites, all of which would have to be sorted through
and individually shot down as being illegal. Then those
very sites, particularly the pirate sites, would spring up again, days or even
hours later, under a new IP address, and they would have to be rooted out
again. Meanwhile, the legitimate sites
would be frozen, and may or may not be agile (or too law-abiding) to simply
switch to a new server. Let’s not even
look at the biggest points of concern- places like Youtube and Facebook- where
even uploading a 30 second clip of a copyrighted song could get you shut down,
because the good senator assures us that those sorts of sites have “have
nothing to be concerned about.” If there’s anything we can trust, it’s the
assurances of an American politician. Just
like the WMDs in Iraq or Gitmo being closed.
Besides legal vagueness, the biggest problem with SOPA is it
violates the Presumption of Innocence (generally considered, if not explicitly
stated, as a Constitutional right). Good
intentions are wonderful -there are plenty to see from the hand-basket, I hear-
but they don’t substitute for the burden of proof resting with the
accuser. Under SOPA, I could claim your
site was peddling illegally reproduced photography, dispatch a series of
letters attesting to this “fact” and the ISPs would have to blacklist your
site. Then you would have to demonstrate
you weren’t the purveyor of purloined pictures, and in the intervening
timeframe, your site would remain blocked.
And by demonstrate, you would have to prove a series of credentials-
including signing a letter under threat of perjury- that you were indeed not
intentionally doing this activity. Of
course, if I’m wrong, it’s just my bad.
No penalties on my end. But you,
the defender, could inadvertently perjure yourself; you could end up with a
heavy fine or even jail time.
On the other hand, common people don’t usually benefit from vagueness
either; in my above example, mean-spirited or ideologically opposed individuals
could silence entire companies because, well, maybe they didn’t say Christmas
enough and they wanted to make baseless accusations of copyright infringement. With proposed laws like SOPA, it’s not hard to
exploit them for selfish reasons.
Another telling fact is that the support consists mostly of RIAA and movie companies, a few video game companies, along with a bunch of politicians (list of companies here). Opposition consists of almost everyone else (Google, Facebook, Twitter, can't find an exhaustive listing, but here are 40+, and a startling number of musical artists [yes, it is with heavy heart I admit to being in the same camp as Justin Bieber on something]).
I’m not saying that we should give up trying to defeat
piracy, but when hare-brained schemes like SOPA come along trying to do it, it
seems a good enough option.
Of course, saying something is a bad idea is easy; coming up
with options to fix the problem aren’t, and I don’t claim to have all the
answers. On piracy, I would say that
games have managed to bounce back well from it- online services like Steam and
other systems do very well at limiting a rampant phenomenon. But they don’t do it by making it any more
illegal- they do it by making it less interesting. They’ve leveraged the social aspect of video
games to make an environment where most people want to pay so they can play
with their friends without limitation. Exactly
how movies and music could do that, I’m not sure, but unless the RIAA and the
movie companies start trying something new instead of lobbying for more and
more draconian legislation, nothing is going to change.
I am not a lawyer. I
read the text of the Stop Online Piracy Act here,
and you can too.
No comments:
Post a Comment