"You are talking about the destruction of new media as we know it." - TotalHalibut, a popular YouTube user.
'TotalHalibut', a.k.a, John Bain, is one of many Youtubers who have voiced fierce opposition to the U.S. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) bills, that are currently raising hell across the Internet. It was the reason why today, Wikipedia, underwent a blackout, joined by a number of other sites. The reason for the blackout was simple: to make a statement against SOPA and PIPA. If these bills become law, access to free information will be restricted or denied.
This is because the bills allow companies and corporations to seek court orders to remove content from websites that is deemed to be an "infringement of copyright." As a concept this does not seem too unfair. Copyright infringement and piracy in the entertainment industries, such as films, music and video games, cost the U.S. economy $58 million in 2010. But the bills are so poorly constructed that it will not combat piracy. Instead, it allows companies the power to shut down sites that host copyrighted information or content, through a method called DNS blocking - even if the sites are not aware or responsible for this.
A real life example of this came on November 29th, when content-sharing site, Megaupload, was taken down, as per a request from Universal Music Group under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act.) Universal argued that the site contained pirated content that harmed their business. In response to this shut down, a number of musicians, such as Kanye West, Alicia Keys and Snoop Dogg posted a video on YouTube, 'the Mega Song', in support of Megaupload. Then the Mega Song was removed.
Why? It is not yet known. Universal have stated that they are "contractually authorized to use pursuant to its written agreement with YouTube." What agreement? It is not yet known. This is the scary thing about SOPA and PIPA. It furthers the powers that the DMCA already has. If a user posts a video to YouTube which is in violation of copyright, SOPA and PIPA would facilitate the shut down of YouTube. Not the video, not the user, an entire website itself. This does not end with YouTube. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, even beloved Piczo (if it still exists) are all at risk. That may sound like nut-job conspiracy theorist guff, but if Megaupload, with 81 million visitors and a four percent audience reach, can be shut down, if a video from YouTube can be removed with no reason given, because of a 'written agreement', then it is squeaky-bum time for the Internet.
Furthermore, the long-term effects of SOPA and PIPA seem to be understated in the mainstream media. If a SOPA-world, websites will be working under the strict legislation that the bill lays out. With the threat of complete closure if the sites step out of line, they will be initiating a form of self censorship. Less risks will be taken, less revenue will be made through advertising and less investment will hurt the innovators on the cusp of the next technological phenomenon. Do you think that Jack Dorsey, the man behind the development of Twitter, would have made the steps needed to turn his "daydream" into reality? A reality that would act as a tool for strengthening democracy and free speech across the globe? The likelyhood is no. Innovation and genius will be beaten by legal clout and the next Twitter, or the next YouTube, could never see the light of day.
Piracy is a genuine concern for the entertainment industries and something that could be combated. It is these industries who are sponsoring SOPA and PIPA. Companies such as EA, News Corporation, Sony and CBS are among the 358 who want to see SOPA and PIPA enshrined as law. Their views should be recognised. To them, they are seeking a way of recovering lost revenue through copyright infringement and piracy, which has in turn cost jobs in the industry. This is a valid argument. But SOPA and PIPA will not beat piracy. It merely acts as a way of allowing companies to break down and remove websites that might harm their image or challenge their power, whether the site intended to or not. It is censorship, it challenges freedom of speech and as a journalist, this is integral to my beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment