In April of last year I, like many millions of people, was engaged in reading Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy, starting with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, which is now being made into a film for the second time. (The Swedish version was fabulous; Hollywood's come out in December.)
I had read the first two and, unusual for me, wanted to buy the third one. But I wanted to buy it in paperback to read during my commute, and not in hardback. (OK, the paperback is cheaper. Sue me.) I was dismayed to see that it wasn't available in paperback at the time I wanted to read it.
Wait, let me clarify that last statement. It wasn't available in paperback in the United States. It was available in paperback from a little gem of a site (since bought by Amazon), the Book Depository, located in the Bailiwick of Guernsey with it's warehouse in the U.K. And so I purchased it from there, months before the book was available in the form I wanted here.
The site caters to American customers because there were prices listed in U.S. dollars, and not in English pounds sterling. It also offers free shipping. Pass up a deal like that? No way.
Now let's fast forward from April, 2010, to November 16, 2011 when the House Judiciary Committee held its hearing on HR 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The proceedings were a perfect illustration of a "stacked" hearing. That is, the proponents of the bill put five witnesses on the panel, to only one from the opposition.
In a way, the hearing was perfectly fitting because the bill itself is "stacked" against just about every aspect of the Internet -- regular consumers, companies that make their living online, cybersecurity specialists, civil libertarians and venture capitalists, to name a few. There was one exception. This is a bill written by, and written for, the Big Entertainment industry, and only for them as the latest chapter in their campaign to take control of the Internet and stamp out what they see as a massive "piracy" problem. Anyone else was not included or had their views dismissed with a wave of the Congressional hand as orchestrated by Big Media. Even if one accepts there is a piracy issue, the question is whether the cure is worse than the disease. In this case, it's much, much worse.
For purposes of showing how drastic and far-reaching that bill is, and why it has caused such a strong reaction, let's go back to my innocent purchase of a paperback book. If SOPA were to become law, the U.S. publisher of the Millennium paperbacks could accuse the foreign site of infringement and of causing harm, send a note to major credit card companies demanding that they stop processing payments to the site and then sit back and watch the foreign site's business wither away while it tries to work its way back through a legal thicket. At the same time, Book Depository or any foreign site so accused and so damaged has no recourse against its U.S. accuser.
This scenario is possible because of the fine print of the SOPA bill. A site is considered under the bill as a "foreign infringing site" if it is either directed to the U.S. or "is used by users in the United States." Just like that, Congress, led by those Republicans who decry Net Neutrality as (incorrectly) "regulating the Internet," have extended U.S. law to every website in every other country in the world where a U.S. web surfer would come ashore. There is no penalty against anyone for making a false accusation because the bill grants the accusers immunity from prosecution, we suppose on the assumption that the intent of the action was noble.
Also under the bill, the government could get a court order to require search engines and Internet service providers to redirect Internet users away from a website even if the site didn't intend to support infringing materials.
No wonder, then, that the European Parliament (EP) on Nov. 17 passed a resolution on the topic of the Nov. 28 European Union-U.S. summit saying that the EP stresses "the need to protect the integrity of the global Internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names."
The opposition in Washington to this misbegotten bill has united people from across the political spectrum, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a staunch defender of tech companies and civil liberties, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a conservative member of the House. Groups like (my day job employer) Public Knowledge and Demand Progress are on the same side as conservative groups like Americans for Job Security and activist Patrick Ruffini's "Don't Censor the Net." In the Senate, Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have pledged along with Republicans Jerry Moran (KS) and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (KY) to block the Senate version of the bill, which would be a disaster also. A move is on now to persuade the Senate leadership not to take up their version, which has already passed the Judiciary Committee.
Around the country, hundreds of websites, including Lofgren's, participated in American Censorship Day by blacking out part of their sites. Demand Progress delivered petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of people opposing the bill.
Tech companies were once seen as the bright spot in our economy, leading examples of innovation and growth. But at the hearing, the tech sector concerns at the bill were ignored or dismissed as overwrought, even as some of the biggest names in the business, like Google, Zynga, Facebook and Twitter, expressed their opposition. Defenders of the bill almost made big tech companies sounds like mafia fronts, using legit businesses as cover to hide ill-gotten gains from "piracy" and other nefarious deeds, saying it was no wonder that huge companies were seeking to protect ill-gotten gains, as if the entire web ecosystem wasn't at risk, companies and organizations big and small, would be put in jeopardy through this bill.
It was truly embarrassing to watch the elected representatives prostrate themselves to the entertainment business which is dwarfed, in economic terms, by companies that provide goods and services over the Internet. With the exception of one witness from Google and a stirring defense from Lofgren, the tech sectors were ignored or disregarded without any intellectual consideration by both Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Instead, Google was under constant, and largely irrelevant, attack from the Committee members. Given the rhetoric, the SOPA bill could just as easily be called the Slavish Oblivious Politicians Act.
Of course, Republicans and other SOPA supporters are still going to Silicon Valley in search of campaign funds. It would be nice if people there let the GOP know how anti-job and anti-growth that bill really is.
The one group of opponents that the bill's backers may not be able to ignore as easily are those concerned about the harm to Internet security the bill would have. By fiddling with the Internet's essential plumbing of the Domain Name System (DNS), the show biz team and its acolytes could cause some real problems. No Internet technical experts or cybersecurity experts testified, but they are making their concerns known. Most recently, Leonard Napolitano, the director of the Sandia National Laboratories Center for Computer Sciences and Information Technologies joined others in saying that the bill would "negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity and Internet functionality." Napolitano, as with others before him, said the DNS blocking and re-routing wouldn't work and would expose Internet routing traffic to less secure servers.
Against these concerns, the representative of the Motion Picture Association of America could only tell the Judiciary Committee, "change the code" of the DNS security regime (DNSSEC) and the Committee members themselves respond only with platitudes that deny any problems at all. Nonsense.
There are reasonable ways to crack down on what the entertainment industry sees as "piracy," even if studies have show their concerns are overblown. This SOPA bill and its Senate companion, Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) are not the ways, because they do far more harm than good. It's time for Big Entertainment, with all of their lobbying dollars to shut these productions down and start over before other countries get wise to the game and pass the same legislation aimed at our websites. Then nobody will be able to buy anything.
Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky
Rey Ramsey: New Bills in Congress to Tackle Piracy May Deliver More Problems Than Solutions
Julius Genachowski: Small Business Cybersecurity: A New Way To Customize Your Online Defense System
SOPA: What does it mean for artists? - Arts Post - The Washington Post
SOPA: Why the 'broken web' should stay broken | ZDNet
All About SOPA, the Bill That Wants to Cripple Your Internet
SOPA Should Be Stopped: 5 Things To Know About the ...
SOPA bill won't make U.S. a 'repressive regime,' Democrat says ...
However, if it interrupts business as much as it might....I have a feeling the politicians would backtrack pretty fast.
Hollywood is not going to win over big business....not in the long run.
------------------------------------------------
UNLESS there is an ulterior motive which is quite possible.
These ARE politicians.
Maybe they see it as a way to censor (unwanted by them) content?
Ya know, keep what they don't like from being on the internet?
Try to keep "objectionable" stuff from the masses?
*****Though I doubt it will work as intended even if they try.
As you call and petition your representatives add pizza to the discussion. Then they'll realize you are onto their games.
I see. And these ways are so simple, so self-evident, that you don’t even bother to mention them? Or could it be that this is a very difficult problem to solve and SOPA, while far from perfect, at least TRIES to address it?
And you manage to attach hyperlinks for plenty of things that support your argument, but these “studies” that show it’s all “overblown” – curiously absent.
Let’s see how you feel when someone takes the product of years of your hard work and illegally publishes it online.
There are plenty of smaller filmmakers who suffer tremendously due to illegal piracy – this isn’t just about “Big Entertainment.” Your hyperbolic fear that all shopping will be paralyzed is completely unfounded. Laws are adjusted to circumstances in which they were never meant to apply – that’s why we have courts.
You need to be more balanced in your approach and realize that this is a legitimate problem for some artists, rather than arguing “open internet at all costs, in all cases!”
Another glib statement, easy to say, hard to back up. Show me these ways, o wise one.
And I turn it on you – have you experienced your work pirated and understand 100% of the experience? You say you “get” it – but have you had years of work physically stolen? I doubt it.
You’re right, I produce smaller, socially responsible documentaries – I’m not part of some “huge industry” that’s trying to “take over the internet.” Clearly, I’m a huffpo reader and if you read some of my other posts, socially liberal. But I've experienced piracy first hand. When you need every penny to squeak by and make your next film, it's nothing less than a CRIME.
How's this law any different than blocking sites that peddle child pornography or Cuban goods, or other things illegal in the US? Get it? The bootleg sites targeted by this bill are engaged in ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
I already said I agree SOPA is far from perfect. But the OP – and you – don't even start to address the underlying problem of piracy and intellectual theft, which affects real people every day, not just greedy megacorps.
Why I’m glad SOPA is happening is that it forces this very conversation. When congress threatened to censor films in the 20s, the MPAA was formed and the industry self-regulated. Time for internet providers to do the same and crack down on IP theft.
It's like trying to address crime by declaring guilt before a trial has occurred. That's the main issue people have with it. It's like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. "'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'"
All it does is give content makers some recourse when a site is illegally selling their goods. They must file a request with the Attorney General about websites selling their products illegally and the AG - not the company - determines whether or not the foreign site is breaking US law, just as civil cases are often decided by a judge. It’s not complicated - either that product is for sale on the foreign site, or it’s not. They send a cease-and-desist order to the website and the domestic ISP is required to block their site until they comply.
Look at Brodsky’s argument, highly symptomatic of the problem. He’s not even contending that he couldn’t get the book he wants, but that he couldn’t get it in the FORM he wants: “OK, the paperback is cheaper. Sue me.”
Guess what? Domestic publishers – and hence THE AUTHORS – make more money off of the hardback, which is why the paperback is published later. As a foreign publication, the paperback window was already available overseas, but Stieg Larsson would've made more from the hardback sale in the US, had Brodsky chosen to buy domestic.
Bottom line, people decrying this bill don’t want to support artists or pay for their art. You want what you want, when you want it. Even if it means illegally downloading from bittorrent or otherwise. Then you wonder why there’s no great content any more, when you don’t hold up the commercial end of the deal.