Today, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing testimony related to legislation designed to combat online copyright infringement. The House Bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the Senate version, which I have pledged to block in its current form, pursue an at-all-costs approach to policing the net that would have grave repercussions to the Internet as we know it.
While proponents of these bills would like to paint this issue as a simple matter of being for or against intellectual property, that would be a mistake.
Just because we believe that a free and open Internet is something worth fighting to protect, does not mean that we aren't concerned about copyright infringement or that we are somehow oblivious to the fact that unscrupulous foreign suppliers are using the net to traffic counterfeit and illegal goods. They are and Congress is right to be considering remedies to stop them and to protect the hard work of our creative industries.
Rather, those of us who value the Internet's growing role in our society recognize that any government intervention in the online ecosystem that is the Internet can and will have a ripple effect on more than just its bad actors. Interfering in the Domain Name System (DNS) for example would undermine the net's structure and harm cybersecurity efforts. Authorizing a private right of action, for example, wouldn't just allow rights holders to use the courts to protect their intellectual property. Companies could also abuse such authority to protect out-dated business models by quashing new innovations in their infancy and discouraging less than complimentary speech.
In other words, the wrong approach to combating infringement could fundamentally change the Internet as we know it, moving us towards a world where transactions are less secure, ideas are less accessible and starting a website wouldn't be an option for anyone who couldn't afford a lawyer.
The Internet has become an integral part of our everyday lives precisely BECAUSE it has been an open-to-all land of opportunity where entrepreneurs, thinkers and innovators are free to try and fail. The Internet has changed the way we communicate with each other, learn about the world and conduct business, BECAUSE instead of picking winners and losers, we created a world where all ideas have an opportunity to be heard regardless of where they originate.
As Members of Congress we can now engage with our constituents via online innovations like the Huffington Post, while a small business in rural Oregon can use the Internet to find customers around the world. And the Internet isn't just becoming the global marketplace for goods and services, it is the marketplace of ideas challenging tyranny and championing democracy. It has made lies harder to sustain, information harder to repress and injustice harder to ignore.
But while the Internet has become a dependable part of our lives, it is essential that we not take it for granted or make assumptions about a medium that is still taking shape and that few in Congress can say they fully understand.
Moreover, it is important to remember that the Internet we know did not happen by accident. Rather, it grew from a set of principles that we deliberately put into law during a situation not unlike the one before the committee today.
Over 15 years ago, when Congress first started thinking about Internet regulation the concern was protecting children from pornography. There were competing ideas and some argued that Congress should simply censor the Internet and use the government to cut off access to objectionable material.
But a few of us saw value in letting the Internet develop free from corporate or government control. Instead of having the government censor the web, we developed an approach that would empower users and technology to address content concerns on their own. And we took the opportunity to pass a law that said that neutral parties on the net are not liable for the actions of bad actors.
That fundamental principle enshrined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act both addressed the problem and freed innovators to pursue bold new ideas that have led to sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and the Huffington Post. So now, as we again debate web censorship, let's ask ourselves: what next generation of innovations won't be realized if we backtrack on that principal now?
Yes, the Internet needs reasonable laws and bad actors need to be pursued, but the freedoms of billions of individual Internet users should not be sacrificed in the interest of easing that pursuit. The decisions we make to police the Internet today will also govern how this relatively new medium will continue to develop and shape our world. And yes, giving moneyed interests a louder voice and a greater ability to determine what that online world will look like, would fundamentally alter the Internet which currently treats all voices as equal.
And that's not just my opinion, venture capitalists who fund Internet start-ups, the biggest and smallest actors in the tech community, law professors concerned with speech, Internet technologists, security experts and mainstream and new media have all expressed concerns about the legislation that has been advancing in Congress.
So no, the central question that Congress should be asking itself today is not whether it will pursue policies that are pro-IP or against. The question Congress should be asking is "How will the remedies it pursues to combat online infringement impact the Internet as a whole?" I'm afraid that's a question that isn't being asked enough.
Follow Sen. Ron Wyden on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RonWyden
Alexander Howard: Internet Companies and Lawmakers Speak Out Against the Stop Online Piracy Act
Michael Geist: SOPA: All Your Internets Belong to U.S.
Gary Shapiro: Listen to the Job Creators: Oppose PIPA and SOPA
Stop Online Piracy Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stop Online Piracy Act would stop online innovation - SFGate
http://define.com/?item=all
To change a corrupt system, you need the opportunity to present the best and most logical arguments for political reform in a way that allows the intellectual property holders to act on the copyright infringement *IF* they *CHOOSE* to. They also need to have the opportunity to *TACITLY* approve of the use of their works in free political speech that promotes their agendas without them be liable or subject to legal recourse themselves. They need to have the opportunity to have "PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY". So if they choose to prosecute or request that copyrighted material be removed, they have that right under the CURRENT SYSTEM.
The way this law is structured the government can simply seize a domain for posting copyrighted material without permission. That means that they can censor political activism that is designed to shield the intellectual property holders from culpability. They will certainly ABUSE this power to prevent political free speech that is designed to eliminate corruption and abuse of power.
If this legislation passes, the government could simply confiscate my domain because THEY WILL HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT.
I invite *EVERY* member of Congress to use this as a symbolic case in point of copyright violation that *SHOULD* be permitted.
Let's have a discussion. All wrapped up in a nice little package that makes a perfect test case for why this legislation should never be passed.
We know that the government is completely CORRUPT. We know that politicians ABUSE power whenever the legal opportunity to get away with it exists.
So this is an example of a website that is promoting banking reform and electronic democracy. If this law passes, the CEO of Goldman Sachs or Bank of America or Wells-Fargo or CITIBANK could simply make a phone call to their favorite puppet politician to completely quell this political free speech that is *AGAINST* their political interests.
It is absolutely imperative that the government not be given this power.
Why?
Because the internet is the last place in America, where everyday people can search for the truth.
Lord knows we don't get it from the Media.
If congress worked for the people, instead of corporate profits, we would have laws in this country that require truth and/or impartiality in News broadcasting, as our good friends Canada, and Great Britain do.
Under that criteria, political propaganda could never have become "The most trusted news network on Cable Television"
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
I think perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best............"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
REAL FACTS, come from REAL NEWS.
We lose the internet, to the special interests, and corporate masters, and we can kiss our democracy.........goodbye.
Thanks Sen. Wyden.
The Internet works and has grown incredibly because it was designed to be decentralized and is therefore a great equalizer. A webpage posted by no one in particular may be read around the world. Large organizations also use use it, but as yet, no one dominates it. It is a deeply democratic medium, and that above all should be defended.
Any one with a computer can post, like on a bulletin board, except that the surface expands to accommodate the messages. It is user-centric. I don't need a lobbyist, just a laptop, an ISP. It is a fairly level playing field.
The ECONOMY, on the other hand, is not at all a level playing field. It is biased toward those with more money. Yes, "rags to riches" is still possible, but far less often than when the Country was young, and such stories are news because they are rare.
If you work very hard, it is hard for the poor to gain education and accumulate enough DISPOSABLE income to get into the game. Big companies can manipulate the market, as Enron did with phoney power shortages, and the government acted (until the Senate flipped) as their defender. Supermarkets are paid by vendors for shelf space, mostly shutting out smaller manufacturers- and that's legal. Lobbyists lunch with your legislators. Do you? Friends of mine had work blatantly stolen by a big company, but didn't have the money to defend against counter suits by a team of totally lying lawyers.
SO yes we need a level playing field but we don't get anything that even approximates one without rules.
And anyway, which parties are trying to regulate the Internet here?
This thing is anathema to the very principles that make the internet free and open. The curtailing of the internet would be catastrophic to the United States and to human society as a whole.
I give you radio as a an example, I have given up listening to radio except for NPR since everything else on the radio is 20 minutes of programming and 40 minutes of advertising. It would appear that the internet is headed down this same path. "We'll make it safe for the masses..." Please, no one has ever asked me what I thought was safe.
In the end it is all about the money, which is really sad, since we can't take it with us when we die. I think Steve Jobs said best; Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
When the death of the internet comes, hopefully something better comes along and maybe someone can figure out a way to keep it out of the hands of the greedy.
WWW.HOUSE.GOV
WWW.SENATE.GOV