A few weeks ago, I was strollin’ on down the internet, minding my own business, when I ran across a Facebook post from friend saying something along the lines of “If you think the government actually cares about its citizens, you need to look up SOPA.”
So this friend is known for being a bit on the sensationalistic side. But new acronyms (as well as alliteration) always attract my attention.
I didn’t look into SOPA that moment. Probably because it was morning, and I was drinking coffee and waiting for the BART and I really didn’t want to be confronted with another “it’s-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it” story even before my morning banana.
Since then, I’ve managed to learn a little bit more about this Stop Online Piracy Act. I’m sure you have too. I’m not going insult your internet intelligence by succumbing my English major nature who just has to give an exposition. She would probably explain that SOPA is a congressional bill that would turn the streaming of copyrighted content into a felony.
Nor will I add that the Department of Justice could prevent advertisers from working with these crime-committing sites. It could order search engines not to link to them, and it could even ask internet service providers (like Comcast) to block access to these sites.
But if I were going to explain the basic tenets of SOPA (which I just found on Wikipedia), that’s probably what I would say.
Damn. It’s probably a good thing I used the Google. I didn’t even know that much about SOPA. After all the hype, I was actually really hoping for some redeeming factor. I actually sort of wanted to like SOPA, mostly because I feel weird about jumping on bandwagons. But also because I feel like there is a lot of sensationalism out there, and things can’t really be so bad actual basic freedoms are at risk of being taken away. I mean, dude, this is America.
To be fair, based on my research it doesn’t seem as if the bare bones act of SOPA itself would hurt the average Joe the plumber. Al the hipster might be hurting, because he’ll suddenly have a much harder time downloading It’s Always Sunny illegally, but hey, Danny Devito works hard for his job, as do Glenn Howerton and Fred Savage, and there really is no logical compelling argument to justify illegal downloading. Sorry.
But the scary part of SOPA lays more in the implications.
I can think of two main ones:
1) The creative spirit brought on by the internet (and especially “Web 2.0″) could be threatened.
That sounds all fluffy and junk, but it’s really not. Like that giant picture I posted about 2 sentences up – technically that is copyrighted material. I guess it belongs to George Lucas or something. But it’s been altered and adopted into popular culture (mostly thanks to Reddit), and the act of posting that material doesn’t actually cause Lucas or Harrison Ford or Carrie Fisher to lose any revenue. It’s just for fun – it’s part of the community of the internet. It’s not streaming, so I guess it’s not going to be a felony under SOPA? But what about this Christmas song I just can’t get out of my head?
SOPA (as far as I can read), doesn’t differentiate between the two types of copyright violation. Sites like Reddit or YouTube could actually be shut down, and similar sites may not receive investment money in the first place, because their content might include copyright violations, and that would now be a felony.
2) In a very extreme distopian future, SOPA could be used to justify infringement upon free speech.
This is the part that strikes me as a bit more sensationalistic. But if we’ve learned anything these past few years, it seems that we can’t quite trust the government.
This argument basically says that giving the government power of any sort over an area that is supposed to house freedom of expression can open a Pandora’s box to censorship of all sorts. Maybe not tomorrow, but in ten years, fifteen years, other bills could be introduced on top of SOPA that continue to restrict the rights of Americans on the internet.
In addition, the use of proxy servers (basically ways to hide where your website content is actually coming from) could be restricted because many of them are used to distribute copyrighted material. However, revolutionaries during the Arab Spring also used proxy servers to send messages, circumventing oppressive governments. Is restricting free speech worth protecting copyrights?
Maybe it’s because I don’t own a record company, and I haven’t written that movie yet, but to me the answer is clearly “no.”
In conclusion, stealing copyrighted material is wrong. Tons of my friends do it. I’ve done it (though I mostly use Spotify and iTunes these days), but there really is no excuse for preventing artists from receiving compensation for their work. But SOPA… ugh. It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
Streaming the SOPA debate in Congress now at http://judiciary.house.gov/
Also, http://www.getyourcensoron.com/ to voice yourself to your reps.
[...] mostly sensationalism. I mean, this is the United States. We don’t just take down websites! But I looked into the issue a couple months back, and most of those seemingly sensationalistic assertions are [...]