This article originally appeared in the Feb. 13, 2012 issue of Forbes magazine.
Regulators around the world are always looking for new ways to assert their authority. Take two related and deeply flawed pieces of U.S. legislation that would have done enormous damage to the Internet. They have been temporarily—and I stress the word “temporarily”—derailed by an unprecedented Internet uprising.
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate companion, Protect IP Act (PIPA), were ostensibly designed to deal with a very real problem: rampant piracy of copyrighted material by foreign websites, particularly those in China. U.S.-based companies have long been governed by a 1998 act that makes copyright infringement illegal. Since that legislation went into effect sites such as Google have received millions of requests to take down material or links to websites that infringe on valid copyrights. The intent of SOPA and PIPA was to do the same thing regarding foreign-based sites.
But the original legislation—and even updated versions—was vaguely written and would have severely
hobbled the up-to-now-robust development of the Web.
hobbled the up-to-now-robust development of the Web.
The government could have shut down entire sites for minor or mistaken violations of copyright, such as your post of your kid’s birthday party video on YouTube, in which everyone is singing “Happy Birthday to You.” That song is copyrighted. Proponents claim that the authorities wouldn’t pursue such small, unintentional violations.
Oh, really? The music industry did just that years ago when fighting the unauthorized downloading of music. Hundreds of thousands of lawsuits were filed against individuals, particularly teenagers, for “stealing” music.
The legislation’s vague wording would have made small sites particularly vulnerable to frivolous and unproven claims of copyright infringement, because of the legal costs involved.
Perversely, cybersecurity would have been harmed. The original legislation would have allowed authorities to block access to an offending site. If you typed in the Web address of a supposed pirate, your request would be redirected away from that website. But that’s precisely what hackers do when they redirect Internet users to rogue sites. Experts were appalled. Even the bill’s most ardent sponsors know this flaw must be corrected.
It’s not as if we’re toothless now in going after international rogue operations, as the FBI’s bust of the notorious Megaupload site attests, not to mention payment companies such as PayPal, which cut off WikiLeaks for posting stolen content.
SOPA’s and PIPA’s unwritten agenda seemed to be to throttle the Web for its drastic—and very unwelcome—upending of the traditional way business is done in the entertainment world. Hollywood has fought every technological advance tooth and nail since the early days of television. (That medium led to the shutdown of thousands of movie theaters. Americans used to go to the movies four to five times a week. But after a few years it dawned on Hollywood that it could get very rich supplying content to the boob tube.)
Ex-Senator Chris Dodd, who was instrumental in creating the Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac disasters, is now the chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America, the key backer of these flawed proposals. He recently lashed out at Washington lawmakers for blocking their passage, with an implied threat of election-year retribution. Instead of whining, Dodd and his cohorts should take to heart this truth: If you want laws passed that will fundamentally affect the operation of the Internet, you’d better first have serious dialogues with all facets of the industry, big and small companies, venture capitalists and users.
So where do we go from here? One sensible compromise is the OPEN (Online Protection & Enforcement of Digital Trade) Act, which would have theInternational Trade Commission judge cases of copyright or trademark infringement. That way, if a foreign site were indeed guilty of piracy the commission would force payment processors and online advertisers to cease doing business with it.
Another fruitful avenue—and one that’s hardly new—is technology. Steve Jobs saved the music industry from itself by providing a legal way for people to buy music online, song by song (instead of having to purchase an entire album, which is what incumbent companies wanted to preserve). Most people aren’t eager to steal. Other entertainment alternatives to lawsuits and indictments include Spotify and Netflix.
Another fruitful avenue—and one that’s hardly new—is technology. Steve Jobs saved the music industry from itself by providing a legal way for people to buy music online, song by song (instead of having to purchase an entire album, which is what incumbent companies wanted to preserve). Most people aren’t eager to steal. Other entertainment alternatives to lawsuits and indictments include Spotify and Netflix.
The cloud may well help here. For instance, OnLive streams videogames directly to devices, a technology that makes pirating a game—at least for now—extremely difficult.
Private action is often more effective than instituting new laws. And who knows? Perhaps inventors will come up with a seamless way for you to be charged a fraction of a cent in royalties if you inadvertently upstream copyrighted material.
No comments:
Post a Comment