Friday
Jan202012
• Some thoughts on SOPA and PIPA.
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 11:01AM This week saw a successful protest launched against SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) and it now seems unlikely that either will pass. I suppose this is a good thing, as I believe that no law is better than a bad law, but...
I’m always stunned at the hostility shown toward content ownership. I suppose it’s a bit like the military, in that people are often against the institution but not against the soldiers. It’s a good technique as it dehumanizes the enemy (you direct your anger toward an organization vs the foot soldiers within it). But people seem willing to go a bit deeper in the content debate and call out individuals and call them greedy and evil. Why, just because some content creators would like to have the choice to protect what they’ve created?
In my opinion, copyright and patent laws are a good idea. Right now, copyright is a bit screwed up as owners can retain ownership for overly long (basically infinite) periods of time. I’d say cap it at 20 years and be done with it. Patents are already handled this way and the system seems to work well (look at all the innovation coming out of the US).
The problem lies with enforcement. How the hell do you define and allow a reasonable amount of sharing, while preventing wide-scale theft? I honestly don’t know, but the answer is not to place all the responsibility on publishers. Also, I don’t think you want a law that is smudgy; you want crystal clear rules that allow very, very little interpretation. Honestly, it seems like a job for some elegant code, but I guess no one either has or wants to write it.
As for all this “no flies on me” blather from the likes of Google and Facebook, it does not hold a lot of water for me. These companies want it both ways: they want to totally protect what they deem to be most valuable to them while promoting the idea that everything should be shared. Yes, Google pays royalties for YouTube, but you and I both know they’re getting a very, very good deal by not having to either pay ALL royalties due or police their service. Seriously, try to explain to a cop that you didn’t know you were speeding. Chances are he’ll just get mad. And what about the file lockers like Megaupload, recently shut down, that host illegal content but are never told No by Google when they want to sell ads?
Bottom line: something needs to be done. SOPA and PIPA were not good ideas for two reasons: 1) they did not seek to update copyright law and 2) their methods of enforcement would have made a lot of money for lawyers but not content holders. It’s a tough problem: how do you allow a reasonably free flow of information without ripping off the people who create the information? I don’t have the answer. But all those so-smart-they-glow-Googlers should be able to figure it out. Sadly, they’re too busy blowing all their money on unprofitable ego exercises (quick, name one Google product besides Adwords and its relations that make money).
Harumph.
I’m always stunned at the hostility shown toward content ownership. I suppose it’s a bit like the military, in that people are often against the institution but not against the soldiers. It’s a good technique as it dehumanizes the enemy (you direct your anger toward an organization vs the foot soldiers within it). But people seem willing to go a bit deeper in the content debate and call out individuals and call them greedy and evil. Why, just because some content creators would like to have the choice to protect what they’ve created?
In my opinion, copyright and patent laws are a good idea. Right now, copyright is a bit screwed up as owners can retain ownership for overly long (basically infinite) periods of time. I’d say cap it at 20 years and be done with it. Patents are already handled this way and the system seems to work well (look at all the innovation coming out of the US).
The problem lies with enforcement. How the hell do you define and allow a reasonable amount of sharing, while preventing wide-scale theft? I honestly don’t know, but the answer is not to place all the responsibility on publishers. Also, I don’t think you want a law that is smudgy; you want crystal clear rules that allow very, very little interpretation. Honestly, it seems like a job for some elegant code, but I guess no one either has or wants to write it.
As for all this “no flies on me” blather from the likes of Google and Facebook, it does not hold a lot of water for me. These companies want it both ways: they want to totally protect what they deem to be most valuable to them while promoting the idea that everything should be shared. Yes, Google pays royalties for YouTube, but you and I both know they’re getting a very, very good deal by not having to either pay ALL royalties due or police their service. Seriously, try to explain to a cop that you didn’t know you were speeding. Chances are he’ll just get mad. And what about the file lockers like Megaupload, recently shut down, that host illegal content but are never told No by Google when they want to sell ads?
Bottom line: something needs to be done. SOPA and PIPA were not good ideas for two reasons: 1) they did not seek to update copyright law and 2) their methods of enforcement would have made a lot of money for lawyers but not content holders. It’s a tough problem: how do you allow a reasonably free flow of information without ripping off the people who create the information? I don’t have the answer. But all those so-smart-they-glow-Googlers should be able to figure it out. Sadly, they’re too busy blowing all their money on unprofitable ego exercises (quick, name one Google product besides Adwords and its relations that make money).
Harumph.
Reader Comments (5)
It's a lot easier for you or me to figure out that we're speeding than for Facebook or YouTube employees to vet hundreds of thousands of infringing files every day.
The individual who uploads an infringing file knows that he or she is infringing, however. (Or maybe not -- some people seem to think "copyright" means they're claiming they created the work. But they should know.)
I think a lot of people are against SOPA/PIPA not because they think everything should be free, but because of the reasons you've outlined above.
SOPA/PIPA were designed to protect the mainstream content providers. All the lobbying money - or most of it - came from the likes of NBC etc. Something even the guys on MSNBC were obliged, but embarrassed, to point out.
These bills were misguided because they were less about enforcing copyrights in a general sense - something I agree with while agreeing that it is extremely difficult without the willing cooperation of the majority as cinderkeys says - and more about these big business entities wanting to get paid for streaming TV series and movies.
These bills are the media fighting our digital reality just as the music industry tried to do before it.
And making all the same mistakes.
I do not know the answer...enforcement is all but impossible but total anarchy benefits nobody.
Leonard Cohen's words still stick in my mind..."I never wanted to work for pay but I wanted to be paid for my work."
It's a tough nut to crack. But it must be cracked or there will be no incentive for anyone to produce anything creative in our society. The end.
Dave Tutin wrote: "...there will be no incentive for anyone to produce anything creative in our society"
You mean nobody ever creates anything except for money?
"incentive" implies people who are trying to make a living out of their creativity. Of course people will always create stuff - but the inclination to spend money on studio time, sound engineers, other musicians who want paying for their services etc will diminish rapidly when there is little chance of recouping losses let alone making a profit.
As Leonard said, there is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to be 'paid for your work'.
It all hinges on whether you believe in a 'music business' - if it's a business, producing a product people are willing to pay for, then we need to defend it as such. If we have reached a point where we are just a bunch of amateurs throwing stuff out there for free, then we'd better all find other sources of income so that our creative output can be considered charity.
Thanks for the clarification.