SOPA, which stands for Stop Online Piracy Act, has been a recent topic of discussion in Congress. The bill has been generally received as bi-partisan, as its noble intentions are to prevent and punish websites that host infringed or copyrighted material. The act is in fact addressing a pressing issue, as piracy costs the U.S. $58 billion annually. Despite its goal, there has been some backlash from Internet users. While large media companies are supportive of the act, as they lose millions of dollars due to piracy and copyright infringement, Internet users are complaining that it could be destructive to the Web and is bordering on intrusive regulation.
Other dissent about SOPA stems from its potential effects, such as the possibility of thousands of new lawsuits. Instead of granting immunity to Web sites showing good faith by taking infringed material down, the House version of the act allows private companies to sue Internet providers for merely hosting illegal content. The way the bill was written would also subject “law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities” and monitoring of the sites. Even Laurence H. Tribe, a noted First Amendment lawyer, said that it would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”
Another area of discussion surrounding SOPA is the general lack of knowledge and experience that Congress has with using the Internet. The article states “debate has highlighted how little Congress knows about the Internet they are proposing to re-tool,” bringing up the good point that maybe they are not fit to change the rules about something they are unfamiliar with. Of course not all of Congress is unversed in the world of the Web, but such a strong backlash from Internet users nationally would suggest that there is truly something wrong with the wording or effects of SOPA.
So, is it just the wording that needs to be fixed? Or is the whole idea a violation of the First Amendment?
4 comments:
It may be that I am an avid internet user, but I'm fully against this bill. Sites that contain copy righted material can be taken down without any protest. Sites like Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter,and any that have user created content (anything made by someone) containing music, sound, sayings, anything that is protected by copy right can be taken down.
No matter how one would word SOPA, its main goal is to prevent piracy of copy righted material (getting something you have to pay for for free). This gets tricky when even a random video on some random website that has someone singing (even if he or she is singing it badly or extremely good) a song that happens to be copy righted by the band that created it can count as illegal and ,under accordance to this bill, can be sentenced to jail. The most prime example of this is Justin Bieber. He started his career by recording himself singing his favorite songs and posting them on his youtube channel. Under SOPA, Justin Bieber and Youtube could be sued by the makers of those songs or the record companies that helped record them.
The way SOPA sounds right now seems to interfere with freedom of information and freedom of expression. They way its worded currently can be easily abused and probably will be if it passes.
Large media companies should find another way to counter piracy than SOPA. Its too ambiguous and easily abused no matter how specifically worded it can or may get.
I agree with Calvin in opposing this bill. Although I agree with the moral intent of this bill (for fairly obvious reasons), I think the bill is taking it a bit far in attempt to prevent privacy and can lead to very drastic consequences. Social networking sites that we all enjoy - such as Facebook and Youtube - would all be seized by the government and inevitably shut down due to the posting of copyrighted material. This would surely diminish our appreciation and usage of the Internet and would cause more harm and ruckus than it prevents. Even disregarding the effect on major networking sites, the act has the potential of causing collateral damage across the Internet, infringing on the first amendment rights of Internet users through numerous websites. The act also lacks transparency in enforcement, which can easily lead to fraud without public knowledge. I think that re-writes of the SOPA Act would also be in vain; although piracy is certainly an issue that we must take actions against, crippling Internet freedom and the massive invasion of privacy is not the answer.
I agree with Calvin and Rebecca, but I oppose the act in a more mild way. Of course its ambiguous wording leaves many doors open that maybe shouldn't be, such as Calvin's Justin Bieber example, but I understand its intentions totally.
I think rather than a focus on Youtube and Facebook (I'm not even sure what would be copyrighted on Facebook?) SOPA was directed more at blatant infringement Web sites, like Sidereel and Surfthechannel, and the random Korean Web sites that I watch How I Met Your Mother on. It is definitely not hard to find copyrighted TV shows or movies as long as you are comfortable with the occasional sketchy Web site. Its thanks to sites like those that large media companies are losing millions of dollars, and its understandable that they would like to prevent that.
However, also like Rebecca and Calvin said, SOPA will more likely than anything lead to drastic consequences. I think sticking to the original "taking material down in good faith" would be the best choice. I'm sure there are other better ways to prevent piracy, but this is not it.
Post a Comment