Writer's Block: Stop Online Piracy Act
Today, Congress holds hearings on the first American Internet censorship system.
This bill can pass. If it does the Internet and free speech will never be the same. [Learn more here.]
Do you support this bill?
First, let me say that this question is absurdly biased.
Second, yes, I support the bill, and not just because I'm being paid to. :) I generally ( Read more... )
This bill can pass. If it does the Internet and free speech will never be the same. [Learn more here.]
Do you support this bill?
First, let me say that this question is absurdly biased.
Second, yes, I support the bill, and not just because I'm being paid to. :) I generally ( Read more... )
We fight it the ordinary way; track abusers, get a court order to obtain identifying information from ISPs, and prosecute. You only need a few of those in the news every year to keep activity to a minimal level. That, and you need to offer a decent deal to downloaders who want to pay through Amazon or iTunes or watch commercials on Hulu or the like.
Today, piracy is a tiny part of the consumer IP market. The only important public interest is keeping it small; the cost in privacy of crushing it entirely would be ridiculous.
I don't care about the DNS blocking, by the way. It's the provisions prohibiting cataloging and discussion of the existence of infringing content on search engines and discussion sites that are most harmful and insidious. The private rights of action and reduction of safe harbors are really threatening to genuine freedom of speech without having any legitimate anti-crime application. You don't reduce crime by prohibiting the public from researching and discussing it.
As for ads, if there were real due process protections and safe harbor provisions like in the DCMA, I'd be okay with the regulation.
Reply
Who do you mean by abusers? The site owners? The people uploading the content? Or the people who are doing the downloading? Because experience has shown that attempting the latter is wildly ineffective - all you do is get a bad reputation for suing college kids. It doesn't work as a deterrent, because it's impossible to take action against everyone who does it, nor does stopping one user do anything to stop the distribution of the content to other users.
The whack-a-mole approach has proven to be a failure. Instead, this bill goes right to the source of the illegal activity and creates a deterrent by cutting off the revenue streams so that sites shut down on their own because it's no longer profitable. We can't actually prosecute site owners, because they're not domestic websites so they don't fall under the jurisdiction of federal court. This is the next best thing.
Today, piracy is a tiny part of the consumer IP market.
No, it's really not. IFPI estimates that 95% of music downloads are illegal. But it's not limited to digital content - it also applies to hard goods, in which case, it's not merely about the market share, but also about protecting consumers from counterfeit goods that may be harmful or even deadly.
The only important public interest is keeping it small; the cost in privacy of crushing it entirely would be ridiculous.
Which is why this legislation doesn't even approach "crushing it entirely." The content industries would love to say we have a silver bullet to eliminate piracy, but this bill is not it. Frankly, we will never eliminate piracy entirely, because the people who are determined to do it are tech-savvy enough to find a way around whatever we do. But this will at least keep the casual consumer from being fooled by sites that look legit but are actually not.
It's the provisions prohibiting cataloging and discussion of the existence of infringing content on search engines and discussion sites that are most harmful and insidious.
I honestly have no idea what you're referring to here. What part of the bill prohibits the discussion of the existence of infringing content?
The private rights of action and reduction of safe harbors are really threatening to genuine freedom of speech without having any legitimate anti-crime application.
You do realize that private rights-holders ONLY have the ability to get a court order for payment processors and ad networks to cease doing business with the site, right? The search engine and ISP provisions are ONLY applicable under the Attorney General's authority. I don't see how freedom of speech is in any way affected by directing third parties not to engage in financial transactions with criminals.
You don't reduce crime by prohibiting the public from researching and discussing it.
How is it prohibiting the public from researching and discussing it?
As for ads, if there were real due process protections and safe harbor provisions like in the DCMA, I'd be okay with the regulation.
What do you consider "real" due process protections? The bill adheres to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 65, which is the same procedural protection in U.S. federal civil litigation. What more do you think should be provided?
I'm also not sure what safe harbor is necessary. Third parties aren't liable for anything. They don't have to be proactive; they don't have to change their policies. All they have to do is comply with a court order when they receive one. And if they ARE proactive, they're protected from any liability if any claims are filed against them for their voluntary actions.
Reply
Leave a comment