SINKING DIGITAL PIRACY? The Obama White House has called for a back-to-the-drawing-board approach to clamping down on Internet intellectual-property piracy while preserving free speech.
Image: Image courtesy of PashaIgnatov, via iStockphoto.com
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Rather than deliver an ultimatum to those on either side of the debate, the recent White House statement related to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (PIPA) encourages the entertainment and technology industries to work together to find a solution. This call for a back-to-the-drawing-board approach to clamping down on Internet intellectual-property piracy while preserving free speech has many wondering whether lawmakers will simply rework SOPA (pdf) and PIPA (pdf) using different language or if they will take anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA concerns to heart.
The Obama administration is not backing down when it comes to shutting down foreign sites that distribute content illegally. However, the administration's position—articulated by Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra and Cyber Security Coordinator Howard Schmidt—also makes it clear that any proposed laws "must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the domain name system (DNS), a foundation of Internet security." In addition, new legislation must target specific lawbreakers rather than broadly punishing Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors and search engines.
Under SOPA (introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, R–Tex., in October) and PIPA (by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D–Vt., last May), Congress sought to prevent Internet users from accessing foreign sites with pirated content by having service providers block those sites' domain names. The proposed legislation also threatened to punish any search engine providers, payment network providers and Internet advertising services that continued to support those infringing sites.
SOPA and PIPA's primary supporters are organizations—the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Rupert Murdoch–owned News Corp. among them—that invest heavily in creating movies, television programs and other content that makes its way to the Internet. The legislation's most vocal opponents have included Craigslist, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and Wikipedia—Web-based entities that benefit from this content.
Wikipedia, news-aggregator Reddit and a number of other Web sites are planning to take the English-language version of their sites offline on Wednesday to protest the legislation, even though SOPA and PIPA are likely on their last legs. These sites' reasons for opposing SOPA and PIPA are clear—namely that they would lose access to free content if that content is found to published illegally on the Web. Less clear, however, is how such a blackout would further their goal of stopping such legislation or any related proposals that might follow.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R–Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) have already proposed an alternate bill called the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) (pdf), which would use international trade law to punish foreign Web sites that infringe U.S. copyrights. The MPAA opposes Issa's bill, saying that it would be "cumbersome" and vows to continue lobbying for SOPA and PIPA, The New York Times reports.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
33 Comments
Add CommentI can't figure out what Mr. Greenemeier's reasons are for smearing SOPA opponents. He says, "These sites' reasons for opposing SOPA and PIPA are clear—namely that they would lose access to free content if that content is found to published illegally on the Web." This assertion has no basis in fact and could have been pulled verbatim from a MPAA talking-points memo. SOPA would shut down websites *accused* of having illegal content, contrary to the US constitutional right to due process. The burden on content sites like Google or Wikipedia would be to prove innocence of each bit of content that has been accused of being copyrighted. In the meantime, the entire domain is blacklisted. How is this not burdensome?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is reasonable to argue whether these measures are necessary to combat piracy. However somewhere in the discussion there should be consideration of whether combating piracy is worth the cost of losing the right to free speech on the internet. Commercial websites that would lose real money anytime they are falsely accused of hosting copyrighted information will freeze out any users with marginally contentious or controversial content. Imagine this legislation applying to other forms of protected speech - newspapers shut down if there is the mere accusation of plagiarism or billboards covered up if someone accuses it of using an image without attribution. The law would get thrown out by the Supreme Court without dissent. But for some reason the internet is less deserving of protection of due process rights?
The way I see it, the blackout is meant to educate those who don't know about SOPA and PIPA. As much as we internet denizens are plugged in, the vast majority of America likely has no idea what the implications of these bills are. Site blackouts draw attention to the bills from people who otherwise would consider themselves unaffected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Mr. Greenemeier missed the point. SOPA isn't about sites getting "free" content. SOPA is about anyone (but mostly large corporations) being able to shut down any other site on the Internet, foreign or domestic, simply by claiming that site has some infringing content. I.e. if YouTube had one minute of infringing video, the whole site, with years and years of non-infringing content would also be taken off line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no oversight by a judge. There is no legal process. No one has to convict anyone. All you have to do is make a claim, and a site will disappear from the Internet.
SOPA and PIPA remove due process. This is in direct conflict with the normal operations of the US justice system.
I think SciAm and Mr. Greenemeier need to do a little more reading about why people are up in arms about these bills.
Thanks for explaining the these bills so clearly,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe the liberties some people think they alone are falsely
entitled to.
Larry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The legislation's most vocal opponents have included Craigslist, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and Wikipedia—Web-based entities that benefit from this content."
Are you serious? How exactly do these websites "benefit" from content created by other people?
What a biased and misleading piece of garbage. Scientific American should apologize immediately and retract this piece.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"These sites' reasons for opposing SOPA and PIPA are clear—namely that they would lose access to free content if that content is found to published illegally on the Web." This is completely untrue. SOPA and PIPA do not result in these websites losing access to free content. Rather, search engines and user-generated content sites can be completely shut down for just being accused of content violations. The law allows the government to shut down websites similar to how the Great Firewall of China works - and does not require due process.
It is a complete violation of due process and is written in a way that threatens to break the technology that makes the Internet work. What a shame that Scientific American is spewing MPAA talking points rather than really researching and reporting on the issue.
"Less clear, however, is how such a blackout would further their goal of stopping such legislation or any related proposals that might follow."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally Larry? You don't see how drawing the public's attention to legislation that violates due process and hampers business and technological innovation furthers the goal of stopping said legislation? Wikipedia is visited by 22 million people every day. That's 22 million people who will now be aware of this important issue.
Unfortunately, your biased article won't help inform anyone of the facts.
Why is it that people who write articles for Sci Am get to make s**t up without proof, support,or data. Google benefits exactly how? Yahoo? Craig's list, really? How, how, how? I guess became one of the minions who help do the work of Hollywood. Stealing content is bad, stepping on the constitution to wipe it out, worse. First Shermer (Mr. Skeptic), now this guy, when did Sci Am become the sounding board for guys who ignore facts (actually making up their own facts doesn't count) in favor of their own opinion? Guess I won't be renewing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an incredibly biased piece of 'journalism'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorporations want control over the internet---------------so our politicians ask how much to reduce citizens rights?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny that so many Republicans jumped on board this crap---government by and for the corporations, boys?
Everyone's rights should and must be protected, but the government with their stupid laws cannot protect your rights. The government's main job is to deny you your rights by making all kinds of really stupid claims to get these unnecessary laws passed like: "for the benefit of society", and the best one: "To protect the children and the family." The only one who can protect you is you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUs, the businesses and people who shop at our businesses can develop a software that can protect our property from piracy and stop sites that peddle our property that has been pirated. Microsoft helped me protect my authors work and they can develop a software that can protect other businesses too, but the government will not allow Microsoft or Apple develop that software because it would also stop the government from snooping into our business and lives.
It is never a good idea when you allow the government to infringe on your rights.
Is it my imagination, or is Scientific American going in the direction of the "History" channel? After many years of being a loyal magazine customer, my perception of the political, commercial and theological bias have finally brought my relationship with the magazine to a breaking point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that I have worded this comment to avoid libelous, defamatory or "otherwise objectionable" content; In accordance with Terms of Use. I can fully understand and agree that scientifically related material must avoid being objectionable.
It would help the piracy situation if all people would accept that stealing (which is what it is) is not justified for any of the following reasons:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The price is too high
2) The 'fat cats' are paid too much
3) I really, really want it
4) I might pay later, if happen to feel like it
5) It should be free
6) The artists are not as talented as they used to be
7) Everybody is doing it
8) I want to do it my way (with other people's property)
9) Since it is digital it costs them nothing
Anything to add?
That is a really darn good coverage, but I will add this one: We are lazy and stupid and cannot come up with an idea on our own so we will steal other people's ideas and pretend they are ours and sell them as such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore restrictive laws and more litigation...no thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis bill censors by straight jacketing freedom of speech in the market place.
Yup. go after 'foreign sites'??!! Hint. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Intel, etc. All cutting edge American based technology inovators. USA inovation will die if 'foreign nations' one day retaliate with similar restrictions.
I do not believe this article explains the true concerns of the internet community and industry, and I believe that this is due to a bias enforced by SciAm's corporate owners. I will not be reading SciAm going forward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA more accurate summary of the dangers posed by these two bills was provided by the EFF:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech
I am over 70 years old and a newcomer to the internet however I have seen censureship used many times over the years and I realise that once you start censuring anything it's a slippery slope. So PIPPA and SOPA are like the thin edge of the wedge if those laws are enacted believe me it will just be the beginning. My advice is leave the internet alone or lose FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the spread of knowledge and ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarry - since you don't understand how the blackout is helping the cause of those concerned about liberty and justice, check out this article from a much superior and less biased news source:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cnn.com/2012/01/18/tech/sopa-blackouts/index.html
If Scientific America doesn't want to lose readers like myself, they should apologize for this piece of junk article.
"check out this article from a much superior and less biased news source: http://www.cnn.com"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a proponent of SOPA, but I have to say, this is the funniest thing I've read this week. CNN not biased? I'm truly falling over...
I couln't add much to the excellent comments already posted except to agree that Scientific American really needs to be a little more heads up when publishing corporate garbage. These two pieces of legislation are simply further attacks on the free speech that the corporations attempting the takeover of our country fear most. Re-read Thomas Jefferson along with your science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"These sites' reasons for opposing SOPA and PIPA are clear—namely that they would lose access to free content if that content is found to published illegally on the Web."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, are you implying that "these sites" (Craigslist, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and Wikipedia) are currently accessing and publishing illegal content? Bold.
And just wrong.
Saying that sites like Google and Wikipedia benefit from illegally posted copyrighted material is like saying Carl Sagan benefited from the expansion of the universe. He actually just told us about it, educated us on how things work and enriched our lives --just like Google and Wikipedia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article fails at basic English --unless you really are accusing Google and Wikipedia of deriving benefit from illegal content.
Because we all know that if you want to watch the latest pirated content from the MPAA you go straight to Wikipedia /rolleyes
Saying that sites like Google and Wikipedia benefit from illegally posted copyrighted material is like saying Carl Sagan benefited from the expansion of the universe. He actually just told us about it, educated us on how things work and enriched our lives --just like Google and Wikipedia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article fails at basic English --unless you really are accusing Google and Wikipedia of deriving benefit from illegal content.
Because we all know that if you want to watch the latest pirated content from the MPA you go straight to Wikipedia /rolleyes
you are FULL of it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprove innocence??
thank you mr and mrs moneybags - now just toddle off to your private island and live amongst the security forces you have to employ to keep the rabble from your ill-gotten gains, i mean hard-earned money-market accounts
and thank you so much for your sentiments
i mean to focus my indignation upon the supporters of SOPA/PIPA, not Sherris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan, oh man, has this outfit ever gone downhill! I subscribed back in high school (I'm now retired) when the content was truly scientific. I registered for this site in order to say that this article is a perfect example of why I allowed my subscription to lapse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRupert Murdoch should be in JAIL for sanctioning the hacking of telephone answering machines, yet here he is with his deep pockets trying to restrict American's access to the internet. Rupert needs to crawl back into his hole of hypocrisy and go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a terrible article. SOPA and PIPA are nothing more than massive over reach by the government for corporate benefactors. Chris Dodd's pathetic press release supporting the legislation has been torn apart on the web and is a perfect example of the cronyism behind this bill. This is a shining example of our dysfunctional democracy. Instead of working on problems facing the country we are worried about the fourteen year old that splices a clip and posts it on YouTube.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement was 'less biased' not 'not biased'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the CNN report will show you that CNN report the bias of their owner, but quote Wikipedias fairly clear reason for opposing the legislation. This does in fact seem 'less biased'.
CNN may be biased in other contexts but this particular piece of reporting does seem superior to Larry Greenemeiers article
Stupid jerk Obama is behind this. A socialist pig if I ever saw one. Free country my ass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's hard to resist feeling concern about the growing threat to internet freedom posed by powerful international corporations. The Anti-conterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is very much alive and well even if SOPA is terminal and is considerably worse than SOPA. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am Hamid Reza karimi,my paper by title "Explaining how and why the muon neutrinos flow faster than the
speed of light in the OPERA neutrino Experiment"was published on vixra eprint:http://vixra.org/abs/1201.0005
This article gives answer to the four following questions about the opera experiment
1 - Why do neutrinos flow faster than speed of light but the electron doesn't.
2 - Why there is no deformity in energy of the neutrinos .
3 - Why does not cosmic neutrinos break the speed of light.
4 - In which area The laws of relativity are true.
Best regards,
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElseiver...you can't even look up how to clean water from articles as old as 2009, that were government funded money, without paying $31.50 for 4 pages to read.