January 10, 2012
There’s an important debate that’s beginning to emerge, the outcome of which promises to have a profound impact on the music industry. The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would allow the Justice Department to shut down (after due process) what are called “rogue” websites. Rogue websites like Pirate Bay are offshore or foreign sites whose main purpose is to offer pirated content (music, movies, etc) for sale or free download (with ads). SOPA would allow the Justice Department to require US-based ISPs to block the URLs of these rogue sites, effectively erasing them from the internet.
There is a carefully constructed campaign being waged against this proposed legislation. Major players such as Google are lobbying hard. And bloggers left and right are using (or misusing) terms like “net neutrality” as a way to frame the debate to be about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. They’ve been very effective in the campaign, as can be seen on tech related sites such as Cnet.com, where the editors seem to have come down hard against SOPA.
I’d like to offer another way of looking at this issue:
I think that music pirates are thieves. In some way they are like real pirates, in the sense that they work outside the reach of local law and steal with a sense of impunity. In the case of real pirates, we, that is, our governments fight back. We try to take their guns and bring them to justice. And when we take their guns you wouldn’t say that we’ve violated their Second Amendment rights, would you?
[Note: I've modified this post to clarify that I'm not trying to equate violent acts with music piracy as some have suggested. The point I'm trying to make is that First Amendment rights are not absolute.]
Blocking websites that traffic in pirated material is not an issue concerning free speech just as taking guns away from criminals is not a Second Amendment issue.
Another argument used by those who oppose SOPA (or any legislation that attempts to reign in rogue sites) is that if the government is given the right to shut down websites it won’t be long before they shut down any sites they find to be offensive. The internet is and always should be free from regulation. That’s what makes it so wonderful.
The logical fallacy here is called the Slippery Slope fallacy – the belief that if we agree to A then it’s necessarily just a matter of time before we agree to Z. Never mind that B through Y is a huge step, consisting of many intermediate steps, any one of which might be rejected as wrong or bad.
I agree that the internet should be free from regulation when it comes to free speech. After all, I’m a musician! I’ve devoted my life to personal expression and celebrate creative freedom every time I pick up my bass. That’s what music is all about.
But there’s a big difference between saying the internet must be free vs. saying it must be lawless.
I think theft is a violation of freedom. The net can never really be “neutral” or “free” as long as thieves threaten the livelihoods of musicians and large corporate interests like Google stack the deck against artists by supporting them.
[update, 2.2.13: a new report from USC lists Google and Yahoo as major ad pacers on piracy websites http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57561713-93/google-yahoo-accused-of-funding-piracy/]
I’m unsure if SOPA, in its current form, is the answer. But to paint this whole issue in broad strokes as being one of the freedom-of-speech-lovers (as represented by the awesome programmers at megaupload, etc) vs the fascists (as represented by the RIAA/Universal/Disney and other huge corps) is totally bogus and misleading.
Great Post Ben! Thanks for making this complicated issue so easy to understand and for being a voice on this important issue!
Linda Lorence Critelli
SESAC
While I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done to stop online piracy, I’m not convinced that the SOPA bill, in it’s current form, is the right way to go about it. There are too many grey areas in the wording which leave us open to over-regulation by government, specifically the US Government. After all, it is the Worldwide Web. If SOPA makes it to law in its current form, it is going to be very difficult to fix parts of it later. I would prefer to see it not make it right now, but then continue the discussion so before much longer an altered, and better-rounded, version can be passed.
Hey Bryan. Thanks for your thoughtful and “on-topic” comments. I’ve read H.R.3261 and I while I agree there may be ambiguities in there that could be exploited, I’m not qualified to say with certainty. To my untrained eyes the bill looks fairly straight forward. I guess I’m not seeing as many grey areas as you are. But I’d like to make a point in defense of the bill and some general comments regarding piracy.
SOPA REQUIRES “DUE PROCESS”
In general, it’s true that laws are rarely perfect. In fact, I’m not sure that a “perfect” law is even conceptually possible (I know you’re not saying this). Our complex legal system is designed so that competing actors can hash out their beefs through the court system. Part of what makes SOPA a good start in the fight against piracy is that it requires the US Attorney General to initiate complaints. This would mean that the whole process of sending notification to an offending site and then requiring an ISP to block a URL if the site doesn’t comply will go through “due process” complete with the checks and balances of the court system. If someone reading this feels that the court system in general is faulty then all I can say is you may be right but it’s the best we have and surely better than the “court of public opinion” or “might equals right.”
WHO LOOSES
As to piracy, you’re correct to point out that it’s a big problem. But I’m always amazed to see how few people view this as true. I think part of the reason why many people have this misperception is because advances in technology have far outpaced social advances. It’s not always easy to wrap your mind around the fact that music can be duplicated digitally with little effort and there’s something about the internet that feels more virtual and less actual. I wonder how many avid pirated music downloaders would walk into a deli in NYC and steal a candy bar. Somehow this seems different. But in reality downloading a tune off of Pirate Bay and stealing a candy bar are very much the same. In the case of the candy, it’s the deli owner who looses. The candy bar manufacturer has already been paid, and the workers who made the bar have already been paid, as have the people who grew the ingredients. To continue the analogy, now imagine the candy bar thief goes to the corner and starts giving the bars away. But wait, how does he make money? It turns out he’s wearing a t-shirt and displaying the logo of a corporation. The company that brokered the deal between the company whose product is being advertised and the candy thief is also an actor in this drama. Let’s call this company Schmoogle. In essence, the first company (whose product is being advertised) has paid the thief to wear their t-shirt and display their logo. And the candy bar is the lure that draws the crowd. In fact, the only one not making money here is the deli owner whose property has been not only stolen but whose business is being undermined by someone giving away the same product he’s trying to sell, which also adds to the growing pubic perception that candy bars are free.
As you may know, the bill is pretty dead at the moment. But I believe SOPA was an attempt to catch the law up with human behavior and should have been supported.
Hi Ben. Love your CD and love your website.
Sadly I don’t share this same opinion as yours. If you re going to educate society through a law you might as well have to do a thousand of them because society will surely find a way around… As it has done with online piracy for the last 15 years.
Plus, laws come with those “grey areas”…
Any society that is willing to give up a little freedom to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both – Benjamin Franklin
Cheers from Portugal
Thanks Andre. I appreciate your comments.
I agree, it’s not realistic to hope to change human behavior greatly through the implementation of new laws and regulations, especially when it comes to abstract ideas about what constitues property. My feeling is that most music fans just don’t think about this stuff too much. But there does seem to be an increasingly vocal group of people and organizations who like to point to big media companies and super-rich artists when they argue that the notion of copyright is outdated and driven by greed, and the internet should maintain its “wild west” lack of regulation. Lost in these portrayals is the fact there there are many many creators who are not necessarily represented by large corporate interests. Indie artists, inventors, tech startups and the like all have need to be able to own what they create, at least for a limited time.
I think some kind of legislation designed to at least try to address the problem of piracy is needed. SOPA may not be the answer. But at least it’s got us talking.
As to your Franklin quote, I would say that being able to create and own one’s creation is a big part of what makes us free. Piracy slowly erodes that freedom.
An alternative to consider:
http://keepthewebopen.com/
Hi Sarah
This is VERY interesting. Thanks for posting the link. As I’ve stated in previous comments, I’m certainly not qualified to pass judgement on the legal merits of any legislation that deals with such complex issues as IP rights vs. the public good. On first read, the language of OPEN looks very well crafted and seems to hit the major points. I’m a little unclear as to what gives it “teeth” in terms of enforceability. But I may have just missed that. I like the fact that it works within the framework of “due process” but wonder if the ITC is the best overseer. Also, it’s hard to know how to judge their SOPA vs PIPA vs OPEN comparison. If it is to be believed then I’d say OPEN does in fact look like a good bill.
The main thing is that it’s so important for artists to engage on these issues. The more we know, the better we’ll be able to make meaningful contributions to the discussion.