18 jan 2012

sopa. pipa. i'd say to google 'em, but googling's a bit of a challenge today because of them. so, instead, i will paste in here a stellar explanation descartes emailed to me when i requested a crash course.

In summary: a shift from judicial mediation of Internet content relationships to regulatory control of Internet traffic

The critical issue is not the intent of the legislation (blocking access to illegal distribution channels for copyrighted material) but rather in the vagueness of the language that, as an example, could be detrimental to sites that rely on user-generated content and the concomitant burden on those sites to pro-actively patrol for copyright compliance. The current model of "takedown notices" (through which content providers are indemnified so long as they respond by removing infringing material after receiving notice) places the burden on copyright holders to enforce their rights. The models proposed by SOPA and PIPA permit the Justice Department to block access to reported sites at the root DNS servers without direct involvement of the content or service providers. Under both, instead of copyright-holder petition to provider then court the model would be copyright-holder petition to Justice Department and done. The main concerns among the more rational opponents are (1) direct control of Internet content by governmental agency rather than judicial process and (2) access to "censorship" controls by interests with the money to influence or participate in the regulatory process. The main points of the more rational proponents are (1) the targets are foreign sites not US sites and (2) stealing is wrong and shouldn't be easy just because of the Internet.

Among the legislation's chief proponents are many of the same copyright holders who have worked to extend the life of copyright in perpetuity (Motion Picture Association of America, Disney, Recording Industry of America, Hachette) and - in the most negative interpretation - preserve an income flow forever on intellectual and creative property rights.

Among the legislation's chief opponents are the content distribution industry (unreasonable administrative burden), rights groups (Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union), open internet advocates (let the law in courts do the enforcement of copyright law not governmental regulatory bodies), and websites and services driven by user-generated or user-submitted content who - in the most negative interpretation - stand to preserve higher profit margins without administrative burden of regulatory compliance.

Both SOPA and PIPA are inheritors of the copyright debate itself so the positions of proponents and opponents of the present legislation have roots in copyright law not Internet technology and infrastructure law.

true, i am in the publishing business, so i am a bit of a professional content provider. i am also an amateur content provider. i get why folks think all information should be free because we've all gotten very used to having wikipedia at our fingertips, but as with everything, you get what you pay for. free information isn't always good information. the difference between a cheap pair of shoes and cheap information is that you can see the cheap shoes falling apart before your very eyes. the cheap information falls apart in a less visible and much more insidious way.

in general, folks don't understand what goes into the generation of quality information, and of course, information providers can be shysty, greedy, but the bottom line is that copyright was established to protect the rights of content creators. copyright and first amendment right of expression are tangential, even in the internet they are tangential, but the lack of tactile information product makes the tangential seem tangible.

i have not yet made up my mind.

have you?