The Internet. I personally cannot think of a single friend or family member who doesn't use it, and even those who don't still find their lives affected. It has changed the world in both measurable in immeasurable ways. As such, it comes as no surprise that governments all around the world respond to this ever growing tool as they do most everything else, they want the power of control.
Enter the Protect IP Act, introduced on May 12, 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The main purpose of the proposed bill is said to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods". How long will this debate rage on? Yes, I understand that pirating is an issue, but it has been handled horribly since the inception of the internet. No, lets not spend money researching and investing into technology utilized by Napster, rather let force shutdown and disenfranchise consumers. Those lawsuits the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) brought against consumers were a joke. Ultimately they were attempting to fight an unstoppable technological curve instead of being on the cutting edge. This mistake has cost them dearly, and they still do not see their fault.
I could write an entire paper on the RIAA's failure, but I simply wish to use them as an example of the foolishness of this bill. But the bill's intent is not even the problem, Congress passes worthless bills all the time, the problem will be all the other effects this bill will have on the internet. It may begin with shutting down sites that are clearly intended for piracy, but what about the sites that fall into the gray area? Which in my view, is about 90% of every website out there.
Whatever your political affiliation, if you're reading this, you should be wildly against this bill. A bit cliché, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you read this bill, it is wildly generic and encompassing. For example, what do you think of when you hear the term “Internet Site”? I would imagine the answer is different for just about everyone, however this bill defines it as “the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name”. Forgive my lack of eloquence, but what the hell is that? The problem with bills such as these is that they seek to define and solve problems that the government doesn't really understand.
Obviously this statement is suffixed with “within reason”, but ultimately I believe the responsibility to control and combat piracy of non-physical good should be left up to the copyright owners themselves. Where is this “freemarket” concept we hold so dear? Media companies, especially, have failed to provide incentives to consumers to have them view piracy as the lesser option.
Things might be improving, but it is too slow. The fact that it took so long for sites like Hulu and other legitimate streaming sites to come forth is sad. The RIAA made a grave mistake thinking it could stop the digital age, and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) continues to make that mistake as well. They both have argued that “purchasing a physical CD or DVD simply grants one a license to use the product rather than ownership of the content”. These organizations do not live in the real world. They're demonizing consumers that buy their products legally, not a very good business model.
Internet piracy is and always will be too easy for millions of consumers to stop, government intervention is dangerous and not the answer. It could change the very scope of search engines, entertainment sites, and a wide variety of other institutions that make up the internet that we know. Innovation should be left up to the companies responsible for distribution of the product. Sadly though, it seems the answer of these companies' and organizations' lack of innovation it to funnel money into a bill that could damage an outlet in which they should be thriving.
No comments:
Post a Comment