What no blog updates in a while? I have excuse! I went black for S.O.P.A. way before anyone else!
OK, maybe not, but I have to come back out of hiding to address the biggest social media story of the year. Short year so far. But still.
[Wouldn’t it be ironic if Wikipedia sued me for displaying this copyrighted image without their permission?]
The Stop Online Piracy Act strikes me as one of those little pieces of Congressional legislation that could potentially become law without you ever noticing, until some in-the-know friend casually mentions it to you months later. I mean, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the sexiest bill in the world. There are no soldiers shipping off to war, or money going in or out of your paycheck, for the most part. It’s all background-lawyery stuff. Who can I count on to distill all this obscure bullshit for me? Why, the newly un-blocked Wikipedia, of course:
“The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a law (bill) of the United States proposed in 2011 to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Proposals include barring advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with allegedly infringing websites, barring search engines from linking to the sites, and requiring Internet service providers (ISP) to block access to the sites. The bill would criminalize the streaming of such content, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.”
SOPA (and its Senate sibling with an even cuter acronym, PIPA) carries draconian consequences for websites that infringe copyright, or are even accused of infringement. Ten years ago, would there have been any real opposition to this? Were any politicians warned that there would be public relations hell to pay if they didn’t, say, save the original Napster? There were extremely powerful interests lined up against Napster. And almost none to support it.
But the website business ain’t kids’ stuff anymore. The internet, as many of you know… is serious business. Very serious:
"
I have Republican friends who protested Obamacare and Democrat friends who protested the Iraq war, but no amount of protest marches or Tea Parties could stop these things from happening. The medical care of an entire nation, or soldiers killing and dying, might be important things. But if you threaten the existence of funny YouTube parodies, only then will the entire internet rebel.
Reaction from legislators was profound. Around dinner time on Wednesday, I found this listing of the bills’ supporters and opponents. It listed 80 supporters and 32 opponents. It now lists 63 supporters and 122 opponents. By Wednesday night, even PIPA co-sponsor Marco Rubio had turned against the bill.
It feels good, doesn’t it? The entertainment industry can rant all they want about their special-interest dollars, but it doesn’t matter. You’re stickin’ it to The Man. The people have spoken. No sopa for you, you big corporate bad guys who control all information!
But is that really true anymore? Do powerful figures in the old media and old Hollywood control our information? Psshaw! Of course not! You get all your information from reading blogs and Wikipedia articles! And when Wikipedia asked you to jump, you asked how high. We may be in love with our favorite websites, but now that the hangover from the big SOPA push is over, let’s not kid ourselves about who we wound up in bed with.
Meet the new boss, my friends.
Perhaps this post wasn't entirely serious, but I feel you did not put serious effort in comparing the "new boss" to the "old boss" at the end.
ReplyDeleteSure, perhaps Google and Facebook are huge, powerful, and potentially evil corporations just like old media / Hollywood, but it is important to compare the sources of their money/power and their incentives to see how they are likely to behave. For example, I trust Google as a corporation more than most old media companies, even if we ignore Google's corporate culture and leadership, simply because Google's business depends on an open internet. (Not that I truly trust any corporation of that size.)
And Wikipedia (even with its benevolent dictator, Jimmy Wales) is a completely different animal from any old media company. Its money comes entirely from donations, and its mission is to bring free knowledge to everyone. If Wikipedia is the new boss, it is most certainly not the same as the old boss.
1. This post is entirely serious business.
ReplyDelete2. Just because I warn against the power of Google/Facebook/Wikipedia doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing, or that I'm in favor of SOPA. I'm against the bill. And I think it's good to have different powerful interests as a counterbalance, so this is for the most part a good thing.
3. I think to a certain degree you are proving my point. Your judgment of how the new boss is different relies a lot on their subjective intentions. Not their position of power, which is very real (and it eventually corrupts all, doesn't it?). These companies may rely on bottom-up interaction... but the resistance to SOPA/PIPA comes from the top down. Fox News may have the best of intentions (subjectively) as well, but you probably wouldn't speak up for them as eagerly.
4. Has Google always supported an open internet in China?
Had these bills passed (and they wiill eventually, they're just going back to for more finessing of their legalese) , your blog posts would be just text with no pretty and 'borrowed' pictures.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like we're on the same side, although I'm a little thrown by the mobster tone. "Nice little blog ya got there..."
ReplyDeleteA lot of people bailed with the excuse that the law is "badly written." This can mean one of three things:
1. They never want to support it again, but don't want to piss off the bill's supporters.
2. They intend to support it once it's worded in a more sneaky way. You assume this is the inevitable outcome. But if the next draft is the same in a practical sense, won't it ultimately cause the same public outrage?
3. It might mean that the bill will respond to concerns, and be reintroduced in a form that will allow for (1) fair use, and (2) due process. And that wouldn't be a failure. That's democracy in action.