SOPA, High Tech Companies, And The Chamber Of Commerce
Yahoo cancelled its membership in the U. S. Chamber of Commerce last month. Google and the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents 2200 companies, are threatening to do the same. The rift has been caused by the Chamber’s support of, and high tech’s opposition to, the Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA.
SOPA has backing from expected sources, many also members of the Chamber, including Hollywood interests, the recording industry and publishing concerns. Some labor unions have also joined in supporting the legislation. Opposing SOPA is most of the high tech world, including Facebook, LinkedIn, eBay and Mozilla who, with Google and Yahoo sent a letter urging Congress to “reconsider” the legislation. They have been joined by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, CCIA. Twitter and Foursquare have called for a no vote from Congress, and further opposition has come from AOL, Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch. The later two are concerned about freedom of expression issues.
The furor has to do with sites that allow, often unwittingly, copyrighted material or otherwise intellectually protected product to appear on their sites. SOPA would open them to private action by those alleging copyright violation and could shut them down. The opposition position is explained at ComputerWorld , which details the concern saying
“The proposed law would allow copyright and IP owners to issue requests for service termination if just one page on a site containing thousands of pages is deemed to violate the provisions of the law.”
Those reading an internet site like The Moderate Voice probably do not need instruction in the potential impact on sites like Facebook, eBay or YouTube.
The legislation has broad and bipartisan support. Its sponsors cross the aisle and they cross conservative/liberal ideological boundaries. In the end it pits old industry against new, clearly favoring the old. The Internet has necessarily created a new reality, and new thinking about issues like intellectual property must follow. Simply ratcheting up enforcement mechanisms will not solve problems that require a more delicate and nuanced balance.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Newspaper revenue down 6%, but display ad revenue trumps Google
Posted on Apr 9, 2013
-
Charity and Coffee: Tracking A Facebook Meme
Posted on Apr 5, 2013
-
Austin, Texas, in Kim Jong-Un’s Crosshairs?
Posted on Mar 30, 2013
-
China: A Paragon of Due Process, an Example for Observing International Law?
Posted on Feb 22, 2013
Outrageous.
All software engineers, IT staff, content creators, bloggers, entrepreneurs, users are panicking right now. Basically the whole internet is wondering how on earth special interests have pawned technically illiterate politicians to wage war on the internet.
2011 will be remembered for so many reasons.
Say NO to SOPA!
http://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/me5e9/american_censorship_day_stand_up_for/
The REAL change that is needed is to hold the page owner, not the site owner, to be held responsible. The site owner can be (has to be) part of the enforcement arm, but they really can’t be held responsible.
Although, personally, it’s time to take Facebook, Google, YouTube and others to task for some of the crap they pull. This, however, is not the issue to do it on.
If this passes, and stands the inevitable legal challenge, the US might as well give up on having a say in the future of the net. At least if I get the gist of this law right.
Yahoo, Google, Facebook and such will effectively be forced to become foreign companies – or die by court cases. And with them goes all those nice jobs. Meanwhile the priacy will simply continue through some other avenue. Awesome job Congress. And that is not even touching the freedom of speech issues this rasies.
I am not arguing that piracy is fine. But, the idea of trying to place ever increasing strictures on piracy is even more doomed to failure than the war on drugs. The practice is more prevalent, the product easier to move and the seeming victumless nature of the crime makes it a non-starter.
Although I do not like intellectual piracy, I think the time has come for a ‘real’ debate on what is useful to our society. When Edison’s staff discovered a means of copying and playing recordings, the capacity of musicians to reach much larger audiences began. Moving pictures added in actors. Eventually radio and television further added to their exposure (including the exposure of athletes).
Now the question I propose is: if technology is what made these people, why should we now limit technology just because it inconveniences them?
Is it really worth the while of our society to spend (probably) billions of dollars (in court, law enforcement, trade, and other ways) to protect the livelihood of people whose livelihood was created and is now threatened by technology? The ability to obtain natural gas preceded the control of electricity. Edison’s company was allowed to tear up the streets of NYC in order to show that electric lights can and should be used. It led to a huge decrease in fires (due to the city originally being lit up at night by gas lamps…and the fires they caused). I don’t see anyone decrying the electric companies in favor of the gas companies.
Why is it that we, as Americans, always seem to fail to ask the most obvious questions regarding our own benefits? Which is better for average Americans: cheaper, easier to obtain entertainment or trying to enforce the unenforceable?
“Simply ratcheting up enforcement mechanisms will not solve problems that require a more delicate and nuanced balance”
The problem is that this is the SOP for all “crimes”. Congress is too hardwired to think of any other solution.