If one is to do a google search or to go on Wikipedia right now ( Wikipedia is actually blacked out!! the first time for their site and done on purpose as a protest), you will see that there is a cry for the public to alert Congress that they should NOT be considering the new PiPA and Sopa guidelines for the internet. Anyone here have an opinion for or against these guidelines.....
The battles between content owners and technology companies have been brewing for quite some time. There is no question that technology aids in piracy. In real world, you would be committing a crime if you say, helped someone make perfect copies of currency. But the equiv. of that in technology world is allowed by passing a link to a pirated copy of a movie or music for example. The issue at hand is how to regulate this without having to force every tech company to become a police force. As you can imagine, the tech companies do not want to play that role both from expense/process point of view and image. The latter is them looking like the bad guy, telling you that you can't do something on behalf of the content holders.
The trickiest part is allowing low makers who have little to no technology experience author such things. Invariably, they will create something that will have onerous side effects, or ambiguities.
I suspect this will get either defeated altogether or watered way down.
While I and many others view the Internet as a God send, others regard it as a ripoff for copyrighted materials. Moreover it makes it almost impossible for the powers that be to suppress information. Anyone can post almost anything on the Internet. Once in the public domain it is almost impossible to control. While suppression may be desirable to say delete a sex tape posted by a disgruntled ex, prior restraint is a bad thing.
Two bills are currently before the congress that would give the government power to shut down websites and imposes fines and/or criminal penalties.
There is a potential for mischief. Could these laws be used as a pretext to shut down politically unpopular websites?
This appears to present a serious threat. Wikepedia among others shut down thier site yesterday in protest.
The internet has at least partially destroyed the "control of outlet" that used to exist with, say, movie theater chains and retail outlets for proprietary media. The economic benefit of the life cycle of proprietary media has obviously been shortened drastically compared to the past.
However, there is just too much danger that speech and information flow in general will be threatened to protect the interests of a few economic vested groups and most of these groups, it could be argued, are "wealthy enough." Corporate economics vs. freedom of speech and information access.
This is sloppy, draconian legislation and needs to be deep sixed. There a lot of unusual questions that have been raised by the viral epidemic nature of information transfer, but trammeling information flow or making it "pay per view" according to private interests does not seem to be the answer, especially if it further opens the door to government repression and abuses of power. Too much risk, benefit to too few to justify.
"The Stop Online Piracy Act has officially been put on hold.
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) announced today that the House Judiciary Committee, which he heads, "will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution." Smith added that he has taken critics' concerns "seriously."
"It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products," Smith said in today's statement.
The statement from the House Judiciary Committee does not mention SOPA by name, but a committee representative contacted by phone confirmed that it does indeed refer to the Stop Online Piracy Act.
The decision to wave the white flag on SOPA comes just hours after U.S. Senate leaders announced they had postponed their vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA) scheduled for Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the recent criticism on both SOPA and PIPA forced his hand, but Reid did acknowledge that he hopes to reach an agreement with the legislation's foes "in the coming weeks.""
When I was tasked to put together the revised Philippine IP code, I was lobbied hard by the BSA and had met with representatives of the Department of US Trade. There were many similar provisions we didn't accept, to those found on PIPA. This was three years ago. One I remember most was BSA's advocacy for making possession of code even on temporary memory a criminally liable act. Others had to do with redefining parameters of fair use. I am still and forever will be an IP advocate. The balance however has yet to be found. Tabled or not, at least the issue has finally been given attention and importance for our general populations and I think these dry-docked bills have served their purpose of doing just that. It may have be an irritating step but IMO it is an important one.
Are there not already laws against the theft of intellectual property? Are they hard to enforce? Of course. That is not a reason to bi-pass due process and shut down businesses for crimes they haven't been convicted of. Mischief. Constitutional mischief.
