Battle lines have been drawn in the US between proponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), currently being debated, and those who oppose any regulation of the internet.
On one side are organisations that will benefit by copyright being applied to the internet, including the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians, the Directors Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild and other copyright holders. They are joined by drug companies keen to block online pharmacies from utilising copyright material without permission as a means of generating cheap online sales from outside the US.
On the other side are a broad range of organisations including leading internet companies – Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Twitter and many others. An open letter was sent to Congress last week outlining their concerns with SOPA.
Also in support of the anti-SOPA stance are civil liberties groups – and others such as the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, which posted an overview of SOPA.
Earlier this year, Australian internet service providers (ISPs) – including Telstra, Optus and Primus Telecom – implemented internet filters to block Interpol’s list of child-abuse websites.
In England, the High Court ordered British Telecom to block access to a members-only website called NewzBin2 that offers links to pirated films.
Critics of SOPA employ a common image – SOPA as a “bull in a china shop” – and emphasise their preferred approach is a voluntary code of conduct that includes identification of copyright breaches and voluntary removal of the copyright material upon receipt of a copyright breach notification.
This is similar to the argument used in Australia against the proposed mandatory internet filter to be used to block child-abuse websites. In Australia many organisations argued a mandatory internet filter would lead to government censorship of the internet.
It has been suggested, by opponents, that SOPA would have worldwide consequences because US consumers using websites while physically outside the US would bring that website within US jurisdiction. But this concern is of little consequence as there is already international jurisdictional precedence.
In 2000, Joseph Gutnick successfully sued Dow Jones and Company in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This court case was of considerable note because the offending article was placed on a Dow Jones website.
In defence, Dow Jones claimed the article was published in the US and therefore any defamation action should take place in the US.
The Supreme Court of Victoria did not agree with the Defence, deciding the internet is an online publishing network and under common law defamatory matter is published in each place in which it is read, seen or heard.
In 2002, the Australian High Court upheld the decision after an appeal by Dow Jones.
Arguing the internet should be treated differently to other forms of media is not sustainable in the long term.
Google claims to be in favour of a watered down version of SOPA. Yet Google has a poor track record that will count against any arguments put by the company. In August, Google agreed to pay US$500 million to settle a US Department of Justice case because it let online pharmacies in Canada use Google’s Adwords system to advertise prescription drugs to US consumers.
It is also argued SOPA would force many organisations to move websites and cloud computing facilities outside the US in an attempt to limit any effect SOPA would have on their worldwide operations.
Censorship is a common claim which is strongly denied by the lead sponsor of SOPA, Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. Smith wrote: “The First Amendment is not a cover for engaging in criminal activity”.
“The infringing websites in question have ample opportunity to participate in judicial proceedings, if they choose to do so. The bill’s actions are directed toward websites that are trafficking in illegal goods or copyrighted material”.
Change is needed.
The internet has become a haven for international crime organisations. Scams, SPAM, viruses, malware, hacking, intellectual property loss and identity theft are now common occurrences online. Innocent people are having their lives ruined and governments must act.
A growth in internet-related legislation to protect copyright holders is likely in the next five years. Governments will bring legislation into line with recent court cases where copyright holders have successfully argued copyright protection extends to the internet.
The future of entertainment is likely to depend on government legislation reducing rampant online copyright breaches.
Copyright holders have for several years taken court action against individuals who download copyright material without permission.
Better regulation of the internet will reduce the need for copyright holders to take legal action against individual consumers, allowing websites containing illegal copyright material to be targeted, wherever they are hosted in the world.
The internet is not special, and should not receive special treatment.
Join the conversation
Comments (7)
Leo Gaggl
(logged in via Twitter)
I would agree that the Internet is not special. However times move on and things change. And the fact is that the internet has totally changed the way content can be distributed (as well as created). Punitive measures for trivial offences have never worked throughout history (see prohibition) and instead have created 'shadow' economies that iare then usually controlled by the real criminals (a fact lamented by the author above). The real benefitiaries of the current situation (and it's continuation…
show full comment
Masha M
(logged in via Twitter)
SOPA draws the battle lines, yes – so far in the sand that they are out at sea. The flaws in the proposed legislation are far greater than anything that can be said in its favour.
You fail to mention that under SOPA, any (vaguely defined) rights-holder can effectively attempt to block all financial channels to an infringing website. The onus is on the accused to clear their name (within 5 days) – an oppressive requirement that goes against the presumption of innocence that has traditionally underpinned…
show full comment
John Harland
bicycle technician (logged in via email @gmail.com)
"In Australia many organisations argued a mandatory internet filter would lead to government censorship of the internet"
Information from apparently-reliable sources showed this not only to be a risk, but an intent. The proposed list of sites to be banned would seem to have included a great many that were political or the grades of pornography that are legally available retail in Australia.
To trivialise the risk of censorship draws suspicion to the entire article, and heightens concern about the SOPA.
Janice Duffy
Research (logged in via email @drjaniceduffy.com)
Innocent people ARE having their lives ruined and innocent businesses are facing the loss of revenue because Google controls the internet and quite franly does not care. I won't go into details about my case because they are documented on my blog (drjaniceduffy.com) but 'ripoff/complaint/review' websites are posting defamatory and offensive material about individuals and businesses, refusing to remove it and then charging thousands of dollars to 'rehabilitate' their reputation.
I have managed to get my case to court but that involved an enormous effort. In the absence of any measures of accountability most do not have the time or skills to provide the necessary evidence to mount a case. I know because I have spoken with other Australians placed in the same position and who have literally pleaded, without success, with Google to help by removing the links.
Martin Hills
(logged in via Facebook)
The point is that the Internet IS different from the old media - that's why the people who control the old media have so much trouble with it. It is global, instantaneous and it's decentralised nature resists control. Shoe-horning old notions onto the Internet don't work.
The big copyright holders are hurting themselves, just like they did when they tried to ban the player piano, VCR, cassette taping, MP3 player etc etc. These things became their routes to bigger business, and the same is true of the Internet.
The Internet has given great power to people, so it's no surprise that criminals have benefitted from this too. We do need to take steps to minimise the harm from these activities, but we shouldn't throw out the huge benefits the Internet offers in order to do so.
Donncha Redmond
Software Developer (logged in via email @donncha.com)
>Scams, SPAM, viruses, malware, hacking, intellectual property loss
>and identity theft are now common occurrences online. Innocent
>people are having their lives ruined and governments must act.
With the exception of SPAM (which is largely filtered now anyway), becoming the victim of the rest is largely a case of ignorance and/or gullibility.
It's important to realise that all those activities are already illegal, so I'm not quite sure quite why we need more Govt. regulation? This is just another attempt by the media companies to put the internet back inside an "old economy" box and, as before, will be completely ineffective.
rob alan
IT Tech (logged in via email @bigpond.com)
"Battle lines have been drawn in the US.."
Does the administration there do any thing else? LOL
On going USA model explained: http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
"The internet has become a haven for international crime organizations."
Ask any site admin worth their salt where the main attack squad has come from this last few years. On servers hosted in the USA govt & corporate bots are the sql offenders stand out. China had a look-in last year to. Run peerblock with added extra crispy fresh L2/L3 filters on home PC and it gets much more interesting.
P2P Encrypted VPN networks seem current trend I see on the grow, do bypass said lobby endevours to prevent folks from communicating. Communication doesn't need speed either so encrypted is fine to use.
Goes to the core I think. The global citizenry does in essence seek genuine and fair solutions for all. Law makers just don't seem to get that it doesn't always have to be a war mechinism.