So tech has been in the news a lot recently. Congress flip−floppedSOPA and PIPA into nonexistence. MegaVideo.com was shut down. But what does it mean? And why should you still care now that it's already happened?
At the core of the argument in both cases is the role of the messenger. Those of us who grew up in the digital age are very familiar with the difference between the content providers (e.g. MegaVideo) and the content creators (e.g. 40−year−olds with nothing better to do than to post recorded episodes of "The Vampire Diaries" online).
SOPA and PIPA sought to enact a strategy of "shoot first, ask questions later" into law, whereby a claim of copyright infringement could shut down a website for months while its owners are simply waiting for a court date. The current law is not that different, as evidenced by the fact that MegaVideo was shut down, even though it is still under dispute if the company reacted properly to reports of copyrighted content on its servers (some claim the company acted swiftly to remove infringing material; others claim it didn't to make money).
My simple question is this: What happened to innocent before being proven guilty? We've for the most part accepted that web distributors are not liable for infringing content posted on their site. To expect any more would be unreasonable for sites such as YouTube, which for example receives 48 hours of uploaded footage every minute. But we have not accepted that these sites have a right to exist. To completely shutter a website for months based on suspicion is an unreasonably harsh punishment. We wouldn't expect a person to rot for months in jail, robbed of their income and livelihood, based solely on hearsay from another party, and we shouldn't expect that of a website.
SOPA and PIPA were attempts to strengthen the ability of the government to shut down such sites quickly, that preferred speed over due process, and this is the important point and why I'm, as usual, writing about something that happened a while ago. Few would argue that it's right to pirate movies and TV. I think even those of us who do so probably have a bad conscience while doing it. But that's no reason to enforce harsh, draconian measures.
I think requiring due process will actually be a good way to solve this problem in the long run. Shutting down MegaVideo may have worked for now, but there are still other websites out there. It's worth mentioning that some big name file−sharing websites voluntarily shut down after the MegaVideo incident, but it's also worth noting that many more still exist. Not to mention the fact that others are sure to be created.
Simply chasing down the next content provider as quickly as possible is a cat−and−mouse game that benefits only the content owners. Requiring the due process of a court case allows the MPAA and other content creators to prosecute the big players, preventing piracy from growing rampant, while thinking of better business models than charging $11 for a movie (before popcorn and drinks) that's often of lackluster quality.
Many industry analysts expect the lobbyists backing SOPA and PIPA to attempt to reintroduce similar bills under a different name in the future, relying on the fact that most people will have forgotten it. It is important to watch out for this and other legal issues, which affect everybody's Internet. At the same time, it's important not to be a pirate, and support business models like Hulu that charge a reasonable price (watching a few ads) for entertainment, while allowing lesser−known talents to make it big without losing all their profits to middlemen.
--
Ben Schwalb is a member of the Class of 2012 who majored in computer science. He can be reached at Benjamin.Schwalb@tufts.edu.
