SOPA: The Ugly, The Ugly and The Ugly

The first thing that becomes abundantly clear when you devote and entire week to different perspectives on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is that you could have just as easily devoted two weeks, a month, a few months to the subject. This is not because the subject is particularly difficult to grasp, but because of its manifold implications. And that isn’t just to say that everybody has an opinion; it goes deeper than that. It seems as if people respond to this legislation on a guttural level, which I suspect is both a product of the subject matter and (for lack of a better phrase) “the times.”

At its core, SOPA is simple. Rights holders are losing money because of piracy and are attempting to slam an act down the public’s throat to address this. Rights holders have failed to adapt to the new digital marketplace in ways that can ensure their profitability, have been consistently a step or two or three or four…behind innovation and are playing catch-up with the same myopic arrogance and fury that made them fall behind in the first place. SOPA is the latest, loudest yell of protest in a battle that has (probably needlessly) been waged since the beginning of the Internet.

Despite all the anxiety from major rights holders, they still have a lot of money and money buys votes. So, taking advantage of an American political system that seems to have given up any pretense of not being firmly clamped in the money clip of the corporate pocket, a large group of rights holders combined their power and decided to buy themselves an act. Now here is why politicians make the big bucks – performing their sacred duties as public speakers for hire, a bipartisan coalition took this legislation and began the process of covering a short-sighted, sloppy act with broad anti-piracy, pro-business rhetoric, weaving in something about “foreign piracy” to make it sound patriotic and trying to move the whole thing through the system before anybody noticed. And that’s how the sausage gets made.

Well, this time things were a bit different. And to spot the difference, you need look no further than the pieces we have put up this week. Casual consumers understand the entertainment industry more than any other industry because they are so clearly a part of it. If I don’t like this thing, it dies! If I buy this thing, it lives! And it’s not a matter of functionality, it’s a matter of taste. What I think and what I feel and what I care about drive the industry more than any other. So it doesn’t matter if the general public probably understands the entertainment industry from a business perspective just as poorly as it understands any other business, they understand their part in it. And this makes them feel entitled. I like this thing. I used to have to do X to get it. Now I do Y and it is better. Progress. Don’t ever make me go back to X. This is why I don’t know a single person under the age of 25 who has not stolen things online.

SOPA is dealing with a subject matter with which people feel entitled in a unique way. Changing the way we interact with online content is an incredibly difficult task whether the change is ultimately better or worse for the consumer. We have to be sold in either direction. And SOPA is far from winning people over. This is one area in which policy cannot be forced, it has to be proven effective and it has to prove that it will make people’s lives better.

This is where we can pull back and look at the other issue of “the time” facing SOPA’s advocates. We are coming out of the most populist year in recent history. Populist sentiment is so strong in the zeitgeist that for months, people camped out in the center of almost every major city in the Western World doing their best to make something productive out of inchoate rage at a variety of institutions they felt had failed them. It took organized state-condoned violence, the scale of which has not been seen in decades, to move these people back to their homes. Broadly stated, this is bad time to mess with things to which people feel entitled.

People are taking SOPA personally. Like so many steps made by copyright holders in the past, this one is too ill-conceived and too behind the times. One gets the sense that, one way or the other, they have already lost this exchange.

-JO

Tags: copyright ownership, Internet legislation, online content, online piracy, SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act

SOPA Personal: Armageddon

Our last guest post of SOPA week comes from Josh Mortensen, the Founder and Managing Partner of GlibHippo. Josh sent us this interesting take on the issue, going back in time a bit and setting up the legacy of rights mismanagement that got us here, via his connection to one very famous movie.

Armageddon. When I hear SOPA, I think of Armageddon. Not the holy-crap-the-Internet-is-going-to-end EFF-style Armgeddon, but the one where Bruce Willis saves Liv Tyler from the giant space rock. The 1998 blockbuster was my ticket through the looking glass into the entertainment industry’s upside down world where its customers are the enemy and the legal department is also in charge of business development.

I actually don’t know much specifically about H.R. 3261. I didn’t even read the Wikipedia entry before writing this. No need really. If it is legislation supported by the entertainment industry (to the tune of $2.5 million as of Dec. 19), I know it is another installment in Hollywood’s lazy legal war against its fans.

In 2003, I started a company that rented DVDs online. The goal being to mimic our US inspiration Netflix by offering the largest film catalogue of any retailer in the country. The thought was that without shelf space being an issue, we could offer everything. This is where Armageddon comes in.

When we started, we bought one copy. (Did I mention that we started in Denmark? Not a big place.) As we grew, the thrill of big rocks in space being what it is, Armageddon became one of our most requested titles. But the studio had sold all of their “rental” copies so, like our customers, we were S.O.L. — never mind that Armageddon DVDs were for sale all over the continent. The Denmark Armageddon rental allotment was done.

The explanation from the studio sounded like what the bastard offspring of Kafaka and Orwell would say if it was raised in Gilliam’s Brazil. It was some confusing triple-think about the number of units that could be produced, proper labeling and geographic rights. It left me thinking it was more a question of effort than legality or rights.

Unfortunately, Armageddon would not be the last title we couldn’t *pay cash money for* because of  ”rights issues.” We could get Seasons Two thorough Six of the Sopranos but not Season One, for example. “Rights” were to blame for the lack of available content in almost every case. When your legal arrangements absurdly restrict sales there is a problem.

Armageddon was symbolic of the problem as a whole. It turns out Hollywood has created a ridiculously complex value chain of geographic and chronological rights based on 20th century distribution technology. And it has created this value chain in open contempt of consumers. In fact, it is hard to think of a consumer-driven business more removed from it customers than the entertainment business — DVD region encoding anyone? This rights-based value chain is apparently quite lucrative, hence the industry’s love of legal fees. But this value chain based on restricting access and national boundaries has no place in the 21st century.

SOPA, by extension, is the right solution to the wrong problem. By all means, give the lawyers jobs. But put them to work cleaning up the rights regimes and devising more flexible contracting models that fit our ones and zeroes reality. The problems began with the legal department and while the entire solution does not rest there now, the beginning of that solution does.

You can follow Josh on Twitter @razzmuzzen

Tags: Armageddon, copyright ownership, DVD rental, GlibHippo, Netflix, online piracy, SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act

SOPA: Apps To The Rescue

Last week, we touched on the difficulties of online boycotting and wondered if it really worked. Our conclusion? Yes and no and it’s about to get really interesting. Well, it looks like we didn’t have to wait long for a new wrinkle to emerge.

This week, the free App for Android, Boycott SOPA hit the market, promising to give aid to those wishing to boycott companies who have shown their support for the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act. The app scans products’ labels to determine whether they are made by or associated with a SOPA-supporting brand and give you a “Bad Item!” warning if you should be boycotting the product. The app could prove to be the step needed to address one of the major issues we found in online boycotting, finding the wallet of those being boycotted. The other issue, visibility outside of the echo chamber of the Internet, that may take a bit more time and creativity. But with Internet representatives heading to The Hill soon and planned website blackouts looming, it seems like its only a matter of time before the visibility problem sees some solutions as well.

Tags: android app, boycott SOPA, online boycott, online piracy, SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act

SOPA Worldwide: Innovation

One of the concerns voiced in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act is that it will hinder entrepreneurs. Today, we keep SOPA week moving by getting input from Martijn Tjho, CEO at Independent IP (IIP) BV, the company behind FUGA. As an entrepreneur and one who works within the music industry, it’s hard to get much closer to the issue than Martijn.

The Internet drives innovation just as did the invention of electricity, the steam-engine etc. But lawmakers are always one or two steps behind innovation in creating new laws that regulate the new reality. With SOPA, it’s a typical case of good intentions, but shooting from the hip, with the risk innocent bystanders get hurt. This is often what happens when you try to protect the status quo too much.

Before addressing the issue of piracy we need to look at copyright first. A good, but in my opinion incomplete, initiative is the “creative commons” initiative of Lawrence Lessig. His thinking and efforts are aimed at utilizing the Internet and technology for the greater benefit.  It still lacks concrete solutions for creating a business around content (How do people get paid and what happens if people don’t obey the rules?), but it is a step in the right direction. Looking into SOPA, I agree with many critics that it will slow down innovation and provides too much control in the hands of a few. It will put more pressure on the already heavily pressured law enforcement and is not organized on a global scale and therefore creates new problems that can and probably will harm the global architecture/nature of the internet.

If you think about the issues at hand and take the time to think beyond the immediate problem (copyright owners not getting paid) there is a greater problem. The Internet has created a global playing field while transparency and governments are still local, protecting their local interests. We have all kinds of trade treaties and international collaboration acts, but no global administration and law enforcement. The issues at hand show a fundamental need for change and adoption of the new reality caused by the nature of the Internet. This problem cannot be tackled by one country. One country solutions create a monster that stops the development of a global awareness, so much more important to protect more than copyright alone. It would set us back to where few could control what many would know and would create an environment where most would suffer. Transparency would become an antiquated term, a fond memory, like the Arab Spring, of when the great innovation called the Internet changed our lives for the better.

The intentions of SOPA are good. Theft should be stopped and the content owners should have more control and better protection against theft. But the world needs to work together and work with the Internet. It should not be like the Berlin wall.

- Martijn Tjho

Tags: creative commons, Internet Censorship, Lawrence Lessig, music piracy, online innovation, online piracy, SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act

SOPA Abroad: Spain

We are keeping the SOPA coverage rolling with more guest posts this week from a variety of different angles on the subject. Today, Ric Ferraro is helping us get a handle on how Spain fits into this American legislation.

The impacts of the so-called US-led Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) reach out well beyond the US. Spain recently (and very swiftly) ratified the Spanish law in support of SOPA, called Sinde’s Law after the increasingly unpopular Spanish Culture Minister, Angeles Gonzalez-Sinde Ruig.

The law basically allows the Spanish government new express powers to shut down non-compliant websites without having to turn to the law courts, who have previously and consistently opted in favour of keeping file-sharing sites online. The Sinde Law also eliminates the commercial motive as a key deciding factor in shutting down non-compliant sites; even sites with no profit motive will be targeted. Sites that are targeted by the government for shut down can appeal to the courts but the lengthy judicial process makes the re-opening of these sites very unlikely; by the time (years) any decision is overturned, web traffic will simply have left to competing sites forever.

But Spanish web-surfers have not remained still. They have joined together in an online initiative called Sinde’s List led by a group of so-called “hack-tivists.” This group initially gathered some 1500 websites with content that would count as infringing under the new law and planned on presenting the list to the Culture Minister to make her understand the impact the law would have in Spain. Many on the list are blogs and the argument is that effectively the law would affect freedom of speech in Spain.

Since the controversial law was passed, Sinde’s List has fizzled out but most observers in Spain believe that content sharing is so endemic that the law will fail to achieve its stated objectives.

By Ric Ferraro, Blogger at Ric Ferraro’s Blog and author of “Location Aware Applications”, referred to as the Rosetta Stone of Location-based mobile Services, published by Manning Co, New York. The book dedicates a whole chapter on privacy issues and is a must-read for those interested in understanding how new regulations around digital services affect tech companies, developers and startups. You can follow Ric on Twitter @ricferr_mobile

Tags: online activism, online piracy, Sinde's Law, Sinde's List, SOPA, Spain, Stop Online Piracy Act

Fif-TECH-Teen: SOPA

Today I bring to you Tattletech readers my point of view on a controversial subject — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

SOPA was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by US Representative Lamar Smith. To summarize, the bill would allow copyright holders to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. The bill would also make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime punishable to a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten instances of illegal streaming of music or movies within a six month span. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement [1]. The bill has not yet passed.

So how does this affect us? Well, I can tell you that it is bad news for most teenagers. Come on, we have all lived in the grey area of legality on the Internet. Not just teenagers, all of us — admit it! Who hasn’t downloaded an artist’s most recent track or a movie or TV show? It’s very tempting and yes, I have done it and I will continue doing it, even though it is basically stealing.

But it’s not just those of us who perhaps have a few illegally obtained files on our desktop who will be affected. If SOPA passes, it will be a major issue for all people who use the Internet because of the effect it could have on websites. SOPA allows the American government to shut down every single website with any unpaid copyrighted material on it. So in theory this could mean goodbye Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, 4chan, all aggregate news sites, all forums, etc. If I were to upload a video to YouTube of me skateboarding with a Jay-Z track in the background, then post that video on my blog and share it in some skateboarding forums, it is withing this act’s purview to shut down the forum, my blog and YouTube. Quite sad isn’t it…

However the above scenario, while possible, is probably hyperbolic. I highly doubt the American government can afford to shut down these sites (my blog excluded); it makes no sense economically. If Google (which owns YouTube) were to be shut down, 24,400 people would lose their jobs and all the Google tax revenue would be lost. There are no winners there. This applies to all the big companies mentioned before.

The comments about SOPA I do not understand are those along the lines of “SOPA violates our freedom of speech.” I strongly disagree. Yes, the law may stop me using and sharing copyrighted material but it cannot stop me talking about it. So how does it violate my freedom of speech? I don’t see it. Copyrighted content is copyrighted for a reason. Illegal usage does not fall under free speech. I do not thoroughly agree with SOPA and I would much rather post streaming content on my friend’s Facebook wall or download my content for free, but on the other hand I respect the fact that companies such as EMI make their living with the money we use to download their content. No downloads or no buyers means no EMI.

Overall though, I am not for SOPA, and I hope that it does not get passed.

You can read Fif-TECH-teen weekly right here on Tattletech. You can also follow Sean on Twitter @sean_edwards1.

1. Gross, G. (Nov 16, 2011). The US Stop Online Piracy Act: A Primer. PC World

Tags: copyright infringement, illegal downloading, Internet Censorship, Internet Politics, online piracy, SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act

Does Boycotting Online Work?

We are going to be doing a larger piece on SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) later, with the help of our Fif-TECH-Teen correspondent Sean, but as a preview we are going to look into the effectiveness of the online boycott.

One of the well-honed tools of any activist is the boycott. It is how one can vote in numbers by not voting…in numbers. One would suspect that on the Internet, a platform predicated on populist ideals (whether it knows it or not), group activism like the boycott would be especially easy to organize. One would be correct in this assumption, to a degree.

Organizing the masses online is the easy part; action is often more difficult. And even when action is taken, boycotts in particular function differently than their offline counterparts. The problem involves visibility and perceived visibility. Since it is so easy to engage like-minded people and then tally up the number of those people engaged, there is a false narrative of success with ease when it comes to online activism. The lurking variable: who is paying attention? The answer: far too often it is the pastor preaching to the choir.

Anybody who has ever seen a “One Million Strong Against The New Facebook Redesign X” group can tell you that assembling an opinionated group is easy. They can also tell you how easy they are to ignore, despite the numbers. What is lost in translation is that a one thousand person petition holds far less weight than one thousand people occupying a space. Sure, that has always been the knock on petitions, online and offline, but this logic also applies for the online boycott. When one thousand people leave your website, the only person who notices is the intern who monitors the analytics. There is no visible trail of dissent. All the sound and the fury of the boycotting group amounts to nothing outside of their own echo chamber.

Here is the challenge of activism online. Just like neurologists have shown that one gets almost all the pleasure of a completed task by just imagining its completion, one gets almost all the pleasure of making a statement by hearing from others that a statement is being made. There is a list, with one thousand people on it. They all say this is great. It feels good. Well, who else hears about it? These are not one thousand bodies, just names and analytics scores.

A few weeks ago, a list of companies supporting SOPA was passed around the Internet and a lot of noise was made about boycotting everybody on the list, from Disney to Nike. The list was so large (over 400 companies) that a blanket boycott was clearly impossible. So, Internet activists chose to focus. They picked one name off the list to go after first, the one with the clearest online ties — GoDaddy. Now here was a boycott that would make some noise! The action item was simple; move your URL to a different domain host. That is all they sell, that was all that had to be done. So, a day of domain switching was set up and people started moving out. GoDaddy publicly reversed course on their SOPA support. Job well done! Right?

Perhaps. This is the first high profile example of an online boycott working (to whatever extent it worked) but the circumstances could not have been more advantageous to success. Internet goods, an Internet audience, only people on the Internet care and this was an Internet problem. In this case, it was as if our hypothetical one thousand bodies were there in the flesh. Here’s where it gets tricky. There are still ~400 companies in support of SOPA and at the end of the day, the impact on GoDaddy’s bottom line was minimal. Sure they took a PR hit, but they’ve already survived PR nightmares, including warming over their CEO’s pension for very big game hunting. And the number of domains changed were a drop in their financial barrel.

Ironically, GoDaddy is an Internet company whose goal seems to be currying favor with a less Internet-savvy crowd. Their target demographic (at least as far as one can interpret their commercials) is the, for lack of a better term so borrowing one I’m sure has been used in a GoDaddy board room, “Nascar crowd.” It is feasible that loosing a percentage of the crowd that cares about SOPA fits the GoDaddy business model. Despite their change in stance, it’s hard to imagine this boycott having legs beyond this debate, in which the odds are still set against the anti-SOPA contingent.

So, even when online boycotting works, it seems to not work as well as needed. And it’s hard to argue that this is just because of some specifics of GoDaddy, because the success is also due to some specifics of GoDaddy. In the next few months, as the debate of SOPA rages on, we will get to see other examples of online activism and perhaps that will make more clear its merits, but for now the success or failure of the boycott seems to be as vague as what comprises a virtual boycott. Where do names become bodies become analytics become dollars become change? I guess we will have to wait and see…

– JO

Tags: boycott, GoDaddy, Internet Censorship, online activism, Protect IP, SOPA