Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) are two bills that were introduced by Congress in 2011; they proposed that the government should be allowed to stop "criminal activity"--as it relates to copyright infringements--by redirecting the URLs of sites whose content violate copyright laws. Users would be directed to non-functioning (404) sites. Many of those who are against SOPA and PIPA call it "censorship." Others call it "black listing." Some call it the potential downfall of the Internet. Of course, there are logical reasons as to why the bills should be passed. The primary reason is to try and stop the illegal trafficking/streaming/sharing of protected movies, songs, intellectual property, etc. As you can image, Hollywood and record companies are in favor of these laws. Internet companies are not.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to use--as sources--the videos and the NYTimes article I mentioned in class.
Aaron Swartz on Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
Clay Shirky on Ted Talks
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html
As a broke college student who cannot function when her phone won’t connect to wifi, I obviously believe in Net Neutrality. In Thursday’s class when we learned about the Internet Activist Aaron Swartz stealing the entire library of JSTOR, at first I thought ‘who would want to use JSTOR unless you were writing a paper for school, in which case you would have full access to the database through the school’s subscription’. However, then I pondered the issue more and came up with this logic: Say someone hears on the news that a new study is being done on topic x. Since this is a ‘new’ study, then there are most likely not very many articles on the free parts of the internet explaining topic x. If a news watcher wanted to educate themselves more about topic x, a good place to start looking would probably be a reliable database, like JSTOR. I tried looking up how much monthly access to JSTOR costs, but I could not find an exact price range. With this being said, I think that if everything on the Internet was free then maybe we would live in a better educated world. This may be a stretch, but perhaps permitting all Internet users to access to databases like JSTOR would motivate people to do research for reasons other than mandatory school papers. An FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski agrees that Net Neutrality would "both encourage Internet innovation and protect consumers from abuses.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html?_r=0&sq=fcc&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=3&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1361045737-vl4eYUV5A99aSX1Q9q/MzA)
ReplyDeleteBy stealing and uploading JSTOR’s library, Aaron violated copyright infringement laws that are part of SOPA and PIPA. From what I have read about SOPA and PIPA, if a website violates a copyright infringement it can be taken down and look as if it never even existed. What I find most unconstitutional about these acts is that the website creators are not even given a chance to explain themselves. “The website can be condemned without a trial or even a traditional court hearing” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/what-is-sopa_n_1216725.html). I understand that copyright infringement is a serious issue because students can be kicked out of school for plagiarizing. However, even students guilty of plagiarism are given a disciplinary hearing before being completely expelled from school.
With that being said, it makes me wonder what constitutes copyright infringement. “Today, nearly every innovation in digital culture creates new question about copyright law.” (Media & Culture pg 485) What if someone tweets a song lyric or makes their Facebook cover photo a piece of art work without saying who it’s by? Is that copyright infringement? Will SOPA track down your Facebook or Twitter account and shut them down? I understand that Hollywood is losing money every time somebody streams a movie or tv show for free online, but it’s so easy to rationalize that with the thought of how much money this industry already makes, which I think is a key factor in why so many middle-class people like us do not believe it is unethical to pirate music, movies and tv shows.
As the Internet grows older, questions about how and if it should be regulated have come up and continues to be discussed. Media and Culture lays out an important question regarding this issue, “Will the Internet continue to develop as a democratic medium, evading government or corporate plans to contain it, change it, and closely monitor who has access?” (Campbell 502). The government has proposed a few billsin past years, including SOPA which is explained according to CNNMoney as, “a proposed bill that aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content” (Pepitone).The two bills SOPA and PIPA were controversial ones, with many people having strong opinions supporting them or against them. When researching both sides of this issue, I can agree with points on either side.
ReplyDeleteAs Aaron Swartz points out, it is difficult to define “crimes” on the Internet because they differ so much from crimes, such as stealing, in the outside world. He gives the example of sharing a video: is it like stealing an object from a store or loaning it to a friend? (Freedom). He also makes an important point: it’s so easy to copyright because everything is copyright. These bills could potentially shut down many websites from “copyright”, making it basically impossible to enjoy any website as we do now. Everything would be changed in fear of getting shut down. We would be unable to share videos and pictures as we do now.
On the other hand, I do understand the ways that they would have been helpful, such as taking down a fraudulent website that takes credit card information for dishonest purposes. As the New York Times points out, “The conventional wisdom is that the defeat of these bills shows the power of the digital commons. Sure, anybody could click on a link or tweet in outrage — but how many knew what they were supporting or opposing? Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans? Was it SOPA they were opposed to, or censorship?” (Sherman).
Overall, I think that there can be a bill that meets somewhere in the middle between these two sides, although it would be extremely difficult defining what exactly is good censorship versus censorship that infringes on our rights. I believe that it is extremely important that the internet remain a free source for everyone, as it has always been, but it is also important to acknowledge some of the benefits of those proposed bills.
Works Cited
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.
Freedom to Connect. Aaron Swartz. Freedom to Connect. DemocracyNow.org, 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
Pepitone, Julianne. "SOPA Explained: What It Is and Why It Matters." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm
Sherman, Cary H. "What Wikipedia Won't Tell You." The Opinion Pages. The New York Times, 7 Feb. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1361055723-aDWzgdRvox6RAl53nCleYA
Copyright law can be very tricky and, I think, most people tend to misunderstand it. That includes myself. The first copyright law was passed in 1790 and it protects the basic right of a creator of a work of art, music, or writing, from having their work copied without being paid or asked (Media and Culture 485). The book goes on to say that one big gray area in the law is what is called “fair use”. Fair use, as an example, is when a student uses a quote in an academic paper. For public performances, venues often have copyright agreements in place so that what might normally be considered infringement is allowed. DJs can sample all that want at a legal live venue. They may get into trouble with the law if they try to sell the same tunes as a recoding without paying huge sums or getting permission. I was surprised to learn that Paul’s Boutique, a 1989 album by the Beastie Boys cost $250,000 in sampling fees to make (477). On the other hand, I’m glad they paid the money because I love the album.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is not a place where copyright law has been strictly or effectively enforced to date. We learned in class that the employment levels of the music industry have been suffering because of that. That fact does stick out in my mind at a time like this in our country. The good jobs are gone as we all know and job security is a hot commodity. It would be great if an industry that rewards creativity and can promote communication and understanding in general could also be allowed to reward those who work for it on all levels.
The other main issue I see is in social networking. I think it may be taken for granted by most Americans but it has shown huge effect in other parts of the world like in its involvement in the Arab Spring. I also agree with Howard University professor Steven Jamar, writing in the Journal of Internet Law, that, “collectively, online social networking is the most vibrant vehicle for the creation and dissemination of information today”(3). I also agree, as he notes, that sites like Facebook adhere to Constitutional allowances in that they “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” I think what most people are worried about has more to do with uses like posting on facebook or maybe sharing a new song with a friend. I think the best way out of this is some kind of common sense approach; one that does not allow for mass copying and disseminating of another artist’s creation, but does allow for sharing with friends. Unfortunately, common sense seldom prevails in the Washington of today, if it ever did in history.
SOPA and PIPA seem to be good examples of a lack of common sense. The TED speaker from class mentioned that the law itself really won’t work in its intent. There is no explicit language to tell the reader of the bill which sites it intends to cover or prosecute against (Tanner 6). Again, common sense would dictate, especially in the context of a new monster environment such as the internet, that the bill would do so. This bill is not the first time regulators have tried to get the internet under control. One could argue that the fact they haven’t succeeded this far is one bright spot in the lives of millions of otherwise semi-miserable American citizens.
Tanner, JC 2011, 'SOPA: stop me if you've heard this before', Telecom Asia, 22, 10, p. 6, Computer Source, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 February 2013.
Jamar, SD 2012, 'COPYRIGHT ASPECTS OF USER-GENERATED CONTENT IN THE INTERNET SOCIAL NETWORKING CONTEXT', Journal Of Internet Law, 16, 5, pp. 3-13, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 February 2013.
The internet is a place where nothing is off limits, you can find anything on the internet and if something is blocked or off limits, there’s a great chance you can find your way around it. Although some deem this “criminal activity”, it has always been there for us to fall back to. Why pay for a song or to watch a movie when you can find it somewhere online for free? How will people stay in touch with their social media?
ReplyDeleteAs an avid internet user, I find that if the two bills, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) officially go into effect, my time searching and using the World Wide Web will greatly decrease. These bills intend to shut down any site that is in danger of violating copyright infringements. Websites that many individuals, myself included, use daily will be forced to shut down for good; some of these sites include Facebook, Twitter, Google and Yahoo (Sheets 1). These are major sites that are visited over a million times a day by billions of people all around the world. Shutting down these sites will have a huge effect on the internet as a whole and by doing this I believe many people will refrain from the internet all together and many companies will lose huge amounts of money. Many people are against these laws because they are finally being mentioned now, it is unfair how all these things can be available on the internet one day and then all be gone the next day. Personally I think more people would have been in favor of these laws if they were brought about sooner. Today everything we do relies on technology, we live in a society were technology has taken over to the point that many wouldn’t know how to live and process without it. Putting these laws into effect will drastically change the way people live. Social networking and media has become second nature. If these laws were mentioned sooner when technology wasn’t so prevalent in our culture these problems would not be exist.
Although it sounds hypothetical I do feel bad for the artists that create these works. As a performer I know and understand all the hard work that is put into crafting a piece of art such as a film or song. These artists work day and night to make films or songs for their audiences to enjoy and when they are downloaded illegally the artist is not being fully compensated for the tremendous amount of effort they put in. Since file sharing sites like Napster and Lime wire were created in the late 90’s, music sales and industry member jobs have decreased by more than half (Sherman 1). Criminal acts like downloading illegally has really changed the entertainment industry. Artists have to realize that they aren’t going to be making as big of a profit and they also have to hope that their work isn’t released onto the internet early.
Works Cited
Sheets, Connor A. "SOPA and PIPA Bills: Differences Between the Two Internet Privacy Acts." International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.
Sherman, Cary H. "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; What Wikipedia Won't Tell You." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.
In the case of high techology products such as mobile phone and computers which can access to the website from everywhere in the world, people cannot live without internet. The internet provides a wealth of free information and data, makes people's lives more fun and convenience. Usually, people can search information, communicate with other people( by using SNS such as skype, Facebook), download free songs and movies on the internet. As of january 2011, Facebook has more than 600 million active users. Many young people open the computer and cell phone if they have wifi. The first thing they will do is to check Facebook. They can share videos and photos on Facebook and check what other friend are doing.
ReplyDeleteIf the SOPA and PIPA can be passed, hollywood and record companies will be protected. They can earn money in a good condition. For them, internet companies are something like thieves. Hollywood and record company can't turn a blind eye to illegal acts. However, internet companies' income can not be guaranteed, and depression of the internet industry will bring a lot of inconvenience to people. Because of the influence of the protection by the law, the free internet data will no longer be shared among Internet users, internet trial rate will decrease greatly, and many websites will be regarded as illegal. Also, Facebook will be useless if photos, videos and songs be protected by laws. People cannot share information on Facebook anymore.our lives will be really boring and we cannot know many information so quickly. Therefore, I do not support this law as an internet user. But I think now is the time to think about infringement of copyrights by the Internet industry. These days, the Internet spread among the people's lives. The Internet was not so popular among people just 20 years ago. This popularization of the Internet was accompanied by problems about copyrights. Copyrights are new problems which should be solved now. The difficult point is that copyrights are abstract. It is difficult to decide which action is illegal and not illegal. But I think there is a way that hollywood and record companies can harmony with Internet. For example, they need Internet for advertise their products and the Internet needs their products. They are supporting with each other. They can build a good relation and I can enjoy using Internet.
work cited
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/d41eec727fd5360cba1adbc6.html
The internet is considered the most open form of media available to us today. After its creations websites and applications such as instant messaging, creation of websites, and social networks (Facebook, MySpace, etc.) became prevalent on the internet and molded the way our lives are now. This allowed for anyone who had connection to the internet the capabilities that only the wealthy and large businesses had before the internet was available to the public by the creation money making opportunities and easy access that the internet allowed. However, with these aspects some industries such as Hollywood and the Music industry began to fall to pieces due to regulation of copyrighted material which was and still is handled poorly. One example of this was the effects Napster left on the music industry, “music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.” (NY Times Article) But there were other websites similar to Napster where free music can be downloaded. Due to this the government and large businesses proposed the bills SOPA and PIPA to try stop production of pirated and copyrighted materials available on the internet.
ReplyDeleteIn cases such as Napster and LimeWire, another file-sharing website where you can download free music, there should be regulations and penalties to the owner of the website for the allowance of copyrighted materials uploaded and downloaded from the website, with those intentions as well, unless the music artist releases the music without intentions of making money from the revenue, and uses it purely for exposure intentions and acquisition of popularity. However, this also brings up the on-going fight between YouTube.com and YouTube-mp3.org. Since YouTube is a free website where videos can be uploaded by anyone for pleasure of watching videos in general, but when the music business entered YouTube this website YouTubemp3 was created. This allowed for these free videos uploaded to the website to be downloaded to a personal computer so they can listen to the music without the use of the internet. Should this be censored as well because they are infringing copyrighted material, even though it was made available free to the public? “We all share the goal of a safe and legal Internet. We need reason, not rhetoric, in discussing how to achieve it.” (NY Times) But this cannot be achieved through SOPA and PIPA, I believe that SOPA and PIPA can help the internet fight these websites where it goes too far but can overall hurt the internet since it degrades net neutrality, which allows only large companies, who would be willing to pay the money, have websites and run the internet, much like Television today. We need regulatory bills that help both large business like the music industry so they do not fall and small business that establish understandable copyrights rules that can help both sectors flourish.
Again it will not let me post this in one post, so I will be posting it in two parts!
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the government censoring the internet can be a scary thought. However, trying to stop, or make it harder for sites to contain and distribute copyrighted materials, is not necessarily a bad thing. It will be finding a middle ground, where illegal use of copyrighted material is stopped without the use of censorship, that will be a difficult step. SOPA and PIPA could not do seem to do this, which is what seemed to cause a lot of controversy over the passing of these bills. As Larry Magid, a tech journalist and internet safety advocate pointed out, “even most of SOPA and PIPA’s strongest opponents applaud the intentions of the legislation while deploring what it might actually accomplish” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the-fuss/#). I feel like I have fallen somewhere in the middle, also applauding the intentions, as I feel copyright is a serious matter. At the same time, I feel like these bills were walking on a fine line between protecting copyrighted material and censorship of the websites on the internet. I can understand wanting to stop something that is illegal, but identifying what copyrighted material is being used in an illegal way can be a difficult process. As we have talked about in class, would it be considered illegal if someone posted a video, a song, or a picture (that was not their own) on their Facebook page, but did not state where it came from? In his speech Aaron Swartz points out “Is sharing a video on BitTorrent like shoplifting from a movie store? Or is it like loaning a videotape to a friend? Is reloading a webpage over and over again like a peaceful virtual sit-in or a violent smashing of ship windows? Is the freedom to connect like freedom of speech or like the freedom to murder?” (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986). The government is going to have to figure out how to define the illegal use of copyrighted material on the internet without crossing the boundary to our freedom of speech. The difficult part there is finding out what the boundaries are between simply posting a video on your social network account, and between illegally using someone else’s copyrighted video and saying it is your own.
Here is the second part!!
ReplyDeleteIn trying to look at both sides of the argument, I feel that Cary H. Sherman, a chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, makes a good point in an article in the New York Times. He says “Since when is it censorship to shut down an operation that an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined to be illegal? When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=0). If there are sites that without a doubt, you are one hundred percent able to say they are illegally using some copy righted material, and there is no grey area in the middle, it should not be seen as censorship to stop this illegal action. A website selling music that they are saying is their own when it is not, should be illegal. On the other hand, I feel, a website selling music where they tell who the artist is, the composer, the song writer, etc., I do not feel this should be seen as illegal. You know where the information originally came from, and no one is trying to use it as their own. This is where people start to walk that fine line, and where personal opinion comes in. Censorship and copyrighted material on the internet are tough, controversial subjects to pass bills on. As Larry Magid points out “There is also worry that SOPA and PIPA could be abused and lead to censorship for purposes other than intellectual property protection.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the-fuss/#). When worries like this come into the picture, it can make it even more difficult to come to an agreement on bills such as these. I feel that in order for a bill similar to these to be passed in the future, it would have to include anything and everything possible to make both sides happy, which may not even be possible. There would have to be no possibility of censorship (if that is possible?) and no possibility that the government could use the bill against our first amendment right to freedom of speech in the future. At the same time it would have to define what is the illegal use of copyrighted material?, and there would have to be a process to determine if a website, or portion of a website, should be shut down due to the use of this material.
One of the greatest things about the internet in the United States is being able to log on to your computer, open a browser and search whatever you please. Not only are we able to search for anything, we almost always come up with the results we are looking for. While the idea of SOPA and PIPA makes sense (to stop online piracy) it is the effect that it has on the internet as a whole which does not. My main issue here is that these bills are confusing and not a lot of people are sure what is considered a “copyright violation”. It is very hard to follow a law if the law is unclear about their definition of violating copyrighted material. Another issue with this bill is that it takes away communication between individuals and stifles our rights as Americans. Aaron Swartz described it as being unlike anything else because the usual response is to ask the violator to remove the content, but instead the government is shutting down entire websites taking away communication. To be honest, I really did not have any opinion on SOPA and PIPA before watching Aaron Swartz’s speech. What really caught my attention was when he talked about Orrin Hatch’s webpage that had copyrighted material on it and Aaron said “So if even Orrin Hatch’s Senate website was found to be violating copyright law, what’s the chance that they wouldn’t find something they could pin on any of us?” The websites I use on a daily basis would be at risk of shut downs for infringement which means that the internet for me, would become useless. I would not be using it every day for pleasure but strictly for formal research purposes. “SOPA would enable the U.S. Attorney General to seek a court order to require ‘a service provider (to) take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site’” (Magid, Forbes). The problem with this is that it is censorship, plain and simple and even the Obama Administration believes this would violate the rights of Americans. Again, the issue with these bills is not what they hope to accomplish, but how they are trying to accomplish it. There is no easy answer to prevent piracy and when it comes to our rights, the government should not be so quick to sacrifice them.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the-fuss/
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
Most traditional communications media including telephone, music, film, and television are being reshaped or redefined by the Internet. The need to set regulations and restrictions on the Internet stops and limits people from adapting and consuming different information that enhances their ability to better understand the world around them. I am all for net neutrality because it provides people with the freedom to express themselves. More importantly it gives them the power to shape their own lives instead of others controlling it for them. “Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of online content and apps. It guarantees a level playing field for all websites and Internet technologies” (Save the Internet). Not only does it provide people with the freedom they deserve but it also allows an equal playing field for different industries and companies to distribute a product, expand on it, and introduce it to society. If there are regulations and restrictions then it would give the top websites and big names to dominate the market place and there wouldn’t really be a wide range of anything.
ReplyDeleteHaving net neutrality is ultimately an advantage to society. “The foremost advantage of net neutrality is that it is helpful in adding competitiveness to the market, with the users getting more options to choose from. The competition between service providers makes each of them come up with their best; which directly benefits the end user who doesn't just get options to choose from, but also gets quality service. Incidentally, a section of those in support of such regulation also believe that government control of the Internet may help eliminate monopoly, and ensure that the big websites do not dominate the market” (Buzzle). Its this continuation towards keeping things competitive and keeping the economy going along with just expanding in general. Society is constantly and rapidly changing and without net neutrality the process wouldn’t be as natural and on going as it is now. Companies wouldn’t have the need to strive for a better product or idea based on the dominance they would obtain from the restriction and regulations that would be put into affect.
The government has been trying to limit the Internet and set different laws that financially affect people in general based on the different services they chose to pursue. “Since the court decision, the F.C.C. has been trying to find a way to regulate broadband delivery. On Dec. 1, 2010, Mr. Genachowski outlined a framework that forbids both wired and wireless Internet service providers from blocking lawful content, but would allow broadband providers to charge consumers different rates for different levels of service” (NY times). Having net neutrality promotes innovation and prevents unfair pricing practices. Without it many broadband companies and services will raise their prices because options will become severely limited. Net Neutrality keeps the competition at its best, raises awareness, and overall keeps society going.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons.html
As the internet continues to expand, the question of what websites should be open to public access are beginning to grow too. As a full time college student I constantly access the internet and research, whether it is for an assignment or for my own personal enjoyment. Movies, music, and other forms of entertainment have become so accessible to individuals across the globe. Websites that stream videos and music have caused big businesses like Hollywood to loose money. These large businesses want to enforce these two laws, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act), so they can begin to charge websites for fast usage. However, how does the United States have the power to determine which websites should be charged and which ones should not? They don’t. “Media companies are always looking for new ways to fight piracy. They’ve tried suing individual users, getting Internet service providers to take action against subscribers, and working with the U.S government to shut down domains...” (Newman, PCWorld). These wealthy corporations are just trying to add to their high income with these acts. Thanks to Internet Activist, Aaron Swartz, he was the one who spread the word about these laws and got people to listen. He claimed that these laws are censorship and this goes against “No Duty to Monitor.” His argument encouraged many to stand up and fight these laws. Prior to passing these laws a “flood of e-mails and phone calls to Congress stopped the legislation in its tracks” (NY Times). Google and Wikipedia had a protest where they shut down there website for one night to show individuals how these laws would effect people if they were passed. This was highly beneficial because it opened the eyes of the public and showed them how the Internet would never be the same. I will admit that it is unfortunate for the music and movie industry to decline due to streaming, however, I will also admit that I am one of the many that watch movies from my computer constantly. The government simply can not have control over the internet. The internet needs to be untouched and let it continue to grow and expand into a source of information and knowledge for all to access.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=0
http://www.pcworld.com/article/248298/sopa_and_pipa_just_the_facts.html
Internet itself is a huge world coming out from a small monitor. The reason why it’s a huge network, because of sharing. Without people it will be no network available to share. However, most of things in the internet are copyrights. How can we share things if we can’t use them in other words? Its simple copy them. Most things we do in our lives has related to the internet. Most of people can’t imagine their lives without it. However, giving high prices in the products such as movies, music and games will make people copy those things. Instead of buying it from the copyright, because the price is higher than usual prices to buy. “Nowadays, with more and faster internet with powerful and faster computers, the playing of illegally copied music and movies is successful, as are sales of imitative goods from motorcar parts to pharmaceuticals” (Copyrights, 2012).
ReplyDeleteNow, people are asking for a freedom to connect. That means the owner of websites should pay for that; to make the pages upload faster and that will never happen. People should have the same speed in the internet. Obviously, the big companies such as (Time Warner Cable) who can control the upload speed they won’t change the speed of the internet even though, which will not cost anything to a big company. However, the government wants to protect the music, books and Hollywood movies from the internet’s thieves. “But others may simply believe that music, books and movies you get from the internet should be free” (Sherman). They called them thieves, but in fact they’re normal people and they steal without knowing or they knew and they didn’t want to pay a bunch of dollars just for a movie or a song.
I have to admit that the government of the US are strong enough however; people are stronger in the internet. Furthermore, they have groups of hackers in everywhere on the world. I think people will never give up and let the government to control the internet, they’re going to fight. However, as users we won’t let this happened. We need to use the internet freely without a pressure from the government or a scared sight from the hackers. We need a peaceful and freely connect.
Works Cited:
Copyrights and Internet Piracy (SOPA and PIPA Legislation). The New York Times. Web.
8 February 2012.
SHERMAN, CARY H. What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You. The New York Times. Web 7 February
2012.
In today’s society, the Internet has a substantial impact on our everyday lives. The unlimited access we have of the Internet has become such a convenience and luxury to us and many of us wouldn’t be able to function without going on the Internet at least once during the day. Unfortunately, the recent proposed Congressional bills, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are threatening to limit our access of the Internet. The purpose of these bills is to make it harder for sites to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches(Magid). Main supporters of SOPA and PIPA are Hollywood and media/entertainment companies, such as the CBS corporation. These acts have taken a pity on the industries, against technology, in an attempt to protect their intellectual property. However, opposers of SOPA and PIPA are concerned enablers of the act will end up abusing their power, ultimately leading to censorship for purposes other than intellectual property protection. Although the intentions of these bill are good in that they are trying to limit criminal activity and violation of copyright infringement laws, the actual bills are enforcing a level of censorship. Internet advocates have said the acts are expected to stifle expression on the World Wide Web (Condon). The acts are viewed by many Internet advocates as unnecessary because laws that protect copyrighted material already exist. For example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) focuses on removing specific, unauthorized material from a specific website, while SOPA and PIPA instead focus on targeting the website that has the unauthorized material on it. Also, Google is a prime example of SOPA/PIPA targeting. Google, along with other major search engines, have argued against the acts saying “that a ‘free and open internet’ means that they do not have to pay for Internet content (free of cost) and they do not have to ask anyone for permission to use any Internet content (open to whatever someone wants to do with it.)” (Cleland). I completely agree with the above reasons opposing SOPA and PIPA. I feel targeting the entire website is an unfair solution to the situation overall. In addition, I think SOPA and PIPA was formulated more as a very general, easy fix to copyright violations and piracy activity. Finally, I think SOPA and PIPA are taking extreme and unnecessary measures in an attempt to enforce laws that are already being enforced.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the-fuss/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57360665-503544/sopa-pipa-what-you-need-to-know/
The point of the internet is that it is free and open to explore. What makes going online so remarkable is that a person is able to learn a hundred different facts, opinions, and perspectives about a subject without fear of censorship or information being modified. SOPA and PIPA threaten to take away this ability and make the internet an entity manipulated by the government. Not only would these acts constrain free speech but they would also cost millions of jobs and inhibit innovation.
ReplyDeleteSince these bills were not clearly written it will be difficult to determine what should be considered copyrighted. Those in charge of implementing the bills could easily abuse their power to shut down any website or remove any information that could seem a violation of the acts. In the name of copyright infringement, SOPA and PIPA will potentially shut down the most used websites on the internet including Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Google, and more. Shutting these sites down will have a huge effect on the internet and those who visit the sites billions of times a day to communicate with one another, obtain information, and express themselves creatively. It is unreasonable to expect people to abruptly stop using websites they have used for years and have come to rely upon. Facebook, for example, is used to talk to friends, organize groups of people, advertise and promote businesses, store photographs and videos, and share everyday life events. This site is depended on for these things, and if it were to suddenly disappear there would be no adequate substitute to enable people to accomplish these tasks. The years it took to develop these sites and advance social interaction will be wasted.
The other side of this issue is that a person’s intellectual property should be protected from those wishing to steal it. When it comes to this part of the question I find one of Aaron Schwartz’s ideas to be interesting. He says that when a person is playing loud house music, the government does not reprimand them by saying they are done with loud music and can never play it again. They tell them to turn it down and if the music becomes an issue again then they address it in the same way. I believe that this method is the way internet copyright infringements should be handled. When a website posts material that violates a copyright they should be told to take that individual piece of material down instead of having their entire website eliminated. While this may be a less thorough approach, it does not threaten first amendment rights. It does not threaten to destroy the internet.
Works Cited
Aaron Schwartz on Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2012/01/20/why-should-you-fear-sopa-and-pipa/
The major pros of the internet is that it is free to everyone and provides nearly limitless information. You can find out personal information on someone, a potential job, research on any topic of your choice, and much more. People of all ages can access the internet from young children to senior citizens and the internet has evolved into this information giant that is a necessity for everyone. Society has evolved into a place that relies on information and specifically information found over the internet. People rely on internet to give them information about the news, connect with family and friends, and complete homework assignments such as this very one we are completing for this media class. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were introduced to congress in 2011 and proposed the government should be given the power to terminate “criminal activity” over the internet. They would do this by making it harder for websites to distribute copyrighted materials such as movies and music. PIPA and SOPA would end Net Neutrality which is the internet is free and accessible to everyone. Internet companies such as Verizon and other major corporations would be in favor of these acts because they would be seeing a major increase in profits.The two bills were the cause of much controversy and both sides of the argument hold valid facts.
ReplyDeleteI personally am very opposed to SOPA and PIPA. Being a college student I have to rely on information I get over the internet to get me through school. Not to mention a college student has enough expenses as it is. Also, these bills are a clear violation of the First Amendment, “Freedom of Speech”. These bills have the potential to bankrupt search engine sites such as Google and Yahoo and social media sites such as Facebook and Tumblr. These websites are a major way people express themselves and has become a very influential part of our culture today and take that away who knows what would happen. Coming from a point of view of a media company such as Comcast, these bills would be a good idea but in conclusion, I do not think these bills are safe and constitutional to the people of the United States.
http://www.emedialaw.com/sopa-the-debate-in-plain-english/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/248298/sopa_and_pipa_just_the_facts.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
Thinking back to elementary school, I remember my mother being angered that my teachers assigned us homework where internet access was required; this is not because she was opposed to the internet, but because she did not think it was fair for those children who did not yet have an internet subscription at their homes. Now, we need the internet for most everything! In order to do this assignment, the internet is crucial. Aside from all of this, reliance on the internet is continually growing. Encyclopedias and dictionaries have gone virtual and print copies have gone close to extinct. Now, the information stored in these media sources, are located in database libraries where the information, previously copyrighted in print form, is also copyrighted online. “A copyright legally protects the right of authors and producers to their published or unpublished writing, music, lyrics, TV programs, movies, or graphic art designs” (Campbell, 485). With the ever expanding internet, many forms of media, including books, movies, music, magazines, and newspapers, can be found online. As previously mentioned, media in print and digital form, as in CD’s and DVD’s, have regulations, as in Federal Laws, banning the copying of material. However, many websites are using these copyrighted materials without permission from the companies in which they are copyrighted. This has caused much controversy for many industries that fear, as well as realize, that their material is being used unlawfully, examples being downloading copyrighted songs and movies from “illegitimate” websites and taking a logo from a brand, using it without the permission of the corporation or individual, whom originated it.
ReplyDeleteThe Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were created by the federal government to punish copyright infringers. If websites were found to have used copyrighted material without legal permission, the websites would be shut down. Under these laws, a search engine, such as Google, would perpetually violate copyright law, as the information that can be accessed by Google is gathered by various websites. The concept of “Net Neutrality,” poses, “… that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally” (Net Neutrality). The Federal Commerce Commission, and many search engines and websites, agree with the idea of net neutrality, as they hold the belief that the internet should be an open and neutral network.
I feel that the internet should be neutral. While I do believe it is wrong to illegally download movies and songs on the internet, as the artists and producers paid to create these forms of art and entertainment, so should we. However, I do not believe it is wrong to use information from other websites and forms of media, as long as the original source of the information is cited somewhere on the website that uses it. As it has proved difficult to enforce SOPA and PIPA, as the definitions used in the laws are complicated, I do not see punishment being thrust on us college students, who frequently illegally download media, anytime soon.
Campbell, Richard, et al. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2012. Print.
“Net Neutrality.” NYTimes. The New York Times Company, 22 Dec. 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
People assume if you’re not the specific big company’s you would be against PIPA and SOPA. The way I look at it if you are a small company you will be put out of business. If SOPA and PIPA got passed the internet would be drastically changed, and smaller companies would have been faded out. On The other side of the fence Companies like Motion Picture Association of America are very much for the bills. Companies that are in the music or motion picture industry want these bills to be passed. Some as why they want them passed because they believe it will help protect their property from being stolen. Some might think that downloading a few movies and songs is no big deal. According to New York Times online article The Perpetual War: Pirates and Creators “a huge chunk of movie revenues fell every year from 2004 to 2010. While box-office revenues have benefited from rising ticket prices, movie attendance has been steadily declining. The Oscar-winning “Hurt Locker,” for instance, had a worldwide box office of only $49 million but was downloaded illegally seven million times”. From this statistic alone some might think it’s a bigger deal than one would think.
ReplyDeleteNow let’s look at the other side of this debate because both sides have their strong points. One big argument is this is against net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is explained by New York Times online article Net Neutrality as “The concept of “net neutrality" holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally”. This is very important because if these bills were passed they could kill net neutrality. This would also cost companies like Google a lot of money. There is not really a great amount of choice, when looking for an internet provider. As said by New York Times online article keeping the Internet Neutral “Today, 96 percent of Americans have a choice of at most two broadband providers — a cable company and a phone provider. For consumers who desire very high speeds, cable is often the only choice”. If net neutrality did not exist then these internet providers would be forced to pay so people can use their services. In the end I believe we would see price jumps, because they know we really don’t have a choice so if we want internet we have to pay the higher price. This is why I am for net neutrality but I can see where both sides stand on PIPA and SOPA and net Neutrality.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?8qa
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/perpetual-war-digital-pirates-and-creators.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/business/economy/net-neutrality-and-economic-equality-are-intertwined.html
The Internet is that one place where people go to express themselves. Millions of users each day use the Internet. Unless you literally live under a rock, there is no way to avoid it. Everyone gets access to the Internet on an equal basis. “The concept of net neutrality holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally” (New York Times) .You could say that nothing is off limits. It makes for healthy competition. As an avid Internet user I am constantly on Facebook, Google, and movie sharing websites. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) want to start charging for which Internet sites we can and cannot use. They want to limit our access to the Internet. SOPA is a bill to expand law enforcement to fight online trafficking of copyrighted goods. PIPA wants to “curb access to rouge sites.” The main supporters of this are manly big entertainment companies. They want to stop piracy. One argument is that this threatens free speech and innovation. Both sides say they agree that protecting content is a worthy goal, but opponents say that the way SOPA is written promotes censorship and will have consequences (CNN Money) Personally I am against these acts. If I had to start paying for Facebook or Google, I wouldn’t use these sites, and neither would millions of people. The Internet is a more powerful information source then some people may realize, but these large companies know! These companies that want to limit us, they are taking away our natural rights.
ReplyDeleteworks cited
http://mashable.com/category/stop-online-piracy-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm
It’s amazing how about 20 years ago the internet wasn’t popular now a day people can’t go a day without using some type of social networking, of reading of newspapers via internet during the day. The fact that the government is trying to censor the internet and prevent us from going on certain websites is immoral and injustice. For years people have been able to access things on the internet and now with this SOPA and PIPA legislation Hollywood would make more money off of us and be protected. Even though they did not pass the legislation I agree with Aaron Swartz when he says "[SOPA] will have yet another name, and maybe a different excuse, and probably do its damage in a different way. But make no mistake: The enemies of the freedom to connect have not disappeared,” although they might have failed now they are still going to try to make the internet their cash cow.” The Protect Intellectual Property Act (or PIPA) was carefully devised, with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate, and its House counterpart, the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), was based on existing statutes and Supreme Court precedents. But at the 11th hour, a flood of e-mails and phone calls to Congress stopped the legislation in its tracks.” (What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You). I feel that this quote I got from the New York Times shows how when Aaron said they are going to come together and stop it they really can. If this legislation comes back in a different way I believe that people will come together just like they did before and keep fighting it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html7o7
In today’s day and age, people use the internet as a source to download music they like and watch movies and shows that they are dying to see. Although, as awesome as these things are, they are still under copyright laws. There are bills and laws that are trying to shut down all sites that violate these copyright laws. Two of these proposed bills are SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act). These bills are trying to shut down websites that are illegally distributing licensed material that are not allowed to be distributed. I personally believe that both these bills should never have been made. These bills were looking to censor many things on the internet that people enjoy doing and viewing, and that would not be fair to the public. Even top websites like Google and Wikipedia do not want these bills in tact. They blacked out their websites for a day to protest them. “These companies object to language in the bills, which are aimed at stopping online piracy on foreign Web sites, that grant the U.S. government the right to block entire Web sites with copyright-infringing content on them from the Internet.” (Washington Post)
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-17/business/35439442_1_web-sites-dick-costolo-sopa
Cyberspace better known and referred to as the Internet, was first offered to the public in 1989. It has rapidly progressed since and has simply become the way of the world. Countless individuals and businesses rely upon the Internet and its almost seemingly infinite capabilities. Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyright material. The Internet is a haven for piracy and makes it almost too simple to obtain anything you desire, whether it be music, movies, or literature. Media companies persistently try to stop piracy and are always trying new ways to do so. Completely eliminating the spread of copyrighted material on the Internet is simply impossible. With the immense amount of copyrighted material being obtainable simply with the click of a mouse, industries have seen significant declines. The music and film industries have suffered the greatest due to the illegal distribution of their productions. Many say the decline of the music industry began with the creation of Napster, a peer-to-peer file sharing service in 1999. Similar file sharing services were available at the time, but none as prevalent as Napster. Napster at its peak had over 25 million users with access to over 80 million songs. Although Napster was shutdown in 2001, it paved the way for hundreds of other file sharing sites in the present day, making it easier then ever before to obtain music on the web. Sales numbers were compiled over the years and were reported as being “less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.” (NY Times)
ReplyDeleteContinued....
The losses the music and film industries are suffering are so substantial that there are similar bills being pushed from both the U.S. House of Representatives (PIPA) and the U.S. Senate (SOPA). Both PIPA and SOPA are aimed at foreign website domains that infringe copyrighted material. The problem with the bills is that the definition of a “copyright violation” seems relatively unclear. Many individuals feel that the bills are violating the 1st amendment and if were put into place, would be a government intrusion on the Internet infringing upon our freedom to connect. Aaron Swartz an infamous Internet activist shared his thoughts on the idea of our “freedom to connect” and the disparities with the government’s definition of a “copyright violation”. “Is sharing a video on BitTorrent like shoplifting from a movie store? Or is it like loaning videotape to a friend? Is reloading a webpage over and over again like a peaceful virtual sit-in or a violent smashing of ship windows? Is the freedom to connect like freedom of speech or like the freedom to murder?” On the flip side of the situation, Cary Sherman, a chief executive of The Recording Industry Association of America responded to accusations of censorship with a sensible explanation and example in saying “Since when is it censorship to shut down an operation that an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined to be illegal? When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is?” I agree with Mr. Sherman and would not consider the closure of various Internet domains to be censorship if the proper measures were taken to ensure clear infringement and illegal activity. Although I agree with Mr. Sherman I am not in favor of the government issued bills. “SOPA would enable the U.S. Attorney General to seek a court order to require ‘a service provider (to) take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site’” (Forbes). It is argued that SOPA and PIPA are not censorship but it is clear that this is not the truth. These bills in their current state most certainly have no chance of being passed and even with the discrepancies being cleared and major provisions being made, it is still highly unlikely.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pcworld.com/article/248298/sopa_and_pipa_just_the_facts.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_198
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the-fuss
/
There are many rules when it comes to copyrighting. People violate these laws everyday on the internet. It is no surprise that illegal actions are taking place on the internet every day. Over the past couple of years, online file sharing has boomed. Policy makers want to protect Americans and know where the problems have started. “They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.” (The New York Times). The Stop Online Piracy Act is a bill created to fight online trafficking. The full title of this Act is "to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." (Wikipedia) The Protect IP Act is an act created to give “the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods"(Wikipedia) Putting a stop to online file sharing is a very strong argument for PIPA and SOPA. I can understand why they want to do this so strongly. Artists are losing a large amount of money because of online streaming and file sharing. Although, you can’t feel too bad for the millionaire artists who are complaining that they could be making more. I can understand putting a stop to online streaming and file sharing, although I wouldn’t like it. But that does not mean that I agree with the entire concept. Putting a shield on different internet sites can cause many internet companies to go out of business. The people who have their companies on the internet should not be punished because they do not have the money to afford to keep their site running. They are not doing anything wrong so why should they be punished? There seems to be a lot of corruption when it comes to this topic. These days most people do their research online, however, because this conflict has to do with the internet, it is very hard to find information online.
ReplyDeleteBeing a student in college, having the internet as a resource for information finding is a great tool. It is not always easy to read through multiple books to find research for a paper, project, etc. The internet has grown tremendously over the years and is truly amazing. I believe that it is important to clean up the internet, get rid of the hackers, work on less file sharing and streaming to allow people who deserve the money to receive it. But going as far as PIPA and SOPA want to is not needed.
Works Cited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA
SOPA and PIPA are two bills that failed to pass through Congress about a year ago. For that I am thankful and I’m sure many would agree with me. The two bills deal with the issue of copyright, but they interfere with certain rights citizens feel they have. Big entertainment companies are the main force behind the argument for the two acts and they are trying to put an end to copyright criminality. The main issue I have with it is that they are attacking a much bigger aspect of the media. They are, as Aaron Schwartz would state, taking away the “Freedom to connect.” They cannot take away the rights and control what companies get to better access to the web as opposed to others. I don’t think they really have a reason for that. That is simply unfair and it takes away the equality of opportunities. The 1st amendment states that a citizen has the freedom of speech (expression), and that would be a negligent act by big companies to take that away. Websites like Google and YouTube were once indy sites, but they managed to work there way to the top. Why take away a privilege? The privilege to start up your own company on your own website is wonderful. If SOPA and PIPA were to take effect, it would be a direct violation of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that offers the same network speed and access whether you are a multinational corporation or a guy starting up his business from home. The internet plays such a big role in the media and in societies around the world. In order for the two bills to take effect, it would completely alter how we as citizens can view and manage internet operations. I am not arguing that copyright is okay and shouldn’t be overlooked, but there are different ways to deal with it. SOPA and PIPA are too general. It also doesn’t help that the copyright laws are too general and open to interpretation. Google believes that something needs to be done in order to clean up the copyright issue, but they also believe there are different directions to be taken. A google spokeswoman said, “We believe the best way to shut down pirate Web sites is to cut off their funding and that can be done without asking U.S. companies to censor the Web.” I believe that eventually, pirating will become less and less popular and the big entertainment companies will find a way. For now, SOPA and PIPA were certainly not the answers.
ReplyDeleteTextbook
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/in-antipiracy-debate-media-worlds-and-generations-clash.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Aaron Schwartz video
I’ve never been into politics too much, but I remember when I first heard about SOPA and PIPA from friends, I couldn’t believe they were actually going to pass. I’m a big supporter of net neutrality, and I feel that in the world today free and equal access to the internet is a vital part of our everyday life. We simply need internet access for any number of reasons today; news, work, communication, homework, shopping, almost anything. SOPA and PIPA were very frightening to me when I first learned of them, because from my understanding at the time, they would effectively destroy the internet. I simply can’t imagine the internet now without Google, Wikipedia, Youtube, Facebook, or any of the infinite services it provides us all simply because of copyright laws. After seeing the videos in class on Ted Talks and Aaron Schwartz (http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html and http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986 respectively), I see the issue much clearer. While it wouldn’t have destroyed the internet, it definitely would have crippled it, and changed it forever. Honestly, in my opinion, setting up a so called “fast lane” of internet access for people who pay is even worse than restricting it from everyone. I would rather we all don’t have access than only some of us having it because the big companies let us. I can’t hold it against the bills that their goals were wrong; internet piracy is a crime that is rampant and hard to fight. However SOPA and PIPA were far too extreme, and far too close to being passed with all of their immense flaws. Limiting and censoring access to anywhere they felt on the internet all for the sake of making people pay for copyright material was simply way too extreme.
ReplyDeleteI have learned that in college, it is almost impossible to live without internet. Whenever my phone loses wifi, I personally lose it. Internet is the number one source where one can find anything, even if lets say there is a block somewhere, you can totally find a way around that. By block, I mean the dreadful page "cannot connect to the internet."
ReplyDeleteLearning from Aaron Schwartz, it is fully understandable as to why PIPA and SOPA are in full effect. In the video, we learn that Aaron actually stole from JSTORR, stole almost all of it creating a copyright issue between him, and the law where he was sued for millions. With this said, apparently on Jan. 18th, Wikipedia initiated a blackout in protest of the anti-piracy bills mentioned; (PIPA, SOPA)(fox5). Although this took place, websites, very popular websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr have denounced the bills (Fox 5). It is important to see that the websites that are not in effect with these two bills, are the websites that are most looked at every single day.
It all comes together as to why it is super important not to plagiarize in high school, middle school, and even college. PIPA and SOPA are extremely important in school classes, and are made a huge point to students because plagiarizing happens every single day, all the time. Initially, PIPA and SOPA are there to enhance the importance of giving credit to the right people.
Another important subject which these two bills cover, is the illegal downloading of music. If these laws are not mentioned, the world would be a mess, and the people who DESERVE the credit for what they have done, would not be any more important than someone else in the world. I am a performer, and I know how hard it is to get your music out there without thinking someone will take my idea. Although I am not someone who is famous, and doing it for a living, imagine being an artist where everyday you must put an impression on an audience? You MUST make that song you wrote, the top hit on the "z-100 playlist." I fully believe that it is important that these two bills are passed because it will save a lot of people the trouble of having havoc in their lives either with people, or even worse the government.
Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_198
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/01/17/wikipedia-blackout-january-18-5-things-to-know-about-sopa-pipa-protest/
Without internet neutrality, the way society functions in the internet age would be a drastic change from what we experience today. I believe that the concern over copyright is a reasonable concern, but the way that it is being handled with flawed policies like SOPA and PIPA does more harm than good. In looking for a way to control online piracy, SOPA and PIPA attack any parties or sites that held any form of copyrighted material, which would make finding anything on the internet impossible. In theory this policy was a great concept, but the gaping loopholes in it would essentially make the internet useless. In the age of information, I don’t think society would be prepared to adapt to such a change, when everything posted is at risk of being controlled and deleted for the sake of copyright.
ReplyDeleteCongress has shown that they are not concerned with the effects of the acts and others like it being pushed through Senate and the House. The infamous CISPA bill has been reintroduced, without changes being made to it after thousands of complaints forced it off the table last year(http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/02/15/meet-new-cispa-same-old-cispa). I think that net neutrality is beneficial to everyone, considering that it affects everyone around the world, not just those that are in the United States. If congressmen aren’t talking to the people who know the most about how the internet works and how to make a fair policy, they’re essentially persecuting anyone who owns a computer.
While it definitely appears that “it’s the platforms that hold the real power”, giving internet providers the ability to own parts of the internet gives almost no power to the users(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html ). The internet would become a game of monopoly for competing companies like Verizon or AT&T, and users would be stuck in the middle. Internet companies have everything to lose, and even with acts in place to protect the sites that are notorious for user-sharing, like Megavideo and Limewire, the users are in danger of being thrown under the bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_(website ).
While I completely understand the necessity of having laws that police online copyright, there has to be a balance where the sites on the internet and the users aren’t being demonized or prosecuted for infractions that they aren’t completely at fault for.
Growing up, my parents hated the internet. They referred to it as the “devil” and “the end of our society”. I did not share these feelings. I considered the internet as this sacred world loaded with information. It was not until April of 2010, when I was in tenth grade, that I finally convinced my parents to get the internet. I told them it was for school, which was true, but I also wanted to explore what else the internet offers besides research. Until then, Facebook and YouTube were foreign concepts to me. Once at my friend’s house, my friend asked me to look something up on YouTube, I typed in UTube. It became a joke that my friend still brings up today. So when net neutrality was brought up in class, I was surprised. I thought the free access to the internet was our right, not a concept that required protection. I assumed that no one would ever infringe on our right to connect. My ignorance seems ridiculous now.
ReplyDeleteI am a writer. I write poems, short stories, and screenplays. I used to post some of my writing on different social networks, but I deleted everything last year to protect my work from theft. I understand the need to protect copyrights. PIPA and SOPA are two bills that aim to protect copyrighted information. However, it is no longer clear what infringes copyrights and what is just fair use (Campbell 485). Does a song remix violate copyright laws or is it protected under fair use? Does this blog post, with my linked information, violate copyright laws or am I protected under fair use? It is unclear. As a writer myself, I understand the need to protect people’s creative work, but define what infringes copyrights before writing bills like PIPA and SOPA.
Even though I want my work protected, I also understand the need to connect. My friends and I love Pinterest. Whenever I am bored, I go on to Pinterest and look at the different memes. Sometimes, I share these memes with my friends on Facebook. It appalls me to think that this innocent exchange could one day become illegal--because that is what PIPA and SOPA would be doing. PIPA and SOPA would “shut down” any website that shares copyrighted information like Facebook or Pinterest. The only issue is that PIPA and SOPA cannot accomplish that task. Those websites will still exist, but their URL names will not. Meaning instead of Google.com, we would type in 74.125.226.212 and go to Google. PIPA and SOPA harm how we connect with our friends. Because we would have to prove that what we are sharing is original and legal before we share it: guilty until proven innocent (Ted Talks). This goes against my basic concept of the internet as a world loaded with information because: to gain information, we must share information. Yes, I think it is important to protect copyrights, but to attack how we connect and exchange ideas? That would ruin the internet. That would ruin how we access information. I will never support that. Free access to information builds a striving society.
Sources:
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media and Culture. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.
http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
The two bills introduced by congress, SOPA and PIPA, have their pros and cons. Overall, I believe congress has good intentions with them. They don’t want to try and limit others’ Internet use, but put an end to the illegal abuse online. With this bill congress wishes to help Hollywood and record companies. The key word here is HELP. Congress doesn’t necessarily want to “censor” our Internet use like many people believe. I don’t agree or disagree with the SOPA and PIPA bills because, no matter how much I educate myself on the topic, I have not directly seen what could happen as a result of them. We don’t exactly have proof that SOPA and PIPA will hinder our free expression on the Internet. Maybe if there was a trial that showed us what SOPA and PIPA really did, there would be less controversy and a decision could be made. Most people worry about the copyrights involved with these bills but I don’t understand how that affects our social media sites. If nothing illegal is being done, then why should we worry? It seems more like people are jumping to conclusions instead of looking into the issue more. Wikipedia took part in a 24-hour protest against SOPA and PIPA where they shut down their website in order to show others what it’d be like without access to similar websites, like Google. When Wikipedia shares knowledge on their site they claim to have a “free license,” which is supposedly “incompatible with copyright infringement” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more). In this case, I think Wikipedia and these other websites should take their issues up with congress. They need to explain that nothing they do is illegal and show congress that. Obviously, this is easier said than done. SOPA and PIPA should be reconsidered based on their strictness. The Internet is about free expression, so these bills should be made so they don’t limit that. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act already enforces copyrighting’s illegality so why were SOPA and PIPA created? Supposedly According to Julianne Pepitone, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act cannot tackle the overseas pirates (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm). In my opinion there should be a bill that encompasses SOPA and PIPA’s good intentions, but doesn’t limit free expression on the Internet. If anything, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should be edited to do more than what it does now.
ReplyDeleteI like to think of the Internet as the “wild west” of our generation. It is like an open world of opportunity that an individual can either take advantage of or just pass through. I say this because the laws are loose on the Internet, not to say that they’re not there, it’s just easy to get around them or to hide from them all together. This leaves room for heroes and outlaws, such as Julian Assange, founders of Wikipedia, and even Aaron Swartz. It’s because of Net Neutrality that these people or websites are able to perform their services and receive the notoriety that they deserve. One can argue about copyright infringements or online piracy all they want, however, these bills (SOPA and PIPA) act as if there are no laws against the act of online piracy already. This is seen through countless people who are tied up in lawsuits from pirating countless dollars worth of software to the unlucky few who are tagged for only pirating just a few songs. More famously, Kim Dotcom (or Kim Schmitz), the founder of the massive file sharing website, Megavideo. He’s still going through trials for his convictions and had upwards towards $175 million dollars seized. (Thanks Wikipedia!)
ReplyDeleteSo where does that leave us? I’m a firm believer in Net Neutrality and where the internet stands as of now. However, I don’t consider these laws to be “censorship” or “blacklisting.” I believe that these laws possess the capabilities to censor or blacklist a website, but believe they’re sole purpose is for big business to receive the money they believe their owed, as the saying goes, “It’s just business.” We live in a capitalistic society, big business know this just as much the average consumer. The only difference is big business’ have the resources and ability to create acts such as SOPA and PIPA where the average consumer does not. What the average consumer does have is the Internet and it’s outlet of being able to start their own website or company. Startup companies such as Netflix or Spotify are booming now because they are able to take advantage of those who either don’t know how to pirate media or simply are too afraid to because of laws. It’s the essence of business, not rocket science. So when I say our generations “wild west” is the vast horizon of digital space I mean that we can use it to make our own opportunities and thanks to the Aaron Swartz’s of the world who helped protect it we have the same opportunity for hopefully year’s to come.
Works cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
After years of solely online interaction, Reddit users decided to hold a Reddit community picnic, a “Reddit Meetup,” in Central Park, where their online information sharing could transform into the real-life sharing of potato salad, volleyball games, and what they themselves deem as socially awkward conversations. I read about this in an article on New York Magazine’s website a year and a half ago; a friend sent me the link.
ReplyDeleteBut let me clarify -- this was no alternative to their websites. No, a feeling of connection and belonging was attached to these URLs. Both describe their system of users as a “community.” The liking of funny memes, the reblogging of GIFs, the posting of interesting articles: this is not merely a spare-time activity for their users. For many ‘Redditors’ and ‘Tumblrs’, online sharing is an integral part of their daily lives. Because of this, Reddit and Tumblr have a reputation for their smart, funny, and knowledgable users.
Herein lies the problem with bills like SOPA and PIPA, proposed laws that aimed to stop online left of copyrighted material, but lead to a system of premature suspicions that could eventually cause entire sites, like Tumblr or Reddit, to disappear. If online information sharing was stifled to such an extent, the general knowledge of our society would, undoubtedly, decrease.
But, despite their stigma, this is not because the bills are rooted in an anti-social, totalitarian regime ideal. This is not because these bills seek censorship. This is not because there is some great conspiracy against net neutrality.
In fact, although present, there is an unfairly exaggerated connection between SOPA and PIPA, and the concept of net neutrality.
Net neutrality, or “free internet for everyone” is primarily threatened by Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast or Time Warner Cable, “seeking to regulate how material flows to users through their increasingly taxed networks” (PBS). This means that if you wanted to access a website that could not afford to pay the toll, you’d need to bring a good book to read while you wait for it to load, while still other websites may not load for you at all.
This is terrible and all, but SOPA and PIPA, you’re not to blame. You are equated with censorship and anti-net neutrality sentiments, and because of this, your smooth ride through Congress and the House was interrupted. But let’s be real here: you and I both know you weren’t ready to pass. Congress and the House simply did not understand how to go about stopping Internet copyright infringement issues, because many of them really do not understand how the internet works. The problem is not in the intention, but in the execution. Bills that could potentially shut down entire websites if a single user posts an illegal link are not the answer. I am not an expert; I don’t know what the solution is, but I know that SOPA and PIPA were not it.
I know this because six months ago, I joined the Tumblr community, where I can reblog things from innumerable sources, but also post my own creative text or photographs. I also made an account with SoundCloud, a music website which allows me to share my recordings, many of which are covers of copyrighted material (credit given to the original artists, of course), with users and non-users all over the world.
Sharing and creating: whether it be remixing Bubba Sparxx with The Little Mermaid and posting it online, or jamming a bluegrass cover of Nirvana with your fellow Redditors in Central Park, humans benefit from the freedom to build off of each other’s work, growing in knowledge, humor, and creativity.
Works cited/consulted:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=0
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2012/01/sopa-pipa-saga-freedom-speech-vs-net-neutrality
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/01/lawrence-lessig-slams-broken-copyright-laws-on-colbert-report.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html
http://nymag.com/news/features/reddit-2012-7/
SOPA and PIPA were attempts by the government to regulate copyright use on the internet. Congress claims that the laws are only in use to protect the intellectual property of American artist who wish to have permission and compensation for their work being used. An estimated $446 million is lost per year in movie piracies (Washington Post). This is in fact a lot of money to these industries. No one wants their work to be misused and no one wants to lose out on a paycheck, this is understandable. As the artist can say that they are in it for the passion they have for it, but it is truly the paycheck that the end of the day that will fund their ambitions. To truly support an artist, they need to be compensated; however this is not the real issue at hand. What people fear, is that by giving the government the slimmest control of the internet, we are entering a slippery slope of no return. 1984 could truly become reality with the start of such a bill. The government may not think that they are enhancing their power; however they are taking over the world’s most important rising power in the world. As Jon Stewart feels the bills is “like coming up with a plan to prevent teen pregnancy that includes filling penises with cement”. The bills according to Stewart are so ridiculous, that they just don’t make sense at all. Stewart calls out four congressmen, who keep referring to computer experts as “nerds”. The congressman even state that they have no true knowledge of what the cyber world is. How could we allow people who know nothing on the topic decide on the regulations on such an important issue? The answer is simple of course, lobbyist. Yes, politicians were once again purchased by the major entertainment industries to pursue copyright regulation. Comcast, Viacom, and Newscorp to name a few spent millions trying to pass regulation that would destroy the internet as we know it. This brings in a bigger topic, should the government listen to the minority when it comes to copyright laws? Millions of Americans every day break copyright laws, millions. As a nation, with so many standing issues like a national debt and a war, is copyright law really our biggest problem? There are so many more meaningful things to discuss, as an American citizen I am disappointed in our “leaders”. However, let’s think about the potential consequences that this bill could have. Are we really ready to use millions of dollars prosecuting millions of Americans who downloaded or streamed music? The government is wasting its time trying to add more regulation when we are in need of desperate cuts. Websites, such as Wikipedia could be taken down for the lack of using copyrights. Valuable sources of information to the American public can be taken away by the ignorance and misunderstanding of the government. In a world where so much is owned by so little, the internet is the only place where everyone is equal. Everyone can have a voice, start a cite, and everyone shares information. To let the government get their hands on the internet is a tragedy that will never be recovered. The government can decide to stay with the people, but it will remain with the one percent eventually. The day the government takes over the internet will be one of the saddest day in the history of society.
ReplyDeleteSources
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-18-2012/ko-computer
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/27/technology/sopa_pipa_lobby/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-much-does-online-piracy-really-cost-the-economy/2012/01/05/gIQAXknNdP_blog.html
As a student interested in pursuing a career in broadcasting I took a course in high school in which I got to deliver the school’s announcements by way of a news and entertainment show called GBTV. One of my favorite parts about this was my ability to create commercials and music videos in which I got to use popular songs, dances, clothing, and characters. I’ve even shared this content on Facebook and Twitter. In other words, for the last three years of my life I have been committing copyright infringement and I didn’t even know it. I thought I was just sharing my creativity with my friends and classmates so obviously I am no supporter of SOPA and PIPA.To me this already created a problem with SOPA and PIPA’s way of policing copyright infringement; Most people that could be found guilty of it aren’t even aware that they are doing it. Therefore the amount of “illegal content” could be astronomical on any given site. It is also seems a bit ridiculous to “blacklist” an entire site simply because it contains illegal content when instead the content could simply be removed from the site. This way the boundaries of the copyright are heeded and net neutrality is maintained. However after further investigation and reading of the the NYTimes article “What WikiPedia Won’t Tell You” I started to think a little differently. From most of what I had been told and some of what I have read both SOPA and PIPA have been portrayed as means of big brother to employ censorship upon Americans. It took away “..our ability to connect and violated our first amendment..”(Aaron Swartz). Of course as a part of a democratic nation and a people dependent on access to extensive amounts of knowledge and information, I was not having it. After reading the afore mentioned article I realized that SOPA and PIPA weren’t necessarily the black clouds that I had previously taken them to be. They did have their positive points that protected us from fraudulent sites and by supporting the campaigns we were actually in a way doing negative things like “..supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans..”(Sherman 1). Now that I had both sides of the debate I finally zeroed in on the real issue I have with the two bills; It is the same issue I often have with many of the laws that govern our nation. The issue is interpretation. I began to think about the specificity of the bills themselves. If things were too vague or strangely worded, one could interpret it as he or she sees fit. This is problematic because it creates a way for them to be manipulated to benefit either side, both negatively and positively. This knowledge now leaves me somewhere in the middle. Of course I am against censorship and value the ability to be creative with the infinite amount of resources I have without being penalized for it, yet I also feel that the things that are detrimental to parts of our society and its workings should be identified and removed. In summation I do believe that there is a sufficient way to do both, but I don’t think that SOPA or PIPA, even with their initial reforms, are the ways to do so successfully.
ReplyDeletehttp://mashable.com/category/stop-online-piracy-act/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=0
ReplyDeletehttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986