Congress kicked off 2012 with a couple of eerie efforts to smother free
speech on the Internet. The version in the House was called the Stop
Online Piracy Act, and the Senate’s was the Protect Intellectual
Property Act. Of course the two versions differed in some details, but
the main idea was the same: extend copyright “protection” well beyond
the already-generous boundaries established by the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (a.k.a. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act) more than a
decade ago.
The Mickey Mouse law was bad enough, but this pair were plain crazy.
They would have introduced the principle of “guilty by accusation,”
allowing big media companies to run crying to the federal government and
get entire sites shut down based on a simple claim of copyright
violation. The edges of the law’s protection are fuzzy enough –
particularly in the realm of the fair use exception – to require proper
adjudication, not censorship based on mere suspicion.
But more interesting than the proposals themselves was the reaction to
them. Big Media (with Disney and Time Warner in the lead) lobbied hard,
but they found themselves up against Big Internet (particularly Google).
And worse, they faced a sudden groundswell of grassroots opposition
from Internet users. After a 24-hour protest that blacked out Wikipedia
and several other popular sites, legislators turned tail and removed the
bills from consideration.
That alone made it a big moment. How often do you see Congress pay attention to anyone other than lobbyists?
No comments:
Post a Comment