Game Changing
What are these strange four letter words? And why are we suddenly hearing about them everywhere?
Each of these acronyms represents a different and significant danger to the Internet and to our freedoms. Together, they're part of the same mentality that always has and always will try to curtail and regulate liberty and freedom of expression under the guise of justice or fairness. Only the names change; the game is always the same. Think of them as threats which never go away.
Let's take a quick look at what these three in particular are all about:
SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, is a House bill that would give the United States government the ability to basically disconnect any website it deemed responsible for any sort of copyright violation - or any website that contains information that might help users to bypass these restrictions. That could include almost anyone - if the authorities chose to pursue it.
PIPA is an acronym within an acronym (PROTECT IP Act [Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act]) and is the Senate counterpart to SOPA. One of its goals is to "de-list" objectionable sites, basically meaning that the rest of the world might be able to access a particular website, but to those in the United States, it would appear not to exist at all. It sounds an awful lot like the kinds of tactics we read about in oppressive lands.
Then there's ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is a multinational treaty signed by 31 countries including the United States and the entire European Union. One major problem is that the entire agreement was put together in total secrecy, with absolutely no input from organizations or people that might be concerned with the nagging question of civil liberties. Not a good start, but one that accurately reflects the overall tone of this thing. In general, it's more of the same: rigid controls over how technology can be accessed and by whom, more liability to Internet Service Providers in order to get them to monitor what their users are doing, and basically a global version of our old friend, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
So, what is it that changed recently and drew an incredible amount of public attention to the threats that these proposals represented? Several things, actually.
For one, we saw an unprecedented display of responsibility among the Internet powerhouses.
Of course, we can be cynical and say that they were primarily looking out for their own interests and that their businesses would be hurt if any of the domestic proposals became law. That's very possible. But what's different here is the way in which this was dealt with. Rather than using their power and connections to get some sort of a back room deal and becoming exempt from whatever regulations adversely affected everyone else, activist tactics were employed, which encouraged demonstrations, petitions, and blackouts. It became bigger than Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, and the many other hugely popular sites that could have easily ignored this controversy, but instead chose to do the right thing. Their participation fueled the fire that itself became the story, affecting over 50,000 sites and waking up a countless number of people.
An increased amount of awareness that has been developing throughout the net is a huge reason why this spread, perhaps even getting through to some of the corporate sites that otherwise might not have been paying attention. Often, in order to be noticed, you need to raise your voice. We've been seeing a lot of that lately, from anti-Scientology protests to Occupy Wall Street to the (((Arab Spring))) to the debt crisis in Europe. Through social networking and other elements of the Internet, mass organization of an unprecedented nature has been occurring all around us, completely catching the authorities by surprise. WikiLeaks helped to set the mood, Anonymous helped to raise the volume. People everywhere started to pay attention. The status quo is simply no match for that. That is why it suddenly became very difficult to find any politician who continued to back these bills. They move with the wind.
And on the subject of that status quo, it's interesting to look at those dinosaurs that just don't seem to get the message that their time is done. On SOPA Blackout Day (January 18, 2012), 2600 stood with the EFF and other civil liberties groups against organizations like the MPAA, just as we did back in 2000 in the very first case involving the DMCA. It was a wonderful trip down Memory Lane and one that reaffirmed the philosophical divide that exists between the industry and much of the public.
The fights continue. The enemies remain the same. What has changed is the amount of public awareness that exists today, and the ability to turn that into action.
Naturally, we can expect to see a good amount of convincing testimony that seeks to contradict all of the above. We will be accused of supporting "piracy." There will be examples of evil people making tons of money from the works of others, implied ties to bona fide terrorists, statistics that show how the economy is being wrecked by these evildoers, etc., etc. But if the arguments seem a little too simple, the complexities of the issues have probably been skipped over.
Most people already can tell the difference between right and wrong. Stealing is wrong, when it's actually stealing. When the word becomes twisted and distorted so that stealing is defined as anything from skipping over a commercial to not buying the same product multiple times to refusing to pay a fee every time a song is heard, more is actually done to negate the effects of true theft than anything a common criminal could do. When people see themselves as victims of a rip-off perpetuated by the entertainment industry or other large conglomerates, the mood quickly changes to one of retributive justice. Then, true theft becomes closer to the norm, which plays right into the hands of the industry - which might have been what they wanted all along.
We all know that amazing things can happen when people have access. One merely has to look at the effectiveness of YouTube and Twitter as tools in actually toppling repressive regimes. Access to speech, access to community, access to the truth - these are great things for all individuals. Controlled and restricted, these tools lose all power. The same can be said for the arts. Open that world so that people can appreciate it and help spread the word and anything is possible.
If you look closely at those who are opposed to making art more accessible, you'll find the driving forces to be those who already have a great deal and are afraid of the playing field becoming a little more even - the recording industry, Hollywood, hugely successful stars. So, yes, perhaps lowering the prices of media and encouraging the sharing of art will put a dent in the influx of cash to those currently sitting on top. Maybe it will mean that their efforts won't by default be as lucrative. With the digital revolution, it's no longer about the vinyl or the film or the paper, all of which created a tangible limit. Now it's about the actual content, no longer bound by such physical limitations. If that happens to be worth supporting, then people will support it to the best of their abilities. To those who are creating and trying all sorts of new approaches, a global audience that pays attention is infinitely more valuable than a limited one that pays cash. Earning that attention is now the first step, remaining relevant is part of every subsequent step.
We're in a new age.
Through technology, people have a way of speaking their minds and getting the story out even when governments want to silence them. Through technology, consumers can get access to anything that's out there, regardless of the irrational demands imposed by those who imagine themselves in charge. The assumption that intangibles like speech and art can continue to be controlled is now merely a dream doomed to failure.
