********UPDATE***********
This article by CNN tells the story of the current state of ACTA, and what the rest of the world is doing about it. President Obama already signed the pact, so it's up to the rest of the world to do something about it.
The European Parliament is the last to review the treaty, in June, 2012--and our last hope against ACTA. Do you think we can make enough noise to make them hear us?
These guys tell it best, I think:
***************************
So, I know this blog post is a bit late, considering the Web Blackout of 2012 protesting the SOPA/PIPA bills was last Wednesday...but, I still think it's important, and still relevant.
Personally, I learned about SOPA and PIPA a few months ago when this video from the American Censorship Organization appeared in my facebook feed. I watched it, signed the petition...and forgot about it.
Then my world went black.
On that day, January 18th, 2012, big sites like Wikipedia, Reddit, and Stumbleupon went black to show us what the internet would be like if the SOPA and PIPA bills passed through Congress. Other smaller sites did the same by censoring their content, while still others, like Google, Lifehacker, and TED chose not to completely blackout, but did other things (like putting a censor strip over Google's logo) to alert, and then educate their audience about why there was a blackout and what we could do to get rid of the bills.
If you didn't notice something a little off with the internet on that day...you must have misplaced your wi-fi and moved to a third-world country...because it was big. And Congress noticed.
Amazingly, the Wikipedia-organized effort succeeded.
We educated ourselves.
We signed online petitions.
We called senators.
We mailed letters.
The internet garnered a grass-roots campaign against old industries (Newspapers, movie producers...and others I'm not so clear on), and pretty much toppled the SOPA right out of congress. (I still can't believe there are 65 supporters)
The TEDtalk above (if you didn't already watch it) tells the backstory behind SOPA and PIPA--that they are what Clay Shirky calls "round two". Old industries want us to return to being consumers, and stop freaking sharing "copyrighted" material with one another.
The difficult part is telling the difference between illegal sharing, and legal sharing, so the industries just want to get rid of the difference altogether, and make ALL sharing illegal. It's easier for them that way.
But that also turns us into the bad guys, and---
--just watch the TEDtalk, it's only 14 minutes of your time, and he explained it WAY better than I ever could.
 |
| Open this link in a new tab to read it. |
*******
I did think his closing message was important, and if you don't want to know the backstory of SOPA/PIPA, know this:
"Get ready, because more is coming...PIPA and SOPA are not oddities, they're not anomalies, they're not events. They're the next turn of this particular screw, which has been going on for 20 years now. And if we defeat these, as I hope we do, more is coming."
And more is coming. There is a pending treaty that was signed by congress last October, called ACTA.
It's an international trade agreement similar to SOPA, and Poland has declared that they've agreed to sign on as well, despite public outcry.
Because the internet is a constantly changing technology, there will always be "old industries" who don't want to deal with copyright infringement, who don't want the internet to be as open-source as the web-developers and hackers like Anonymous would like. Because the government will always be in league with big industries with big pockets. But the internet has been proven to be a more powerful tool than anyone has ever imagined, and that's why governments like ours are scared.
*******
Since I do like to play devil's advocate on these kinds of things...there is the other side to this story. Internet "piracy" is a problem (kinda? it's got side effects like everything else, but on the whole, it's great!) But many people don't think it's so great, and they're trying to get us to stop...unfortunately, I think that's impossible. I think it's a great sentiment, but I just don't know the right way to go about it. The internet is too new, and too flexible to really contain effectively.
But, there is that other side. The links below, and all the propaganda I've been mentioning tend to be rather biased, because I am bias--and untrusting of how the government chooses to wield its power.
*******
You really ought to gather your own information for yourself.
Here are some other sites you might want to check out for more info on SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA:
ACTA info:
- Can you Imagine? International Informational video on ACTA
- A Professor's Lecture on ACTA 40mins long
- ACTA Explained by Anonymous Hacker Group
- "Is ACTA the new SOPA?" article with videos
- ACTA wiki article
- Meet SOPA's evil twin, ACTA article by techfortune
SOPA/PIPA history:
- SOPA timeline of events (scroll down to Jan 18th...the list of achievements is amazing)
- http://americancensorship.org/
- SOPA infographic by the American Censorship Organization
- Whip Count Meme by opencongress (shows how votes changed as a result of the Web blackout)
- Wikipedia entry on the Web blackout
- Obama administration against SOPA/PIPA
- or just Google Search them
*******
Do you think the internet should/can be moderated?
If so, who should do it?
And now that Obama has signed ACTA, what can we do about it?
Why do you think ACTA hasn't gained much of a voice in the U.S. despite being leaked in 2008?
I don't think the internet should be monitored any differently than say, cable TV.
ReplyDeleteThere are rules about profanity, etc. on basic cable, and if you want to pay more for HBO or porn or what have you, you can watch all the sex, drugs and violence you want. You can even, as a parent who has the right to limit what smut your kids sees, block certain channels and password protect things.
I am of a similar opinion on the internet, and there are already rules in place. Most websites won't let you sign up without a parent's permission if you're under 13. I know this is easy to get around, but there are website blockers and the lot.
I know this has little to nothing to do with sharing though, which is because I think that part of the internet should NOT be monitored.
Tangent, sorry, hopefully you kind of get the point!
-Kacie
This is a fantastic post. You did a great job summarizing all of the important twists and turns of the story so far.
ReplyDeleteThanks Cirque! I tried my best. =)
DeleteI don't think there should be any form of outside censorship on the internet at all.
ReplyDeleteKacie said she thinks it should be monitored similar to television which seems sensible until you consider that the internet isn't made by various networks putting up shows. I suppose some of it is sure, and that's the website where you cant sign up without being 13 or older. However most of the internet is made by us, everyday people.
If a website themselves wants to limit the content on their own website then go right ahead. Its your own website, you can do whatever you want with it just like you can set dress codes for patrons in a restaurant. But you cant force that restaurant to have a dress code.
The bills like SOPA or the ACTA guy doesn't set restrictions like you cannot use more then three curse words per page on your website or anything like that. Most of their restrictions are fairly benign and are intended to limit piracy. I think its the fact that they are trying to place restrictions at all that scares us.
They want to set restrictions which say if I posted here on this blog in a comment with a link to a pirated video, the owner of this blog would be responsible for moderating it and could have their website shut down if they didn't do it quickly enough.
So okay, I get it, they want to limit piracy but setting restrictions on what people can post on their website, or having to hardcore police every bit of content that appears on their website is a form of censorship, and not just like censoring a TV show for profanity which millions of people watch, some of which may become offended. This is censorship that could prevent everyday people from free speech that only those who choose to read it will see.
Thats like saying in my group of friends I cant use certain language because... well just because.
Sure, the fact that they are trying to place restrictions scares us--but that can be attributed because it's new to us--and we are resistant to change.
ReplyDeleteBut the issue that I have with these bills is how vague they are--and they have to be! The internet is so unpredictable and so flexible that it's impossible to set rules like a curse-word limit on *every single site*. And the pure volume of how much sharing goes on hardly makes regulation fair across the board. If there is to be regulation (which, realistically, I assume there will be at some point), I think we should do our best to make sure that it's fair, and as specific as possible.
When I talk about the internet, I always forget about how we regulate traditional crime (shoplifting, robbery, murder...). and despite the fact that we have a huge task-force, there are still criminals who walk free because they weren't caught.
Do politicians think of the internet in the same way? Could there be a moderating task force for the internet that would operate in a fair way? Because there would be those *sharers* who don't get caught.
If regulations are allowed to be set on the internet, it'll be like putting the TSA in airports as a defense against terrorists. Sure--they're a preventative measure. They function like the sign in the dressing rooms that says "Shoplifters will be prosecuted": it makes "normal" people--the majority of people--afraid to break the law.
Sure, they "protect" us from terrorism, but how many stories have you heard about the hostility of TSA members? It's HARD to keep regulation fair across the board, especially with human nature. And you know what? I think the TSA only keeps out the stupid terrorists (you know, the kinds in movies that strap bombs to their chests to prove a point). If someone really, really wanted to infiltrate the airport to take a plane, they'd figure out a way. The same goes for the internet: if someone really, really wanted to prove a point, they could do it (like Anonymous frequently does).
So internet restrictions are meant to prevent the "stupid" people from sharing. Unfortunately, I don't think that kind of crime regulation is the right kind for the internet. It kills off the essence of what the internet is for. You wouldn't believe how it connects us and promotes creativity, and speeds things up and includes people in conversations who wouldn't normally be included. *WE* are the sharers. *WE* are the viewers. *WE* are the "stupid" people, and it's our creativity our governments are trying to stifle.
That's why there should be such a big outcry against SOPA and PIPA and ACTA. Because it stifles our creativity. Because it prevents us from using our right to free speech. Because the internet has been proven as a source of happiness--and to regulate the internet would, by extension, be an attempt to regulate our happiness.
Does that sound right? or did I go too far? It felt kinda preachy to me...but it makes sense to me at least.