SOPA and PIPA, two pieces of legislation in the United States that would have imposed greater regulation on the Internet, were the latest developments in an ongoing effort by many governments to catch up with the rapid advance of information technology. These particular laws had specific flaws that seem to have made them politically untenable. Yet President Obama’s inclusion of intellectual property in the State of the Union leaves no doubt that attempts to regulate the Internet will continue.
One interesting change occurred during the SOPA and PIPA controversy. Those who opposed the bills and increased control of the Internet have adopted a new position, which they hope will be more popular. The new argument coming out of the “free Internet” camp is that regulatory efforts are attempts by both the government and corporations to curtail freedom of speech, prevent the sharing of content, and stifle discussion and dissent.
This argument, however righteous it may sound, does not hold up to scrutiny. Any suggestion that legislation will prevent free criticism of public figures and corporations is absurd since significant regulations on television and print media have not impeded vibrant public discourse. Countless TV and newspaper pundits are free to make their living exposing the contradictions and failures of our public and corporate leaders, despite the legal constraints on those forms of media.
Those opposing regulation seem to operate under the impression that the government is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress freedom of speech on a truly Orwellian scale. Evidence, however, does not support this paranoia. In fact, the US Supreme Court has recently been taking a hard line in protecting freedom of speech. Last year the court ruled in the Snyder v. Phelps case that preventing the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing military funerals with slogans such as “Thank God for dead soldiers” was a violation of their constitutional rights. Is it reasonable to expect that the same court will tolerate the suppression of legitimate dissent online?
While some may fear political oppression as a result of Internet regulation, it seems more plausible that the free Internet movement’s purported paranoia is actually a scare tactic designed to shroud the real issue. It seems far more likely, and indeed far more rational, that the free Internet movement is concerned with protecting an Internet where they don’t have to pay for anything.
Online piracy of intellectual property has become a serious concern for many governments, including Canada’s, and we can expect more bills aimed at combating it in the near future. As the Internet’s role in personal lives and the economy continues to grow, it would be irresponsible of governments not to begin appropriate regulation. Few object to laws that prevent theft in the real world, and yet our moral sense seems to undergo a staggering change when we move onto the Internet.
Artists and creators must be able to make a living from the content they create. When people pirate this content, they are decreasing artists’ ability to support themselves and, in some cases, making it impossible for artists to pursue their creative careers full time. Many will justify pirating by claiming that they only steal content from artists who are already rich and successful. What they fail to see is a portion of the profit from the content would have gone to record companies and studios, which would use some of that money to develop new, young artists. The profits of today’s superstar go to develop the artists of tomorrow, and those who ignore this reality are sabotaging our creative culture.
We all wish we live in a world in which all art could be shared universally for free ,but the reality is that creating this art costs money, and those who create need to be able to make a living. Those creators who choose to share their content should, of course, be free to do so, but those who choose to protect their creative works need legislation to secure their livelihood. Online piracy is theft by any moral standard, and it’s time that the law catch up with this reality.
