
SOPA on the ropes? Bipartisan alternative to 'Net censorship emerges - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/sopa-on-the-ropes-bipartisan-alternative-to-net-censorship-emerges.ars
======
rbanffy
So, SOPA and PIPA succeeded in dragging our Overton window where they were
meant to. Neither of them was designed to be successful, but only to present a
view so radical anything now seems reasonable. We now see can things like
"rightsholders do need some means of enforcing copyrights and trademarks" and
"Fortunately, plenty can be done".

It's so predictable it's not even funny.

~~~
randall
At the risk of being flamed... I actually do think the DMCA is a similar
example of how we all flipped out, and how it's actually been pretty good for
companies in general. I remember writing a paper (college?) about how evil the
DMCA seemed to me... but now it seems less sketch than before, especially
since a few of my employers have benefited from safe harbors.

I don't think Gucci et al need to be saved from the evils of counterfeiting,
but I do think that intellectual property is currently a societal right, and
trying to give people a non insane way to fight international infringement
isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Could it be door-in-the-face? Maybe, but I feel like if they would have
presented an ITC mandated court proceeding, I, for one, wouldn't have flipped
out as much.

~~~
jerf
The DMCA is a collection of several laws. What people flipped out over (and
are still disgruntled about) are the grotesquely overreaching DRM
circumvention provisions and penalties.

Safe harbor was generally ignored at the time the real furor occurred, and
subsequently people have tarred the whole law with the same brush, but I've
pretty much always thought the safe harbor provisions were reasonable.

And I'd echo rbanffy's basic point. The solution to the problem of SOPA isn't
an Overton-window step-2 watered-down SOPA... it's nothing. _Society_ doesn't
have a significant problem that so desperately needs solving that we must run
the risk of shutting down the growth engine that is the Internet and online
economy, which has long since dwarfed the loud-but-much-smaller content
industry.

If I had to lay money, I'd bet this passes. But a wise Google and a wise
Internet would continue to push back even on the watered down version to make
the point. The DMCA safe harbor is just fine as it is.

~~~
nextparadigms
I agree. I think the solution to SOPA and PIPA is _nothing_ , not a "lesser
evil" or a "compromise". The music labels may die, but I don't think it's the
Government's job to save them, just like it's not the Government's job to save
the print media against Internet bloggers. I also don't think that there will
be less music if the current music labels die. Copyright extensions have
become ridiculous, and I think the labels have had their way for way too long
in influencing the Government _against_ the public and against the _new_
creators.

I think it's time to be reminded once again of Larry Lassig's TED video:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs>

Also when you watch it, and see the airplane example, think about it how it
could've been if they "compromised" on saying "Airplanes are free to pass over
properties, but helicopters not". It would've still been just as ridiculous.
Perhaps not the perfect analogy, but something to think about.

------
chalst
The bit about having a public consultation round before drafting legislation I
think is a step forward.

~~~
rbanffy
It's only there because the public was "primed" with SOPA, PIPA and others.
You can observe how people are more receptive to abuse now than they were
before.

------
damncabbage
Cue new riders being tacked on before it goes to vote.

------
X4
Censorship in images, the TIME Magazine as prime example:
<http://imgur.com/gallery/W2Y5u>

~~~
naner
That's not censorship, that's marketing. The covers are for news stands
(subscribers already bought the issue sight-unseen). And the material inside
is exactly the same.

