Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Copyright bill is modern day witch hunt

Published: Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Updated: Thursday, December 1, 2011 13:12

Republicans and Democrats unite to support bipartisan legislation that would outlaw the theft of intellectual property on the Internet.

The new bill would allow large Hollywood studios and television networks to ask banks, domain name registrars and Internet Service Providers to deny doing business with websites that infringe on copyright law.

While piracy costs the American economy billions of dollars annually, this new law goes too far.

In theory, TV networks and Hollywood studios could demand that Youtube's domain registration company shut the entire website down forever.

This is cyber-bullying at its worst.

Of course, copyright infringement is wrong. Of course, people should pay $30 to see a movie and then buy it on Blu-ray. Any idiot knows this. But legislation that enables influential (wealthy) copyright owners to police the Internet with such brutality is also wrong.

Remember Hollywood blacklisting? I don't because I was born in 1990, but I've heard enough to know it did more harm than good. America's fear of communism was so great that our government went to extreme measures to ensure capitalism was kept safe. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), charged with finding and dealing with communists in the United States, summoned several entertainment professionals to testify. The Hollywood 10, as they came to be known, refused to testify, igniting the American government. This led to an official statement from the film industry, which came to be known as the Waldorf Statement. The signatories indicating a desire to eliminate subversives from the entertainment industry announced the firing of the Hollywood 10.

To be listed on the Hollywood Blacklist was to see the potential end of one's career, often on the basis of questionable and unverifiable information. Those blacklisted were pariahs.

If large studios have the ability to shut down any future website with the potential of copyright infringement, partisan control and policing of the Internet becomes inevitable. Who knows? Maybe I'm heading down some slippery slope here, but I do understand one thing – the theft of intellectual property is so commonplace it cannot be policed effectively.

People steal music, television, movies and games every second. What's to stop them from doing so after this new bill is passed?

Nothing? Exactly. The Internet is far too vast.

For this reason alone, any attempt to eliminate piracy is futile.

Sure, the American economy suffers when people hijack material, but how many dollars will be wasted pursuing these untraceable thieves? How many jobs will be lost when entire websites are shut down? How many innocent people will endure agonizing months, or even years, of overdrawn court battles?

Perhaps most importantly, however: if this bill is passed, how long do we have until the wealthy buy the rest of our rights?

Bradbury is a junior plant sciences major of Hot Springs.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments Log in to Comment

scottharbinson
Fri Dec 2 2011 09:35
Drew,

There are a number of inaccuracies in your story I'd like to address. First, you imply that studios can force others in the internet ecosystem to stop doing business with a rogue website. In fact, the rights holder must first get an order from the court declaring that a site is "dedicated to infringe activity" and has no other legitimate purpose. Only after that is adjudicated can the rights holder return to court to seek an order directing payment processors or ad networks to cease doing business with the website. Only the US Attorney can seek an order to block the site from the DNS registry or at the IP address level, not the rights holder. Do you really think that a judge could be convinced that YouTube meets the objective standard of being dedicated to infringing activity with now other significant lawful purpose?

It may surprise you to learn that many of those who were victims of the Hollywood blacklist were members of the very labor unions who support the current legislation. Our members have a long and distinguished history of defending the First Amendment. That is why, prior to supporting these bills, our unions retained the renowned First Amend scholar, Floyd Abrams to vet the bill. He recently testified before the House that its provisions did not violate the First Amendment.

Young people such as yourself would be wise to consider the implications of the failure to protect intellectual property. It is very likely that intellectual property will be at the core of many of the jobs you will take at graduation. Failing to protect America's creativity is also failing to protect American jobs. If pirates in China can wantonly steal the intellectual property that your employer spent millions to develop and then monetize it, what do you think may happen to your job? These bills are about much more than stopping someone from downloading the latest from Lady Gaga, it's also about your job and your future.

I'm happy top see your people such as yourself engaged in the discussion, and I hope you consider all of the implications of the bill, or its absence.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In