Upload
max-von-kleist
View
105
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
SOPA and PIPA: Ignoring Media Policy
Basics and Infringing upon Canada’s
Communication Rights
Author: Max von Kleist
Photo attributed to 404systemerro.com
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
Table of Contents
Section
Introduction
Part 1: Background
A Timeline of the SOPA and PIPA Bills 1
Part 2: Functions and Problems
The Function of SOPA and PIPA and the Problems They Present 2 Increased Enforcement 2.1 Cutting off Cash Flow
Suspending Financial Service Providers
Restricting Advertising
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2 Blocking Access 2.3 Search Engine Censorship 2.4
Part 3: SOPA, PIPA, and Media Policy
How SOPA and PIPA Disregard the Basics
Free Speech
The Public Interest
The Marketplace of Ideas
Part 4: PIPA and SOPA s Effect on Canadians
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
SOPA, PIPA, and Communication Rights in Canada
Right to Freedom of Expression and Opinion
Right to Access
Right to Information
Right to Privacy
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Conclusion
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
Introduction
As communication and digital technologies expand, so does the field of media policy. The
internet is, perhaps, the area within communication and digital technologies that has experienced
the most expansion over the past decade. As a result, it has become a global tool in which people
from all over the world are able to communicate, share ideas and information, and enjoy a level
of freedom that does not always exist in the physical world. Sadly, there is always someone who
views these freedoms not as an opportunity or human right, but rather as a threat. In the case of
the internet, this person is the United States government and the entertainment industry.
Over the past two-and-a-half years, two pieces of U.S media policy have been in the process
of discussion and attempted approval. These are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and
Protect-IP Act (PIPA) bills. If passed, these bills will restrict access to foreign websites
distributing pirated material, such as The Pirate Bay, as well as domestic websites that contain
content subject to copyright infringement, such as Facebook. The primary goal of the two bills is
to protect intellectual property, much if which is currently being distributed without any credit
or financial compensation given to the creators. In order to do so, SOPA and PIPA include
provisions that would give the U.S government the authority to increase enforcement towards
websites and individual the restriction of
cash flow going to website operators, censorship of search engine results to prevent particular
website links from being accessible, and the blockage of access to certain websites altogether.
These two pieces of media policy, while legitimate in reason, present a number of implications
that extend past the protection of intellectual property, and
McGannon Communication Research Center Director,
Philip Napoli, in his working paper, Media Policy: An Overview of the Field In doing so,
SOPA and PIPA pose
rights and freedoms. To focus on Canada, SOPA and PIPA, if passed, will infringe upon
Canadian communication rights, gravely edom of expression and
opinion, right to access, right to information, and right to privacy.
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
Part 1: Background
1. Timeline of the PIPA and SOPA Bills
On September 20, 2010, United States Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Protect-IP
Act, or PIPA for short. prevent online threats to economic creativity and
S.968-PIPA, 2011) and to combat the problem of foreign websites
distributing pirated content. For the next few days, PIPA gained many co-sponsors and, on May
26th, was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary committee to move forward
(SOPA/PIPA, 2012).
On October 26th, a new bill similar to PIPA was introduced to the US House of
Representatives by Texas Representative and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith
(SOPA/PIPA, 2012). This bill is known as the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA for short.
SOPA promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by
combating the theft of U.S. property H.R.3261-SOPA, 2011). It, as does PIPA, aims to do so
by restricting pirated content and content that violates copyright law. From this point forward,
SOPA and PIPA moved their way through US Congress as a joint effort, receiving sponsorship
from a number of US Senators over the next two months (SOPA/PIPA, 2012).
Despite having early success with gaining support, opinions towards SOPA and PIPA took a
turn on November 14th when California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren partook in an
interview with technology magazine, IEEE Spectrum (SOPA/PIPA, 2012). During the
interview, Lofgren voiced her concern for many of provisions that both SOPA and PIPA include,
specifics of which are discussed in Part 2.
Leading into January 2012, many Senators stepped forward stating their opposition to the
bills, including many who had once shown support (SOPA/PIPA, 2012).
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
On January 18th, over 7,000 websites including Wikipedia, Reddit, and WordPress, took
part in what was referred to as the Internet Blackout Day (Couts, 2012). That day, they all shut
down their services to protest SOPA and PIPA. Also on that day, and that day alone, Google
held an online petition in protest of the two bills that obtained over 4.5 million signatures (Kerr,
2012).
On January 20th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, announced that the critical vote for
the PIPA and SOPA bills scheduled for January 24th would be postponed (SOPA/PIPA, 2012).
SOPA and PIPA had been put on the shelf for the time being.
Part 2: Functions and Problems
2. Functions of PIPA and SOPA and the Problems they Present
SOPA and PIPA have the same goal to protect the intellectual property of content
produced by large entertainment and media corporations such as Comcast, Viacom, and Disney,
as well as individual publishers and artists whose work is also being distributed and consumed
illegally. SOPA and PIPA include a number of provisions that would enable the government to
goal but in doing so, many problems arise that go much further than protecting
intellectual property. These provisions include:
2.1 Increased Enforcement
If SOPA and PIPA are approved, the ability for the U.S government and IP providers to
receive court orders to prosecute individuals partaking in acts of piracy and copyright
infringement will be made much easier. Stiffer penalties will also be put in place, including large
monetary fines and potential jail time. SOPA and PIPA
[in which individuals] become subject to punishment without the due process protections
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
citizen Baker, 2012). This means that at any time, you could be charged with
a steep penalty without explanation or notice. In 2010, Minnesota woman Jammie Thomas-
Rasset was charged with a $1.5 million dollar fine for downloading just 24 songs (Kreps, 2010).
Thomas-Rasset maintained that she was not the computer user who downloaded the songs;
however, she was still able to be prosecuted and, eventually, found guilty despite there being no
evidence that tied her personally to the crime. This level of enforcement was excessive to say the
least, and that was without SOPA or PIPA in place.
Problem: As you can imagine, if SOPA and PIPA are approved, situations like what happened
to Jammie Thomas-Rasset will become much more commonplace and will carry even larger
penalties. SOPA and PIPA will give far too much power to the government and law
enforcement, resulting with internet users around the world living in constant fear of being
pursued by the law for something as little as downloading a song or posting an MP3 to Facebook
without getting permission from the artist (Seriously?).
2.2 Cutting-off Cash Flow
2.2.1 Suspending Financial Service Providers
SOPA and PIPA would give the U.S government and IP providers the authority to
demand financial service providers such as PayPal and MasterCard to discontinue their
services to websites that distribute pirated material and/or infringe upon copyright (S.968-
PIPA, 2011). This provision aims to block cash flow to these types of websites, resulting with them
being forced to shut down.
2.2.2 Restricting Advertising
SOPA and PIPA would also restrict advertising on websites distributing pirated material
or containing material subject to copyright infringement (H.R.3261-SOPA, 2011). This
provision aims to eliminate the financial benefits of selling advertising space on these types of
websites, discouraging people from getting involved.
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
Problem: These provisions present two problems. First, websites that are built on user-
generated
content will also be subject to the law. Websites such as Facebook, WordPress, and all other
blogging and social media websites risk being financially sequestered because of the
infringing content that their users often upload. These websites will be forced to defend
themselves arguing that, while some of the content being uploaded through their services is
infringing, most of it is completely legal. Despite this valid argument, the government and IP
potentially destroying the ability to access the websites for everyone. Even if the websites
were to regulate and delete infringing material uploaded by users, they could still be pursued
(NewLeftMedia, 2012). Secondly, these provisions will limit innovation and make it more
difficult for start-ups and emerging online services to enter the market. Out of fear of being
pursued and prosecuted by the law, they may even not bother to enter the market at all.
2.3 Blocking Access
SOPA and PIPA would also give the government and IP holders the power to block access
to particular websites altogether. This would be accomplished by blacklisting domain names.
When people type in the domain name, or web address, instead of being sent to the site, the
Domain Name System (DNS) will redirect the individual to either a page displaying an error, or
a different site altogether. (NewLeftMedia, 2012).
Problem: The problem this provision presents lies within censorship and security. Censoring
nternet infringes upon their freedoms. In democratic societies
such as the U.S and Canada, rights to access and freedoms are relied upon. This provision
impinges upon both these rights. In terms of security, David Sohn from the Center of
Democracy & Technology states that a fundamental flaw of DNS redirection would lead to
more and more people being exposed to cyber-attacks and online scams (NewLeftMedia, 2012).
As stated previously, DNS redirection involves users being re-routed to an error page when
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
typing in a blacklisted web address. This, however, does not mean that the website is not still
accessible. According to Sohn, a way for people to get around this is by using a third party DNS
provider that would route them to the blacklisted site. These third party DNS providers are,
however, unsafe. Assuming the role of a third party DNS provider, Sohn gives an insight into
how they can pose a threat
if we occasionally take some of them and route them to fake banking sites and try to get their ID
information? (NewLeftMedia, 2012). This phishing technique will become commonplace as
more and more internet users begin turning to third party DNS providers because of the
redirection and access-blocking SOPA and PIPA will introduce.
2.4 Search Engine Censorship
Along with censoring access to websites, SOPA and PIPA would also censor search engine
results that consisted of queries related to pirated material and websites that provide it such as
The Pirate Bay. This provision will inhibit the ability for internet users to locate pirated material
on the web.
Problem:
freedoms and their right to access information. By not being able to search what they want to
is, oppressed because in the virtual world, the keyboard is a
Part 3: SOPA, PIPA, and Media Policy
3. How SOPA and PIPA Disregard the Basics:
Media policy, as described by Philip Napoli, is, in a sense, in a state of evolution. As the
technological environment is experiencing rapid change along with the internet, Napoli
acknowledges that the boundaries between traditional and digital technologies are becoming
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
more and more unclear (Napoli, 2007, pg. 2). Despite these blurred boundaries, Napoli states
that at the core of media policy are, what he calls, the fundamental building blocks of effective
, 2007, pg. 7). As long as the are built into policies,
the policies will be effective. They are free speech, the public interest, and the marketplace of
ideas all of which SOPA and PIPA completely ignore.
3.1 Free Speech
Free speech is regarded by Napoli as one of the key components of media policy. As made
speech (Napoli, 2007, pg. 6) their right to think and speak freely and their ability to voice their
opinions without fear of being pursued by the law. The SOPA and PIPA bills both disregard this
right entirely.
By giving the government and IP providers the authority to block access to websites and
legally pursue individuals who post material subject to copyright infringement, SOPA and PIPA
The internet has created a culture in which user-
generated content has become commonplace. Websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia,
and Reddit, all contain massive amounts of user-generated content, much of which is subject to
copyright infringement, including YouTube videos, music, and photos. Individuals, for the
most part, do not post this type of content with commercial intent, but rather for personal use.
Sharing content has become the way the current generation communicates and if SOPA and
PIPA are passed, the current generation, and all other citizens for that matter, will lose the
ability to communicate in this way.
3.2 The Public Interest
The public interest is referred to by Napoli as the primary standard for which media policy
makers are expected to abide by during the creation of policy (Napoli, 2007, pg. 9). Instead of
satisfying the interests of particular interest groups or stakeholders, policies should reflect the
views of the public and be created in a way that best serves the public as a whole (Napoli, 2007,
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
pg. 9). This infers that a democratic process be taken. The construction of SOPA and PIPA,
however, has been created through a process more recognizable of a dictatorship. Lamar Smith
and Patrick Leahy, creators of SOPA and PIPA, respectively, both created the bills without
consideration of . Instead, both bills were created to serve the interests of
large corporations such as Comcast, Viacom, and Disney and individual stakeholders such as
Metallica who want their work to be protected. In 2010, campaign contributions from the
entertainment industry tallied $18 million and in 2011, a whopping $91 million from the
industry was put towards lobbying Congress (NewLeftMedia, 2012). Clearly, the entertainment
industry has a lot of power in SOPA and PIPA journey through Congress and, clearly, the
government
On January 18th,
just the first day, received more than 4.5 million signatories (Kerr, 2012). This shows what the
public interest truly is and, according to Napoli, this is whom Smith and Leahy should be
listening to.
3.3 The Marketplace of Ideas
Napoli describes t policymaking as the theme that supports free
enterprise in media, minimal regulation, and the circulation of ideas (black slide 17). Defined
by liberal theorist John Mi
opinions are able to collaborate,
Smith, 1981). SOPA and PIPA are restraining to say the least.
If passed, SO what we know as the
freedom of the internet. In censoring freedom of speech, the free flow of ideas that the
internet currently enables will be disrupted. When people share videos and music online,
s regarding the
popular music mash-up artist, Greg Gillis, otherwise known as Girl Talk.
states that great ideas are often created by expanding on ideas of the past (Lessig, 2008). Girl
-known
songs and mashes them together, creating a unique piece of work. He was one of the first people
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
to do this and, as a result, has sparked the emergence of a new style of music. Under the
provisions of SOPA and PIPA, however, be considered illegal. His
Similar things would happen
regarding upcoming technologies on the internet. SOPA and PIPA clearly jeopardizes the
marketplace of ideas.
Part 4: PIPA and SOPA’s Effect on Canadians
4. SOPA and PIPA s Intrusion on Canadian Communication Rights
So how would SOPA and PIPA affect us Canadians? ericans do is their
SOPA and PIPA law would
reach far into Canada. Canadians rely on U.S based websites for information, entertainment, and
communication just as much as Americans do. In a 2011 study conducted by UBC Graduate
60 per cent of Canadians—
the equivalent of more than 15 million people
(Social Media Transforming, 2011). All of these social networking sites are considered to be
under U.S jurisdiction since
Schwartz, 2012). All of them would be primary targets for
SOPA and PIPA regulation because of the abundance of user-generated content that is often
subject to copyright infringement. Also, the fact that IP addresses are assigned by regional
providers, not national, also brings Canada into the mix. For example, along with assigning IP
addresses to America, The American Registry for Internet Numbers also assigns IP addresses for
Canada, all of which considered U.S domestic (Schwartz, 2012). This means that the provisions
of SOPA and PIPA will be directly applicable to many Canadians as their internet activity is
under U.S jurisdiction.
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
Communication Rights have been developed and elaborated upon at the global level. The
core of Communication Rights lie within the framework of several human rights documents,
primarily, the International Bill of Rights, which Canada is a signatory of (Raboy and Shtern,
2010, pg. 26). Article 19 of the International Bill of Rights directly addresses information and
sion; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers Raboy and Shtern, 2010,
pg. 29). The communication rights that the International Bill of Rights invoke which are
jeopardized by the SOPA and PIPA bills include the rights to freedom of expression and
opinion, access, information, and privacy (Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg. 30).
These universal communication rights are intrinsically Canadian communication rights, and
provide a framework to protect Canadian citizens and provide them with the democratic
environment in which they live. SOPA and PIP, infringe upon these rights.
4.1 Right to Freedom of Expression and Opinion
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes Canadians with
ught (Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg.
64). SOPA and PIPA, if approved, will severely impact this important Canadian right. Because
Canadians use many U.S based websites such as Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and Reddit to
communicate, they will be directly affected by the provisions of the two bills. Canadians will be
just as liable for posting material subject to copyright to these websites as Americans, and will be
forced to censor what they say on the internet. This is problematic because the Canadian voice
and perspective is an important part of global communication. Restricting it will diminish the
Canadian influence on the wor -speaking
nation. If Canadians are restricted by what they can say and do online and are pursued by the
law if they if they say or do something outside of SOPA and PIPA provisions, how is that any
different than the oppression and unruly justice that takes place in other areas of the world where
the right to freedom of expression and opinion do t exist? Simply put—i
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
4.2 Right to Access
Canadians netration of telephony, household cable, and
Raboy and Shtern, 2010, pg. 75). This means that most
Canadians have access to the internet. This right to access has become a strong point of the
Canadian identity. Currently, the Canadian government does not regulate or restrict its
access to areas of the internet. Canada is good that way, but unfortunately, if SOPA and PIPA
are to be approved, the Canadian government will have no power in the restriction of access that
its citizens will be su right to access, in this case large
portions of the internet, will be infringed upon and nothing will be able to be done.
4.3 Right to Information
Similar to Canadians right to access, a communications right important to the Canadian
identity is the right to information. Canada provides its citizens the right to information
through the ability to openly visit libraries in search of whatever they desire, having free use of
the internet without censorship, and being privy to governmental decisions. If SOPA and PIPA
are approved, the latter two points will be affected, as libraries are not a topic of discussion
regarding the two bills. In terms of having free use of the internet without censorship, hopefully
this paper has made clear how this Canadian right will be impacted
to censor search engines and block websites at will would disallow Canadians to seek out the
unrestricted variety of information they are priv
4.4 Right to Privacy
with protection of their
personal information regarding online activity. With the introduction of SOPA and PIPA,
Canadian cit
providers added authority to monitor Canadian-generated content on American-based websites.
ion are
difficult and requires a lengthy process. With SOPA and PIPA, that process would shorten
substantially and, as a result,
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
accessed and monitored much more frequently. There is also the heightened risk that Canadians
private online data is released to the public. In 2006, AOL accidently released a plethora of
Arrington, 2006). With SOPA and PIPA making it easier for the U.S government and IP
providers to access user information, the likelihood of instances like the AOL mishap would
greatly increase.
Conclusion
For the past two years, SOPA and PIPA have been moving through Congress in an
attempt to obtain approval. Along the way, they have both gained a considerable amount of
support and opposition from members of government, as well as a massive support from the
entertainment industry. Meanwhile, U.S and Canadian citizens have shown their strong
opposition to the bills in the form of widespread online protests as well as by signing online
petitions. SOPA and PIPA have been created with the purpose to protect intellectual property,
restricting access to websites distributing pirated material and regulating all domestic websites
containing content that is subject to copyright infringement. In reality, they do much more. In
their development, Texas Representative and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and
U.S Senator Patrick Leahy, respective creators of SOPA and PIPA, ignored the fundamental
building blocks of media policy put forth by Philip Napoli as discussed in Part 2. Both bills
inhibit free speech, restrict the marketplace of ideas, and have been developed with the
government a
Because SOPA and PIPA have been created with disregard to media policy basics,
widespread repercussions are a major threat if they were to be passed. Both pieces of policy, if
passed, would not only infringe upon many American rights—they would infringe upon
Canadian Communication Rights as well. The long arm of U.S law would reach far into
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
Canada, affecting access, information, and
privacy.
communication rights intact, immediate action is necessary. Canadians participation in
petition was just the first step. From this point forward,
citizens need to up the ante and let their opposition be known. They need to let the U.S
government know that the approval of SOPA and PIPA would result in the infringement of
would severely impact the rights of people all
around the world. If Canada is to continue as a free nation, action needs to be taken now. If
Canada is to continue as a free nation, SOPA and PIPA must be stopped.
SOPA, PIPA, Policy, and Communication Rights 1 Max von Kleist
References
(2011, April 27). Social media transforming how Canadians get the news, study finds. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/04/27/social-media-transforming-how-canadians-get-the-news-study-
finds/
Arrington, M. (2006, August 6). AOL Proudly Releases Massive Amounts of Private Data. TechCrunch. Retrieved June
2, 2012 from http://techcrunch.com/2006/08/06/aol-proudly-releases-massive-amounts-of-user-search-data/
Baker, M, (2012, January 17). PIPA/SOPA and Why You Should Care. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/01/17/pipasopa-and-why-you-should-care/
Couts, A. (2012, January 17). SOPA/PIPA blackout: A quick guide. Digital Trends. Retrieved June 2, 2012 from
http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/january-18-sopapipa-blackout-a-quick-guide/
H.R.3261-SOPA, (2011, October 26). OpenCongress. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/text
-SOPA petition. CNET News. Retrieved May 30, 2012, from
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57361565-93/millions-sign-googles-anti-sopa-petition/
Kreps, D, (2010, November 4). Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs. Yahoo
Canada. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://ca.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/minnesota-mom-hit-with-
15-million-fine-for-downloading-24-songs.html
Lessig, L, (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Great Britain: Bloomsbury
Publishing PLC.
Napoli, Philip. (2007). Media Policy: An Overview of the Field, pages 2-20
NewLeftMedia (2012, January 18). Understanding PIPA/SOPA & Why You Should Be Concerned. Retrieved May 15,
2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBy7yooz3MM
Media Divides:
Communication Rights and the Right to Communicate in Canada, pages 3-41.
S.968-PIPA, (2011, May 26). OpenCongress. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-
s968/text
Schwartz, D. (2012, January 18). Canada would feel effect of proposed U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act. CBC News.
Retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/17/f-sopa-canada.html
Smith, J, (1981, June). Freedom of Expression and the Marketplace of Ideas Concept From Milton to Jefferson. Journal
of Communication Inquiry. Vol. 7, no. 1. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from
http://jci.sagepub.com/content/7/1/47.extract
SOPA/PIPA Timeline. (2012, January 24). ProPublica. Retrieved May 29, 2012 from
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/timeline