Point Counterpoint: The Internet Piracy Act

For:

Looking back at the history of copyright material, there has always been a way to illegally them in some way: songs, movies, etc. Because of things such as this, it is no wonder that SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, has come into play. Their goal is to have tighter reins on exclusive material belonging to individuals and/or corporations. Both political parties are trying to push this forward, and both are receiving funds from multiples sources all over Hollywood. Member John Conyers, a Democrat of Michigan, states, "I am very pleased that this is a bipartisan bill, and I think that that's very important."

There are few who oppose this from being passed. It would aid the unauthorized reproduction of files that would otherwise be shared with no credit given to the original creator. This is seen everywhere, on all sorts of sites. It takes money away from those responsible for its existence and takes away jobs from people who would otherwise be employed. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, a Republican of Texas, argues, "The theft of American intellectual property costs the American economy over $100 billion annually ... and thousands of American jobs."

Motion picture companies and record companies have spoken out about the ongoing issue and how SOPA will positively impact the internet. The Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA, calls the Stop Online Piracy Act "a choice between protecting American creativity and jobs or protecting thieves". It is exactly that. If a site is not taking files that are not legally theirs, then they should have no problem having the reigns tightened over the internet and the theft that can come along with sharing things across the World Wide Web. The former President of the MPAA stated, "There are those in the tech industry who hold the mistaken belief that there is nothing wrong with providing links to stolen content…  I wonder if they would feel the same if their patents were stolen and used by others for profit?"

Against:

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been presented in the House of Representatives as an attempt to protect those producing music and movies from having their material taken and copied on the internet.  However, flaws within this bill would lead to the internet being overly censored, infringing on the freedom and variety that the internet has always provided.

A major flaw within SOPA is its broad definitions that would qualify nearly every site as being punishable under this act.  For example, any site that "enables or facilitates" infringement can be subject to disablement.  Without a definition of which acts exactly enable or facilitate infringement, the government can use this wording as a tool to shut down nearly any site.  Any site on the internet can be used to enable or facilitate infringement if it is closely examined enough.  In fact, the entire internet itself enables or facilitates infringement. 

The lack of specificity and exactness in defining terms within SOPA is too big a flaw to overlook.  If, as defenders of the bill have said, the sole purpose of this bill was to locate and deal with the worst offenders of piracy, then why not narrow the scope of the definitions to fit that of the worst offenders?

Also, many blogging sites have sparked debate on whether the level of censorship present in this bill violates the First Amendment.  While it is not the intent of this bill to monitor any type of speech, actions to censor content will hinder large amounts of protected speech that are not related to infringement. 

With the power to unreasonably end websites, this bill could be the start of a very limited internet. 

Methods used for this censorship, although the claimed intents are not the same, are closely similar to that of the internet censorship established in Iran and China that strictly suppresses and controls the flow of information through the internet. 

Other criticisms of the Stop Online Piracy Act revolve around the actual success of hindering infringement, and whether it is worth the collateral damage it would cause. 

Would this bill really put a stop to piracy?  The majority of opinions have been that it would not make a large enough dent in piracy, because movies and music can still be easily copied without the internet.  The internet merely acts as an avenue for piracy, but if the ability to steal property was hindered on the internet, surely other means of piracy would just become more popular, just as they were before the internet.    

The Stop Internet Piracy Act, although its cause is just, would not be successful enough in ending piracy to make it worth all of the negative consequences that this bill may have.