Two bills intended to help combat the online theft of intellectual property have stalled in Congress after Internet giants Google and Wikipedia protested and legislative sponsors reconsidered their support. Some Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan, had opposed the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act, and Rep. Eric Cantor saw to it that the bill was tabled. Conservative favorite Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida withdrew his support from the Senate’s companion legislation, the Protect Intellectual Property Act, and other sponsors subsequently withdrew.
A great deal of hysteria attended the discussion of these bills, and their scope and reach were grossly exaggerated. But the bills are nonetheless defective pieces of legislation, and conservatives are right to oppose them.
Advertisement
All conservatives believe in protecting property rights, and most conservatives support the protection of copyright as an extension of that principle. But this is not mainly a question of high principle; it is, rather, a dispute between two competing sets of corporate interests: Hollywood and other content providers seeking to protect their copyrighted materials, and Internet firms seeking to protect their interest in a Web that remains largely free of government supervision. We favor an Internet that is largely free of regulation and taxes; we also favor observing the Eighth Commandment.
While there are a few crusaders against the very idea of intellectual property, there are few questions of principle at stake here, most reasonable people having long ago made up their minds about property rights (generally for) and censorship (generally against). The issues raised by SOPA and PIPA are largely procedural and technological, which is why it is wise to set the legislation aside and begin the process of mediating between the two parties.
It is doubtful that either SOPA or PIPA would have done much to slow down online pirates, any more than a stack of legislation would slow down spam e-mails or enticing offers from fictitious Nigerian financial officials. SOPA and PIPA would have allowed the government to require search engines, Internet service providers, online-advertising networks, and the like to block access to sites designated as being mainly involved in the criminal activity of distributing pirated material. Websites facing such complaints would have a process to appeal their designation, though the worst offenders would of course have no incentive to do so, their guilt being plain and undeniable. Instead, the full-time pirates would have a very strong incentive to simply switch to another website, or to a proliferation of websites, or to deploy any number of commonly available technological solutions to defeat government attempts to block them. Here should implies can, and can is doubtful.
Judging by the fact that pirated DVDs are openly for sale in practically every city of any consequence in these United States, we have our doubts about the police authorities’ seriousness in these matters. Policing pirate websites, many of which are located in foreign jurisdictions (or in unknown jurisdictions), is very hard work, and expensive. SOPA and PIPA would relieve the police authorities of these burdens by conscripting Internet firms to act as proxy police. We are in general skeptical of government efforts to foist off difficult tasks onto businesses and other private parties, who already are expected to act as tax collectors (especially of sales taxes), immigration inspectors, and more.
While too much was made of this legislation’s potential for abuse, the potential, though modest, is real, as it is with all police powers. We strongly prefer to keep Washington’s 535 legislative noses and their countless bureaucratic counterparts out of the Internet. In this case, the cost-benefit analysis weighs against SOPA and PIPA, given the scanty benefits we might expect to realize from such legislation. It would be far better to continue to work on technological solutions and to continue the frustrating and thankless chore of pressuring and cajoling our dear friends around the world into deploying their traditional police powers against the worst of the intellectual-property pirates. The main obstacle to the latter is that in many countries (hello, China!) the police and the pirates are the same people, in which case more creative solutions are going to be needed.
This is an issue that kind of snuck up on me, as I was more inthralled into other issues. It is good to see NR's take on the issue. Although I am still looking at the details of the legislation, my thinking right now is NR probably has it right.
I will worry about IP protection when it is no longer granted in perpetuity. Copyrights should have a term similar to patents; since copyright never expires, it is impossible to innovate and improve without violating it. (Yes, there is a fictitious term limit, but Congress will continue to ensure that it will never be hit for works created after 1900).
Government is the problem, not the solution, for the web as much as anything else. If you want something screwed up, have the government do it, a lot of deranged fascist criminals out to rape, pillage and burn us!
Well, Sir, I'm in favor of neither theft nor piracy, but NRO has nailed this one! Both PIPA and SOPA are bad laws: over-broad, and essentially unenforceable.
('Sides, why would anyone _want_ to steal most of the "pirated" stuff?)
Funny how Rubio (among many other Republican legislators) was a sponsor of the bill, yet you then turn around and claim "conservatives were right to oppose them".
I've been a subscriber to this publication for a few years now, but the more articles like this I read on this site, the more disappointed I get with the hypocrisy of statements like these peppered throughout the columns; to whitewash conservatives when it comes to real issues like this is, to say the least, shameful. It makes me miss WFB more every year.
"Rubio looked like a flip-flopper when he came out in favor of Arizona's tough immigration law after he first came out against it, and he looked like a lawyer who didn't know the law when a string of federal judges struck down portions of the measure."
The bipartisan support for SOPA once again demonstrates that, when the populace is not looking, our politicians are furthering the agenda of big money interests in opposition to the principles of liberty. (Marco Rubio should be ashamed.) Through PROTECT-IP started in the Senate, this legislation has been brewing since early 2011. Yet, there has been no attention to it by the media including National Review. Why? In terms of piracy, the entertainment industry wants an easily distributed, digital product, but it does not know how to limit access to that product. Sorry, this is a broken business model, not a situation that requires a police state. It is akin to the movie theater owner who wants to prevent his neighbors from watching a free movie by demanding by law that they refrain from looking in the direction of the screen. If media cannot find a way to protect its product through distribution technology, that is too bad. Do not infringe on freedom of speech and information to compensate for business failure.
'Paul singles out Rubio for backing off PIPA' External Link
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Rep. Ron Paul, in an unusual move, singled out Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday for dropping his support for a controversial online piracy bill.
"Rubio switched his vote -- he took his name off because he heard from his people," Paul said at a College of Charleston rally. "A lot of people in Washington aren't philosophically interested, they're interested in re-election, that's what motivates most of them is reelection and power. But no, if there are enough people that send that message, they should change their minds. That's what the system is all about."
Paul also praised the grassroots effort that has led many lawmakers to change their minds about the legislation. "Sometimes you need a two-by-four to get them to listen," he said to laughter, "but evidently numbers play. And so I think this is very important."
A: With a Hammer and a two-by-four
---- "Drive-In Theater Owner, as a clarification." ----- Seriously? That's Awesome! LOL
Though I agree that SOPA/PIPA/DCMA are all bad, you're wrong on a couple of points.
"Yet, there has been no attention to it by the media including National Review."
I don't know how many articles there have been, but there have been several posts in The Corner over the last several months.
"It is akin to the movie theater owner who wants to prevent his neighbors from watching a free movie by demanding by law that they refrain from looking in the direction of the screen."
No, it is more akin to the drive-in neighbor aiming a webcam at the screen, and broadcasting it to the internet. And, neither instance requires more law because it's already illegal to steal.
However, it isn't really up to the distributor to find a way to lock up his product. If I leave my car unlocked in a store parking lot, it doesn't mitigate the grand theft charges I'll bring against you when you take it for a joyride.
Theft is theft - even of intellectual property.
SOPA/PIPA/DCMA is bad legislation - stop/repeal it.
GWB, I am glad that you are against SOPA/PIPA/DMCA; it is bad legislation. However, there is legal muddling in your post. First in the US, copyright infringement is right infringement not theft; this was established by the Supreme Court. Second, it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to enforce those rights. If infringement occurs outside of his or her legal jurisdiction, enforcement may be impossible. Per your example, if you allow your unlocked auto to be moved to a country where auto theft is not against the law; then it is not grand theft auto. Finally, business model is inextricably tied to copyright enforcement. One cannot deed all responsibility for control of an asset to the government. No one is claiming that making infringing copies is not against the law. However, if enforcement requires draconian tactics, then there is a reasonable problem with how you are distributing the product. If I run a movie rental business that demands that you only view the film once, how do I enforce this? Do I place technological restrictions on my product or do I place a government agent in your home? Copyright infringement enforcement has always been a remedial process, eliminating a specific infringing activity. It has not been exercising the strong arm of the law to eliminate any technological possibility of infringement.
"In terms of piracy, the entertainment industry wants an easily distributed, digital product, but it does not know how to limit access to that product. Sorry, this is a broken business model, not a situation that requires a police state....If media cannot find a way to protect its product through distribution technology, that is too bad."
Absolutely correct.
And also....Rubio didn't back out of his support of the bill (THAT HE BACKED) until Wikipedia went nuclear.
Actually, it is:
- The presumption of guilt before innocence
- Due process in law
- The assignment of undeserved police and judicial powers to the corporation
- Free speech
- etc.
I think it's disingenuous to re-label this Hollywood-backed, conservative-driven, law-making effort as "it's just about the moniez so whateva".
PS: I remember that when were supposed to hate Democrats because they were the puppets of Hollywood. Now, apparently, the puppets are on the Right? Hmm.
The most important point: IT WILL NEVER WORK as intended. Indeed, it would probably increase the amount of piracy in the long run (just as the War On Drugs has driven illegal drug use up, not down.) This is not really a Stop Piracy bill, it's just an Industry Rent Seeking bill.
I don't know a single person, left or right, who supports this legislation.
Yet it gets enough bipartisan support in congress to be taken seriously.
Lobbyists and lawyers and cronyism at work.
(And could it be a potential wedge issue? All those 1% Hollywood fatcat Dem bundlers are surely in favor of the legislation, and you know how Obama loves to play to his most loyal special interests. However the online 99% -- include lots of starry-eyed young Obama voters -- will never tolerate it.)
I agree with a lot of your post, but this part is silly:
"(just as the War On Drugs has driven illegal drug use up, not down.)"
The "War On Drugs" has *not* created demand. That's absolutely ludicrous, and defies reason as well as any possible understanding of markets (illicit or otherwise).
OK, trash SOPA/PIPA but get something out there soon. The number of pirate sites appears to double every few months. Anyone who wants almost any digital product for free (or the price of a subscription to a file sharing site) just has to Google for it. The DMCA is worthless. Legally an American site has to take my files down if I file a complaint but they can put them back up the next day. Corporations with legal staffs might have some clout with pirates but small business digital designers have nothing, and the pirates are killing us
