SOPA-y

Today, on January 18th, 2012, Wikipedia, Google, and Reddit have voluntarily blacked out their websites (In Google's case, the logo is blocked though the site remains functional). Additionally, sites such as 4chan have inserted a 'censor bar' into their logo.

www.google.com on 1/18/12

It should come as no surprise that I, along with many tech companies such as Google, Wikipedia, and Reddit, am opposed to this bill. While those companies carry far more weight than I do, even one voice adds to the collective against a measure.

So why the big deal, you wonder? I mean, it's not the first time the government's tried to pull something stupid. It gets signed, it gets challenged in court, and it gets overturned. What makes this so different?

www.wikipedia.org on 1/18/12

SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, the Protect Intellectual Property Act, are essentially two forms of the same idea. In response to overseas hosting of pirated content (where US copyright is not recognized), US Copyright and IP holders have decided that something needs to be done. The result is these two bills which essentially allow an intellectual copyright holder to demand that a site hosting copyrighted content be removed from search engines and DNS listings in the US. This effectively 'removes' a site from the internet as seen by US subscribers. (Note: There's a lot to be said that this form of blocking isn't actually effective, but that's for another time)

Hollywood, the RIAA, and the MPAA will assert that these bills are needed to combat the growing threat of online piracy of their products. The thing is, that isn't what it's about. Yes, software/movies/music gets pirated, and yes, some of those copies result in lost revenue. Any programmer will tell you that piracy cannot be stopped. The most advanced anti-piracy and DRM measures can and will be defeated with time. If someone wants it bad enough, they will take it. Even software giant Valve has said that Piracy is a service issue, and that DRM drives gamers away from paying.

No, this is about money, and not wanting to respond to a changing global economy.

Look at modern movies and music. How long has it been since something truly revolutionary has come out? The problem is that Hollywood has realized, perhaps a bit too late, that they cannot keep pushing the same rehashed movie plots, nor can they sell another CD that sounds like all the rest. Furthermore, they cannot charge top dollar for these movies and music that come with region lock and content restrictions, or can only be listened to on X computers. The problem is that Hollywood doesn't want to change that.

Welcome to the free market. Either you adapt, you change, and you innovate, or you perish. This is exactly what Hollywood does not want to do. They want to keep in on their terms.

It's hard to have sympathy for the mess that contents holder are in. After all, the Big 3 automakers found themselves in the same situation when they refused to adapt to a changing marketplace. If Hollywood can't keep up, let them fail. Don't allow a poorly phrased and politically backed bill that would ultimately solve nothing be passed. Don't take the chance with free information that someone, somewhere will not want you to have that information.