Free Markets, Free People

Two new concerns for the freedom of the internet

One is domestic and the other is international.  On the domestic front we’re again confronted with “good intentions” being horribly and oppressively executed via a bad law.

Wending its way through Congress right now is legislation called the “Stop Online Piracy Act” or SOPA.  The intention is obviously laudable.  As “piracy” is usually defined, i.e. the theft of copyrighted material, it is certainly a function of government to attempt stop and or prosecute theft.

The problem isn’t found in the intent of the law, as I said.  It’s in how it would be executed – the regulations it must spawn to meet the law’s requirements. 

Stephen DeMaura and David Segal write about the effect it would have on political campaigns (their particular focus), but it certainly doesn’t take much to translate that effect onto blogs and many other types of websites.  Read through the scenario they outline that demonstrates a possible effect on a political campaign and then think blogs:

Here’s a plausible campaign scenario under SOPA. Imagine you are running for Congress in a competitive House district. You give a strong interview to a local morning news show and your campaign posts the clip on your website. When your opponent’s campaign sees the video, it decides to play hardball and sends a notice to your Internet service provider alerting them to what it deems “infringing content.” It doesn’t matter if the content is actually pirated. The ISP has five days to pull down your website and the offending clip or be sued. If you don’t take the video down, even if you believe that the content is protected under fair use, your website goes dark.

The ability of any entity to file an infringement notice is one of SOPA’s biggest problems. It creates an unprecedented “private right of action” that would allow a private party, without any involvement by a court, to effectively shut down a website. For a campaign, this would mean shouldering legal responsibility for all user-generated posts. As more issue-based and political campaigns utilize social media to spread their message and engage supporters, a site could be targeted not only for the campaign’s own posts but also for well-meaning comments from supporters.

It doesn’t take a particularly bright person to see how this sort of a law could be used in a broader sense to kill freedom of speech via frivolous attacks on a site’s content.  If QandO embarks on a campaign against a particular politician, for instance, and uses content that it deems to be “fair use” (and may indeed be fair use in a legal sense as well), all it takes is one person anywhere, whether they have a real interest or standing in the case, to file a complaint about “infringing content” and we’re gone unless we remove it.  Whether justified or not, the ISP is left in a position of having to enforce removal or face the cost of a lawsuit (whether a lawsuit is ever intended over the claim or not).  They will obviously move to protect their interests and that means dropping the so-called offender like a hot rock.

It would effectively chill free speech. 

As DeMaura and Segal note, there’s an alternative bill sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa:

The Online Protection & Enforcement of Digital Trade Act would create a process for rights holders to protect their property that wouldn’t shut down entire sites over a small amount of copyrighted material. This legislation helps to solve copyright infringement while protecting the vitality of the U.S.-based Internet sector — an industry that has contributed 23 percent of the growth in world gross domestic product and has revolutionized the way we live.

Attack real on-line piracy?  Yes.  Do it with terrible law?  No.  SOPA should not see the legislative light of day.

Problem two?  The UN and other countries around the world want to have the ability to more directly control more of the internet.  Robert McDowell of the FCC lays it out:

The 193-member International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N.agency, will meet in Dubai next December to renegotiate the 24-year-old treaty that deals with international oversight of the Internet. A growing number of countries are pushing greater governmental control and management of the Web’s availability, financial model and infrastructure.

They believe the current model is “dominated” by the U.S., and want to “take that control and power away,” Mr. McDowell said. China and Russia support the effort, but so do non-Western U.S. allies such as Brazil, South Africa and India.

“Thus far, those who are pushing for new intergovernmental powers over the Internet are far more energized and organized than those who favor the Internet freedom and prosperity,” he said.

The reason, of course, is fairly straight forward – cash and control:

While growth of the Internet has exploded under a minimal regulatory model over the past two decades, “significant government and civil society support is developing for a different policy outlook,” according to an analysis by lawyers David Gross and M. Ethan Lucarelli on the legal intelligence website www.lexology.com.

“Driven largely by the global financial troubles of recent years, together with persistent concerns about the implications of the growth of the Internet for national economies, social structures and cultures, some governments and others are now actively reconsidering the continuing viability of liberalization and competition-based policies,” they wrote.

So the plan, apparently, is to wrest control from the US via this treaty:

A bad treaty – which would need the support of only a bare majority of U.N.members to pass and which the United States could not veto – could bring “a whole parade of problems,” Mr. McDowell said.

The U.S. and other Western democracies would likely “opt out” of the treaty, he predicted, leading to a “Balkanization” of the global information network. Governments under the treaty would have greater authority to regulate rates and local access, and such critical emerging issues as cybersecurity and data privacy standards would be subject to international control.

Mr. McDowell said the treaty could open the door to allowing revenue-hungry national governments to charge Internet giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon for their data traffic on a “per click” basis. The more website visitors those companies get, the more they pay.

And, as we’ve watched so many times, a vital and growing market would suffer government intrusion and probable decline:

In 1988, when the treaty was signed, fewer than 100,000 people used the Internet, Mr. McDowell said. Shortly after it was privatized in 1995, that number jumped to 16 million users. As of this year, it is up to 2 billion users, with another 500,000 joining every day.

“This phenomenal growth was the direct result of governments keeping their hands off the Internet sphere and relying instead on a private-sector, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model to keep it thriving,” he said.

Mr. McDowell attributed the massive growth of the Internet to freedom.

“So the whole point is, the more it migrated away from government control, the more it blossomed,” he said.

Freedom?  Blossoming?  Growth?  Can’t have that.  It must have government control and, by the way, contribute much more in revenue than it is now.   Massive growth without significant contributions to government is just unacceptable in this day and time.  And freedom?  Anathema to the cult of government.  

The servant has become the master and masters instinctively try to gather more and more power to themselves.

This is just another in a long line of examples.  The result, of course, will be to cripple something that has been one of the few growth sectors in the global economy.  Government greed and the belief of elites that they must control everything via government will eventually kill this proverbial golden goose.  Instead of trying to enable more growth, they’re embarked on a campaign to limit and control any growth such that it provides increased revenue for government.  Whether it is best for the citizens or economy of the countries so inclined is apparently irrelevant to the quest for more control and cash.

Freedom should be on the march, but instead, we continually see examples of it on the decline.  The UN is one of the main culprits in that decline.  It is a global organization in search of more power.  Under the guise of global democracy, it is involved in killing freedom as it attempts to gather more and more power to itself.  It is as obvious as the nose on your face that global governance is its ultimate goal.  It can’t do that without exercising more control through willing members and generating more income from which it can demand a share. 

To the control freaks and authoritarians out there, the internet is a horrifically dangerous thing.  It provides much too much freedom for those they would control.  Consequently they seek to wrest that control away.  The UN is the perfect vehicle to provide the cover of legitimacy for such a power grab.

Again, here’s a treaty that has no business seeing the light of day.  However, if I had to guess, it will pass.  And freedom will take another giant step backward.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

5 Responses to Two new concerns for the freedom of the internet

  • <I>The ISP has five days to pull down your website and the offending clip or be sued. If you don’t take the video down, even if you believe that the content is protected under fair use, your website goes dark.</i>

    Well, no.

    They’ll just send back a form letter saying “no way is this infringing”, and then <I>take it to court</i>.

    I don’t know how DeMaura and Segal could have <I>read the damned bill</i> if that’s their hypothetical.

    Any website hosting a candidate’s own clip from the morning news would A) not be a site “primarily designed or operated for the purpose of” violation of IP rights. (Sec 103 (a)(1)(B)(i).)

    Nor would they be able to honestly provide a notification claiming “good faith belief that the use of the owner’s works or goods in which the right exists, in the manner described in the notification, is not authorized by the holder, its agent, or law” (4)(a)(vi). (Which, note, must be affirmed <I>under penalty of perjury</i> by the filer (4)(a)(vii).)

    Furthermore, that entire section and provision applies to “payment network providers” and “internet advertising services”. <I>Not</i> to ISPs.

    SOPA is not a great potential law, but I want better analysis than these yahoos are providing. Did they not read the bill? It’s not long. Seems to me like they just cribbed their mistaken understanding from hysteria on the internet.

    (I’d post a link to the text, but the LOC website refuses to provide links that aren’t inherently expiring; the text of HR 3261 should be readily found, at least.

    See especially s. 103 (b)(5) about counter-notification, which in essence requires only saying “My site totally doesn’t infringe jack-all”, and then instantly throws the issue to court. Where by <I>God</i> the Judge would <I>not be impressed</i> by the claim in that hypothetical.

    I’d bet 50/50 on a perjury charge on whoever signed off the original complaint, in fact. Likewise, part (6) allows for <I>damages</i> for false claims that a site is “dedicated to the theft of US property”.

    Thus, equally, QandO could not be taken down by “one person anywhere” – at worst, you’d have to fire off a form letter, and then <I>sue them for damages</i>.

    They can already file frivolous lawsuits about copyright, so that is no change.)

    • @sigivald They’ll just send back a form letter saying “no way is this infringing”, and then <I>take it to court</i>.

      >>> Or much more likely, the ISP will punt the issue and pull the plug on the site/clip in question, to avoid any legal tangles.

      • @The Shark The ISP a “payment provider” or an “advertising network” – the bill does not mandate ISPs “take down” anything, in what I’ve read of its actual text.

        It mandates that advertising providers and payment providers sever relationships.

        (The DNS blocking stuff is for non-US infringers, and thus irrelevant to the hypothetical here.)

  • Reynolds called it on this stupid SOPA…..it will really only be used against “candidates Hollywood and the media” don’t like.

    In other words, Republicans.

    As for the UN…..is there anything they touch that they do a good job on? Any treaty that Russia and China back just MUST be awesome /sarc

    Of course I expect Erb to support both of these.