Despite successful legal actions against Napster and Grokster at the turn of the millennium, copyright holders have yet to find a solution to the problem of online piracy. According to the RIAA, the decade since 1999—when Napster emerged—music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent (approximately $7 billion). Worldwide, losses to the entertainment and publishing industries may amount to more than $135 billion. From 2004 to 2009, it is estimated that 30 billion songs were downloaded illegally, and as of 2009, only 37 percent of music acquired was paid for. While copyright infringement certainly existed before filesharing came to prominence, there is no question that the ability to share large amounts of data on the internet has made it extremely challenging for copyright holders to protect their property.
Much of the problem today has to do with the evolution of filesharing since the demise of Napster and Grokster. Both of those sites relied on a centralized network through which users could share files; however, that structure provided copyright holders with a relatively easy target for litigation. To avoid detection and reliance on third-party intermediaries, users shifted to a new file-sharing protocol called BitTorrent, which relies on a completely decentralized network.
The problem of online piracy is being attacked on multiple fronts, including lawsuits against individual users of BitTorrent and domain-name seizures of piracy websites by US authorities. But the real headline-grabber this year was the Stop Online Piracy Act. Introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith on October 26 in the House of Representatives, this bill includes sweeping measure to ebb the tide of copyright infringements.
First, the bill makes it a felony to willfully infringe a copyright (1) for the purposes of commercial advantage or private gain; (2) when the total value of works copied electronically is more than $1,000; and (3) by putting content online when it is intended for commercial dissemination. Those found guilty of violating this provision could be fined and sentenced to up to five years in prison, and harsher penalties for repeat offenders are available.
Second, the bill allows copyright holders, such as music producers or film studios, as well as the department of justice to request that advertising networks, search engines, or internet service providers take action against a foreign website. Those intermediaries then have two options: comply within five days or contest the complaint. The purpose of these measures is to prevent intermediaries from channeling internet traffic and advertising money to websites responsible for online piracy.
Questions have been raised about the potential scope of SOPA, especially with respect to online forums, news sites, and other resources that rely on user-created content. They claim that SOPA will end free expression on the Internet because the measures will ensure that only traditional media and publishing methods—rather than user-provided content—will survive.
While this and other flaws may be cause for tinkering with some of the provisions in SOPA, it seems clear that the current tools for combating online piracy are insufficient. SOPA is an interesting attempt to raise the stakes both for individual file sharers and for websites that benefit—even indirectly—from commercial piracy. The fundamental challenge will be making sure that the Internet remains a place where information may be exchanged freely, while also giving copyright-holders a chance to protect what is theirs by law.
We won't let others to stop our freedom to gain and share knowledge for free.
Posted by: Reylan | Labor Posters | January 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM