First, I'm a software engineer, and the applications and systems I work on are internet-based systems. So, for one of my livelihoods, I rely on a free and open internet to not only build the systems my employer wants me to build, but also to obtain information, research, utility applications, code examples, and so forth to aid me in my daily responsibilities. An internet unencumbered by any legislation that stifles the free flow of information is a problem for me.
Second, I'm an artist. I create music because I love the creative process, and because I want to share my creations with others. I also want to be able to continue to create music, and in order to do that I need to be compensated for the music I create. An internet that allows my creations to flow freely without me getting compensation for them is a problem for me.
So you see my position, and why I'm ambivalent. But, while I believe there is probably a solution to these two seemlingly opposite concerns (an open internet versus compensating artists for their work), I don't think SOPA or PIPA are the right solutions.
Overall, the language in the two bills is much to vague, and I believe this is the reason why most technology and internet companies and many others are against them. But then this is really typical of most legislation. Let's get one thing straight: for whatever reason, we expect (subconsciously, most likely) our lawmakers to be experts in everything. Well, let's be honest most lawmakers believe they are experts in everything. We'll chalk that up to politicians' arrogance, but the fact is, they aren't.
So, this causes many major problems with any piece of legislation that they create, and it fosters an environment where special interest groups can pressure legislators to draft legislation that favours their group. I believe this is what has happened with SOPA and PIPA. I think the special interest groups Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are really the drafters of these pieces of legislation.
Why? Precisely because both bills appear not to take into account the unintended consequences that would inevitably be created by their passage. (Another by-product of new laws is the unfunded mandate, which is in essence "You will do this, but we're not going to provide the funding for it." It's certainly likely that this is the case with these bills; certainly it would require great expense on the part of ISPs to implement systems to guarantee compliance, compliance that the government mandates but doesn't fund.)
Look. Again, the language in these bills is extremely vague (yes I have read excerpts from the bills). Such vague language invites, nay, demands broad interpretation, and this is what everyone opposes. It's no good saying "well it won't be interpreted that way, we promise." If we've learned anything over the course of our long and storied human history, it's that you cannot give anyone the ability to broadly interpret anything. Let's face it: it's human nature (and its certainly in governments' natures) to interpret laws as broadly as possible, to gain advantage and to control.
On the other hand, and don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of the RIAA or the MPAA; I do not think these organizations have a deep and abiding interest in protecting individual artist's rights, rather, I think they are interested in protecting the rights of large corporations' interests. Yes. Warner Brothers, Universal, Sony, Disney... these are the large, multi-national corporations that the RIAA and MPAA work for.
But that aside, those who rely on their creations for a living should be protected from the illegal use and sharing of their creations, don't you think? Don't you think artists should be paid when one of their tracks is streamed on Pandora or Grooveshark or Spotify? Shouldn't you purchase a track or an album rather than simply downloading it from Limewire? And here's how not paying for movies and music affects the artists.
If an artist has a major label contract, the label typically advances them money to create and produce an album. If the album doesn't make money because, rather than buying it (or tracks from it) people simply download it off Limewire, the record label doesn't make money on the album, and neither does the artist (typically artists are paid some small percentage of the sale of each album). But here's the double-whammy for the artist. The next time the label advances the artist money for the next album, the label will pay the artist less of an advance because of how the previous album's sales were. (Thanks to @MosesAvalon for his piece on the artist side of the argument at http://www.mosesavalon.com/mosesblog/)
So here's what I think. There's got to be a better way to protect creators creations while protecting the free flow of information on the internet. I think we shouldn't leave it up to our politicians and special interest groups from one side of the issue to come up with the solution. Tech companies and other organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) should also be included.
And perhaps they were. But what we've got now in SOPA and PIPA, based on my bit of research, is not acceptable yet....
