p.1 #1 · I was sent this Email today on SOPA and PIPA
Dear Photographer,
We know that many of you have been following the developments with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). There has been some confusion over the proposed legislation, which frankly is the intent of the bills' opponents. We wanted to take a moment to correct some of the bad information, and to let you know where we stand.
We were disappointed by some of the heavy-handed tactics used by opponents of the bills. The objective of those tactics was obviously to create fear and hysteria, while at the same time spreading false information about what the bills would actually accomplish. We want you to know the following:
• Both pieces of legislation (SOPA in the Senate and PIPA in the House) targeted off-shore pirating of works produced in the U.S.
• We do not feel that the measures were perfect—no legislation is. But the greater good demands that measures be taken to protect the rights of creators like you.
• It is true that those mega-corporations opposed to the bill could possibly have been inconvenienced by the legislation. It is their job to make money, and their actions merely represented those purposes.
• It is not true that the public would have been deprived of works to which it has rights, but rather, only those works that are copyrighted and being sold illegally by rogue off-shore websites.
Particularly disturbing to every photographer should be the attempts by Google, Wikipedia and others to define copyright as censorship. The tact is both offensive and intentionally false. Of course, the word "censorship" was chosen by opponents of the legislation for its obvious emotional value. Americans in particular are born with a deep-seated aversion to anything that loosely resembles censorship. Those feelings are amplified in photographers and other creators. After all, you earn a living by SHARING your work, not depriving people of it. So when a behemoth corporate money-maker like Google attempts to stand on the backs of photographers to increase its profits, we as your association take exception. (As a side note, we appreciate all of the words of support you regularly extend to us as we defend those rights.)
It is important to recognize that Google, while it claims to be a friend to copyright, is anything but. PPA is one of several associations joined together in a lawsuit against the search engine giant for illegally scanning and posting copyrighted photographs on the Internet. A similar lawsuit filed by publishers and authors is also underway. It is our opinion that following Google's lead in defending intellectual property is something like depending on the fox to defend the hen house.
That Americans have bought into the false and misleading rhetoric issued over the past few weeks by opponents of the bills is unfortunate. We were surprised that a few creators were swayed by last week's Internet blackout. And we were disappointed that some members of Congress, who are typically more reasoned in their consideration of copyright issues, crumbled in front of the scare tactics used by the bills' opponents.
We will continue our Capitol Hill work on your behalf to educate members of Congress. Copyright is not a "Hollywood issue." The vast majority of copyright holders in the U.S. are small businesses. While Hollywood makes an easy target, the tactic is little more than a smoke screen designed to draw attention away from the true issue—online companies wanting to increase profits at the expense of mom-and-pop creators.
Americans have always valued and defended small-business rights. Each of us must work to be more enlightened about the real issues, and encourage our friends and neighbors not to be led astray by the fear-mongering of Internet bullies. In the meantime, PPA will continue its efforts to defend the rights of photographers now and in the future.
Best wishes for a successful 2012,
David Trust,
Chief Executive Officer
Professional Photographers of America
Professional Photographers of America
229 Peachtree St. NE, #2200, Atlanta, GA 30303
800-786-6277 | [email protected] | www.ppa.com
You are subscribed to the PPA Alerts email list. Click here to unsubscribe: http://ppa.com/my-ppa/mailings/71f90887-eb76-4fb1-b6fb-0a1a67749338
(Note: UN-check the boxes to opt out of the email lists.)
p.1 #2 · I was sent this Email today on SOPA and PIPA
The hubris of organizations aggressively supporting SOPA/PIPA continues to amaze me. Leaving aside the very (and unnecessarily) charged language in this letter, there's two issues that are consistently being swept under the rug by SOPA/PIPA supporters:
1) Those the designed the Internet unanimously and unequivocally believe that the only technical mechanisms capable of enforcing the requirements of SOPA/PIPA will effectively "break" the Internet by causing drastic stability, performance, and security problems. It's important to understand who signed this letter to Congress. These are the preeminent engineers responsible for the nuts of bolts of how network traffic makes it from point A to point B, and they're telling us that SOPA/PIPA with break it. These are not engineers from dotcom companies looking to exploit copyright for their own gain, nor engineers remotely concerned with the Facebook-y shiny parts of the Internet. They are the professionals that design and build the equipment that makes any/all of the Internet possible. Would we ignore the advice of the top 100 experts in any other field like medicine or civil engineering with the same arrogance?
2) There's some fairly heavy issues in these bills that bear proper debate and discussion. For example, SOPA hands the Department of Justice, an executive agency with no judicial oversight, the power to block more-or-less any DNS names/URLs it feels necessary with very little opportunity for redress. While there is no mention of the word censorship in this bill, it's not hard to imagine how something like this could be used politically or inappropriately. (To date, all countries that have passed similar legislation have at least contemplated extending this mechanism to include other types of websites containing pornography or anti-government messages.) Even if you believe strongly that copyright infringement rises to the level of importance to be worth taking this risk that this new blocking system might be used inappropriately, hopefully we can all agree that this is subject at least worthy of a thorough public debate. And yet, the procedural moves being used to get SOPA and PIPA through their respective houses of Congress are being chosen specifically to limit debate and achieve passage with as little public comment as possible. Why are we not having this debate? Why are experts from both sides of the issues not being allowed to fully participate in the process? Why is this legislation on such a fast course?
If both of these issues were given their day, and if we had this debate openly and honestly in the "public square", I might be brought around to supporting this or similar legislation. Until then, I believe we should all be incredibly weary about SOPA/PIPA.
To understand more clearly what SOPA does and the range of consequences, it's helpful to use an analogy from the physical world where we all have many years of experience.
Assume there's a corner store in your neighborhood that rents movies. But the movie industry believes that some or even all of the videos in that store are unauthorized copies, so that they're not being paid when people watch their movies. What should be done?
SOPA/PIPA don't aim at the people trying to get to the store. SOPA/ PIPA don't penalize or regulate the store itself. SOPA and PIPA penalize us if we don't block the people trying to get to the store.
The solution under the proposed bills is to make it as difficult as possible to find or interact with the store. Maps showing the location of the store must be changed to hide it(1). The road to the store must be blocked off so that it's difficult to physically get to there(2). Directory services must unlist the store's phone number and address(3). Credit card companies(4) would have to cease providing services to the store. Local newspapers would no longer be allowed to place ads for the video store(5). And to make sure it all happens, any person or organization who doesn't do this is subject to penalties(6). Even publishing a newsletter that tells people where the store is would be prohibited by this legislation(7).
This is what SOPA and PIPA would impose in the online world. It's very different than targeting the owner of the video store directly. The obligations to make websites hard to find apply to all citizens and businesses. Each one of us is subject to punishment and fines if we don't follow these prohibitions. And, because SOPA/PIPA create a new regulatory structure, we become subject to punishment without the due process protections citizens normally enjoy....Show more →
