Fair Use and SOPA (Save the little elephants?!)
I have mixed feelings about SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act.”
On the one hand, the level of internet piracy is mammoth; many companies make big advertising bucks out of stolen content. This lawlessness degrades consumers’ views of intellectual property rights, and, I believe, makes it increasingly difficult for artists to make a living off their work.
On the other hand, the internet is about the only thing in our culture that is free. And this freedom is not just in terms of cost. There’s a great freedom for people to make and post art–some of which is undeniably derivative. I, for example, make a lot of little paintings, some of which sponge images from other people.
I sincerely believe that the types of things I do are either (i) “original” or (ii) “fair use,” and that they do not infringe copyright. (Note that I feel a particular absence of guilt over Andy Warhol, one of the biggest appropriators of all time.)
However, interpretations of laws are always multiple, and it is awful to think that SOPA, if drafted as broadly as everyone says, could be used not to just curtail my little elephants, but WordPress itself for letting me post them.
And here’s one of the rubs–even if government is not interested in shutting down my little elephants (or donkeys, for that matter), and I, perhaps naively, do not believe that it is–I can easily imagine a situation where access-providers could over-zealously apply the law to protect themselves.
And, of course, government could also get into the act.
So, while I am not particularly interested in protecting the pirates–and I do think some thought needs to be given to protecting property rights– I’m very concerned about maintaining freedom for my little elephants and big elephants, and other people’s too. SOPA seems to pose real risks.
P.S. my elephants have no relationship to any political party or even to Babar. (I just like elephants.)
Explore posts in the same categories: news, UncategorizedTags: Andy Warhol elephant, elephant in the room, manicddaily, SOPA
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
ManicDDaily 
January 18, 2012 at 4:35 pm
I agree it is worrysome Karin. Much like the reset on copyright for books. The copyright was running out so (as I understand it) the government changed the rules and things that were to go out of copyright stayed in copyright. With a track record like that who is to say what might be next. Also if someone has an open website where things can be uploaded with little effort why should the site owners be penalized for what John Smith in Nebraska uploads? It’s not like the site owners can be awake 24/7 and spot material that infringes on others rights right when it’s uploaded. And you can’t keep people from doing so before they’ve done something wrong either. Plus some people might think something is fair use or out of copyright when it isn’t. As far as that goes copyright ends at a different time in different countries. Something out of copyright in Australia or Canada might still be under copyright in the U.S. for example. Part of the problem is the cost of the materials being pirated I think too. When an ebook of a given title costs as much as a paper or hardcopy of the same book (and sometimes probably more) and a given book is available in one place but not another due to geographical boundaries, a pirate version of that book or other media might be the only one that a person can find. If the media were easier of access legally and was more reasonably priced I think a lot of the piracy they’re concerned over would vanish overnight. Maybe not all of it, but a good part.
January 18, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Charles, I think you are absolutely right. When people feel overcharged and put upon, they get angrier and freer about downloading. (Movies, for example, have just gotten unbelievably high.) I think part of the genius of Apple was having songs for 99 cents. I personally would think someone would feel a bit rotten to not even pay 99 cents for a song, if they actually cared for the singer or writer. K.
January 19, 2012 at 10:20 am
i would agree…where i have a problem is someone sitting in the justice offce making a determination on where to draw the line…they have clearly demonstated that they do not understand which def leaves trust out of this equation…
January 19, 2012 at 9:51 pm
The whole problem with this bill for me is the door it opens, and the power it gives the wrong people, plus the burden it lays on the true innovators of the internet to do all the policing.The power to shut down a site is too easily abused–all you have to do is post one copyrighted thing like a pic or whatever and if someone wants, they can file for a shutdown order–the real torrent sites will just pop up again under new domains–a never ending hassle for the search engines who are supposed to control them by not listing them. It’s just dumb.
I hear you on Andy Warhol–one of the most derivative of artists, imo. And I love your elephants, wherever they come from.
January 19, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Yes, I think the law is too broad as written, but I do think some of the piracy–I’m talking about these piracy mills–is pretty awful. David Pogue has a very interesting article in the Times about it today. (I’ll look for link and post.) I like him a lot and Danny Goldberg, who I also like a lot, spoke about the problem on Colbert. I don’t think they’ve got the law right and I tend to be against anything Murdoch is for (!) but I do think that the piracy issue is difficult as it really destroys any respect for intellectual property.
January 19, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Here’s Pogue’s article, which I found interesting. I always like him. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/put-down-the-pitchforks-on-sopa/?scp=2&sq=Pogue&st=cse
January 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm
I agree that giving broad powers to anyone is inherently dangerous. When a Gov. can decide to side step a person’s rights by claiming that such and such circumstances negate the normal process of law you have a situation where that Gov. can get away with violating anyone’s basic rights under the law and since they follow the law they themselves wrote which provides that loophole there isn’t anything the average citizen can do to protect themselves. While SOPA itself may not go that far it could be one tiny chip off the marble block which could become a sculpture that no one will want to see completed. If things go that way the terrorists won’t have to worry about destroying America. We’ll have done it ourselves.
January 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Yes, it’s worrisome.
January 23, 2012 at 3:24 am
Thanks for your thoughtful post. As a writer-type creator, I’m concerned about piracy. But as a U.S. citizen, I’m concerned with the ever-increasing power of government. The latter concern outweighs the former at this point.
And thanks for your fun contribution to last week’s Limerick-Off!
January 23, 2012 at 10:19 pm
I was looking through my recent email tonight and I found I’d gotten an email about SOPA and PIPA. Apparently Congress dropped them on the 20th due to online protests against them. It’s nice when we the common people are heard. 🙂
January 24, 2012 at 1:09 am
Yes! I think there was widespread agreement that the bills were overly broad and very unpopular! Yes, it is nice. K.