The internet is a significant part of todays society because many have become dependent on the social aspects of it. Incorporating social life in the world of the web is very important because it creates a convenient way to keep in contact with friends, family, and acquaintances. Freely sharing information on the internet is what people love the most about it. However, at any given point when the majority of the population is putting something too extensive use, the government will always try to find a way to benefit from it. As a result, the United States purposes bills such as SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (The protect IP Act). These laws should not be enacted because they would result in no internet freedom. This would make it impossible to socially connect with one another through the internet because many sites will become blocked or completely taken down by the government. Not to mention it is unfeasible for these bills to ever be successful in any way.
SOPA is a bill that was introduced by Lamar S. Smith, a United States Representative. The purpose of this bill is for the U.S. law enforcement to gain more power over the availability Americans have of the internet. The ultimate goal is to prevent copyrighted intellectual property. This law is taken extremely seriously by U.S. government officials, and it imposes those who are caught streaming copyrighted content on the internet. If caught, one can face up to a maximum of five years in prison. The doctor who killed Michael Jackson was only sentenced for four years of jail time. Yet, if one were to download Michael Jackson’s music “illegally” from the internet, the prison sentence for streaming copyrighted content has a greater penalty than manslaughter. If SOPA were to be passed, internet freedom would be extremely limited. Corporations would now obtain the power to censor almost any site on the internet. This is unjust because it puts a damper on the rights that we have been accustomed to having. If one obtains access to the internet, they are obviously paying a monthly bill for that usage. Why would people still pay corporations such as AT&T or Time Warner Cable if they cannot view every thing that they want to? If the government believes that it is acceptable to limit what its citizens can and cannot view on the internet, then they should not mind paying the monthly fees to use it as well. It is unjustifiable to pay for something that is not only a violation of freedom but completely limited of use as well.
The Protect IP Act (PIPA) is a proposed law that would give the U.S. government and copyright holders additional implements to restrict internet access. This bill would target non-domestic websites. In other words, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, and other sites containing freely shared information could be seen as an infringing site. Any site linked to the infringed site can be completely shut down by their web hosting company without having to go through the court system. Harvard law professor and author of a treatise titled American Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe, argues that SOPA is unconstitutional because "an entire Web site containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement" (McCullagh,1). This is a significant point because if someone were to mention something that has a copyright on it, not only would they suffer, but the entire site suffers as well. Every tweet and status update would have to be checked in advance before it is posted for copyright violations, rather than taken down upon notice of infringement. This would destroy the social networks that small businesses use to find new customers and members of Congress use to communicate with constituents. SOPA and PIPA would destroy American technology companies and social networking sites that create jobs for people because the jobs would become unavailable, and current employees would be let go. “On November 15, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn wrote a letter to key members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, saying SOPA poses ‘a serious risk to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job creation, as well as to our nation's cyber security’”(McCullagh). By incorporating the same internet censorship strategies as human right abusers including communist governments such as China, not only is the United States showing a prime example of hypocrisy, but also putting an end to all social media aspects of the internet as well. It can be argued that artists are negatively affected by digital distribution and the social media. Some artists are convinced that they are losing money because people are able to download their music for free on the internet. Nevertheless, Seattle rapper Sir Mix-a-Lot disagrees with this proposal and is a social media enthusiast. In a recent article from the Rolling Stones, Sir Mix-a-lot said that he thinks “social media is beautiful because it gives musicians something he did not have even at the height of his career: direct access to fans. New artists can now ‘skew’ their next project based directly on fan feedback, not the opinion of a select few record execs” (Raymundo,1). This is a notable quote because many people depend on the internet as a primary source of information, not only to find out news and current events, but also to discover new things. Think of how many musicians you have discovered on the radio in comparison to how many you have discovered on the internet. When listening to the radio, no matter how many times you change the station, the same songs are playing repeatedly. Having internet freedom is crucial when it comes to benefiting rising stars because people can share what they enjoyed hearing via their social networking sites and file sharing.
SOPA and PIPA do not truly stop piracy of movies, music, and goods. If one is in search of pirated content, all they have to do is visit the IP address of an infringing site instead of its domain name. With the continuous advancements of today’s technology, people are bound to figure out alternative mechanisms to get around the barriers, especially since they are never going to be completely blocked. No matter what, the bills are setting themselves up for failure. By enacting SOPA and/or PIPA, a media monopoly is being created because the only people who will be able to obtain complete control over the internet is the government. Monopolies have never worked out in the past. For example, in the early 1900’s the only person who could legally have recognition as a film creator was Thomas Edison because he was the inventor of film making. Thomas Edison put patents on every type of motion picture making on the East coast, making it impossible for aspiring independent creators to even create film. Instead of participating in this monopoly that Edison created, those who wanted to create films migrated from the East coast to the West coast where they ended up in Hollywood, California. Once the independent creators successfully laid down a foundation in Hollywood, the country as a whole began to disagree with the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) as well. As a result, the MPPC was charged with antitrust by the government of the United States. “In October 1915, the courts determined that the Patents Company and its General Film division acted as a monopoly in restraint of trade, and later ordered it disintegrated” (Aberdeen). Eventually, the Edison monopoly failed, resulting in the rise of Hollywood and opportunities for creators everywhere.
The thesis is very clear in this essay;"SOPA and PIPA have been proposed. These laws should not be passed because they would result in no internet freedom, making it impossible to socially connect with one another via internet." The thesis can be bettered through defining specific examples that effet internet freedom. The writer does give clear examples and opinions to support her thesis. However i would like to see more evidence to support her thesis, making the essay more effective. The essayist hints of a counterargument but it's just not there. Although it lacks in some areas, the essay has a great flow and it's easy to read, the transitions are clear.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good idea, and it really makes you think about how we rely on the internet and use it for everything. Your thesis is very specific, but I think it should be shortened because it gets confusing if the sentence is too long. Also, some of the sentences in your other paragraphs. In your thesis you can just write "no internet freedom" because you're going to go in detail in your profile. Some transitioning sentences will also help with making your essay flow nicely.
ReplyDeleteYour thesis is very good. I find your essay very interesting and you have examples to back up your argument. I feel like you could have more examples and more of your own opinion. Some of your sentences are lengthy so maybe you could rewrite some of your longer sentences so they make more sense and flow better with your essay. I really like your picture and I think if you used that first or even just earlier in your essay it would grab the readers attention more and help how your essay is presented.
ReplyDelete