We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
from the exactly-wrong dept
Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has the sad distinction of being in the vanguard when it comes to really bad ideas concerning the Internet. On his initiative, France became the testing-ground for the three-strikes approach of throwing people off the Internet upon multiple accusations of copyright infringement, without the need for proof or a court order, known there as HADOPI. He also helped put into circulation a view that is much in vogue at the moment:
"Internet is a new frontier, a territory to conquer. But it cannot be a Wild West, a lawless place"
That's what he said in 2010, during a speech he gave in the Vatican. Since then, the "Wild West" Internet has become the standard justification for bringing in harsh new laws like SOPA and PIPA. After all, the argument goes, just as the Wild West had to be tamed in order to become civilized and productive, so must the Internet.
Of course, this overlooks the fact that the Internet is already subject to a whole host of laws in every country. Indeed, often it is subject to multiple jurisdictions because of its global reach and complicated legal position. But there's an even deeper sense in which the idea that the Internet is a Wild West that needs far-reaching laws like SOPA and PIPA imposed upon it is exactly wrong.
To see why, consider one of the key ideas of SOPA in the original version:
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the companion bill to the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act, would further privatize adjudication and punishment. Title I of that law (dubbed the E-PARASITE Act) creates a “market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” It achieves this by empowering copyright owners who have a “good faith belief” that they are being “harmed by the activities” of a website to send a notice to the site’s payment providers (e.g. PayPal) and Internet advertisers to end business with the allegedly offending site.
That was removed in December, but another section granted immunity to service providers for taking voluntary action to stop infringement. As we noted back then, in many ways that was even worse. Not only would sites on the receiving end of a notice claiming infringement have a huge incentive to take that voluntary action, rather than risk losing immunity, but there were also no counternotice rules, or anything requiring any process for those cut off to be able to have any redress whatsoever.
The payment providers and advertisers that receive the notice must stop transactions with the site. No judicial review is required for the notice to be sent and for the payments and advertising curtailed -- only the good faith representation of the copyright owner. Damages are also not available to the site owner unless a claimant “knowingly materially” misrepresented that the law covers the targeted site, a difficult legal test to meet. The owner of the site can issue a counter-notice to restore payment processing and advertising but services need not comply with the counter-notice.
What both of these approaches and France's HADOPI have in common is that they all seek to institute a system that is extra-judicial, with no requirement for proof of any kind, and which is hard or impossible to appeal against. It is the very definition of arbitrary vigilantism, where private actors get to be judge, jury and executioner. In other words, far from taming a "lawless place" online, SOPA and its ilk would create one where there is none currently.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perspective
Isn't it possible the 'Wild West' was hugely overlegislated by almost every country in the world?
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is the new phone system. What Sarkozy is really saying is there is to much freedom of speech, and it must be controlled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would give rise to internet terrorists
But that would just give rise to a new department to fight the cyber war. Or do we have that already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This would give rise to internet terrorists
Mere commoners are not invited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully, this is not true yet. They still need a judge and a trial to disconnect people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply put, it's all there: lawlessness, thievery, business models based on ripping other people off, circumvention of laws, jurisdictional plays, and so on.
It's all there.
What people are objecting to this point is that various countries are actually trying to apply their laws online, and it's a messy business because of the very issues that make it a wild west - especially jurisdictional issues, "Who's the sheriff?" stuff.
What I sniff is another painful attempt by Glyn to say "piracy is okay". You still haven't justified your love of pirating stuff Glyn, keep trying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who cannot grasp that Congress is a "wild west" needs to be checked for a pulse.
Simply put, it's all there: lawlessness, thievery, business models based on ripping other people off, circumvention of laws, jurisdictional plays, and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, but there's a policeman, so it's all OK.
The Wild West is every man is his own law, and can end the life of another. Not, "Hey! Someone copied my MP3!!!"
Grow up. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, crime exists in the virtual world just like it does in the tangible world. Insisting that something, anything must be done without a reasonable discussion of what repercussions there might be from various proposals is simply irresponsible legislating.
What people have objected to up to this point is that various countries are trying to apply their laws online under a different set of rules than offline. Some countries and the business interests that control them just don't want due process to apply online, they don't want any search or seizure to be unlawful online, they want the severity of online crimes to be wildly disproportionate with what the offense actually is given the digital age, and they want jurisdiction online to be easily ignored if it means it's easier to pursue their goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Question - is it so bad to be a "wild west"
Look at the good side of the wild west.
Here is Henry George talking in the late 19th vcentury and contrasting the parts of America that were then still (to some extent) part of the wild west with the more established east coast cities.
"In the United States, it is obvious that squalor and misery increase as villages grow into cities. Poverty is most apparent in older and richer regions. If poverty is less deep in San Francisco than New York, is it not because it lags behind? Who can doubt that when it reaches the point where New York is now, there will also be ragged children in the streets? "
The good aspect of the wild west is freedom - and freedom brings rapid economic advance and a fairer distribution of wealth.
You, it would seem, just want to stifle the freedom and smother the economic advance in the name of "law and order" which (when translated) actually means nothing other than allowing established vested interests to establish control and crush competition and innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The wild west concept meant that most men died young, where simple medical issues were not addressed because doctors refused to set up shop, and most people lived in constant fear of the lawlessness that existed.
Situations that make it almost impossible to do honest business, because you are more than likely going to get held up, have your products stolen, or your business destroyed by people who don't care about the law or what is fair.
The wild west had very few redeeming features, and as soon as the US was able to tame it, the US suddenly grew. Until then, it was just a grind of swindlers, thieves and scammers... sort of like the internet today. (not to mention the snake oil salesmen, sort of like Mike).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"as soon as the US was able to tame it, the US suddenly grew."
This is so non-sensical as to be absurd. Taming the frontier is the same as the US growing. And it wasn't instantly, it was several hundred years. Chiping away at Native American territories. Remember those guys?
The wild west concept meant that most men died young, where simple medical issues were not addressed because doctors refused to set up shop, and most people lived in constant fear of the lawlessness that existed.
It wasn't a concept. It was real life. Most men died young from ailments that were incurable at the time. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln died of blood loss caused by his A+ doctors bleeding him?
No, there was plenty of business to do in the frontier. Otherwise, outlaws wouldn't have had anyone to rob. You seem to be entirely ignorant of the facts.
Your analogy is fail. The spell is cancelled. Please try another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Veoh, if you'll recall, was a business that was destroyed by a copyright lawsuit. Not the ruling, just the lawsuit. THAT is the kind of thing that's threatening to honest business. What companies have been lost because they were upstaged by pirates? Certainly not the ones pushing the current bills.
And even assuming ther your belief that the current freedom of the Internet is bad were correct, that does not make anything being done now a better alternative. The laws that are currently in the pipeline would be like pruning a hedge with a flamethrower. We'd go from Wild West to Soviet Union.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazon, Itunes, and many others spend a small fortune every day to prevent their sites from getting hacked, to prevent people from making prank orders, and to avoid being scammed by people using stolen credit cards, fake IDs, and the like.
Because of the anonymous nature of the intenet, people actually do scam even the big companies.
Your opinions of proposed laws don't change the basic facts: This is the wild west, and just like the wild west, nobody is happy when the sheriff shows up and actually enforces the law. What you have here is basically an electronic lynching party for anyone who has the balls to actually stand up to the pirates and scammers. Sucks for you guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What law? US law? Icelandic law? What countries law? Will the US submit to Sharia law on the internet (sorry no more boobs online), or is it only Sheriff Sam that has the right to enforce his version of "law" on everyone else? Hey, it worked out pretty nicely on the indians, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They also lose a huge number of sales every day due to ridiculous licensing, pricing and other restrictions placed on them by copyright holders.
But, guess what? They are all highly successful, in large part to their own innovation instead of cowering in a corner in fear of what the internet might be. Maybe your beloved industry should try that as well?
"Because of the anonymous nature of the intenet, people actually do scam even the big companies. "
Yes, because this NEVER happened before the internet... It's bizarre that you seem to think that shoplifting, identity theft and industrial espionage, credit card fraud, prank orders, fake IDs and many other things didn't occur before the internet. You are sadly mistaken, and delusional if you think that restrictions online will stop them.
"Your opinions of proposed laws don't change the basic facts"
...and your "facts" aren't related to reality, as usual.
"What you have here is basically an electronic lynching party for anyone who has the balls to actually stand up to the pirates and scammers."
Your fantasy world is no concern of ours. We deal with facts and reality here, sorry if they're inconvenient for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you read a bit more of Henry George's work you will find that point is thoroughly addressed - and debunked.
"A primitive tribe may not produce much wealth, but all members are capable of an independent life. Each shares all the knowledge possessed by the tribe. They know the habits of animals, birds, and fishes. They can make their own shelter, clothing, and weapons. In short, they are all capable of supplying their own wants. The independence of all of the members makes them free contracting parties in their relations with the community.
Compare this savage with workers in the lowest ranks of civilized society. Their lives are spent in producing just one thing or, more likely, the smallest part of one thing. They cannot even make what is required for their work; they use tools they can never hope to own. Compelled to oppressive and constant labor, they get no more than the savage: the bare necessaries of life. Yet they lose the independence the savage keeps. "
The wild west concept meant that most men died young, where simple medical issues were not addressed because doctors refused to set up shop, and most people lived in constant fear of the lawlessness that existed.
Situations that make it almost impossible to do honest business, because you are more than likely going to get held up, have your products stolen, or your business destroyed by people who don't care about the law or what is fair.
I think you've been looking at the fictional wild west - not the reality here. There may have been few doctors - but then the population would not have suffered many on the diseases that contemporary city dwellers fell prey too. Plus of course the doctors of the day were beyond the financial means of the poorer half of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait. Was that a description of the internet or of any large corporation in existence today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love how maximalists have redefined not living or being located in a given country as "circumventing" that country's laws.
Someone living in Kenya is now apparently circumventing U.S. law by claiming that as a Kenyan they're not obligated to follow U.S. law.
According the maximalists' twisted logic, I'm circumventing Chinese law merely by writing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, nobody is suggesting someone in Kenya is "circumventing" US laws... unless of course they are marketing to Americans, and doing so in a manner which is not legal in the US.
It's not a "maximalist" issue, contrary to your aggressive attempt to reframe the situation. It applies to all sorts of economic crimes, from Nigerian scams to the old "secret shopper" game, the "check too big, wire back the difference" people, and the like. They are all playing the game based on hiding out in countries where their crime is unlikely to be punished, or where their crime is not considered a real crime.
Circumventing the law of one country by working from another country that won't prosecute you for the crime and won't extradite you is pretty much "wild west".
Nothing maximalist about it, except in your feeble mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of them still live in their parent's basements....
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet%20cowboy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> Americans, and doing so in a manner which
> is not legal in the US.
Quote me any statute, code, or regulation that defines such "marketing to Americans" as circumvention of US law.
And after you're done with that, then provide a citation to legal authority that makes that statute, code, or regulation binding on the entire world.
See, even if the US passed a law saying "if you market to Americans, US law applies to you", that law itself would not apply to anyone other than Americans in America.
No law Congress passes, no matter what it says or claims to do, is binding on every single person worldwide.
"or where their crime is not considered a real crime"
I love how you claim that if a country doesn't recognize as crimes everything the U.S. does, they're somehow not recognizing 'real' crimes. That dog don't hunt. The fact that a bunch of U.S. politicians allowed themselves to be bought by the entertainment industry doesn't mean every other country who declines to follow suit is failing to acknowlege 'real' crimes.
> Circumventing the law of one country
The use of the word 'circumvent' implies a duty or obligation to abide by the law in the first place. Citizens of other countries have no duty or obligation to obey U.S. law, anymore than I have a duty to obey Chinese or Iranian law when I put content up on the internet. One cannot circumvent that which one is not legally obligated to obey.
> by working from another country that won't
> prosecute you
They won't preosecute because IT'S NOT ILLEGAL THERE. The whole concept of national sovereignty really seems to have escaped you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
your argument is invalid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Public domain works will still exist, even if you and your ilk keep creating methods to move 70 year old works back under copyright to make people not involved with the work money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Native Americans
/s
This looks a whole lot like what the government did to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class Warfare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Class Warfare
We have Disney-sponsored Homeland Security SWAT Team raids on copyright infringers and Hollywood lobbyist-written legislation sponsored by bought politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class Warfare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
SOPA Internet: "He looked at me funny, kill him!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Based on the colonialism analogy, I suppose that "mercantilism" could be the descriptive process of what is being urged for the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always want to hurl when somebody says this but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sure is like the Wild Wild West, if you mean big ranchers and mine operators and railroads running the show, buying the sheriff, owning the territorial legislatures, stealing land and cattle, oppressing the immigrants, lynching whoever they want, and peeing right in the middle of the stream!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a mistake in the first sentence
This is wrong - Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has the sad distinction of being in the vanguard when it comes to really bad ideas, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth about the old west
The only place the bad guys run wild is in Hollywood movies. There are maybe a half-dozen true stories about bandit/outlaw gangs and hundreds of movies retelling them over and over and over again.
Think about it. If the old west were really the way Hollywood describes it would the banks actually have had less security features then they do today? Heck no, they would have had three full-time gunmen sitting guarding the place at all time. The funny thing is that they did exactly that in the 'civilized' eastern cities.
So if the Internet is anything like the old west, then that is actually a serious compliment, since it means that stupid laws don't exist and people can surge forward with the wonderful creativity and vitality that made originally created this civilization and made it thrive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge dredd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and besides the "West" part of the "Wild West," let's not forget that there was also the calm, organized, and orderly eastern coast of the same country.
So... We only cut out half the internet we just don't like? Oh okay, completely reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lobbyists behind IP laws only spent a little over 100 million last quarter, it's a shame they didn't get the laws they purchased yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA and PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]