The People v. SOPA: Pro-Freedom or Anti-Piracy...? You Choose.

            Youtube.  Facebook.  Google.  Twitter.  Wikipedia.  Sounds familiar?  These particular websites amongst thousands of websites provide and host a plethora of shared and uploaded content via public-based domains.  In other words, virtually anyone with access to the Internet has the ability to access these public websites.  For the most part, we have all most likely engaged with the content hosted on these sites in one form or another.  As Internet users, who have contributed to a culturally-technological expansion of Internet browsing, we have systematically expanded the prevailing notion of freedom of expression through speech from a narrow-casted individualistic perspective into an era of online free speech.  According to the First Amendment of the United States, Freedom of Speech entitles a legal individual to express opinion and ideas through speech.  Moreover, “International, national and regional standards recognize that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.”  Nonetheless, with legislative actions, such as Stopping Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), taken against the aforementioned websites in a radical effort to manage digital rights and terminate the illegal reproduction of copyrighted material, one must ask themselves this question: What is at stake for the Internet community when their natural right at expressing free speech through public file sharing is being threatened by an enclave of capitalistic political influences seeking to prioritize the legality and expansion of Digital Rights Management (DRM or Copyright) over the First Amendment?

            According to his essay, A Political History of DRM and Related Copyright Debates, 1987-2012, Professor Bill Herman critically assesses the socio-political ramifications behind the introduction of two of the most controversial Bill proposals against today's Internet social groups, SOPA and PIPA.  Towards the beginning of his essay, Herman provides insight into the measures taken to thwart Google and its viral video partner, Youtube. "On November 16, 2011, the House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing that was heavily stacked in favor of the bill’s passage, and the committee’s website describing the hearing expresses clear enthusiasm about the bill.  At the very start of the hearing, Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith accused Google—the only substantive opponents at the hearing table—of obstructionism; he also accused them of supporting “rogue” websites.  This is consistent with both judiciary committees’ longstanding support for the SC coalition, writes Herman.  One could argue that by "allegedly" supporting rogue websites, Google actually helps to emphasize its unprejudiced and unbiased dedication and clarity towards expressing online free speech.  You either support all, or support none.  Moreover, I must respectfully disagree with Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith on the obstructionism grounds that faced Google.  In any event, I would sincerely argue that Google has instead promoted websites, the content hosted on said websites, and promoted the users to actively engage with the content within those websites.  It could be seen as a win-win situation, more or less.
            Furthermore, I must contend against the argument attributed against Youtube.  "Several of the music sites that have been taken down were apparently targeted because they posted files that were given to them by record label or artist representatives.  The wave of lawsuits against YouTube highlights the possibility that, had domain seizure procedures been in place five years ago, the world’s number one video sharing site may well have been seized."  Youtube has been governed and regulated by the advertisements hosted upon the website.  The ads, according to the commercial free speech exception, remain within the public video sharing  website to generate profit despite infringement.  However, one could plausibly argue that despite the reproduction of copyrighted media material, Youtube's ads help to reinvest into the pockets of corporate media conglomerates, theoretically limiting its supposedly damaging effect on the copyright holders.  In addition, the fair use doctrine could also be used to generate the argument that Youtube adheres to the practicality of fairness with respect to copyright.  Most Youtube users generally upload content strictly out of a benevolent context.  Whether these users may want to share music with thousands of other users or use portion of copyrighted material without the purposes of profiting, the bottom line here is that Youtube essentially deviates from unfair practices.

            More importantly, I thought it was significantly critical that Herman brought to light the legacy brought about by the expansive politicization and mobilization of actively aware Internet users to oppose the proposed institutions of SOPA and PIPA.  The fact that SOPA and policymakers are now terrified of the political backlash that comes when they go against the wishes of the technology crowd just goes to show that we do our homework when it comes to brawling for our freedom of the expression.  Hopefully our cause, our fight, lasts for another 10 or so more years before another piracy attack commences.

Great article Professor Herman.  Truly insightful, indeed.