CLOSE

What's Wrong With PROTECT IP and SOPA?

You may have heard about some new bills making their way through the U.S. Congress, related to piracy on the internet. But what are they and what's the big deal? Here's a simple guide to what the laws are and why so many internet nerds (like myself) are against them.

Executive summary: the new laws could make you, as an individual, liable for a five-year prison term for posting any copyrighted work; they would hand massive new power to the entertainment industry (and other content-owning interests) to shut down websites for minor infractions; and they would likely result in large-scale censorship of everything users post online because of these issues. Sounds great, huh? For a summary, check out this video:

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this post does not contain legal advice. I am actually a copyright holder, and I think these bills threaten the fundamental operation of the internet -- which is where I make my living.

A Tale of Three Acts

In the Senate we have under consideration the PROTECT IP Act (S. 968); in the House there's the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR. 3261) (SOPA). Together, the bills would give copyright owners and governments new power to shut down websites if the copyright owners believe any infringing content is on the sites. Note that no trial has to take place; the content owner -- think "movie studio" -- just has to send a notice saying something bad is going down, then the site can be blocked via a legal injunction brought by a US government attorney and a single judge.

While the stated intent of these laws is clearly good (to reduce online piracy), the execution is so broad that it "breaks the internet" -- these laws shift the balance of power online such that major entertainment industry players (again, think "movie studios" or perhaps "record labels") can strangle websites. Can you think of any websites you visit that might have an image, song, or a video that infringes somebody's copyright? I bet you can. Can you imagine what would happen if copyright holders could block the entire site, prevent advertisements from running, and block credit card payments from occurring? You guessed it: those sites would be dead.

We already have a law in place that governs online piracy, and it predates these two new acts. It's called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and it was passed in 1998. While it has its own problems, it contains pretty straightforward mechanisms for copyright owners to request that their content be taken down. Indeed, "DMCA takedown requests" are very common online, and I have issued them myself to various websites. (I'm not just a writer, I'm a photographer -- and people steal my work all the time. So I find them and issue a takedown request, and the material is removed. Not the easiest thing in the world, but it works.) I want to be totally clear here: I'm against piracy, and I pursue people who pirate my work...and I think these new bills are bonkers. So when a copyright holder who currently exercises his legal powers (me) thinks these bills that would expand his legal powers is going too far, you know something weird is going on.

What these new acts would do effectively takes the sniper rifle of the DMCA -- "Somebody on your forums posted my photo without permission; remove it" -- and turns it into a shotgun: "Somebody on your forums posted my photo without permission; your entire website is blocked for everyone until you remove it." You only have to think for a few moments to realize how many websites would effectively disappear if this were the law of the land -- no more YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Tumblr, Wordpress, or any other site where people can post content of any kind (remember, copyright extends to written works too -- so this is not just about movies and songs). Many of these sites operate based on a mechanism that assumes people can freely post content (often with an automated screening process to try to identify infringing content, as with YouTube), and then copyright holders can identify infringing content, make a complaint, and have it promptly removed. This model (which is fundamental to how the internet works today) breaks down if the new laws pass. It also creates a regime where any new web service needs to enter into some kind of ongoing legal relationship with every copyright holder ever in order to really be safe. This is the definition of strangling innovation: startups can't afford to do the level of content filtering that, say, Google can. So there just won't be any more startups that let people share things. Oh, wonderful!

Who's Against the Bills

In an open letter, a who's-who of major tech companies wrote to Congressional leaders, urging them not to pass these laws. The signatories include AOL, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla (they make Firefox), Twitter, Yahoo, and Zynga (they make Farmville and other games). Perhaps the most vocal critic of the legislation has been Tumblr (a blogging site where mental_floss shares content); Tumblr has added information to every user's dashboard pointing to a page called Protect The Internet, offering to call you to tell you more about the issues. Even Kickstarter is against the legislation. Oh, and our friends at Boing Boing have written up their own article on the issue. Guess what, they don't seem to like these laws either.

I live in Oregon, where we happen to have some really smart politicians. At the moment, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has placed a hold on PROTECT IP. In a press release yesterday, Wyden's office quoted his statement to a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Here's a snippet:

As I have said before, this is not an issue where we should use a bunker-buster bomb when a laser beam would do. And that is not just my opinion, venture capitalists who fund Internet start-ups, the biggest and smallest actors in the tech community, law professors concerned with speech, Internet technologists, security experts and mainstream and new media have all expressed concerns about the legislation advancing in Congress.

In writing laws to police the Internet, we need to consider more than how effective a proposed remedy would be at combating infringement, we must also consider the impact proposed remedies will have on everything else online. This means keeping the following in mind:

1. Be deliberate. While rights holders and law enforcement are understandably eager to go after bad actors, we must be mindful of the precedents we set here at home, and around the world.

2. Get the scope right. Narrowly focus law enforcement's authority on those who are willfully and deliberately breaking the law or infringing on others' property rights for commercial gain.

3. Avoid collateral damage. Rather than frustrating the architecture of the Internet or establishing a censoring regime, consider instead promoting approaches that empower users and do no harm to the 'Net. More simply, fish for tuna without catching dolphins.

4. Promote innovation over litigation. Our efforts should be to protect copyrights and trademarks, not outdated business models.

Remember that bit about the five-year prison term I mentioned at the top? Here's a snippet from Boing Boing, quoting Tiffiny from Fight For The Future:

Sites that would be legal under the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions would now risk losing everything for allowing user generated content. It also has added in the streaming felony bill that would make it so ordinary Internet users are at risk of going to jail for 5 years for post[ing] any copyrighted work that would cost $2,500 to license. And because copyright is so broad, that means videos with copyrighted music in the background, kids in a school play, people singing karaoke could all be a risk.

Guess what's also a felony in, oh, let's just pick Oregon? Among many others: burglary, child pornography, DUI, tampering with elections, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, rape, and robbery. Really, Congress? You're really going to make it a felony to sing a song? That's utterly insane.

What You Can Do

Check out Tumblr's page allowing you to email your representatives or get a phone call with more info; use the Electronic Frontier Foundation's page to find your representatives and email them (it's easy); or check out American Censorship Day (which was yesterday, but there's still time to act).

Also, please share your thoughts in the comments. I'm assuming there is some counter-argument that these bills are a good thing -- I'd love to hear it; all I've found online is a bunch of smart people who I trust saying this is a really bad deal for all of us.

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Live Smarter
You Can Finally Mute Users on Instagram
iStock
iStock

Since launching as a photo editing and sharing app in 2010, Instagram has grown into the third most popular social media platform behind YouTube and Facebook. That means the list of people you follow likely includes friends you like as well as exes, distant family members, and former high school classmates whose constant updates you could do without. Now BuzzFeed reports that Instagram just made it a lot easier to trim your feed of unwanted content without the user’s knowledge.

To mute someone without unfollowing them altogether, tap the ellipsis to the right of their username next time you see one their posts. Next, select “Mute” from the list of options that pops up. From there you can choose to just mute their regular posts or block their posts and Instagram Stories from showing up on your end. There’s no way for the user to know you muted them (at least not yet), and you can visit their profile to unmute them any time.

Instagram had already made it possible to mute someone’s Stories by tapping and holding their profile icon, but this is the first time users have the option to hide all posts from a person as well. Prior to the update, users either had to put up with obnoxious oversharing or hit the unfollow button and risk their friend (or acquaintance, family member, etc.) noticing their follower count dropped.

Interested in curating your other online feeds? If politics is your biggest social media peeve, here are some ways to see less of it.

[h/t BuzzFeed]

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Live Smarter
Not Sure How to Plan a Multi-City Vacation? A New App Will Do It for You
iStock
iStock

If you want to explore the world but planning a multi-city vacation seems overwhelming, Eightydays is the app for you. The service, which we spotted via Travel + Leisure, is designed to help you decide where to go on your vacation and how to get there by auto-generating potential travel itineraries. And it can help you do it cheaply.

Eightydays uses an algorithm to generate potential travel itineraries to get you between major cities in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, finding you flights and trains that will be both budget-friendly and convenient. And it does it more or less instantly, saving you the time and hassle of sorting through travel times or staring at maps.

The algorithm excludes remote airports that are far from cities and limits choices to direct flights and trains, making sure you spend the bulk of your time exploring, not sitting in transit. It also limits departure times so that you don't have to wake up at 3 a.m. to make your flight.

You can choose to stay in up to six cities in one trip, or limit your itinerary to just a few different destinations. It provides links to buy tickets from Kiwi.com and suggestions for accommodations from sites like Airbnb and Booking.com. If you don't like the initial destination suggestions, you can hit "shuffle," and it will suggest a different itinerary.

Screenshot of Eightydays.me showing a suggested itinerary starting in Barcelona
Screenshot, Eightydays

If you aren't the most creative trip-planner, Eightydays can help you find destinations beyond the basic cities on every world traveler's bucket list. To test it out, I asked the app to find me destinations around Europe between August 1 and 8, starting in Barcelona. It suggested I hit up Narbonne, Montpellier, Marseille, Toulon, and Nice, all for a total of $200 in train tickets. On a second try, it suggested my Barcelona vacation include stops in Stuttgart, Strasbourg, Metz, Luxembourg, and Cologne instead, for a total of $242 in air and train fare. These are definitely not cities I would immediately think to visit if I were planning on my own, but they're relatively cheap and easy to get to from my preferred starting point.

There are some limitations. You have to start and end in the same city, and it won't create an itinerary for more than 20 days or more than six cities. But if you're looking to see as many places as you can on a limited budget and a limited timetable, Eightydays is a simple way to do it.

Get it for iOS here, or browse online at eightydays.me.

[h/t Travel + Leisure]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios