SOPA bills deemed destabilizing to infrastructure of Internet
We live in a time period where the Internet has become nothing less than essential to our daily lives. From Google, to Facebook, to awkwardfamilyphotos.com, we would not be as efficient, educated or entertained as we are without the current liberties the Internet allows. The SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect I.P. Act) currently going through Congress are designed to curb the use of pirated materials. At first glance, it seems like a logical bill. But when they are looked at in more detail it becomes very apparent that they are very destabilizing to the infrastructure and destructive to the spirit of the Internet. Put simply, they must be stopped.
The information below is meant to help explain how SOPA and PIPA work and give insight into the ultimate affect the passing of them would have on the Internet and inadvertently our lives.
A little summary: the Stop Online Piracy Act and its sister bill Protect I.P. Act use what is called DNS blacklisting to block websites that illegally share copyrighted material. A DNS blacklist is essentially an order for the removal of the translation between a domain name and its corresponding IP address. In other words, a DNS blacklist – by design – does not disconnect the website from the Internet but only deletes the location of where on the Internet the website is located.
In (somewhat) simpler terms: the Internet uses what is called an IP address to identify each computer on the Internet. An IP address for a computer (or web server) is synonymous to a phone number for a person; it is used to identify where computers are on the Internet and how to contact them. To get information (like a webpage) from a website one must know the exact IP address of the web server. However, IP addresses are hard for humans to remember (its easier to remember www.google.com over 74.125.224.209—Google’s actual IP address) and IP addresses can change over time. To solve this problem, the creators of the Internet made what is called the Domain Name Service (also known as DNS), which translates www.google.com - a domain name – into 74.125.224.209 - the most current IP address for www.google.com. This process makes the internet much easier to use, allows servers to change IP addresses without changing their domain name, and functions as one of the core functions of the Internet.
SOPA uses DNS blacklisting. Normally when an Internet user asks DNS for the IP address of www.google.com it will return 74.125.224.209. This is good. However, a DNS blacklist essentially removes this translation from the DNS server directory. So if www.google.com was under a DNS blacklisting, the server would return nothing when I asked for the IP address for www.google.com. This is bad. This is bad because the www.google.com website is still online and accessible to the Internet, the computer just can’t find the most up-to-date IP address for it. If an Internet user still knew the correct IP address they could still access www.google.com. This is where the security problem with SOPA comes in and where network professionals have testified before Congress about the horrendous implementation of SOPA/PIPA. The security concern is that if people cannot use US based DNS servers to access a blacklisted site, they will ask non-US based DNS servers (to which SOPA and DNS blacklisting do not apply) for the IP address. The details—like the bills themselves—get complicated very quickly, but ultimately this would be incredibly destructive and degenerative to the security of the Internet.
Most websites exist for the spread of information and ideas to the respective communities of people that can be found on each site. Most news websites, blogs, social media sites, etc. are open to anybody to post comments and it allows an uncensored look into the opinions of these online communities. If SOPA were to be passed, the law would say that each website (let’s use www.pepperdine-graphic.com—The Pepperdine Graphic website) is responsible, and therefore liable, for any copyrighted material on the website regardless of its origin. Furthermore, it means that The Pepperdine Graphic is responsible for user comments and any copyrighted material (music, image, video, wording, etc.) that any user might upload to the website via a comment. This would directly mean that commenting would have to be strictly monitored or removed altogether from the site to limit the liability and chance of violating the new law. Although this task is manageable for smaller sites with less traffic, it would signal an abrupt end to websites like Google, YouTube, Facebook, or any site that relies heavily on user submissions. In short, that this bill will single-handedly change the landscape of the Internet and the free spread of information in a very drastic and harmful way.
The most dangerous aspect of this rule is that a website (again we will use the Pepperdine Graphic) can be DNS blacklisted by anybody who disagrees with the Graphic’s point of view by simply uploading copyrighted material and submitting a claim. These claims are taken on a faith-basis and do not require a court order to be enacted. Frankly, this alone should scare anyone that engages in dialogue on the Internet incredibly much. This rule would completely stunt the flow of information on the Internet and would completely ruin the legacy and work of millions of network professionals and website administrators.
This is the argument of the men and women testifying before Congress next week against SOPA/PIPA. A day-long protest against SOPA/PIPA is taking place January 18th with what is called a blackout-putting a black screen over the site and barring any person from accessing the website for one day. In support of the protest the Pepperdine Graphic website will be participating in the black out on the aforementioned date.
As a website that is partially reliant on user submissions, we strongly believe the message about SOPA/PIPA needs to spread. While we acknowledge that copyright infringement is an issue that needs to be addressed, this is definitely not how it should be done. These laws make no attempt to meet the demands of the consumer market and would arguably make piracy more widely used.
Chances are you’ve heard people protesting these Bills. Unfortunately, most people don’t have an opinion for or against SOPA merely because they do not understand it. Hopefully this information has sparked concern, and all Internet users will do their part to stand up against SOPA/PIPA laws that will permanently damage the infrastructure of the Internet as we know it.
For more information on the stop SOPA movement and to find a way to get involved click the links below.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA
http://www.fastcompany.com/1808216/remain-diligent-sopa-and-pipa-must-be-squashed-not-changed
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/reddit-will-enact-nuclear-option-to-protest-sopa-pipa/66739
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2EtrER/gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-im-fighting-sopa/
UPDATE: As mentioned in the comments the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been pulled – or temporarily “shelved” – from the House floor over the MLK-holiday weekend. However, SOPA has not been officially killed and the Protect I.P. Act (PIPA) is still alive and well in the Senate. The White House has issued an official press statement that declares opposition to SOPA and was the key reason for SOPA’s removal; however, the bill can still be reintroduced to the House floor in the near future if “a consensus can be reached.” The Pepperdine Graphic will still be participating in the blackout on January 18th primarily in opposition to the Senate PIPA Bill and to any future, reintroduced version of SOPA.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/
Why are we protesting this? SOPA is a sound idea designed to help PROTECT the rights of digital media producers. THAT’S ALL IT IS. It doesn’t restrict the rights of any individual who browses the internet! It’s insane to claim it does anything further.
Saying that SOPA restricts free speech is like saying DUI stops restrict free speech. Think about it. The activities associated with DUI stops and SOPA are illegal and dangerous in a number of ways. Yet people who don’t know their rights are pissed off about both of them. They imagine that they have the “right” to drink and drive, the “right” to kill other people and destroy their cars, etc. They imagine they have a right to download illegally, and provide stolen media to billions of people online. Did you know you cannot legally refuse a Breathalyzer or blood test?
You sign a CONTRACT when you get your license with the DMV. Included in that contract is obeying police direction and submitting to DUI stops. Unfortunately for the internet, there’s no CONTRACT that says “I agree to uphold moral standards online and if I make stolen material accessible to millions, you can take down my site.”
The way the bill is being presented is factually WRONG:
1. It’s just for the benefit of Hollywood and record labels?
2. It infringes on free speech (by limiting access to illegal material? Are police not able to take out drug dealers, did I miss something?)
I understand that the idea is huge and would be extremely hard to implement for small companies, say, like Wikipedia. But I have to challenge whether they should use their supposedly “unbiased” space on the internet to broadcast their disapproval of the bills in question.
The same criticism is directed at the Pepperdine Graphic, for using its online space to stage illegitimate protests that neither reflect the opinion of Pepperdine students or the political stance of the Graphic newspaper. Instead they are convoluting the facts and by extension supporting illegal activity.
The real reasons people are protesting are either a) Social-they just want to protest cause it’s cool and makes them feel involved/part of something or b) Emotional-they are worried they might actually have to pay for some of their music. Neither of those are rational reasons for rejecting this bill. The only legitimate protesters are the huge internet sites–but hey, you think cigarette companies enjoyed putting “These can kill you” on the side of their boxes?
Just because a protest is popular does NOT make it right.
As it was stated in the article, we agree that protecting the rights of any sort of digital media producer is of utmost importance. SOPA/PIPA however is the completely wrong way to go about it
Kayla, I wasn’t saying that you/the Graphic/anyone doesn’t want to protect people’s rights. My question is, if a bill like SOPA isn’t the solution, what is? So in response, how would you suggest they go about it?
Personally, just as a photographer with work online and as someone who has spent over $600 on iTunes music in my life, I would love to see some heads roll as far as piracy goes, uploading downloading, or providing.
Perhaps you could start with explaining what you and Jason mean by “These laws make no attempt to meet the demands of the consumer market and would arguably make piracy more widely used.”
How would piracy be more widely used?
How does this law affect consumers, except by preventing them from illegally downloading digital media?
Ultimately for me, it’s not just about the SOPA/PIPA issue. It’s a good article or I respect your opinions. However, I think it’s rather misleading and definitely questionable for the Graphic to endorse a protest against anything. It’s a perspective’s piece with not counterargument on the front page of the Graphic site. The photo says “Protect your online rights now,” not “Find out how the bill could affect you.”
Also, I’ve decided I should proofread my comments before clicking submit.
The main problem with SOPA is that it directly threatens the free, collaborative spirit of The Pepperdine Graphic website, and therefore by extension, all other websites that rely heavily on user submissions. If SOPA or PIPA were to be passed, the online leadership would have to consider the option of removing user comments altogether.
This fact alone weighs more than a simple “opinion piece” because it places the full force of liability on The Pepperdine Graphic if a user uploads copyrighted material (primarily images or text). As mentioned in the article, it is degenerative to the flow of information on the Internet; your justified comments would probably not be allowed to be posted and would stunt the natural dialogue encouraged on news websites.
However, it is an opinion piece in the terms of “making piracy more widely used.” It is my opinion that people pirate because the demands of the entertainment industry are too unfair. It is also my opinion that if SOPA or PIPA were to be passed these high demands from the entertainment industry would go nowhere but higher – therefore pushing more people into pirating copyrighted movies, music, games, books, etc.
EDIT: Wrong word.
Thanks Jason. I still don’t really understand how SOPA could create more piracy, but I concede that it does place organizations in an awkward position by forcing them to police their own sites. In fact, my comments were “policed” by requiring me to input my name, email, and having a moderator approve them before allowing them to be publicly visible.
Ultimately I think it is the duty of every web organization to patrol their websites. As more of our world moves online, we will need enforcement of online law, intellectual property rights and otherwise. It’s not too far off to imagine a government-funded cyber police patrolling websites. I don’t think we’re there yet, and I don’t think it’s very practical. It’s much more practical for organizations to police themselves. Online enforcement will actually enable our freedom and economic stability online, just as copyrights and patents have helped move the US to its current status.
For example, consider how “censorship” of illegal activity in another situation would be a clear positive. I’m not actually sure about how Google deals with child pornography as an illegal activity, but in my opinion I would hold Google liable for providing links to child pornography if we are to consider it illegal. I fail to see conceptually how music pirating is any different.
As a news reporting entity, the Graphic should be reporting the news, not making it. It is disappointing to say the least that the Graphic saw fit to engage in such a highly politicized maneuver with the blackout of its website. I note that other respectable news outlets such as the Washington Post and New York Times kept their website up. While I would not confuse a college paper with such publications, its decision to black out its website has called into question it ability to be a reliable purveyor of news.
Thanks for the edit, now I understand what u mean… SOPA will lead to the entertainment industry exploiting the public’s lack of pirated material by charging more for legitimate entertainment, thereby forcing people to seek pirated movies/music even more than before. Or, at least that if SOPA were passed, it could move Hollywood to exploit people further.
I would say that
1)Piracy is illegal, regardless of whether we like it or think it’s fair. Speeding is also illegal, a lot of people do it and if you get caught the police will ticket you. Neither of those are victim-less crimes.
2)It seems we strayed from discussing a bill, designed to shut down foreign pirate sites, to discussing how piracy is obligatory, what is economically fair, how much money people deserve to make. Those are beyond the scope of this article, so I cannot debate them.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree as far as the bill goes, which is fine by me.
As to how the graphic can portray an opinion article as news and initiate a protest without discussion or permission is another matter. It actually feels like betrayal. I’m not joking! I had a personal connection to the Graphic and its staff, and I was passionate about it. And now after fighting for our reputation as student journalists, I feel like we just proved all the naysayers right. We didn’t report the news, we reported our opinion. It went beyond journalistic duty, essentially illegitimizing the real news that students work to produce. In the real world a stunt like that would have severe consequences.
I cannot find a single news organization that participated in the blackout.
How can we expect the campus to take the Graphic seriously? We just turned an online news organization into a bulletin board.
Thank you Joe!
The Pepperdine Graphic has been and continues to be a source of unbiased news articles and opinionated perspective pieces. The participation in the blackout was not meant to be sensational or trendy in any facility but functioned as a necessary call to arms against a bill that is destructive to the fundamental principles of the Internet.
These very principles allow The Pepperdine Graphic website to exist in its current state and the blackout should be a rallying cause for people who passionately care about the Graphic’s integrity to get behind.
The integrity of The Pepperdine Graphic is directly tied to the participation in the blackout. Integrity is the fight for contrary opinions to be allowed on the site so that they will encourage dialogue like this; integrity is defending everyone’s intellectual right to disagree and debate their opinions freely on this website. Integrity is what The Pepperdine Graphic website is fighting to preserve by opposing legislation like SOPA and PIPA; The integrity of The Pepperdine Graphic is healthy and we are fighting the necessary fight to keep the respect of the Pepperdine community.
Therefore, this goes beyond a simple perspectives piece because SOPA and PIPA directly threaten the integrity of The Pepperdine Graphic website.
“It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.” Chris Dodd, MPAA’s chief executive
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/more-web-sites-plan-blackouts-in-protest-against-sopa-pipa/1
The Graphic Online is hosted by WordPress.
I’m very glad SOPA has been put on ice. It’s funny how one man’s industry threatens another. My two cents on the matter is: one idustry will suffer. The question is who “should” it be?
1) The outdated 90′s business model of large record labels and entertainment companies who believe every fan should equal one ticket sale, one march item, and 2.3 record sales per artist? or
2) Should the landscape of the new, digital age be encouraged and the issue of piracy combated with measures other than loosely-worded legislation such as SOPA..?
What do you think?
My answer: doesn’t have to be either.
By the way, HELP STOP ACTA!
http://www.stopacta.info/
http://www.nathanwross.com/
The fact that there is a push toward shutting down websites, rather than focusing on revenue, demonstrates that something has gone wrong with the copyright industry.
Have they forgotten that copyright is nothing more or less than a way of putting a price tag on things that, physically, can be freely copied and therefore wouldn’t otherwise have a noticeable cost? And to a certain extent, that can be a good thing, because it does cost money to make these things in the first place, and so copyright helps get that money back. But that’s as far as it should go. Policing free speech? Hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability for every infringement? Jail sentences for finding ways around copyright-protection technology? No way!
If losing revenue were the real issue, then the focus would be on invoicing sites that use copyrighted materials without paying, instead of sending takedown notices, or in this case, driving the entire site off the internet. This doesn’t sound like economic competition; it sounds like censorship.
I think Lawrence Lessig had it right in ‘Free Culture’: those responsible for this bill want to make sure that the only content that exists is their own. No competition. Nothing free. Nothing except what they choose to sell. Monopoly rights. That’s what SOPA would help to accomplish.