Science & Technology Editor
Published: Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Updated: Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Earlier this month, a blackout by Wikipedia, Reddit and other sites raised awareness of both the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
Both bills would have dealt a massive blow to the Internet and its federal neutrality in order to combat online piracy.
While the U.S. Senate and House shelved the bill indefinitely with both parties backing away from the controversial legislation, the issue of piracy and Internet neutrality is still relevant.
The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate, especially in the United States.
When it comes to the Internet, piracy is an issue that is at the forefront of media mongols’ minds.
Whether it’s movies, television shows or books, big companies view these downloads as lost sales due to torrents and files being downloaded for free on the Internet.
During the SOPA/PIPA protests, NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch was in full support of the bill.
“Don’t care about people not buying movies, programs or newspapers,” Murdoch had tweeted on his certified twitter account. “Just [users] stealing them.”
However, not everyone is against the idea of users sharing files of their content.
Some individuals even encourage file sharing to spread word of their work further and faster.
Markus “Notch” Persson, the creator of the popular PC game “Minecraft,” believes that if fans can’t afford his game, they should just download it illegally.
On Twitter, a fan had explained to the game creator his money-saving woes, messages, “I really like the game but lack the money to buy it. I thought I might at least ask for a free account before piracy.”
“Just pirate it,” was Notch’s tweet response. “If you still like it when you can afford it in the future, buy it then. Also don’t forget to feel bad.”
It appears that Notch’s view on players buying his game hasn’t affected his sales too drastically, as the game has reached nearly five million sales worldwide.
Though alternative views such as Notch’s are not the norm, many believe that the Internet should remain free from any kind of government interference. Whether it be to combat piracy or other issues.
These ideals spring from the principals of deregulating the Internet and a surprisingly large number of creators support it.
“We live in a fairly new age where an artist, visual or otherwise, can manage to make a living off freelance and independent work. This is greatly due to the internet,” said Mike Luckas, a senior cartooning student at the School of Visual Arts, who makes money by doing freelance comic work for various studios as well as independent work. “It’s a world of free realm, where your hard work can pay off, and you can reach a greater range of people than ever before.”
Internet Neutrality advocates the idea of not restricting users by any means, specifically anything that would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached to computers, and modes of communication.
“The use of words like ‘Piracy’ and ‘Protect IP’ are worked into the bill in order to scare less informed people into supporting what sounds like a good cause,” said Luckas. “What isn’t mentioned is that the term “Piracy” is far too inaccurate; it’s really just file sharing.”
However, with radical online organizations like the hacker group Anonymous (who had compromised SONY’s PlayStation Network last Spring), some believe that tighter reins may stop similar attacks from happening.
“Unlike what law makers believe, hackers really can’t just do whatever they want. Well, at least not most of them,” explained Konstantin Uroskin, a Baruch College junior studying computer information systems. “A lot of the actual ‘hackers’ aren’t hacking at all, but using programs and other means to stretch a site’s bandwidth until it actually breaks. These programs can always be updated, by true hackers, who will most likely make it their new hobby to crack through any regulation the government would try.”
Luckas, on the other hand, believes regulation will be an attack not on so-called “internet terrorist”, but independent creators, like himself.
“I believe SOPA, PIPA and the more recently composed bills were created in an attempt for companies to have a control over artists or creators who are successfully supporting themselves,” said Luckas. “These companies are in a panic because they may no longer be needed as much in the future for the creators to make money and content.”
Regardless of how creator-owned content is distributed, the issue of using copyrighted material without permission can sometimes be enough to get an entire website taken down. Regulation has the potential to implement more severe penalties.
“I understand the need for copyright laws,” said Uroskin. “But no private company should have the right to get a website pulled for having a single piece of copyrighted material, without going through the courts first.”
With major torrent-based sites such as the Pirate Bay, hosting a reported 3.5 million files of copy-written content, the Internet can be seen as a plethora of free media.
Uroskin insists that while this can be the case, bills like SOPA or PIPA are going overboard, and not tackling the correct issues, as it promotes censorship rather than actual regulation.
“SOPA or PIPA is not the right way to combat piracy and downloading for free is not the right to see a new movie.”
A deeper reason behind the grievances of anti-piracy bills may not be the issue of the file sharing, but an issue of censorship.
While the ideal of a completely hands-off Internet is not completely enacted, Luckas believes regulations can become a slippery slope.
“The important thing to remember is that you don’t have to break any copyright laws, nor pirate a single thing to be censored, fined, or arrested under these bills,” said Luckas. “A company or the government just has to not like what you’re doing. The reasons can be made up later as they see fit.”
