Theatrics aside, what are the real issues with SOPA and PIPA?
On the one hand, are those that want free access to everything, and complain about censorship;
on the other hand, are those who say what censorship, it is about good old capitalism, and ownership.
Who is right?
Lets step back, and start with a basic question:
If Person 1 owned something, Person 2 wanted it - and person 2 took it - what would the issue be?
Stealing, pure and simple. That it is done online does not change the issue - it is still stealing.
Take this up several notches. According to well established US principles of Copyright Laws, there is ownership - by writers, artists and musicians, the creators of content. There is, at the same time, the technological ability to make available this content easily and cheaply to others anywhere. The computer hardware and software manufacturers get their profit when they sell their products.
Yet, all the smart technical folks still need content - minus content, we are headed for another empty bubble. It is now a play for market share between the technical folks and the content folks.
We buy tools - computers and phones etc. What these computer companies can put on these to dazzle us is content. At the risk of being unpopular (but it has to be said) - those who create content also deserve their share of profit.
The kind of infringement (now being hotly debated) has become not just occasional plagiarism, but routine business practice. In fact, whole new industries have sprung up around this,, and to keep us safe, etc.
The second point in this debate, seldom mentioned online, deals with equality, consistency, and rules of logic. All the online companies basically want to be like hackers of yesterday - and want to not observe copyright laws, in some way, shape or form.
Do these same computer companies not enforce their own ownership of their "intellectual property"?
These same companies want the US government to make sure that China, Russsia, India and esp. Iran, does not violate their intellectual property - don't they?
There has to be consistency.
So when did the issue become "censorship"?
In my opinion, when some decided to play politics.
Otherwise, it is simply as illogical a case of when "we" do it, it is for our profit; therefore what we do, is acceptable. When others do the same, it is not allowed.
It is about money, folks! Like the CEO earning over 400% of the money that an average worker makes. How many of those complaining, and signing petitions to help defeat censorship etc. are among the 1%? Enter greed, masquerading as "market forces" and manipulation.
That these "free" market forces do not work in an absolute sense is evidenced by the popularity of nonprofits and sustainability. Just today I attended a talk on the newly legal (in some states) For Benefit corporations. Yes folks, Capitalism is evolving - and so should information technology. It is no longer the days of the caveman, who could hit another on the head with a club, carry off his loot, and not face jail... compromise.
It is time to honestly acknowledge what is really at issue, and like grown ups, deal with both sides fairly - and esp, stop making this into a political football.
RS
On the one hand, are those that want free access to everything, and complain about censorship;
on the other hand, are those who say what censorship, it is about good old capitalism, and ownership.
Who is right?
Lets step back, and start with a basic question:
If Person 1 owned something, Person 2 wanted it - and person 2 took it - what would the issue be?
Stealing, pure and simple. That it is done online does not change the issue - it is still stealing.
Take this up several notches. According to well established US principles of Copyright Laws, there is ownership - by writers, artists and musicians, the creators of content. There is, at the same time, the technological ability to make available this content easily and cheaply to others anywhere. The computer hardware and software manufacturers get their profit when they sell their products.
Yet, all the smart technical folks still need content - minus content, we are headed for another empty bubble. It is now a play for market share between the technical folks and the content folks.
We buy tools - computers and phones etc. What these computer companies can put on these to dazzle us is content. At the risk of being unpopular (but it has to be said) - those who create content also deserve their share of profit.
The kind of infringement (now being hotly debated) has become not just occasional plagiarism, but routine business practice. In fact, whole new industries have sprung up around this,, and to keep us safe, etc.
The second point in this debate, seldom mentioned online, deals with equality, consistency, and rules of logic. All the online companies basically want to be like hackers of yesterday - and want to not observe copyright laws, in some way, shape or form.
Do these same computer companies not enforce their own ownership of their "intellectual property"?
These same companies want the US government to make sure that China, Russsia, India and esp. Iran, does not violate their intellectual property - don't they?
There has to be consistency.
So when did the issue become "censorship"?
In my opinion, when some decided to play politics.
Otherwise, it is simply as illogical a case of when "we" do it, it is for our profit; therefore what we do, is acceptable. When others do the same, it is not allowed.
It is about money, folks! Like the CEO earning over 400% of the money that an average worker makes. How many of those complaining, and signing petitions to help defeat censorship etc. are among the 1%? Enter greed, masquerading as "market forces" and manipulation.
That these "free" market forces do not work in an absolute sense is evidenced by the popularity of nonprofits and sustainability. Just today I attended a talk on the newly legal (in some states) For Benefit corporations. Yes folks, Capitalism is evolving - and so should information technology. It is no longer the days of the caveman, who could hit another on the head with a club, carry off his loot, and not face jail... compromise.
It is time to honestly acknowledge what is really at issue, and like grown ups, deal with both sides fairly - and esp, stop making this into a political football.
RS
No comments:
Post a Comment