I sent this letter off to my Senators yesterday.
This is something that could end up being
far worse than the DMCA if it's passed. I've
put a link to the bill and to my letter in
the Video Info. In hindsight, my letter's
a bit long, so you might want yours to be
about half this length, but feel free to copy
from mine.
I am writing to oppose S.3804, the Combating
Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.
(Well, at least they gave it a name!) I believe
that the real purpose of this act--like the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act before it--has
a more sinister hidden purpose.
It has never been found that file-sharing
sites harm the profits of content makers.
In fact, studies show just the opposite: by
increasing awareness of their intellectual
property, they have sold far more content
than they otherwise would have. The results
of these studies are so consistent, and so
easily accessible, that it is laughable to
think that the media corporations are unaware
of them. All of their lobbying to protect
themselves from these "pirates" is disingenuous.
The internet is free. On the internet, we
have true liberty where all are equal. A rock
band recording in a living room, an independent
filmmaker with a home studio, and an amateur
journalist all are on the same equal footing
with the manufactured and controlled output
of big media corporations. This is what they
are really seeking to suppress, since file
sharing allows these smaller, independent
players to gain attention for their product.
With the DMCA, the first mp3.com was shut
down, even though it required you to have
a physical copy of the CD containing the music
you subscribed to. They shut down programmers
who were trying to make a DVD player for Linux
(instead of paying the corporations for the
means of viewing content they had legally
purchased). Programmers were even arrested
for trying to make ebooks accessible to the
blind.
On YouTube, DMCA abuse is a serious problem.
If someone posts a video opposing something
you believe, or criticizing you or your agenda,
simply file a DMCA claim, and without providing
even the first shred of proof, the video is
taken down. Countless videos have been lost,
and even entire channels banned because of
action taken against videos that had no infringing
content, because of a dishonest few.
This bill would expand this to entire web
domains. Under this bill, like the DMCA before
it, just the claim of infringement--again
no evidence required--will result in not only
the removal of infringing content, but the
entire domain as well. Not merely affecting
the individual who allegedly infringed a copyright,
not merely remove the alleged infringing content,
the action is against the entire domain--meaning
the entire website, and any other websites
sharing that domain, are rendered completely
inaccessible. People will not only be prevented
from accessing the alleged (but not proved)
infringing content, but also the legitimate
content of independent providers for whom
this is the only real means of competing against
the big corporations. All of this, without
the Attorney General so much as even filing
an action. The site is declared guilty until
proven innocent. This is mercantilism at its
worst, the very thing our forefathers rebelled
against when they dumped British tea into
Boston Harbor.
Even worse, this bill has chilling ramifications
for freedom of speech. An entire website can
be shut down by an unproved claim; what is
to stop abuse from happening all over the
internet? This bill has, so far, been suppressed
from appearing on the GPO's website; I was
able to read it because someone posted it
to scribd.com, where users can post documents.
This site is potentially vulnerable to the
ramifications of this act. Imagine if people
in Congress authoring such a bill in the future
could take action against this site, or WikiLeaks,
or any other such site just because they CLAIM
there's infringing material somewhere on the
site. This would deny everyone the benefit
of all of the content on the site--including
important, time-sensitive information like
this.
Even if some content can be shown to infringe
a copyright, that can be no justification
for the wholesale denial of speech. As John
Perry Barlow said about the internet more
than a decade ago, "We cannot separate the
air that chokes from the air upon which wings
beat."
