Why I am against SOPA and PIPA which are supposed to protect my income from music & content creation
Yesterday Evening I posted this video on my Facebook wall. If you haven’t heard about SOPA or PIPA then watch the video below and then look here for some more information on the subject. In short it’s a law that is being presented to US congress with the intention of protecting the property of artists and other copyright owners. It’s an intention that I whole heartily agree with and I also feel that this is the wrong way to go about it.
As an aside, you may be wondering why I am fussed about a law being passed in the US. It’s because it will affect things that we now take for granted (e.g. You Tube, Google, Ted.com, Facebook). Although we use these services here in the UK, the companies are based in the US. This means that what ever law is passed they will have to abide by it. This will change our experience of these services.
Anyways, after having posted the video a reply arrived fairly quickly after I posted the video that said:
"SOPA is trying to protect people like you and your new album in the making for the effort you've put in. If it’s not there then it would be like going into your favourite restaurant and expecting not to pay. It just wouldn't happen, so why should it happen to music and film?"
Someone else replied.
"You are so far off base it's not funny. Just for starters, over 60% of Hollywood's income last year, came from sources that they have claimed would put them out of business for years. It's not there to protect anyone, it's a smokescreen to remove your civil liberties. We live in a digital world,adapt or die. Business models that have adapted are succeeding."
The writer of the first reply then said:
"We haven’t seen the real full long term effect on a business yet, new revenue sources agreed, but they came at much lower margins that do make do it difficult to sustain whether your a smaller niche outfit or a big corporate one. I'm all for civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why we are having this friendly debate ;-)”
So who’s right? They both make very good points. Here are my thoughts on the issue. I am not a lawyer, and I don’t have the all the answers, so I might be wrong. Let me know if I am! I’ll start by addressing the very valid point: "it would be like going into your favourite restaurant and expecting not to pay It just wouldn't happen, so why should it happen to music and film?"
I say It might happen, so let’s go back to your favourite restaurant to find out how...
Imagine you’re there in that restaurant now. You’re enjoying the atmosphere, lapping up the company you’re in and eating the food that you intend to pay for when, due to the friendly ambience of the place, you get chatting to a couple on the next table. The conversation gets flowing freely and you’re having a great time. During the course of the conversation one of the couple mention that they’ve just enjoyed a walnut salad from the menu and it was delicious. Seeing you consider this the other person at their table mentions to you that they didn’t touch their salad and, as they had enough on their plate already, they offer it to you.
Quite taken by this Walnut salad you graciously accept and it’s passed across to your table. Just as you’re about to tuck into it, the front doors of the restaurant burst open and two men in long leather coats burst in. Everyone looks around in shock and you notice the owner of the restaurant looking very nervous. Looking back to the guys at the door you realize that they are staring right at you and they make their way towards you purposefully.
When they arrive at the table they demand of you “Did you pay for that Walnut salad?”. “No” you reply “this person on the table next to me shared it with me”. “In that case I’m afraid that you may not have it.” he says, and his partner in crime pulls out the biggest sledge hammer that you have ever seen in your life and smashes it down on top of the walnut.
In doing so - the Walnut, the plate it was on, and the table you are sat at by are smashed into pieces. Cutlery goes flying everywhere and a half drunk bottle of red wine hurtles through the air splashing all over you and your new found friends. The men in leather coats then spin round and goose step out of the restaurant.
You’re mortified, highly embarrassed and in a mild state of shock. You can feel the atmosphere of the restaurant has changed. People are no longer comfortable there. Some ask if you’re ok, others nervously finish their meals, while even more get up and leave. All the time the restaurant owner is rushing around trying to calm the situation down.
A couple of weeks later you walk past where the restaurant once was and see a for sale board up and walk on remembering the great times that you once had in there.
OK – I’m being dramatic – but I exaggerate to illustrate, but let’s put it into a real life context. Using your mobile phone you video a couple of mates knocking back shots at a bar. In the background some music is playing. You then upload the video straight to Facebook – BUT you haven’t paid for the rights to use that music and neither have Facebook. So, even though the bar you were in has a PRS licence, the men in the leather coats come knocking. Is that right?
Let me be clear. I believe that artists should be paid for the hard work they put in, and I am very passionate about that point of view. I have every right to be as I have personally felt the effect of the bootlegging, copying and bit-torrenting and it hurts. The industry needs to catch up AND, as an artist, I need to catch up too! And fast! The effect of all this is hurting the smaller labels most. The smaller labels are where the talent is nurtured before they go onto other things. Without the smaller labels the industry dies!
Looking to some of the other points made in the quotes above.. I also very much agree that the margins these days are crippling. In fact the margins for the creative person behind the music or film are even less. Despite all this I do feel though that SOPA and PIPA are step too far. A step in the right direction? Yes, absolutely, but more thought needs to go into them before they are passed in the US congress. As mentioned already, if the current legislation went through many of the things we enjoy could go. Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Ted.com. Remember, these tools are helping creative people collaborate and produce more interesting things.
So what is the solution? Perhaps something could be learnt from the PRS (performing rights society) that could be applied to the social networks. BUT (and its a huge BUT) the laws must be updated to fit with modern times. Remember Hollywood was built by some entrepreneurs that wanted to avoid the license fee that Sir Thomas Edison was insisting they pay for using an invention of his, the cine camara. Its for this reason that Hollywood is so close to the Mexican border. Its so those that built the foundations of Hollywood could run for it at the appropriate moment!
In other words.. the companies that are pushing for this law today were the pirates of yesterday. Funny how they have evolved, or is that regressed.
If Hollywood can get to where it is today how can we, the modern day pirates, do the same while rewarding the people that are creating the content the we consume. After all they deserve it, don't they?
