I didn't "admit to be so clueless." That's your charge, not an admission on my part. And I clearly state in the column that SOPA/PIPA is bad legislation--that a better way is need to crack down on online content piracy. Google, among others, seems to think there's a better way, and so I exhorted Google and the others to propose that better way. If you don't think anything different needs to be done, fine, that's your prerogative.

Check out this commercial we made to combat SOPA and PIPA!

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/35405496

Companies should adapt to the internet. The interwebz should not be destroyed. It would displease.

I'll make it easy on Rob since he probably is unaware of this case lacks time to look this information up for himself:

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

I am amazed that a supposed VP and editor-in-chief of InformationWeek would admit to be so clueless on the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation, yet feel the need to opine with basically no real substance on what is proposed. You apparently had the time to draft up this opinion piece, but did not have time to read ANY of the legislation?

You harp that opponents of the bills need to craft up an alternative, then in your own article mention Google's efforts to do just that - so really what was the point of this article?

"But due process still exists in this country, so I have trouble believing that the courts will sit on their hands while a fundamental constitutional principle is violated."

I stopped reading here. Anyone who wishes to know why should Google dajaz1

Tell me about your wonderful expectation of due process when it comes to these seizures then.

People copy stuff because they want free stuff. Free software, free movies, free music. That shows that there is a strong interest in these products. People also like the convenience to pull content off the web within a minute and go watch the movie or listen to music. Since there is no money back guarantee on a DVD or CD it is not that odd that many rather circumvent the rules than pay up dearly for something they don't end up liking or in case of a movie or a book will not watch or read more than once. People also love flat rates. They love them for their cell phones, internet access, and Chinese buffets.
So why doesn't the almighty media industry come together, make one web portal for books, music, software, and movies and charge a flat rate per month or a per item charge. Make that per item charge be like a quarter for a movie and dime for a CD. Put an expiration date on it. Feel free to make that expiration clock in after a few days.
For example, I want to watch a movie right now. My cable provider charges 3.99 for a halfway decent movie. Netflix subscription was canceled long ago, mainly because their online catalog is pathetic. The Fire is not an option as I am chronically short on cash and don't want to spend 200 bucks for a digital shopping window. So, do I search through the endless amount of sleazy sites that often pass on more than just a movie (meaning virus, trojan, etc)?
What I would do without hesitation is pay a quarter, watch the movie, then throw it away. I wouldn't even cry if I disliked it. And if I really love it, why not offer to pay a bit more and keep it forever with the right to stream it to any device I like?
Will that eliminate all pirating? No, it will not, but the convenience of safe and cheap entertainment will easily win over people. And making pennies per piece means that selling a lot of units will make a lot of money. And a quarter per item is more than the media companies get now with pirated stuff, which is nothing.
Just think back when Napster was the place to get all kinds of music. Rather than to embrace the technology the media bullies killed it off. Only later Apple picked up that same idea, called it iTunes, and made bulkloads of cash with it. They understood that 99 cent songs are good business (although I still think that is expensive) if you sell a lot of them. And once the distribution rights are bought it all comes down to volume.
The RIAAs should have taken the money that they shoved into the behinds of flip-flopping politicians and team up with Apple or Amazon and throw the content for cheap at as many people as possible. Or roll your own to cut out the middlemen, but embrace the technology rather than fight it.

Why do you think anything like SOPA is needed? Would you give the right to the Post Office to stop all deliveries to my address because a movie studio tells them that I am mailing illegal copies out of my house? That is not the way we currently practice law enforcement. We don't take your home address away, stop your utilities, or close your business because you are suspected of something. You take the person to court and let the legal system take care of it. Why should it be different for internet related crimes?

The problem is the big companies do not play fair. Any solution needs to include the Due Process of Law and SOPA and PIPA do not. A site can be taken down with a claim or an accusation.

You Tube operates under the existing laws and look what happened last week. MegaUpload was taken down. As a sign of support the following celebrities produed a video in support of Mega Upload and it was posted on You Tube:
Will.i.am
P Diddy
Kanye West
Chris Brown
Jamie Foxx
Kim Kardashian
Lil John
The Game
Floyd Mayweather
Serena Williams
Ciara.

Universal Music made an accusation which forced You Tube to take this video down. Later upon realizing that Universal had no claim to the video, they put it back up. But it shows the lengths to which these companies will go to prevent ANY content from being available that they do not agree with. Blacklisting whatever they do not like.

SOPA and PIPA is the McCarthyism of our day!

Any solution, no matter who creates it, should not and cannot walk on our basic freedom of free speech. It should not burden the citizens to do the work that should be done by the legal procedures that govern copyright law.

We sitll seem to operate under an ownership concept that was born many years ago and violates "common sense" by today's culture.

We do not need SOPA and PIPA. We already have laws in place to prosecute piracy and they require the Due Process of Law. What is wrong with that?

I believe that what is really needed is a redefinition of what copyright ownership entitles an artist or media company to have. The definition of copyright of 20 to 30 years ago is not applicable to todays world. It protects "copies". In a digital world, everything we do creates a "copy".

New creations built upon existing ones (even those that are copyrighted) should not be considered a copy of the original. Otherwise, there would never be any innovation in the world. Most innovations are improvements or alternative uses built upon someone else's work.

Big Media may want to have things the way it was 20 years ago, but it cannot happen. We live in a different world. Deal with it !!!!

The government can do it's job in policing piracy with current laws.

The solution is simple. The concerned business (Music Labels etc) should improve the mechanism in which they store and distribute their media. This means the CORPORATION pays for the expense of solving the problem, not me the taxpayer.

The fact that the internet makes things easier is a good thing. I don't even understand how this is getting support from Republicans. SOPA/PIPA are additional regulations which will unnecessarily burden the advancement of business.

The civil & criminal laws are already on the books for the Big Media companies to avail themselves of as shown by the MegaUpload raid. But having absolute control over the internet, a PUBLIC domain, is a complete reversal of the Constitution & the Bill Of Rights. Due process is 'supposed' to be applicable for all citizens, not just the lobbying special interest groups. And any person/group/company that tries to take that away is looking to be tried by the people it is attempting to suppress. China's "Great Firewall" also started out as a way to combat piracy (and porn) and look what happened there...totalitarian suppression of it's citizen's rights, privacy & voice. Is that really how we want America to be?

-FU

The civil & criminal laws are already on the books for the Big Media companies to avail themselves of as shown by the MegaUpload raid. But having absolute control over the internet, a PUBLIC domain, is a complete reversal of the Constitution & the Bill Of Rights. Due process is 'supposed' to be applicable for all citizens, not just the lobbying special interest groups. And any person/group/company that tries to take that away is looking to be tried by the people it is attempting to suppress. China's "Great Firewall" also started out as a way to combat piracy (and porn) and look what happened there...totalitarian suppression of it's citizen's rights, privacy & voice. Is that really how we want America to be?

-FU

"This isn't a case of inviting Big Government/Big Brother to step in where it has no business. It's government’s job to stop crimes and prosecute criminals. If you steal the goods that studios, artists, musicians, novelists, developers, and others produce (often at considerable expense) with the intent of profiting from that theft, then you must be held accountable"
Interesting to see what does and does not constitute "government's job" to some people. I think one of Government's jobs is to police the environment, specifically companies who are polluting our environment, but many in business (Coal, Natural Gas and Petroleum Industries for starters) along with those in media and certain Grand Old Party politicians are only too happy to look the other way when certain businesses are held responsible by the EPA. Not sure certain columnists get to have it both ways (even if they use terms like saga and "full of themselves") which seems a bit like "the pot calling the kettle black" to me.!

Thanks for the note, Fisher Man. In no way did I argue that we give the government unfettered control. I'm saying that if the legislators and lobbyists who fashioned SOPA and PIPA are in over their heads--and I agree they are--then the folks who say they know better, the Internet industry stalwarts, need to propose alternatives...or at least try to push the conversation forward rather than just take the bills' backers to the woodshed. Be proactive. Try to help fashion a solution. That's what leaders do. I gave Google credit for taking a first step.

Rob, i generally agree with you POV on most things of a political nature. But i wonder if you're being a little over the top with this one.

Would we put the responsibility on Airlines to end drug trafficking, or Tractor Trailer manufacturers to end the smuggling of illegal immigrants?

You downplay the opponents of SOPA as if their objections are nothing more than posturing. It comes off as rather condescending, as if our concerns aren't legitimate. This is a BIG issue - when the federal government starts making edicts without consideration for inalienable rights and constitutionally protected liberties, we need to be very concerned.

We all know very well, that our government has been in the habit of using laws (or circumventing them) for political reasons. So, we don't need to arbitrarily give more rights away to ensure that the nanny-state keeps us safe. There are plenty of laws already, which if enforced, could address many of our concerns, that don't require us to provide the federal government unfettered control to shut down websites without due process.

The fact is, our government is demonstrating right now, a total disregard for the law by shutting down websites without due process. Are we a nation ruled by laws or by men?

Before playing big brother, censoring us, and telling us what we can and cannot do, the lawmakers should clean up their own house and stop their own deplorable acts such as insider trading. It is disgraceful how long they kept this in the closet. Unfortunately this type of behavior is second nature to many of them.