Protecting internet creativity

On Feb. 10 Peter Singer wrote an opinion piece about this very issue and concluded his article with a comment that I believe gets at one of the deepest and most overlooked issues that the PIPA/SOPA debate tries to address: “Most creative people will need to earn a living doing something else, and we will all be the losers.” The issue is, if artists, musicians and actors do not get properly paid for their creative efforts, they will stop creating. This is one of the primary reasons that enacting PIPA/SOPA, or something similar, makes sense. If we want artists to maintain a stready creative production, it is in our best interest to make sure they get properly rewarded. More famous musical artists get revenue from touring, advertisements and merchandise sales — none of which are at stake. These avenues for income are not open to smaller burgeoning artists or authors. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, file sharing causes a yearly reduction in profits of about $4.2 billion for the music industry worldwide. This harms music retailers, record labels and even the artists; granted, some bands profit from the added publicity of having their content shared.

On the other hand, if user-based content vehicles are subject to litigation or censorship, there can be a general chilling effect that could affect creativity on the side of American Internet users. This issue arises when the rights-holders (big media corporations with their copyrights) have too much power over their content and where that content appears. This power could lead to the shutting down of websites before those websites have the opportunity to spur innovation. This power discourages online users from entering into the internet-based technology universe. The corporate rights holders tend not, at least historically, to be particularly good judges of what make a good new technology; they sometimes litigate conduits of innovation that appear to threaten the status quo. The gut response to the creation of the VHS was of a litigious nature — this was natural as the device seemed to pose a threat to the rights-holders of video content. The MP3 player went through a similar life cycle, as there was fear that it would threaten the music industry; instead, the MP3 has revolutionized it. The most powerful vehicle for technological advancement is the Internet, and if it is censored or subject to the whims of the media-content rights-holders, there is the possibility new things will not be discovered.

This is not to say that pirated material ought to be legal or that the sites that disseminate them should be overlooked. Rather, large infringers of copyright law should be prosecuted. I too mourn for Megavideo, but understand the necessity of its termination. The rest of the Internet ought to carry on as it does. The potential negative impact of changing the fabric of the Internet has far more negative consequences than benefits. Upholding copyright law is important but should not come at the cost of harming the web.

Peter Singer makes the fascinating suggestion that the United States should institute a system for the Internet similar to what Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand and many European countries now use for books in public libraries. This system creates lending rights that allow for proper compensation to all of the authors and publishers for the loss in sales caused by the presence of their books in public library systems — though, granted, this costs money. This in tandem with law enforcement measures taken against pirate-content hubs can serve as a long-term solution.

The Internet is a valuable tool whose potential has not yet been fully discovered. PIPA/SOPA risked so many unintended consequences that their burial, even if only temporary, is a comfort. Something will be done about Internet media piracy, however, and I believe it will happen soon. The legislators that oversee this process ought to take great heed to devise a plan that minimizes any impact on the Internet. Understandably, this is hard for our elected officials given the tremendous lobbying pressure from large media corporations.

This issue comes down to whether we want to maximize creativity on the Internet or guard the profits of small artists and record companies. Artists have to get paid, and so do the institutions that allow them to flourish. General users must also be able to maintain their freedom, and the Internet ought to remain an unadulterated avenue for their creative efforts. The conflict between these two outcomes lies at the heart of these Internet reforms. The Internet can be a creative outlet for both established artists and general users while mostly adhering to copyright law. Any solution to Internet piracy that threatens creativity would be misguided.

Aaron Applbaum is a sophomore from Oakland, Calif. He can be reached at applbaum@princeton.edu.