SOPA: It’s better to have no law than a bad law
President Obama has said he would not support SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act. This is a good thing.
As for all bills, the sponsors of SOPA came up with a name which by itself makes opposition to it unthinkable. How could anyone not want to stop piracy? Mozart died poor because he did not benefit from copyright protection, so how could anyone oppose a bill to stop online piracy of music?
Would Amadeus have approved of SOPA?
It’s very very good that Obama opposed SOPA. Intellectual property law needs serious reform. As it stands lawmakers and the courts still have a poor understanding of what constitutes a cyber crime. Judges know well the difference between shoplifting a loaf of bread and holding up a bank. When a mother gets successfully sued for 1.9 million dollars (after a mistrial!) for downloading 24 songs illegally, we have to wonder if the law is doing what we want in the way we want it done.
Making it easier for large industries to bring expensive litigation against people is the wrong way forward. Making SOPA the law would have given over way too much discretionary power to private interests.
The internet is still a badly understood wild west. Until it is understood, discretionary powers should belong to the courts only and no law should be created that effectively removes those powers from the hands of courts and into the hands of litigants. The mere threat of a spurious lawsuit should never be enough to scare people from behaving reasonably.
Copyright 2012, Vincent Poirier
PS I probably won’t sue if you copy & paste this anywhere 
.
VP
