> It is not true, however, that the continued enforcement of copyright laws in a hyper-connected world depends on having SOPA-style laws in effect.
This statement is true in that one can certainly continue to enforce copyright precisely as we do now, or to craft new measures that attempt to address the problem without creating so many new problems. The problem comes from the fact that none of these measures are likely to solve the problem from the studio's point of view.
As one might expect, they will continue to push for stronger laws as long as piracy remains rampant. And piracy will remain rampant so long as there are even a few people capable of piracy: thanks to computers, one unrestricted copy is enough for everyone in the entire world. Short of, say, outlawing computers, that isn't changing any time soon. There simply isn't anyone out there who can bear the weight of enforcing these laws at a level that would substantially reduce piracy, so it should come as no wonder that the studios have long sought to put that burden on someone else's shoulders. I simply do not see a technical solution to this as such. Piracy existed before the internet, after all, and there are no firewalls, filters or DRM on sneakernet. Without a technical solution, the law loses force. It's about like putting up a bigger "KEEP OUT" sign because we have no fence to put up.
That's not to say the artists are just screwed, though. I mean, iTunes still does a ton of business, even though you could get everything for free. So there are ways to survive in spite of rampant piracy. There are also ways to improve copyright law itself. William Patry's _How to Fix Copyright_ has some interesting ideas on that subject. But in the end, that means that the solution comes from redefining the problem: rather than ending piracy, one must find ways to succeed in spite of it. That may not be fair to them, but I certainly believe it's necessary.
This statement is true in that one can certainly continue to enforce copyright precisely as we do now, or to craft new measures that attempt to address the problem without creating so many new problems. The problem comes from the fact that none of these measures are likely to solve the problem from the studio's point of view.
As one might expect, they will continue to push for stronger laws as long as piracy remains rampant. And piracy will remain rampant so long as there are even a few people capable of piracy: thanks to computers, one unrestricted copy is enough for everyone in the entire world. Short of, say, outlawing computers, that isn't changing any time soon. There simply isn't anyone out there who can bear the weight of enforcing these laws at a level that would substantially reduce piracy, so it should come as no wonder that the studios have long sought to put that burden on someone else's shoulders. I simply do not see a technical solution to this as such. Piracy existed before the internet, after all, and there are no firewalls, filters or DRM on sneakernet. Without a technical solution, the law loses force. It's about like putting up a bigger "KEEP OUT" sign because we have no fence to put up.
That's not to say the artists are just screwed, though. I mean, iTunes still does a ton of business, even though you could get everything for free. So there are ways to survive in spite of rampant piracy. There are also ways to improve copyright law itself. William Patry's _How to Fix Copyright_ has some interesting ideas on that subject. But in the end, that means that the solution comes from redefining the problem: rather than ending piracy, one must find ways to succeed in spite of it. That may not be fair to them, but I certainly believe it's necessary.