The problem with the bills, as most opponents see it, generally hinges on two points:

• that draconian web censorship powers are dangerous and should not be granted lightly, since they could be abused to harm democratic opposition and activity
• that the bill will inhibit creativity and freedom online (an obvious economic disaster for a country where tech is a major industry)

On the first point of censorship, the issue is that the bill would allow US authorities to shut down a website instantly and indiscriminately, without adequate judicial process. Websites can be shut down even now, but the 'problem' is that this takes too long due to the awkward matter of respecting legal procedures. The proposed measure would essentially give the US government the same powers enjoyed by those authoritarian regimes in China, Iran, and Burma - who all make use of the powers precisely in order to control information flow so as to prevent democratic opposition and free speech.

What is interesting here is that, even though this is potentially against the US constitution (first amendment on free speech), this aspect hasn't really filtered through to the American public to the extent that they oppose the bill enough to kill it - which is usually what happens when a bill is seen to interfere with the constitution - whether it actually does or not. (Try tightening gun ownership laws for example...) Nobody is denying that piracy contravenes or undermines many essential laws - but the issue here is whether or not SOPA, in attempting to tackle the problem, might create another - arguably more worrying - one.

On the more tech side of things, since the bill proposes allowing interference with the web's DNS (Domain Name System) - which converts url addresses into machine-readable code - engineers fear that this risk of blanket censorship could stifle innovation massively. This would happen because the DNS would be used to remove an entire domain from search engines results (like wordpress.com for example) even if there was only a few actual posts or blogs which contravened piracy law. The implications for social media would be massive...

The bottom line is that by raising the stakes to such an absolute level, web companies and start-ups would have to expend huge energy in making sure SOPA rules were not breached, since the economic consequences would be huge for them in such a case. Imagine for example I start a group on Facebook for sharing copyrighted material of some sort (illegal NFL highlights or whatever). Facebook would eventually close my group - but maybe not before I'd shared the video clips with a few other users. Now, if 'content producers' are unhappy with Facebook's efficacy in dealing with this would they appeal to SOPA to get facebook.com removed from the DNS? What would the US economy's net gain/loss be from such an episode?

All that is even before we get to the question of whether or not SOPA would actually tackle piracy effectively? Couldn't offending websites just re-register and move to a different domain within hours of being taken down? Also, wouldn't this merely tackle a superficial aspect of piracy rather than going to the core of the problem? If technologies and the web change over the next couple of years, isn't it highly likely that piracy will look different and so need a whole new raft of laws again? Banning Napster didn't solve the problem, neither did getting rid of The Pirate Bay - so perhaps it's a bit naive to think that yet another ban will do the trick?

So, things are clearly far from straightforward. As an excellent Guardian piece on this issue has pointed out, new technology should really be creatively embraced by content industries since in the past they have always found ways to profit from such developments (cassette, VHS, DVD, etc) albeit the change was one they were partially forced into. After all, a limited ban will hardly change the fact that the economics of certain industries have changed irrevocably over recent decades.

Film industries were all too happy for innovation to be encouraged when it brought them better technology to make money (improved recording equipment, computers with special effects etc) but have decided that 'bad' technology that compromises their older business models should be in some way banned rather than responded to with new and innovative revenue models. iTunes and Spotify are just two examples of viable and extremely lucrative ventures for getting users to pay for music in a digital age, and I doubt that they will be the last ones we ever see.

Luckily, opposition to SOPA is building and there are various ways you can register your opposition. For non-US residents, the question is whether  or not this matters elsewhere. In my opinion, it's not hard to see that such an act would be a disaster for other countries as well, both in the scenario where they would then also be forced to adopt a similar law and where they aren't. In the former case, we end up with the law because domestic content industries demand it in order to protect themselves against the now even more powerful US studios/labels, while in the latter situation, our industry is undermined financially because US studios represent a sounder investment (with film production for example), thus weakening non US studios access to funds for example.

I won't pretend to have a solution to a problem which has persisted for almost as long as the internet has. I will however venture that since the entire problem only exists because technology has changed the economic behaviour of a certain good ('content') the solution will need to be a little more creative and innovative than simply stomping around trying to ban anything that looks like an internet pirate might have touched it. Especially, when such bans might also have serious implications for the valuable tech sector as a whole and perhaps even democratic rights to free speech.

Pirates are those who wish to enjoy the pleasures of this or that film - but are too selfish and stupid to recognise that, unless they pay for it, the industry will cease to be able to produce these films in the future. It is the equivalent of someone walking into a shop, seeing a DVD (or chocolate bar or whatever else) and just pocketing it without paying - i.e. theft, pure and simple.

Thus the metaphor implies that the pirate/thief also had the option to purchase the product - and that in such a situation the price would have been reasonable.

But there's rather a lot of interesting evidence that completely invalidates this crude logic for many cases of what is technically considered internet piracy. Check for example this article in the Guardian, which cites a report from the Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus, which found that very often various titles are simply not available as a legal online download, and even if they are, these options are often much more expensive than DVD equivalents. Here's the relevant extract:

'Though close to 100% of titles in ORG's sample were available as DVDs, more than half of the top 50 UK films of all time were not available as downloads. The numbers are only slightly better for Bafta winners: just 58% of Bafta best film winners since 1960 can be bought or rented as digital downloads (the bulk of these are through iTunes – take away the iTunes marketplace, which isn't available unless you use Mac or Windows, and only 27% of the Bafta winners can be had legally).

And while recent blockbusters fare better, it's still a patchwork, requiring the public to open accounts with several services to access the whole catalogue (which still has many important omissions). But even in those marketplaces, movies are a bad deal – movie prices are about 30% to 50% higher when downloaded over the internet versus buying the same movies on DVDs.'

All this doesn't really take into account another even more extreme but very common situation: the fact that very often less high-profile titles are not only unavailable as digital downloads - they are also often not even available as a DVD release. In other words, even if I wanted to pay for a certain film it often isn't possible. It's a downloaded torrent or nothing. (This may seem implausible for film fans who mainly watch modern blockbuster Hollywood output, but venture slightly beyond that and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about).

So really that simplistic metaphor for piracy should look more like this:

Imagine you go to a shop and there's a DVD that you want - you pay for it and take it home to enjoy. However, next time you go they don't have the title you want. You search everywhere but the only place you can find it is in the trading bag of the pirated DVD seller in your local pub. You decide that, no, you simply detest piracy so much that you'll never stoop so low as that - you'd rather never see the film than... Sorry this is starting to sound highly implausible.

Let's try again: You decide that actually, while supporting the industry is all well and good - your main goal is to see the film and, if there's only one way to do it (i.e. a pirated unpaid-for version), then most people would probably do that.

Anyway, please excuse the long-winded examples. The point is pretty simple: there's lots of different types of piracy and not all of them arise because consumers are too short-sighted and selfish to recognise that nothing is free in this world. Instead we should also remember that sometimes either:

a) a film simply isn't available either on DVD or as legal download (especially for older titles, foreign cinema, less high-profile productions etc), or
b) sometimes people like to watch a film right here-and-now (i.e. the way all media is increasingly going) and feel stupid paying extra for the consuming a film on a cheaper format just because of discrepancies in pricing - i.e. why pay $12 for a legal download, when the DVD (which is after all a tangible object) costs only $8?

The bottom line is that the market for legal film watching and downloading online remains massively incomplete and sometimes inadequate. This is OK for now - it'll take some time but one day this will no longer be the case. In the meantime however, it's ridiculous to demonise anybody who downloads a film without paying for it, just assuming that a whole range of other tidy more-honest options were also available at the time. Furthermore, such exaggerated images have no place in any well-informed and hopefully productive future debate about how to re-shape copyright laws for the digital age.

Firstly there is the matter of if your MP bothered to turn up for the vote - which incidentally took place in a late session thus ensuring a total minimum of fuss, in which only around 20 non-Labour MPs were present (mine was not present I was sad to learn). It is possible to check if your MP was in attendence - and how they voted - online at this page. If the complete indifference (or support) for this bill provokes a desire to attempt to voice your objection over the bill/your MP - you can do so at the Open Rights group online (which is campaigning against the bill and especially its clauses on disconnection of users over copyright infringement).

But we're getting a little ahead of ourselves - what of the actual bill itself? Well, the 76-page document generally involves a number of pretty uncontroversial measures such as those relating to domain name administration or radio and regional TV news matters. However - the most significant question, and the one which has caused the most extensive debates is of course the points on illegal file-sharing and the potential sanctions (including disconnections and fines) for users.

(N.B. A handy summary of the 45 measures can be found on the Guardian website).

So, what can we say about this controversial aspect of the new legislation? The degree of opposition to these laws seems to extend to every single person you can find - apart from those who belong to a copyright protection body (or liase with one) and the hundred or so Labour MPs who felt obliged to by the party whip to turn up and cast their 'yes' vote in parliament this month.

Now, maybe this is stating the obvious (after all, it's hardly surprising that a music-downloading web user would oppose the bill, while a company with vested financial interests should support it) - but perhaps we need to question whether legislation that is decided purely by the corresponding might/numbers of the opposing vested interests makes sense? Would it not be better to strive for a solution that is supported by a majority on the grounds of common sense and a viable compromise, rather than selfish self-gain?

Put simply, have we passed a law that suits only the interests of a single industry sector (perhaps harming others) just because they have a very prominent lobbying voice? It's like asking only a smoker what he/she thinks of the smoking ban and then introducing legislation off the back of it... rather than consulting a wide range of people and treating all their interests and views equally.

Like most, I agree that copyright infringement is a problem that hurts important industries and damages job prospects, gov't tax receipts and all the rest of it. However I'm also very aware of the fact that very often those who are guilty of supporting this piracy - are also those very same people who otherwise legitimately support the industries at the same time.

To give an example - those who really, really like music tend to try and access it as much as possible, buying many cd's, concert tickets and merchandise where possible and affordable, and at the same time also downloading illegal mp3s from the internet. I myself have on a few occasions downloaded an album illegally when unsure of whether or not I would like it. If the result was positive, I then went on to buy it in a shop (or another one from the same band) and would also look to go to a gig if possible. Sometimes I simply decided it wasn't for me and that was the end of it.

These days Spotify or MySpace can often (legally) fill this role, though not always, and it is here that the central point lies - disconnect an illegal downloader from the internet and you also simultaneously disconnect a Spotify user, an iTunes customer, an Amazon cd and lp buyer (and so on) thus damaging in the long-term the industry you seek to protect with these short-term measures (not to mention causing other broader problems discussed in this blog previously) - surely there has to be a cleverer solution to the problem based on a more complex understanding of it?

Dejan Levi