RIAA Still Complaining About Google And Wikipedia’s Actions Against SOPA

February 11, 2012 by Yonah
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Entertainment Industry, Legal P2P News & Issues

CEO of the Recording Industry of America, and graduate of Cornell and Harvard Law, Cary Sherman proved to be a calculated leader of the group throughout the years. But when it comes to the interests of the industry, he seems to be just the same as his homologue Chris Dodd (MPAA’s CEO), as revealed in a New York Times article where he shared his thoughts on the matter and signaled by Ars Technica.

It is clear from New York Times’ article that Sherman desperately wants to revive SOPA, but adopting a position in which he insults Google and Wikipedia reminds us of Chris Dodd’s reaction to last month’s protests against SOPA, when he called them “an irresponsible response”, “an abuse of power”, “a dangerous and troubling development”, and lastly a “gimmick”.

“The digital tsunami that swept over the Capitol last month… raised questions about how the democratic process functions in the digital age”, says Cary Sherman at the beginning of his article.

Fact is that these concerns are indeed entitled, as millions of unhappy citizens, alongside with tech companies, university teachers, internet analysts, and many more, questioned the manner in which both the RIAA and the MPAA addressed the piracy issue, labeling it as “anti-democratic” and “abusive”.

Lawmakers “studied the [piracy] problem in all its dimensions, through multiple hearings”, wrote Cary.

The truth is that SOPA had a single hearing in which the single speaking-against SOPA voice was Google, while bombed by acid remarks spoken by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX). Meanwhile, the Senate’s version of SOPA (read PIPA) had no hearings whatsoever. As for the thoroughness of which Mr. Cary speaks, even members of the Congress agreed that experts with knowledge about the technical implications should be consulted.

“Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works. Consider, for example, the claim that SOPA and PIPA were “censorship,” a loaded and inflammatory term designed to evoke images of crackdowns on pro-democracy Web sites by China or Iran. Since when is it censorship to shut down an operation that an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined to be illegal? When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is?” he wrote.

Question is, since when, in file-sharing lawsuits, a “thorough review of the evidence” occurred? The hundreds of media reports on the subject tend to prove different. Not only that, but we may remember when dajaz1.com was seized by the US Government for a year, while the owner of the website could not find anything about the case – so that he can defend himself –and then released it back to him without an explanation. If that kind of abuse of power can happen, then what would happen if the RIAA would have it?

When Chris Dodd said “When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites” to Variety in December he unknowingly made quite a fair association – that of China’s totalitarianism and SOPA’s or PIPA’s censorship.

Ars Technica’s Nate Anderson further dissects Cary’s article thoroughly, concluding with a grim prediction:

“Rationality, you think to yourself as you hang up the phone, might have been possible once—but it’s going to be tough to find now.”

Tags: anti-piracy, copyright, file-sharing, legal, riaa, SOPA