Surely SOPA is a too restrictive solution for defending intellectual property, it opens up the risk to further restrictions and ubiquitous control possibility over the web. This mean that the huge potentiality the web has as a free, emergent and self organized space could be doomed to fail. That would be really a great loss for us but let’s wait for a while.
More or less we all embrace the cause of the netizens activists, that is, freedom, digital democracy, copyleft, the equal right to access to information and all other new concepts and practices that have made the web the fruitful space that today it is. But we should think about supporting other particular interests that, veiled under an ambiguous defense of liberty, are just replicating those old, conservative, monopolistic business models that it is supposed we fight against. Megaupload and similar sites are not a fundamental part of the cause that fights for the real democracy and equal access to opportunities; it’s closure was(1) not a direct treat to privacy and much less an aggression to the growth of the so-called knowledge-based society.
What is the social value Kim Dotcom`s company? Just to satisfy the demand of entirely free access to as much entertainment than one can store in a PC? The development model of the global digital network (decentralized and non-regulated) that has been created during the last 20 years has revealed as a powerful agent for developing the new economy and for reaching a more equal virtual society. Being that an unquestionable fact, companies which base their business model in the creation of information and content still must have a legal background which allows them to carry on with that participative, cooperative and trustful business model whilst maintaining a reasonable profit.
If the aim of that fight against regulations is avoid the monopolization of the content and information and allow creators control the way they share or deal with their creations, that’s fine. But in the debate around SOPA we are filtering ambiguous concepts and putting different concepts in the same level: free access to entertainment is not actually a civil right and, personally, I think it shouldn’t be.
However free access to information and knowledge is a fundamental right that cannot be waived. Putting them to a level doesn’t help to clarify the dispute as they represent two models of society that are not only different but also antagonist. Who told “only knowledge will set you free”?, perhaps we should say now “only entertainment will set you free”?
Artículo publicado en el portal Social Media Today
