Yeah, I know: They sound like the names of Scandinavian clowns. But as you probably know, we're talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, two pieces of legislation that are designed to do what they say they'll do. And they might. But then going after cockroaches with a flame thrower might also get rid of them at a pretty high price.
The problem I see with both proposals is in their default position. The putative owner of the intellectual property will get nuclear weapons to stop infringements…and that happens to be the side that already has most of the money and therefore most of the lawyers. It's kinda like someone said, "Hmm…there needs to be a balance here that protects Fair Use. Let's give everything to the rich and powerful guys and see how much they decide they have to give away. And however much that turns out to be, that'll be Fair Use."
I am all for stopping online piracy. I just worry about defining it in a way that works for all, not just those with the most aggressive attorneys. I've worked for companies that owned intellectual property and won battles they should not have won against Little Guys. They threatened…the Little Guy had to fold. In fact, the lawyers usually did a great job intimidating the Little Guys into surrender that way, all the time ignoring the real, harder-to-police threats.
For more on how I feel about this, read how Tom Spurgeon feels about this. What he said.