A Small Step for Internet Censorship

Earlier in the year, the internet came under attack from American government bills, with the infamous SOPA act to attempt to block and take down a number of sites believed to be infringing copyright laws. The result was a resounding victory for the public, who rallied support in order to save their most trusted and most visited websites.

Whilst a number of hosting services fell victim to pre-emptive attack on these streaming hosts, largely, the number of sites taken down was minimal and new domains have sprung up to plug the gaps left.

However, yesterday saw a new invasion into the internet’s freedom of ownership, speech and usage. High Courts in the UK ruled that major internet service providers had to block their subscribers from accessing file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. 

The Swedish based website has come under attack several times in the past, as it is currently one of the most recognised and most visited sites for sharing copyrighted medias. Indeed, back in 2009, Swedish courts ruled that the four founding members of the sites were guilty of helping people to circumvent copyright laws.

Despite this, the site has continued to thrive. Whilst the original founders are found responsible as being the powder-keg for this peer-to-peer service, the onus now rests with public demand.

Under the new laws, Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site. BT, meanwhile, has been asked for a further period in which to consider its position. Instantly, there is already fragmentation in how this act is to be carried out and monitored on a nationwide scale. Should even just one major provider fail to support the ban, then consumers with little conscious guilt about avoiding purchasing their music and video will simply switch provider.

Additionally, the idea of attacking The Pirate Bay alone is such a limited and naïve outlook from the British Courts. A wide network of these sites are active and removing the most popular offender will only provide the opportunity for another site to rise to prevalence. Consider the closure of the Limewire service, a group that were at one point synonymous with illegal file sharing.

Whilst I empathise with a wide selection of music and film industry persons who are losing money thanks to such services, there needs to be a greater understanding of the consumer demands. 99p for a single song on ITunes or Amazon does not provide great value for money. CD albums and movie releases, which have dropped in price considerably since the mid-90s as consequence of the sharing phenomenon, still need to be introduced to the consumer public at a cheaper price. Although such a suggestion may appear to damage these industries, if it would encourage and stimulate further legal purchases, then the overall effect could be to galvanise a higher gross income and reduce the popularity of these illegal services.

Yet, my own issue with the new court ruling is that which incited many to action back in February: the beginning of internet censorship could lead to a mass cull of websites and information deemed to be illegal or in need of restriction. Wikipedia, for example, is an online encyclopaedia database, where just a decade ago, people would have had to go to a library or purchase an almanac for such detailed results. Or even high street chains, put out of business by online giants such as Amazon. The array of services that could be deemed damaging to different groups are almost infinite.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the move "pointless and dangerous". "It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism," he said.

The popularity of the internet is based on its public orientation, built to offer information and services at the lowest price in the easiest way. File-sharing sites blocked in this haphazard fashion are only piecemeal solutions and at best, short-sighted. Where the demand and software is available, new services will entice the public with offers of free media.

With the advent of free services such as Youtube and Spotify for music, and free film channels on TV, the problem of piracy is none too clean cut. These were seen as things that may kill off their respective industries, but instead provided another outlet to reach an increased demographic. Some may want to watch or listen to material to be sure they want to buy it; others wouldn’t buy the product even without pirate sites. The pros and cons of these institutions are diverse, and whilst it is certainly morally indecent to essentially steal a film or song, perhaps it is also wrong to force the hands of the public in a free state, utilising a free domain.