Why the Wikipedia blackout ?

The blackout was in protest of SOPA and PIPA - two bills being considered by the US legislation - which aims at addressing the problem of copyright infringement. My interest here is not about how effective the bills are at combating infringement, but, why Wikipedia is protesting against it.

The words of Wikimedia Foundations chief, Sue Gardener, will set the background correct. She says: 'The message of the Wikipedia blackout, and the other responses to SOPA and PIPA, wasn't "Let's talk about how we can combat online copyright infringement." It was: "Don't hurt the Internet. It's too important. Let us do our work. Let us learn and create and share."' (see link at the end)

If so, what is there in the bills that would "hurt the Internet" ? Let me try to explain.

We are all users of the Internet. The internet is also a medium; but unlike other media, say the television or the newspaper, its users are simultaneously content generators as are content consumers. Thanks to continuous efforts of thousands of people, unlike other media, the means of consuming this content are numerous, and so are the means of generating it.

We can associate these 'means' to various services available freely on the Internet. For example, a YouTube allows us to view and upload videos, a Facebook allows us to view and post messages, photos and more, a Blogger/WordPress to spread our views as well as appreciate that of others, a Wikipedia to draw from the ocean of the world's knowledge as well as to add to it. In fact, these and many services facilitates what the Internet does best - share information.

Now, here is the question ? Is all of content that users upload through these services free of copyright infringement ? 

The reasonable answer is that, its not.

Moreover, the sheer volume involved means that, given the present technology, it is virtually impossible for these services to filter the content that an user might generate without expending big money on millions of such users. (Further still, it is beyond question to ensure that none of the sites that a service might lead to through the hyperlinks that it host has only copyright safe content.) That is, policing the individual user for the content he generates is simply too difficult.

Admittedly, this is unfortunate for any content creator who wishes to protect his copyright. But, what if the legislation dictates that, if it's to stay legal, the service (YouTube or Wikipedia) better take the burden of ensuring that every thing an user might put on the web is free of infringement and that none of the sites that he might link to has no infringed content. Definitely, that's not a fair solution to the problem. But, that's exactly what SOPA and PIPA seeks to do.

What this would eventually mean to the average user is that, the content that he generates will first have to pass the scrutiny against copyright infringement before it goes online. In other words, anybody generating content on the internet would be first viewed as a thief, till he/she vindicates himself/herself. As a matter of fact, if such a situation is to arise, neither the user nor the service provider would bother to use the internet.

This is where Sue Gardener's words makes the most sense, "Don't hurt the Internet. ... Let us do our work. Let us learn and create and share."

Adapted from a thought provoking TED talk by Clay Shirky linked to from the Wikimedia community blog  http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/20/the-message-from-the-wikipedia-blackout-please-leave-the-internet-alone/