Better Minds than Mine have weighed in on this topic but here are two stories that give excellent perspective on the deeper issue behind the debate and how the internet successfully defended itself.

The underlying issue, the one that provides real protection to free speech, is Prior Restraint.  Read about it here in this post by Cornell Professor Tarleton Gillespie on Culture Digitally.

And Mashable give an excellent account of the world wide protests this week that lead to the withdrawal of PIPA and SOPA. 

To be clear, I agree that the unauthorized transfer of copyrighted material (note I did not say Pirating of copyrighted material) is a serious issue.  A friend who works at a major ISP tells me that at some times P2P large file sharing takes up for 85% of their available bandwidth.  I assume that much of that is “unauthorized”.

But I do not use the word Piracy because I disagree with the notion that every illegal file share represent a loss of revenue; in the vast majority of those cases, people are receiving files that they would never have purchased in the first place. The P2P exchange is replacing one that never would have occurred.  

Now, that is in no way an excuse for illegal activity, which I do consider much file sharing to be.  But is does provide a filter through which to view the hysteria ans hyperbole that has driven the push for laws like PIPA and SOPA in the first place.     

Besides, he sharing of copyrighted material is nothing new.  Ever borrow a book from a friend?   Laws like SOPA would make it possible, on the internet anyway, to limit your ability to talk about the book in the first place, just in case you wanted to use that conversation to violate the copyright holder’s rights…   

And yes, I know it is legal to lend books, but you see my point.  And while it is legal to make a copy of a cd, it’s not legal to make 100 copies, and industry did try to outlaw VCRs back in the 70s, just in case you were thinking of making a pirate movie factory in your basement.

Just sayin…