monkeyshine nutworks: Who needs SOPA or PIPA when we have the courts

There is an ongoing strike move gathering support on the Internet called #SopaStrike. SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA may be US acts, but if passed their impact would be worldwide.

Not just because the internet is dominated by the US companies which *will* have to comply, but proponents of these acts say that they have been *designed* to especially target foreign (non-US) websites to protect (US) intellectual property and copyright.

Why such an act will be debilitating internet as we know it, is best (and in practical terms) explained in today’s article ‘BoingBoing to go dark on Jan. 18th’. While piracy on the seas and on the internet is abhorrent and has to be stopped, I am not sure that these acts are the right way of going about it.

OTOH, I know of (only) one renowned author who has actually advocated online piracy of his books - Paulo Coelho, who wrote the best seller ‘The Alchemist’ among others, says he does not mind people pirating his books. He even offers links to Torrents at his blog under Pirate Coelho.

But in India, we don’t need any such new laws to enforce stupidity and censorship. The courts which are envisioned to protect us against brutality and wrongful confinement - physical or intellectual, seem a little amorphous on the issues with their recent judgements. And it is definitely a study in contrast between the USA and India.

In the USA,

opponents are scared (worried) that these acts will be used to enforce censorship like the Great Firewall of China;
the current administration (White House) has come out against such ‘overwhelming’ laws, though seem to be hedging on ‘some’ sort of new legislation; and
if ever the acts are passed, they may yet be challenged in the US courts.

Back home, in contrast

the current administration enthusiastically supports action against internet giants

- not for something as tangible as copyright, IP infringements and monetary losses; but
- for something as vague and intangible as ‘scurrilous’ or ‘objectionable’ content or opinions;

judiciary of the stature of the Delhi High Court warns the web giants with an Indian version of ‘Green Dam’;
lower judiciary at Magistrate level are allowed to take up issues which have impact on individual freedoms, based on complaints in the garb of prosecuting ‘prurient’ content; while
the Supreme Court is ‘vexed’ with the pendency of cases - 2.77 crore (27.7 million) of them - in such trial courts!