Are the SOPA/PIPA blackouts an abuse of power?

Tweet

Chris Dodd, chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), released a statement saying that these blackouts are an abuse of power of these sites. To be honest, it really isn't much of a surprise that he would be against this since he is the CEO of a company that would benefit greatly from the passing of these laws. In fact, both the MPAA and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have been huge supporters of the bills and for obvious reasons as they would benefit greatly by them, in theory. Dodd has been quoted as saying, "It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on [these sites] for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. A so-called 'blackout' is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this 'blackout' to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy."" The quote is taken from and based on this article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399019,00.asp Dodd accuses these sites of skewing the facts about SOPA and PIPA, and according to the man who authored the laws (Rep. Lamar Smith) the laws will not harm Wikipedia, blogs, or social networking sites. The problem with that, I think, is that the language (or what I've read/heard of it) is vague enough where it could be misconstrued that it would. But if the MPAA and RIAA can pass laws in order to represent their opinions and make their concerns known then why is it suddenly such a betrayal that other sites would be able to make their concerns known? There is, after all, two sides to the argument and obviously sites want what would be in their best interest. Plus, I think it's a little bit silly to suggest that these sites owe anything to the public at all. They are companies, just like any other, and that means if they decided to pull down Google tomorrow (which would be silly but they could) then that would be their prerogative. Last time I checked the public did not own Google nor is Google responsible for serving the masses and doing whatever is best for them. It's very true that if these large sites are pulled down then it will be an inconvenience for everyone that uses those or relies on them, true. Besides, I do believe that the whole point of this "disservice" is to show what could possibly happen if SOPA or PIPA was passed. Regardless of whether or not the senators/supporters of the bill regard it as being a threat to these companies, clearly these companies regard it as a threat. Personally, I don't think it's an abuse of power because these are companies that are providing a service. As inconvenient as it might be, these companies have every right to discontinue providing their service at any point they choose. Personally, I think it's arrogant to think that these companies have to exist solely to serve the public. Obviously if they want to generate revenue they'll continue to provide what their users are looking for, but I doubt they'll lose any users (or at least not a substantial amount of users if any) simply to raise awareness of this. At the very least, though, I found some of the blackouts to be fairly interesting. If you want to know what sites participated here's a pretty good list of some popular sites: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399019,00.asp My favorite by far, however, is oatmeal's animated GIF which nearly had me dying of laughter. You can see it here: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/01/18/the-night-the-lights-went-out-for-sopa/oatmeal/ So what do you think about the blackout?