If you disagree with the RIAA, you are a criminal

The head of the RIAA has come to the conclusion that all those people who complained about Big Content’s cunning plan to take control of the Internet are actually criminals.

Cary Sherman wrote in the New York Times that the campaign that was waged against the SOPA and PIPA bills was “unfair”.

He claimed that Wikipedia and and others had fed people with misinformation about what the two laws meant. It was being claimed that the two laws amounted to internet censorship which would put the US on a par with China.

Sherman said that was not the case. We guess he means that censorship in China was carried out by the State, were in the case of this law it would be enforced by Big Content. He pointed out that there was no difference between what was being touted in SOPA and what happens when an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined something to be illegal and when police close down a store fencing stolen goods.

However, he seemed to miss the fact that the laws did not involve any evidence or courts at all. A person could lose their internet connections simply on the say so of Big Content.

Sherman said that no doubt some of the opponents of SOPA and PIPA were worried about the way the law would be interpreted, but the vast majority of them were those who thought that content should be free.

“How many of those e-mails were from the same people who attacked the Web sites of the Department of Justice, the Motion Picture Association of America, my organization and others as retribution for the seizure of Megaupload, an international digital piracy operation?” he said.

He said that it was hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree.