"The people who want to protect “intellectual property” from all infringement have set up a binary choice. They tell us that if we do not agree to their absolute control, we are endorsing stealing. This is another lie, though it’s been an effective one until recently – when people began to realize what was at stake. In fact, if the issue is binary, it can be framed as a choice between no freedom of speech and freedom of speech. After all, the logical extension of absolute control is a permission-based information economy, in which we need permission to quote anyone else. And since all journalism and entertainment is built upon borrowing from other creators, nothing new could be legally created without permission. It can also be framed as needing permission to innovate – one of the clear effects of Sopa and other such bills. Because they would give Hollywood and other IP owners easy ways to shut down new ideas simply based on allegations, investors would stop funding most things that didn’t have prior assent from the various existing cartels. This is not speculation: major technology investors have said precisely this."