But the efforts of those who want to control the flow of information on the Internet show one thing: Free, easily accessible information is bound to screw up someone’s day. Sometimes it is government — à la WikiLeaks — but in the U.S., it typically takes the form of large media corporations, most notably the music and movie industries, who make their bread and butter off economic models that deal with the restriction of information.

In the past, they could control how music was distributed (say, via an overpriced CD) and there wasn’t anything the average citizen could do about it.

Nowadays, it doesn’t take much to grab a CD and put it on the Internet for everyone to use. Even in places that are monitored by industry giants (YouTube LLC), one probably could find more than one video with his or her favorite song. Sharing is caring, right?

Well, it’s actually more like a “disruptive technology or disruptive innovation.” According to Wikipedia, these are “innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers.”

And in response to this disruption, groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA, have decided to lobby the government to create legislation that would make it easier to block or otherwise disrupt sites that offer patented, copyrighted and trademark material for free.

The most current form of this legislation is the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property, or PROTECT IP, Act of 2011. Essentially, it allows the Department of Justice to enforce copyright and trademark law against non-U.S. “rogue” and “pirate” websites, such as The Pirate Bay.

A quick look around the Internet is enough to confirm that the same factions are at war again. Techies and intellectual property advocates are against it. Large media corporations and pro-business lobbyist groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support it.

Google Inc. is a notable exception to the corporations. Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said in a Los Angeles Times blog post that “If there is a law that requires DNSs (Domain Name System), to do X and it’s passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it. … If it’s a request, the answer is we wouldn’t do it, if it’s a discussion, we wouldn’t do it.”

(Side note: Google has enough clout basically to refuse to obey a U.S. law, or at least the clout to posture against it before it’s passed.)

What worries me about the businesses’ approach is that instead of responding by changing their economic model, they have opted to lobby the government to overreach on their behalf.

Granted, it makes sense the corporations are fighting back using a system in which they wield considerable clout, but that still doesn’t mean laws such as PROTECT IP are not the correct answer. It makes even more sense to expect a return on the campaign contributions to various politicians.

What doesn’t make sense is ignoring the fact that whatever models those industries have used in the past are fast becoming obsolete.

Sure, we can attempt to legislate the problem away, but that only can lead to a war of escalating censorship. It would behoove corporations to find ways to change with the times instead of seeking to slow the pace of progress. In turn, legislators must understand nothing good (in the long term) will come of enabling the corporations through legislation in the short term.

Information, like life, always finds a way. The question is how many citizens will be injured in the battle between progress and profits.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at barkerd@msu.edu.