PIPA Obnoxiousness

Don’t read this post. I just want to point out my beef with every debate I see with the SOPA/PIPA debates and why I don’t respect opinions on opinions. If you can’t find it said in the bill, then stating what you think it means is called stating the false or flat out lying. I call it fear mungering. These parties are doing this:

They half skim read the bill. They see small tid bits they don’t fully agree with. They find a small link to how this bill can steam roll into allowing further bills that limit other regulations. They keep exajurating the proposal and future until they reach a ridiculous point and then turn to the public and go “This Bill will Limit Freedom of Speech”. And every fat redneck crawls out of the woodwork with a shotgun and screams, “Dun no body tell mah ow Imma mari mah sista”.

A problem is brought forth to the government. “Dear Mr. Government, we have copyright laws that protect my own intellectual property that you fully support on US soil. However, entities on the internet can blantently disregard these laws as many are internationally hosted or based. They recieve money through US companies operating in the US. This would be illegal if only this wasn’t the internet. It is your responsibility to protect the copyright laws and rights, no matter the terrain”.

This is the base of the problem. So, government attempts to put a law into place that would block financial firms from doing internet business with internationally illegal activities. Which they couldn’t do if it wasn’t the internet, just so you know. And what happens in the writing and debate of this law’s formation comes the most ridiculous statements. As if no body decided to read the bill.

Here’s my points for why I know the person talking about their greif with the bill has no idea what they are talking about:

  1. SOPA is dead. If you say SOPA/PIPA you are basically shouting, “I refuse to follow up to date information and care not for the changing atmosphere of life. Would any care to debate our involvement in the Serbian Conflict?”
  2. The lack of understanding that bills change all the time means either you refused to pay attention in DMCA (if that still exist) or that you never saw School House Rock.
  3. PIPA is not actually called PIPA, it’s called S. 968. You only give acronyms to actual regulations. Don’t give power to something that is simply a proposal in the House. Which most understand as “useless piece of paper that never goes anywhere”.
  4. PIPA has 8 Sections and Titled Exactly thus as:

(1) Title 
(2) Definitions 
(3) Enhancing Enforcement of Rogue Websites Operated and Registered Overseas 
   Pretty Fucking Specific Title; Reread as many times as you like to understand the purpose of the bill a little better
(4) Eliminating the Financial Incentive to Steal Intellectual Property
   Again, the title is not very ambiguous
(5) Voulentary Action Against Websites Stealing American Intellectual Property
   This one is the tricky one.
(6) Saving Clauses
   Basically disclosure to ensure that the bill is not opposing other in place clauses.
(7) Guidelines and Studies
   A basic list of reports and studies conducted to draw the bill’s need for action; basically what’s wrong and why.
(8) Prevention of Importation of Counterfeit Products and Infringing Devices
   Probably the most useless of the sections, as it just reiterates in place laws controlled by Customs and Homeland Security for preventing such physical items. This just reiterates the technological prevention.

Really only 3 sections matter when it comes to debating what the bill is trying to do and what it does give power to do; 3 through 5. Identifying illegal foreign websites, and the action process to stop US based firms from dealing with them; how the US will stop financial gain to these sites; and how this bill protects financial US companies that make an ethical decision to stop dealing with a probable violator (this one’s important).

Basically there is a problem with the internet. Despite being the wholesome place you go to prove arguments and find funny pictures, the internet traffics many horrible things. Among these are small offenders stealing copyrighted information and selling it. There’s quite a bit of illegal activity happening on the internet that we don’t even need to bring up here, but it’s very abundant to say the least. If you are blind from that, then no one knows what to do for you. Keep living a sheltered life.

 We can currently stop illegal sites on US and other coalition countries land because we can physically touch them. However, this doesn’t stop foreign activity where the governments could care less. The problem is, many illegal things are happening outside of our US jurisdiction, and we basically currently have no way of stopping our own citizens from paying these foreign sites from hosting this activity. Since we can’t stop or filter their sites, the only thing keeping these site’s alive is money (that’s also important. US recognition that you can’t stop the site). So how are they getting US money? PayPal and other like services with also small advertising money for banners have no ethics what so ever. PayPal doesn’t care who you are as most internet based financial don’t. The bill(s) purposed not to filter content, as so many are translating from it, but to identify illegal foreign sites and block monetary services and advertisers from trading with these identified sites. This is the problem and solution alone in the bill. Any other theory of what this law can lead to is your opinion. Otherwise, find in the bill. 

What is the difference between SOPA and PIPA? Other than SOPA is basically dead and I’m not sure why anyone is even using the acronym anymore. SOPA took heavy scrutiny for also wanting to limit search engines from allowing illegal sites to come up on their searches. This is an issue and instantly killed it. No debate on why it died. And as Google has proved time and time again, they do not alter searches based on content substance. They just sell higher spots on the search (… and jab). PIPA does not have this partition in the bill, so one would think that Google would back off. But, they are holding ground. Wikipedia is against it, because simply they take donations to stay alive and that would mean they would have to actually check content on their site and heaven forbid actually make sure users are not posting copyrighted items on their “free” site if the bill gets extended to US entities as well. Wikipedia already has this obligation as a US company, but suing a non-profit entity doesn’t show good face. Same goes for any other sharing site that takes PayPal or banner donations with user based uploads. So, with this bill, the likelihood of a site like Wikipedia being categorized as “Rogue Website Owned and Operated Overseas” is as likely as the state of Nevada being declared “A Terrorist Harboring Nation“. I see no difference.

Why are the big guys against the bill, seeing that it is only to limit financial firms from trading services for monetary gain to foreign offenders of copyright infringements? Why would they give a flying crap? Because of Section 5. This section is so poorly written that it would allow an agreement to be broken if they felt that were dealing with a infringing party. Basically Company A has a popular website. Company B likes them and wants to advertise banners on the website for money. A contract is made between the 2 that Company B will pay XX dollars for 1 year of advertising on Company A’s website. On month 3, Company A’s popularity falls and Company B sees that links from those banners are nonexistent, making the 9 months left a terrible investment. Potentially Company B can dubiously claim Company A’s website infringes on certain intellectual property and then breaks said monetary arrangement legally under this sanction without fear of lawsuit. Very large stretch, but if you are an internet entity, better to go against it and nip it in the bud. There is nothing in the law you see as protecting your property.

That is the major problem. Small times jumping on the backs of “Fuck Censorship, you Totalitarian State” are full of shit and apparently refuse to read bills, or maybe regulation language is hard for them to follow. Don’t know. I get that we shouldn’t be censoring funny pictures or whatever else you think the bill is going to stop. But, in reality I think if you read and realized it wasn’t a censor bill to regulate websites, rather to regulate paying services and advertising to sites hosting very illegal activity you might see the bill or a like one in the near future differently.  

Anyways, when I see “This bill will censor us” I say scruples. Nothing in the bill regulates your site, it regulates financial gain to said foreign entities. If you aren’t an illegal foreign website entity, then your stance is that this bill might not affect you now, but will pave the way for future regulations. That I may agree with. It’s quite a leap, but … I can’t argue with future fears. Just make sure you state it properly.

Oh, if you needed more proof. The Tea Party Opposes PIPA. That was all I need to see to go, “I need to read the bill, because quite frankly I’m not ever willing to agree with a Palin counterpart in almost any fashion”. So, if you haven’t actually read the bill, and you think taking other’s opinions as your own is a good idea because they presented in a really cool fashion, I really am very sad for you.

If you want to light up my comments with anything like the following, “You are wrong Mr. Meh, these bills will do the following … ” and you do not quote the exact paragraph or subsection in the bill, or at least its location, IE Section 3 (e)(3), I will either have to go find it for you or I will determine your comment stupid and edit it accordingly without your permission as I am allowed to do on WordPress. This blog doesn’t represent freedom of speech in its comments. Ex. “Mr Meh, this bill will limit creative internet ideas and actually shut down my website without due process”. Quote what process you are seeing in the bill or shut the fuck up. Simple as that. I can’t find it, so enlighten me what you are reading.

Bottom line, there is an apparent problem with foreign website stealing and selling directly or indirectly copyright material. If you don’t think that’s a problem then that’s your basis. We as the US can limit financial gain to these entities, I agree on that part. I am worried that the bill is ambiguous and not fully thought through on the solution. My concern is that now the public is becoming more and more aware of these bills. But instead of examining what’s wrong with the bills and the change, they just want them to disappear. Which means if we ever do get a bill that is actually worth a damn it will be out of favor without it even being read. If we are illiterate today, then it’s going to be that much harder in the next go. PIPA isn’t the answer, but it should have started the ball rolling. These actions are only going to stop further progress against international bypass of US laws.

And that’s all I have to say about a House Bill that will never see the light of day.


4 thoughts on “PIPA Obnoxiousness

  1. Your points are stupid. SOPA is very alive and very scary being the first. And just because those are the titles of the sections, doesn’t mean that’s what the bill is trying to accomplish. Both bills are trying to give the government power to cencor websites that are seemingly using copyright information. I think you need to go back and reread the third section towards the end of the section where the Attorney General is allowed to shutdown a website without due process with just a simple submittal of paperwork to the courts.

    • Well … I didn’t delete or edit your comment because it complied with part my posted rules for commenting in a sort.

      You raise 3 points that I think are worth talking about:

      (1) is your denial that SOPA is dead
      (2) is your take on Section 3
      (3) is your opinion on the issue with “Due Process”

      (1) PIPA is a Senate Bill, which means it’s passed the trials of the House and is now is play for the Senate. SOPA is a House Bill, which means it has to pass the House for it to go to the Senate like PIPA is in now. As of this post on the 16th, SOPA was officially put on hold by the House. Granted if your belief that a bill in the House has for the first time in a long time come back from “On Hold” status to go to the Senate, then that’s really optimistic. If you then think the Senate will pass a not even worth debating bill barely passed by the House with even more unfavorable positions than it has today on PIPA with further disliked approaches, then you’re delusional. If you then believe that not only is it still possible for the both the House and the Senate to approve the Bill and the President not Veto it, when the White House as already declared a position against, then yes, you are down right moronic. It is dead. I won’t debate it further.

      (2) Saying reading the end of Section 3 is hard to understand. Are you referring to (g) Related Actions, (f) Modifications of Vacation Orders, or (e) Enforcement Orders? I’m assuming the latter. In which it is composed of the following 3 subsections:
      (1) IN GENERAL- In order to compel compliance with this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this section that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with such order.
      (2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under paragraph (1) shall be the sole legal remedy for enforcing the obligations under this section of any entity described in subsection (d).
      (3) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under paragraph (1) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with the subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is inconsistent with this Act. This showing shall serve as a defense only to the extent of such inability to comply or to the extent of such inconsistency.

      This area is broad. You are correct.
      To understand these better you have to read the meat in (d). Correct, reading these section alone would mean the language in these are very scary stuff depending on who you are.

      These give the courts a power to not only determine who is liable, but can take legal action to make it stop if there is no viable defense. Basically, we think that you are hosting illegal activity, and if you aren’t, we think you are helping aid it by hosting the IP doing it. I’m telling you nicely to stop and filter it, and now at anytime I can force the server to stop you if I don’t think you comply fast enough.

      Yes. That alone is very unreasonable response without due process. Now if only we lived in a world, where Federal Law was read and complied with in terms of stand alone statements. See what I’m doing yet …. Nope okay. Let me trace it for you.

      You cannot enforce use in Section 3 (d)and (e) which enforces the courts ability to stop and issue orders, without all of Section 3 being true. So for me to simply refute your interpretation on Section 3 (d) is not take a stance that it’s wrong, but to say that Section 3 (a) clearly defines WHO the court can issue against.

      3 (a) is thus:
      (a) Commencement of an Action- (1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against–
      (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or
      (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.
      The problem I have with the general public in law is that don’t know how to read it. You can’t use 3 (d) if you don’t have (a) defined. So no, you are wrong. You cannot enforce vague shutdown laws against US companies. It is 1) to issue basically an international Order to say, “Hey, you are doing illegal things. The US has laws against this, please desist.” Actions in (d) allow for the court to further investigate if the international entity is actually dumb enough to pay for hosting from a US server. In which the Court can inform the Server owners that such activity is occurring and issue a shutdown request for providing service to that entity without repercussion, so long as the server provider cannot prove that such hosting is actually financially tied to instability. This part is very vague but will need resolution to move forward. As in, how protected is the server? It is impossible for a server to know every little thing. What if 90% of their server is found infringed? They can just prove they will go brankrupt and the court ignores it? I don’t get it. Too vague.

      Again, all of this is not allowed until an illegal non-US activity is identified. Due process is not involved, due to the parties not being US citizens. How can one be given due process? As for the servers. You are dealing in international business, and you have no concerns for the content. I think a stop order is pretty lenient, because there is no responsibility or damages clause. Which means, any business you get away with, there isn’t even a slap on the hands. “Oh you were supplying server space for international child pornography? Well, stop that now.” You say, absurd lack of due process. I say there is little response here to limit servers from having any responsibility and lack of care. Which to me is fair. You didn’t know, okay, we are telling you now.

      So either your stance is that you want to impose due process on entities that can’t be given such or that you think it’s FAIR that all US based companies and businesses need to comply with copyright infringement, but international entities shouldn’t be resolved to, and further define that it is entirely okay for US server providers, advertisers and internet banking to keep profiting on these activities?

      Either way I don’t agree. Wording is vague in many sections, but the problem is well defined and the action plan is a good one. Needs some potatos, but the meat is good.

      So until you find a quote on an exact location in the bill, the statement that the “Attorney General is allowed to shutdown a website without due process with just a simple submittal of paperwork to the courts” is untrue. The words, “shutdown” and “website” are gross inflations of the terms and parties involved in the bill. You are not only falsely increasing the power of the law, but as well as falsely examining who it affects with only 2 exjurated words. That’s my point.

      The bill has problems. But the publics stance on them, are absurd and absolutely off base. Which means the bills are dying without a debate. No debate means it won’t go any further in other forms, which means problems stand as is. And I agree with the problem as it is defined, just not the exact resolution.

      • You basically gave me a TL;DR approach. Way too much copying and pasting. I read the bill, no need to do that. I think you can’t hear yourself. You are defending the bill, yet argue in the same sentence it is vague and needs work. I think you just like to hear yourself.

      • Your response is absolutely upsetting. TL;DR. FFS dude.

        The copy and pasting is on purpose. Because it is clear as fucking day to me, that you have not read the bill. I have to paste it, because you won’t read a bill that is TL. Get my drift? A copy and paste of 2 subsections was TL;DR for you, I doubt you’d understand or even know where to find the bill.

        Secondly, fucktard, my resolution in the post was never to defend the bill, it was to attack the illiterate uncompromising public from having opinions. I find it absolutely obnoxious for people to have an opinion without actually having any obligation to understanding the basis. My problem, since you didn’t read my post and that’s clear now, was … the normal process of a bill and law is to identify a need/problem; present a lawful solution (bill); and discuss improvements.

        INSTEAD … the public is being exercised to not weigh in on the subject at hand, but is being fed future fears which grows to ignore the problem altogether without any debate. My problem is it is very clear, those weighing in, never read the bill, which means … they don’t know the problem and have taken such an adverse opinion to it, the actual solutions are not even debatable from this point on. Meaning any resolution in the future has been completely curbed.

        Our entire law making system has been benched by the unforeseen vocalization of the mass opinions of the illiterate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s