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:
- 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?”
- 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.
- 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”.
- PIPA has 8 Sections and Titled Exactly thus as:
(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.