SOPA, Guns, and Freedom
Q: What does the proposed SOPA (“Stop Online Piracy Act”) legislation have in common with gun control?
A: Both would punish the innocent for the bad acts of a guilty few.
Under the guise of combating online copyright piracy, the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation would have given the government unprecedented power to shut down a website for hosting “infringing material,” even for something as minor as an online comment from a 3rd-party linking to pirated content. Although the goal of protecting intellectual property rights is a legitimate one, the proposed SOPA law would not have solved that problem and it would have disrupted all manner of legitimate internet activity in the process. Steve Blank offered this analogy: “It’s as if someone shoplifts in your store, SOPA allows the government to shut down your store.”
But even though SOPA proponents in Congress appear to be backing down in the face of public pressure, the legislation is not yet dead but merely temporarily “shelved.” The Senate version, Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), is still very much alive. Furthermore, the U.S. government has repeatedly sought greater control over the internet, most notably with the proposed 2010 “internet kill switch” (“Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act”) which would have allowed it to shut down the internet at its discretion during “emergencies.”
Like all technologies, computers can be used for good or for evil purposes. But the fact that bad people can misuse a technology does not justify restricting the freedoms of honest users. As Cory Doctorow notes, we would never let the government restrict the use of wheels because bank robbers sometimes use wheeled vehicles to make their escape.
Gun control advocates have adopted similarly flawed logic for decades. In essence they argue, “Some people will do bad things with guns; hence we should restrict law-abiding Americans’ ability to own guns.” Over the years, they have enacted numerous local, state, or federal-level restrictions such as mandatory gun registration, bans of certain types of dangerous-looking rifles, and (in some localities) complete bans on handgun ownership.
Some gun control advocates have even proposed requiring that all new guns include technology that would allow only approved users to discharge the weapon, for instance, by requiring that a microchip in the gun recognize the owner’s fingerprint or a special ring on the owner’s finger. The government would also have the ability to override these chips remotely and render the gun unusable if it deemed necessary — i.e., the gun control version of the “kill switch.”
Meanwhile the “infinite detention without trial” NDA Act has passed with little fanfare. Both Romney and Obama support it BTW.
But hey it’s only your constitutional rights after all, it’s justt piece of paper and it will NEVER be abused by Congress or those politically connected.
Hey, I still have a hopium rock in my crack pipe!!!
This can certainly be abused (especially if the President is a Democrat as the Instapundit frequently notes), but at least it’s Constitutional:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Speech, modern printing press and gun control are white line unconstitutional because of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
The presumption behind habeas corpus is that the petitioner is initially detained in accordance with amendments IV, V, VI, and VII. To not see that those four amendments paint just as bright a line as I and II abets “justice” to imprison citizens under the guise of yet another sham war.
Think that an unreasonable claim? Should “reasonable people” excuse progressives as “rhetorical” when calling banksters and the tea party terrorists? What about in the absurd Von Nothaus counterfeiting case, where “reasonable people” agreed with US Attorney Anne Tompkins, “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country”.
By Tompkins’ logic, being overweight attacks the health of the body politic and all NFL linemen are terrorists.
Remember, we have free speech, BUT! not “hate speech.”
We have freedom of religion, BUT! not freedom “from religion.”
We have a right to keep and bear arms, BUT! not “assault weapons.”
We have a right to face our accusers, to a speedy trial, to due process BUT! not if we’re “terrorists.”
We have a right to protection from unwarranted search and seizure, BUT! not if we might have drugs or alcohol.
And certainly “those people” aren’t entitled to “special privileges” the rest of us call rights, nor to any rights at all, because they’re not citizens/the right party/the right culture.
And why do you hate America?
Add to that:
We have a right to keep and bear arms, BUT! not outside our homes.
Or at least that’s the current state of Federal case law, which is in progress.
On the other hand the political process has acknowledged that right for around 2/3rds of the people in the country (the ones living in shall issue and constitutional carry state, unless of course they have the nerve to visit places like NYC).
Add to that:
We have the right to keep arms in our house, just not the right to use them and must ask permission for fear of lawsuits even in clear cut cases of self-defense.
The government has cowed it’s citizens so badly they look to Nanny before committing to any action.
I always wondered about that. I would have thought that the bear part of “keep and bear arms” would sort of imply that you might have the right to carry them with you outside of your house, but I guess with our new living constitution obvious words no longer mean what they appear to mean.
Many free market advocates have only fairly recently begun to realize how fundamentally anti-free market many of the big IP companies are. For example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which they enthusiastically supported, makes it a crime to break the encryption on a DVD you have lawfully purchased even just to back it up. So if your kid likes to watch a movie enough that you fear the disk will get damaged you are literally risking a felony if you decide to make a DVD-R copy of the disk just so you can preserve your original investment. You also cannot install any modifications to DVD playing software, iTunes, etc. that would limit or break the built in digital rights management software to give you more flexibility over your own purchases.
This bill is the latest in a long line of bills aimed at fundamentally restricting our rights. Do some research on the “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act” that was defeated in the early millennium and be amazed at what Hollywood and co. demanded beyond the already onerous DMCA. You’ll see that there is a pattern here that must only result in unrelenting political hostility to these interests from pro-property rights groups.
Don’t forget another critical thing – this is the same industry sector that so badly wants to be what cable companies are to television. They’d much rather see the internet in the hands of only middlemen – ie, them. They would decide what content goes or doesn’t, what sites of theirs you’re privileged to see based on what fee you pay, oh, and they would very much like to charge you based on bandwidth.
Empowering them as the ‘guardians’ of the internet in order to ‘protect’ us all from piracy would be a first step on that path.
Virtually all such legislation as you cite is intended to protect the businesses involved from competition. In essence, they have theirs and ghod forbid that you should get yours and have the temerity to join their excluxive club.
It’s no wonder that we commoners have lost our admiration for the successful and faith in our government when too often the successful are able to bribe legislators to protect them from having to mingle with us.
While your answer is true (“Both would punish the innocent for the bad acts of a guilty few”), I don’t think it really gets to the issue. Compare SOPA to the TSA… both place onerous burdens on the innocent while doing absolutely nothing to stop those intent on engaging in illegal activity. No only do they “punish the innocent”, they also do nothing to actually stop the “guilty few”. In fact, one could reasonably argue that they encourage the “guilty few”. It’s all a big show put on for the public who’ll dutifully trot out to state “Well, if it saves one child then having a cavity search before boarding an airplane is a small price to pay”. SOPA, gun laws, and the TSA are merely exercises in power by the Bully State. Because, as they’ll tell you, they can.
I feel the same way about the “formerally” over the counter medications (sinus/allergy/cold) that are now behind the pharmacists counter because crack-heads learned how to use them to get high. I’m now limited to number and have to show ID for them. Punishing me for the law breakers is not justice.
Pirated? Music should be FREE. Art should be FREE. Occupy Hollywood!
/s
I’m not that big an internet user, but can I assume that the ‘/s’ is a sarcasm emoticon?
yes, a sarcasm tag
Because the Fine Arts crowd sings a different tune when it comes to their *own* livelihood.
Just like strong union SAG actors wouldn’t let people act for free but will write blogs for free for the Huffington Post.
Great post, I love it!!!
Like gun laws, SOPA will not solve the problem. The Recording industry and the Motion Picture industry are suffering because the technology and social assumptions are and have been obsolete for a very long time. This is exactly why gun laws that governments make do not solve violent crime problems. The technologies and social assumptions have been obsolete for a very long time.
People keep trying to rely upon old notions and ideas. For example, the infamous “saturday night special” laws did nothing to alleviate the fact that handguns are more inexpensive and accessible than ever before. So instead of attempting to regulate or ban them, why not let the market do what it does best and advocate them?
Likewise, with recordings and motion pictures being so easy to copy so inexpensively, why not rely upon that as a distribution medium?
But that would take creativity, planning, and real work. And those are fundamental conservative values. When the economic model you rely upon breaks down, it is time to find a different way to work, not seek government help to prop you up.
How hard is it to look at what works and apply it? iTunes, Amazon VOD, Youtube, etc.
Why are we surrounded by morons, and how did these morons get in charge of things? They are obviously morons. You can’t hide that sort of thing a tthis level. So how are they getting power?
Apathy?
Dear morons: NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A *&())&(*^ COMMERCIAL. And locking me into that stupid FBI warning on every single movie I’ve ever watched with no ability to skip only pisses me off more.
This law is so darn screwed up, its hilarious. This industry that is demanding the internet gets destroyed as we know it to protect their DVD sales…originally demanded that the US government outlaw and ban the VCR tape and DVD. Hell, the TV studios wanted the Tivo banned.
We have an industry refusing to change with technology, demanding that they get their cut for distribution (especially the music industry) when they are completely unnecessary now. Why should I have to pay Sony for downloading music, when I can just as easily purchase copies of the music from the artist, ensuring they get more than pennies compare to the record company?
This is akin to the horse and buggy industry demanding the US government bail them out and outlaw the combustion engine to protect them from the automobile. What is next, Blockbuster demanding the US government outlaw the distribution of films through the mail and streaming to save it’s outdated store model?
Considering the amount of public outcry, SOPA and PIPA should be dead. The only reason they’re not dead yet is the vast amount of lobbying money being funneled to congress by the recording industries. I don’t think any of us are naive about how deals like this get made in congress. The important thing is to put your congressman in a position to say to the lobbyists, “Look, I appreciate your contributions, but my constituents have made it clear to me that if I support this bill, I’m not going to get reelected.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup
Good post. Yet another reason to rid our representatives of lobbiest. Congress has ignored the people for way too long. I for one am way past being sick and tired of some know nothing congress person telling me what is best for me, that 99% of the time is whats in his (her) best interest. People HAVE to kick the apathetic attitude regarding thier representatives.
I’m reminded of gun control efforts to force public agencies to make concealed weapons permit holders public information, names and addresses, apparently in the effort to intimidate people considering that personal safety option. Of course, if the information were made public, enterprising criminals would simply improve their due diligence, and the burglars would opt to shop at those safe and sane gun free zones for their five finger discounts. I suppose there would also be a celebrity exemption too, so well armed Nancy Pelosi–fond of no fault congressional insider trading– and Shawn Penn–fond of no fault fascism only when he does it– would not be on the public list to add to their embarrassment. Ah, the trials and tribulations of being the one percent and relevant, hip, and happening when trying to pass for the other 99 percent. Let’s see, we have no fault capitalism, no fault divorce, no fault car insurance, no fault illegal immigration, no fault politicians, leading a no fault democracy. No wonder civil wars happen.
Just called the offices of my senators to thank Rubio for dropping support for Senate Bill 968 (PROTECT IP Act. Then called Bill Nelson’s office to ask that he reconsider his support. Nelson’s office claims that the bill will be changed to address privacy concerns — they really don’t get it at all! I said that wasn’t good enough. I want the bill stopped entirely, and if he votes for the bill, at lease we can also vote in November.
I’m shocked at the hysteria over SOPA. Moreover, I’d dismayed at the depth of ignorance of so-called experts, such as the author of this piece. I have read the bill more than a dozen times. Where in the bill, which line or paragraph, is the language that will allow the jack-booted government thugs to destroy our constitutional rights? Of course, Paul Hsieh, nor any other of the opposition can answer this, because none have read the bill. Instead, they rely on links to progressive opinion by liberal-educated academics with an agenda. Disappointing, to say the least. Check out my website for a real ‘fair and balanced’ discussion of SOPA. Leave the hysterics here.
If you don’t understand why the DNS related powers scare the heck out of a lot of people that means you m ow little about how important the DNS is, how much it depends on mutual cooperation and how dimly the test of the world is starting to view our stewardship of key pieces of it now that Congress wants to mess with it to protect Hollywood.
These laws can be fixed, just so long as we write some laws and regulations that will bring jobs for our sons and daughters who want to be lawyers. We got telecommuting counsels writing laws ready to go.There are sick people and every flame is raising the seas so we need lots of rules to protect us.Who will litigate for long dead composers?All these so- called settled estates need lawyers so we need more estate lawyers.Now we go backwards, Find something in public domain that’s popular,And go back a get out of public domain. Bingo. Magic money.Gotta love those lawyers.
You do recall what Shakespeare said re: lawyers?
If this is about music and movies why not put in specific language limiting it to music and movies? Their unwillingness to do such an obvious thing does make one suspicious that this is also aimed at aggregators and bloggers.
Good article, Paul, but I think you could make a stronger case by demonstrating a little more clearly how restricting the innocent is NOT protecting individual rights. The government should be protecting our rights by removing ACTUAL criminals, not trying to stop POTENTIAL ones, because the attempt to stop POTENTIAL crime causes the government, itself, to become a criminal organization that is violating people’s rights with force.
One of the most serious problems with it that the author omitted is that the DNS-related powers (the ability to hijack the domain and send it to a US government-controlled server) is seriously problematic for our privileged position online. The US is the de facto, not de jure, maintainer of several key pieces of the global DNS because hitherto, the US was trusted to be the most neutral player. The first amendment means the federal government cannot impose any cultural standards on the rest of the world and so far, we hadn’t altered the DNS for our economic advantage (or protection).
SOPA changes that. It makes us unreliable to the rest of the world because DNS changes we make will propagate to the rest of the world under the current system. SOPA did not just require ISPs to block infringing domains, but attacks the very DNS registration itself which means that the block will actually become a new DNS entry that the rest of the world will receive. Effectively, this means that barring outside intervention, what we censor in the US becomes censored in Europe, China, etc.
There has been agitation for UN control over this system for a while. That idiot R-Hollywood Smith just made an excellent case for the rest of the world to turn over control from ICANN to the UN’s ITU.
To me, this makes the case that we need to come up with a *decentralized* version of the DNS system. That way, it will not be subject to the whims of *any* government.
I do not know how to do that personally, but I’ve read an article once rumbling about the need to figure out how to do this. Perhaps this issue will push more people into figuring out how to do this…
Excellent contribution, Mike. Thank you.
For those unfamiliar with the technical issues, the “US Public Polcy Council Analysis of SOPAʼs impact on DNS and DNSSEC” by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) may be informative.
http://usacm.acm.org/images/documents/DNSDNSSEC.pdf
As Solzhenitsyn reminds us, “It is not a United Nations Organization but a United Governments Organization where all governments stand equal; those which are freely elected, those imposed forcibly, and those which have seized power with weapons.” Here is some food for thought re. the Emmy Award winning UN ITU
http://transition.fcc.gov/commissioners/mcdowell/documents/Wall-Street-Journal-7-23-10-UN-Threat-to-Internet-Freedom.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html
Of course, reverse engineering the firmware in your ZTE, Huawei and Cisco routers to check for stuff like IP traceback, is felonious under DMCA. But that’s how it should be, this is all just good stewardship, right? Don’t all reasonable people agree? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377141077267316.html
I find it oddly interesting, that although only one Presidential candidate originally opposed SOPA and PIPA, now that he is, once again, found to be on the right side of the issue, the others have changed their mind, and joined him.
Not that I have a problem with -that-. But I have a problem with, the fact that they changed their mind, while pretending they always felt this way, and their friends in the media refuse to acknowledge the one person who was right on this issue from the very beginning.
the media will continue to ignore “that one person” because he is easy to marginalize, which is exactly what they will do to him should his campaign gain more traction. The ironic thing is that the issues he has long talked about are finally coming to him. But, he represents a threat to the Big Govt duopoly in power and, as such, will be thoroughly savaged should his numbers climb much higher.
I know it, you know it, both party establishments know it, the entire media culture knows it, but only you and I will say it out loud. The rest will pretend he’s a crazy old man who thinks we are responsible for 9/11.
the best way to stop piracy is not to put it on the web at all. and ask them to remove it while it’s being investigated as a coy write infringement if they refuse then take further steps on this
Like everything else Imperial Washington does, this proposal sounds benign on its face and can easily be sold to the massively uninformed population that is necessary for the expansion of the nanny state. However, this measure would only grow if enacted, just like every other allegedly well-meaning piece of legislation has.
I don’t trust DC to successfully police much of anything and this BS about “there ought to be a law” conveniently ignores the multitude of laws that are already ignored. I do not defend piracy but it’s like the TSA – we treat everyone like a terrorist based on their luggage rather than focusing on the folks who fit the mold. Profiling? Damn right; it’s used because it works.
“As a gun owner and hunter, I am very concerned about my ‘right’ to keep and bear arms. However, as the Christian head of my home, I am much more concerned about my God-ordained responsibility to keep and bear arms for the protection of my family, home, and possessions. I am not a Second Amendment advocate. Americans who tout the Second Amendment as their authority to keep and bear arms may ultimately do more harm than good to their so-called right….
“Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise…. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings.” For more, see “Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical?” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php.
We are at the very beginning of what perhaps is the most significant paradigm shift in America’s history (besides perhaps the 17th-century Puritans establishing their Colonial governments upon Yahweh’s law). America is beginning to recognize her national idol that like Gideon of old must be repented of before we can regain Christian dominion of our nation. Our darkest hour will prove to be our brightest moment. I offer as proof a radio interview Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America conducted with me on December 31, 2011. You can listen to or download it from Gun Owner’s of America’s website at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/gunowners-news-hour#archives. See the second or third entry from the top.
Not sure what saving whales has to do with trying to save our rights online BUT ████’█ ███ ██████.the ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ █████ government████ ███ ██ knows█████ ██ ██████ ███ best█ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ████/████ ███’█ ██████ ████████
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
George Washington
Why do we need more laws? There are already copyright and patent laws, why not enforce them? Congress is in love with passing more laws and rules to infringe on our freedoms, all under the name of protection. Protection of who, the music and film industries?
Part of the problem is that we think that the protection of IP is a given. If we look at the origins of copyright and patent, though, that “given” ought to be seriously examined.
Copyright originally had nothing to do with protecting the income of authors. When printing presses were first becoming popular, the Crown would grant individuals the “copyright” to publish approved books. Thus, it was originally a tool of censorship.
Similarly, patents weren’t a way to protect those who developed novel devices, but to attract artisans to work in a given province, who were good at what they did, even if they didn’t originate those techniques–they were monopoly grants through and through.
Over time, the justification for these things have morphed into “we need to protect the innovators”–and it’s debatable that patents and copyrights do even that–but it should come as no surprise that big companies and governments can so easily use these tools to secure monopolies and to censor us.
For those of us who like online Texas Holdem, this administration has already taken down websites it deems competitive with its friends.