Do you agree with the protest by Wikipedia, Google, Firefox, Craigslist et al against the proposed SOPA/ PIPA bill?

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Wed, 2012-01-18 20:22
Hell no! Piracy is theft!
0% (0 votes)
Hell yes! Piracy is NOT theft!
6% (1 vote)
No. The bill will not make any difference.
0% (0 votes)
Yes. This bill is just an excuse for censorship.
59% (10 votes)
Yes and no. We need anti-piracy laws, but not censorship.
18% (3 votes)
Other (please specify).
18% (3 votes)
Total votes: 17

Cispa cybersecurity bill passed by House of Representatives

Marcus's picture

Cispa cybersecurity bill passed by House of Representatives

Republican-controlled House defies Obama over legislation to prevent electronic attacks on US.

"The House of Representatives has ignored objections from Barack Obama's administration and approved legislation aimed at helping to thwart electronic attacks on critical US infrastructure and private companies.

On a bipartisan vote of 248-168, the Republican-controlled House backed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa), which would encourage companies and the federal government to share information collected on the internet to prevent electronic attacks from cybercriminals, foreign governments and terrorists.

"This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this country," Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee, said after more than five hours of debate.

More than 10 years after the September 11 terror attacks in 2001, proponents cast the bill as an initial step to deal with an evolving threat of the internet age. The information-sharing would be voluntary to avoid imposing new regulations on businesses, an imperative for Republicans.

The legislation would allow the government to relay cyber threat information to a company to prevent attacks from Russia or China. In the private sector, corporations could alert the government and provide data that could stop an attack intended to disrupt the country's water supply or take down the banking system.

The Obama administration has threatened a veto of the House bill, preferring a Senate measure that would give the homeland security department the primary role in overseeing domestic cybersecurity and the authority to set security standards. That Senate bill remains stalled.

The Republican House speaker, John Boehner, said the administration's approach was misguided...

Countering criticism of Big Brother run amok, proponents argued that the bill does not allow the government to monitor private networks, read private emails or close a website. It urges companies that share data to remove personal information.

"There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill," Rogers said.

Among the amendments the House approved was one by Republican Justin Amash that put certain personal information off limits: library, medical and gun sale records, tax returns and education documents.

"I don't know why the government would want to snoop through library records or tax returns to counter the cybersecurity threat," Amash said.

The House approved his amendment by 415-0.

Trumping any privacy concerns were the national security argument, always powerful in an election year, and Republicans' political desire to complete a bill that would then force the Democratic-led Senate to act.

The Obama administration backs a Senate bill sponsored by senators Joe Lieberman, an Independent, and Republican Susan Collins, that gives homeland security the authority to establish security standards.

However, that legislation faces opposition from senior Senate Republicans.

Arizona senator John McCain, the leading Republican on the Senate armed services committee, said during a hearing last month that the homeland security department was "probably the most inefficient bureaucracy that I have ever encountered" and was ill-equipped to determine how best to secure the nation's essential infrastructure. McCain has introduced a competing bill."

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever

Marcus's picture

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Exclusive: Threats range from governments trying to control citizens to the rise of Facebook and Apple-style 'walled gardens'.

"The principles of openness and universal access that underpinned the creation of the internet three decades ago are under greater threat than ever, according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

In an interview with the Guardian, Brin warned that there were "very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world. I am more worried than I have been in the past … it's scary."

He said the threat to the freedom of the internet came from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry attempting to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" so-called walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly controlled what software could be released on their platforms.

The 38-year-old billionaire, whose family fled antisemitism in the Soviet Union, was widely regarded as having been the driving force behind Google's partial pullout from China in 2010 over concerns about censorship and cyber-attacks.

He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long but he had been proven wrong: "I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle."

Although he said he was most concerned by the efforts of countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to censor and restrict use of the internet, he also warned that the rise of Facebook and Apple, which have their own proprietary platforms and control access to their users, risked stifling innovation and Balkanising the web...

He said the SOPA and PIPA bills championed by Hollywood and the music industry would have led to the US using the same technology and approach it criticised China and Iran for using. The entertainment industry failed to appreciate that people would continue to download pirated content as long as it was easier to acquire and use than legitimately obtained material, he said.

"I haven't tried it for many years but when you go on a pirate website, you choose what you like, it downloads to the device of your choice and it will just work – and then when you have to jump through all these hoops [to buy legitimate content], the walls created are disincentives for people to buy."

Brin acknowleged that some people were anxious about the amount of their data that was now in the reach of US authorities because it sits on Google's servers. He said the company was periodically forced to hand over data and sometimes prevented by legal restrictions from even notifying users that it had done so.

He said: "We push back a lot; we are able to turn down a lot of these requests. We do everything possible to protect the data. If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great … We're doing it as well as can be done."

Yes. That is a legal service.

Cornell's picture

And a book is a literary product.

Yes

Richard Goode's picture

What say, I'm a lawyer, and someone comes into my office seeking help in creating a will. I write up the will and email it to them. I send them a bill in the mail. Should they be obligated to pay it?

"Help in creating a will" is a service which your client contracted with you to provide, so, yes, they should pay for your service. Plus "disbursements", of course.

"It's mine in the sense of

Cornell's picture

"It's mine in the sense of authorship, not (property) ownership."

What say, I'm a lawyer, and someone comes into my office seeking help in creating a will. I write up the will and email it to them. I send them a bill in the mail. Should they be obligated to pay it?

Paley's Other Watch;

If it's not on someone's property and there's noone to claim it...then no. It's up for grabs.

Cornell's corollary

Richard Goode's picture

What you create is yours.

It's mine in the sense of authorship, not (property) ownership.

Paley's other watch - does it belong to someone? (I see you're packing some serious weaponry. Load. Aaaaaaaaaaaand ... reload!)

What you create is

Cornell's picture

What you create is yours.

What you create with properly acquired resources is yours.

Unused resources are covered under initial use.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand...refute.

OK

Richard Goode's picture

Lay out your refutation for me.

OK.

Lay out your refutation for

Cornell's picture

Lay out your refutation for me.

Moeller

Richard Goode's picture

You mean like the 11 times you evaded my questions here.

I didn't evade your questions. I ignored them. And I explained why.

knowyourenthymeme.com

Richard Goode's picture

I said, "As it stands, your argument is invalid," because I wanted (someone) to make explicit what was implicit.

I got what I wanted. (As an added bonus, Michael "Beetle Crusher" Moeller put in an unwelcome appearance, and made explicit what was already explicit, viz., his bad faith and malice.)

Things that you create are your property.

That was your implicit premise, now explicit. It's a statement of the production theory of property. You aren't entitled to it, since the production theory of property is false. I refuted it. The correct account is the scarcity theory of property.

I welcome counter-arguments.

Oh, right.

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

"When I'm asked to explain myself, I explain myself, as I just did."

You mean like the 11 times you evaded my questions here. And that is only a small fraction of the evidence. We'll see how you carry out this argument with Cornell.

That's not true. Things that

Cornell's picture

That's not true.

Things that you create are your property. Thus, mind-products are "intellectual property," as it were. That was implicit; and now explicit.

If Only Moeller Could Submit A Ron Paul Lie

Richard Goode's picture

He just throws out assertions, and then gets down on his knees and desperately prays that nobody asks him to explain himself. When they do, he exits stage left.

No, Michael. That's what YOU do.

When I'm asked to explain myself, I explain myself, as I just did.

Your argument is invalid

Richard Goode's picture

In what way is my argument invalid?

As it stands, your argument is invalid because the term 'property', which occurs in your conclusion, does not occur in your premise.

Well...Goode is a passionate

Cornell's picture

Well...Goode is a passionate guy. And sometimes the best offense is a good defense.

If Only Goode Could Submit An Argument

Michael Moeller's picture

Cornell picks up on it:

In what way is my argument invalid?

Exactly, Goode is not arguing anything. He just throws out assertions, and then gets down on his knees and desperately prays that nobody asks him to explain himself. When they do, he exits stage left.

Michael

In what way is my argument

Cornell's picture

In what way is my argument invalid?

Perfect example

Richard Goode's picture

Logic is not Michael Moeller's strong suit.

How so what?

Richard Goode's picture

How so what?

As it stands, your argument is invalid.

Perfect example of a bald assertion, i.e. non-argument, which is all Richard Goode is capable of (besides baseless character attacks).

How so?

Cornell's picture

How so?

Bald Assertion

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

"Your conclusion is that the e-object is your property.

As it stands, your argument is invalid."

Perfect example of a bald assertion, i.e. non-argument, which is all Richard Goode is capable of (besides baseless character attacks).

Michael

PJ

Richard Goode's picture

Your premise is that

the e-object is 100% a product of your own mind, time and effort.

Your conclusion is that the e-object is your property.

As it stands, your argument is invalid.

Authorship entails time,

Cornell's picture

Authorship entails time, effort, and tallent, regardless of whether a tangible good is produced. If you pour yourself into creating something, then that thing is yours -- if anything, all the more so in such a case that what is created is entirely abstract, because no outside good will have been used in its creation; the e-object is 100% a product of your own mind, time and effort.

Do we need a right to privacy?

Marcus's picture

Google privacy policy changes spark EU inquiry

France asks European data authorities to investigate pooling of user data, which has begun as of Thursday 1 March

"Google's new privacy rules, which have come into force as of Thursday 1 March, are to be investigated by EU authorities, with France arguing the sweeping changes breach European law.

France's data protection watchdog, the CNIL, told Google in a letter dated 27 February that it would lead a Europe-wide investigation of the policy, which involves Google pooling the data on individual users gathered via any of its sites – search, YouTube, Gmail, Google+ and others – allowing it to tailor search results, target users with advertising and make other uses of the information.

Google said in January it was simplifying its privacy rules, consolidating 60 policies into a single one, and has promoted it as a positive change.

Users cannot opt out of the new policy if they want to continue using Google's services.

"The CNIL and EU data authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of personal data across services: they have strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing and its compliance with European data protection legislation," the French regulator wrote to Google.

Google has put the changes into effect from Thursday 1 March and has rebuffed two requests from European regulators for a delay...

Policymakers in other countries have also expressed concerns over Google's new privacy policy. Eight US lawmakers sent a letter to Google in late January saying a planned consolidation of user information endangered consumers' privacy.

Japan's trade and industrial ministry warned on Wednesday that Google must follow Japan's privacy law in implementing its new approach, and that Google needed to provide explanations to address users' concerns. "It is important for the firm to be flexible by providing necessary additional explanations or measures to address actual user concerns or requests also after March 1..." the ministry said in a statement.

Google has pointed out that users can search anonymously or while logged out to avoid being tracked, as well as using separate accounts on different Google services to keep data diffused – although critics argue this makes for a clunky user experience. Users can also control their advertising preferences and make sure their web history is not tracked.

"Google's new privacy policy states that, as was the case before: when showing you tailored ads, we will not associate a cookie or anonymous identifier with sensitive categories, such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation or health," a spokesman said."

A highly fluid situation

Richard Goode's picture

If a means of protecting copyrights were devised which did not involve substancial violation of privacy (or other violations of individual rights) I would be for it.

As would I.

I'm not opposed to the existence of copyright per se. What I am opposed to is the production theory of property. I refuted it. The correct account is the scarcity theory of property.

I suppose you "lose" your property when you post it to the internet -- in the same way that you "lose" $20 when you leave it unattended in a public place.

You lose control of your intangible goods when you post them to the Internet. But those intangible goods were never your property. Property rights are a subset of rights, and copyright is not in that subset. This does not entail that copyright should not be protected. But it does entail that copying is not theft.

I am still in disagreement with your premise of authorship vs. ownership.

I welcome counter-arguments.

Cornell...

Marcus's picture

...if IP protection laws do not protect the small guy on the Internet then how do they protect him when he is not on the Internet?

It's an interesting topic to discuss, a grey area.

For example, can one justify " legal aid" to protect the small guy? And if you do then at whose expense?

We all have seen what goes on in practice. If you don't have enough money you do not have the means to protect your IP or exploitation/ fraud from those who do have the means.

How would one cure that problem in an objectivist world?

First of all, your response

Cornell's picture

First of all, your response to the "watchmaker" idea is hilarious. If agressively pragmatic.

I suppose you "lose" your property when you post it to the internet -- in the same way that you "lose" $20 when you leave it unattended in a public place.

I guess I tend to believe that you're right that the ends do not justify the means (for the same reason that the ends would not justify the means in the "$20" example; ownership rights cannot be enforced through reasonable means) -- but I find I am still in disagreement with your premise of authorship vs. ownership.

If a means of protecting copyrights were devised which did not involve substancial violation of privacy (or other violations of individual rights) I would be for it.

Copying is not theft

Richard Goode's picture

if I create something, then it's mine.

It's yours in the sense of authorship, not (property) ownership.

Paley's other watch - does it belong to someone? (I see you're packing some serious weaponry. I don't care which side you're on. I'm just glad you're here.)

I guess I have mixed feelings

Cornell's picture

I guess I have mixed feelings about that. I see where you're coming from, but if I create something, then it's mine. I don't see how that ceases to be the case when I put it on the internet.

Get with the program

Richard Goode's picture

So basicly, the only way to enforce it is if someone is doing it on a scale large enough to be noticed...but if 25 million people do it on a scale too small to be noticed (individually), then there's really nothing we can do about it?

Correct.

How can current laws realistically protect internet copyright enfringement ...?

They can't.

We need to protect copyrights. I'm not sure how we go about doing that without extensive censorship, though.

We don't need to protect copyrights. We can't protect copyrights without extensive censorship, and the end does not justify the means.

Copyright is not a natural right, it's a conventional right. So there is no necessity to protect it. The advent of the Internet means the time has come for it to go.

So basicly, the only way to

Cornell's picture

So basicly, the only way to enforce it is if someone is doing it on a scale large enough to be noticed...but if 25 million people do it on a scale too small to be noticed (individually), then there's really nothing we can do about it?

I remember when

Jules Troy's picture

Metallica took napster to task for copywrite infringement and I was thinking to myself "good for them about time someone stood up for themselves". 

I was rather pissed off at the public's negative reaction to it too,  typical leftist wanting something for nothing mentality.

How can current laws

Cornell's picture

How can current laws realistically protect internet copyright enfringement (not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't know)?

It is a grey area...

Marcus's picture

...but to protect IP, a new law does not have to be drafted as existing ones should already cover it.

I think this new bill gives the state more powers over the internet than they should have.

Your Solution

Cornell's picture

You mention your for the protection of IP, but see censorship as unacceptable. How do you see that playing out in practice?

Intellectual Property

Cornell's picture

We need to protect copyrights. I'm not sure how we go about doing that without extensive censorship, though. This is kind of a gray area for me. Still sorting it out for myself.

Stop ACTA & TPP!

Marcus's picture

I picked this up from facebook.

"They tried to push internet censorship through Congress and we stopped them. But the companies behind SOPA & PIPA have a backup plan: secretive trade agreements like ACTA & TPP.

If we can't stop these backroom deals, the internet's future belongs to SOPA's backers."

Stop ACTA & TPP!

Received an email, 5 hrs ago

gregster's picture

"Hi everyone!

A big hurrah to you!!!!! We’ve won for now -- SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today -- the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled.

The largest online protest in history has fundamentally changed the game. You were heard.

On January 18th, 13 million of us took the time to tell Congress to protect free speech rights on the internet. Hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, people all around the world saw what we did on Wednesday. See the amazing numbers here and tell everyone what you did.

This was unprecedented. Your activism may have changed the way people fight for the public interest and basic rights forever.

The MPAA (the lobby for big movie studios which created these terrible bills) was shocked and seemingly humbled. “‘This was a whole new different game all of a sudden,’ MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times. ‘[PIPA and SOPA were] considered by many to be a slam dunk.’”

“'This is altogether a new effect,' Mr. Dodd said, comparing the online movement to the Arab Spring. He could not remember seeing 'an effort that was moving with this degree of support change this dramatically' in the last four decades, he added.""

Amen Gregster.

Robert's picture

As I commented to several US Senators yesterday: shouldn't you pass the first budget in 2 years BEFORE you attempt to 'fix' the internet with yet another multi-thousand page, pork laiden bill that nobody has read prior to voting on it?

Frankly I don't care whether this bill works as advertised or not. I wouldn't trust this Congress or the previous one with my lunch money.

If NO new bills were passed between now and November, the US would be no worse off. That's the principle to operate by here. All the rest is bunk.

Smart People Acting Stupidly

Luke Setzer's picture

Yes, Mark, I can see why NBR deleted your post. An otherwise smart college student, having worked a long shift and scrambling to complete some research for a school assignment only to find Wikipedia blacked, might rush to employ your "prank" as a real solution. This is a human factors issue. Otherwise capable people can act quite foolishly under a combination of high stress, low rest, and false information.

Oh for Rand's Sake Granny NBR

Mark Hubbard's picture

NBR are running a thread of workarounds to get past Wiki's blackout page, which I think is a bit sucky. I voted option 5 in this post: yes we need anti-piracy laws, but not censorship, so support Wiki's stand. So I commented on the NBR thread:

I've heard you can get into Wiki by going into Windows Explorer, right click on your C: drive, then go delete.

And that's the first post I've ever put on NBR they've taken down.

Bloooody hell. What's worse: their censorship (although it's their right, it's their site), or they think people would be stupid enough delete their hard disk, as if that would get them into Wiki online.

World Airhead: certainly.

Intellectual property rights are

seymourblogger's picture

pretty much in rags. The circulating global market in everything, including information, cannot stop the copying, imitating, stealing, etc. I myself had all my research stolen by my office mate in 1965, and my advisor gave it to him as he was a man, getting his PhD and I was just getting my MA. Today I would have had a chance, but then I didn't think I did. No one would have wanted to witness for me and go up against the chairman of the dept to testify.

So intellectual property rights are really based on secrecy and keeping your mouth shut about what you are doing. The scientific community espouses open sharing of ideas and findings, but when they can get prestige, money, career goals out of it they keep quiet until they publish.

But now it is impossible as someone can hack your computer and see where you go and figure out what you are researching without your ever knowing.

My attitude now is just to put it out there when I want, and if someone wants it, help yourself. They are doing that with my work. I can google dots I have connected and now I see that my ideas have gone viral. When I posted the writing and googled what I was doing, there was nothing out there that was targeting what I was aiming at.

So I take pleasure in knowing that my thoughts and ideas are spreading out there, helping to change the Discourse in areas I poke into, and I like that.

When the water in the stream changes directions I believe you have to swim in a different direction yourself.

Rand didn't or couldn't. What she did was force the Discourse to change. I think it was ready for her. She was the catalyst. She blasted it, but the consequences took a long time. Just think NO PIPA is something right wing and left wing absolutely agree on. That's a big plus.

Regulation..

gregster's picture

.. is wrong in principle. I cringe with the "tough" talk from these politicians to water down the bill, or reconsider it.

Just chuck the fucking thing in the fire with all the rest.

Confusing

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

This whole issue is confusing. Maybe the proposed laws are vague and non-objective, in Ayn Rand's meaning of the terms. Maybe the drafted laws give the gov't too much power, and we need to just rework and reinvigorate current laws on piracy and intellectual property theft. Meanwhile...

China steals Western software right and left, while India reverse-engineers patented drugs the same. The piracy here is in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars per year! Where's the outrage and anti-theft laws here?

Sopa support drops off as blackout protest rattles the internet

Marcus's picture

Sopa support drops off as blackout protest rattles the internet

"The protest gained fresh momentum Wednesday when senator Marco Rubio of Florida withdrew his support for Pipa. Rubio is a rising Republican star who is seen as a possible vice president pick this year and a future presidential candidate.

Rubio said that since the introduction of the bill "legitimate concerns" had been expressed about the impact it could have on access to the internet "and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the internet." On his Facebook page, Rubio wrote: "Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences."

Other lawmakers followed suit in rapid succession. John Boozman, senator for Arkansas, withdrew his support for Protect IP on his Facebook page, writing that the feedback he had received from constituents was "overwhelmingly in opposition" to the act.

"The goals of the Protect IP Act are commendable, but the potential for damaging unintended consequences is its major flaw," he wrote Moving
forward, I will work with my colleagues, the stakeholders and the American people to find a workable solution that protects intellectual property rights while promoting an open and vibrant Internet."

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee came out against the legislation as it stands. "There needs to be a balance," he told people at a speech in Springfield.

Senator John Cornyn, a Texan Republican, also expressed his views via Facebook. "SOPA: better to get this done right rather than fast and wrong. Stealing content is theft, plain and simple, but concerns about unintended damage to the internet and innovation in the tech sector require a more thoughtful balance, which will take more time," he wrote.

Three other Republican representatives, Ben Quayle from Arizona, and Lee Terry from Nebraska, also pulled their names from Sopa. North Carolina's congressman Patrick McHenry came out against the bill, tweeting that he opposed Sopa and would support an alternative bill drawn up by Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman who has led the charge against Sopa.

Collapsing political support came as websites in Washington failed under a deluge of traffic from anti-Sopa activists."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.