I've been playing around the idea of developing a blog of sorts, so with my Tumblr account I have been making occasional practice blogs. This is one of them, so please tell me what you think about it and of course, your opinion about today's "blackout."

For a full day, on Wednesday 1.17.2012, much of the internet may go down in protest of the SOPA/PIPA acts. A lot have been made about how ineffective the laws are and how it will not hurt at all the general global piracy act since much of it is done in countries like China, Philippines and wherever the Pirate Bay’s servers are. And how frankly as far ahead as the pirates are, they may never be fully brought to justice.

I’d like to ask what exactly is a full day without Google or Twitter is going to accomplish? Those who are not net savvy (90% of the US population) are not going to complain about the act, they’re going to complain about not getting their Facebook fix. And since the multiple near government shutdown that brought the United States to the “brink” of defaulting on the the deficit, it’s clear there is a clear disconnect between what the people want and what the politicians think the people want.

Political process rarely revolve around grass-roots complaining anymore, it’s more or less how many lobbyists and lawyers you have on your side. The lobbyists do much of the heavy work in getting politicians to see a proposed bill or law from their perspective, and when that fails, the lawyers are there in case you want to sue to force the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional. Either the Silicon Valley lobbyists beat out the Hollywood lobbyists in getting the bill defeated or vetoed or it gets tied up in the Federal Appellate system for years before the Supreme Court issues its decree. This is one of the two intermediate fates that both bills face.

The real damage that the piracy seems to have caused it that it has allowed Apple to basically collapse the recording industry and much of the movie industry through its iTunes format system. Yes, it has done direct damage, but the indirect damage because of the opportunities its directly piracy has opened is far greater than its direct effects. I can really see Hollywood wanting to hold on to what left of its influence.

I understand what Hollywood executives are wanting to do, and I also understand the concerns of its legal ramifications. I see things about the internet and copyright infringement that I do not like, like online streaming of a cable channel’s football game or the whole video game streaming society. But PIPA and SOPA are basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and doing little else to stem the problems which are mostly international in scope. It may have to take a UN resolution to resolve the international problems of this kind of piracy, and I’m not sure how many countries actually have an internet system, let alone know what it really involves.

But I end up liking what SOPA and PIPA are trying to do. Will it succeed? Hell, no. Is it a start though, yes, in a way. It starts everyone really looking at copyright protection and seeing what sorts of things that can be done to limit the damage that piracy will end up doing. There are obvious things that can be done, like offering international streaming of country-only shows for a fee (FIFA, EUFA, Eurovision already do this to a degree), or lowering the pricing point to such that it would be sad to illegally download something that costs $2.95 total to purchase legitimately.

I like this - fairly well-written, and it actually provides some "meat" for discussion about the subject, while leaving it open for that discussion. Now, my opinion/response:

I think that writing a law that shuts down DNS service for websites with no prior legal action (lawsuit, conviction, etc.) based on a complaint is just crazy. There are already legitimate actions to be taken against digital pirates, like copyright claims on Youtube or lawsuits against big offenders. Basically excising websites from the internet without due process is just as bad, IMO, as allowing cops to arrest you as if convicted based on claims you committed a crime without checking it out and charging you.

The real problem is that the recording and film industries spent so long going after, instead of sites like the Pirate Bay, small offenders that illegaly downloaded a few CDs or a couple films. The problem wasn't really the guy who downloaded an mp3 illegaly - any more than it is the guy who borrows a CD from his friend and makes a copy - but the sites that made sharing large amounts of this stuff possible.

And part of it is just trying to hold on to a dying business model, at least for the RIAA. Most people don't buy "albums" anymore, so of course sales will decline - selling two or three "hits" is never going to bring in as much money as the whole Lady Gaga/Katy Perry/Justin Beiber albums would bring in. That's not because of piracy, but a changing business climate due to single-song download services. Adapting to that is someting that needs to happen, and won't as long as piracy is blamed and ham-fisted legislation is shoved down our throats to "fix" it.

Political process rarely revolve around grass-roots complaining anymore

Partly because people are, en masse, incredibly dense and detached. I would have expected the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA to cause an uproar (at the very least, push people to find a presidential candidate that spoke out against it), but even among people I know that are upset about it, they complain and then vote for the guy on "their side".

Grassroots complaining only works if the people follow through, and for the most part, they don't do anything more than bitch for a few months - not even look at changing their vote. The Tea Party was against the bailout system - and now they likely plan to vote for Romney, despite his support for all of that, because he's somehow "better" than Obama. The OWS folks demand free stuff from government - which I think is funny, because almost all government does anymore is give out free stuff (and bomb smaller Middle Eastern nations ). Besides, everyone knows that they will end up voting for Obama again anyway, because he promises a lot more free stuff while the other guys promise only a little more.

The only other grassroots movement is the "crazy", "kooky" folks wanting a "Ron Paul Revolution", but they are "all young druggies" that only want to vote for the guy who will legalize pot. (Note: none of those characterizations are true, but the vast majority of Americans believe it because they are - again - detached and incredibly dense.) While that seems to be gaining steam (although maybe not enough to actually win and change anything), it is still dismissed by anyone and everyone that is in government (or affiliated with it, like the media, etc.) for the power of it all - which is 99.8% of the people in these opinion-preaching organizations.

Oh, and I forgot to add:

███ ██ trust █ ██████ your ████ █ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███government███ ████ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █everything█████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ is ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ fine. [Parts of this comment have been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and Senate Bill 968, P.I.P.A. and have been censored for your protection.]

The protest had a bit of impact today.

Mikhail Bulgakov wrote:To struggle against censorship, whatever its nature, and whatever the power under which it exists, is my duty as a writer, as are calls for freedom of the press. I am a passionate supporter of that freedom, and I consider that if any writer were to imagine that he could prove he didn't need that freedom, then he would be like a fish affirming in public that it didn't need water.

Always happy to post a quote from one of my favorite authors, and today provided a convenient excuse.

Good! Although, it remains to be seen if they will try to sneak it in under the radar - like on a holiday. Like New Year's Eve. Just wait until we are distracted by something frivolous and BAM!

One tweet claimed that the blackout forced ten senators withdrawing support. On the other hand there was this tweet reply. (She later apologized for not knowing what was going on.)

So you had a little bit of both in terms of the impact. I do feel in the long run, the internet will remain something of a wild frontier until a new snazzy medium comes along that becomes the new alternative. Maybe iTunes and its apps world becomes that new frontier? We're heading to a point where the smartphones and tablets, especially the iPhone and iPad may become the dominant computers, leaving the laptop to specialists in the same way the mainframe has become antiquated. While Androids apps are rampantly hacked, it's much harder to hack the iPhone/iPad (not impossible, I understand) and with Apple having final approval on its apps, illegal content is much harder to download.

The impact was all from this. All of it. Forget Wikipedia - xkcd has the power.

There are now 35 Senators that oppose PIPA, a huge jump from the 5 or 6 that opposed it last week!

Also...people are idiots.

I also believe the senators use the internet and if they understand that if they pass this bill it could jeopardize the websites they use, they will back off. I can't think of another time that Wikipedia went black to protest something. That alone shows how much the big websites are protesting it. Imagine there was no wikipedia, no easy way to get all the information you want and then find more trustworthy sources to back it up

bagheadinc wrote:Also...people are idiots.

Heh yes some stupid posts in there

I CANT USE WIKIPEDIA. This is bullshit, someone call whoever this soap guy is and tell him to stop being an ASS.

jeolmaga wrote:I also believe the senators use the internet

I doubt it. These are the same Congressmen that refused to listen to the ones that are on record saying (and this is a direct quote) "maybe we should ask some nerds what this thing really does". Apparently, we aren't worthy to be called "experts" on the subject, and God forbid that Congress actually consult experts on the subject before writing and passing legislation. Remember, when all you can do is pass tyrannical legislation, every problem looks like not enough government intervention.

I CANT USE WIKIPEDIA. This is bullshit, someone call whoever this soap guy is and tell him to stop being an ASS.

It's OK. I was playing MW3 the other day, and someone killed Soap, so we don't have to deal with him being an ass anymore.

jeolmaga wrote:I also believe the senators use the internet and if they understand that if they pass this bill it could jeopardize the websites they use, they will back off.

Senators have aides (and lobbyists) to get them the information that they need. Many of them can barely use a computer, and even those who can often do not understand the basics of how the Internet works (or, apparently, what their staffs do on it when they think no one is looking).

Consider the following age statistics for the US Senate:

• About 9 are under 50
• About 29 more are in their 50s
• About 62 are 60 or older
• About 24 are 70 or older

I'm usually in favor of our elders in Congress as they tend to be more mellow and amenable to working together. But when it comes to understanding the Internet, the knowledge (or the desire to gain knowledge) simply isn't there.

My life as a security engineer is hard enough as it is without broken legislation like this adding complexity that is completely unnecessary. That complexity makes my life more difficult by adding more ways for the bad guys to attack my networks. (This is presuming that the senators are acting in good faith, which in this case is a tall order. Leahy, for example, didn't want to hear from technical experts, believing that their views would be biased and could derail this 'important legislation.' )

This will not be the last time that something like this comes up. Unless and until the *AA groups go away or we get some sanity back in copyright laws, we will see these things pop up.

Martin Blank wrote:I'm usually in favor of our elders in Congress as they tend to be more mellow and amenable to working together. But when it comes to understanding the Internet, the knowledge (or the desire to gain knowledge) simply isn't there.

Working together is generally a bad thing in government, as far as I can tell. And I would argue that the Senate (and the House) is almost completely devoid of knowledge of any kind (excepting the "political science" degrees that are all about how to win elections), and very few members desire to gain that knowledge.

Working together is a good thing. Sheer partisanship gets you a polarized body and the stupidity that we've seen since the Tea Party was co-opted. It also gets you things like California's Legislature which has for more than a decade been a battle of Democrats and Republicans with almost every important bill voted along party lines with a couple of Republicans crossing the lines to pass budgets only after the Democrats gave up some trivialities. (Now budgets only require a simple majority, so that's no longer necessary.)

Politics is, in most cases, compromise. Anyone suggesting otherwise is grandstanding or naive.

Martin Blank wrote:Working together is a good thing. Sheer partisanship gets you a polarized body

Given what has actually passed when the Congress worked together (things like provisions for indefinite detention of American citizens without trial and massive wasteful spending, funded by the money-printing, currency-destroying, financial-bubble-causing Federal Reserve System - its 100 year survival another toxic byproduct of bipartisanship), I would much rather have a polarized, deadlocked body. The greatest thing that could have happened for America in the last couple years was if the Congress never passed the "debt limit deal" and allowed the government to "shut down" (i.e. force it to live within its means de facto, if not de jure).

This, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that there is a lot of "bipartisan consensus" on expanding the welfare state to ridiculous points (hello "compassionate conservatism") and foreign military adventurism (as if anyone really believed Obama was ever "anti-war"). That "bipartisan consensus" - the fact that we have only ONE real party with minor disagreements about tax rates and sizes of deficits - but complete agreement on federal solutions handed down from on high Washington, D.C. to every problem, both domestic and foreign - is precisely the problem. The Tea Party (and before that, Ron Paul, mostly on his own, as "conservatives" like Bush and Santorum rapidly expanded government, both here and abroad) tried/is trying to stand against this frankly tyrannical government based on compromise. While a few Congressman, like Justin Amash, and Senators, such as Rand Paul, have stayed true to their beliefs, the majority of "Tea Party" representatives in Washington "sold out" on the big stuff (debt ceiling, NDAA, war, etc.), and for what? Political power.

Your reference to California is odd, as it is not truly a polarized body. Yes, votes are along party lines - but when one party is de facto in control nearly constantly, this is irrelevant. No one can really stop the Democrats (and lefty Republicans like Schwarzenegger) from running the state the way they want to - I'm not even sure anyone with significant pull has really tried since Reagan was Governor (except for a few years in the 80s, kind of). The California State Legislature currently has a Democratic majority, with the Senate consisting of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans and the Assembly consisting of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election. The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970. Any Republican vote will always be along party lines, primarily because they have no real say either way.

Politics is, in most cases, compromise. Anyone suggesting otherwise is grandstanding or naive.

No - the destruction of liberty through the "bipartisan", tit-for-tat, "I'll let you violate economic liberties, if you let me violate civil liberties" is compromise. Maybe that's your idea of what politics should be about. I, on the other hand, would stick with the original idea of having a government that is there to defend liberty, and thus to stand on principle, not take it away based on compromise. Politics is not about "getting 'things' done" - especially at the federal level.

William Howard Taft wrote:A system in which we may have an enforced rest from legislation for two years is not bad.

Further, there are ways to "get things done" without compromise. Coalitions built on single issues formed around short (like a recently introduced one page bill to repeal the indefinite detention part of the NDAA - I'll let you guess who introduced it), singly-focused legislation (like "let's audit the Federal Reserve", "protecting health coverage for pre-existing conditions" or ending/declaring war) can allow politicians to work together to pass legislation in the best interest of defending our freedoms without compromising their stances. Congressman Ron Paul recently worked with Congressman Kucinich and Senator Sanders (both WAY to the left - Sanders even admits to being a socialist) to push through a partial audit of the Fed as part of the otherwise horrible Dodd-Frank bill (while Paul still voted against it in the end). Compromise on protecting liberty inevitably results in the violation of Constitutionally-protected rights (and the general concept of human freedom along with it).