Weekly Roundup, January 16-22, 2012

by Blueberry T

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Palins’ Real Estate Dealings Uncovered

Patrick had another great scoop! This one was about poor Bristol’s little “fixer-upper” on Lake Lucille, described in InTouch magazine, which has paid her handsomely for her silly stories in the past and apparently still does. The backstory is that she claimed that the altercation with Stephen Hanks in September in LA (in which her homophobia was on display) convinced her to move back to Alaska. The funny thing is that she had already bought the house in Alaska prior to this little altercation. Hmm, caught in another little lie, Bristol? In the InTouch article, she claimed she bought a rundown property in need of major renovation. Well, check out the photos for yourself and you can decide whether Brissie is being entirely truthful on that point, also2. Patrick also discovered some real estate dealings by “Iron Properties” which, as it turns out, happens to be owned by one Sarah and Todd Palin of Wasilla, AK. In his typical meticulous fashion, Patrick discloses all the details of the heretofore secret dealings by the Palins. Good times! (Aside: I love that the Gawker article refers to Bristol as “America’s most successful unsuccessful abstinence advocate.”)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

The Anti-SOPA Web Blackout/ Boots on the Ground in Myrtle Beach

Update: Gingrich Panders to Palin

Kathleen covered the web blackout in protest of web censorship legislation, and EbbtideMB took one for the team by reporting on a non-partisan MLK Breakfast in Myrtle Beach that was attended by Gingrich, Perry and local GOP rising star Tim Scott. Ebbtide offers candid reactions to Gingrich’s pandering and Perry’s preaching. It sounds like the day was saved by a gentleman’s beautiful recital of King’s inspiring “I Have a Dream” speech. During the thread, the news broke that Newt Gingrich announced that, if elected, he would appoint none other than Sarah Palin to a key post in his administration. The comments were full of good ideas about what she would be qualified for…

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Perry’s Out, Gingrich’s Ex Speaks Out, Palin Attacks Her and Defends Gingrich

Another crazy day on the Republican primary circuit. First up, Rick Perry “suspended” his campaign. His own gaffes did him in. Oh, and he endorsed Gingrich, proving how committed these guys all are to the family values that they continually preach about. Then, ABC aired clips of Marianne Gingrich, claiming that in the late 1990s Newt wanted her to accept an “open marriage” at the same time that HE was spouting off about family values while spouting off in the the bedroom with his then-intern, Callista (the one who is a really devout Catholic except for the commandments about adultery and not desiring the neighbor’s spouse). Obviously, he WAS having an open marriage regardless of his wife’s refusal to agree to it. Adding to the sense of one big dysfunctional family, Palin ranted about Marianne Gingrich being “disgruntled” and came to Newt’s defense. Hahahahahahaha, she sure is consistent!! To top off the bizarre day, the Iowa GOP announced that they screwed up the caucus count and Rick Santorum actually won, but they lost the votes from 8 precincts. BTW, these are the people who want to run the country.

Friday, January 20, 2012

A New Birth of Freedom

Sunnyjane took our minds off the idiocy and lifted our spirits with her post commemorating the inauguration of President Obama three years ago. The photos and text are an inspiring reminder of that historic day and all the hopes that accompanied it. Despite the ugly political and personal attacks that President and Mrs. Obama have endured since that day, they continue to provide an example of grace and dignity, allowing for continued hope that we can transcend our differences and move this country toward greater equality and justice. IWantTheTruth had a wonderful comment describing her experiences during the Inauguration festivities. There was also a lively but respectful back-and-forth in the comments, with some dissenting opinions about President Obama.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

The Santorums and Victimhood

In case you didn’t realize it, Rick Santorum is really a victim of people attacking his beliefs about marriage. He has been vilified. Tsk tsk. Nomad’s excellent post calls out the “bully’s defense” for what it is – a deflection of the person’s own victimization of others who they are now blaming. Conservatives are becoming adept at not only blaming the victim, but going a step further (turning reality on its head) by attacking the actual victims as if they were the ones doing the victimizing. Santorum now tries to excuse himself by claiming that he was dealing with gay marriage as bad public policy, but he is on record opposing homosexuality and connecting it with bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, pedophilia, and bestiality. He denies the right to privacy, but claims that none of his words should be construed to imply that he does not believe in equality. Hmmm. Nomad closes with the important question of exemptions from hate crime and anti-bullying laws for those who claim religious reasons.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Newt Gingrich's Judgment (or lack thereof)

Nomad has put together a terrific series of videos of Newt Gingrich doing what he does best – running his mouth off on every possible topic. Interestingly, the videos display the fact that Gingrich does occasionally say something sensible – for example, his comments on the need for effective government programs to protect us from pollution and other problems is quite sane. It is kind of gratifying to see that several news anchors nailed him regarding the hypocrisy of going after Clinton while he was having his own extramarital affair with an intern. Hubris, thy name is Gingrich! Of course, ethics violations do occasionally come back to bite people, and when they are as arrogant as Gingrich it can only bring a smile to your face; H/T to HonestyinGov for this link.

On Sunday, many of us were saddened yet also inspired by the video message from Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, announcing that she is stepping down from Congress to focus on her recovery from the devastating head wound she received during the assassination attempt a little over a year ago. She feels that this is in the best interest of her Arizona constituents. She thanked them for their faith in her and made a plea for our political leaders to work together for the common good. Politicalgates wishes Gabby the best in her recovery, and we hope that she and her husband Mark Kelly will have many happy and fulfilling years ahead.

Some Comments and Links:

Molly_WI had a good comment about how little Palin knows about anything, including this: SHE IS MY AGE and I, a med tech here in Wisconsin, know MORE ABOUT HISTORY --and dare I surmise, more about current events--than a former GOVERNOR and VP CANDIDATE.

To which sunnyjane replied: Hell, my nine-year-old granddaughter knows more about WWII than Sarah does, just by watching The Sound of Music with me!

Psalm023: These Palins are the most disgusting bunch of con artists to have ever lived.

Patricia O: Their familial cons are the only thing that keeps them together. When a lie is confided to a family member, that is the only thing that makes them feel loved, or paid attention to. They all get to conspire together. The lies are the glue that keeps the Palins a "family". The only one who seems healthy enough to seek real love and affection is Track. That's why he is not part of the conspiracy and apparently NOT embraced by the family. You are only as sick as the secrets you keep.

DebinWI: I really wonder if Levi didn't win a custody battle and require Bristol to move back to AK.

Triple Moon: I wish I had known having a baby out of wedlock was so profitable! I would have encouraged my daughter to get knocked up in high school instead of going to college. Silly me.

EbbtideMB not only wrote the excellent post this week but gave us this:

Newt and Sarah’s Theme Song BREAKFAST, LUNCH, DINNER (AND A LATE NIGHT SNACK) AT TIFFANY’S

Newt Gingrich, wider than a mile,
His pander’s so in style today
Then Sarah the taker, that noisemaker,
Says Newt I’ll be with you, however I may.
Two grifters off to fleece the world.
There's such a lot of rubes to reach.
They’re after the same rainbow's end--
So many to offend
(which ones the horse’s end)
Newt Gingrich and screech.

As usual, maelewis put into words what many of us are thinking: The issue isn't whether or not Newt had affairs while he was married. It is the fact that he speaks publicly about the defense of marriage, appealing to the "values voters" in the Republican party. He moralizes, while having shown a lack of the same morals in his own marriages. He lectures others but does not heed his own message. We have heard it before, "Do as I say, not as I did." (Yeah, Bristol, too, also).

Newt went on the attack against CNN for daring to question him about his past affairs, calling the questions despicable. No, what was despicable was Newt turning his back on his first two wives when they had major health problems, to pursue an affair with a mistress. I am bothered by the fact that the so-called values voters don't see anything wrong. Forgiveness! They don't forgive President Obama anything. It is a handy eraser to use for their own sins while lecturing others. Hypocrites!

Anon_in_MI: Frankly, I expect men and women who are in positions of power to have affairs and that doesn't bother me as long as they can get their work done and they are open with their spouses about it. The problem for me is when they talk about the lack of family values in society or the sanctity of marriage while they are violating these self-proclaimed standards themselves. I think it shows contempt for voters when they say one thing then do another.

JCos: I fell asleep watching the debate last night, before they got to the controversy over whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. Did the evangelicals reach a consensus on this urgent topic? I feel like such a dumbarse!

SLQ: How can a guy who cheated on two wives and wanted an open marriage possibly get a standing ovation from the conservative right? Crazy days.

CracklinCharlie: Corporations want all of the benefits of person-hood, with none of the responsibilities of person-hood.

Madam Deal: Gingrich has burned far too many bridges that actually went somewhere.

HopeforAmerica reminded us of Newt’s family values: Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994:[53] Resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with his intern while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky. (1998)[54][55]

Hope also posted several excellent links on the connection between the Koch Brothers and XL Pipeline.

Patrick and lilly-lily linked to the Daily Mail report on Game Change. Patrick also had an excellent longer comment; here is part: There are several things that concern me. As I said in a tweet, Newt and Sarah are a "match made in hell." They both don't play by the rules, they play dirty. Don't expect a "fair fight." I hope that their opponents have realized that. For Sarah, it's always war. She wants to win - whatever it takes… He also linked to this article by Dan Fagan.

Cheeriogirl: Unemployment is down to 8.3. Wonder what the GOP will do to turn that around? [And:] @NewtGingrich's new slant on #DOMA - #Marriage should be between ONE man, ONE woman,and ONE mistress... at a time. #GOP #FOTF #familyvalues

Good piece by Chris Hayes on “former Boehner aides turned Wall Street lobbyists” strategizing to discredit OWS and targeting Democrats. “…The document represents everything that is wrong with America in 4 short pages.”

Maelewis linked to this on McCain’s opposition file on Romney.

Juicyfruityy pointed us to this Jason Easley article on Gingrich win in SC being a gift to Dems.

HonestyinGov linked to this article on Republican panic after Gingrich’s SC win.

The Last Word (I don’t agree with John Sununu on very much, but he is right about Newt; H/T sunnyjane): Asked explicitly if he believed Gingrich is not a stable man, Sununu responded: “I believe that he cannot resist spouting off, making rash decisions that he cannot believe, reacting quickly and emotionally rather than analytically. He is the artist of the bumper-sticker statement that sounds good in a debate. But there is no depth. There is no deep analysis. There is great rhetoric but no execution. He’s got a great mouth. His mind isn’t so hot and his discipline and commitment are terrible.”

____________________________
Retweet:
https://twitter.com/#!/ANomadicView/status/161509341617332224

SOPA: The Trojan Horse of Censorship 2/2

by Nomad

Mischief and Cartwheels
In the previous post, we looked at the problem of selective enforcement of the proposed anti-piracy laws found in SOPA and PIPA. With so many possible violations (the Internet is a veritable nest of SOPA cases) the sheer number would overload the Justice system. With a limited budget, the possibility of selective enforcement by the Department of Justice, there are real questions whether SOPA could ever be applied constitutionally at all.

That shouldn't come as any surprise. Generally speaking, the problem of selective enforcement is what happens when poorly written, ill-conceived laws are created. Instead of serving a legitimate purpose, these laws become tools for extortion, intimidation and all manner of mischief. Moreover, they turn normally law-abiding citizens into felons. These anti-piracy laws are much more likely to create a new generation of Internet radicals and hackers. 
Most importantly, SOPA and PIPA are examples of a stupid and impossible policy of attempting to latch the door of an empty barn while the spirited mare named "Net" gallops off down the road. IBM estimates that by 2015, there will be 1 trillion devices connected to the Internet, constantly recording and sharing information. That's a hell of lot of policing and prosecuting of poorly-supervised 18-year-olds and gospel-loving grandmothers to do but law firms across the nation must be doing cartwheels at the prospect of SOPA and PIPA.

Despite the fact that SOPA is foolishness in writing, the entertainment industry seems hell-bent on imposing its self-serving regulations on the Internet and, in the process, destroy one of the best things to come along since the invention of writing. Only when the US begins to lose its competitive edge in Net-based innovation will misguided Congressmen realize that the dangers of allowing major corporations to set government policy.

Even without SOPA, the entertainment industry has attempted to use the laws already on the books to punish those who use downloading software, such as LimeWire, Kazaa and BitTorrent to illegally obtain material. 

Reprehensible

Let's examine the case of Jammie Rasset Thomas. This Minnesota woman has been in and out of court since 2006 for illegally downloading 24 songs which she later shared online. The record industry sued her for damages to the tune of $1.5 million, quite a sum for a ordinary housewife from the Land of Sky Blue Waters. (That’s $62,500 for each song ) This is not the only case that Capitol Records has brought against downloaders, but it is one in which the accused has made an attempt to fight  back. 

In fact, by the beginning of 2005, with global sales in a five-year free fall, various music labels had filed 7,437 lawsuits against fans suspected of uploading copyrighted music. In nearly every case, the accused would naturally decide that it would be more economical in the long run to settle, rather than hire a lawyer and face the high-powered legal firms of corporations.

Whether you agree that copy infringement is a serious problem or not, there is still the matter of the punishment being  commensurate with the crime. This is not a small matter; in fact, it forms the basis of all law. 
In the case of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruled that excessively high punitive damages violate the Due Process clause of the Constitution. Punitive damages may not be "grossly excessive" and must be based on three main principles, most important of which is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct. Meaning: Was the defendant displaying, for example, reckless disregard for health or safety, or  evidence of bad faith? How does a court determine what is truly reprehensible and what is merely harmful? The Supreme Court ruled that the degree of reprehensibility was governed by these factors:

1. the type of harm; 
2.  reckless disregard for health and safety of others; 
3.  financially vulnerable targets; 
4. repeated misconduct; and 
5. intentional malice, trickery or deceit. 

In the Thomas case, none of these factors seem particularly compelling. There are other problems with the decision. According to the ruling of Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) the court decided that the degree of reprehensibility  is determined by direct harm the misconduct caused. The more reprehensible the misconduct the greater the justification for a larger punitive damage award. The key words, of course, are "direct harm."
For this Thomas verdict to stand in any fair court, it would seem that the recording industry association would have had to show the court how the distribution of those particular 24 songs cause direct harm to the industry. Not merely the general act of downloading and uploading music. Otherwise what is the meaning of "direct harm" ?
However, the Court also noted in the Philip Morris case, that these factors can be over-ridden if it is necessary "to deter future conduct." (One assumes that means the future conduct of that particular individual and not all law-abiding citizens. Otherwise it falls back into the area of selective enforcement.)
Let's return to the Thomas case. When the jury in Minneapolis ruled that she was indeed liable of the infringement, the Recording Industry Association of America- a trade group representing four major music labels- hailed the verdict. Thomas appealed the judgement in a US District Court and Judge Michael Davis eventually reduced the amount somewhat. (Later this decision was challenged) Obviously the court is in a mess and Thomas has since been ordered to pay varying amounts in statutory damages, ranging from $54,000 to $1.92 million.

No matter what the eventual outcome in the case, some might argue that for this person to be tied up in courts for the last six year facing the very real possibility of financial ruin- all for the sake of 24 songs- is in itself a form of excessive punishment. And it doesn't take a lawyer to see the injustice and bullying being done here.

Blurred Lines

The Thomas case is instructive if only because it shows exactly the kind of strong arm tactics that the corporate supporters of SOPA and PIPA have used in the past. There is no reason to think that the passage of SOPA will soften their hearts and convince them to forgo their intimidation against their potential customers.

Clearly innocent people have been caught up in the judicial nightmare as well. According to one source.

Sarah Ward, a 66-year-old dyslexic retired grandmother, was threatened with a lawsuit over allegedly pirating millions of dollars in hard-core rap. The record industry said Ward perpetrated the heist using KaZaA, a Windows-only program, despite the fact that Ward owned a Mac.

And here's another news item from a different source: 

Despite not owning a computer or even a router, a retired woman has been ordered by a court to pay compensation to a movie company. The woman had been pursued by a rightsholder who claimed she had illegally shared a violent movie about hooligans on the Internet, but the fact that she didn’t even have an email address proved of little interest to the court. Guilty until proven innocent is the formula in Germany. 

One of the problems with SOPA is that it mixes “real” substantial property with the more ephemeral digital form. That’s the reason why you find so many diverse corporations supporting the bill, companies with a legitimate quarrel with foreign ripoffs and counterfeit knock-offs of their merchandise. This is indeed a very real problem for many manufacturers, perhaps not of purses or shoes, but of patented equipment in which exact specifications are vital to safety and proper function, like engines and spare parts. Most people would not argue with the merit of that particular aspect of SOPA.

By quoting one CEO, writer Sarah Jacobsson Purewal  for PCWorld attempts to make a case for SOPA using counterfeit merchandise- rather than illegal downloading of music and films.

"Our mistake was allowing this romantic word--piracy--to take hold," Tim Rothman, Co-CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment, told the New York Times last week. "It's really robbery--it's theft--and that theft is being combined with consumer fraud. Consumers are purchasing these goods, they're sending their credit card and information to these anonymous offshore companies, and they're receiving defective goods."

A valid point, no doubt. However, to mix the two forms of property is not particularly honest. For example, when a person copies an MP3, there is no actual loss of the original property. It is not like having your car stolen, for example, nobody is being "deprived" of anything. (More like having the magical power to duplicate your car.) 


And in the case of illegal downloading, there’s no question of defective goods. In fact, that's precisely the problem and it strikes fear in the heart of the film and music industry. The copy is identical and exactly as valuable as the original product. Relatively simple to do and free, the world wide practice of illegal copying and downloading has turned the industry on his head.

Of course the industry had the same objections to video recording technology when it was first introduced. When the long-time lobbyist for the U.S. movie industry Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America spoke to Congress about the problem in the 1970s, he told the credulous politicians:

[T]he VCR is stripping . . . those markets clean of our profit potential, you are going to have devastation in this marketplace. . . . We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry that is able to retrieve a surplus balance of trade and whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine.

If that were not enough, he went on to say, “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

The publishing industry too has survived despite Xerox which is potentially a major copyright challenge. Prior to this, the outcry was against the phonograph. John Philip Sousa testified before Congress about the threat that recorded music posed:

When I was a boy . . . in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or the old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape”

So these hysterical over-reactions are nothing new. The Copyright laws are constantly being challenged by technological developments. Nobody is seriously arguing that creativity shouldn't be rewarded or protected. However, SOPA goes far beyond protection and rewards. Besides, isn't it only fair to ask: How much compensation is fair and how much is simply excessive and greed? 
In a notable bit of hypocrisy, when an anti-piracy group in Netherlands, BREIN, used a third party to supply a track for an anti-piracy film at local film festival, it was found that the music was used without the composer's permission. The composer claimed a million euro compensation for the unauthorized distribution of his work on DVDs. However, a board member of a royalty collection agency offered to help him recoup the money, but only in exchange of 33% cut. 

The way SOPA and PIPA can be applied- the way the copyright laws are presently being applied- appears to have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity- the opposite effect of goal of the original copyright laws.  

The Spanish courts have taken a less reactionary stand on this subject. Judges Ocariz, Gutierrez and Campillo, in a ruling on a possible copyright infringements of a file sharing site declared that sharing content is nothing new at all. It's been around for a long long time.

The difference now is mainly on the medium used -- previously it was paper or analog media and now everything is in a digital format which allows a much faster exchange of a higher quality and also with global reach through the Internet."

As Kevin Carson for the Center for a Stateless Society writes:

Back in the days of the old Soviet Union, the state licensed access to photocopiers and referred to people circulating Samizdat pamphlets as “pirates,” because they undermined the information control that the bureaucratic oligarchy and its system of exploitation depended on.

Twenty years after the Fall of Communism, it’s corporate capitalism that depends on information control as the basis of its power..Today “intellectual property” is the central monopoly on which the profits of global corporations depend. “Intellectual property” serves the same protectionist function for transnational corporate capitalism that tariffs did for the old national industries a century ago..

That definition of "intellectual property" is continually being revised to fit the needs of the manufacturer. For example, it might surprise you to learn that when you purchase a CD, you are not an owner of the music on that CD. You are merely the owner of the CD. According to law, The Copyright Act distinguishes between ownership of a copyright and ownership of a material object- that is, the CD. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), you only have a license to listen to the music on the CD. And this copyright concept confusion has also crossed the line in the opposite direction as well. 

As we reported earlier in the year, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC attempted to sue a 21-year old George Hotz for violating his PlayStation3 owner's contract agreement by rewiring/ re-programming his equipment. Furthermore, they charge, by offering his instructions, methods, authorization keys and devices to other hackers Hotz violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The goal of this de-engineering project was to "jailbreak" the Sony game device- expanding the device’s capabilities beyond the manufacturer's specs. 

Suddenly, it seems, we are all allowed to purchase the right to use but not allowed to own the product.

In any case, there’s quite a bit of hypocrisy going on. For example, PCWorld magazine itself posted this MP3 how-to guide back in 2000. It walks a very fine line indeed in promoting Napster as a tool for downloading MP3s while noting its illegality in the same article.

A popular MP3-gathering tool is Napster, the infamous music sharing software that turns any computer into an audio file server. Though Napster has a clear policy of supporting the rights of copyright holders, there is no arguing the fact that Napster is used primarily as a piracy tool.

This link to Napster (found in the archives) would definitely be subject to felony charges if SOPA were adopted into law. And that is only the beginning of the headaches and unintended consequence of this legislation. Not by a long shot.

Hypocrisy on a Huge Scale

Allow me to introduce you to Mike Mozart, a fellow researcher who, after hours of intelligent sleuthing, has discovered a wondrous secret about SOPA; a revelation that is truly a game-changer when it comes to understanding the mentality of the people who have been pushing for anti-piracy legislation. It is an important piece of this anti-piracy puzzle. So I urge you to sit in a comfortable chair and play this enlightening - and entertaining- video. You may be in for a shock.

So, according to our friend here, the very people who have for a decade been promoting the software that allows people to download music, books and films for free (with exclusive rights to distribute it!) are the same people who are now demanding from the government the legal right to sue anybody who uses the software. And our "detective" is clearly able to produce thousands and thousands of pages of evidence of corporate collusion, examples to prove his case. Here is further conclusive proof of his claim.

This brings into play a very interesting situation indeed. 

Suppose this horrible piece of legislation somehow manages to sail through the Congress, succeeds in getting Obama's signature and becomes a law, doesn’t this mean that all of the companies that have gleefully distributed this software are now liable to be sued? 
What's really going on here?  

Corporate Conspiracy?

If one is of a suspicious frame of mind, it would hard not to see this push for legislation on copyright infringement as representing the latest attempt by corporations- not merely the entertainment industry- to control and essentially dismantle the Internet. Using the boogey man of piracy, are corporations using SOPA as a kind of Trojan horse in order to sieze control of the Internet?

You don’t need to be an alarmist to  see their motivation. The Internet with its ability to inform and to organize is one of the most formidable challenges to the power structure of the 1%.

Whether all this legal maneuvering is for the sake of profit or whether, as some so-called conspiracy theorists may claim, an attempt at a coup d’etet by corporations and the 1%, it is up to everybody to defend the Net as much as we are able. Imagine what the Internet would be without Facebook, Twitter and Google.. blogs like Politicalgates? 

If one wishes to launch a successful coup d’ete of a republic, one logical first step must not be overlooked. Without this, the toppling of a nation is most likely destined to failure.

Undoubtedly the absolute first thing you should do is to cut all forms of communcations with the outside world off at once. Be sure t include: Telephone, Telex, Wireless, Radio, etc. THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT. It will prevent the present government from mobilizing its forces, deploying their forces in strategic locations that are not normally guarded, etc. It will also prevent them from calling outside for emergency help, jeopardizing your hard work, not to mention your life. Soon the rest of the world will know something has happened, but they will not know who has taken the government, how the coup is progressing, and so forth. Make sure all forms of communications are completely cut.

Paramount to all forms of communication in this day and age is the Internet. This is one reason why many have looked upon the slow encroachment by corporations with grim misgivings. As the Geneva-based Internet Society (ISOC) with its more than 100 organisational members and over 50,000 individual members in over 80 Chapters in 72 countries, states:

The Internet challenges typically hierarchical structures, whether they are societal, economic or political in their nature. It is a tool that has evolved through empowered users and communities - its very existence encourages empowerment and its success is dependent upon it. Yes, empowerment can be threatening - but it is not Internet specific. Governments that undertake actions to quash empowerment or freedom on the Internet do so not because it is the Internet, but because that is the way they “manage” empowerment and freedom generally.

In this sense, all legislation designed to curtail the freedom of the Internet, whether intentionally or theoretically, is the opposite of “empowerment.” If that doesn’t motivate you to take action against SOPA and all other bills under discussion in Congress, then perhaps you have never really understood the true power of the Internet.

The Required Action

What is needed to prevent this bill from becoming law is a concerted public action. Some of those who have spoken out against SOPA have directed attention to the corporations that have openly supported the bill with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

While boycotts and threats of consumer retaliation might have some marginal success at waking up some of the supporting companies, most of the larger corporations, like Time Warner, are so diversified, that, unfortunately, they would be essentially unaffected by any kind of consumer revolt. Too big to care, you might say. Some simply do not value what you think about the Net. 

Others think that all energies should be directed at the Congress.

On Wednesday, January 18 2012, Congress will return to consider the bill. It is not at all a forgone conclusion so, thinking the matter is hopeless is really a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Below is a link to a chart of the thirty one co-sponsors of SOPA. I have tried to include the telephone numbers, twitter and Facebook accounts where available.

For a contact list of the 31 co-sponsors of the bill 

And here is a list of corporations who have came out in support.

For a contact list of corporations sponsoring this bill

Please be sure to tweet the video above:

Check this video out -- Be a HERO and Help STOP #SOPA Now!! I'll tell you How! http://goo.gl/9zf2t 

...or for your convenience, you can retweet this instead:

http://twitter.com/#!/ANomadicView/status/152019311677018113

That’s a good start, I think. Any other ideas? I hope we can all do our part to stop this wretched proposition from ever reaching the president's desk.

One last thing to add. Normally, in writing for Politicalgates, I have been content simply to inform and to join in on the discussion. Some here have gently criticised that the news is somewhat depressing. I agree with that. (Honestly I am a fun-loving guy) 

However, what would be even more depressing than bad news is not having any means of learning about the problems we face, and not being able to share this information without fear of reprisal. 

That would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?

--------------------------

SOPA: The Trojan Horse of Censorship 1/2

by Nomad

Unconstitutional?

At a recent House Committee Meeting, Congressman Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado, asked Department of Justice head Eric Holder an interesting question about Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), an Internet censorship bill currently under review.

If you don’t know already, SOPA is a proposal aimed at stopping online piracy of copyrighted material, such as films, books, and music, sheet music and many other kinds of intellectual property. SOPA is just one of a series many proposals recently introduced.

Notice how Polis skillfully questioned Holder about how the Justice Department planned to implement certain aspects of the bill, namely enforcement. It is no small matter given the sheer number of potential copyright infringement cases that the bill proposes to outlaw. To calculate how many sites would be adversely affected is impossible but the figure is bound to be astronomical. YouTube, Twitter, blogspot, Google would all be negatively affected by the law.

Despite the fact that the legislation has been demanded by many corporations and organizations in the entertainment industry, others have expressed their disapproval for the bill. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe says SOPA violates the First Amendment and "should not be enacted by Congress."

However, another problem and the point that Polis astutely makes is that the Justice Department of any nation would never be able to find the budget required to prosecute every violation. Thus, in order to put the proposed anti-piracy laws into effect it would require a very selective process of prosecution. According to the Constitution, selective prosecution is a direct violation of the guarantee of equal protection for all person under the law. As one source puts it:

On the federal level, the requirement of equal protection is contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states. The equal protection doctrine requires that persons in similar circumstances must receive similar treatment under the law.

As we see in the video clip, Holder immediately sees the problem that Polis is calling attention to and makes a quick attempt to dodge. Why is it so important?

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.

Writing a bill and finding enough support to make it into law is not the problem- even in this political climate. Many have charged that this particular bill is poorly written and badly thought-out. Another real problem, as Polis also delicately pointed out, is enforcement. Relying solely on the discretion of the Justice Department prosecutor opens the door for all manner of injustice. In an interview with CNET, Polis stated:

I find this particularly hypocritical, this proposal, coming from many Republicans. (Not Darrell Issa, who's consistent and opposed to SOPA.)

Other Republicans have been very skeptical of the attorney general's leadership, of his use of discretion. And here we're going to give him enormous powers over the Internet and allow him to use them at his discretion in a selective way.

He's going to have to make some choices about enforcing it. And that raises the specter of that being colored by political considerations or economic considerations or ideological considerations--or who knows what considerations will be used by any attorney general when it comes to selective enforcement.

More than any other member of Congress, House Representative Jared Polis’ opinion has, perhaps, a bit more validity than other politicians. The Colorado Democrat has founded a series of successful Web-based businesses and has in-depth experience with both sides of the piracy debate. After examining the bill, Polis became a outspoken critic of the proposed legislation and has warned that the bill, if enacted, would “destroy the Internet as we know it.”  You should believe, he isn’t exaggerating.

The Wrong Medicine
And SOPA is not the only attempt to pass controversial legislation designed, at least, ostensibly at defending intellectual property and copyright rights. There’s also the PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (S.968) , sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont. That bill was designed to establish:

a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be "dedicated to infringing activities." The DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against the alleged infringer and the DoJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. In some cases, action could be taken to block sites without first allowing the alleged infringer to defend themselves in court.

This bill is actually a second attempt by Leahy. Last year he and and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sponsored S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) which was to create a blacklist of Internet domain names which the Attorney General can add to with a court order. Internet service providers, financial transaction providers, and online ad vendors (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the list. 

It should also be added that, according to the OpenGlobe.org. Leahy is recorded as having received a combined $772,250 in campaign donations from special interests supporting SOPA. Additionally Republican Rep. Howard Berman from California's 28th District was one of the co-sponsors of SOPA. He received campaign contributions worth $303,550 from groups that supported SOPA, significantly more than any other Representative. He was also the recipient of $376,600 in donations with groups in connection with PROTECT IP. Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia was a big winner with $462,292 in special interest contributions. The money is certainly flowing in from both sides of the debate. (For a breakdown of the money trail click here and here) 

Not everybody is convinced. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said of last year’s COICA:

“It seems to me that online copyright infringement is a legitimate problem.,But it seems to me that COICA as written is the wrong medicine. Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile.”

All of these proposals are fraught with problems. Problems with enforcement, possible problems with abuse by overzealous copyright lawyers and a poor understanding by politicians of the consequences and the effects that such a bill would produce. We have, for example, already witnessed how certain law firms are misusing the definition of copyrighted material in order to suppress undesirable information from becoming public. Under SOPA, blogs, like PoliticalGates, would be easily subjected to government closure, simply at the request of an unseen lawyer commissioned by unspecified multi-national corporate entity. 

The recent Citigroup memos are but one small instance of copyright laws being used to effectively threaten and intimidate. With SOPA, this kind of thing could become routine with very little opportunity for recourse.

Threats As A Tool 

The Citigroup memo case is by no means an isolated incident. In another case, Gary S. Friedlander, Vice President & Division General Counsel for Trans Union LLC, the third largest credit bureau in the United States, threatened to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement against a website, Public Intelligence. The documents in question originated from Trans Union Credit Report Training Guide, which the company claimed were highly confidential and therefore copyrighted. 

Friedlander threatened “Trans Union can file a lawsuit against you seeking among other things: preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, money damages, and attorneys’ fees”. Mr. Friedlander also demands that we “immediately destroy any and all copies of Trans Union copyrighted material in your possession and/or control”. The documents- which had been published elsewhere in various locations- revealed how TransUnion allegedly sold private credit information to one or more marketing companies- for which the company had settled a class-action lawsuit for $75 million. 

As the writers of Public Intelligence point out, this kind of thing, the copyright infringement threat, has become a common ploy

In fact, despite the more than fifteen threats and takedown notices we have received from governments, corporations, law enforcement and transnational military alliances, no document has ever been removed from this site. This is because the central focus of this site is to function as a secure repository of information in the public interest. We have no intention of harming TransUnion or of infringing on their copyrights. We simply posted freely available documents to help inform ourselves and others of the information contained in credit reports and collected by credit reporting companies. We feel we have a right to this. It is, after all, our information from which TransUnion makes its living. Our social security numbers, our houses, our cars, our family members and children are all the collective subjects of TransUnion’s credit reports.

(It is highly ironic that a company that easily sold the personal information of private individuals would have such illegitimate demand for its own privacy.)

Another noteworthy case involved Diebold, a $2 billion company that makes most of its money by manufacturing ATM machines but is more famous for its voting machines. Armed with copyright protection laws of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Diebold issued cease-and-desist letters to more than a dozen people who posted documents or links to documents that Diebold claims were stolen from its servers. The internal staff e-mails reveal Diebold knew about security flaws in its computerized voting machines but sold the devices to several states, including California, Maryland and Georgia. In a twist, two Swarthmore College students and an ISP filed a suit against the company in court for alleged abuse of copyright protections. According to the source:

"Copyright law must not become a tool of censorship," Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) legal director Cindy Cohn said in a statement following the one-hour hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, California. "In this case," Cohn said, "Diebold used phony copyright claims to silence public debate about voting, the very foundation of our democratic process."

The verdict comes from Wikipedia:

United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the plaintiffs' publishing of the e-mails was clearly a fair use, and that Diebold had misrepresented its copyright controls over the work, putting them in violation of section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and leaving them liable for court costs and damages. This was the first time 512(f) had been enforced in court, and set a precedent.

For every case like this, there are a countless of numbers of cases that never reach the courts. The threat of legal action- whether legitimate or not- is more than enough. It is clear that the risk to copyright infringement must be secondary to the public’s right to know. As we have seen, when it comes to abusing the spirit of copyright protective, abuse of the laws presently on the books is rampant. Sadly SOPA and PIPA simply allow greater misuse and  will ultimately further damage freedom of the press privileges and hinder the free access to information.

Interestingly these bills, according to the experts, won't take down foreign sites or even prevent them from being accessed by the technically skilled. It would, however limit access to most Americans. And because of the potential for legal action, .it could, in turn, have a chilling effect on innovation What is and what is not a copyright violation has increasingly become a matter of opinion and few would want to risk crossing the line. Especially if that line is blurred and dictated by corporations and high powered legal firms with enough financial resources to ruin an individual and drive a smaller Web-based company into quick bankruptcy. It simply be easier to relocate outside of the US and forgo the risk.

Disastrous For the Internet

In the impossible pursue of absolute control over digital property, the solution is far worse than the cure. Moreover, this new “Great Wall” is exactly the thing that President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned other nations like China and Iran about. For example, speaking about the freedom afforded by the free Internet, he told an audience of young Chinese in Shanghai back on 16 November 2009.

"I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.They can begin to think for themselves."

"These freedoms of expression, and worship, of access to information and political participation - we believe they are universal rights. They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities, whether they are in the United States, China or any nation."

Clinton for her part recently speaking at an Internet conference in The Hague, told her audience:

More government control will further constrict what people in repressive environments can do online. It would also be disastrous for the internet as a whole, because it would reduce the dynamism of the internet for everyone.

Passage of a bill like SOPA or the Protect IP (or whatever next year’s version might be) is ill-conceived, unconstitutional and simply a waste of time. On a darker note, these bills are the first uncertain step down a slippery slope of Internet censorship, a web in which corporate America will control exactly what Americans can and cannot access on the net.

In the end the question comes down to this: Do we really have to choose between a free and open Internet or an Internet that is severely limited by flexible definitions of what constitutes violations, an Internet content continually inspected by prosecutors hired by multi-billion dollar corporations? 

As Congressman Polis remarked:

Everyone agrees that we should do something. But we don't want a so-called solution that's worse than the problem. And this doesn't address the problem. I hope that we can declare this bill dead soon so we can actually do something, working with the valid stakeholders to ensure that intellectual property is better respected.