SOPA apparantly isn't dead yet!!

[talia374]

MPAA boss: 'SOPA isn’t dead yet'
House debates CISPA – SOPA on steroids
By Iain Thomson in San Francisco
Posted in Law, 6th April 2012 19:53 GMT
Former senator and current head of the Motion Picture Ass. of America Chris Dodd hopes to resurrect the reviled SOPA anti-piracy legislation in another form, but it appears the US House of Representatives is beating him to it a new bill that makes SOPA look sensible.
Dodd, speaking in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, said that he hopes to get a new version of the SOPA legislation ready for debate shortly, and that the MPAA was marshaling its forces for another attack on piracy. Dodd said he was confident that the new legislation would go through, and said there are those in the technology industry who support such laws.
"I regret that Steve Jobs isn't around today. At least he understood the connection between content and technology," Dodd said. "The fellow who started eBay, Jeff Skoll, gets it. There are not a huge number of people who understand that content and technology absolutely need each other, so I'm counting on the fact that there are people like Jeff and others who are smart and highly respected in both communities. Between now and sometime next year [after the presidential election], the two industries need to come to an understanding."
Dodd also let slip some interesting snippets on the arrest of Kim Dotcom, who is currently awaiting extradition over charges related to the Megaupload file-sharing site. The MPAA chieftain quoted a discussion with an unnamed Justice Department official whom he met at his daughter's school, who said that the DoJ had been waiting for Dotcom's birthday party before striking, so that the team behind Megaupload would all be present.
Dodd refused to criticize President Obama for his expressions of concern over the SOPA legislation, saying he was confident the president would address the needs of both Hollywood and those concerned with internet privacy. However, a bill currently being considered by the US House of Representatives could make the SOPA legislation look positively idyllic.
The bill, HR 3523, dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), was introduced by representatives Mike Rogers (R-MI) and "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-MD) in November, and is currently attracting serious political support. CISPA would allow any federal agency to request internet and communications logs of individuals from their service provider, and guarantees immunity from prosecution for companies that cooperate with the government.
"Under the bill," wrote Greg Nojeim, senior counsel to the Center for Democracy and Technology in a blog post, "when communications data is shared with the government, it could be used to prosecute an individual for any crime, used to target him or her for intelligence surveillance, and shared among governmental agencies to the extent permitted by current law and used by those agencies for any lawful non-regulatory governmental purpose. The bill itself places no limits on secondary use or dissemination of unclassified cyber threat information. Under the bill, the data can even be used to target advertising."
The bill states that such information could only be requested for a "cyber security purpose," but leaves the definition of this concept unspecified, and adds that security need not be the only reason for data to be handed over. The data can be made anonymous, but that's only voluntary for those companies handing it over.
What with the forthcoming ACTA vote this summer in the European Parliament, and with SOPA back in the cards and CISPA now on the table, it looks to be a busy year for online-privacy activists.

[John C]

Well, we knew that would happen.  Remember, the MPAA tried to wipe out the VCR several times.  The content industry has been at it since the first radio station, and possibly (depending on how you interpret things) as far back as the player piano, which Sousa said would destroy music.  The idea (which Chris Dodd openly stated a few weeks back) is that the content industry wants innovators to ask them for permission before inventing.  I'm sure that'll be great for the economy...

The difference between the Congresses who allowed time-shifting and private tape-sharing and those seriously considering censorship is that too many of us, due to a lack of trust, are withdrawing from civic discussion, leaving only the big companies with a voice.

To fix it, start reaching out to your Congressman and Senators (or equivalent, if you're not in the United States--it's not like the rest of the world is doing so hot, here, either, with the EU even keeping their database copyright).  Tell them what you believe.  In my case, it's that copyright:

• Should be targeted exclusively at publishers, rather than individuals;
• Follow due process, rather than presuming guilt;
• Protect cases of Fair Use as a top priority;
• Encourage creators to publish, rather than guarantee income for a minority; and
• Should never involve any tools that an unethical government can use to censor expression in general or harm the economy by restricting innovation.

I've been told that letters to policy-makers should come in four brief parts:

• Show respect, even if only for someone having to make hard decisions.
• Frame the problem as the politician being misled ("I'm not sure who had the idea of..."), with you offering help.
• Explain your position.
• Sign off, listing every organization your a part of, so that you're not some creepy guy living in his mother's basement.

And, of course, the more personal, the more likely you are to be heard.  E-mail is better than a petition.  A phone call is better than e-mail.  A typed letter is better than a phone call.  A handwritten letter is better than a typed letter.  An in-person meeting at the home office (when Congress is not in session, obviously) with a few like-minded friends is better than a handwritten letter.

I haven't gotten involved to that extent, yet, but I've also been told that most offices will check their database of campaign donors in making the decision to pass your message along.  So a few bucks in every campaign might maximize one's effect.

[paw broon]

I know this could be disastrous for sites like this and I admire your courage in putting your arguments to the authorities but, as you may be aware, here in the U.K., bastion of democracy and free speech, the government is attempting to put into law a bill which will enable them to intercept, view, listen to, record and keep, every email, post on social networking sites, phone call. The reason seems to be to stop potential terrorist activity before it becomes a disaster. All very laudable but it's really a major intrusion into peoples private lives.  Although there is a huge swell of opposition to this bill, many feel that they should keep their heads down and not draw the attention of shady police and security organisations to themselves.  You'd have to be a seriously stupid bad guy to figure out not to keep posting your plans on-line and not use some other method of communication.  Or simply use a proxy or Tor.  This will solve nothing and just move evil people elsewhere.  It's lazy thinking by the government.  So you might not get a lot of help with your problem from here if the bill goes through.

[John C]

That's a good point, and we have four "cybersecurity" bills in the pipe (from civil rights stalwarts like Joe Lieberman and John McCain) which are in a similar vein of "information sharing" with private companies that collect personal data and the usual "we can shut stuff down" and "whistleblowing is evil" material.

I thought that might be a bit too far off-topic, though, and it's a discussion that can spiral out of control quickly, since there are far worse bills and even laws elsewhere.  But yes, while you're telling your lawmaker that expanding copyright law is harmful to the majority, you might mention that widespread surveillance, tracking, and censorship should probably be off the table, too.

[watson387]

The problem here in the US is is that the MPAA/RIAA/etc. has all the money, and he who controls the money controls the politicians.  The government is run by big business.  It's very sad but it's the truth.

[paw broon]

"I thought that might be a bit too far off-topic, though,"  John C
You're correct.  Came over all funny there for a moment.  Let's all just enjoy the comics.

[John C]

Paw, you're actually right that "it's all politics," so it does bear mention.  If we're suddenly all "subversives" for wanting to have a say in government, then the rest is worthless.  I just don't want it to overwhelm the topic.

Watson, that's only part of the problem.  The other part is that, while the big companies spend more to connect with lawmakers, the rest of us withdraw from the process.

Keep in mind that, historically, most of these laws only applied to large corporations (starting up a newspaper or book publisher ain't cheap), so only they were consulted when making the laws.  That was balanced well enough, because a draconian measure meant that you had power over a competitor, but he had the same power over you, and the rest of us could live our lives in peace.  (It's the same even with finance--even fifty years ago, who would have envisioned a world where the average person invests in the stock market and has a stake and/or the knowledge in how the banks are regulated; since the right answer is "nobody," the regulators are all bankers.)

But assuming the lawmakers are corrupt (even if it happens to be true) means it's not worth speaking up.  And if we don't speak up, there's only one voice left in the discussion, and it's a voice saying that we make excellent raw materials to exploit.

Now, the MPAA might be able to spend money to bribe officials, but average people can bury Congressional offices in letters making it clear that we have an opinion and won't stand for any more of this elitist garbage.

(And note that I do think copyright is important and respect it.  I think it has grown back out of control, almost to where the concept was in England before Queen Anne's Law, and I think it's been perverted to try to guarantee an income for an artistic class, rather than merely encouraging artists to share their gifts with the world.  And when you try to legally enforce a business model, you damage the economy and provide tools to harm people.)

[watson387]

I email legislators/congressmen/etc. about stuff like this all the time, but I'm pretty sure it just falls on deaf ears. I always get some generic, half-assed response to the tune of "your opinion is valid and being taken into consideration" but it never sounds sincere.

Another CISPA article: https://torrentfreak.com/cispa-bill-lets-isps-spy-on-and-report-pirating-subscribers-120409/

[John C]

It'll happen, because it needs a reason to get through the different people who exist to filter out the bozos.  That's why handwritten letters where you explain why you're interesting and in-person meetings are far better.

Figure that most of their e-mail is spam, too.  When you get rid of the actual spam, you get activist spam, the form-mailings through websites like the NRA or MoveOn or whatever.  So, you're buried in that pile, and probably faced with some intern who was asked to pass along the ten most important e-mails (in political weight more than topic, I'd bet) and auto-reply the rest.  And ten might be a high estimate, keeping in mind that these people still seem to think their technological ineptitude is a badge of honor.

(Incidentally, Paw, I do want to emphasize that when I said "keep on topic," I meant me.  Pull my string, and I'll babble about this stuff for hours, if nobody stops me.  It's a community, though, so whatever you guys want to talk about is basically on-topic as long as nobody's going to feel uncomfortable contributing to the community.

(We've kicked around a space just for the activist-type discussion as it relates to what we do.  If there's interest, we'll look into seeing if there's a way to have a board that people can "opt out" of seeing if it bores them.)

[Yoc]

This is a general discussion section guys so it's not hard for those only interested in comics to just ignore anything inside here.
As long as a topic doesn't turning into personal attacks I'm Ok with it.  This is a topic very important to the site so I don't find it off topic at all.

-Yoc

[watson387]

I guess this isn't very surprising considering Facebook cares very little for individuals' privacy, but apparently they have come out in support of CISPA. I got rid of my Facebook account a long time ago, but I encourage others to do the same in protest.

https://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/after-denouncing-sopa-and-pipa-how-can-facebook-support-cispa/11700

[jfglade]

 I think the internet is just too attractive a target for those who are natural born censors or who would like to curtail anything they cannot control. The average American politician doesn't give a damn about protecting intellectual properies.

[John C]

As an update, CISPA no longer (necessarily) deals with Intellectual Property and piracy.  Now, it's "only" about big companies monitoring our communications and turning the data and content over to government agencies and other companies to use as they wish (probably including prosecuting for piracy).

I do have to give them points for crafting a law that's so blatantly totalitarian and bringing it to the floor for vote.  It says a lot about the disengagement that the sponsors haven't needed to deal with feathers, let alone tar, like ignoring the problem will make it go away.

[Yoc]

Sigh
Keep us in the loop John.

[John C]

And right on cue in my inbox, this is kind of neat.

http://sincerely.com/cause/cispa

Plug in your personal information and they'll (allegedly, I guess--it's not like I vetted their organization) mail off a postcard to your representatives.  Non-US people might want to keep away, since that could plausibly hurt the case.

North of the Border (yes, the border), C-12 and C-30 sound nearly as annoying...and a bit suspicious.  C-12 basically says that all that PIPEDA work was just silly and protecting privacy could be done best by getting rid of privacy protections.  C-30 is basically a "Canadianized" CISPA:  Less information can be legally gathered, but the immunity to abuse is broader.