SOPA what of it? Really!
Okay people, here we go, so much has been said about this bill, it has so to speak crossed my desk, so I will look at it and herein begin to understand it, it that is possible. Most of what is presented is out of context and furthermore, it is derived from the CRS Summary, which is a summary of the bill. At some point I may take the text to hand, but for now, let us start with this.
1st. Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.
For the most part, the language they use here is not the language of the bill I am certain, not nearly as confusticating as it would normally be. That aside, the highlighted text is debatable, as it may infringe on freedom of information act, but that does not necessarily mean they won't try to get it through as written, as the HOR wouldn't mind getting rid of the FOIA anyways. As it pertains to the commercial concerns as they are referred in specific, or in general, they are already in this position if the AG provides an order to cease they must comply as well as provide information pertaining to who the site or domain is registered to if that information is available, so that is nothing new. Where the difference here is, will they enforce this bill any more than they have others of the same type. What seems also different is that they are stating that they will directly infringe on the individuals right to have access to information, legal or not.
It is akin to having access to alcohol, when not of age of consent, although you can get access, they can only prosecute those that provided the alcohol, not the minor who has it. However they can to a degree remove access to that substance, as it is a substance, not information. Maybe I should have used the example of porn. If a minor gets access to porn, such as a copy of Penthouse, then they can not process the minor for the porn. They can remove the porn from the minor (confiscate the actual items, or hard drives) but they can not prosecute the minor for having the porn. However they can go after the parents, or other adult for allowing access to the porn in the first place. If they can find the person that gave the minor access. If the minor acted on their own, and the proper controls were not in place to prevent this, they can not really do anything, but remove the porn and hope that through this action and the threat to prosecute the parents for neglect (would be a tough case to make) would prevent the minor from obtaining more porn in the future. Or at least until they were the age of consent for porn, or alcohol, or whatever else was the issue. If they can actually prove that the parents or other adult provided access to these items, then they can prosecute the adult for corruption of a minor, among other such things, provided it is worth the effort of the state.
The cold hard truth to it is that they can't really do anything at all about it, just as they can't really do anything about a minor that gets access to Penthouse, short of locking up all the adults, or removing all the porn, neither of which is a solution. The reality is, as much as the AG's office might like to think they can effect the network, they do not have the slightest idea how it works, and as they close the mains on the network, other ad-hoc networks will begin to rise, and soon they will have no access to the network, and then what will they do, remove all the computers, cell phones, electricity, and oh yea they will also have to remove all the technicians that know how to build such items, as well as suppliers of all the parts. It is a deeper hole than I think they realize. The US government does not understand the Internet or networking any better than most users, so they take shot gun shots at something they can't easily figure out. A shot across the bow, but that is all, for now.
2nd. Provides immunity from liability for service providers, payment network providers, Internet advertising services, advertisers, Internet search engines, domain name registries, or domain name registrars that take actions required by this Act or otherwise voluntarily block access to or end financial affiliation with such sites.
So who polices this, and who sets the standards? Is it self policed, or by some agency, or by the organizations that have the greatest stake in it? This is a slippery slope they are headed down. Not that I think they care, and or know this, but this is something to worry about, because I would like to know who is in charge of this, as that could be extended to very many areas.
3rd. Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription.
This is already within their power, as there is no mandate by any function of government or state that says a provided has to provide access to any particular customer, and they can set their own policy. The Internet and all the services connected to it are not public services, they are private, so this is just unnecessary legislation, which should not be surprising. It does most likely open a channel for cash to flow in the form of subsidies and other such incentives to be in compliance with other orders of this bill.
4th. Expands the offense of criminal copyright infringement to include public performances of: (1) copyrighted work by digital transmission, and (2) work intended for commercial dissemination by making it available on a computer network. Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application.
I don't think I can even address this one, it will require me to look into the actual text of the bill to decipher what they are saying here, because as it worded here, it basically states that if the AG or other agency, or organization, it does not specify even if it can not be an individual, wants to shut down a site, they can, but more so, they don't stop at sites, they go on to infer that it will prosecute the people as well, even those that use the site. Drugs are already illegal, or at least those that are regulated or other wise legislated, and if you obtain them through the web, it is the same as if you obtained them on the street, so it is in that respect unnecessary, however that is not what this statement says. It says it expands the criminal offences of trafficking, to some very dubious areas, and is especially dangerous as it opens the door to prosecuting people who buy items such as are identified, but it doesn't have to be exactly these items it could be any that are like them. Special attention should be paid to the second ruling, as it specifically targets militias and other such groups who often own, purchase and sell items that are marketed in this manor. Furthermore, from my understanding of such laws, it already is illegal to falsely advertise, I think we have the FTC to deal with that, but they may not be effective in this situation. I will need to read the text to really figure this one out, but certainly watch it, for this could be very easily construed. Public performance of copyrighted works is already illegal, so that is moot, just smoke to the second part.
5th. Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act.
Various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this act. You can't be serious. What the hell is various other intellectual property. Can you say thought. That's right folks don't touch that dial, because this line alone is one of the most nefarious pieces of ambiguous open ended legislation I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. At any time as they deem fit, they can just amend to this act that all intellectual property is under this act, and unless you have a firm definition of what constitutes intellectual property, what we are talking about here is thought itself. Not just thought, but emotion, as that can as easily be determined to be the by-product of thought, and if thought is an intellectual property, well so is emotion. Think about it, not to hard, you will most likely be arrested for it, there are no original thoughts, everyone thinks of the same shit, time and time again. What if they are able to trademark or otherwise assign the thought "I would like a glass of soda" not only is soda already an intellectual property, but the thought that you would "like" some could also be thought of as intellectual property, of someone, and if that someone can think it first, and trademark it, well you know where that goes.
Immediately after thinking about this; stop thinking.
That right, they have opened the box, now the consequences are dire, for them I fear, as they do not know the true power of mind think, and mass think. They, the government, the globalist, who ever you want to consider, are in for a whole new world, this I believe, but I do not think they know even the weight of what they have just said. If this does not bother you, good, you will have no issues in the future either because you are already brain dead.
The rest is just money loop holes and places to place friends so they can enact more on a global scale, but that is all moot to the rest. The full text review will be forth coming, this I "think" and believe, provided they do not find me before I do.
Sleep Well... if you can.
JD
1st. Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.
For the most part, the language they use here is not the language of the bill I am certain, not nearly as confusticating as it would normally be. That aside, the highlighted text is debatable, as it may infringe on freedom of information act, but that does not necessarily mean they won't try to get it through as written, as the HOR wouldn't mind getting rid of the FOIA anyways. As it pertains to the commercial concerns as they are referred in specific, or in general, they are already in this position if the AG provides an order to cease they must comply as well as provide information pertaining to who the site or domain is registered to if that information is available, so that is nothing new. Where the difference here is, will they enforce this bill any more than they have others of the same type. What seems also different is that they are stating that they will directly infringe on the individuals right to have access to information, legal or not.
It is akin to having access to alcohol, when not of age of consent, although you can get access, they can only prosecute those that provided the alcohol, not the minor who has it. However they can to a degree remove access to that substance, as it is a substance, not information. Maybe I should have used the example of porn. If a minor gets access to porn, such as a copy of Penthouse, then they can not process the minor for the porn. They can remove the porn from the minor (confiscate the actual items, or hard drives) but they can not prosecute the minor for having the porn. However they can go after the parents, or other adult for allowing access to the porn in the first place. If they can find the person that gave the minor access. If the minor acted on their own, and the proper controls were not in place to prevent this, they can not really do anything, but remove the porn and hope that through this action and the threat to prosecute the parents for neglect (would be a tough case to make) would prevent the minor from obtaining more porn in the future. Or at least until they were the age of consent for porn, or alcohol, or whatever else was the issue. If they can actually prove that the parents or other adult provided access to these items, then they can prosecute the adult for corruption of a minor, among other such things, provided it is worth the effort of the state.
The cold hard truth to it is that they can't really do anything at all about it, just as they can't really do anything about a minor that gets access to Penthouse, short of locking up all the adults, or removing all the porn, neither of which is a solution. The reality is, as much as the AG's office might like to think they can effect the network, they do not have the slightest idea how it works, and as they close the mains on the network, other ad-hoc networks will begin to rise, and soon they will have no access to the network, and then what will they do, remove all the computers, cell phones, electricity, and oh yea they will also have to remove all the technicians that know how to build such items, as well as suppliers of all the parts. It is a deeper hole than I think they realize. The US government does not understand the Internet or networking any better than most users, so they take shot gun shots at something they can't easily figure out. A shot across the bow, but that is all, for now.
2nd. Provides immunity from liability for service providers, payment network providers, Internet advertising services, advertisers, Internet search engines, domain name registries, or domain name registrars that take actions required by this Act or otherwise voluntarily block access to or end financial affiliation with such sites.
So who polices this, and who sets the standards? Is it self policed, or by some agency, or by the organizations that have the greatest stake in it? This is a slippery slope they are headed down. Not that I think they care, and or know this, but this is something to worry about, because I would like to know who is in charge of this, as that could be extended to very many areas.
3rd. Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription.
This is already within their power, as there is no mandate by any function of government or state that says a provided has to provide access to any particular customer, and they can set their own policy. The Internet and all the services connected to it are not public services, they are private, so this is just unnecessary legislation, which should not be surprising. It does most likely open a channel for cash to flow in the form of subsidies and other such incentives to be in compliance with other orders of this bill.
4th. Expands the offense of criminal copyright infringement to include public performances of: (1) copyrighted work by digital transmission, and (2) work intended for commercial dissemination by making it available on a computer network. Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application.
I don't think I can even address this one, it will require me to look into the actual text of the bill to decipher what they are saying here, because as it worded here, it basically states that if the AG or other agency, or organization, it does not specify even if it can not be an individual, wants to shut down a site, they can, but more so, they don't stop at sites, they go on to infer that it will prosecute the people as well, even those that use the site. Drugs are already illegal, or at least those that are regulated or other wise legislated, and if you obtain them through the web, it is the same as if you obtained them on the street, so it is in that respect unnecessary, however that is not what this statement says. It says it expands the criminal offences of trafficking, to some very dubious areas, and is especially dangerous as it opens the door to prosecuting people who buy items such as are identified, but it doesn't have to be exactly these items it could be any that are like them. Special attention should be paid to the second ruling, as it specifically targets militias and other such groups who often own, purchase and sell items that are marketed in this manor. Furthermore, from my understanding of such laws, it already is illegal to falsely advertise, I think we have the FTC to deal with that, but they may not be effective in this situation. I will need to read the text to really figure this one out, but certainly watch it, for this could be very easily construed. Public performance of copyrighted works is already illegal, so that is moot, just smoke to the second part.
5th. Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act.
Various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this act. You can't be serious. What the hell is various other intellectual property. Can you say thought. That's right folks don't touch that dial, because this line alone is one of the most nefarious pieces of ambiguous open ended legislation I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. At any time as they deem fit, they can just amend to this act that all intellectual property is under this act, and unless you have a firm definition of what constitutes intellectual property, what we are talking about here is thought itself. Not just thought, but emotion, as that can as easily be determined to be the by-product of thought, and if thought is an intellectual property, well so is emotion. Think about it, not to hard, you will most likely be arrested for it, there are no original thoughts, everyone thinks of the same shit, time and time again. What if they are able to trademark or otherwise assign the thought "I would like a glass of soda" not only is soda already an intellectual property, but the thought that you would "like" some could also be thought of as intellectual property, of someone, and if that someone can think it first, and trademark it, well you know where that goes.
Immediately after thinking about this; stop thinking.
That right, they have opened the box, now the consequences are dire, for them I fear, as they do not know the true power of mind think, and mass think. They, the government, the globalist, who ever you want to consider, are in for a whole new world, this I believe, but I do not think they know even the weight of what they have just said. If this does not bother you, good, you will have no issues in the future either because you are already brain dead.
The rest is just money loop holes and places to place friends so they can enact more on a global scale, but that is all moot to the rest. The full text review will be forth coming, this I "think" and believe, provided they do not find me before I do.
Sleep Well... if you can.
JD
Comments
Post a Comment