What Protect IP is really about

The new media has many people scared.  It has the oligarchy scared.  Anyone with a cell phone can record a video of police brutality, of a demonstration of thousands of people, of any event that they would prefer to marginalize, to deny.  But what really makes that an issue is that the video may end up on a blog or on Utube and be viewed by millions of people.

It is really very simple.  If the oligarchy can control what you see and hear, then they can shape what you see as true.  If there are other sources of information that will show you what is really happening, then they lose that control.  Hence, the Protect IP act.

The pretext of this is protecting intellectual property.  That is a worthy goal.  If you put your sweat and effort into producing something, then you expect to be able to reap the rewards.  So if you produce a film, or music, or a novel, then you have a right to expect that someone else will not copy it and sell it, or even give it away.  That is what copyrights are all about.

Now lets look for a moment at the new media,. and how it works.  Think of any of the major alternative news sources, like the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, or even the quasi mainstream source like yahoo news.  All of them accept commentary, they allow readers to voice their opinions relative to what they have read.  What happens if a commenter posts something quoting a copyrighted source?

Well, under Protect IP, not only is the blog author responsible, so is the web host.  This blog here is hosted by Google, so if you post a comment that someone feels is infringing on a copyright then Google becomes responsible for shutting this site down.  Google becomes the police and the mere complaint by someone requires that this site be shut down.  Now the burden of proof is on me to prove I should be allowed to continue.

Note, I didn't say the the offending content has to be removed, I said Google has to shut me down.  And someone complaining about copyright infringement does not have to prove it to Google, there is no reasonable doubt standard or preponderance of evidence standard that would be necessary in a court of law.  That burden falls on me to justify why my site should be reopened.

Protect IP is about suppressing the truth and nothing else.  That is why it must be defeated.  But, should it become law, then the progressives of this country should invoke another law, the law of unintended consequences.

Any web site which is engaged in soliciting funds for right wing causes, and right wing candidates, should be challenged.  Claims of copyright infringement should flood the service providers, placing them into a constant battle to defend their web sites.  Add to that list the sites of anyone who voted for the law. 

Commenting and making points

There was a news article making the rounds the other day.  It was about how GM was posting a quarterly profit, and may be headed for an IPO soon.  Of course there were a lot of comments, and a lot of those referred to the bailout.

One poster in particular made the following points:

• Bailing out GM not only saved jobs at GM, but at the employees of many suppliers around the country.  So that bailout alone saved a huge (he gave a number, but I don't remember what is was) number of jobs at companies other than GM.
• GM has already paid back the cash portion of the bailout.
• With the IPO the government will be able to sell the stock it holds in GM, getting the rest of the money back.

A responder said something like "You must work for GM".

Facts can be checked, they can be disputed.  Other facts can be reported that show how the original statements may be only half truths.  The responder instead chose to be a spoiled child, pouting for not getting his own way.  He didn't even say something like "I don't think that many jobs were saved" or make any claim at all the the original poster was somehow inaccurate.

Now this is not to say that a little healthy name calling does not belong in an intelligent discourse.  After all, if I felt that the right wing had any honor at all, were anything other than whores in the service of corporate feudalism, then I would be more restrained in my speech, but alas, that is not the case.  So I suppose that those who might disagree have to be given the same latitude.  But only if they have something to say.

Now if I had written that post, and gotten a comment like that, I would have done one of two things.  Choice A, I would just toss it.   Choice B would be a response something like this.

Thank you so much for your generous response,  I was pleased to see you did not disagree with any of my points.  Yes, I imagine you would think I would need to be a GM employee to know any of that, but in fact all I had to do was open my eyes.  You see, everything I said was a matter of public record.  So you can find out things like that too, just as soon as you take your head out of your ass.

So, I don't mind if people don't agree with me, but actually say something.