LiveBlog – Prenda’s “Good Old Fashioned Bench Slapping”

Many are aware of the impending courtroom dustup in the Prenda case. For those that aren’t, here’s the worlds briefest precis (from the worlds most longwinded blogger).

Prenda and a slew of other companies are the creation of half a dozen people, (mostly lawyers, but some are imaginary). These companies try to sue people under copyright law for the alleged sharing of media (in part or whole) they claim is copyright registered. However, aside from suing to get personal info, they avoid litigating the case on its merits, because its all about extorting settlements. There’s been a lot of contradictory statements to different courts, and now one judge, Federal Judge Otis D Wright II, wants to get to the bottom of it. His last attempt, March 11th, was foiled but now it’s time for “A Good Old-Fashioned Bench Slapping” as one person has put it.

The “No PhotoID” solution to Voter Fraud

The election’s been over for just over a week, and we’re already getting the claims that “if only there’d been VoterID laws, the result might have been different”. The latest is the Co-Chair of the Wisconsin Romney campaign, Alberta Darling, who claims things might have been different, if one judge hadn’t struck it down (and the supreme court hadn’t ignored the appeal)

IPO Admits Censorship Overreach in Consultation Response

The ongoing saga with the UK Intellectual Property Office has taken a few steps forward, since I last talked about it. The situation at present is that they have admitted that some of the redactions were improper, and defended others. Details on what and why follow….

So, I hadn’t shared this with the wide world yet, but I’ve had some progress with my dealings with the IPO and their censorship engine. Last Friday (only a few days later than I had been promised) I got an email saying that they’d reconsidered things, and decided to include all but 4 points. Here’s the email (using the numbering from the rebuttal statement I submitted 6 weeks prior)

Subject: RE: Data from consult-2011-copyright-respond
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:02:09 +0100
From: Hamza Elahi
To: ‘Andrew Norton’ <XXXXXXX@ktetch.co.uk>

Andrew
After the redactions we made to your consultation response, you sent us a document (attached) querying those redactions.
We have now fully considered this in consultation with our lawyers and have decided:
1. To readmit 1-14.
4. To keep 15, 16, 17 redacted. It was felt that the comments made here did not qualify as fair comment.
5. To readmit 18, 19, 20.
6. To keep 21 redacted. It was felt that the comments made here did not qualify as fair comment.
7. To readmit 22.
My apologies for the delay in responding.
Your revised consultation response will appear on the IPO website shortly.
Best regards
Hamza Elahi

Policy Adviser, Hargreaves Review Implementation, Intellectual Property
Office 020 7034 2813
Interested in following Hargreaves Implementation?
Subscribe to updates at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/ipreview-whatsnew-rss.xml

I’m at the point where I’m not even surprised that he’s apparently redacted his own points 2 and 3…

Now, Contrary to what has been said, the updated response STILL isn’t on the site (as of this being published) almost a week later. But let’s break down what’s been allowed, and what’s not.

Here’s what they objected to, and didn’t consider fair comment marked in red. Incidentally, one part (marked in green) was approved.

33 When, if ever, would a collecting society have reasonable grounds to treat members and non-member rights holders differently? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your response.
They always have a reasonable ground to treat members and non-members differently. They should not collect for non-members work, and should not intimidate the public into licenses ‘just in case’ some of their members work is used. However, Collection societies seem to treat non-members as members for the purposes of collecting money.

34 Do you have any specific concerns about any additional powers that could accrue to a collecting society under an ECL scheme? If so, please say what these are and what checks and balances you think are necessary to counter them. Please also give reasons and evidence for your concerns.
I have significant concerns over the current powers such groups have. As stated before, they need a comprehensive audit and restructure, before they can even gain peoples trust or respect. At present, many consider them to be in the same category as low-class debt-collectors, the same kind you see on BBC Rogue Traders or Watchdog, and for the same reasons; underhand tactics, demanding money unnecessarily, and attempting intimidation to bring in funds.

44 What do collecting societies do well under the current system? Who benefits from the way they operate? Please explain your response and provide evidence for it.
As noted in the answer to 22 above, what they do best is intimidation, lies, and deception. Those that benefit from their methods of operation are the groups/organisations that get the major shares of the payouts and the company itself. Evidence is listed above in 22.

65 Do you agree that the imposition of a statutory code should be subject to review? How long should such a code be in place before it is reviewed? Please give reasons for your response.
That would depend on the circumstances of the imposition. However, the saying ‘fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’ should be heeded. They are already getting away with significant abuses, and if, after a code, they continue, they should not get a THIRD chance to abuse their position.

The rest of the redactions, listed previously are acceptable to them now. What’s funny is they’ve said that claims of intimidation, deception, and malpractice “did not qualify as fair comment” in their opinion, but, they admitted in EVIDENCE OF INTIMIDATION, MALPRACTICE AND DECEPTION.

They admitted a phrase about it being a bullying experience, after sourcing the British Chamber of Commerce’s business survey finding the PRS ‘intimidating’(“aggressive” and “threatening” are the words the Chamber picked out in their press release, certainly sounds like intimidation to me.) You can’t say ‘ok we’ll accept your 14 points of intimidation, bullying, deceptive practices and deceit’ then go ‘you can’t SAY they do that though, we don’t think that’s fair comment’. It’s absolutely barmy!

Fair comment (or as it’s now known in the UK, “honest comment”) requires a believe that the statement is true based on the facts known to them. I know my statements are true, however they do not believe that my statements are true, or that they’re my honest belief, because they know differently, even after presenting evidence to back up my claims? It’s an ‘odd’ interpretation of law to say the least.

What’s even funnier, is that earlier this week Techdirt reported on a white paper, detailing problems with collecting rights organisations around the world. Funnily enough, it’s a collection of… intimidations  deceits, malpractice, deception, fraud, and other criminal acts. It’s quite an interesting read. While most of the cases were known to me at the time of the submission, I only picked out those that were less controversial  or done with, to avoid this very rigmarole.

Such cognitive dissidence must have a reason behind it. There’s two ways to find it out. I *could* file a lawsuit (either claiming I’m being libelled by the statement that accompanied the release as it damages my professional standing; I could also file for an Article 10(1) violation of the ECHR) or I could file a freedom of information request with the IPO to try and find out what was discussed about

I went with the latter. Of course, I can still go with the lawsuit if need be.

I’ll let you all know what happens when it happens. And in the meantime, I upgraded the timeline to something with a bit more ‘pizzazz’

IPO Redaction on Dipity.

Dragon*Con EFForums Track Panels 2012

The 2012 Dragoncon EFForums track schedule is up. I’m working the track again this year, and doing a lot of the sound work, and some video. I’m also down for two panels, (plus 3 more in the Brit Track at present that I’m still waiting for details on) and since the schedule is now out, I can reveal them.

UK IPO Redacts Responses Critical of Rights Societies

A major tool in policy-making is the Consultation. It is often the only way for regular members of the public to have any sort of input in the legislative process. The problem comes when these consultations are skewed towards a set response, or worse, evidence is ignored or suppressed; such as in the publication of responses focusing on Collection societies, where critical comments have been redacted, by the IPO.

The Constitution is Just a Piece of Paper

The US as an ‘idea’ is dying. The country that used to pride itself on free speech, democracy, and being ‘the last remaining superpower’, is now apparently drunk on its own power. With unchecked powers expanding at every turn, and terror laden missives booming out from government departments, the country seems to be taking a counterbalancing position from those who embraced freedom in the Arab Spring of last year, and is actively cracking down on freedoms previously embraced as a national advert.

The US likes to be known as the land of freedom and integrity; indeed the first verse of the US National Anthem – the Star Spangled Banner – ends:

O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Over the last ten years, the answer has turned into a resounding NO!

Over the last ten years there have been many laws passed ostensibly about ‘fighting terrorism’, but which boil down to naked fear. A fear from the populace that some nebulous ‘terrorist attack’ will kill them all (despite the fact you’re more than 70x more likely to be just plain ‘murdered’ and 150x more likely to die on America’s increasingly poor quality roads than be present at a terrorist attack) which has supported a government that is increasingly spineless and cowardly. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the many instances over the last few months involving the uses of the police, when it comes to the First Amendment.

There have been many well documented clashes between police and the various ‘Occupy’ camps around the country in the last few months. Police officers have on occasion responded with excessive violence and weapons that did not fit the situation. In those instances, video recordings have made it clear what has happened, and often contradicted police reports and claims. Yet, as was pointed out a few months ago, there’s usually very little in the way of repercussions when police officers break the law.

Take for instance Joe Arpaio. The self-described ‘toughest sheriff in America’ is no stranger to controversy. There have been a number of wrongful death cases which his department has lost, his central jail lost a lawsuit about unconstitutional conditions in 2008, and the verdict was reaffirmed in 2010 when he still hadn’t improved them. He was feeding inmates bad food (commonly known as ‘poisoning’) and was broadcasting video footage of in-processing after arrests to the web, prejudicing trials (otherwise known as perverting the course of justice) and because of general misconduct, his whole department had their ability to enforce Federal Immigration law stripped by the Department of Homeland Security (and I remind you, that’s the same department that has no problems with sexually abusing 6yo’s in the name of ‘security’, so you KNOW it’s bad) which was why Arizona passed SB 1070 – the ‘papers please’ law. He’s also under investigation for witness, voter and candidate intimidation, harassment of newspapers, and for ignoring serious sexual assault cases. So has he been punished in any way? No, of course not. As Sheriff, he is almost untouchable.

CC-BY-NC-ND  by katerkate

It seems that both police officers and politicians have an allergic reaction to video cameras being pointed at them by the public. A search on YouTube will return LOTS of videos of police officers reacting ‘badly’ to being videotaped. Often the argument put forward by the police is that people are interfering in their work by videoing them. In other states, with two-party consent for audio-recording where there’s an expectation of privacy, police officers going about their duty have arrested people for wiretapping, a felony which often carries 5-10 year prison terms just so you’re aware, recording video is ok, recording audio is the no-no. Generally when these cases are made public, some prosecutors back down, but some stick at it. Almost inevitably the courts decide that no law was broken, because there was no expectation of privacy at the time of filming.

Compounding this is that most police cars in the US have dash-cams recording both audio and video, even in those states. So while the police officer is free to record audio and video at all times, a person involved in an encounter with that same police officer can’t record their own copy, because the police officer has some expectation of privacy? It’s an amazing double-standard. (The pinnacle of such double-standards goes to the Claremore Police Department in Oklahoma, who do not consider the dash-cam recordings to be public records under the state’s Open Records Act, and amazingly, a court agreed. The Department of Public Safety, aka the State Police force, also lobbied successfully in 2005 that the state legislature exempt state patrol dash cams from that legislation.)

Thankfully MOST courts are standing behind citizens and saying clearly that recording police officers in the course of their duties is NOT wiretapping, or a felony, but is in fact a protected 1st Amendment Activity. Yet that doesn’t always stop the police. In Pennsylvania, despite rulings that it’s legal going back to 1989, police there will sometimes arrest for ‘wiretapping’, with documented cases as recently as 2007, and still no adequate recourse for the victims of officers acting outside the law.

The occupy movement has also brought another spotlight onto the First Amendment. The ability to petition the government and protest is the less well known side of it, but it’s there. However, the ability to do so has been severely curtailed in recent years, from the ‘free speech zones’ created during the Bush era (and later copied by the likes of China) to the storm-trooper raids on the Occupy camps. The arrests and intimidations of the police against media attempting to cover the camps, and the police actions against them are further attacks on the first amendment.

In fact, the US has dropped a significant number of places down the current Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, from 20^th to 47^th, because of this. NYPD’s Deputy Inspector Bologna, and UC Davis Police’s Lt. John Pike are now symbols on the net of excessive violence. And their punishment? Bologna has been reassigned to Staten Island, and Pike has been on ‘Administrative leave’ (with pay, which was $110,000/year in 2010).

Oakland, which also made a splash with video of a young ex-Marine getting shot in the head and then pelted with flash-bangs is already in trouble. They’ve been under court orders to improve their behavior for almost ten years now (after a gang of police officers called the Rough Riders were planting evidence, using excessive violence and falsifying police reports) and have been given a March ultimatum, or else the city will have control of its police force taken from it. It’s a step that should have been taken 5 years ago, when Oakland PD failed the original order, yet unlike any normal person that had failed a court order, they were not disciplined, but let slide for another 5 years.

Politicians are also getting in on the act. One of the more unusual stories this week was the arrest of a documentarian from a US Congress committee hearing. The hearing, on fracking, was going to be recorded by Josh Fox, (who has already produced one documentary on the topic, the Oscar Nominated Gasland) as well as credentialed ABC news reporters. The Republican chair of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Andy Harris (R-Md.), directed Capitol Police to arrest him for ‘unlawful entry’. The issue there was not so much one of ‘not wanting to be filmed’, as the cable-funded C-SPAN network was filming the hearing, but an attempt to deny Fox the ability to have his own high-quality shots for a follow-up documentary.

As far as violating the First Amendment, there can’t be a clearer example. Worse, the oath of office Rep Harris took on assuming office is as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In undertaking his actions on February 1^st, Rep. Harris violated his oath of office, by actively acting against the First Amendment. So what’s the consequence of that? The same consequences as when Joe Arparo violated the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and 8^th amendments, as when Pike and Bologna attacked protesters, using chemical weapons on people exercising their 1^st Amendment rights. Nothing.

The serious issue is, there’s no accountability – no respect for the law – by those whose job is to write the law or enforce it. This goes for former members of Congress who have turned into lobbyists as well, demonstrated by Chris Dodd’s blatant admission of bribery when SOPA lost its support.

One North Carolina State Rep, Larry G. Pittman, made news last week for suggesting public hanging should be brought back to increase the deterrence of murder (and he included abortionists there, making him part of the ironically named ‘pro-life movement, better characterised as anti-choice), and that appeals should be filed all at once. Given the often questionable nature of US Capital convictions, it’s rather disturbing. Especially as violations of what is deemed the country’s HIGHEST law, the Constitution, are rarely punished at all. Funnily enough, there are laws specifically to deal with it.

18 USC § 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or…

… They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

and

18 USC § 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Perhaps hanging, with only one appeal, would deter people from violating the country’s highest tenets, not that it will happen. Those that wield the power rarely feel the need to submit to the rules they lay on everyone else. And that’s the REAL problem. Until that problem is fixed, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

This piece was first published on Falkvinge.net and the text is released under a CC0 license

REAL Copyright Theft

Rogue Websites don’t Obey DMCA notices, is the claim we’re seeing now about the new SOPA and Protect-IP laws. Yet there’s a flipside, as the penalties – CRIMINAL PENALTIES – for filing a false notice are ignored. Who watches those that watch for copyright infringement?

US Pirate Party’s Data Protection Failure

One of the core tenants of the Pirate Party movement, is personal privacy. In fact, to quote Rick Falkvinge, “Five years ago, when I founded the Swedish and first Pirate Party, we set three pillars for our policy: shared culture, free knowledge, and fundamental privacy.”.But what do you do when a Pirate Party doesn’t follow those three core principles? That’s the question that now occupies the US Pirate Party.

I’ve been involved with the Pirate Party for many years. I first took part in late 2006, and was running the US party by mid 2007. The core philosophies of the party as I saw them were

• An increase in personal privacy
• Increased government transparency and accountability
• Reform of copyright, Patent, and Trademark (C/P/T) laws for the modern times

In order to push for those sorts of reforms, the party must of course abide by them as well, and it’s here that the USPP in recent times has failed.

It’s on the subject of privacy that this particular post covers, specifically the privacy of members and volunteers. Details, including names, email addresses, and worst of all – phone numbers, have been sent to people who are not officers, including myself.

Now it’s no secret that I left the party as of December 1st – it was widely publicised. I was also asked, on November 30th by the party chairperson, Brittany Phelps, to be sure and have my email cleared out ‘by the end of the week’. As she was told, I had not only already done so, but a copy of it had been sent to the records officer for archiving on December 1st.

Session Start: Tue Nov 30 12:47:31 2010

Session Ident: BrittanyPhelps (registered)

[12:47.31] I need you to clear out your email by the end of this week.

[13:21.00] its already mostly done and a copy sent to brad tomomrow

[13:21.58] I deal with things as and when they come up, to keep things done in a timely manner

The matter of email addresses is properly the venue of the promotions officer (specifically the web-team), but at this point there is no promotions officer. Under the party Constitution, the responsibility therefore devolves onto the Vice-Chair, also known as the Operations officer. There is one of those, and his name is Jay Emerson.

On December 1st, as promised, the email archive was sent, and the account could have been closed at any time. Here’s the problem though. It wasn’t closed. In fact it didn’t stp working until the middle of January. That’s sheer sloppiness, or would be if that was all. The problem is, despite not being an officer of the party any more, I, and I presume other people as well, were getting emails that we were not entitled to get, specifically ,emails including personal details. Now, I’m not a vindictive person, I also strongly believe in my integrity. The personal details I have been sent, I will do anything maliciously with. However, if I, as a regular person, am getting this information, who else is? THAT is a problem.

People are sending their personal details in, to a political party that has personal privacy as one of it’s main pillars, and the personal data is leaking like a sieve. That, is wholly unacceptable.

So, in order to set my conscience to rest, and because I really do believe in the issue of personal privacy (as do most of you, from your submissions), AND also in political transparency, I’ve emailed the 36 people whose personal details I’ve been sent, inadvertently, to let them know that I, through an error of the USPP’s administration (specifically, the acting Promotions officer, Jay Emerson, who may well have been very poorly advised on the matter of Data Protection by the party’s acting legal officer – Jay Emerson) their personal details may be loose.

The officer in question was reprimanded a month ago for his actions and activities (a vote of no confidence was passed against him) and he is also a huge fan of wikileaks (to the point that he is hosting a mirror on a site supposedly for party business). So, in that tradition, the following people have had their data leaked (I’m obscured the data, for privacy reasons, giving only their state, initials, and last 3 digits of their telephone number where provided)

State	Initials	Last 3 digits of Tel#
California	RS	919
	RT	059
	JD	800
	JL	–
	TB	059
	WS	–
Colorado	JD	267
	JH	900
Florida	MD	349
	AB	883
Georgia	LL	255
	SH	142
	HJ	784
Idaho	JT	011
Illinois	SS	940
	JD	453
Indiana	TW	677
Kansas	MC	145
	KN	334
Louisiana	EM	099
Maryland	RB	417
Maine	HS	592
	JF	384
Michigan	SB	–
Montana	AO	799
New York	RN	194
Ohio	JD	153
	NW	828
Pennsylvania	JP	071
	WP	820
	RV	718
Tennessee	JA	387
Texas	SL	129
	SG	560
Washington (state)	MJ	190
Wisconsin	RM	291

What’s so disappointing through, is that these volunteers cover 20 states, yet  little is being done, and this is a typical number of submissions for the 6½ weeks in question. It’s almost as if, in addition to the information going to people it shouldn’t, it’s also NOT going to the people it should. If that’s the case, there are some REAL problem.

Where Torrents Infringe

There’s been a lot of action targeting torrent websites, especially in recent months. It seems that part of the problem is that people don’t understand, a lot of the time, what’s going on with sites. It’s also clear from some filings, that the agents and courts don’t either.

In the spirit of educating, I’ve decided to produce a helpful little diagram which shows quite clearly who does what, and what with. I will of course point out here, and now, that I AM NOT  LAWYER and this is not legal advice. (If you need legal advice, go find a competent lawyer, that specialises in this kind of work. Also, if you are a lawyer, don’t hesitate to get in touch with any corrections)

Direct copyright Infringement, an illustration. Click to enlarge

Now, I should point out quite clearly that this only refers to ACTUAL infringement. It doesn’t cover Vicarious, or contributory infringement – mainly because they’re a lot more complex, and have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Instead, we’re dealing with the misconception a lot of people have, that torrent sites are themselves directly infringing copyright; often promulgated in industry press releases, and reflected in political statements and legislation.

In this, we’ll assume that the Original File, is an ISO image of some software, let’s say Microsoft Windows, where there is no permission to distribute. Were it an ISO image of some software where there is permission to distribute (say a linux distribution) Any red on the diagram would be blue.

So, let’s start with the ‘Initial User’. This initial user takes his original file, and creates a torrent. This is the leftmost blue file. Now, despite claims to the contrary, at present, it is not any form of copyright infringement to create a torrent file, of any data. The torrent file is indeed a separate file, that is created FROM and is ABOUT the original data, but isn’t actually the data itself, it’s metadata, just like a review of a film or song; data about data.

Next, the torrent file is uploaded to a website. This is also not infringement. No copies of the original file have been made, so no infringement has occurred. This is what is overlooked (or flat-out ignored) most of the time. Torrent sites do not carry any infringing data on them, a point that the Pirate Bay crew made in some of their legal responses. The only thing they host are torrent files – metadata files, just like IMDB contains metadata about TV episodes and films – and as such, no infringement has happened.

So now the torrent file is downloaded. The diagram shows it going to three ‘peers’, or regular users. Two of the users load the file into their torrent client and start transfering data between them, data that has been sent to the swarm from the initial peer (the one we started with). These data transfers ARE infringing, and so finally we’ve found the infringing act.

However, notice that the third peer that has downloaded the torrent is blue, why is that? Well, downloading the torrent file itself is not an infingement, as has already been discussed. That peer has not involved itself in the sharing of the copyrighted data with the other peers. Instead, it may want the torrent file for another purpose, such as pass it on to another person, hosting it itself, or using it to check data the peer already has (bittorrent is designed with built-in error checking), so since no copy has been made, no infringement has happened.

Also, notice that of the 3 peers downloading data from the initial ‘start’ peer, only two downloaded the torrent file from the site. That’s because there’s a way to share without needing a torrent file, or even a a torrent site. The method is called a ‘magnet link’, and I did a video explaining it about a year ago. In short though, a simple link, which can be shortened, can be used in place of the torrent site. Click the link, and it’s loaded straight into the client, with the torrent file then pulled from peers, followed by the data.

So, what have we learnt?

The only place that actual (direct, or primary) infringement happens is between actual peers. Torrent sites do not actively infringe copyright themselves (although some may have a case for secondary infringement, or the dubious ‘conspiracy to commit copyright infringement’ charges a la Oink)

Downloading the torrent file itself is not infringement, nor is making a torrent file, or distributing said torrent file. The data in all these cases are metadata files, and not the copyrighted data itself.The torrent site itself has no way of knowing what the person will do with the torrent, and if it’s going to end up being used to infringe, or if it’ll be used in a way that is fair use, or in a way that’s completely legal. That’s down to the end user, and torrent files can be used in all these ways (and more)

It’s also clear that a lot of people get mixed up when it comes to what is directly infringing copyright, and what isn’t. Some do it deliberately (industry groups, researchers and lawyers trying to make money from prosecutions for instance), while some are not up to speed on the technologies and their nuances (law enforcement, for instance).

I hope this guide has helped clear up a few misunderstandings, and made clear just where infringements happen.

If you have any ideas or requests for some aspect in this field that you would like explained in a simple way, please, leave a comment or get in touch.

US Senators in Big Copyright’s Pocket to Ban WikiLeaks

A new bill was introduced into the Senate today. Called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, it’s nothing of the sort. In reality, it’s a nice, easy way to censor things from the internet if it is troubling for the government, and who does that sound like? yes, Wikileaks – although no doubt they’re also thinking of that widely used platform for disseminating videos and free speech that wouldn’t otherwise be made public – The Pirate Bay.

There’s always a sense that things are not so great in the government, that lobbying is rampant, and that, in the main, we in the US get a raw deal when it comes to legislation. There was the much vaunted healthcare bill, which solved none of the problems with healthcare in the US, but created some more. There is the reams of ‘anti-terror’ legislation, which actually (under a strict interpretation of pre-existing US laws on the subject) turns out to be domestic terrorism. Now we have copyright laws being introduced, that will criminalize, sanction and censure people, if the Government decides to prosecute for copyright infringement. It doesn’t even need to check with the rights holder beforehand.

There is a clear target in this; Wikileaks. The bill allows for any website that has ‘infringed copyright’, or is based around infringing copyright, to have it’s domain suspended. It doesn’t have to be hosted in the US, it just has to be accessible to US Citizens. It also allows for advertising companies, and financial service providers that deal with the website (such as paypal) to be targeted, and ordered to cease its dealings. If you want to take down an internationally known site, that has embarrased your government through publishing your secret documents, killing the domain name, and its method of funding, is the best way, and this bill does exactly that,

It’s a paragon of censorship law, couched in terms that ostensibly attempts to protect business. However, since nowhere in the bill is the opinion of the rights holder mentioned, then it can only be inferred that the US Government is the preffered rights holder. So, instead of being a bill about ‘protecting business’, it’s one about censoring those who speak out about US policy – censorship. So much for the 1st amendment you fellows that introduced it.

So, each Senator that supports the bill, don’t forget to resign right after you do, as you’ve just violated your oath of office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In the meantime, I’m sure the chinese government will offer this message, 打那美好的仗同志,

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act