
Protect IP Renamed E-Parasites Act; Would Create The Great Firewall Of America - yanw
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111026/12130616523/protect-ip-renamed-e-parasites-act-would-create-great-firewall-america.shtml
======
DanielBMarkham
The key point here, as another commenter pointed out, is _they are not going
to give up._

You can win a battle here, perhaps rally around your congressman and get it
killed, or petition the president to veto it, but it doesn't matter. They'll
just be back again next year, and the next year, and the next.

This is the importance of constitutional amendments: they settle things on a
broad scale exactly to prevent this kind of nipping (although it still
happens, it just takes much longer time) We need an amendment or two around
internet and computer freedom, specifically that computers are extensions of
our minds, not machines to play content on, and that the internet is our
primary form of political organization and persuasion, not a fancy telephone
line.

I hate to be all doom-and-gloom, but I think that boat has sailed. The tech
community _might_ get its act together, give up all social causes and form
some kind of committee or group to push for such amendments, but I seriously
doubt it. Half the community is in bed with big media and the other half are
just as concerned with other issues as this one. We are not organized,
coherent, or focused.

Just saw a great series on PBS, Ken Burns' "Prohibition". It was all about how
focused groups can make big changes -- but it takes a long time. I don't see
the kind of anger and outrage against this as we had against alcohol. Very
sad, because this is a lot worse.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I agree with you about the persistence problem; the government acts like a
rotten two-year-old that keeps trying until it gets its way. Like a two-year-
old, it learns what it can get away with and tries harder each time. _Unlike_
a two-year-old, it doesn't grow up and learn what not to do.

We shouldn't need a constitutional amendment here; the constitution is a
whitelist of things the federal government may do, not a blacklist of things
it may not do. While the constitution does sadly include the notion of
copyright, it does not include anything allowing regulatory authority over the
Internet.

~~~
jbooth
Hang on one second, who in the hell is "the government" in this situation?

The politicians supporting this bill, mostly republicans, work the phrase "I'm
anti-government" into every single public speech they give. Those are the only
supporters on the public payroll, the rest are all corporate entities and
lobbyists, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, natch. Those are your pro-
government marxist ideologues in this story.

I really think the phrase "the government" or even worse, capital-G
"Government", should be banned from any discussion of policy, it turns
everyone involved into an idiot. Government and industry both have lots of
moving parts.

Lastly, I agree that our existing constitution should prevent this sort of
law. I'm not optimistic about the current "small-government" supreme court
agreeing with me.

~~~
jwhitlark
The sponsors of this bill break down as 16 Democrats to 11 Republicans. How
does that work out to "mostly republicans"? It appears that this has support
from both parties, and I think casting it as a party issue will weaken
opposition.

~~~
jbooth
Ok, it's bipartisan, but the only meaningful opposition has come from
democrats, and the entire political spectrum of "anti government" has lined up
behind it. I'm just saying breaking everything down to "government" is a
ridiculous tagline that obfuscates more than it helps.

I mean, even if this is approved, it's basically the government doing
extremely cheap contract work for the companies who'd benefit. I have a
problem with it being done, period, if the ISPs formed a cartel with the MPAA
to do this without the government it'd be just as bad.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_the only meaningful opposition has come from democrats, and the entire
political spectrum of "anti government" has lined up behind it_

Which Libertarian think-tank was it that was supporting the bill?

Really, jbooth, your partisanship isn't helping anything.

~~~
jbooth
Some of the think tanks on all sides are alright, but most legislators on both
sides ignore the principled argument as soon as the established industry
weighs in. That's the problem. I said it was a bipartisan failure in my last
comment.

------
danilocampos
As long as our bandwidth and/or content is in the hands of corporations who'd
rather fuck us than cultivate virtuous, reciprocally beneficial relationships,
we will never be free.

I always worried, as a kid, that one day I'd grow up and think nostalgically
back to days before the internet had been made dull and sterile by government
rules.

I wasn't imaginative enough then, or even as a young adult, to predict this
kind of nonsense would happen instead.

The internet is destined for a bleak period. We care, we're pissed, sure. But
most people aren't. Most people don't even know. And wouldn't care if they
did.

This law, or one like it, will be subverted in breathtaking and terrifying
ways. Thought using the DMCA to shut down early thanksgiving coupon sites was
bad? That's going to seem cute by comparison to what you can do when a
moronic, bureaucratic authority can disappear entire websites at will.

I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I
just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human
history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons
or subject to regulation from the same.

I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this
control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work. And
that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it. But – this kind of
stupidity is bad for _everyone_. Even the morons who want this law passed. So
I'd like to believe that this period will pass with the same inevitability
that will bring on its start.

~~~
VladRussian
>I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I
just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human
history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons
or subject to regulation from the same.

if you think about it, the Earth's most advanced political systems - the US
and the other Western democracies - are just refined implementations of 2000+
years old architectural principles - the Greek's "democracy" (decisions and
laws are made by a group of people limited to the size of the big room, the
modern refinement of this ancient system is that the members of that group are
supposedly elected instead of just being rich and powerful elite of the
society) and the Rome's "rule of law" (a law overrides moral and any other
motivation/rationale). It's somehow disappointing that human race hasn't been
able to come up with (or more precisely - hasn't evolved enough for) a better
system. [The most recent attempts to build new, and thought at the time as
significantly improved, systems - fascism and socialism/communism - turned out
to be catastrophic disasters.]

>I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this
control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work.

every time significant technological development happens - be it steam engine,
Smith&Wesson, radio, cars, phone, television - it looks like it would change
the world and free the people from the control of the system ... well, as it
happens, the system just absorbs the technological development as a more
advanced tool for the control. And it is happening the same way with the
computers and the Internet. All the improvement in the society comes from
improvement in people (which of course is frequently technically facilitated
and accelerated by the technological advances). "Peasants are also humans, not
a property", "women are also humans, not a property", "blacks are also humans,
not a property", "gays are also humans", ..., (some day we will even evolve
enough to recognize the rights of animals and look back in horror to today's
treatment of them as property) - all this is just a change in people minds,
not a change in law (which follows the change in minds) and not a change in
technology (which though does usually help a lot)

>And that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it.

Look at the "Occupiers" - like the new born kittens they don't know what to
do, where to go, yet they have already "born" while we're sitting and waiting
:) [ note : i don't have illusions - many of the Occupiers will become
lawyers, government employees, political officials ... - ie. indistinguishable
part of the system and will try to forgot their "stupid mistakes of youth",
yet just for a moment they are "born" and it became an undeletable part of the
whole human race history and evolution]

~~~
yuhong
>It's somehow disappointing that human race hasn't been able to come up with
(or more precisely - hasn't evolved enough for) a better system.

A little off topic, but since it was bought up, I am going to mention that I
have been thinking of a systems where members of Parliament or Congress are
hired by a committee from the general public and then last for something like
20 years terms (unless he or she themselves resign of course). It would take
advantage of the separation of powers spreading power out among different
kinds of people, so it would not have the problems a dictatorship or monarchy
have. It would also allow specialization.

~~~
VladRussian
it sounds like a hybrid between Supreme Court and the corporate board/CEO
scheme.

To me the problem lies deeper - it is in the principle that government/state
is a concentrated power (taken away from people by force) and what behaves
like a violent force against the people. Any tweaks to the current system is
tweaks with who and how authorizes the application of that violence.

The government should get it power through willful delegation from people. The
US was a nice attempt to implement the idea. Unfortunately the "willful" isn't
there anymore. And without it the government looses moral ground under its
violence.

The next stage would be government/state system that acts not through force.
What can be used instead of force? Persuasion/education, consensus...? it is
though too far fetched for any specifics.

------
fredwilson
I am headed to DC tonight and my partner and I and a few other VCs
entrepreneurs and folks from Google are going to try to talk some sense into
congress on this bill. Wish us luck tomorrow.

~~~
brown9-2
Can you share what types of meetings you have lined up, if you'll be speaking
to any members of Congress in a formal setting, etc?

------
AJ007
Consider a blacklist of our own, if you write, vote for, or play a role in
legislation that restricts and censors the internet you will be barred from
using our service.

Imagine a future in which politicians are incapable of using even the most
basic web services and technologies because they have been barred from use. It
would be quite an embarrassment if you could not have a Facebook or Twitter
account, couldn't advertise on Google, and your email was rejected by most
ISPs.

Of course, this should paint an image of how ludicrous the notion of any
blacklist is.

~~~
colinyoung
I think this may actually be genius. Someone call Zuck, Jack, and Larry.

~~~
notahacker
I think Wikipedia Italia had a better idea. Forget the politicians, Google and
Facebook have the ability to highlight the implications to virtually everybody
in the US. Big corporations might not often be inclined towards grandstanding,
but there's precedent when it comes to Google objecting to censorship. A
little "if this Bill passes, we'll be serving a lot less search results"
message above every search performed by US users would be sufficient to make
the bill politically suicidal, methinks.

------
khafra
I would have called this too ridiculous to pose an actual danger before the
PATRIOT Act.

It points to a deeper problem, though: Lawmakers intent on passing something
that a large portion of the public finds objectionable can often achieve their
goal simply by persistence; renaming and resubmitting a bill each time
oppositional furor dies down, or slipping pieces of it into unrelated bills
until it's effectively passed.

I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I
wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad
bill, or with legislation by subterfuge.

~~~
troutwine
> I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this
> I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really
> bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge.

I believe the intended result for this, if a sufficient portion of the
represented find this behavior objectionable, is to lose one's office. This
assumes an educated electorate , or at least the voting subset of the
represented to be so educated and so opposed.

~~~
sp332
But oftentimes, the party of the incumbent won't run another candidate (since
that might split the vote and lose the seat to the other party). So the only
way to vote an incumbent out is to vote for the other party, which may also be
against your interests.

~~~
troutwine
You might also turn in a blank ballot. Depending on circumstance, this might
be a fine way to signal to the incumbent that they did not do a Good Job,
though you in general support the policy of their party. Close races, etc,
will change the calculus of voting. Some states do not include blank ballots
in the vote totals, others do.

~~~
andymurd
An simple improvement to our voting system would be to include a 'none of the
above' option on all ballot papers. If 'none of the above' should win, another
ballot must be held and the original candidates are excluded from running.

------
jonnathanson
The sad thing about all of this is that the backers of the legislation stand
to _lose_ , in the long run, if their legislation is passed.

Consider the VCR. Back in the 1980s, when the VCR was a new and disruptive
piece of technology, the film industry lobbied to have it outlawed or at least
severely restricted. They lost that battle, and it's fortunate for them that
they did. A decade or so later, home video sales and rentals would grow to
account for nearly half the revenue of the entire industry. What had initially
been seen as a menace came to be seen as a savior. Highly ironic, to say the
least, and the irony is compounded even more by this attempted legislation.

~~~
electromagnetic
Totally agreed. The internet is merely a medium, you aren't going to stop
piracy by "banning" it.

What really pisses me off is that I have to wait 2-3 months for a film to go
from cinema to dvd. I don't pirate because I'm fiscally short, I pirate
because I just saw an amazing movie and I want to watch it again. I don't want
to go back to a theatre, I want to watch it at home, but I can't. The irony
is, I can go to a nearby hotel and rent pre-pay-per-view movies that are still
showing in the secondary phase of the cinema market (cheapie theatres). Why
can't I rent pre-pay-per-view at home? I pay 8 bucks for a fucking PPV as it
is, why can't I pay the $11 I would at the hotel or at a theatre.

I don't get why when _I want to pay them more money_ they make it impossible
for me to do so.

~~~
jonnathanson
Film studios and TV networks are eventually going to come to the realization
that piracy is a marketing vehicle for them. Of course, they'll still need to
find a way to make money off of their content, and that's an understandably
tricky situation. But recent studies have shown that movie pirates are also
movie studios' biggest paying customers.

The big challenge for studios right now is that there used to be two
lifecycles for any given film: the exhibition lifecycle (i.e., the theatrical
release window), and the ownership lifecycle (i.e., DVD or Blu-ray purchase).
These days, both are being compressed, and ownership is increasingly
unnecessary. Piracy may or may not be a legitimate threat to ownership, but
that's sort of beside the point, because ownership -- as a fundamental concept
-- won't matter in the cloud-driven, on-demand world of the very near future.
But piracy can still exist as an interesting _exhibition_ tactic. It just
needs to be harnessed in the right way, and/or a compelling and equally
convenient alternative needs to be created.

This is a very tough spot for studios, but legislative attempts at sticking
their heads in the sand are not going to solve any problems for them -- and
may, in fact, exacerbate their problems by putting innovation attempts on
hold.

~~~
electromagnetic
> Of course, they'll still need to find a way to make money off of their
> content, and that's an understandably tricky situation.

Not particularly. TV networks regularly make money off of their content
online. I can go to virtually any networks website and stream an episode of
whatever and get adverts in the regular breaks. Why not simply do the same
with a movie?

People don't care about giving up 18 minutes of their lives for 42 minutes of
a show. Why do the movie networks have such a hard time grasping that people
will gladly give up 30 minutes of their lives to advertisers for a 90 minute
film.

I genuinely think they don't do this simply so they can say "well people are
stealing because they just don't want to pay".

~~~
Avenger42
The issue I see with that is that we've grown accustomed to breaks in our TV
shows, whereas we would likely see any break in our movie experience as
jarring and negative.

Something more like YouTube's banner ads along the bottom might work.

~~~
electromagnetic
Banner ads piss me off more than a commercial break. I'm used to advert breaks
in movies around the holidays when every network runs old movies so I'm sure
it wouldn't be a huge leap.

Perhaps cut the breaks to every 30 minutes or so. An advert break every 10
minutes in Titanic would likely induce suicide.

------
anigbrowl
Rep. Lamar Smith is also the legislative genius behind the bureaucratic
monstrosity that is our current immigration system. I don't like him much, as
you can probably tell.

Two things you can do: Write, on paper, to your congressional representatives
and explain briefly and politely that this legislation will hinder job growth,
hurt exports, and mention that you will donate only to legislators who vote
against this bill. Then follow through. If you can afford it, make a donation
to a known existing opponent and include a copy of your receipt with the
letter to your representative. Money talks like nothing else does. It does not
have to be a large amount. Nor is it important for you to agree with the other
politician about everything. All you need to do is make it clear that there
are votes and issues at stake on this particular margin. A pattern of small
donations outside of election season will get people's attention.

Donate to either a primary or general election challenger in Rep. Smith's
district.

~~~
ericd
Here's the wiki for the 21st district of TX (Mr. Smith's):
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_distr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_district)

Seems like he's been in office since 1987, so there may not be much hope for a
challenger in any given election.

Any standout opponents of this thing that I could donate to instead?

~~~
anigbrowl
Ron Wyden seems to be the leading legislator for tech freedom, but I admit to
being a poor scorekeeper in this area - I like law more than politics, so I
don't pay enough attention to individual congresspersons.

~~~
ericd
Yeah, I've donated to him this year already. Wondering if he has any
counterparts on the house side...

------
xorglorb
Another concerning section is the power to take action against, "any entity
that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or
service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures
described". Does this mean that the Tor Project would be shut down? It would
be nearly impossible to eradicate a piece of open source software, but if this
bill has passed, it would not be a leap to imagine a bill making the use of
Tor or related services a felony passing.

------
adestefan
For a minute I thought this was satire put out by one of the campaigns against
the Act. I was thinking, "Who would really call something that?" I'm glad I
clicked the link to see that it's actually what happened.

~~~
Vivtek
Same here - the utterly tone-deaf nature of the name literally made me think
it was a link to the Onion.

It is just freaking weird that the biggest, most blatantly rent-seeking
organizations in the world call their own legislation the E-PARASITE bill.

~~~
etherael
E-PARASITE bill; the bill by and for e-parasites.

Seems legit, no?

------
charlieok
The government has identified DNS as an especially vulnerable component of the
internet and intends to attack it:

"A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures
designed to prevent [...] the domain name [...] from resolving to that domain
name’s Internet Protocol address."

Hard to tell which incarnation of this effort will become law, and when, but
it seems prudent to assume that it will. Rather than simply hope the
government won't attack the network, or petition the government not to attack
it, we should engineer improvements to the network which increase its
resistance to attack.

Time for a more distributed, probably peer-to-peer, DNS.

It's been said that the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes
around it. That's precisely what these threats call for.

------
dminor
Didn't Wyden put a hold on the "PROTECT IP" act in the Senate? Does that make
this moot, or will there be a new bill in the Senate?

~~~
cdh
Weird coincidence. I just saw Wyden speak a few minutes ago at a town hall
style meeting here in Oregon, and asked him about PROTECT IP when he was
taking questions.

I'm not sure he can keep it on hold indefinitely, but he definitely sounded
committed to doing whatever is within his power to oppose it.

------
ojbyrne
I thought the name change was great. As long as you recognize who the real
parasites are.

~~~
ericd
Yeah, the irony is pretty intense.

------
JoachimSchipper
Silver lining: the word "IP" is apparently so unpopular that it's better not
to associate your proposals with it.

~~~
waqf
I would like you to be right: do you have evidence that this was the reason
the name was changed?

I am personally hoping that "PARASITE" has a much more negative ring that will
make it easier to campaign against the bill.

~~~
Natsu
Yeah, the people we think of as parasites and the people they think of as
parasites are two different sets.

Brand _them_ as the parasites and kill it. Maybe a Googlebomb is in order,
listing the sponsors of this bill as e-parasites? Sadly, the document linked
on SCRIBD doesn't seem to include the list of cosponsors and mentions only
"Mr. Smith of Texas".

Does anyone know where to find out who all is sponsoring this? A quick search
only found a bunch of news about it and copies of the bill, but no further
information.

------
manuscreationis
Is anyone putting together any kind of concerted, consolidated effort to kill
this bill?

There must be some kind of movement one can throw their weight behind to help
stop this nonsense.

~~~
there
<http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/?source=eff>

~~~
manuscreationis
Thanks for this

------
libraryatnight
These things scare me because I think a significant amount of citizens don't
know what they stand to lose, and I think politicians understand just enough
to know exactly what they're taking away.

------
rooshdi
First COICA, then Protect IP, now E-PARASITES Act? Looks like I have to
contact my local congressmen again. Seems like they spend more time renaming
this bill than actually reading it.

~~~
dextorious
> Looks like I have to contact my local congressmen again.

Yeah, you and some giant company with tons of cash to finance his next
campaign.

Guess who's gonna win his support.

------
jneal
IF this were to become law, that would definitely be scary, but from the
description of what they require of the ISP, it sounds like they aren't
blocking access to the server, just keeping the DNS from resolving to the IP.
Thus, could you not use a public DNS (or foreign DNS) server, thus getting
around the blocked DNS from your local ISP? Just an idea, or wonder, of mine.

~~~
dextorious
Yeah, let's just allow them to pass their restrictions bit by bit in
subsequent laws, arguing that "as it is we can still get around it".

It doesn't matter if we can get around it using a public DNS server. For one,
tomorrow they can even outlaw using non government compliant dns providers).

What hackers tend to forget is that such problems are not technical, are
political. "Bypassing" by technical expertise is not a solution, it's monkey-
patching a system that's broken and dangerous.

1) Even if geeks can bypass some restrictions, they too tend to lose
--content, community participation etc-- if the general populace cannot do it
just as easily, or is scared not to do it.

2) Even the cleverest bypassing can be outlawed.

3) One should not trust one's self to always be one step ahead of the
government in the bypassing game.

Take P2P for example. Say you're totally bypassing the P2P download
restrictions with some clever hackery that makes you untraceable online, be it
Tor or whatever. What good will it do if the authorities can come knocking on
your _physical_ door and find that same illegally downloaded stuff in use on
your computer?

------
srl
I hate this sort of article. Every month or so, another "look at this evil
bill that will destroy our liberties" article comes out, and everybody gets
all worked up about it.

tl;dr - The judges sitting on federal courts and the supreme court aren't
responsible to voters, don't need campaign funds, and don't have a career to
worry about. In the unlikely event that this bull makes it out of congress and
past the president, it'll be struck down. Just like it has been every time
before.

Sure. If this bill was an enforced law, that would be bad. Unthinkably bad.
But that goes for a great deal of what happens in congress - especially the
House. A small portion of this manure actually manages to make it out of
congress and past the president - and it gets taken to the courts. The more
interesting cases make it to the Supreme Court, where the nine judges who
aren't up for re-election, have no career to worry about, and are already rich
enough to be well impossible to buy off, get the pleasure of telling - in this
case - the entertainment industry to go stuff it. The supreme court has
repeatedly refrained from supporting this sort of thing, and they're unlikely
to start in the future. Even if the worst happens, and this thing gets passed,
the courts will strike it down long before the bureaucracy finds a way to
start enforcing it. It's highly unlikely to affect any of us.

Some other commenters have almost correctly pointed out that "they're not
going to give up" - because in many cases, fighting for these inane laws is
their day job. First, there's also a group of people whose day job is to argue
these sorts of laws. And another group whose day job is to strike them down,
_even if_ the opposition is poorly argued. Second, those lobbyists are likely
to be loosing their jobs soon as the industry paying for them begins to fall
apart.

So, please. Stop freaking out every time one part of the government does
something stupid. Writing to your local dimwit to point out the obvious: ok.
Running in panicked circles on the internet: unhelpful and irritating.

/rant

~~~
geori
After Citizens United, I no longer trust the court.

~~~
learc83
You do realize the consequences if they had ruled opposite of what they did--
that a movie made by a corporation was not protected speech covered by the
first amendment.

Books, movies, magazines, television, radio, and many websites, would no
longer be protected under the first amendment, and would be open to government
regulation and censorship.

------
jrockway
I think I'm just going to start copyrighting trivial javascript and CSS code,
then sue the fuck out of the MPAA when one of their offshore developers steals
it from me. Fight fire with fire, they say.

~~~
DanBC
Has anyone done an audit for all the websites of the supporters of this act?

I remember some recent HN article about someone (German politician?) who had
used a photo without permission on his website.

Lily Allen has spoken out about piracy, but used then distributed music via
her blog.

------
marquis
How is this working out for Australia? I understand a blacklist/firewall was
put in the place there?

~~~
brc
No, it died just before the last election in August 2010. Officially it's 'on
hold', but practically, it is dead.

How? A lot of pressure put on a lot of politicians in the run-up to the last
federal election, which promised to be very close (and was actually one of the
closest in history).

You obviously have to pressure whomever holds the majority, but you've got to
let the other side know about it as well.

So Australia is filter-free for the foreseeable future - it's become a 'dead
issue' that politicians aren't willing to spend political capital on.

US Folks should take this as a bright data point that these battles can be
won, but it will take a lot of effort.

Personally it's something that Tea Party and OWS types could get together on,
because it sucks for everyone. That's what happened in Australia - they took
heat from both 'sides' of politics and it got dumped (sorry, _postponed_ )

~~~
ericd
That's great news! Do you have any nuts and bolts information on how this was
organized? (Was there any formal opposition?) If so, that could be very useful
here...

------
jcromartie
The sad thing is that it seems that the worse a bill is, the more likely it is
to pass.

------
brandon6
How would this effect Canada or Europe?

------
nobody3141
I do like American government acts.

I always picture the governor in Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles:

"Patriotism is good isn't it?"

"Yes Governor"

"So I should sign this PATRIOT act without reading it?"

"Yes Governor"

"Parasites are bad aren't they?"

"Yes Governor"

"So we ban them ?"

"Yes Governor" ....

If only Mr Obama had found a way of making his health care bill spell out "IF
YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS YOU ARE SO GAY" ACT - he would have got it through.

~~~
trusche
> he would have got it through

Huh? You realize it's law, right?

------
fleitz
Does stopping internet piracy mean no more talk like a pirate day?

~~~
brandon6
I hope not

------
hugh3
The problem is that the only people who bother getting up in arms about this
are the objectively pro-piracy crowd -- the folks who think that they _ought_
to be allowed to freely download a copy of any movie in existence without
paying for it if they happen to feel like doing so. Otherwise known as the "I
want to do _X_ , therefore _X_ should be legal" school of legal thinking.

I see some of that crowd in this thread. I'm not interested in arguing with
'em. But when the loudest spokesmen against some particular piece of silly law
(and this is a silly law) turn out to be extremists with a position that most
thoughtful people would disagree with, it makes it difficult to put forth a
coherent argument against it.

~~~
billybob
'Otherwise known as the "I want to do X, therefore X should be legal" school
of legal thinking.'

You mean like "I want a monopoly, therefore monopolies should be legal. Also,
I should have police powers to enforce my monopoly: search people's computers,
shut down their internet access, make accusations based on flimsy evidence
like IP addresses, and presume guilt rather than innocence."

Like that?

I mean, if society were a roomful of people, and someone stood up and
suggested that, would you nod and agree?

I'm not saying copyright isn't a useful tool for society to encourage creation
of works, but it does need to be balanced with other things. Not least is the
fact that it hinders the creation of derivative works. This argument is even
stronger in the realm of patents.

