Three Reasons Why SOPA Must Be Stopped (and why something like it is probably inevitable)

image Tomorrow is the day that a sizable portion of the internet is going black in protest of the egregiously bad, supposedly anti-piracy legislation SOPA. I thought I’d throw my thinking on the subject out there to kick off the much-needed protests.

There are three main reasons why I believe it’s imperative that SOPA, and its Senate equivalent PIPA, be stopped dead in its tracks. Just to be clear, my reasons have nothing to do with so-called piracy. For one thing, as I’ve repeatedly asserted, what’s being defined as piracy by the various media industries is anything but and, secondly, this legislation does absolutely nothing to prevent the real thing. Unless, of course, you consider making the whole of the web totally useless to the vast majority of people a means of fighting piracy. In that case, it’s certain to be wonderfully effective.

Reason 1- SOPA epitomizes the reality that Americans are no longer represented by our government

There is absolutely nothing in SOPA that benefits your average American at all. It is a bill who’s entire purpose is to shelter the media industry at the expense of the whole of the nation. It will cost jobs, it will stifle free speech, it will wipe out competition to legacy monopolies and directly lead to higher costs for just about everything. About the only thing it won’t do is stop piracy. No one outside of disrupted media companies thinks this is a good idea. If this bill were put up for a general referendum vote, it would lose by a landslide of epic proportions. On top of all that, the entirety of the tech industry is virtually unanimous that SOPA will threaten the very fundamental foundations of how the internet functions.

So, with so much destructive possibility and so much united opposition, how is this bill even still alive? One word–graft. Our legislative process is horribly compromised. The one and only reason SOPA exists is because media companies and similar entities have dumped millions upon millions of dollars on representatives’ doorsteps through lobbying and campaign contributions. The will of the people has become almost totally meaningless in the face of this kind of obvious purchasing of government favors. This detatchment between the interests of the people and the legalized bribery of the U.S. Congress is, alone, reason enough to stomp it out.

Reason 2- SOPA provides a framework for media companies to reconstitute their monopolies and eliminate wide swaths of independent competition

One of the worst aspects of SOPA is that is puts the onus for monitoring potentially infringing content on the host sites. This means that sites that use significant user-generated content will have to either pre-scan virtually everything posted there or face severe consequences if so much as a bad link slips through. The cost of this requirement will be prohibitive. But then, I suspect that’s the point. There’s even been several venture capital firms who have come out and said, in no uncertain terms, that if a bill like SOPA becomes law, they will no longer put so much as a dime toward any internet startups. That’s sure to do wonders for our struggling economy.

This imperative will make it significantly more difficult and expensive to operate social networking sites or any sites with independent content from users. It could, conceivably, kill popular services like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia, blogging hosts like WordPress, even self-publishing options at sites like Amazon and Barnes and Noble would be at risk. Eliminate or significantly increase the barriers for entry for independent content on the web and guess who benefits? The very media companies lobbying so hard for this bill.

The consequences of being linked to infringing content could be expensive and severe. Worse yet, there’s almost no due process in the proposed system at all, and the entire burden falls on the host to prove innocence after the penalties have already been handed down. Given that some media companies barely admit fair use even exists (at one point, the Associated Press said that quoting as little as four words from one of their articles required a license fee) this is a system that seems almost designed for abuse.

Nothing threatens the future of media companies more than the new-found capacity of independent content creators to market and distribute their work. Eliminate or severely hamper the sites or services they use, and traditional media companies effectively wipe out that threat. SOPA has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with stifling or outright eliminating competition.

Reason 3- SOPA provides a legal framework and process for goverment to stifle opposition and dissent

The past year has seen several remarkable developments in the capacity of citizens to organize in opposition of their governments. The Arab Spring, protests in Europe and the Occupy movement here are all clear examples. It is significantly more difficult for propoganda to go unchallenged than at anytime in history. If you don’t believe these developments are of the utmost concern to governments around the world, including our own, you’re kidding yourself.

The same provisions of SOPA that benefit media companies by squashing independent content also benefit any government looking to deceive or control its people. This bill would provide effective legal cover for our government to stifle dissent and make it much more difficult for citizens to exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and assembly.

And consider, when the legacy media once again controls the message, how we are informed, or even if we are, comes into question. If you need any proof of the dangers of allowing legacy media to control the conversation solely once again, look no further than their performance on SOPA itself and the equally questionable NDAA act recently signed into law. These are enormously important issues that threaten the fundamental nature of liberty and our nation yet they have both been largely ignored by the mainstream press. And once the media is given that control back thanks to this government regulation, what are the chances that they’ll significantly challenge anything it does in the future? Their very existence would depend on government stifling legitimate competition. Not only would the media industries be corrupting government by buying this legislation, they’d be compromising themselves by becoming dependent for survival on government regulation.

I can’t imagine a worse turn of events. Freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly all hindered dramatically and further cementing in place a system representative of the highest bidder over the best interest of the people.

Any one of these three reasons would be ample justification to kill SOPA and anything like it. Taken together, there can be absolutely no doubt that this effort needs to die a quick and dirty death.

Unfortunately, these very same reasons are why I’m almost certain a version of this will reach the President’s desk at some point, my guess being after the November election. The media companies will continue to throw massive amounts of money at representatives. Their only alternative is to adapt and compete in the current atmosphere, which many of them have already proven unwilling or unable. Their very survival may depend on changing the nature of the game, consequences to the rest of us be damned.

Government will continue to have a double motive. They will suck up all the money they can in lobbying and contributions. And as people get louder and louder in their discontent with the status quo, as is sure to happen, their motivation to stifle organization and dissent will only increase.

No, it will take a massive sea change in our government to prevent something like SOPA from becoming law eventually. Of course, this kind of far-reaching, self-serving and imminently destructive legislation may be the final impetus that spurs that much-needed change. We can only hope.

Advertisements

Talkin’ Post Election Day Politics

So, being as yesterday was election day, I figure it’s a good time to talk a little politics. On the National level, as expected, the Republicans gained massive ground on the formerly Democrat-controlled Congress. The GOP now has a significant majority in the House of Representatives, and the Dems still maintain a hair-thin majority in the Senate. With a Democrat in the White House, this is a recipe for gridlock for the next two years. To this I say, “Right on!”

As I get older, the more I see very few actual differences between the parties. To me, it’s a six of one, half a dozen of the other type deal. To be certain, on various issues, there are vast differences between the two sides, but is one really better than the other? Pick your poison isn’t exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, I don’t believe, yet that is consistently the choice we’re faced with at the ballot box every year. A split government that can’t agree on a lunch order, let alone far-reaching legislation is the best of all possible worlds in my mind. The less they can intrude, the better off we all are.

The best economic period in my working lifetime was during the Clinton administration when we had some of the worst Federal-level gridlock on record. It’s not lost on me that the prosperity that occurred then happened with little influence or intrusion from government. Since then, we’ve had a Republican controlled Federal government under George W. Bush, and we all know how well that worked out, and we’ve spent the past two years under a Democrat-controlled Federal government, and that, truthfully, hasn’t been any better. In fact, a lot of people are of the opinion that it has actually been worse. The two lynch-pin “accomplishments” of the Obama administration are, in fact, massive failures that look a lot like big business, pro-corporate decisions that the GOP are frequently ripped for. The Trillion dollar bank bailout hasn’t achieved anything but allowing the very financial institutions that screwed us all to save their own bacon on the taxpayer’s dime, and the universal health care plan essentially amounts to forcibly throwing big chunks of our money, under penalty of law, at an insurance industry that, again, is a major part of the problem with health care costs. Not exactly what I would call positive developments for the little guy, unless you’re defining “little” as seven- or eight- figure corporate CEOs.

My point here being that Federal level gridlock isn’t only not a bad thing, it may well be the best possible thing that could happen to us at the moment. A genuine economic recovery in this country will not happen because of government assistance. In fact, much like the recovery from the Great Depression in the 1930s, the more government gets involved, the longer any recovery will take to happen. We, as individual citizens, are what makes the economic engine of this country tick. It’s not the government, it’s not the corporations, it’s not the banks; it is us and only us. And the less interference we have from legislators, the quicker it will occur. The only problem here is that there is another election in two years and, as things look right now, there is a distinct possibility of one-party control over both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Let’s not make that mistake again. We should make it a general rule to never, and I repeat, never allow Congress and the White House to be controlled by the same party again. Only catastrophe results from that. In-fighting, political mudslinging and gridlock are good things for this country as it means our elected representatives have less time and ability to pass endless legislation that only serves the ends of the people paying their bills–the lobbyists, campaign contributors and their own political parties. Always vote No for one-party control.

Which brings me to the local level. Local politics are a very different animal from the National level, primarily because of the fact that you are far more likely to get actual people running for office that truly believe in what they are doing, as opposed to career politicians that essentially are shills for their parties. Certainly, you get some of those, locally, too, but they are generally ladder-climbers who won’t be in local office very long anyway, always looking for the next best office to run for. But there are, at least, a few people out there locally worth voting for in any given election. Having only recently moved to Kent County from Cecil County, I’m not totally up on the political maneuverings down here as yet. But I feel obligated to comment on something from my former county.

I was sad to see that it looks like Cecil actually passed charter government this time around, after nearly 40 years and five previous efforts. One of my main reasons for relocating away from Cecil was the increasing size and cost of government, and the tax burden to go with it. Charter government will essentially convert the county from a five-commissioner system to one with a County Executive and a 12-member board. There is simply no way that this isn’t going to become a massively more expensive proposition. If you all in Cecil think your property taxes are high now, just wait till this system is in place. And we all know how smoothly and efficiently boards of directors operate, right? This is a nightmare waiting to happen. I wonder sometimes, exactly what voters are thinking when they pass things like this, but then it dawns on me. Cecil has become a bedroom community that’s future is largely being determined by people who have just moved there in the past decade or so. I doubt there’s any real way to find out, but I’d be willing to bet that long-time Cecil residents of two-decades or more were likely against this, with the relative new-comers putting the initiative over the top. But whatever system of government is in place, the problems with Cecil go far beyond any particular structure.

Cecil is a bedroom community. The job base is not where it needs to be and is shrinking. There is very little manufacturing base. The sales tax, perched as it is right beside tax-free Delaware, will forever limit any significant growth in retail business, and most of the residents here collect paychecks from some other place they commute to. And on top  of that, regulations make it prohibitive for small businesses, and extremely difficult to get through the first few years as a new company.  That means that the only ways to raise money here are basically the property tax and the local income tax, both of which take advantage of essentially a captive audience.  I’m not exactly sure how to fix this without major changes in regulations and a serious slashing of tax rates across the board, and that is simply not going to happen, especially not in this environment.  Charter government is going to be a much more expensive and convoluted system that will, ultimately, make it more difficult for the average citizen to stay abreast of what their representatives are up to.  But, hey, that’s what free elections are all about.  Everyone is free to make their own mistakes.  And this one may turn out to be a whopper.

%d bloggers like this: