Well, let me correct things, I don't know if I should support such laws because I haven't actually read the bills in their entirety. I know enough from the usual talking heads, social media influence and general stupidity of arguments that most likely people are fighting without exposing their true intentions (like net neutrality, which I don't support).

Everyone should know by now that I'm a strong supporter of intellectual property rights (more here). Thought, art, engineering, entertainment are all forms of intellectual property. Creators have every right to protect their property from what I'll call moochers, which I derive strictly from the book Atlas Shrugged.

I find arguments to be all over the place when it comes to pirating and stuff like that. The reason for this is that you have people of all political stripes united on the issue, which means that there is something up. When you see communists and Ron Paul supporters siding with each other you know that there is something up.

For the duration of this article, I'm going to use stealing and copyright infringement as the same thing.

Let me try to sum up all the views into three categories:


  1. I hate rich people
  2. Copying isn't stealing/Intellectual property doesn't exist
  3. I'm entitled
1. I Hate Rich People

This is your typical left-winger type argument. They look at a musician or a movie studio and think they have a lot of money, so they have the right to steal the work. This attitude is something that is very closely related to the entitled attitude.

They take because they think that they're being exploited as a consumer. I don't know how that works though. Often their arguments revolve around "why would I pay $15 for a crappy album made by a corporate manufactured band" or "why would I pay $12 to see a movie that sucks". Are these arguments for why you have the right to steal intellectual property? They seem like arguments not to consume, which is your choice.

I've heard this type of argument over and over again. The only thing a rational person can say to such a thing is "why would you pirate it, if it sucks?"

2. Copying Isn't Stealing/Intellectual Property Doesn't Exist

I find this to be the funniest of them all. I typically run into this type of argument from libertarian/Ron Paul/Austrian economic type people, though a lot of people of all political stripes use the argument.

Of course copying isn't stealing (in the legal sense), it's copyright infringement.  Usually people that use this argument tend to be of the entitled category, but they think they can slap out this pseudo-intellectual position and what can you say?

The intellectual property existing versus not existing is definitely a poor position to come from. Many important things that hold intellectual property have benefited your life, so it's such a stupid argument.

3. I'm Entitled

This is basically the brat. They're all brats, but this is the biggest brat of them all. They'll use all the arguments to justify why they do it, but all they're really saying is that it is their Sweet 16 and they better be spoiled.

-------

The problem, at least from the "property" side of things, is that people seem to think property can only be based on scarcity. The idea is if I own the land, no one else can own it too. But property isn't really based on the concept of scarcity, but really the idea of value. And thought has value, some more than others.

Imagine you're developing the cure for cancer. You dedicated 8 years of your life working, testing and going through the regulatory process to bring this to the market. By the time it makes it to the market you've spend a $100 million on research and development. Imagine someone buying the medication, copying it and selling it for a fraction of the price (because they didn't have to spend $100 million developing it).

This person or business would be a moocher and as the person developing it the only word you could come up with is theft.

This same argument can be applied to almost anything. Writing a book for a year (without pay) and selling it. I had an argument with someone over sunglasses. They said cheap sunglasses and expensive sunglasses cost the same to manufacture. This is a true statement, but the "intellectual" value poured into a cheap pair of sunglasses is a lot less.

Anyone that doesn't believe in the concept of intellectual property is anti-man. The brightest minds lose their incentive to pour their wisdom into the market place. Imagine having a job where you produce intellectual items. Say your boss asks you how to do things and one day your boss says, "I'm just not going to pay you because they're just thoughts"? I know how stupid these arguments can seem, but the counter is from such a retarded point of view.

------

So I'm sure some of you are thinking what this has to do with my support of SOPA and PIPA (or at least the ideas behind them). I have to bring it up because you have to know that intellectual property rights are the key to this argument. This isn't about censorship. Every whining brat on the internet and social media is probably pirating, but they have something nice to hide behind "censorship". And you know it.

The big argument I hear about this is that these bills allow the government to run just like Chinese internet censorship, where they can shut down/block sites that they want and that's all there is to it.

*rolls eyes*

Google had a blog post that just pissed me off. Let me quote a little bit for you as it is so retarded.

 These bills would grant new powers to law enforcement to filter the Internet and block access to tools to get around those filters. We know from experience that these powers are on the wish list of oppressive regimes throughout the world
So, oppressive regimes use the same technology eh? I hear that oppressive regimes have police officers too. Should we get rid of them? I hear they have roads. Should we get rid of them?

 These bills wouldn’t get rid of pirate sites. Pirate sites would just change their addresses in order to continue their criminal activities.
This one pissed me off the most. Of course it won't completely stop pirating, but it will eliminate the vast majority of it in the United States. If The Pirate Bay is blocked and they have to setup a new one, well, a fraction of people will actually find it. And block it within an hour until they stop. It's actually quite an effective solution.

 The foreign rogue sites are in it for the money, and we believe the best way to shut them down is to cut off their sources of funding.
This is what is happening now and it's not fixing things. Essentially Google thinks that they should treat this as an international trade issue. Oh wow. You really mean it Google. We can treat it just like it has always been treated. What a position!

The idea is that countries with poor intellectual property rights (ie: China, Russia, etc) will dictate how Americans can access things and subvert laws of other countries. Does the internet need to be governed by the lowest common denominator when it comes to world governments? If this was child porn we wouldn't have a problem (oh SOPA and PIPA will help stop child porn).

The other argument that I hear is that they'll start censoring sites, basically at random. Someone posts something bad on Facebook, it'll be shut down. Put up an offensive picture on reddit, site shut down. Give me a break. This is scare mongering of stupid proportions.

The day that police officers were given guns to carry, they could go rob people, murder people. You can do anything you want with a badge and gun. Why the assumption of the worst?

Let me show you how it WOULD work. FREE SPEECH is a RIGHT in the United States, so censorship wouldn't stand. Sites that promoted CHILD PORNOGRAPHY would be shut down. When a site had an issue with copyright infringement the owners could fix it after complaints and such. Sites that ignore such legal warnings (like the Pirate Bay) would be shut down.

I know you morons like to think that the government is out to get you and police state, insert generic conspiracy theory crap, but you're not that important. They're not going after websites. They're targeting sites that pirate.

------

When it comes to SOPA and PIPA, I don't know if they're the best way to enforce this. This type of argument is fair. But everyone is arguing about censorship and shutting down websites. It's all so stupid and it's coming from the worst ideological position (a pirating position).

Stealing intellectual property is WRONG! We should all be working to strengthen intellectual property rights and the enforcement of them. Eventually that is going to lead to the internet. So back off and stand up for the rights of creators, engineers, artists, producers, actors, etc.

If you don't like that, don't come back to my blog.

Edit:
I did some research and it seems like ALL the arguments against SOPA and PIPA are blatantly false. One of the big complaints is that the government or government censor gets to decide what sites are shut down, without due process. Guess what children, not true.

Check the following from Wikipedia's Protect IP Act page
The bill provides for "enhancing enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas" and authorizes the United States Department of Justice to seek a court order in rem against websites dedicated to infringing activities, if through due diligence, an individual owner or operator cannot be located.[11] The bill requires the Attorney General to serve notice to the defendant.[12] Once the court issues an order, it could be served on financial transaction providers, Internet advertising services, Internet service providers, and information location tools to require them to stop financial transactions with the rogue site and remove links to it.
Okay, let's dissect what this says. The first point, a court order is needed. This makes it 100% legal allowing for due process. The second point is that it is designed to go after sites DEDICATED to infringing activity (whether on purpose or the owner of the site has abandoned it). The defendant of said site will be served notice by the attorney to comply.

Guess what children, this law is actually quite reasonable, rational and moral.

The same is true for SOPA, which you can see on Wikipedia's Stop Online Privacy Act page
The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.
Look children, yet again a court order is needed. This time it is for sites located outside the US borders.

Yet again, reasonable, rational and moral.

Did anyone actually look into the facts of the case? Nothing but FALSE fear mongering.

----

Posted by Christopher | 10:34 PM | , , | 3 comments »