No longer would a company such as Youtube or Facebook be able to allow anyone to post what they wish. No longer would sites like this be able to wait for a copyright violation take-down request to remove content.

Instead, sites would have to proactively prevent any links to or direct posting of copyrighted content. This is fundamentally impossible from a logistics & cost perspective. If a site fails to police their content in this manner could have their entire site blacklisted & removed from US DNS entries or have their domain seized.

It’s not just Youtube & Facebook either, news sites or blogs that allow comments on their posts would have to police themselves in the same way. Any site that allows any form of user-submitted content could be subjected to government censorship at the behest of a corporation with nothing more than an accusation. No trial, no actual proof, no presumption of innocence, no due process. Serious 1st & 4th Amendment issues there.

The law is also anti-competitive for the same reasons. Since no actual trial or proof is needed for a takedown, just an accusation, a corporation’s employee could post or hire someone to post infringing information to a site then file a complaint and have that site removed from the Internet.

What’s in this law to stop Viacom from doing this to Youtube? What’s in there to stop Facebook from doing this to Google Plus? What’s in the law to stop Comcast from using this to find a reason to violate their NBC purchase terms of keeping Hulu alive by posting links to TV torrents in the Hulu comments section? Absolutely nothing, the law’s wording is far too vague.

The issue of piracy is not as cut and dry as someone stealing something purely for the purpose of stealing it. I completely agree that people who pirate large volumes of content should be prosecuted especially if they doing so for profit.

However, studies have shown that many people who pirate content for personal use do so for three reasons that are more questionable, in my opinion, when it comes to the need to tie up tax payer dollars & the court’s time to prosecute them.

1. Many people pirate content because the creator of that content over-values it and refuses to embrace competition and changing markets to provide access to the content in the way that their customers want.

An example would be certain shows which are not made available for online streaming such as Fringe or Chuck. If these shows were available to stream, many people who pirate them would stop doing so and watch them in that form.
—–

2. Another reason for piracy is to have a copy of something to view again before it is made available at retail or in another online form such as streaming.

An example here is downloading a copy of a movie that is currently in theaters until it’s availalbe on DVD, Blu-Ray, streaming (Netflix) or download (Amazon Prime). At such time as it’s made available in one of these forms the pirate purchases a copy of the content in on of these forms.
—–

3. Downloading a copy of a movie or TV show DVD or Blu-Ray you already own as an alternative to the sometimes complicated process of making your own ripped copy from the disc.

An item to remember on this point is that up until recently it was illegal to rip a copy for personal use of a DVD you legally purchased. This is why ripping a copy can be so difficult, because content holders did whatever they legally could to prevent you from making an archive copy of something you already gave them money for. Sony even went so far as to install a malware rootkit on the PCs of people that attempted to do this.
—–

Are the listed examples illegal? By legal definition yes, but in my opinion they exist in a grey area that is unrealistic to justify prosecuting from the perspective of cost, not to mention the sheer volume of cases. It’s easy to forget that under the DMCA almost every single American citizen could potentially be charged with criminal copyright violation for one reason or another.

The bottom line is that quite a bit of piracy is caused not only by individual greed, but by corporations funding & writing laws that put the ball in their court and take choice away from consumers. Despite all the talk of wanting a free market, these corporations sure do a whole lot to stack the deck in their favor.

The SOPA / Protect IP law is just another example of a well funded corporation using their money as power to avoid actually having to compete in the very type of free market they speak so highly of in public. Do as they say not as they do, I suppose.

Image via Wikipedia

There can be no denying it.  Our reactions to the horrific 9/11 attack allowed certain individuals in this country to carry out a second tragedy. A massive increase in defense spending & a huge expansion of military adventurism have left us on the brink of doing to ourselves what we did to the Soviet Union.

Spending so overly much on defense & the military that the economy falls apart and takes the country itself with it.  Effectively, this would also accomplish the stated mission of the most hated man in the last 20 years. The terrorist garbage Osama bin Laden stated several times his primary goal was to get us to spend ourselves into oblivion.

The cumbersome burden of  $1.46 trillion in unpaid debt from two wars that were  largely mismanaged and of questionable necessity. The total defense budget now exceeds $1 trillion dollars annually. The country with the next highest defense spending is China at roughly $100 billion. We are spending around 10 times that of the only country that poses any real risk to us militarily.

This is a very dangerous path to continue down and because of this burden, Republicans have seized on the lie that what we are over-spending on are social programs that help those Americans who can least help themselves. Meanwhile the idea of getting this dangerous level of military spending under control is demonized as unpatriotic.

If we continue to embrace the lies instead of electing politicians that are in favor of reigning in this dangerous military spending level, then the 9/11 attack will have succeeded in doing what no enemy has been able to do for over 200 years, to end the United States as it is known today.

I’m confident no American wants this.

- “Left of Center”

Related articles

• 9/11 aftermath: Costs still permeate U.S. economy (marketwatch.com)

I think we need to be honest with each other as a country. With the blindly fearful reactionary passing of The Patriot Act following the 9-11 attacks, the 4th Amendment was essentially killed, or left very close to dead.  The constant renewing of the Patriot Act instead of letting it sunset as was originally planned while not making any drastic changes to it has kept that essential Constitutional protection at best on life support.

Some will say George W Bush & his administration is to blame. Others will argue that the Obama administration has continued to renew it. Both are true. Both parties are equally guilty here. Warrant-less searches & wiretaps, gathering private information about American citizens.  Americans that have been suspected of crimes held indefinitely without access to legal counsel, without being informed of the charges against them. The TSA. The list goes on.

We need to come together as a country to elect representatives who will do their proper duty to repeal the Unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act. For this issue, we need to forget about Democrat and Republican labels. We need to wake up and work together to fix this using our votes.

- “Left of Center”

Image via Wikipedia

I still remember being jolted awake by the phone that morning. A friend calling hysterical, crying, emphatic for me to turn on the television. Groggily trying to figure out what could have her so very upset so very early in the morning. Very little surprises me in life. What we witnessed that morning surprised me greatly. Probably the most so in my life. It, quite frankly, also scared the Hell out of me. What was happening? Who was responsible? Why were they doing this? How could this happen within our borders?

None of those thoughts really matter anymore. As I reflect back on the time that has passed I have several thoughts I’d like to share. That can come later however, as those may be topics that generate disagreement. Today we need to remember that spirit of country, of family we had in the weeks following these horrific attacks on our United States. Today we need to remember that despite what is sometimes a number of differences we are one country, free & united together.

Take a moment of silence today for the over 3,000 of our family members, our men & women who were senselessly taken from us that day. We need to remember our neighbors and our loved ones and honor those fallen heroes who put their own lives on the line to save a few of their fellow citizens.  Creed, race, nationality & other meaningless surface differences need to be ignored. We were all attacked that day. We all suffered that day.  Let’s not forget we are all Americans regardless of our differences.

- “Left of Center”

Image by Brendan Loy via Flickr

Just to make a brief statement here, nothing fancy.  Let’s take a few seconds of silence is not too much to ask for today, as well as few seconds to think about how your world has changed, and how America has changed since 10 years ago.

Touchy subject for some, but an unignorable part of any person who has seen that event, and those who have been directly affected by the event.  We’ll talk about how things have progress/regressed after 09/11 has past, and no earlier.

- Classic Liberal

Also, apparently Mr. Goodlatte has no comprehension of the Constitution. Another quality he seems to share with many prominent Tea Partiers. There’s this little bit in there called Article I, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

This section is commonly referred to as the General Welfare Clause. Almost any Conservative (Regressive?) will try and convince you that this little bit doesn’t authorize social safety net programs like Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security.

What these same Conservatives will tell you is that this same clause is perfectly okay in it’s vague wording to authorize the US Air Force, a defense program not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but it’s completely unacceptable to them for authorizing any program whose purpose is to help those that at some point in their lives may not be able to help themselves.  That, to them is unconscionable.

Of course, by focusing to argue only on the opening sentence of Article I, Section 8 a key item is being ignored. The last section of Article I, Section 8 known as the “Necessary and Proper Clause”. Here’s how that one goes:

“The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.“

This section is intentionally broad and states that Congress is given the power to pass any laws that are deemed relevant to ensure that the items outlined in Article I, Section 8 are carried out, including providing for the general welfare of US citizens

Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has upheld multiple times that these programs fit within the General Welfare Clause. So, why is it that protecting the basic welfare of it’s citizens is not acceptable as one of the primary and most important jobs of a government?

- “Left of Center”

Image by TalkMediaNews via Flickr

So Paul Ryan is claiming that the loss in NY26, a solid Republican safe zone, has nothing to do with his disaster of a budget proposal. In his reality disconnected opinion, the Republicans lost because the Democrats demagogued the issue.

So to him Democrats campaigning on the truth and the facts that Ryan’s budget would end Medicare as we know it, raise seniors health costs by 40% or more, drive up everyone’s health costs as a result and actually add greatly to the deficit is unacceptable to him? How about more like inconvenient.

- “Left of Center”

Related articles

• The RyanCare Backlash (reason.com)

Image by BuffaloPundit via Flickr

For only the second time since 1953 a Democrat has emerged victorious in a Congressional election in New York’s 26th District. Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin. If anyone tries to tell you that the driving force behind the Republicans losing what should have been a guaranteed seat, was anything other than Medicare they are lying to you.

The median age of residents in NY26 ranges from 48-53 depending on varying reports. Hochul and the Democrats won this special election because they forced the conversation to be about Corwin’s vote to support Ryan & House Republican’s plan to kill Medicare as we know it & residents of NY26 would have none of it, and rightly so.

- “Left of Center”

Related articles

• Democrat Hochul Wins NY-26, Spelling Doom for Republican Plans to Kill Medicare (slog.thestranger.com)

Image by martin_kalfatovic via Flickr

President Barack Obama announced in a press conference shortly after 11:30pm EST on 05-01-11 that US forces had killed Osama bin Laden and taken custody of his body.  Reports are that this occurred several days if not a week ago, but announcement was held pending confirmation of a DNA test result.

May the families who lost loved ones in 9-11 finally begin to find some peace and be able to put that horrible day behind them. May the country find again and keep the spirit of patriotism and togetherness that we remembered we had in the weeks and months following the tragedy.

- “Left of Center”

Related Articles

• White House: Osama Bin Laden is Dead (benzinga.com)
• News Of Osama Bin Laden’s Death Spreads Like Wildfire On Twitter (techcrunch.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Well, isn’t this surprising. Yet another Republican that not only fails to understand the Constitution, but also puts his foot squarely in his mouth.  The casual observer would think they would have learned by now.

However, I’m thoroughly convinced many of these Republicans have no doubt that what they are saying is complete nonsense.  The remainder, a select few such as Palin, Bachmann and Rand Paul may actually have that poor of an understanding of the Constitution.

Today’s shameful statement comes from Rick Santorum (R – PA, retired) who claims that by supporting a clear and unflinching separation of church & state, John F. Kennedy was a radical.

Kennedy said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”  Santorum believes that this was “..a radical statement..” that did “great damage.”, though he does not specify what damage.

Santorum went on to add the euphemism that Kennedy’s comment had Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave.  Mr. Santorum you are a pompous ass.  Your view on this matter indicates that you either do not value the Constitution or you do not understand it.  There is no other conclusion to be drawn here.

How dare you, Sir? How dare you, Rick Santorum, your time in Congress was at best unremarkable. How dare you show such disregard for the accomplishments of the founding fathers and Jefferson in particular? How dare you compare yourself to two respected American icons such as Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy?

How dare you, Sir?  How dare you impugn the intelligence of far greater man than yourself?  How dare you disrespect the American people with your Theocratic aspirations?  Advocating for “intelligent design”, which is code-speak for teaching Creationism in public schools which directly contravenes the Constitution.

From the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution – “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

For those among us like Rick Santorum that can’t or won’t comprehend this, it means that Congress cannot, in any way, put one religion ahead of another in practice or in law.  Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers understood this.

They saw the corruption that resulted from the close ties to English monarchy had to the Church of England (the Holy Roman Church) and sought to prevent this type of action from occurring in the new country they were founding.

From Thomas Jefferson’s letter in reply to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 – “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

I cannot see how this can be stated with any more clarity.  There is no place for theocracy in the United States of America.  It is illegal and a clear violation of the Constitution.  That Mr. Santorum refuses to see this means he has no respect for the supreme law of this land.

Mr. Santorum is considering a run for President in 2012.  Every American, considering your recent statements and your previous actions, should be asking you:

How dare you, Sir?

- “Left of Center”