Slashdot Mirror
Protect IP Act May Be Amended
angry tapir writes "The controversial U.S. copyright enforcement bill called The Protect IP Act may be amended on the Senate floor later this month in response to ongoing concerns about its provisions affecting Internet service providers and the domain-name system, according to the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat."
After reading the earlier Slashdot story, I wrote all three of both our Vermont congressmen and urged them to reconsider support for PIPA and SOPA. The only reply I received was from Sen. Patrick Leahy.
Here's a snippet from TFA with a relevant notion: contacting your representative can't hurt:
"[...]However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters."," [Leahy] said.
- Increase the length of a copyright to 200 years.
- Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence, so the MAFIAA can't pick and choose who gets pinged.
- and make it mandatory to defend your IP in court or lose your rights - similar to trademarks.
Then see how much the MAFIAA want this fight.
Evil.
Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties. Say I have a business transporting furniture. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $200 because they're worth more than $200 to me. You sell the horse and buggy whip to me for $200 because they're worth less than $200 to you. In this way, even though the amount of stuff does not change from the transaction, its value increases. With each transaction, items get moved to the hands of people who are better able to make use of them to improve their productivity. Whereas the horse and buggy whip only cost you $190 worth of productivity to make, in my hands it can generate (say) $310 worth of productivity.
When a company forms a monopoly or subverts the market with laws like the content industry is trying, they break this mechanism. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $300 because it's worth $310 to me. To you they're only worth $190 because that's what they cost you to make. In functioning capitalism, market forces would drive the price down to about $200. But by subverting the free market with your monopoly and eliminating competition, you're able to drive the price the other way and get it near the maximum I'd be willing to pay. I end up paying an extra $100.
Furthermore, I should be able to buy a horseless carriage for $250 which will give me $500 worth of productivity. But you've gotten a law passed which bans it from the market. So by being forced to buy the horse and buggy whip, I also lose out on $190 worth of productivity.
The consequence of all this is that I no longer have an extra $100 to spend on something else productive, and my productivity has been lowered by $190 from where it should be. And you, because the extra $100 you made came too easily, you don't fully appreciate its value and are more likely to waste the extra money you make on silly things like gold plated toilet seats. The economy overall is harmed, the rate of technological progress slows down, recessions become more common, and increases in the standard of living slows down or even regresses.
It's normal to put your needs ahead of those of the single person you're dealing with in a transaction. People who buy high and sell low don't survive for long, and everyone has a personal obligation to look out for themselves. But putting your needs ahead of all of society by subverting free market forces for personal gain is just plain evil.
This is why I believe we need limitations on how fast a bill can be voted for.
Something like 1 day/page should be a good way to either (a) slow the legislature down and give them time to actually read the bills, or (b) make the laws much, much shorter.
Oh, and no overlapping. No "March 15th is the day for these three bills". One day per page (with predetermined font and page sizes so there's no loophole here) of a bill.
"Emergency bills" should have a higher threshold of voting such as 4/5 or 5/6 majority. If there's greater than 1/6 opposition then it probably isn't an emergency.
Oh look, I just stopped a whole buttload of bad laws coming out every year! Now all we have to do is actually get them to follow these rules. Ha.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.
As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.
I live in California, and by the time the primaries come here, the race is already over. I don't get to vote for (D) or (R) Candidates for President, at least I don't have a vote that counts in any meaningful way.
Primaries do matter, but only for those "early" states. The reason we have a choice between Imbecile and Turd Sandwich is because we don't have meaningful elections.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.