OK, so tell Congress and the White House what is wrong with that, and propose a superior alternative. In that particular case, there is a good argument existing penalties are sufficient and no new law necessary. However, as noted above, when people (as so many do) argue already illegal activities should not BE illegal, and therefore NO penalty is appropriate, they have as much credibility and attention from the federal government as people arguing the same thing about recreational drugs. And about as much hope of success.


Correct me if I am wrong, but does the government not already have that POWER and AUTHORITY? Are we not talking about legislation that simply expaning the basis on which both can be USED without violating US law? It certainly SOUNDS like the bills under consideration would just streamline the process whereby commerical entities can get government to take down a site for alleged copyright infringement. In terms of government abusing regulatory power, denying all access to sites with content it does not want people to see: It could do that now, yet there is little evidence it does, so I do not see why these bills would change that.


Wait, I am confused: People keep keep saying these bills would "fundamentally alter the internets infrastructure," but you seem to be saying the most populous country on Earth ALREADY engages in the most restrictive practice contained in these bills. It sounds like another case where the government would not gain a new power, but simply EXERCISE an existing one far more often and broadly, on behalf of a lot more commerical interests.


The whole thing SHOULD be beyond "hackers/pirates versus law abiding citizens" but as long as it is reduced to big commercial lobbies pushing draconian legislation versus hackers advocating cyberanarchy, it will not be. In that debate, guess whom the government will support every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As far as "changing the internet as we know it," well, it would hardly be the first time. Really, the amount of international public in/output to what is essentially a 40 year old DARPA project is staggering, and huge evidence Big Brother will not arbitrarily trample on the rights of netizens who owe their landscape to it. Yet change is coming, as surely as you no longer plug your phone into a modem and dial up your favorite BBS at a lightning fast 1200 baud rate to read the text only content. The internet has changed many times since we were born, is a lot bigger than even fifteen years ago, and governments regulatory presence WILL change to reflect that. The reasonable and responsible course for anyone concerned by that is to clearly and specifically state the forms they want the presence to take, not demand the government "stay out of" an internet it created, over which it has always retained authority within its borders and that only subsists by government sufferance.

You cannot prevent new legislation; all you can do is control the form it takes. Attempts at the former merely sacrifice all opportunity for the latter. Demanding NO new legislation, that access to and dissemination of copyrighted material be legal, inevitably associates oneself with the wild eyed enarchist hackers demanding the same. Congress and Obama will ignore such demands, as they should, so the best--the ONLY--way to get a better bill than the ones on the table is to submit CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions. If these bills suck, write a better one.

Remember during the debate over Hillarycare, when Phil Graham got a scale from the GAO, slammed down the 20 lb. 2000 page Presidential Healthcare Plan in the well of the Senate and said, "THIS is the Presidents plan"? Remember George Mitchell removing the bill, slamming down the empty scale and saying, "THIS is the Republicans plan"? That is kinda where we are right now; the difference is that this time big business SUPPORTS the current legislation. Congress will ultimately pass and Obama sign what they consider the best legislation available, because "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Give them a better option, or accept the one they are considering. Those are the sum total of YOUR options.