You need to consider that they WILL pass some legislation, and what you want it to contain. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 18/01/2012 12:18:45 PM
1. sopa/pipa is going to change copyright infringement from what is currently a civil infraction, punishable by a maximum penalty of $150k (US) for the worst infringements into a felony with a jail term of 5 years. plus, they are changing the definition of what is meant by infringement to include sites which offer streaming services such as youtube, hulu, etc. this is not sustainable and impractical to properly police.
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.
2. if the DNS provisions pass (which thankfully it looks like they won't -- yet), the internet as we know it will cease to exist and be replaced by the internet as brought to you by rupert murdoch, the mpaa/riaa, and the current US attorney general. if one of the groups involved in writing this bill gets their way, you won't be able to go to websites they don't want you to see, end of story. the attorney general has the power to pull the DNS for any website he/she deems to be infringing. how long before this power extends to websites he/she does not want the public to see? tell me you think the government will restrain itself with such power at its disposal?
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.
3. the DNS provisions will essentially do the same thing as malware that redirects your search results to malicious websites. only this time, the redirection is controlled by the federal government by the attorney general's command. this is almost exactly bringing the "great firewall of china" to the US. and all because hollywood is trying to pretend they're missing out on all this money. money which they have never statistically proven they are actually missing out on, and money which for some reason hasn't stopped them from posting substantial profits every year. ask yourself why the US government is protecting the business model of this industry, and what purpose the government has for propping up the industry in such a way.
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 is beyond "hackers/pirates versus law abiding citizens". the whole thing is literally going to destroy the internet as we currently know it and put the absolute control of how the internet works into the attorney general's hands forever. you really need to read up on (a) the contents of sopa/pipa and (b) how DNS works, specifically how DNS "poisoning" works. then come back and re-read your replies in this thread and see how wrong you are.
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.