I know, I know, innovating and evolving is difficult.
You have a tried and true system in place and you don't want to change it, no matter how old it is and no matter how much it actually adds fuel to the fire that you're trying to put out.
Piracy, which is what the two laws I'm going to discuss in post is apparently supposed to address, is the result of two things -- companies that are not willing to innovate from an antique business model and a natural progression on the exchange of content. Companies want to maintain the "status-quo" as to how to produce and distribute content, especially the latter, and does not want to do more to do evolve even further in the latter. As we seen throughout history, people take part in illegal activity not only because they can, but because they see the value in it. Online piracy is no different. Not to mention, when it comes to movies, mentioning this as the MPAA is one of the biggest supporters of this bill, companies such as Netflix (i.e., the subscription debacle) and Blockbuster (who waited too long to actually start effectively competing with RedBox) aren't doing any favors for the film industry. Not to mention, the lurid efforts to combat piracy by resorting to attempting to get legal means to be invasive is an illustration of how the MPAA and other media giants fail to get the concept of efficiency.
In other words, as long as the current business model allows for Internet pirates to see value in what they do, well, pirates will still do what they do and other online users will still seek to benefit from the work of the online pirates. I mean, as a society, we always tend to bite from the hand that feeds.
Piracy is no different.
There's two fundamental truths that people on all sides of the debate surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Internet Protocol Act (PIPA) should take note of: piracy is the result of the aforementioned industries not evolving with the times and secondly neither of these laws would stem piracy, but would have unattended (notice, I said unattended and not unintended) consequences. The reason why for the word choice is that the consequences would be intentional -- corporations seeking more proprietary control of the Internet, which would go unattended because of, well, the law.
We cry about how we interpret laws. We've been doing that over the Constitution since 1787. It's a clear and present danger with this legislation because the legislation in its current form (SOPA, as noted by bill author Republican U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, will be revisited in February) is extremely vague and ripe for exploitation by whoever seeks to reap benefits from it. Many of the law's detractors, such as Firefox, Google, Wikipedia, Wordpress, among others, are concerned that it would lead to widespread censorship on the Internet and destroy the personal freedom of choice of obtaining information. This is indeed a fear that is far from being unreasonable.
Not to mention, the bill is so vast and vague that it corporations would be able to take knee-jerk reactions to the courts. So, you make a personal YouTube video blog and in the background you have a certain movie or song playing in the background? With SOPA, a corporation could panic, cry infringement, and get your video taken down -- even if you actually went to Walmart and bought the DVD or CD that was playing. Fair use provisions in the Copyright Act? Torched. Imagine going to Wikipedia to read about the subject, then be unable to have no pictures of that subject because companies would demand for any related pictures to that subject to be taken down -- even if the picture was for educational and non profit purposes only.
I could have numerous websites that I build be taken down if it was suspected that any material was pirated. Granted, I do not use pirated content in the websites that I build and of course, I ban it in my contract. Nonetheless, this law could possibly allow companies to come after me for just being an enabler. PIPA could even censor websites that I build or even my own website because of a perception of being a threat -- either competitively or informatively. The power of liberty that fuels the Internet would be severely compromised, and every one of us would lose.
Jobs will be torched because companies will quit innovating as its even more legal hurdles to overcome (the patent laws are bad enough). As the United States furthers its progression as a service economy, the Internet will grow in greater dependence than it already is. Companies know that, which is why they are pushing for greater legally backed control of it. People need to realize that. It's not about just young, tech-savvy geeks that is speaking out against this bill. It's not just about illegal downloads of movies or music. It's about corporations having the legal pathway to do things and affect your daily life and access to information that it has no business in doing so.
So I plead to each person reading this post to contact your representative member of Congress. Do what you can to stop this egregious act against the freedom of the Internet. It affects all of us.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
A Tale of Three Candidates
I've come to a realization about the three current front runners of the race for the Republican nomination. It might be a conclusion some of you have reached or may be none of you have reached.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)