SOPA and Low-Tech Republicans

[Michael Marotta]

Personally, I believe that ideas can be property. They must be
created by people to exist. They are not so-called "public goods"
i.e., non-exclusive and non-rival, like viewing a sunset on a
seashore. Ideas can be held in exclusion (trade secrets) and in
rivalry (licensing). That said, it seems to me that much of our
thinking in the information age still derives from medieval ideas
about land. It is a law of physics that two objects cannot occupy the
same place at the same time. However, licensing and trade secrets
notwithstanding, a idea can be held by two or more people
simulatneously.

I have no easy answers, for sure. Perhaps this is something we can
discuss at a future meeting. We are the Tech Group and we do have
access to Republican lawyers. Perhaps we can generate more light than
heat.

-------------------------------------
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 or
H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of
Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee
Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of
12 initial co-sponsors. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

"Imagine a World
Without Free KnowledgeFor over a decade, we have spent millions of
hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now,
the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage
the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are
blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.
Contact your representatives." -- Wikipedia Home Page, January 18,
2012

[Gary Thompson]

Mike -

I love the tenets of your thinking and agree ATR can be a venue for robust dialogue and debate on this topic.

I write to share a Yale Law Journal from Neil Netanel, who was my property professor at UT School of Law in 1997.  He is now at UCLA. It is a thought-provoking article:

Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society

Gary Thompson

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Austin Tech Republicans" group.
To post to this group, send email to austin-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austin-tech-repub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/austin-tech-republicans?hl=en.

[Michael Miller]

I agree that discussing SOPA, PIPA and other bills or laws related to IP would be a good idea.  I also think it would be fruitful to discuss whether or not ideas can or should be property, and whether or not (or to what extent) the fact that two or more people can or can't share or simultaneously use something (whether it's an idea, land or something else) is relevant to whether or not the something can or should be property.

 

Michael Miller

---

From: Michael Marotta <mike49...@gmail.com>
To: Austin Tech Republicans <austin-tech...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:38 AM
Subject: {ATR} SOPA and Low-Tech Republicans

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Austin Tech Republicans" group.
To post to this group, send email to austin-tech...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austin-tech-republicans+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Barbara Moeller]

I think a clarification of terms would be useful here.  Ideas, by their nature, are intangible and therefore can be shared and used simultaneously.  Some ideas, though, have been trademarked or otherwise legally preserved for their originator (or the one fastest to the patent office) and thus become property.  These ideas have at least enough value in themselves for someone to go to the trouble of righting them and if they have no value apart from the originator's assessment, their righting deprives no one of use.  

I am not familiar with SOPA, but I wonder what it does to expand or contract the definition of intellectual property, beyond the various licenses and copyrights that are already available.  I am uncomfortable with the general ideological notion that if it's on the internet it should be free for all because that is what the internet was intended for.  Surely there are very reasonable exceptions to this.  Whether or not any restrictions are enforceable is another matter.  I can't help but think that most of the people complaining about the enforcement of intellectual property laws (or laws that provide more recourse for property owners) are people who want something for nothing.  It could be the Chinese (or others) or the masses of college students who think that because they are "college students" they are entitled to share whatever they can get off the internet.  Amazing mindset, considering the tens of thousands of $$ they pay for tuition, that saving a few bucks on a movie rental is somehow a God-given right.

Best, 

Barbara

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austin-tech-repub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/austin-tech-republicans?hl=en.

--

Barbara Moeller

14320 Friendswood Lane

Austin, Texas 78737

512.301.3162

[Patrick McGuinness]

FWIW, I am opposed to SOPA, blogged a bit about it on my blog  here:

One way to get the tech world and conservatives to be on the same page on some issues is
to understand how regulatory and heavy-handed this bill is:
http://www.patmcguinness.org/?p=104

SOPA is the Obamacare of the tech industry

is what I said.

The issue is more tactical than philosophical.  That is to say, both sides will say
we can and should respect intellectual property rights.   The question is how.
SOPA and PIPA are over-the-top heavy-handed means to protection by creating a guilty-by-assumption
and association that allows censorship over whole sites based on single violations.
This goes along with a long-standing tradition of the big media companies distrusting customers/users.

The tech world is united against it because of the chilling implications. YouTube and other user-generated-
content sites can't exist if they could be put out of business by a single copyright violation.

What's really dumb about the bill is this: There are NO PROBLEMS with US sites, they are already regulated
and 'take-down' notices for copyright violations works.
The 'problem' for RIAA is that websites in other countries are 'out of reach' of RIAA, lawyers, etc. torrents and P2P
slip under the radar. This is actually a non-problem for the industry, the tech world has long ago
learned about the merits of 'freemium' as a biz model and piracy doesnt eat actual revs like they think it does,
 but dont tell them that.

If you think about it for a second, you will notice a huge flaw in creating yet another law - it STILL doesnt
impact sites in Sweden etc. directly. SOPA/PIPA are about limiting our freedom to access global websites because
the cant figure out how to shut them down directly. It sounds a bit too much like what the Chinese do to their internet.

The real solution therefore is to influence the EU/Sweden to change their ways, not hurt our freedoms.

Yes, this would be a good topic to discuss in a future ATR meeting. We have discussed inviting Lamar Smith to speak,
and could give him a good grilling on this. ;-)


Patrick

[Michael Miller]

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on this.  There are several related issues here, each of which could give us plenty to discuss.

One involves SOPA and PIPA.  As Thomas, Patrick, and Michele indicated, people who are friendly toward "intellectual property" can still be opposed to heavy-handed government intrusions like SOPA and PIPA call for, which go far beyond allowing folks rights in certain IP.  A discussion about what SOPA and PIPA actually provide, and whether that would be good, would be timely and informative.

Another involves the bases for various IP rights.  As far as I know, there is no basis for any exclusive rights in ideas.  Trademark and service mark rights regard the use of marks, not ideas.  Copyrights are in tangible works only, not in ideas.  Patents give exclusive rights in inventions, and patent law makes it clear that no patent is to issue for any mere idea.  We can thank whomever coined the term "intellectual property" for the confusion that term continues to generate.

Some folks support all IP rights under current law, or even seek to expand those rights, on the ground that they are pro-property.  Others oppose all IP rights on the ground that they are all really anti-property and anti-liberty.  The rest of us are somewhere in-between, and think we have to consider each kind of IP on its own, since they are so very different from each other.  For example, I think that we have to respect trademark and service mark rights, that some copyrights may be defensible but current law give too much power to copyright holders (e.g., I see no reason why performances should count as copyright infringements), and that patents are the least defensible (but I have an open mind on that and am not ideologically opposed).  But even with trademarks and service marks, the current law gives too much power to the owners in certain circumstances (e.g., universities, sports teams and others claiming trademark rights in T-shirts, mugs and the like that sport their name or logo, and suing anyone who produces such goods without paying a "licensing" royalty, when in fact the name and/or logo in these circumstances do not function as marks to show consumers who produced the shirt or mug, but rather are functional features of the goods themselves, allowing consumers to show off loyalty to the school or team or company, etc.).  Any number of discussions under these headings could be fun and enlightening.

 

Michael Miller

---

From: Thomas Umstattd <tho...@castlemediagroup.com>
To: patmcg...@austin.rr.com
Cc: bb...@austin.rr.com; Austin Tech Republicans <austin-tech...@googlegroups.com>; mmill...@ymail.com; "mike49...@gmail.com" <mike49...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: {ATR} SOPA and Low-Tech Republicans

This issue has brought me out of the lurking pool.

I have a friend who works for Congressman Lamar Smith and we have been discussing the ramifications of SOPA. My friend finally admitted that Congressman Smith doesn't even own a computer and was perhaps not the best person to champion this bill. They still think it is a good idea but really don't understand the technological implications of the bill. 

You can see my responses to SOPA supporters at http://www.thomasumstattd.com/2012/01/responding-to-sopa-supporters/. 

Thanks,

-- 

Thomas Umstattd Jr.

CEO, Castle Media Group LLC

"We build websites for world changers."

8000 Centre Park Drive

Suite 360

Austin TX 78754-5146

512.582.7290

888.432.7734

www.CastleMediaGroup.com

[Don Zimmerman]

Well said Michael,

Count me among many who are nothing less than outraged at Smith’s support of SOPA and PIPA – things he scarcely understands, and things I live with daily as a graduate engineer in high tech software systems.

 

But my cynical side says that a politicians for sale, like Lamar Smith, profits from his ignorance – he’s probably able to sleep at night unaware of the damage his lobbyists have inspired him to impose on the rest of us.

 

Count me an early and eager supporter of Sheriff Richard Mack who is mounting a primary campaign against Smith.

 

I pray that we don’t have to depend solely on the Grim Reaper to limit both Smith’s term and destruction he’ll cause to our Republic before he’s done.

[Patrick McGuinness]

Don,

This kind of lobbyist-driven 'bipartisan' bill (RIAA lobbying for it, Patrick Leahy/Harry Reid behind it)
loaded up with unintended consequences and driven through Congress before people can figure out what in
it is the worst kind of DC behavior that drives grassroots on left and right nuts. I'm gratified that
some Republicans like Darrell Issa in House and Coburn in Senate are standing up against it,
and that Senate Republicans (including Cornyn) have come out against moving fast on this.

so I retitle the subject: "SOPA versus high-tech Republicans" ... that's the issue ... high-tech versus Big Media.
Not everyone in our party is clueless / low-tech. I hope!

Michael,

IP is defined in law in a way that must be asserted affirmatively, unlike real property ("possession is 9/10th of law"),
so intellectual property value is directly related to what Federal law says. In this age increasingly we see
a 'game' of defensive patents and patent trolls extracting a tax on innovators, and the copyright law as
hostage to special interests.

We do need patents. OTOH, you are not supposed to be able to patent algorithms or mathematics and yet
the cutting edge of real innovation is ... algorithms and mathematics. Now, patent lawyers,
have figured out how to make software patents happen, by the fact that they are embodied in some hardware.
But the important thing about a patent is the idea, if the tangible implementation only is patented its
easy to get around it with a different implementation.  How to become a billionaire?
(like the Qualcomm guy) Find a way to get your patentable idea to be an industry standard (CDMA).
Everyone is forced to use your patent if they want to use your basic idea. It's like become tollcollector
at the Golden Gate Bridge.

Count me as one who is an advocate for open source, which is increasingly become not merely useful but practically
essential in many areas of software development. It's flattening industries more aggressively than outsourcing.
(oh, and there are open-source-based enterprise IT companies out of Sri Lanki - try competing with that!)
The real innovation out there is among those who take the ideas and implementations of others and builds on them.
We have no clear economic model for how to share ideas this way, but open source seems to be the most effective.

I find it odd, and somewhat outrageous, that vital important IP like patents gets protection for 17 years but a Disney movie
gets copyright protection for 75 years. Why not copyright for 17 years only? Why more? It's all about commercial
extraction over a long life. If the argument is that more IP protection will foster innovation, my counterargument is
that Elvis hasn't recorded good new songs since his apparent death in 1977. The real artists and creators arent
benefitting, some wealthy heirs are. Final thought:  if they shortened copyrights to 30 years, the original Star Wars would be
in the public domain today. Time flies!

Tom,

Thanks for sharing your blog post on SOPA. Strong agreement on your excellent points.

Patrick

[Don Zimmerman]

Michael,

I can give you one example of probably a hundred during my 25 years in high
tech.

I moved to Austin in 2000 to join a high profile start-up company (Surgient
Networks), and started working on a video streaming project. Within a few
days I had wrapped my head around the technical problem, and within a few
hours one particular day I worked out a common sense algorithm/technique for
optimizing (mostly, highest speed) serving of video data from on-disk
storage. When I showed this to the technical director, he flatly stated he
already had a patent on the "idea". I responded that this seemed absurd
considering that it was nothing but common sense and I developed it in a few
hours. Patents were supposed to be things not obvious to "one skilled in
the arts" - as an engineer not highly skilled in that particular field of
serving streaming video, I came to the idea very quickly out of common sense
- so how such an "idea" become intellectual property that was patentable?

During 3 years with IBM, I witnessed a shameful corporate practice of
thousands of stupid patents being filed - stuff obvious to a below average
intellect. Why is this being done? Because huge corporations are now
successfully using these ridiculous "patents" to intimidate new companies
with patent lawsuits. Since there are thousands of "patents" of common
sense ideas, it's not hard for powerful corporate lawyers to drive small
startups out of business, or destroy their chances of raising capital with
the threat of legal action which demands a prohibitively expensive defense.

Such patent abuse is another clear and present danger to the economic future
of our Republic, IMHO.

-----Original Message-----
From: austin-tech...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:austin-tech...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Marotta
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:39 AM
To: Austin Tech Republicans
Subject: {ATR} SOPA and Low-Tech Republicans

--

[Timothy E. Bradberry]

Don,

I'm no high-tech IP creating geek like you are nor am I some kind of Hollywood movie mogul but I do create low-tech IP for the State of Texas which my agency makes freely available to the public (though of course paid for by tax dollars) and I have sunk $20,000 of my own private funds in an Indie film, Formosa Betrayed, which has been pirated by the Chinese with little recourse on the part of the Investors and from which to date I've not made a dime. I do appreciate you having paid for a ticket to see it, though.

I would like to deep six the Chinese pirates and could use some help doing so. I have not had time to investigate SOPA but your ad hominem attacks on Congressman Lamar Smith have reached a new low. I can't wait till Ron Paul is a forgotten candidate for President, but I wish for him as many years as the Lord has prepared for him and would never wish for his physical demise.

Timothy E. Bradberry

[Michael Miller]

Patrick,

Agreed on the value of open source.

I think the difference in the length of terms of patents vs. copyrights is rooted in the fact that copyrights protect one only from someone else actually copying one's work, so the copyright owner must prove copying to prove infringement, while a patent "protects" the owner even from those who did not copy the owner at all, and maybe even invented the thing before the patent owner did.  Thus, the patent is clearly a naked grant of a monopoly, giving one rights against even those who in no sense took anything from one, so that the patent term merely sets the length of the monopoly grant, while a copyright is a right only against those who actually copied one's work, and thus in at least some sense took something from one, so one could see the copyright term as itself a limitation on a more natural right one has against people who take something from one.  I'm not saying that I'm entirely happy with the idea that copying is a kind of taking, but there does seem to be a greater justification to prevent someone from copying one's work than to prevent someone from making a product when they have not relied on you at all.

Whether there really is a need for patents is a longer story and could be the subject of one of our discussions.

You want to distinguish IP from real property by saying that "IP is defined in law in a way that must be asserted affirmatively, unlike real property ("possession is 9/10th of law")."  I don't understand what you mean by "asserted affirmatively."  You may be on to something, I just don't understand what you mean yet and don't yet see a difference between IP and real property on that account.  I can say that whoever started this "possession is 9/10th of law" business has led many astray.  That certainly isn't true of real property.  If your family goes on vacation, or even out to dinner, and others enter your home while you're gone, they certainly do not have 9/10 of the law on their side. 

 

Michael

---

From: Patrick McGuinness <patmcg...@austin.rr.com>
To: Don Zimmerman <d...@donzimmerman.org>
Cc: mmill...@ymail.com; 'Thomas Umstattd' <tho...@castlemediagroup.com>; bb...@austin.rr.com; 'Austin Tech Republicans' <austin-tech...@googlegroups.com>; mike49...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: {ATR} SOPA versus High-Tech Republicans

[Julie Borkowski]

I am mostly a lurker, but I feel I have to speak up on this one.  First please read the description of a book written by Cass Sunstien called “Nudge.”  

 

“Nudge is about choices-how we make them and how we can make better ones. Authors Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein offer a new perspective on preventing the countless mistakes we make- including ill-advised personal investments, consumption of unhealthy foods, neglect of our natural resources, and other bad decisions. Citing decades of cutting-edge behavioral science research, they demonstrate that sensible "choice architecture" can successfully nudge people towards the best decisions.   This is a must-read for anyone with interest in our collective well-being.”

I hate to say it but we’ve all have been had by the progressives with this whole Internet bill, SOPA. I can show you exactly how we were all manipulated by this social experiment.  Although, I suspect very few people will listen, because they never do.

I just read the bill in its entirety. I wish I had read it earlier. When I read the first pages of the bill’s text, it contained language that makes sopa null and void at the drop of a hat. I have never seen a bill or law written with this kind of pretext that nullifies it almost instantly.  Especially by this administration. I suspect this was the safety net on this social experiment. If it does pass, nullification will probably happen after Sunstien’s social experiment is over. The language clearly states that the constitutional rights of every citizen are to be strictly protected and if anything at all in this bill has any hint of being unconstitutional against the freedom of speech for individuals, companies or the press, the entirety of the bill is null and void. Feel free to read the bill and see exactly what I mean.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf

I had a bad feeling when the occupiers first mentioned it that it was not what it seemed.  I was very uneasy about this internet boycott and I still think there are some nepherious actions going on with how this all went down.  My office internet and home computers were not blacked out, but our wireless routers were rerouted and somehow disabled.  I connected the laptops directly by wire with no blackouts whatsoever.  However, last night I did have to reset all of my wireless networks all and rework each device after this so called ‘boycott.’  That has me worried because as far as I know, an outside entity should not be able to do that.

Anywhoo, I digress.  This bill has nothing to do with controlling the internet unless you are China trying to hack into our systems, or you are selling illegal drugs over the internet.  In fact, the entire thing is full of description of laws we already have on the books.  The text is pages of repetition & legal mumbo jumbo spelling out court rules on notification limits and other legalese definitions.  This bill has the hand of progressive manipulation by Cass Sunstine.  SOPA contains 78 pages of nothing with a bunch of fluff and simple definitions of what the internet is, and what a ISP is etc.  Pretty much 90% of it is nothing.  Almost all of it can all be found among other laws, but people were lead to believe it was something completely different.

The remaining 10% still has nothing to do with controlling the internet.  It deals with foreign entities and cyber attacks from our enemies.  In fact it protects ISP companies when their networks are used in cyber attacks when the discovery of this kind of cyber-warfare is reported to the proper authorities.  Which is already written into law.  The bill refers to definitions of an agency that has already been in place for years to monitor this type of cyber information.  The bill repeats existing laws that protect our sensitive & top secret information safe from foreign countries like CHINA from using cyber warfare against us! 

The bill simply reiterates the laws that make it a federal crime to leak military information into Wikileaks.  Remember the guy who leaked important stuff to wikileaks of sensitive military information to our enemies abroad?  We are all for that now because no one stopped to read the bill. 

Sadly conservatives and liberals alike were all nudged into thinking they were protesting something other than the truth.  The sheeple all protested saying we have the right to join the military, gain security clearance, and leak whatever you want to leak into the public eye of the rest of the world. This has the horrible implications of making our men and women in uniform into sitting ducks, and we were happy to let it happen.

Cass Sunstine nudged all of us into protesting that security, and he was able to show the progressive leaders in power that he is an expert in controlling the masses into a nationwide “group-think.”  His power to affect our choices has gained new ground, and that should infuriate all of us. 

 

We acted right in line just like sheeple occupiers, telling the world we are against our laws that protect our military secrets and our citizens from the like of Iran, China, etc. from cyber actions of war.  

Not only that, but the occupiers are now using the comments he made about sopa to take down Santorum.   Which is the least of our worries knowing that even conservatives can be manipulated into their choices of what bills they will support and what bills they will protest.