SOPA, that is.

It's a long bill that requires more than one reading, and I'm not a lawyer. However, I did sit with paper and pen, jotting down notes as I went along.

As I understand it, the basic idea is that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over foreign entities, but it does have jurisdiction over business transacted in the U.S. So, by preventing these foreign entities from infringing on American properties, and selling the infringed goods back to us, these foreign entities can be prevented from doing that very thing from within the U.S. But alas, a new law is born. And lately, laws have had a way of limiting many of our freedoms while in hot pursuit of protecting our freedoms. I'd almost rather have the crime. Well, not really.

The intent is a good one. The Internet is rife with piracy. Somehow, plagiarizing people's intellectual property has to be stopped. To take action is a good thing. So, why do I feel queasy about the idea when it comes from Washington?

I want to be open minded to anything that would benefit all of us.  After reading the document, I wonder how this law can ever be enforced. It will be a herculean undertaking.  No wonder Google ran an aggressive campaign to undermine passage of the bill. Not only would it cost them a fortune in advertising revenue lost by blocking the foreign culprits, but policing this activity is a huge task. I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be addressed. I'm also not approving of Google's practice of profiting by thieves. I just wonder about the practicality of the bill, and if it wouldn't create even more problems than it solves.

The Internet is like the old wild west. It's full of possibility and full of lawlessness. There are many huge corporations out there, waiting in the wings,  that would love to control this juicy plum. Some people at WA think that Google is the culprit. My contention is that Google is a dictator. Does the devil you know apply here?

I don't love legal documents, but have read and edited many of them through the years. When I read them, I look for non specific words or phrases that can open the door to mischief. It's a lawyers' game, and they like to keep it loose and open to interpretation, unless they are protecting you. One thing I didn't like in the bill is the multiple use of the word "reasonably"...reasonably designed, reasonably arising. So vague. Well, what I think is reasonable can be quite different from another person's idea of reasonable. The bill is full of general broad statements.
I would prefer it to be very specific, so I know exactly what is intended. Don't leave the door open for creative legislation.

The bill leaves me with a lot of questions.  It refers to "portion thereof" meaning that a portion of a site that has to do with an infringed product can be affected, but not the whole site. Not sure how that would play out. Does that mean that just part of the site would be blocked?  In regards to giving search engines immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property, the bill mentions the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property. That's O.K., but the "or" implies that the infringing entity can also be American. So it's not just for foreign entities as I thought.  It also refers to immunity for taking action against sites that endanger public health, as described by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Way too broad for my comfort. That can include many things that the FDA deems a danger. And what does that have to do with infringements? Just happened to tuck it in, I guess.

Wonder what will happen with the handbag "knockoff" industry. The bill also goes after counterfeit marks that are likely to cause confusion or to deceive. The knock off handbag companies copy all of these high end handbags, and they are a big profitable business. I've often wondered how they get away with it. Some of these original high end handbags that are knocked off, the originals are American design,  manufactured in the U.S., the orient, and in  Europe. However, the originals are not always American. Some are French, Italian. The knockoffs are also being sold offline. How are they going to control that? Address it online, and offline, they can do whatever they like?

One feature I do like is that the bill has an additional offense level enhancement, it applies to transmitting stolen trade secrets outside of the U.S. That's long overdue.  And it assigns attaches to Embassies or Diplomatic Missions for the purpose of reducing intellectual property infringement in the U.S. market.

I would not vote yes to this bill as stands. The loopholes need to be closed, and it needs to apply to foreign infringements of American products only, and not include an assortment of other things that the lawmakers want to slip in. As is, it most definitely opens the way to censorship, especially since government agencies are immune, as are the tools of government agencies, such as Google, PayPal, etc..We have to be very careful that we're not romanced into thinking it's only about protecting our intellectual rights.

Update: This blog represents just one person's opinion. It is not intended to be incendiary or to offend anyone. If you disagree with me, feel free to voice your opinions. I can take it just fine as long as people are respectful. It was written in good faith, with the belief that we will arrive at an effective solution to online piracy, even if it requires a federal law to achieve that. I am a patriotic American, and do not intend any disrespect to my country. I love my country. As is typical in America, I exercise my freedom by criticizing Washington from time to time. We Americans tend to be outspoken. That's just proof of our freedom and passion.

This is the last blog with political overtones you're going to see from me at WA.