It appears the 'Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Acts' is being fast-tracked through Congress.
Personally- I'm having a 'Republican Moment'.
It happens time to time.
The "Party of No" has finally spoke up and fought against a set of regulations we didn't need and that could in fact easily be abused.
After all, the powers- depending on how they're interpreted- would give the government virtually limitless power in regulating the Internet.
I hope they're not still calling it the 'Interwebs' up there on Capitol Hill.
I'd find it annoying to get a call saying my interwebs were shut down.
We've seen time and again the excesses and abuses of personnel rights by the government.
Just look back at the past eight years of the Bush administration.
Waterboarding, WMDS, and wiretaps.
OH MY! I think it is time for our President to play the role of a policy wonk and get involved in this very important policy debate.
Congress is definitely out of touch.
But perhaps a little too attuned to the Obama Administration (which supports this act).
Part of the beauty of the Internet has and always be the fact that it is (in essence) a virtual wilderness.
A wild West if you will.
In order to reign in its excesses and abuses of the Internet do we really need to give government this much power? For most, Congressional laws are never easy to interpret.
Many times only those on Capitol Hill truly know their implications.
Thus far the Senate has been attempting to fast-track ' Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act'.
If it becomes law, the US would then be given enough power to not only limit how the internet is used in the US, but abroad; not only how it is used in the US and abroad, but built and how private companies provide service.
Notice the 'private companies' turn of phrase? I could have said internet providers; but as I said, I'm having a Republican moment.
Although created with the intention to combat file-sharing and copyright infringements, for which the motion picture industry has lobbied, the problem is with the combination of the power to seize domains and that it deals in copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement cases are filed every day for petty reasons (such as cartoons parodying a celebrity whom took it offensively).
Could the US Government seize a domain name if a suit were filed against a site that dealt in satire? I doubt it.
But if they wanted to, the power could easily be abused.
Although in the long run people would turn against the bill, it wouldn't help those that were impacted in the meantime and left with the daunting task of trying to sue the Federal Government to regain their losses.
They would be very little left to do but resign yourself.
If passed, the US government would be given the right to: Compile their own database of domain names purportedly involved in file-sharing.
Blacklisting, if you will, sites they 'reasonably believe' to be engaging in copyright-infringements or file-sharing; And finally to then require any US based Internet Service providers to block the aforementioned sites from their websites and services.
Isn't that a little bit, I mean a WHOLE LOT, like being guilty of a crime before necessarily committing it? What next, passing a tax for every hour you spend on the internet? The debate seems to be more about who controls the internet than the actual issues.
Private parties deal with these issues every day in court.
Do we really need a Big Brother of sorts jumping in and arbitrarily CRUSHING the business affairs of any site owner on the wrong side of a business owner or a motion picture company? If passed I (and many others out there that believe in the neutrality of the Internet) don't find it hard to imagine.
As Bog Dylan once said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
"