[GPSCC-chat] #SOPA?

Tue Dec 20 08:39:17 PST 2011

John:


       What do you know about the House rules?  Is it possible that it 
could be voted out of committee and still come to a vote tomorrow, Dec. 21?


       I also read several places that the committee recessed last 
Friday without taking a vote.  Logically, this would seem to reduce the 
chances of it coming to a vote by Dec. 21.  However, I don't know the 
House rules, and it may not have much if any impact on the schedule of a 
vote, especially if the committee approves it today.


       Spencer


On 12/20/2011 8:31 AM, John Thielking wrote:
> It is my understanding that SOPA was still in committee being marked 
> up, according to yesterday's hard Knock radio at www.kpfa.org 
> <http://www.kpfa.org> . They might have a vote in committee on Dec 21, 
> but it is unlikely that it is going to the house floor on the 21st.
> John Thielking
>
> *From:* Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
> *To:* GPSCC <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2011 11:27 PM
> *Subject:* [GPSCC-chat] #SOPA?
>
> Hello, All:
>
>
>       Owen in Occupy San Jose is organizing a protest against the 
> "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA), which is currently scheduled for a 
> vote this Wednesday, Dec. 21.  For ignoramuses such as myself, I will 
> summarize here my understanding of the current status of this bill 
> (mostly taken from the Wikipedia article on it);  if anything below 
> seems inappropriate, please let me know.
>
>
> WHAT IS SOPA?
>
>
>             1.  This is a House bill scheduled to come to a vote this 
> Wednesday, Dec. 21.  The corresponding Senate bill, the Protect IP 
> Act, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but is not currently 
> scheduled for a vote.  As of Dec. 17, there were 31 official sponsors, 
> and 4 known opponents in the House, including Nancy Polosi, Zoe 
> Lofgren, Darrell Issa, and Ron Paul.
>
>
>             2.  "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of 
> Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. 
> jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights... .  After 
> delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General could require 
> US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and 
> payment processors such as PayPal or Visa to suspend doing business 
> with sites found to infringe... .  The Attorney-General could also bar 
> search engines from displaying links to the sites."
>
>
>             3.  However, most experts outside the US media industry 
> are opposed for several reasons.  First, its provisions could so 
> disrupt the normal functioning of the Internet that it seriously 
> degrades its utility.  Second, civil libertarians say that it 
> essentially authorizes prior censorship in ways that could be 
> virtually beyond public scrutiny.  In theory, the bill gives web site 
> owners unjustly accused of copyright infringement the right to sue 
> their accusers.  In practice, it's not realistic to expect that 
> "occupysj.org <http://occupysj.org/>", for example, could afford the 
> attorney's fees required to challenge Disney -- especially since most 
> of the media industry supports Disney's position and would happily see 
> "occupysj.org" destroyed if they could do so without a large public 
> outcry.
>
>
> CALL TO ACTION:
>
>
>             1.  Write (and perhaps call) your representative in the US 
> House.  If that's Lofgren, thank her for her strong opposition to this 
> in order to reinforce her resolve to sustain her position and to give 
> her ammunition in talking with other representatives.  For others, ask 
> their position and express your opposition.  If you haven't done this 
> before, go to "www.house.gov <http://www.house.gov/>" and enter your 
> zip code.  This will identify your representative and provide a link 
> to how to communicate to him / her.
>
>
>             2.  Write your friends and acquaintances to tell them what 
> you did and encourage them to do likewise.
>
>
>            3.  While you are at it, I encourage you to also write your 
> Senators.  Boxer is fourth highest recipient of money from the 
> organizations pushing for this legislation:  $544,424 (according to 
> "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money 
> <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money>") and include those 
> when you write others.
>
>
>       The following are what I'm writing.
>
>
>       Spencer
>
>
> Representative Zoe Lofgren:  Dear Representative Lofgren:  I wish to 
> thank you for your strong opposition to the "Stop Online Piracy Act".  
> I oppose it because (a) I'm convinced it presents serious technical 
> problems as discussed by many technical experts, (b) authorize prior 
> censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part because the media 
> have a conflict of interest that would push them to avoid reporting on 
> any such events when they could do so without substantive loss of 
> audience, and (c) it's one more example of corporate welfare and 
> bribery at work in the halls of congress.  Thanks, Spencer Graves
>
>
> Senator Barbara Boxer:  Subject:  Protect IP Act
> Dear Senator Boxer:  What is your position on the Protect IP Act?  
> From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare 
> and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious 
> technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) 
> authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part 
> because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to 
> avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without 
> substantive loss of audience.  According to 
> "www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money 
> <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money>", you've received 
> $544,424 in contributions from the industry pushing for this bill.  
> Are you planning to vote for the special interests and against the 
> constitution or for the general welfare of the public?  Sincerely, 
> Spencer Graves
>
>
> Senator Diane Feinstain:  General Topic:  Civil Liberties.
> Dear Senator Feinstein:  What is your position on the Protect IP Act?  
> From what I've read, it is (a) one more example of corporate welfare 
> and bribery at work in congress that would (b) presents serious 
> technical problems as discussed by many technical experts and (c) 
> authorize prior censorship in ways that are easily concealed in part 
> because the media have a conflict of interest that would push them to 
> avoid reporting on any such events when they could do so without 
> substantive loss of audience.  Sincerely, Spencer Graves
>
>
> On 12/19/2011 7:54 PM, Owen wrote:
>> ALSO, I don't like that is an unofficial action, either. Came up with
>> the idea or this yesterday since #SOPA goes to vote on the 21st.
>>
>> My apologies for this unorthodox (spontaneous) action.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org <mailto:sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>


-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20111220/db3b6252/attachment.html>