Arrrrr de media

As someone who has wanted to be a comic artist for their entire life, I know a thing or two about copyright law and intellectual property. So I was a little infuriated when I received this e-mail

Dear Mr. Ladendorf,
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding S. 968, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act and H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.  I sincerely appreciate the benefit of your views.
S. 968, and its House companion bill H.R. 3261, would allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement.  It would enable the Department of Homeland Security to share information which would facilitate the prosecution of copyright infringers existing outside the United States or which cannot be located.  The measure would also grant limited immunity to victims of property right infringement to take preventative actions against infringing entities, such as denying them access to services.  I will closely monitor this bill as it moves through the legislative process and in that context your views are very helpful.
I am a strong believer in protecting property rights, including intellectual property rights.  The internet has unfortunately made it easier for certain types of intellectual property to be stolen by persons in jurisdictions outside the reach of American law enforcement.  I also have concerns about the proliferation of criminal conduct on the internet, including internet viruses which can steal information or damage equipment.  However, I want to stress that I am very sensitive to concerns about personal privacy, especially when the entity invading a person's privacy is the government.  We should uphold the law, but I do not want to impose unforeseen burdens on the internet which could stifle the growth of the internet medium.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.  Hearing the views of all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of the Seventh district and the future interests of the nation.
For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the Seventh District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.long.house.gov, and to receive my monthly newsletter, you can sign up on mywebsite.


Sincerely, Billy LongMember of Congress

This stance by Mr. Long is predictable because of his consistant genuflecting toward big business. This letter is misguided and misleading. This law does not protect business it gives them a nuclear option. Here are a list of my concerns


- The piracy threat is over stated. The music industry and others site how much they've lost to piracy based on how much material is being downloaded- not considering once that the people downloading media for free would have never paid for the media in the first place. Someone with a hundred thousand songs on their computer is unlikely to have bought 100,000 albums. And frankly the reason iTunes has done so well is because it's reasonably priced. The music industry has been ripping off the public for a long time and a very little portion of the price of an album goes to the artist.


-Intellectual property law insists on aggressive defense of property or it will fall into public domain. Because of how powerful SOPA is, it could very well FORCE BUSINESSES TO ATTACK THEIR CUSTOMERS who want to express their love for Properties by creating fan works.


-This letter's claim that SOPA would "allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement" doesn't seem to be true. It seems like it will be used (or FORCE BUSINESSES to be used) to shut down sites dedicated to user content. The language of the bill is so broad it could shut down youtube because there are too many cover songs on it.

-Intellectual copyright law is used in a one sided manner. Companies that are built around media tend to misinform the public about what rights they have. An example is blurred out t-shirt logos on documentaries. That is fair use there is no reason to do it but film makers are so afraid of being sued it doesn't matter that they are actually PROTECTED by intellectual rights laws. 
SOPA is frightening if you consider the way it is likely to be administered. Through search engines. How many people are going to face prosecution or have their business shut down because someone saw their image posted on a website without taking the time to see the context? If I'm writing a review of a book I am legally allowed to use the cover image because I am using it to create a new work.
There was a case famous in the comic community where a PARODY of the Starbucks logo was featured in a comic book that included the words "Corporate Whore". Starbucks sued and now the creator of the comic book is not allowed to make ANY LOGO THAT CONTAINS BOTH A CIRCLE AND A TRIANGLE.
That is not justice. That is abuse of power and it goes one every day. I can not go into a Kinkos and make copies of an image from a book even though by law I can make up to six copies. 100 if it's for teaching material.


-Lastly, from my understanding, SOPA is another attack on Habeus Corpus. The language I have seen implies that the Attorney General and Homeland Security have all these new powers without the requiring a trial first. The government can shut down someone's source of income without due process.
This will kill smaller media companies who don't have as much influence and will fall prey to the bigger companies who can afford a team of lawyers that specialize in using the government as a weapon as a way to kill their competition in the crib. Before they become real competition.