Independence Day Special 2011:
Governments and Individual Rights
Internet Freedom VS On-line Piracy
Laws Must be Specific to Preserve Freedom
Internet Freedom Versus Online Piracy
By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
01/17/2012
Modified 01/20/2012 *
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 there will be a nationwide and possibly worldwide protest against SOPA and other on-line piracy bills before the American House and Senate. This bill and others like it take fighting piracy on the internet as a means of controlling the internet via government force, and must be protested. The US Government has no right and no authority to regulate free speech – on the internet, the newspapers, the television shows, the radio shows, and any other form of communications, public or private. American’s fought The American Revolutionary War to form a government that would protect free speech rather than abrogate it. This means that the US Government must keep its hands off any private material presented in any material form by an author, whether the author makes it public or not. And it also means that the government must protect said speech from those who would steal it and present it as their own creations. This means that the US Government, in its effort to protect free speech, must stop on-line piracy – the willful posting of material that is not owned by the person posting it (aside from “fair use” standards of small portions). It goes both ways – the individual has the right to speak his mind and a right to keep what is his, and the American government must protect both the author and the authorship / ownership of that product.
But SOPA and other bills like it do not operate from this principle – the principle of private property for intellectual property -- it seeks to make inroads into the control of free speech by regulating various avenues of connecting to the internet or doing business on the internet, without trial and without proof of violations of property rights by those on the internet sites, such as social networks, by government fiat. This would be like shutting down a road because someone once drove on it after having stolen private property – it punishes the innocent as well as the guilty. And let me be clear, that those involved in the proliferation of internet piracy – of re-transmitting someone else’s intellectual property – are guilty and need to be stopped. But not by controlling the internet by government force. Go after the pirates, yes, but leave the rest of us alone.
The internet is a bastion of free speech, and needs to remain so, as it is the right of every man to speak his own mind, regardless of who doesn’t like it – including the government. As I have said, the government must protect this free speech. In order to remain moral, regarding the internet piracy proliferation, a means must be found that punishes the thieves while protecting the innocent. And government control of the internet is not the way to do that. It would be like taking away everyone’s keyboard because a few posted essays written by someone else, and this would be evil, and Unconstitutional – see the First Amendment!
So my protest is both against the government for its attempt to control the internet and the online pirates who steal other people’s work. When piracy was on the rise on the high seas, it was not fought by shutting down the shipping lanes – the pirates were punished. And the shipping lanes were thus free. Similarly, the internet must remain free for the commerce of the human mind to continue.
*Looks like I got caught up in the hoopla regarding SOPA and PIPA (Protect IP) in that neither law gives the government the power to regulate the internet the way they try to regulate commerce in general. In other words, there isn’t anything in either bill that would make it necessary to gain governmental permission to posts things to the internet, or that the government could order a take-down of a website on fiat alone. However, after having read a few legal authorities on the bills in question, the main provisions for these laws are quite vague and subject to misuse, as they are not clear on what it means to stop and how it is going to stop it and what damages a person or website might suffer having broken this law. In that regard, I’m glad the bills were recently defeated. If they cannot be more clear, then arbitrary abuse would be the result, and we should all be against that aspect of these laws.
Also see my essay on non-objective law.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Welcome to:
Applied Philosophy Online
Where ideas are brought down to earth!
And that is not just an empty phrase to be spoken of only in academia -- if they speak such words at all. For if ideas are of no use to us while living our lives, then why bother having them? Alas, that is the attitude most people have regarding philosophy. Perhaps it is something they had to take while they were in college; and, in part due to the way it was taught, it was thought of as something some of those guys did in ancient history -- a long time ago, in a country far, far away.
This website intends to be different.
Philosophy will be spoken of here as if it is a man's life-blood -- because it is precisely that; a means of living life on earth to the most rational ability of every man and woman. Some philosophies are so esoteric, that one may well wonder how they can possibly be applied: and the answer is that they can't be, not without a man becoming self-destructive.
If a man's most abstract ideas are not firmly connected to reality, then he will be set adrift with no guidance in his daily life. One's most abstract ideas are what makes him function as a rational being -- or not; depending on how valid those ideas are. The term "valid" in this usage means: stemming from evidence provided by the senses.
Objectivism, created by Ayn Rand, is a unique philosophy because it is described as an intellectual means of living one's life on earth (and in the universe). Unlike other philosophies, it is not just some abstract discussion of ideas that have nothing to do with real life. Novels and other works of art can depict a philosophy by being both specific and selective with regard to what is being illustrated, and Ayn Rand was the best writer who had this capability -- as demonstrated brilliantly in her most popular novels: Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
The most influential philosophers to date are Plato, Aristotle, and Kant. A new culture based on a philosophy generally takes at least one hundred years to reach its height of influence, and since Miss Rand's ideas are only a little over fifty years old, it may be a while before we reach the state of a culture that proclaims rationality as the highest virtue. This will bring about a renaissance -- a rebirth of reason -- as the primary motivational factor that individuals turn to for guidance in living their own individual lives.
The first renaissance was due to Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas; the second one will be due to rational men acting to integrate reason into productive and profitable action on a daily basis; and it is my goal to be one of those people bringing about the second renaissance. I'd like to take a moment to thank those who are acting according to reason fully, because it makes all of our lives immensely better. Though I have learned a great deal from such individuals, I take complete responsibility for the content of this website.
Philosophy has five main branches: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Metaphysics deals with the fundamental nature of existence; epistemology deals with the fundamental nature of man's means of knowledge and its role in understanding existence; ethics is the application of these two branches to how man ought to live; politics deals with how men ought to interact in a social context, including establishing a government; and esthetics deals with the role that art plays in presenting a philosophy in readily perceivable forms.
Along with the five main branches of philosophy, I have added a section for the special sciences and for current affairs.
Because these essays were not originally intended to be subdivided into philosophic categories, there is a lot of overlap in the writings. Later, I intend to write longer, more self-contained essays that I will probably sell via this website.
More recently, I've added a section for some of my favorite paintings, which includes the artists: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Albert Bierstadt, Sandro Botticelli, William Adolphe Bouguereau, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Frederick Edwin Church, Sir Frank Dicksee, Jean Leon Gerome, Edmund Blair Leighton, Lord Frederic Leighton, Thomas Moran, Raphael Sanzi, Jan Vermeer, and John William Waterhouse.
There are three basic axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness; each of which is self-evident via perception or introspection -- and art is a wonderful way of concretizing (or making perceptually real) the over-all philosophy of a particular artist. Causality, and other fundamental concepts, are corrolaries to the axioms; which means they are the next logical step once the axioms have been conceptualized.
Though some of the writings herein are new, most come from various discussion forums that I have participated in over the years. The complete context of an issue may be difficult to convey in a series of essays written for a discussion forum, but I will try to provide the context if that is necessary. Since, one's knowledge of any topic grows over time, I have included the date the essay was written. It should be kept in mind that the person I am responding to may not agree with my answer.
Please enjoy my discussions.
Questions, concerns, or comments ought to be sent to:
tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|