Before I get into SOPA and PIPA, let’s go backwards and discuss the language of Pro-IP. Since Mr. Smith is so concerned about the language I’m hoping he can point me to the language in the Pro-IP Act covering criminal forfeiture where it states or even insinuates that it can be used to seize DOMAIN NAMES. That language doesn’t exist, what does exist is broad confusing open ended wording that apparently covers a wide spectrum of things the legislators who passed this bill never considered it could be used for. With all the assurances the bill he co-sponsored back in 2008 wouldn’t be misused coupled with the fact I’m writing this post on a factual representation of its misuse, it seems pretty rich that he’d have the guts to come out talking “show me the language.” Who cares about “language” when it’s written specifically to be vague enough to allow for a free for all?

Lets be honest here: What the worlds population hasn’t caught onto yet (and all the (‘Big Content’ owned versions of Self Serving State TV are not going to tell them) is much of the things in SOPA/PIPA that people are against, the authors and many of the co-sponsors of SOPA/PIPA already snuck into Pro-IP. The internet is already being censored, it’s already being misused, abused, free speech has already been stifled and there has already been collateral damage. All with the same open ended broad definition type language that exists in SOPA/PIPA that they absolutely refuse to narrow down as evidenced by not approving even the most common sense amendments. Many of which would have likely taken away or reduced their ability to misuse Pro-IP.

If Mr. Smith and his colleagues are genuine and sincere, why don’t they show US the language where it specifically states you cannot do all the things everyone is concerned about, make the language clear and concise, and then correct the language in Pro-IP so it can no longer function as the free for all that is already doing everything opponents of SOPA/PIPA are afraid of. Then, perhaps, I can take you somewhat seriously in your position that you believe you are doing the right thing and not just doing the bidding of corporations that bought you lock stock and barrel even at the detriment to your own reputation. One scenario makes you easy to manipulate, but genuine and willing to correct mistakes; the other just makes you corrupt. Pro-IP must be repealed and corrected immediately

"You’ve gotta credit Drake, especially with NahRight and other sites, He was well-connected to those guys."

REALITY CHECK: On February 12, 2009, Drake released a Mixtape called “So Far Gone” for free on the internet. This mixtape garnered so much buzz for him that he ended up touring (making a reportedly 5 figures per night), and getting several singles on the radio in the top 10 on Billboard. Drake accomplished all of this as an independent artist. A bidding war ensued by the major labels and Drake signed to a major a few months later. Despite the fact that he’d given away “So Far Gone” for free 7 months prior on the internet and it had well over a million downloads, the tape was re-released as an EP by his label in Sept. 2009 and still managed to go Gold. He was nominated for 2 Grammy Awards.

Drake came from the internet, making relationships with and utilizing the blogs, most of which are listed as so called “ROGUE WEBSITES” that have been targeted by “Private Rights of Action” in the form of a blacklist by advertising giant, Group M. Two of those “rogue sites” had their domain names seized with banners calling the operators criminals by The Dept. Of Homeland Security. (While this domain was returned last month, OnSmash is still in purgatory). No hypothetical here,this is the reality of the misuse that is happening now and will only get worse with the passage of SOPA and PIPA.

When Congress and the RIAA says “Rogue Websites” do they mean the tools the artists are using to connect directly with their fans and distribute their own music? I mean I’m just wondering because I could make this post 20+ pages of screen shots showing examples of artists utilizing these “ROGUE WEBSITES” the RIAA is trying to get Congress to pass legislation and scrub from the internet.

So who exactly is Congress trying to protect? The content creators or trade groups with deep pockets who become obsolete if the majors fully embrace technology and innovate? Truth be told there are some incredibly smart people in the urban internet world who’d be amazing assets to the legacy industry in adapting to the marketplace. If only they’d utilize them.

One of the most disturbing things to come out of the SOPA hearings is how gullible many members of Congress appear to be and how technically inept many are in Washington. If you don’t understand the technology it is not OK to say you don’t get it while turning around and saying you don’t believe the people who do. (I’m looking right at you Mr. Watts) Generation Gaps are no excuse, you’re in what amounts to a management position and you should be qualified to hold that position when you are dealing with my generation and our children’s generation economic future. Your lack of knowledge is not an excuse for the loss of any American’s Constitutional Rights. To essentially shoulder shrug like you’re cute when something that important is at stake is reprehensible. If anyone in Congress, The White House, DOJ, ICE, Homeland Security, or any other branch of Government’s knowledge in technology stops somewhere around 1997 then it is time to retire as you are no longer qualified to hold your position in 2012.

A partial fix to SOPA/PROTECT-IP would make rightsowners bear the cost of their overclaiming. Make them put up a $1 billion bond for the privilege of sending cutoff notices; and pay liberally out of that bond if the rightsowners get the law or facts wrong. Write checks to the investors and employees whose economic expectations are disrupted when rightsowners get it wrong. Write checks to the payment service providers and ad networks who turn down money from legally legit businesses based solely on rightsowner accusations. Heck, write checks to the users of those legit services who are treated as inconsequential pawns in this chess match. Sure, a $1B bond obligation with liberal payouts would turn cutoff notices into a sport of kings that only the richest rightsowners could afford, but perhaps that’s the way it should be. A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah.

Too often it amounts to taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material. In Somalia this would be called piracy. In the mediasphere, it is a respected business model.

“I expect the administration will be receiving a series of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests from our office and that the senator will have very pointed questions with regard to how the administration chooses to target the sites that it does,” said Jennifer Hoelzer, a Wyden spokeswoman. She said the senator was “particularly interested in learning how many secret dockets exist for copyright cases. There doesn’t seem to be an obvious precedent or explanation for that.”

This is an urgent task. It is most urgent, of course, for those around the world whose words are now censored, who are imprisoned because of what they or others have written online, who are blocked from accessing entire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked by governments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another.

In Syria, a blogger named Anas Maarawi was arrested on July 1st after demanding that President Asad leave. He’s not been charged with anything, but he remains in detention. In both Syria and Iran, many other online activists – actually too many to name – have been detained, imprisoned, beaten, and even killed for expressing their views and organizing their fellow citizens. And perhaps the most well known blogger in Russia, Alexei Navalny, was sentenced on Tuesday to 15 days in jail after he took part in protests over the Russian elections.

But when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What we do today to preserve fundamental freedoms online will have a profound effect on the next generation of users. More than two billion people are now connected to the internet, but in the next 20 years, that number will more than double. And we are quickly approaching the day when more than a billion people are using the internet in repressive countries. The pledges we make and the actions we take today can help us determine whether that number grows or shrinks, or whether the meaning of being on the internet is totally distorted.

So right now, in various international forums, some countries are working to change how the internet is governed. They want to replace the current multi-stakeholder approach, which includes governments, the private sector, and citizens, and supports the free flow of information, in a single global network.

The United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic, political, and social exchanges flourish. To do that, we need to protect people who exercise their rights online...

... and we also need to protect the internet itself from plans that would undermine its fundamental characteristics.

Our government (inaudible) will continue to work very hard to get around every barrier that repressive governments put up.

ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein told Ars that "the government concluded that the appropriate and just result was to decline to pursue judicial forfeiture."

So what took so long? Feinstin wouldn't elaborate on why the domain was seized or why the government had changed its mind.

We understand that a decision was made that this particular site did not merit a criminal forfeiture proceeding. We respect that government agencies must consider a range of technical issues when exercising their independent prosecutorial discretion. Criminal proceedings are not always brought, for a variety of appropriate reasons.

With respect to Dajaz1, we would note that this particular website has specialized in the massive unauthorized distribution of pre-release music -– arguably the worst and most damaging form of digital theft. For a year and a half, we monitored the site, identifying instances where its operators had uploaded music to unauthorized file-sharing services where the recordings could be freely downloaded -- music that artists had created with the expectation that they would have a chance to sell before it was leaked. Dajaz1 profited from its reputation for providing links to pre-release copies, and during that time nearly 2,300 recordings linked to the site were removed from various file-sharing services. We are unaware of a single instance where the site operator objected by saying that the distribution was somehow authorized.

If the site continues to operate in an illegal manner, we will consider all our legal options to prevent further damage to the music community.

We are aware of statements by the site operator that suggest that music companies themselves were the source of at least some of the thousands of recordings available on Dajaz1. Even assuming this to be accurate, it does not excuse the thousands of other pre-release tracks also made available which were neither authorized for commercial distribution nor for uploading to publicly accessible sites where they were readily downloadable for free.

If you're not familiar with hip-hop music blogs like the one cited in the article, please visit http://nahright.com or http://missinfo.tv to get a better idea of what they look like (since dajaz1.com doesn't seem to be back up yet, understandably).

Almost every track posted to sites like these are released by the artists themselves (or by their labels). Many hip-hop blogs (including the two I linked) will not post songs if they weren't legitimately authorized by the artists (e.g. if a track was stolen and leaked on the web).

Something you won't ever see are full albums. These sites aren't designed to replace album sales, they actually encourage them. They will only link to individual songs or freely released mixtapes.

(Also, you'll note that a lot of the music posted is from unsigned artists. A lot of newer rappers actually rose to prominence after having their music posted on these sites.)

There are many, many sites that willingly infringe on copyright and the government has good reason for shutting down. This was not one of them.

1. Deuces, by Chris Brown
   
   This song was released for free by Chris Brown, as a part of a mixtape entitled Fan of a Fan -- apparently released as part of the effort to rehabilitate Brown's reputation, following the incident with Rihanna. It was only after the song was released free, and a bunch of (you guessed it) hiphop blogs and forums started promoting it, that his label, a subsidiary of Sony Music decided to release it commercially. That song was sent directly to dajaz1 from someone at Brown's record label, using an email from the record label, and it's clear from the email that the sender is urging the recipient to spread the songs.
   
   
2. Long Gone, by Nelly
   
   This song was sent directly by a VP at the record label, who was thanked in the blog post on the website, which linked to where the song could be downloaded. A simple search by Agent Reynolds of the person thanked on the blog posting (which I did) would quickly uncover the fact that the person was a VP at the record label.
   
   
3. Fall For Your Type, by Jamie Foxx
   
   This song was sent directly by a known promoter of music, who has worked with the major record labels. The email clearly suggests that it is promoting the song for the rightsholder, and directly encourages the recipients of the email to download and share the song.
   
   
4. Mechanics, by Reek Da Villian
   
   This one's interesting, since Reek Da Villian is not signed to a major record label, but is an artist whom Busta Rhymes has taken under his wing, and has been supporting and promoting for a while now. That song was apparently sent directly by Busta Rhymes -- though I did not see that email. However, considering that his work is not represented through an RIAA affiliated label, it seems odd that Reynolds would rely on an RIAA representative to later claim that this file was infringing. There's even a sort of odd admission of this in Agent Reynold's affidavit, where he notes:

   "Based on my review of public record listings, as well as conversations with RIAA representatives, I know that as of October 26th, 2010, all of the above referenced songs were determined to be "Pre-release" or not yet released for purchase to the general public, three were copyrighted, and the copyright holders did not authorize their third party distribution over the Internet by DAJAZ1.COM or any other website."

   Note that he says all were pre-release, but only three were copyrighted. Of course, this is another example of where Agent Reynolds shows his confusion about the law. All new and original creative works in the US when set in fixed format are automatically covered by copyright (technically "copyrighted" is not a verb, also). What Agent Reynolds probably meant, but got wrong, was that the Reek Da Villian song was not registered (which is not required to be covered by copyright). Still, if we assume that he believes what he wrote, how is it copyright infringement when Agent Reynolds himself admits that one of the songs is supposedly not covered by copyright? And why would the magistrate judge allow that?