Random Sutras

For the Red, White, and Blue

“I believe our flag is more than just cloth and ink.  It is a universally recognized symbol that stands for liberty and freedom.  It is the history of our nation, and it’s marked by the blood of those who die defending it.”  John Thune, United States Senator, South Dakota, b.1961

 

I remember in fifth grade learning about the United States flag.  As part of the lesson, high school students came to our school to teach us how to fold the flag.  I was so excited and proud of what I learned, that evening I shared the lesson with my father.  My father, an ex-army man, smiled at my excitement.  After dinner he retrieved our United States flag and taught me the correct way to fold it.  You see, I was taught at school that the stripes were on the outside when the flag was folded.  My father explained that the stars are always on the outside.  Together we folded and unfolded the United States flag until I was able to get my triangle creases crisp and straight. 

Several years later while vacationing in Hawaii, my husband and I visited the USS Missouri Memorial.  (A fabulous tour.  If you have the chance to go, don’t pass it up.)  While there we purchased an United States flag, hoisted it up, flew our flag over the USS Missouri for a few minutes, lowered the flag, and folded it.  There were Navy personnel there to teach the tourist how to hoist the flag, “... the flag should be hoisted briskly ...” and lower the flag, “... lowered ceremoniously”, lessons I had already learned more than two decades earlier from my father.  Then our Navy guide began to teach us the proper way to fold the flag.  My husband respectfully explained that I didn’t need that lesson.  Our surprised Navy guide watched as I folded our new United States flag, with crisp, straight triangles, union side out.

On June 14, 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the United States flag for our new Nation.  The original flag had thirteen red and white alternating stripes and thirteen white stars on a blue field, one star representing each of the colonies.  Over the years, stars have been added to the flag as new states have joined the Union.  Today the United States flag has 50 stars, representing each of the 50 states, along with the original thirteen red and white stripes.

On June 14, 1923 the National Flag Code, regulations for displaying the flag, were adopted by the National Flag Conference.  In attendance at this conference were 66 national organizations along with the Army and Navy.  But it wasn’t until June 14, 1942 that Congress proposed a joint resolution to make the National Flag Code public law.  A few minor changes were made, and on December 22, 1942 the National Flag Code was passed into law; US Code Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec.170 through 189.  The Code includes regulations for displaying the flag, conduct during the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, along with other rules and regulations.

The Flag Code has since been enhanced and broken into separate US Code Titles.  US Code Title 36, Subtitle 1 defines National days of observance, ceremonies, and different patriotic organizations.  The Flag Code can now be found as US Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Sections 1 through 10.  

In US Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec.7, (m), regulations regarding the display of the flag at half-staff are outlined.  

“The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. ... By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half- staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, ... In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States or the death of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, ... the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff, ... When the Governor of a State, ... issues a proclamation under the preceding sentence that the National flag be flown at half-staff in that State, ... because of the death of a member of the Armed Forces, the National flag flown at any Federal installation or facility in the area covered by that proclamation shall be flown at half-staff consistent with that proclamation. The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days from the day of death of the Vice President, ...”

In 2007, H.R.692 - Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007,   was passed amending Sec.7(m) of the Flag Code.  This Amendment authorizes a Governor to order the National flag be flown at half-staff, honoring a member of the Armed Forces from that state, who has died in the line of duty.

As part of my fifth grade lesson, I was taught that a flag flow at half-staff meant the death of a President or other government official.  Since 2007, it can also mean the death of a member of the Armed Forces.  For the past few years, in Iowa, it seems our National flag has been flown at half-staff at least once a month.  Each time the flag was at half-staff, I assumed that an Armed Forces member from Iowa had died in the line of duty, but I didn’t know who.  It was happening so often that it was becoming commonplace, and for me, losing it’s significance.  This I felt was disrespectful to the men and women it honored and to our National symbol.  

So, I decided to do a little research.

In the past twelve months, the State of Iowa has lost ten members of the Armed Forces, one firefighter, and one peace officer, killed in the line of duty.  In honor of these men, Iowa has flown our National flag at half-staff.  

What I discovered in my research is a website dedicated to providing information, on a national and state level, regarding when to fly our National flag at half-staff and who it is honoring.  You can receive this information directly on the site or through Twitter, Facebook, or email.  

Since the birth of this Nation, hundreds of thousands of men and women have died for this country, to protect our rights and freedoms.  If anyone deserves the honor, respect, and gratitude from flying the United States flag at half-staff, it is the men and women who protect us.    I am humbled by their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families.  I am always grateful.  These men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect us.  Out of respect, know who we are honoring when the flag is flown at half-staff.  

Because they stand on a wall and say, “Nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch.”  A Few Good Men, Rob Reiner, 1992

 

Members of the Armed Forces, Firefighters, and Peace Officers Honored from Iowa (past twelve months)

Spc. Shaw A. Muhr; February 2011

Sgt. Eric Stein; April 2011

Spc. Donald Nichols; April 2011

Sgt. Brent Maher; April 2011

Staff Sgt. James Justice; May 2011

Air Force Staff Sgt. Joseph J. Hamski; June 2011

Staff Sgt. Marvin J. Steinford; served in WWII, died June 2011

Army Captain Matthew Nielson; July 2011

Petty Officer Jon. T Tumilson; August 2011

Iowa State Trooper Mark Toney; September 2011

Volunteer Firefighter Michael Collins; September 2011

Marine Corporal Zachary C. Reiff; December 2011

Master Sgt. Travis Riddick; January 2012

 

Half-Staff American Flag Notifications

 

 

Help Stop SOPA (and PIPA).

“Censorship is advertising paid by the government.” 

Federico Fellini, 1920-1993, Italian film director

 

The theft of intellectual property is a serious issue.  Stopping piracy is nontrivial.  SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) are not the answer.  Aside from the names of these two Acts, they have nothing to do to actually stop online piracy and intellectual property theft.

Last year there was a proposed Act in the Senate that addressed the same issue in the same manner, COCIA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act).  Like SOPA and PIPA, COCIA proposed blocking allegedly infringing sites by changing the DNS (Domain Name System) directory.  All without due process.  This is the same type of censorship used by China, Egypt, and other countries.  How can the United States be a world leader, championing freedom and democracy, and pass Acts such as SOPA and PIPA?

The spin doctors have done a good job marketing SOPA and PIPA, but don’t be fooled.  If SOPA and/or PIPA pass you will be directly effected.  For example; let’s say you take a video of your kid blowing out the candles on their birthday cake.  In the background there is a song playing by The Beatles.  You then post this video on YouTube, Facebook, or some other sharing site for your family and friends to view.  Since there is a Beatles song playing in the background, this is considered an unauthorized performance.  According to SOPA, if this video is streamed more than 10 times in a 180-day period, you are guilty of piracy and your video will be blocked.  The hosting site could also be blocked.  Impossible?  It happens more than you would think now on YouTube, using the DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998) Take Down process. 

You only need to look at the companies sponsoring and the companies opposing to see who SOPA and PIPA will benefit and who it will hurt.  Ultimately, it will hurt you and all the citizens of the United States.

On EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) website is an open letter to the House of Representatives written by 110 law professors from 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico opposing SOPA.  It’s very interesting reading. 

Today popular websites such as Reddit, Wikipedia, OpenCongress, MoveOn, Craigslist, and others are going dark to protest SOPA and PIPA.  Please join them in speaking out against censorship and for the support of due process.  We need to end piracy, but not by ending our civil rights.

“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.”

George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950, author, playwright, Nobel Prize in Literature 1925

 

 

A Night At The Caucus

caucus |ˈkôkəs|

noun ( pl. -cuses )

1 a meeting of the members of a legislative body who are members of a particular political party, to select candidates or decide policy.

• the members of such a body.

2 a group of people with shared concerns within a political party or larger organization.

• a meeting of such a group.

 

For us Iowans, it all started last spring.  First the mailers, then the visits, and last but most annoying the phone calls.  Calls from candidates, campaigns, and pollsters all through the holidays.  Romney and Perry even called to wish everyone a happy holiday.  Annoying.

Last night, for Iowa, it all came to a temporary end with the presidential caucus.  I'm new to Iowa.  We moved here nine years ago from California.  This is only my second caucus.  And I got to say, I really like it.  A presidential caucus gets you involved with the process of electing the President.  

I'm from Oregon and lived 15 years in California.  Both states have primary elections. You go to a polling place, cast a ballot for your candidate of choice, and leave.  With a caucus you meet with the rest of your voting precinct, each presidential candidate or representative has three minutes to speak, paper ballots are passed out, you vote, votes are hand counted with several witnesses, results are announced, you go home.  Intelligent debate between neighbors happens, the issues are discussed, opinions are expressed in a civilized manner.  Some precincts don't adjourn the caucus until they have chosen one candidate for that precinct.  When you leave the caucus you know you were involved in choosing the President far beyond simply casting a ballot at a polling place.

Iowans have endured over nine months of political bombardment.  So when I read comments and stories that the Iowa presidential caucus doesn't mean anything, "nil, zero, zilch", it annoys me just as much as the political phones calls.  

The Iowa caucus does mean something, not just to Iowans and the candidates, but to the entire nation.  For the rest of the states, we just narrowed the republican presidential candidates from eight to five.  I'm guessing that Roemer, Huntsman, and Bachmann are not going to continue the Presidential race much past the Iowa caucus.  You’re welcome.

In addition, the Iowa caucus just emphasized that the 2012 presidential election is going to be close.  Romney only received eight votes more than Santorum.  And Paul was a close third.  The one lesson we should have learned as a nation from the 2000 election is EVERY VOTE COUNTS!  This was punctuated last night at the Iowa presidential caucus. 

So even if you feel the Iowa caucus means nothing, nil, zero, zilch, let it at least be a reminder to everyone in the nation to get out and vote.  To get involved.  To research the candidates positions and past.  To understand the issues.  To choose a candidate you feel is the best person to lead this country, rather than voting for someone you think can beat the "other guy".  

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” -Thomas Paine 

 

 

Never Talk About Religion or Politics

"Believe nothing merely because you have been told it.  Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher."  Buddha

This past week, my husband, in his usual diplomatic balm, posted some controversial links about religion, politics, and education.  The ensuing comments were both quick and fervent.  One of his posts linked to a story regarding the Republican party and its growing anti-science position (a story about politics with a hint of religion).  The melee of comments regarding this story got me thinking about my own religious philosophy.  

My family is a religious anomaly.   I am a theist, my husband is an atheist.  Unlike many of our peers, we do not follow one faith or religion.  I was raised in the Mormon church.  Although I have long stopped going to church, I have retained some of the tenets, assimilating them into my individual spiritual practice.  My husband has studied many, if not all, world religions.  He meditates regularly to clear his mind and center his energy.  

Quite an unusual union, a Mormon married to an atheist.  But it works, because we both have a strong conviction that personal beliefs are as individual and unique as the person.  We are raising our daughters to discover for themselves what they believe. 

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of.  My own mind is my own church."  Thomas Paine

One comment, among the many, caused me to pause and take reflection: “ ... without an absolute, [God] there is no true right and wrong”.  I disagree.  One needs only to turn inward to know right and wrong.  I feel, as a society and individuals, we get into trouble when we turn over our spiritual direction to another person or religious organization.  We innately know what to do, if we just listen inward.  

As individuals, we must determine our own path, decide how to live our life.  I feel this is one of our fundamental responsibilities.  No one can tell us what to believe or how to live our life, we must discover this for ourself.   Everyone has a unique path to take.  Honor your path and respect others on their journey.

“Everything you really need to know is in your heart.  It is easy to get caught up in the belief that others know more than you do.  True knowledge is more than just a collection of facts.  Today trust yourself more, and live from that trust.”  Judith Hanson Lasater, Ph.D., P.T., A Year of Living Your Yoga

I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For A Hamburger Today

Let me see if I understand this.  As a country, we are spending more than we are taking in.  So instead of cutting our spending, we are getting loans from other countries so we can continue to spend.  We have done this for years and we think it is a good idea.  

Still, we continue to increase spending.

Executive Branch +2%

Legislative Branch +9%

Judicial Branch +7%

Department of Justice +6%

Department of Homeland Security +11%

Department of Defense+2%

Except in areas that take care of our citizens.

Department of Health and Human Services -1%

CDC -2%

Public Health Emergency Fund -45%

To me the solution is simple.  Stop spending more than we make.  This doesn't mean increase taxes, but instead reduce current spending.  When a corporation is faced with the same situation, responsible leaders make hard choices to reduce spending to save the company.  For example, no pay increases, in fact some executives have reduced their pay to $1.00 per year.

I would like to see our Executive and Legislative branch incorporate a $1.00 per year salary until the nations multi-trillion dollar debt is paid off.  

I would also like to see any program that does not have objectives that are specific and measurable, so we can determine success, cut.

Next, I would like an audit completed to determine government departments that have the same or similar charters.  Then explore options to reduce costs by rolling them into one organization.  Obviously, this cannot happen before we need to resolve the current issues, but should happen within the next 12 months.

I realize this may be an over simplification of a difficult issue, but everyone knows you can't spend more than you make.  We need to make it clear to our elected officials that we expect them to make responsible choices to establish solutions to this out-of-control spending.  Next year is an election year, if you’re not happy with the decisions made today, go to the polls and change it.  Remember our Legislators work for us, and election year is a time for their job review. 

 

 

I'm Ready For My Close-Up

“Ever since the 1860s when photographers travelled the American West and brought photographs of scenic wonders back to the people on the East Coast of America, we have had a North American tradition of landscape photography used for the environment.” 

Galen Rowell, 1940-2002, wilderness photographer and climber

 

This is a lovely time of year in Iowa.  Beautiful fields with corn just beginning to poke out of the lush, rich midwest soil, gentle rolling hills, pastoral fields for cattle to graze, the air is fresh and clean, and the sky seems to go on forever.  The perfect time of year to grab your camera and go for a long drive, returning with Norman Rockwell style photos of charming Midwest farms.

On March 17, 2011, the Iowa State House passed HF589 “An Act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies.”  Considering the description of this bill, one would think it was a law protecting consumers from agricultural operations that produce tainted food.  Well, not exactly.  Instead, this bill would criminalize the act of taking a photo of a farm.  

 

Section 9. NEW SECTION 717A.2A  Animal Facility Interference  

“1. A  person is guilty of animal facility interference, if the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following: 

    a.(1) Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility ... “

 

There is an identical section relating to crops, Crop Operation Interference. 

“1. A person is guilty of crop operation interference, if the person acts without the consent of the owner of a crop operation to willfully do any of the following:

    a. Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the crop operation ...“  [Section 14. NEW SECTION. 717A.3A]

 

If convicted of Animal Facility Interference or Crop Operation Interference, (aka taking pictures of a farm), the penalties are as follows:  “a. ... first conviction, the person is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.  b. For a second or subsequent conviction, the person is guilty of a class “D” felony.” [Sec. 9. 717A.2A Animal Facility Interference 2. a. and b.] and [Section 14. 717A.3A Crop Operation Interference 2. a. and b.]

You have to ask why the legislators would be concerned about people taking pictures of farms.  Do they have something to hide?  Do the farmers have something to hide?  The Midwest is responsible for producing much of the food consumed in the United States.  So why would anyone want to enact a law that makes it a crime to take a photo of a farm? What reason would the legislators in the state of Iowa have to pass this bill?

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that foodborne illness is an important health burden in the United States today.  They estimate that one in six Americans (approximately 48 million) get sick each year from foodborne illnesses.  This study discusses known and unknown agents responsible for these illnesses.  The CDC indicates that the thirty-one known agents are responsible for 9.4 million illnesses, 55,961 hospitalizations, and 1,351 deaths a year.  The unknown agents are suspected to be responsible for an additional 38.4 million illnesses, 71,878 hospitalizations, and 1,686 deaths a year.  Based on this 2011 study, contaminated food in the United States is responsible for 3,037 deaths a year.  

FoodSafety.gov has posted four things you can do to prevent foodborne illnesses at home; clean, separate, cook, and chill.  I would like to add one additional step; know where your food comes from. 

Chef Paul Prudhomme once said, “We trust something in the grocery store and assume it’s good.  We don’t learn about the most precious thing in life; the food we put in our body.  Educate yourself!”

Educating yourself is the best defense in preventing a foodborne illness. With food recalls happening everyday, it is important to know where your food is produced.  There are many resources on the Internet to help you source fresh, local food.  I have listed several of my favorite sites at the end of this post.  

I hope the Iowa State Senate has more common sense than the House, and does not pass HF589.  Currently it’s not illegal to stand on a public street and take a picture of a farm.  But here in Iowa, this may change.  If it does, someone will need to notify Google to take down Street View.  Meanwhile, I’m going on a long drive through the Iowa countryside, taking as many pictures as my 8GB card will hold.

 

References

Slow Food USA

Eat Well Guide

Local Harvest

Real Time Farms (a new site)

Still Tasty

Seafood Watch

Food Safety Food Recalls and Alerts

CDC Food Safety Home Page

CDC Multi-state Foodborne Outbreaks

 

 

Now You See It, Now You Don't

“If the only way a library can offer an Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity in a way that has never been seen before because there are no formalities.” 

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School

 

My nine year-old is taking piano lessons. She enjoys piano, but has an aversion to math. Having a degree in music, I try to explain to her the correlation between music and math. She is unconvinced. So, you can imagine how excited I was to show her a video I found on YouTube created to celebrate pi ( π ) day. 

March 14th was pi day. In celebration, Michael John Blake, a young musician, composed a fugue based on pi to the 31st decimal. Much to my surprise, when searching for this video on YouTube to show my daughter, I found an additional video from Michael John Blake explaining why his pi video disappeared from YouTube.  

Yes, videos can be removed from YouTube. In fact, anything can be removed from any site by its host, including Facebook, news-sites, personal blogs, anything. All in thanks to The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, commonly known as the DMCA.   

The DMCA was signed into law on October 28,1998 by President Clinton. It amends US Code Title 17 Copyrights as well as implements two international treaties; World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Act) and World Intellectual Property Organization Performance and Phonogram (WIPO Performance and Phonogram Act).  The DMCA includes five Titles, but the one that affects the missing video from YouTube is Title 2 Online Copyright Infringement Liability Act.  To those of you who have read my previous post on S.3804 COICA, some of this may sound familiar.  

Title 2 of the DMCA grants “safe harbor” to service providers and content hosts who follow a “notice-and-takedown” process. Briefly, here is how it works. If I see a video on YouTube that I did not post, but contains my copyrighted material, I submit a “takedown notice” to YouTube stating that I am the copyright holder and request them to remove the video from their site. YouTube then removes the video and notifies the user who posted the video that it has been removed. If the user who posted the video feels that it is “fair use” or is not copyright material, they can then submit a “counter notice” to YouTube to restore the video. Following the filing of the “counter notice”, the copyright holder then has ten days to file a lawsuit. If no lawsuit is filed in that time, YouTube will restore the video. As you can imagine, the takedown notice process has been subject to much criticism and misuse.  

As a result of the DMCA’s “notice-and-takedown” process there has been the birth of a new industry; Copyright Trolls. Copyright Trolls are companies that search the Internet for possibly infringing copyright material. Once they find something, they initiate a lawsuit against the alleged violator threatening a judgement of up to $150,000. In most cases the copyright material is covered under “fair use”. Not knowing this, the defendants not wanting to incur legal costs and possible conviction, quickly settle for $1,500 to $3,000 per person.  In the past year, these copyright trolls have been experimenting with mass copyright litigation. As a result there are currently several cases in the court system challenging the ability of copyright trolls to sue for copyright infringement. In one such case, [Righthaven v. Democratic Underground] the issue of “right to sue” has come up. In copyright law, only the copyright holder has the right to sue. Copyright trolls don’t hold the copyrights, therefore they do not have the right to sue.

Back to our YouTube musician, Michael John Blake. On March 16th he posted a new video explaining that he received notice that his pi song initiated a copyright infringement claim. He states in this video that he filed a counter notice, believing that you “ ... can’t copyright a melody based on a number." His What Pi Sounds Like video has since be restored.

My nine year-old and I watched his video. She loved it and is beginning to see some correlation between music and math. In addition, she learned about copyright infringement, the DMCA, and takedown notices. Her reaction, “That’s silly. Why would someone do that?” I agree. Unfortunately, the common reaction by our legislators to fix this problem, is to write another law. This doesn’t solve the problem, it just creates more unintended consequences. It is my hope that we can find more effective solutions to real copyright infringement, or I’m afraid that the entire Internet will become a Houdini act of now you see it, now you don’t.

 

Additional links 

YouTube’s Terms of Service.  Section 8 specifically discusses the DMCA and provides instructions regarding the filing of a “notice-and-takedown” as well as a “counter notice”.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) A Guide to YouTube Removals

EFF’s Takedown Hall of Shame always an interesting read

EFF’s Bloggers’ Legal Guide

Internet Law Treatise for Fair Use

Stanford University Libraries Copyright and Fair Use

ARS Technica’s article on Righthaven v. Democratic Underground Righthaven Reeling: secret doc could doom a copyright troll

 

Copyright Infringement and Censorship

 
 

“Censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates in the end the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”

Henry Steele Commager, 1902-1998, writer and historian

 

Last November I sent a tweet to my senator, @ChuckGrassley, expressing my disappointment in his support of S.3804 Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).  After reading a summary of the Act, it appeared to me to be more on Internet censorship rather than dealing with online infringement issues.  Much to my surprise, late January I received a letter from Senator Grassley in response to my tweet.

In his letter, he stated his appreciation in my contacting him to express these concerns and assured me this Act was not about Internet censorship, but fighting against “Internet sites” that are “dedicated to infringing activities”.  

“This bill is not aimed at censoring the Internet, but to bring to justice online sites that, if they existed in the physical world, would have the law immediately brought against them.”  Senator Charles Grassley

I confess, at that time I had only read a summary of the Act and not the Act itself.  So, I decided to read the entire Act and determine for myself its purpose.  Here is my conclusion.

This Act assumes guilt until proven innocent, there is no due process.  It does nothing to bring to justice the person or persons who are infringing on copyright material.  And, it censors the Internet by “locking the domain” so no one can access the site.

Following are the specifics of the Act that has brought me to this conclusion.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

As Senator Grassley stated, this Act targets Internet sites that have infringing material.    Section 2. Internet Sites Dedicated To Infringing Activities, provides the definition to determine if a site is “infringing”. 

Section 2, (a)Definitions, (1) “an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities” if such site- ... (B) (i) is primarily designed, or has no demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marked by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator- (I) to offer goods or service in violation of title 17, United States code, ... ”

Section 3 goes on to define what is necessary for the Attorney General to investigate an “infringing” site.  “The Attorney General shall ... “provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about what information such rights holders should provide the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation pursuant to this Act; ... ”

A Copyright Infringing Name

Once a site is deemed to be “infringing”, the Attorney General will file an application to the court to “ ... issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity in violation of this section, in accordance to rule 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” [Section 2 (b) Injunctive Relief] 

First I need to define a couple of terms; injunction and domain name.

Injunction, a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another.  

Domain name, an alphanumeric designation as part of an electronic address on the Internet.  An example of a domain name is janenerenaud.com.

To summarize, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or an injunction, all legal actions issued to a person, is issued to a domain name, an electronic address, rather than the operator of the website.  I would think if you want to stop the distribution of copyright material, the injunction should be issued to the person breaking the law.  

Next the Attorney General commences with an in rem action.  In rem action is an action to determine title to property and the right of the parties.

Section 2 (c) In Rem Action, (1) In General “ ... an in rem action against the domain name or names used by an Internet site ...”  Once again, against a name, not the operator of the website, just a name that someone is renting.   

The Act then discuss jurisdiction, which gets interesting when discussing international sites and where jurisdiction would fall.  But this point will be saved for another blog post.

Go After the Service Providers

After jurisdiction is defined and provisions made for blocking any goods and services from entering the United States, the Act continues with the serving of court orders. 

Section 2, (e) Service of Court Order.  “ ... the Federal law enforcement officer shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the registry.“

The industry defines a domain name registrar as an accredited organization or commercial entity registry to manage the reservation of Internet domain names.   In other words, the company that rents domain names, similar to the phone company renting you a phone number. 

Internet Censorship

The section continues.

“Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and may lock, the domain name.”  [Section 2, (e) Service of Court  Order., (1) Domestic Domains]  

A quick lesson on the Domain Name System (DNS).  Think of DNS as directory assistance for the Internet.  When you access an Internet site, such as www.janenerenaud.com, a request is sent to DNS to determine how to get to this site.  The DNS servers have a database with all domain names and their associated internet protocol (IP) addresses.  An IP address is like a phone number.  So, when you type www.janenerenaud.com into your web browser, a request goes out to DNS to get the “phone number” for this site so that your browser may be connected. 

A key point to note.  There are 13 DNS server clusters, worldwide.  The United States government, under the Department of Commerce, maintains control over all the DNS servers.  When a change is made in DNS, it gets populated to all the intermediate DNS servers globally.  Suspending operation of, or locking the domain name, will block access to this site worldwide.  Nobody will be able to access it.  

In essence, this Act will give the US government the power to censor the Internet worldwide, from sites it deems “infringing”.

To better explain, here is an analogy to sum this up.  

Let’s say there is a person who opens a shop in your city.  The shop owner hires a sign maker to makes signs advertising his shop.  He then has the sign maker place these signs on main street directing potential customers to his shop.  This shop is accused of allegedly infringing on someones copyright.  Based on this Act, the government serves an injunction and an in rem action against the sign maker and has the sign maker remove all the signs providing directions to the shops location.  Potential customers can no longer find the shop, even though the shop still exists.  The person operating the shop may continue doing business.  Based on this Act, no action is taken against the person operating the shop.   

Additional Actions

This Act requires all financial transaction providers to stop all transactions to the site as well as providing notice that the site no longer has the authorization to display their trademarks. [Section 2, (e) Service Of Court Order, (B) Required Actions, (ii)]

The Act also provides the ability for the Attorney General to bring action against any party, service provider, domain registrar, or financial institution, that does not comply with court orders.  So if any of these companies feel that the court order is not justified, they still must comply or risk action begin taken against them.  [Section 2, (g) Enforcement of Orders, (1) In General]

And finally, an “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” on order of the Attorney General, must post a list of all “infringing” sites.  A blacklist that would publicly condemn Internet sites without due process. [Section 2, (f) Publication of Orders]

Other Laws

So why this Act.  We already have two other laws that address this very issue of sites that infringe on copyright material.  First is US Code Title 17 Copyrights, which appears in Section 2 of COICA, defining copyright infringement and remedies.  Additional chapters of US Code 17 include Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media, and Sound Recordings and Music Videos.  And second, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).  Specifically written to implement two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties and address a number of other copyright issues.  Why do we need a third law?

In my opinion, since this new Act does nothing to stop the person or persons infringing on copyright material, this Act is about giving the US government the ability to block Internet sites.  In essence, censor the Internet, globally.  

How can we, as a nation, condemn other countries for blocking and censoring the Internet, China, Egypt, and Iran to name a few, and then write legislation that gives the US government the same power?  One might argue that the government would only block sites that were breaking the law.  As we have seen in other parts of the world, the definition of breaking the law can change quickly.  The government should not have this power.  

So that is my reasoning to state that this Act is about Internet censorship, rather than protecting the intellectual property of others.  I now lovingly refer to this Act as “Censorship Of Internet Content Act (COICA)”. 

Please don’t misunderstand me, copyright infringement is a problem on the Internet, but this Act does nothing to fix that problem.  I encourage you to read this Act and come to your own conclusions.  If you agree with my assessment, please contact your state representatives and senators to express your concern and request they vote against this Act.   

Following are some other links you may find interesting reading.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) summary of COICA

EFFs list of sites that could be taken off-line and why

Law Professors’ Letter in opposition to S.3804

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), under the DOC 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

United States Code by Title 

ICANN Glossary of Internet Terminology