How Russian and Chinese Styled 'Copyright Laws' Could Crush Dissent in America

Washington Blog writes:

Leading American Internet businessmen warn that the draconian copyright bill on the verge of being passed by Congress would let the US government use censorship techniques “similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran.” 

If you want to know what the United States would look like after this bill is passed, just look at what’s been happening in Russia:  The Russian government has been crushing dissent under the pretext of enforcing copyright law. 

As the New York Times noted last year: 

Across Russia, the security services have carried out dozens of similar raids against outspoken advocacy groups or opposition newspapers in recent years. Security officials say the inquiries reflect their concern about software piracy, which is rampant in Russia. Yet they rarely if ever carry out raids against advocacy groups or news organizations that back the government.
***
[A] review of these cases indicates that the security services often seize computers whether or not they contain illegal software. The police immediately filed reports saying they had discovered such programs, before even examining the computers in detail. The police claims have in numerous instances been successfully discredited by defendants when the cases go before judges.
***
The plainclothes officers who descended upon the Baikal Wave headquarters said they were from the division that investigated commercial crime. But the environmentalists said they noticed at least one officer from the antiextremism department, which tracks opposition activists and had often conducted surveillance on the group.
***
Baikal Wave’s leaders said they had known that the authorities used such raids to pressure advocacy groups, so they had made certain that all their software was legal.
But they quickly realized how difficult it would be to defend themselves. 

They said they told the officers that they were mistaken, pulling out receipts and original Microsoft packaging to prove that the software was not pirated. The police did not appear to take that into consideration. A supervising officer issued a report on the spot saying that illegal software had been uncovered. 

...Since the American copyright bills (SOPA and PIPA) target online activities, the same thing happening to Russian critics’ computers could happen to the websites of any Americans who criticize the government, the too big to fail banks, or any of the other powers-that-be.

Indeed, the American copyright bill is modeled after the Chinese system.  As I noted Monday:

Given that Joe Lieberman said that America needs an internet kill switch like China, that the U.S. economy has turned socialist (at least for friends of those with control of the money spigot), and that the U.S. government used communist Chinese torture techniques specifically designed to produce false confessions in order to sell the Iraq war, I guess that the bill’s Chinese-style censorship is not entirely surprising. 

Mises On the Necessity of Copyright Protection

We may disregard the problem of second-rate authors of poems, fiction, and plays and second-rate composers and need not inquire whether it would be a serious disadvantage for mankind to lack the products of their efforts. But it is obvious that handing down knowledge to the rising generation and familiarizing the acting individuals with the amount of knowledge they need for the realization of their plans require textbooks, manuals, handbooks, and other nonfiction works. It is unlikely that people would undertake the laborious task of writing such publications if everyone were free to reproduce them.--Human Action, chapter XXIII, part 6.

ViaDavePrychitko

Mises Institute: Do As They Say, Not As They Do?

I'm a bit confused by the Mises Institute stand on copyrights and book publishing.

Lew Rockwell has given the top billing at LRC this morning to a screed, Authors: Beware of Copyright, by Jeffrey Tucker.

In the piece, Tucker warns of evil publishers who take advantage of copyright to lockdown authors. He writes:

Your creation, which copyright is designed to protect, is now the possession of someone else...

Yes, it is done by contract – contract backed by the power of the state...

So I say to all authors: please look at your contracts. Don't sign your life away. Publish on the condition of Creative Commons. Claim your rights back as a creator and an author.

Interesting stand by Tucker since according to Gene Callahan (see the first comment to this link), this is what the Mises Institute has done to him, in relation to his book Economics for Real People:

...they do promote it still, as well they might -- every penny of sales goes to LVMI, not to me. (And I'm not saying they're stealing from me or anything -- I voluntarily signed a contract calling for one up front payment for writing the book.)

Perhaps now that Tucker has supposedly seen the light of the evils of copyright, he will give Callahan the right to print his own edition of Economics for Real People?

But this double standard on copyright seems to be a consistent stand by the Kinsella-Tucker wing at LVMI. Stephan Kinsella, the creator of the "intellectual creations aren't property" stand, recently wrote:

Often we opponents of socialistic, legislatively-created, utilitarian-based,property-redistributing, artificial, arbitrary, inconsistent, irrational, innovation-hampering, monopolistic, anti-competitive, and wealth-destroying intellectual property laws are accused of hypocrisy when we "copyright" our articles and books.

The sly Kinsella explains why he is not hypocritical by arguing that he is trapped by copyright law:

I've pointed out to such people innumerable times, to little avail, that copyright is a noun, not a verb--that you don't "copyright" something--you have a copyright in your original works of authorship as soon as you write them, automatically, courtesy of federal law. No copyright notice is required. No copyright registration is required. You have the right, whether you like it or not.

Well, then, why don't you just "make it public domain," some then, a bit unreflectively, retort. The problem is, there is no clear and good way to do this.

Bull. There is a clear way to do it. "Pull" the copyright. Gary North does it frequently, and has apparently for a long time. He writes of one instance:

In August of 1979, I published the essay by my anonymous Washington analyst, “The Danger Is Defeat, Not Destruction.” By pulling the copyright, I helped get about half a million copies into print. It was widely printed.

By "pulling" the copyright, I take it to mean that North is saying he will not sue anyone for damages who copies the work, even though the state has granted hm the right to do so. Why can't Kinsella do this for all his works. In fact, why can't Kinsella be even more explicit, about his thinking and write:

Although I wrote the following and I am automatically afforded copyright protection, I hold that my written creations are not my property and thus please know that it would be hypocrtical of me to sue you for damages under copyright law, so please print, and broadcast this work in any manner you choose and know that I will not seek damages. In the manner of Gary North, I have "pulled" the copyright. If you would like written permission as to this matter, please send along your name and address and I will send you written permsssion to do as you please with my writings.

If he really believed in his position, I see no reason why he wouldn't do this, and, further, only deal with publishers in the future that will allow him to publish under such conditions. Given his belief that written creations are not property (which by the way I think is an absurd notion), for him to hide behind the "I am trapped into copyright and there is nothing I can do." is nonsense.