I’ll admit to not fully understanding this law, even after reading parts of it and about it for the last couple of hours.

Writing laws seems to have long ago been made an art of deliberately obscuring meaning in the high-sounding language so preferred and applauded by those who write and interpret laws.

“No party shall forthwith counter-comply with the accessorial predilection dedicated to the US Congress as it masterbates prior to ecrypted codification . . .” blah, blah, blah, for hundreds of pages.

Furthermore, the law uses terms the computer industry has pirated from normal speech, such as “domain,” and “packet.” I know what the terms “domain,” “pirate,” and “packet” used to mean, but I do not know what they mean in terms of the “internet,” and I think the reason I don’t know what they mean is because they haven’t been clearly defined, because the body of thought to which they’ve been newly applied is not yet fully formed. A lot of these terms are merely doorways to new ideas; but nobody knows yet exactly what is beyond the doorways. For example, what is an Internet “domain”? Well, we don’t really know yet because the things we now call Internet “domains” are still evolving.

But all of that said, my main point is that this law . . . is such a great example of the dim-witted, plodding stupidity that dominates our legistlative process. The law is supposed to stop people from stealing copyrighted material. It won’t. Nobody can stop people from stealing copyrighted material except the those who steal it.

The guy who wrote the law probably did so to appease film- and song-marketers who’ve given him a lot of money.

The law gives broad, sweeping powers that will no doubt be abused by those to whom they’ve been given.

The law assumes that humans who enforce laws are somehow morally superior to those who break them, but lying, cheating and stealing are human characteristics; all humans do these things, even those charged with enforcing laws.

The law ignores the immoral acts of those it’s intended to protect. Those who sell movies and songs use all manner of immoral behavior to maximize their profits.

Most of all, the law pays homage to the silly notion that laws can control lawbreakers’ behaviors. These people–these politicians–who spew these laws are so bloated with self-importance and make-believe authority . . . or perhaps they’re not. Perhpas they’re wise enough to know that laws don’t change anything, but they spew the laws anyway to pacify and impress those who give them cash and votes.

I can give, oh, maybe 50,000 examples of this.

On the other side of the argument, those against the law say it grants too much power. But “the government” already has the power the law grants. The law just makes it legal for “the government” to wield that power.

That’s besides the point. If “the government” already has the power, it will wield it whether it can legally do so or not, and “the government” can trump up charges any time it wants. This is what “governments” have done since “governments” has existed. The law just makes it easier for “the government” do this.

If one person wants to kill another, making killing illegal, and making all instruments used to kill illegal, won’t stop the killing. People are going to act about the same way people have always acted. People do about what they want, and they find ways to legitimize their behavior. People with lots of money routinely dress up their aims to legitimacy with fancy imagery that make their aims more acceptable: more palatable to the public. Laws don’t change this. People who want to steal will find ways to steal, and lawmakers and law enforcers who want to abuse power will find ways to abuse power, laws notwithstanding.

We can’t legislate morality. All we can do is encourage people to be more morally responsible. But we continue to try to legislate morality, and that, to me, is silly because an immoral people–people who’ve been taught to scoff at any kind of ordering moral code or principle. regardless of which side of “the law” they’re on–cannot be made to act morally by laws. We’ve opened the door to immoral behavior by scorning and scoffing at moral codes and principles, and now we’re trying to replace morallity with legality, and it won’t work.

It’s like we’ve jumped off a cliff, and now we’re tying to make gravity and hitting the ground against the law.

Duh.