PRO IP Act

Helen A.S. Popkin wrote an article that was surprisingly not idiotic about the PRO IP Act, which is surprisngly idiotic.

Since you don't want to read the Bill here is a summary:

* Fines in copyright cases dealing with compilations would be increased. Right now, as in the case of Xoom v. Imageline, the maximum penalty for infringement of one compilation is $30,000. Now courts would be able to make "multiple awards of statutory damages" when compilations are infringed.

* Maximum penalties for repeat copyright offenders would be easier to obtain. Current law says that anyone who "willfully" infringes a copyright by distributing over $1,000 worth of material (including over a peer-to-peer network) is a criminal. The PRO IP Act keeps the 10-year prison term intact for felonious repeat offenders--but, crucially, deletes the requirement that repeat offenders must have distributed at least 10 copyrighted works within 180 days.

* Any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime could be seized by the Justice Department and auctioned off. The proceeds would be funneled to the agency's budget. The process is called civil asset forfeiture, and typically the owner does not need to be found guilty of a crime for his property to be taken.

Probably the most extensive part of the PRO IP Act is its creation of a new federal bureaucracy called the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, or WHIPER. The head of WHIPER would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

I'm going to go ahead and say that this is behooves no one except the RIAA.

Why, Helen A.S. Popkin?

Before I die I would like to meet Helen A.S. Popkin for two reasons. The first is that I think Helen A.S. Popkin is the name for a bot MSNBC created which combines links to stupid stories about internet culture with stereotypical phrases "the kids today" say (G4 hosts speak, as it were). The second reason is that if Helen A.S. Popkin is an actual person I want to be the one who helps pay for her to finally obtain her G.E.D.

The latest half aborted shit child article to be ejected from her dilapidated idiot womb is entitled, "Is Facebook still all up in your business?" or "Lord God I am a gigantic fucking tool!" The focus, in the liberal sense, of the article is on the Facebook / Moveon.org spat about privacy which I'm sure you all already know of and find incredibly interesting and important. Helen's opinion on this matter is that, well, I'll let Helen speak for herself:

"And as anyone who ever raised and/or dated one knows, nobody is guiltier of the insincere apology than dudes in their early 20s.

(Ladies, am I right?)"

It's the use of "dudes" and "Ladies, am I right?" that lets me know deep down that she deserves her writing gig.

You see, the CEO of Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg is 23 years old and male. So, according to Helen A.S. Popkin, Mark Zuckerberg can never, in any way, be sincere in his apology. For more on this sensible world view I direct you to feministing.org. Or was it .com? I can't remember. You see, I'm a 24 year old male. I am accident prone and find honesty to be in all ways elusive.

In addition to her flawless utilization of the ad hominem style of argument, Helen A.S. Popkin cites a recent event in which Facebook attempted to have documents regarding Mark Zuckerberg removed from a website. Because somehow Facebook selling user information and trying to restrict the circulation of information regarding its CEO is apparently problematic. Given that I don't share Helen A.S. Popkin's Kool Aid (I can make pop-culture references too!) I am not entirely sure what the actual problem is. I think the perceived "problem" for Helen is somehow related to this little nugget of joy:

Then Zuckerberg continues to (metaphorically speaking) urinate on our heads and tell us it’s raining. “We were excited about Beacon because we believe a lot of information people want to share isn't on Facebook, and if we found the right balance, Beacon would give people an easy and controlled way to share more of that information with their friends.”

OMG! How is that so not a lie? Does Zuckerberg mean to imply that Beacon was not born first and foremost a money-generating marketing program, designed specifically for marketers, with cursory consideration toward the marks?

Newsflash: Companies exist to make money.
Newsflash: In the attempt to make money compies will lure consumers into a false sense of security by offering free services which, in turn, allow the company to make more money.

I can understand out-of-touch octogenarians being shocked into a late grave by the news that companies exist to make money. But Helen A.S. Popkin? She is hip! She is "with it"! She writes MSNBC's "Netiquette" column! She's not allowed to feign ignorance of the manner by which Internet based companies accumulate vast sums of money. Though, I will admit that it is probably the case that none of Helen A.S. Popkin's ignorance is, in fact, feigned.

My favorite part of this article, though, is the end:

"Now, if only users could learn the same thing. The facts are these: Despite the big media dust up, Facebook didn’t lose many profiles in its wake. The MoveOn Facebook protest collected only 70,000 members — barely a drop in the bucket compared to the site’s 50 million users, most of which really couldn’t care less."

I love endings like that. It contains that twist of irony in that the "victim" is also the enabler. You see, even though Mark Zuckerberg is male his ability to profit off of Facebook users is fundamentally the result of the users themselves. The users of Facebook, knowing that Mark Zuckerberg is collecting, selling, and profiting off of their personal information continue to use Facebook! Helen A.S. Popkin, the faux savior of the Facebook community, has tried to incite the mass exodus required to rectify this most unjust of situations but her audience, her flock, the people to whom she communicates her message of truth are uninterested; they "really couldn’t care less".

And that's the final jab. Helen A.S. Popkin knows that in spite of her eloquence and the underhanded, completely reasonable business practices of Mark Zuckerberg the users of Facebook will continue to use Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg will continue to profit off of Facebook users, and nothing will really ever change.

Which leaves me with the following question: WHY THE FUCK DID SHE BOTHER TO WRITE THE DAMN ARTICLE?!

Helen A.S. Popkin

I'm going to take a break from being irritated at everything and today write about someone who brightens my week and adds spring to my step, Helen A.S. Popkin.

Helen A.S. Popkin brings joy to reality as MSNBC.com's Netiquette contributor. While some writers may follow the conformist path covering embattled world leaders and congressional oversight, Helen A.S. Popkin focuses on relevant, useful issues which truly impact our lives in diverse and complicated ways. Helen A.S. Popkin has explored the degree to which rabbits are adorable and answered the question Who, exactly, is that 'Leave Britney Alone' guy?. Helen A.S. Popkins is not afraid to traverse the hostile terrain of social networking sights or provide evidence that people look at pornography online. When there was a mass exodus from Myspace to Facebook Helen A.S. Popkin was there to provide her unique insight, "OMG! YR still on MySpace? Loser!".

While the topics she covers are themselves wonderful morsels of joy, Helen A.S. Popkins further delights her readers by providing her own literary style; the delectable icing atop an already diabetically sweet cake of bliss. Within her newest article we the readers are treated to a cavalcade of rhetorical bliss. Through the span of a scant three paragraphs Helen A.S. Popkins writes, "Cute, adorable, smoochie-woochie-whose-a-good-baby-yes-you-are! puppies", "cognitive dissonant", and "True that.".

Not any writer could wield those phrases in three separate articles spanning ranges vast and unknown. But within the same article, nay, within three paragraphs of one another, Helen A.S. Popkin successfully crafts a narrative utilizing voices, styles, and terms which some would say are completely unrelated and in no way harmonious. Helen A.S. Popkin's unapologetic mastery of the English language is an inspiration and a treat.

But perhaps Helen A.S. Popkin's greatest virtue, her most priceless contribution to the cause, is her ability to assess, to focus with honed precision upon the quintessential aspects of her study and provide sharp, decisive critiques:

And also, Twitter is stupid.

It really is. I mean, c’mon. You don’t have to get your bowels in an uproar to know that. Twitter is like an RSS feed to every boring aspect of your friend’s lives. And your friends are boring. How could they not be? Hourly updates on your best bud’s activities get dull pretty fast even if your best bud is Jack Bauer:

“woke up feeling all angsty…left arm tingly”

“oh noes…shot curtis today :-(”

“thinkin i gotta torture this guy. oh well”

“can’t remember last time i peed”

Yawn.

So, thank you, Helen A.S. Popkin. May your meaningful, incisive, unique commentary on the truly important issues of the day forever withstand the test of time. May your plain-spoken nature remain forever as the watchword of your craft. Yours is a voice, a style, a mind that will forever benefit those who take a moment from their day to delight in the pleasures your articles contain.

And above all: May your avatar forever scowl upon your readers reminding them that the task is not complete, the job has yet to finish. Yours is an eternal struggle, a quest, a life's work. For always your views, your style, your mastery, your gift is required. An endless task awaits you; forever shall your effort, drive, and motivation compel you to share with us, your humble readers, your priceless insight into that world with which we have but a passing familiarity. For, truly, how would we know of the internet, of social networking sites, of online gaming, of youtube, of rabbits...if not for you?