It is said that those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. In the case of the copyright industry, they have learned that they can get new monopoly benefits and rent-seeker’s benefits every time there is a new technology, if they just complain loudly enough to the legislators.

The past 100 years have seen a vast array of technical advances in broadcasting, multiplication and transmissions of culture, but equally much misguided legislators who sought to preserve the old at expense of the new, just because the old was complaining.

In the past week, the larger Internet community has joined EFF in sounding the alarm about the new copyright bill, now known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), as it makes its way through the U.S. House. The bill threatens to transform copyright law, pushing Internet intermediaries—from Facebook to your ISP—to censor whole swaths of the Internet. SOPA could forever alter social networks, stifle innovation and creativity, and destroy jobs, which is why Rep. Zoe Lofgren wasn’t exaggerating when she said SOPA “would mean the end of the Internet as we know it."

But this bill could also have a huge impact on the work of human rights advocates and whistleblowers who depend on online tools to protect their anonymity and speak out against injustice. Platforms created to provide anonymity software to human rights activists across the world, as well as next generation WikiLeaks-style whistleblower sites, could be major casualties of this bill—all in the name of increasing Hollywood’s bottom line.

One of the most grave threats to free expression in many countries these days is the intimidation and persecution of bloggers and online journalists.  The effects are often far-reaching as bloggers are scared into silence.  While the Arab Spring has brought about many positive changes throughout the region, several Middle Eastern countries continue to take measures to silence bloggers.  This issue is not, of course, limited to the Middle East.  

In Thailand, web editor Jiew still faces up to fifteen years in prison, while US-Thai citizen Joe Wichai Commart Gordon pleaded guilty on charges of lèse majesté--a charge that can result in a prison sentence of up to fifteen years--and faces sentencing on November 9.   In Mexico, bloggers and online activists may face an even worse fate.

In a recent Washington Times editorial titled “Internet trolls, Anonymity and the First Amendment,” Gayle Falkenthal declared that “the time has come to limit the ability of people to remain anonymous” online. She argued that any benefit to online pseudonyms has long since dissipated and anonymous commenters have polluted the Internet “with false accusations and name-calling attacks.” Newspapers, she wrote, should ban them entirely.

This argument is not only inaccurate, it's also dangerous: online anonymity, while allowing trolls to act with impunity, also protects a range of people, from Syrian dissidents to small-town LGBT activists and plenty of others in between.

A coalition of content industry players and ISPs today announced an anticipated collaborative effort to “curb online content theft,” described in more detail on a dedicated website for the initiative. The PR materials put out by the group are more telling for what they don’t say than what they do.

The framework provides for a series of progressive “copyright alerts”—up to six—that ISPs will send their users based on notifications they receive from content owners of alleged infringement on those users’ Internet access accounts. Initial alerts will include “education” resources, further ones will require users to confirm receipt of the alert. Later alerts will provide for “mitigation measures” such as reduced Internet speed and inability to surf the web until the user takes some action, for example, discussing with the ISP or responding to “educational information about copyright.”

Long ago, I called Jimmy Lee Hoagland, associate editor of The Washington Post and inquired about the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral Commission (TC). Because he had attended these meetings for many years, I explained, I wanted him to tell me when and where for both. His response on Dec. 16, 2010: “Unfortunately, I can’t help. I am not in the Trilateral or Bilderberg loops these days.”

I believe Jimmy Lee was lying. Even if sudden guilt feelings gripped him, he has attended these meetings for many years. He escorts the Post publisher, who has attended each meeting since 1954. So Hoagland certainly would know the “whens” and “wheres.” Both groups always, at their farewell Monday morning breakfast, celebrate when and where they will meet next. And they always get the anticipated reminder letter in January or February so they can pencil in their next meeting dates.

Is advertising overstepping the boundary if campaigns involve paid actors who come directly into your social setting, start a conversation which subtly informs you about a certain product, and then leave without ever telling you they were in fact a stealth advertisement on legs?

Advertisers have realised for some time that consumers are becoming increasingly immune to mass marketing by way of the traditional media. Recent studies estimate that on average we block up to 90% of the mass media messages, which isn't exactly good news for advertisers whose job it is to acquire our attention.

Once again in a bid to keep one step ahead, our advertising friends are reveling in the success of the latest and greatest marketing technique- Roaching.