Howard Berman Concerned About Internet-Repressive Regimes, Except If They Help His Friends In Hollywood

from the mickey-mouse dept

Tue, Jan 26th 2010 6:37am — Mike Masnick

We were just discussing the vast similarities between China's internet censorship and what is being proposed in ACTA -- but, of course, not everyone seems to realize those similarities. Nick Dynice points us to the news that Rep. Howard Berman (who represents Hollywood and is sometimes referred to as "the Representative from Disney" given his longstanding support for any law that increases the scope of copyright law) is apparently speaking out against "repressive internet regimes" such as those in China, while at the very same time being a strong supporter of ACTA which could push for very similar "secondary liability" rules for ISPs in the US that are the foundation of Chinese internet censorship.

Nick also points out how amusing it is that, at the same time, Berman, in his role as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has also been knocking China for not doing enough to stop copyright infringement online, complaining about their "weak and ineffectual" measures.

So, apparently, using secondary liability to stop stuff Berman wants stopped is good, but using it to stop stuff Berman doesn't want stopped is bad. But why is it that Howard Berman gets to decide when it's appropriate to force ISPs to block content and when it's not?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, censorship, china, copyright, howard berman, internet, repression, three strikes

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

some old guy, 26 Jan 2010 @ 6:45am

I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
But why is it that Howard Berman gets to decide when it's appropriate to force ISPs to block content and when it's not?

Because, thats exactly what we have lawmakers for.

Who else should we rely on to decide what is illegal and what is not illegal? A flock of seagulls?

I agree with your point mike, but your logic here is in need of some focus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2010 @ 7:11am
  
  Re: I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
  Because, thats exactly what we have lawmakers for.
  
  That's what we're supposed to have *representatives* for. Representatives of the people, not special interests.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmsan (profile), 26 Jan 2010 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
    Note to old guy lawmakers, plural so a single lawmaker does not get to decide. Also there is this thing called the constitution that has prohibitions against the lawmakers doing being able to make that decision.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 26 Jan 2010 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re: I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
  "Who else should we rely on to decide what is illegal and what is not illegal?"
  
  Certainly not the ISPs, which is who Berman who give the power to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 26 Jan 2010 @ 6:49am

Mike, your analogy fails. You're comparing the protection of free speech to the protection of piracy.

Everyone knows that a strong copyright does not hinder free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard, 26 Jan 2010 @ 7:14am

Repressive internet regimes are bad...
except when I'm part of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2010 @ 7:20am

yea and his holly wood buds IN the USA
we also see the riaa in canada gettign sued for not even paying artists in canada

SO WHO IS THE PIRATE
some kid not making money off downloading
OR these thieves who commercially have been selling to us

WHO runs the riaa OH YEA THAT WOMAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 26 Jan 2010 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: yea and his holly wood buds IN the USA
  SO WHO IS THE PIRATE
  some kid not making money off downloading
  OR these thieves who commercially have been selling to us
  
  not making money is the same as making money, just like standing still is the same thing as going backwards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2010 @ 8:42am

It's consistent under certain conditions
Like, if the goal is (as I suspect) to use "secondary liability" and "graduated response" as a choke-hold on not just file sharing but also on fair use and user-generated content (which no one ever seems to mention in this context, but which would be an obvious consequence of targeting services rather than the specific users who infringe--so obvious that it can't be anything but an explicit goal)--anyway, if that's one of the conditions and at the same time ensuring there is no censorship of the content Hollywood wants to sell to such a large market is the other condition, then this position makes sense.

In other words, Hollywood wants Hollywood's content to be the only stuff that makes it through without any roadblocks. How is this not obvious, and why won't they just cop to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 26 Jan 2010 @ 10:26am

Berman is a big business stooge.
I suggest effigy burning demonstrations in his home district. We have inventors from his district who are already considering this and they might be willing to join forces with others.

It is long past time that the people reign in questionable legislators. This is an issue which transcends party affiliations.

Ronald J. Riley,

I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 26 Jan 2010 @ 7:07pm

I have to say Mike, this is one of those posts where you are stretching so far to try to make a point, that you are hurting your credibility.

piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2010 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  Care you explain how he is stretching himself to make a point? Pretty lazy, IMO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Blow, 26 Jan 2010 @ 7:18pm

The answer is obvious
"But why is it that Howard Berman gets to decide when it's appropriate to force ISPs to block content and when it's not?"

Because he is an Israeli and Israelis control the United States of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]