Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors

from the say-it-again dept

Wed, Feb 16th 2011 1:27pm — Mike Masnick

Senator Ron Wyden (who just joined Twitter) was kind enough to send over the remarks he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning COICA. It's an excellent read that highlights many of the points we've been making. Basically, he says that we need to be careful not to decimate basic principles of free speech and create all sorts of collateral damage in an effort to go after a few bad actors who can be targeted via other laws:

Make no mistake, I share the committee's goal of fighting counterfeiting and protecting our creative industries and the good paying jobs they support. The Internet has unquestionably created new opportunities to traffic in counterfeit and illegal goods. The fact that the law has not always kept pace with technology may make it easier for bad actors to exploit new opportunities. Congress is right to want to go after those who are "stealing American intellectual property." However, in writing laws to target the bad actors, Congress cannot afford to forget that the primary uses of the Internet are activities protected by the First Amendment, not civil or criminal violations.

[...] Yes, the Internet needs reasonable laws and bad actors need to be pursued, but the freedoms of billions of individual Internet users cannot be sacrificed in the interest of easing that pursuit. The decisions we make to police the Internet today will also govern how this relatively new medium will continue to develop and shape our world. I objected to last year's Combating Online Infringement of Copyrights Act not because it might reduce the Internet's ability to facilitate infringement, but because I believe it went about it in a way that would also reduce the Internet's ability to promote democracy, commerce and free speech.

He also laid out six specific points to consider in dealing with these issues. I agree with all six, and am particularly happy to see him mention the importance of separating counterfeiting from copyright protection, a key point that we've discussed here, but I had not seen anyone in politics pick up on until now.

Don't be hasty. Good public policy is not made on the back of a galloping horse. While both Congress and law enforcement are understandably eager to go after bad actors, both must be mindful of the precedents that they are setting in the U.S. and around the world. The law is best applied when the government's assertions can be challenged before its actions are approved.
Avoid collateral damage. Granting law enforcement broad authority to censor online content has a chilling effect on free speech. Narrowly focus law enforcement�s authority on those who are deliberately breaking the law or infringing on others� property rights for commercial gain.
Preserve Fair Use and secondary liability protections. These safeguards are fundamental to Internet commerce and explain why American companies have been so successful in the global marketplace. The network effect is such a powerful driver of commerce on the Internet that any restriction on links and referrals is a serious barrier to economic activity.
Be mindful of how remedies can threaten and shape the integrity or architecture of the Internet. Decisions made today can have lasting results.
Avoid taking actions that will empower foreign regimes to censor the Internet. The United States has led the world in promoting free speech; our example cannot be allowed to give authoritarian regimes any excuse to go backwards.
Recognize the difference between copyright infringement and counterfeits. A one-size-fits-all approach towards trademarks and copyright may not be appropriate.

Once again, it's great to see Senator Wyden speaking out on these issues, but it's shame that he remains one of our only elected officials willing to pay attention to the problems with COICA and domain seizures.

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: coica, collateral damage, copyright, counterfeiting, freedom of speech, unintended consequences

100 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:36pm

Basically, he says that we need to be careful not to decimate basic principles of free speech and create all sorts of collateral damage in an effort to go after a few bad actors who can be targeted via other laws

What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- duffmeister (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re:
  We actually have a number of ways to do this: Berne Convention, WIPO, International Trade Agreements, and the like. A good list as a starting point is found here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/
  
  I think we should use what is already there and not enforce our laws on the sovereignty of other nations. It sets a bad precedent,makes us look like bullies on the international scene and also provides a way for other countries to begin to censor our peoples and freedoms.
  
  I am all for sensible reforms and agreements. I am against the US declaring itself the IP cops of the world as it tends to ignore the harms in favor of greater oppression by means of economic warfare.
  
  We really need to evaluate what the goals are and work towards them more holistically rather than in knee jerk reactions to questionable laws in the first place.
  
  If in the world of the 1800's where technology let distribution be difficult, 14 years was considered enough protection, why are we talking protections lasting over a century now? Why are they not accepting the very distribution methods that pirates and others are using to distribute their goods? Why can't this be a real dialog that discusses at face value the issues rather than always clothing it in disingenuous characterizations?
  
  Reforms are definitely needed. IP is not a tangible good and should not be treated like one. Should it be a protected item, yes. The problem is that fair usage and freedoms need to be considered as more and more ideas are locked up as if they were a physical object.
  
  I have never seen how an idea was lessened by it being in more than one mind. Isn't this how freedoms and ideas are supposed to grow? They spread and become stronger in the sharing not weaker.
  
  It is sad that the only way to legally send something to the public domain at creation is to intentionally put an "unclear copyright notice" on it so that there is never a clear copyright to assign to anyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    None of those "methods" you suggest are powerful enough or timely enough. Most actions that end up in the "world court" are moot, because the people reponsible tend to die of old age before a judgement is reached.
    
    The speed of the internet means that harm is done rapidly, widely, and without borders. if you follow the discussions here you know that information travels far and wide and very quickly, often with millions of visitors and thousands of seeded copies of a nasty torrent spreading all over the world in a matter of days. The harm that is done by not taking direct action is immense, the recovery possible on the other side minimal.
    
    Failure to respect the rights of others (authors, musicians, artists, researchers, inventors, and so on) is a significant issue.
    
    Total freedom is not possible, for it only exists as anarchy. We trade some of our freedoms for security and peace, for a safer life and common understanding of basic laws that allow us to travel, to work, and to prosper. Without those sorts of rules, we quickly sink to the lowest common denominator, to the level of the lowest. We don't raise people up, we push the best down. Is that what you want?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I refuse to give up any of my freedoms in exchange for security. If I have a need for security, I'll handle it myself or contract with other.
      
      So far as the need to give up freedom for security, I only have this to say:
      ....................../��/)
      ....................,/�../
      .................../..../
      .......... .../��/'...'/��`��
      ........../'/.../..../......./��\
      ........('(...�...�.... �~/'...')
      .........\.................'...../
      ..........''...\.......... _.��
      ............\..............(
      ..............\.............\...
      
      Benjamin Franklin was absolutely accurate on that score. And if you don't know the quote, you really should look it up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The speed of the internet means that harm is done rapidly, widely, and without borders.
      
      Tell you what, you show me an unbiased study showing net harm and we'll talk about preventing said harm.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Infamous Joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...aaand formatting doesn't work so well on the "Lite" page, it seems.
        
        My bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you hear the Tom Cruise is dead?
        
        He's been made dead on the internet any number of time. The speed of communications means that the rumor travels farther and faster than ever before, and the truth is hard pressed to chase it down. That is one something that is a simple provably fact.
        
        Now, let's consider the less obvious "Mike Masnick is a weenie who uses ghost writers". That is one of those things that could get spread all over the place, true or not. It is incredibly difficult to prove to be completely false, and no matter what attempts are made, the rumor is out there, circulating at high speed. Every visitor to this page (or the site that original mentioned it, you can find it if you look on Google), will come away thinking that. Maybe they tell their friends, or like the post. Without hours, that rumor could be everywhere.
        
        Now, if that website every day adds more and more like this to it's site, and more people like it, and that information become common knowledges, right or wrong, it is out there.
        
        Now, Mike could try to get an injunction against the site, sue them for their comments, etc. But because of his beloved Streisand Effect, the information is out there no matter what, and pointing at it would only make it spread faster.
        
        So if you buy the "effect", the rest follows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And the point was to be incoherent?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And where is the harm? you have still failed to come through with that.
        
        Ok, some people may believe a rumor for a short time that a celebrity is dead. The source of this rumor will experience a lot of negative notoriety when this is confirmed false. Anyone who repeats it will also have egg on their face for believing the internet without doing minimal fact checking. Tome Cruise is not harmed.
        
        Second example, Someone is spreading false statements. The reactions could be to.. a) overreact like you suggest or b) ignore it. The source full of negative and/or misleading falsehoods will be recognized for being outrageous or at least as unreliable as a tabloid. People who want to believe these rumors will not be swayed one way or another by taking action at the source, making it pointless. Just like your "masnick is a weenie" statement is just noise.
        
        Mike is not somehow harmed.
        
        Welcome to the internet.
        People do not always tell the truth here.
        Liars eventually get called liars, Other things are recognized as being more useful and therefor rise to the top.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you hear that Obama is a Muslim? He wasn't born in the US, you know?
        
        Some lies don't go away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently they do or you would have been swearing here right now that he was a muslim but you know he is not.
        
        And you be hard pressed to find a forum were someone said that and was not corrected by someone with links and sources :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also when is ICE going to seize Baidu?
        
        Or is those laws just for the people who can't defend themselves?
        
        Why is Google China still serving music and movies?
        
        I want to see the U.S. government seize Google's assets and put hundreds of thousands out of work and billions out of the market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Feb 2011 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No skin off my back, but you guys might want to chill on your "get google" shizz. You're not doing them (or yourself) any favors...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why?
        
        You got Baidu, Google, Yahoo and Bing all powerfull and full of money doing exactly the things some people are saying are against the law, so now I want to know when are they going to be seized.
        
        Have the U.S. government the balls to seize baidu.com? or those laws are just for the little guys who can't defend anything and are easy target? are those laws for everyone or just for the poor?
        
        F. I had it with this BS, either they show they are serious and go after Baidu that is a full of infringement and the other search engines or just STFU because they don't have a clue about what they are doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 11:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "you guys might want to chill on your "get google" shizz. You're not doing them (or yourself) any favors..."
        -- the only shizz in sight is from that little wet dream you just had about taking down Google
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's something the internet did not have a hand in. Welcome to real life politics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except that people are a bit smater then you give them credit.
        
        Proof of that is P2P websites that have zero staff or money to pay for staff to curate the content, but somehow all those people get all the malware and fake files out of the system in seconds, is not that easy to spread bad information on the internet, even governments fail to do so even when their survival depends on it as recent events demonstrated LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just realize that this may be the reason you get upset about this website and others is because your FUD doesn't work anymore :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The solution to false speech is true speech, not censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Failure to respect the rights of others (authors, musicians, artists, researchers, inventors, and so on) is a significant issue.
      
      Fail to get a big stick to poke a bear could lead to grave consequences.
      
      Those rights were granted by that bear you are about to poke, with that short stick of yours.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jose_X, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      >> None of those "methods" you suggest are powerful enough or timely enough.
      
      So you suggest the US fires its entire nuclear arsenal evenly around the globe so that infringers will be dealt with on a timely basis and without anyone escaping punishment?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jose_X, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      >> Failure to respect the rights of others (authors, musicians, artists, researchers, inventors, and so on) is a significant issue.
      
      That is correct, and COICA is failing to respect the Constitutional rights of the majority of the voting public.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 4:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > The speed of the internet means that harm
      > is done rapidly, widely, and without borders.
      
      So the solution is to effectively repeal key portions of the Bill of Rights just because Disney can't sue someone fast enough for making an unauthorized drawing of Mickey Mouse?
      
      Really?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re:
  The same laws we have to keep speeders of the Autobahn. No wait, I meant the laws we already have in place to go after tax Brazilian tax evaders. No, no, no, I was actually referring to the laws we have that disallow the Chinese government to restrict free speech. Hold on, we don't have any laws that prevent foreigners in foreign lands from doing things illegal in the US. Weird!
  
  Of course, if those infringers are US based, we have plenty of laws that take care of them already. If they are foreign-based, then they aren't infringing US copyrights, trademarks, and patents.
  
  US companies might have copyrights, trademarks and patents in foreign countries that those infringers are based in. In which case, those US companies should complain to those foreign countries that said countries aren't upholding said countries' laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:12pm
  
  Re:
  Where's the freaking 'off' button on you? Do you just sit at TechDirt's homepage hitting F5? Heck, I think I'd like you better if you just stopped at "Frist post!"
  
  Now to your post. Let's see, you're a lawyer-in-training who thinks that our laws should apply to foreign countries. I think you may have skipped a few classes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    These are websites that are breaking U.S. laws. They choose to submit to U.S. jurisdiction when they choose to violate U.S. law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're slipping, pal. Are you suggesting that by violating a law you are automatically in that law's jurisdiction, regardless of physical location? How many obscure laws from other countries are you breaking right now? Are you under that country's jurisdiction now?
      
      I think law school is having the opposite effect that you were hoping for.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If they are on a .com domain, they are "in part" in the US, and potentially subject to US law. The domain name is registered in the US and thus is subject to US law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Baidu is a dot COM registered website well known for serving infringing products please seize that domain name and all their assets in U.S. soil.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Feb 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While I agree with this, a lot of people are unfamiliar with how much American money is in Baidu. Tremendous amounts. Insane amounts. It's entirely possible they've bought lobbyist protection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words those laws are just for little people and not big companies.
        
        The U.S. government only have balls when they are talking down to the little guy's, funny how that works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "a lot of people are unfamiliar with how much American money is in Baidu. Tremendous amounts. Insane amounts. It's entirely possible they've bought lobbyist protection."
        Anonymous, The crap you come up with sometimes is amazing.
        Lessee... 'Baidu hasn't been seized because lobbyists are probably protecting them'.
        
        Please recall that the domain seizures have been brought to us courtesy of career executive branch administrators at ICE, and not at the direction of elected members of Congress (with the latter being the more natural domain of lobbyists).
        Notice that if lobbyists are able to sway the guys at ICE, then without prejudice we can plainly call it bribery and not campaign contributions.
        
        So if you are suspecting that Baidu's "insane" money does buy protection, it would appear that you are painfully close to saying that guys in ICE are susceptible to bribes.....Hmmm.
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You should read up on in rem and in personam jurisdiction, since apparently you have no idea what you're talking about.
        
        You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why ICE didn't seize Baidu? it is a COM you know.
        
        They have many many pirate movies there, heck you can find everything for free and they have special sections just for that.
        
        Do the U.S. have the balls to do it?
        If not will they do it to India, Brazil, Russia, Italy, France and others?
        
        Those arguments are a travesty, we all know the U.S. will do nothing against big players outside the U.S. borders because it would mean the end of American business worldwide, but you keep saying people need to surrender their rights to get something that is not even in their interest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All good lawyers cite Wikipedia
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I pointed a non-lawyer to an article that would him understand jurisdictional issues. That article is very informative, and it links to other articles on similar topics. What's your problem with that? Or are you just intentionally being an ass?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just checked "credibility" on Wikipedia and discovered that the term was coined in 1994 by President Ben Franklin after he rescued the Challenger astronauts from certain death.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Snore. Is there a problem with the "minimum contacts" article I linked to? Do you not think it's informative?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to read the article because your avalanche of dumb comments has capped out my bandwidth usage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Feb 2011 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I actually marked that as funny. Gotta give props where they're due...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I just checked "credibility" on Wikipedia and discovered that the term was coined in 1994 by President Ben Franklin after he rescued the Challenger astronauts from certain death."
        Ridiculing your own imagined lie?
        Sorry, not convincing ----> /sarcFail
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Baidu MP3 Search provides algorithm-generated links to songs and other multimedia files provided by Internet content providers. Baidu started with a popular music search feature called "MP3 Search" and its comprehensive lists of popular Chinese music (Baidu 500) based on download numbers. Baidu locates file formats such as MP3, WMA and SWF. The multimedia search feature is mainly used in searches for Chinese pop music. While such works are copyrighted under Chinese law, Baidu claims on its legal disclaimer that linking to these files does not break Chinese law. This has led other local search engines to follow the practice, including Google China, which uses an intermediate company called Top100 to offer a similar MP3 Search service.
        
        Source: Wikipedia: Baidu
        
        Baidu MP3 search with tones of (U.S. illegal) music.
        
        Seize that if you have the balls to do it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google serve music and movies in China all illegal in the U.S. will they have all their assets seized?
        
        They are not respecting U.S. law according to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are a person who is breaking a law in China. You chose to submit to Chinese jurisdiction when you chose to violate Chinese law. Please fly there immediately and report to jail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      so thus that mean that India can seize all assets from American pharma companies that infringe on their laws?
      
      Thus that means China can seize Google to make room for Baidu? or Microsoft?
      
      Did every American go to China, India, Brazil, Russia, Italy and other places to file patents and trademarks?
      
      This will just be wild to watch.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So if IO have a website ending in '.co.uk' that infringes on US law, it's absolutely okay for US agencies to seize that domain without notifying me was Webmaster? Good to know I can't fight off those fucking leeches.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 6:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "These are websites that are breaking U.S. laws. They choose to submit to U.S. jurisdiction when they choose to violate U.S. law."
      
      Empire much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Atkray (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 8:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *goes off to listen to a shiny disk from Queensr�che
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 8:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Good luck enforcing that on foreign nationals not living or based in the US.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What the...
      
      Conflict of laws mean anything to you?
      Sovereignty?
      Jurisdiction?
      Enforceability?
      
      You realised you just basically stated that Thomas Jefferson et. al. were breaking the law in 1776 because they had previously chosen to submit to British law.
      
      The USA has absolutely NO, NADA, NIX Jurisdiction over any citizen from another country UNLESS and only UNLESS that Jurisdictions proper forum has allowed such, and is usually on a case by case basis.
      
      Oh and I can guarantee I break some sort of US criminal/civil Law every single day, the problem is the US would not stand a snowballs chance in hell of doing anything about it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I just looked at his profile and he has 43 comments just for today. He must be attending law school online at ITT Tech. Either that, or he needs to get a life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ha. I'm sitting in a Sales Law class right now. Somehow I can multitask...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you have been in class for 12 hours? Because that's how long you've been commenting today. I agree with the guy above. You need to be a better student or pick up some extra-curriculars.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You guys are finding some really dumb things to say to me. Why do you care when I'm in class or not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the pot calling the kettle black.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think they're trying to say that a person who posts comments on a website he vehemently disagrees with for 12 straight hours has an unhealthy obsession.
        
        I'm not going to stoop to the level of impugning your academic or social skills, but I will say it's difficult to tell if you really mean half of the things you say, or if you're just trolling to elicit a response. I'm sorry for being disrespectful, but sometimes your comments appear to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Some of your comments give the impression that you're intentionally being closed minded or stupid.
        
        If you aren't trolling, I think a lot of people are being misled by comments that seem to be unnecessarily argumentative.
        
        Again, I apologize for my impolite, unsolicited opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't feed trolls/Average_joes, I report them.
        
        Seriously. If you see the orange avatar with red writing, do your best to click "report" and slide on by. Don't read it, don't respond to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 11:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's the matter? Can't respond to my posts with logical retorts? It's hilarious how much I threaten your guys' points of view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Honestly, I don't care. It's just that you've behaved like a huge cockasaurus rex today, so I thought I'd connect with you on a personal level in the hopes that we me might someday find ourselves locked in arms with one another, deeply I entwined in a passionate kiss as we watch broke back mountain and sip fine red wine over imported cheese.
        
        That's when I plan to kill you with the schwatz....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        schwa"R"tz
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re:
  What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?
  
  Before you ask this question first ask:
  
  "Is it necessary or wise to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP"
  
  If the UK had taken that attitude in the 19th century we would have gone after the US - because in those days US law allowed unfettered piracy of UK IP.
  
  Should the Royal Navy have invaded the US in 1850?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:28pm
  
  Re:
  I'm just confused as to why you aren't asserting that Senator Wyden obviously loves child molesters....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because he can't find a Wikipedia reference on that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re:
  Like COICA will change anything LoL
  
  Do you really think that if you start targeting other countries business they will stand still and take it like a man?
  
  Seize Baidu assets I dare you.
  Seize Indian pharma products I dare you.
  Seize Italian products I dare you.
  Seize Brazilian business assets in the U.S. I dare you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re:
  "What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?"
  
  Well Pinky, it looks like we will just have to invade these freetard countries and show them who's boss. We can not have people in other nations thinking they can just govern themselves now can we?
  
  [/sarc jic]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm

"What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?"

Isn't that what foreign policy is all about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:47pm

So no laws? Is that your answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  Why the hell do we need to target foreign operations when it has no direct impact on the US economy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re:
  "So no laws? Is that your answer?"
  
  You left out stupid.
  
  "So, no stupid laws? Is that your answer?"
  
  Fixed it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:32pm
  
  Re:
  Oh the USA can in its infinite stupidity make as many laws as it wants to print, after a while you might run out of paper, or the money to purchase it from the countries you buy the wood pulp from though.
  
  Oh and lack of enforceability on laws is the major statement here. the USA can make billions of laws that effect foreign aliens whilst those foreign aliens are not within the Jurisdiction of the USA.
  
  The USA just cannot enforce those laws unless harmonisation happens within ALL countries.. Quid pro quo
  
  But go ahead, keep making laws that show daily that the USA is becoming basically the USSA and will be more and more ostracised every day. No wonder Russia, China, Brazil etc are trying to make a global currency that is not based in any way shape or form on the US$
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CommonSense (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:51pm

Wow
This really makes me wish I could vote for him... I can't believe he's not only thinking about the current impact, but also the future impacts, and unintended consequences it may bring overseas.. My hat is certainly off to him. Just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Wow
  It's a trick. He just wants to get re-elected to he can keep representing the interests of his electorate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Wow
    Wyden was just re-elected in the last election cycle. He doesn't have to worry about re-election for a few years. Also, he has typically not had to struggle to become re-elected, due to his relatively high popularity and the lack of strong opponents.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wow
      Also, I can't believe that I didn't get the joke about him wanting to get re-elected so that he can represent the interests of his electorate.
      
      -10 Cool Points
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeff Rife, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wow
      Is that a great big "whoosh" I hear?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
        You shut your stupid face right now :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Wow
    He just got reelected so I doubt it's that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:10pm

But... but... censorship!

It's the new Techdirt theme of the month. Will there be hoodies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 4:06pm
  
  Re:
  Seriously, that's totes a good question.
  
  I want a hoodie! With a zipper! :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    I might actually consider buying something that says BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!! on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Dynice (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:14pm

Video published today on Wyden's YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA9QGFFf0_4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jose_X, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  Thanks for the fresh link.
  
  The kind of potential abuse discussed in the clip is perhaps scarier than anything we are likely to ever see in the Patriot Act. It almost seems a few people can decide to murder or do just about anything and not have to explain their actions to Congress or to very many people ..and do so at will. Not only is having a few people make decisions for many without accountability or transparency a bad idea generally, but, when involved with potentially violent acts, this puts tremendous pressure on those few involved in the decision-making not to resist the will of those in the room with the big guns or vengeful nature. Judge, jury, and executioner merge into one.
  
  We need to root this sort of thing out of our government/military. Those with weapons and entrusted with power need to be accountable to the people. I think it's safe to say that we need as much transparency and separation of powers as is reasonable.
  
  We are not going to see change if few people end up pressing this issue. We need volume.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jose_X, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    >> The kind of potential abuse discussed in the clip is perhaps scarier than anything we are likely to ever see in the Patriot Act.
    
    OK. Maybe not quite.
    
    There is tremendous value in having laws on paper whose text appeals to good principles and state fair things. It is a sad day for sure when lawmakers will get away with passing disgusting laws and not just us having the executive branch interpreting laws liberally to their twisted ends.
    
    It's very important to have both fair laws and fair interpretations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 2:54pm

Total freedom is not possible, for it only exists as anarchy

Fear mongering at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re:
  Freedom can only come from your government. Now pick up that can.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:01pm

"They choose to submit to U.S. jurisdiction when they choose to violate U.S. law."

So I, as an Australian, chose to submit to U.S. Jurisdiction when I started drinking alcohol at 18 as I was breaking U.S. Law?

Uh how about go fuck yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 11:18pm
  
  Re:
  Were you in the U.S. drinking under age? If not, you didn't break any U.S. laws. I'm not sure what you're confusion is. Using the internet to reach out across borders to break laws is what I'm talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 5:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Seize Baidu first, talk is cheap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who's reaching across borders? It's the americans accessing the foreign websites, not the other way around.
    
    Is an American blog reaching across borders to violate foreign laws if a foreigner accesses its site?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If that American blog is targeting foreigners, then yes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What do you mean by targeting? What do these sites do to particularly target Americans?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:05pm

Just read Wyden's comments. What can you say? Obviously someone from the pirate community got his ear, as he made sure to hit on all their talking points.

It's a free country and everyone has a right to bend the ear of their congressperson.

But his view is his alone in Congress, and ultimately the bill is going to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:34pm
  
  Re:
  Ultimately Baidu will grow their traffic.
  
  Are you going to be the one to say "but but piracy" to the Chinese?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 7:50pm
  
  Re:
  And that's how piracy and counterfeiting and copyright infringement and child porn and terrorism and the mob was defeated. The end.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2011 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re:
  Hope it passes then I will make sure I break the law every chance I get.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- velox (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 11:14pm
  
  Re:
  "Obviously someone from the pirate community got his ear"
  ---Because obviously only pirates care about fair use, liability protection, constitutional rights, censorship, etc. etc.
  
  ---Obviously no one else in Congress would ever care about any of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah. While it was suspected long ago, it became obvious once he started regurgitating Joel Tenenbaum's defense brief.
    
    He's a cute little pirate puppet. Do you happen to know who the freetard on his staff is? Or was this the one politician that was dumb enough to drink Masnick brand Kool-Aid?
    
    whatevs. The bill is still going to pass.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 5:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Whatevs. piracy is still going to rule.
      
      We all are going to go to Baidu now to see some movies and hear some songs.
      
      BTW France wants to tax every American web based business so they can pay for music for the poor :)
      
      LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:56am
  
  Re:
  and then I'd consider peaceful protests in the Capitol to stop government from functioning.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shon Gale (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:25am

Yea Ron!!! We love you in Oregon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]