Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
from the ah,-law-making-in-action dept
This is hardly a surprise, but despite folks like Senator Ron Wyden pointing out the massive problems with Senator Patrick Leahy's COICA bill, Leahy intends to push forward with it. What's amazing is that he even seems to admit that there's no real evidence that it's needed. In his remarks pushing COICA, Senator Leahy noted:"Copyright piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost the American economy billions of dollars annually and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. That is why inaction is not an option, and we must pass online infringement legislation in this Congress before rogue websites harm more businesses, and result in more lost jobs.""Are reported?" By whom? Not the US government, who a year ago noted that all of the studies making those sorts of claims were bogus, and the various studies discussing these claims of "losses" to both jobs and the American economy have been thoroughly debunked. The only people still claiming that such things are factual are lobbyists and legacy industry insiders, who clearly stand to benefit from such laws that can be used to stifle innovation.
If Leahy is going to insist that these numbers are factual, shouldn't he at least have to say where he got those numbers from -- and also avoid relying on numbers from the very industries this law is designed to help?
So, what are the chances that Senator Leahy will put forth the details that prove why he needs to censor the internet to protect a few companies who don't want to adapt to a changing market? Anyone a constituent of Leahy's and willing to ask for specific references to such evidence?
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: censorship, coica, evidence, patrick leahy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I say we let them have this law ...
One thing that will come from this is a greater understanding of copyright issues by the general public. If the content types thought this through they would realize, this is something they really do not want. A couple hundred million americans talking about, 95 year copyright length, the words "promote the progress", fair use, monopoly rents, collection agencies, criminalization of infringement, 1st, 4th, 14th amendments.
This law will be used to set examples and will not do anything to slow down the competition or infringement that is happening online. It will be struck down in the courts in two years or so. Until then it will expose the general public to what copyright was, what the intent actually is, and what it has become. An educated populace, not a good thing for the legacy content types.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say we let them have this law ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I say we let them have this law ...
I am pretty certain PK, the EFF, and the ACLU are going to get involved in this. When it goes to court. So even with a bad judge, the frieds of the court briefs that will be filed will be clear concise and to the point on the constitutional side. On the content side it will all be obfuscated nonsense like we have seen over an over recently.
Also, Could someone tell me if prior restraint is a constitutional issue or a legal judgement or both? With a short explaination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I say we let them have this law ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I say we let them have this law ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I say we let them have this law ...
To quote myself ..."On the content side it will all be obfuscated nonsense like we have seen over an over recently." were you trying to be funny??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say we let them have this law ...
I see claims of "pirates fighting to kill your jobs", "anti-copyright activists fighting a just law" and "attempts to undermine American intellectual property". Length of copyright - not discussed. Progress - glossed over using specious logic. Fair use - not discussed. Infringement - again, specious logic at best.
While I love the thought, I think your plan has a fatal flaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I say we let them have this law ...
Not so much, with the rise of social media. As discussed here at techdirt, more people are getting their news from RSS feeds and from friends suggestions. These are the same people that are going to be targeted by this new law. So you have a law targeted at the same demographic that is becoming both more socially active, and more communicative. I also think mentioning they are beginning to vote more and more might help change your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He can probably prove why he needs the law through his campaign financial statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gimme the money
exactly! per opensecrets.org my beloved senior senator gets paid north of $350,000 per election cycle by the entertainment industry (yes i'm typing from vermont, home of great skiing and an embarrassed electorate).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then why do you also believe piracy is not OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And why would you assume that not finding evidence of something causing significant harm automatically makes something ok? Farting in line at the supermarket does not cause significant harm but it is not socially acceptable - do we need to create laws to prevent it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here, let's take the rights holders' favorite analogy and apply the reality of digital goods to it. You have your stuff in your house. You locked the door, but you also hid the key (DRM) in the goods you hand out to everybody you sell your stuff to. Now, people use that key to enter your house and take your stuff, but you still have it because they're not actually taking anything away, they're copying it and walking out the door leaving what you have perfectly intact. So what do you do? Sue? Change the locks and deprive your loyal customer access to what they legally paid for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I asked in this thread was why Mike thinks piracy is not OK if he believe that piracy does no harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please feel free to explain the difference between 'moral' and 'legal' for the rest of the class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am a garbage man. Your comments are trash.
/ad hominem attacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are apples NOT Oranges?
That makes about as much sense as your question. Just because the claims of economic and job losses are completely bogus, doesn't mean that piracy is ok. It means the claims of economic loss are bogus.
Online piracy (copyright infringement) is currently illegal, just like alcohol was illegal during prohibition. Online copyright infringement is FUELED by the attempts of legacy industries to abusively clamp down on content and disrupt human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why are apples NOT Oranges?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I watched the hearing
The service providers (Go-daddy, Verizon, Visa) were all insistent on the bill providing immunity for 'TRYING to do the right thing'. I think that should be a red flag indicating that everyone knows that the wrong things are going to happen sometimes. And the ICE's recent missteps should make it clear that it won't just be once in a blue moon.
Mr. Turow from the Author's Guild was downright scary in demanding that we do away with the DMCA safe harbors.
Mr. Adams (from Rosetta Stone) was asking that Google be required to review all advertisers for infringements before doing business with them. He claims they do this with every video on you-tube (huh?), so it should be no problem to do this with web sites. He didn't mention whether he would want Google to re-review every change that happened on advertisers' sites.
Nobody seemed to think that a court should be required to decide what's infringing. Everyone seemed to unanimously agree that a phone call from a supposed content creator should be all it takes to bring down the hammer.
It was very disheartening to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A shadow of his former self.
I doubt Mike would be Darryl or AJ though. Too many people dislike those kinds of people, and they hardly make conversations interesting when their only argument is "YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE OF X" when X has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The most prominent example of why AJ has fallen from respect is in the post Karl did yesterday. Just scroll through the comments there for multiple people talking about how AJ used to be, and as to why he is now useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure if that's what happened with AJ, but I agree that he has undergone a significant change and not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I welcome anyone pointing out my errors because it means I've learned something new. I'm obsessed with getting things right, not in always being right." This may be how you see yourself, but it is totally inconsistent with the way you have been acting on this site.
This is not "dime store psychology," it's experience from dealing with thousands upon thousands of young people who want more than anything in the world for people to recognize how smart they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am just about the only named poster on techdirt I can think of who gladly admits when he's wrong. You disagree. That's fine. We're obviously not going to have a meeting of the minds on this.
I can point to a few posts from the past week alone where I thanked someone for pointing out my error. Can you do the same?
I'm not going to debate you on this any further, because honestly, I'm fed up with all this bullshit. Think whatever the fuck you want, genius, I don't fucking care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Average Joe: "I am a shark-wannabe who dreams of fleecing my customers like any bad lawyer, and I cannot understand the concept of fighting against bad laws rather than simply letting them stand. I worship the law and bow down before it, and to me it can do no wrong. If there was a law that said I had to go streaking in my neighborhood every day, I would do it without question, because it would be the law."
Your problem is, you're wrong more than you think you are. So you only acknowledge you're wrong when you think you are, not when you actually are regardless of whether you think you are or not. There's a reason nobody likes lawyers anymore. And by the way, as you use a copyrighted image for your avatar, did you license it? Doubtful, which means you do the very thing you rail against. Unless you can provide proof as to what specific harm such usage does to the originator - since you seem to believe that any use without permission automatically causes harm. By that logic, that includes your own use as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the current rate of decline of AJ's argument style I suspect that within a few months he will be at angry dude level and only show up to throw massive amounts of insults and not even try to argue anything. With the level of posts he started at compared to where he is at now, I do not see this as outside the realm of possibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, what are the chances that Senator Leahy will put forth the details that prove why he needs to censor the internet to protect a few companies who don't want to adapt to a changing market?"
Yeah evidently democracy doesn't work that way anymore. Our local lobbyist fanboy slash justice minister pulled the same number when they were ramming through the three-strikes nonsense down here. I did ask him, twice, to verify those numbers from objective sources.
To his credit he did actually respond to me in detail both times, but neither response had any more content besides the standard REPEAT ORIGINAL CLAIMS tactic.
In short, no, they don't have evidence and evidence isn't the point. They've got lobbyist money telling them what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy is not innovation
And if innovators can't find ways to innovate that don't depend on piracy, they have no business model and need to go back to the drawing board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy is not innovation
Of course, people can be terrified of change and the unknown. It took centuries, I think, for people to even understand the concept of the number zero. The concept of free seems to have the same poleaxing effect on minds that aren't open to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]