People Across Political Spectrum Come Out Against COICA Censorship Bill
from the good-for-them dept
We've mentioned before that one of the things we like about intellectual property issues is that they're truly a non-partisan issue. Unfortunately, traditionally that's meant that elected officials from both major political parties have been more than happy to ratchet up the protectionism attempts by the entertainment industry. However, it also means that arguments against such efforts do not (and should not) fall along political lines. That's why it's nice to see a group of "progressive" activists and "conservative" bloggers (I hate both labels, but both of those groups seem to embrace them) team up to protest the reintroduction of the COICA censorship-for-Hollywood bill.The progressive activist organization Demand Progress and a group of conservative bloggers lead by Republican National Committee Internet Director Patrick Ruffini are staunchly opposed to the bill and the administration's recent moves to seize and shut down domains linking to pirated content.It's definitely nice to see a broad spectrum of folks recognizing that this involves core American principles of free speech and due process.
"The core conservative principles of small government and basic individual freedoms should not be abandoned on the Internet," Ruffini said. "COICA represents a dangerous new encroachment of the government into our digital lives."
"In their attempts to reign in online file-sharing, Hollywood moguls are once again willing to risk massive censorship," said Demand Progress and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz.
"COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet –– and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship."
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: aaron swartz, censorship, coica, copyright, patrick ruffini, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outside the Internet, over the years the government (FCC et al) has restricted out rights to broadcast content and free speech on public airwaves and have granted exclusive monopoly privileges over public airwave and cableco infrastructure use to specific entities (ie: private corporations). This has resulted in mass censorship over these communication channels and these communication channels are only used to communicate pro-IP propaganda. The public wasn't being told about how long copy'right' lasts and about proposed copy'right' expansion bills, they weren't being told about all the harm that patents and copy'rights' have caused to our society over the years, they were only fed pro-IP propaganda and this has resulted in 95+ year copy'right' lengths and has been a huge determent to our culture and society and our ability to attain knowledge. Censorship is already real, its reality has been a huge burden and detriment on everyone except for the monopolists, and it is a real concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While the fake drugs were the most scary, trying to convince someone that buying a fake LV bag on the streets of NY would then cause a terrorist to get a dirty bomb into the country really moves beyond the pale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship and IP Maximilism is un-American and a threat to our freedom
Copyright laws are unconstitutional in so many levels and neither party nor judges are willing to face that. $140,000 for posting an image on a blog is a crime against humanity. Copyrights are being allowed to trump our most cherished rights such as freedom of speech. Our Constitution gives very little weight to copyrights and mainly because of the social benefit but laws have made copyrights king and it is destroying those rights we hold dear.
IP Maximalism is a threat to our liberty, a threat to our freedom, and a threat to all Constitutional principle. Those who espouse it do not believe in freedom and are un-American authoritarians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship and IP Maximilism is un-American and a threat to our freedom
Then you have something that is effective or as effective as it can be and just since it would be not based on arbitrary fixed values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship and IP Maximilism is un-American and a threat to our freedom
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
That second one is the one that should be tripping up the FCC; $100,000 fines for making a copy of a $5 dvd?
I don't think so.
Maybe I'm wrong but that seems like an excessive fine to me. Why is no one using that defense when they get fined ridiculous sums of money for downloading a song or a movie? Am I missing something?
First amendment arguments are still valid though, obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just as there are individuals and groups that are allied against COICA, there are also individuals and groups (and not just the RIAA, MPAA, and a host of other "A's") who support the legislation.
While written as counsel for an industry group that supports COICA, Floyd Abrams, a well-respected expert in First Amendment issues (he represented the NYT in the "Pentagon Papers" litigation), has penned his views concerning the constitutionality of COICA vis a vis the First Amendment. His views can be found at:
http://www.mediainstitute.org/new_site/PDFs/Abrams%20COICA%20Cmts.%202-11-11.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Man. You COICA supporters have a *single* go to guy, and that's Floyd Abrams. Sorry, but Abrams lost a lot of credibility when he attacked Wikileaks and got almost all of his facts wrong. His defense of COICA, paid for *by the industry* is not particularly compelling and full of really quite surprising mistakes for someone so esteemed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The reason I linked to his letter was to help inform people that there are multiple views concerning the legislation, and perhaps by reading his some insight might be gained to facilitate discussions.
BTW, I mentioned the context in which the letter was prepared in the interest of full disclosure. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that because one is expressing an opinion at the request of a client that the opinion is necessarily tainted.
Rather than dismissing its contents with the wave of a hand, I suggest you read it for substance, and then note points of disagreement on Supreme Court decisions regarding the First Amendment if you deem them significant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why?
It is tainted, if it was and independent source that would be more credible, but paid shills are rarely objective or honest about what they write.
Why then should people pay attention to it? Every time people fall for those types, they are mislead, lied to and duped, why should people pay attention to someone that has no interests in real working solutions but only in a paycheck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ask why people should pay attention to it. In my opinion the reason is not a reader will be necessarily persuaded, but that the reader will certainly become better informed on the salient issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Merely FYI, I did go back and read your article concerning Mr. Abrams and the Wikileaks matter. I also read various accounts from other sources. In my view his comments were much more nuanced than you seem to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The Constitution itself authorizes Congress to adopt copyright legislation and the first such legislation was enacted a year before the First Amendment was approved by Congress"
I'm not sure what point he's trying to make here. Is he somehow hinting that copyright is more important because it came before the first amendment?
Now I'm no expert, but my understanding is that amendments revise and take precedent over what was previously in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution (besides later amendments) should be deemed more legally binding than the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It also strengthens the measures he can pursue without court approval. For instance, COICA grants immunity to ISPs, and financial service providers, if they take part in extra-judicial vigilante service termination. Now nothing in COICA prevents an attorney general from strongly encouraging these businesses from "taking the law into their own hands".
"COICA ... does not limit the defenses that may be offered including ... fair use."
However, it does limit a wronged party from seeking damages against those that may have cost them their livelihood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He says that rule 65 prevents overbreadth of COICA. But rule 65 deals only with civil takedowns. The government has creatively been taking down sites for 'criminal' copyright infringement. How does rule 65 help here?
"Any website devoted to legal activities, such as commentary, socializing or commerce, cannot be pursued under COICA if it occasionally or even repeatedly practices infringement"
I can't imagine how Floyd can honestly believe that in light of the recent ICE history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Re FRCP Rule 65, the seizures pursued by the DOJ and DHS (ICE) were "in rem" actions, which by definition are civil actions. Hence, the customary federal rules of civil procedure associated with civil actions in federal court pertain.
Obviously, "in personam" actions would be preferrable...but this cannot be pursued when the wrongdoer is beyond the reach of the jurisdiction of US courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterfeiting costs is grossly overstated.
Producers assume that whenever a counterfeit product is made and sole that it accounts for money out of their pockets. In a very small percentage this might be true however very few people who buy counterfeited products did so in lue of buying the genuine article. Most people who buy genuine products will not buy counterfeit items and the inverse most people who buy counterfeit do not by the real product even if there was no counterfeit so the actual cost of counterfeiting is actually very low.
The real costs of counterfeiting is actually the crime that generally goes along with it which is born by society, not the copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Counterfeiting costs is grossly overstated.
Dangerous they are not, increases exposure and maintain the brand on peoples heads it creates a bottom up demand for it.
One of the preferred tactics of industries everywhere and I saw this happening many times is just to let people bootleg your product when you can't enforce it until the time comes that you can go there and get rid of the bootleggers and sell your stuff the bootleggers work as placeholders for the real thing and almost guarantee there will be no other competitors, that was when I realized that bootlegs helps grow local markets and produce wealth, it doesn't matter who does only that work is being done.
On the other hand I can understand drugs, medical equipment, vehicular parts can be dangerous if no supervised production is available, but for luxury goods?
What is bad about it? really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Democrats and Repubs have to work together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Democrats and Repubs have to work together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Democrats and Repubs have to work together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPNs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick Really Really Loves Stealing From Actors, Musicians, Producers, Directors, Engineers, "Big Evil Studios", And Their Families
Mike Masnick does not understand the fundamentals of copyright law.
Mike Masnick is a copyleft propagandist.
COICA is not designed to "censor free speech" in any way, shape or form.
-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Really Really Loves Stealing From Actors, Musicians, Producers, Directors, Engineers, "Big Evil Studios", And Their Families
People do not deserve to earn money for doing nothing. IF you do not get promoted, you do not deserve to own your own money.
Mike may not understand the fundamentals of copyright law, but netither do just about anyone who doersn't pay millions to write laws in their favour.
Mike approves of the copyleft message as part of a larger business model.
Silicon Valley is gonna burn, like the rest of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Really Really Loves Stealing From Actors, Musicians, Producers, Directors, Engineers, "Big Evil Studios", And Their Families
Be fairwarned, the statement above is pure defamation. It is a flat out lie. I have never stolen from anyone as claimed above. I do not infringe on works. I buy all my music and movies and have never downloaded anything.
To claim otherwise is defamation.
I find it odd that you would stoop to defamation like that, exposing you to a lawsuit.
Mike Masnick will not stand to live in a world where creative people are fairly compensated for their work.
Huh? I spend a ridiculous amount of time working to help creative people MAKE MORE money for their work.
Why do you lie?
Mike Masnick does not understand the fundamentals of copyright law.
I understand it quite well, and have regularly been told that by some of the most well known experts in the field.
Mike Masnick is a copyleft propagandist.
I don't even know what that means.
COICA is not designed to "censor free speech" in any way, shape or form.
Then you don't understand COICA.
-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-
Um. Ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Really Really Loves Stealing From Actors, Musicians, Producers, Directors, Engineers, "Big Evil Studios", And Their Families
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Really Really Loves Stealing From Actors, Musicians, Producers, Directors, Engineers, "Big Evil Studios", And Their Families
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Telling
Bottom line is the first amendment doesn't protect thievery. If a man was selling stolen watches on the streets of New York he would be arrested immediately and his property confiscated. It's the same concept here. Compensate the artists that enrich your lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shills: Mission
You may use lines such as:
"Well, the progressives are against it, and the conservatives are against it, but the moderates are for it! (Please refer back to the discussion on business models working for big or small artists, but not those in the middle for inspiration!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here the exception that proves the rule.
stopped clock, blind pig, etc.
of course, the progressives may merely be disappointed in the details, since it seems unlikely lefties would be upset about anybody's loss of liberty.
fear the rewrite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By definition, "Prosperity often encompasses wealth".
There you have it. No need to search further. He admitted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASCAP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United States of America by Greece number two.
Now they are going to go further.
Maybe to make equal American well-being to Russian one.
Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]