Mojang's Trademark Application Rejected: Too Many 'Scrolls' For The USPTO

Michele Bachmann Comes Out Against PROTECT IP

from the interesting-developments dept

Fri, Oct 14th 2011 4:02pm — Mike Masnick

Whatever you might think of Rep. Michele Bachmann, she certainly gets attention, and as a bunch of folks have just sent over, she's just come out against PROTECT IP. In a letter responding to someone asking her opinion, she stated:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. As your Representative for the 6th district of Minnesota, your views are very important to me and I appreciate hearing from you.

While I understand the importance of safeguarding Americans' intellectual property rights, I have serious concerns about government getting involved in regulation of the internet, and about ambiguities in this legislation which could lead to an explosion of destructive, innovation-stalling lawsuits.

This is likely as a result of recent Tea Party concerns about the bill as well, since Bachmann is often associated with the Tea Party.

The interesting bit here is that it certainly sets things up for some more vocal opposition of PROTECT IP. Supporters of the bill had been arguing that it would just be "the usual suspects" who were against PROTECT IP, and would talk about how they had bipartisan support for the bill. But we're seeing more and more people in the House begin to express concerns about the bill... and do so on both sides of the aisle. Intellectual property issues, for better of for worse (and I think, for better) have never been a really partisan issue, and I do hope it stays that way, but Bachmann's opposition puts up another roadblock in place to getting PROTECT IP passed. We'd heard that the House version of the bill was supposed to drop today... (after a couple months of being told "in the next two weeks"), but then late yesterday heard that it was pushed back again. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that Bachmann taking a position on it is part of the delay. At the very least, this is going to mean that PROTECT IP won't be able to sail through as supporters expected, and (most importantly) there is likely to be a lot more public scrutiny of a bill that is nothing but a favor to the MPAA/RIAA.

In the end it's good news that people elected officials are increasingly realizing that IP issues aren't as simple as has been put forth by the entertainment industry for so long. The fact that entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and top technologists have already vocally expressed their concerns about PROTECT IP hindering innovation, it's nice to see that these voices are starting to be heard. Maybe, just once, the entertainment industry won't get away with a bill to prop up their failing business models without everyone else just letting it happen.

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, copyright, internet, michele bachmann, protect ip, regulation

54 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jesse Townley (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:07pm

This proves that...
... even a broken clock is right twice a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re: This proves that...
  Are we sure this is that time? What's the source for this story?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re: This proves that...
  Uhm ... if this clock is five minutes per month fast and it were five minutes ahead of time ... it would consistently be wrong for days at a time without being right even once.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:32pm
    
    Re: Re: This proves that...
    Maybe you should put the pipe down now and go take a nap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This proves that...
      How is what I'm saying wrong? "Broken" could mean a lot of things. It could be five minutes fast, and if it were, it would stay wrong because no matter what time it is, the clock will be five or so minutes ahead, which would consistently be the wrong time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This proves that...
        You're sorta right, but it doesn't really matter
        
        The expression is actually about a stopped clock being right twice a day.
        Stopped is what was meant here by broken
        What you're describing in your 2nd example is a clock keeping perfect time but where the time is set wrong, the clock isn't broken there, but a broken clock might not have the ability to show time at all and therefore wouldn't even be right twice a day.
        You're first example was better so you're not completely wrong, but you are pedantic as hell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 12:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This proves that...
        "you are pedantic as hell"
        
        Wow, look who's talking! All he was doing was point out that, just as there's a situation where a broken clock can be right, there's a situation where a working clock is never right. Meaning that there's a simple opposing counterpoint to that common saying.
        
        Not hard to understand, but as usual an AC has to jump to conclusions and launch personal insults...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 9:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This proves that...
        Now comes the part where you tell us about the perfect clock that is never fast nor slow. Go ahead, I'm all eyes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:01pm
  
  Re: This proves that...
  I believe the expression is "Even a STOPPED clock is right twice a day."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re: This proves that...
  At least when someone writes to Bachmann about PROTECT IP, her response is about PROTECT IP.
  
  I wrote my two senators (Feinstein and Boxer) about it, and never heard back from Boxer at all. Feinstein gave me a lengthy description of her stance on net neutrality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: This proves that...
  ... even a broken clock is right twice a day.
  
  Not if you put the Tea Party in charge of it it isn't!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:11pm

PROTECT IP has zero safeguards it will allow others to abuse the system for pecuniary reasons with zero consequences for those abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:16pm

Interesting
Even if she is completely insane, maybe she could have a real future representing her constituents in Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re: Interesting
  In my experience, completely insane is actually a great quality in a politician, since the sane ones are mostly criminals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:17pm

PROTECT IP like the DMCA has a complete lack of transparency and accountability, there is no way to challenge the classification of "rogue sites", there is no obligation to make that list public so people can see what is being blocked, there is no tough penalties for abuses committed.

PROTECT IP is a censor tool, one that should have even more safeguards because of its potential for infringing on the First Amendment and still there is not a shred of that in that bill.

Not to mention it is useless since others can just create forums that cannot be blocked by any government on earth, the technology is not there, the means are not there, why risk so powerful collateral damages to democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:21pm

No offense, but I don't trust her for a second. She's just another Sarah Palin, she's ignorant and she'll say absolutely anything to get elected. She'll change her tune upon election, just like Obama did on many issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:23pm
  
  Re:
  Not offended, but show me this history of flip flopping you claim she will undergo. Past history is a very good indicator of future actions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:25pm

Help!
Help! Someone please stop me from liking Michelle Bachmann!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re: Help!
  Have you watched her in the debates? She has no clue what she's talking about, she merely says anything that she thinks will get her elected.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23itODyctH4
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfN2uzghXTo
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCFceBY5DbA
  
  If she gets elected, gosh help us all.
  
  I suspect she doesn't really even care about half of what she talks about, especially given her ignorance. She is just saying anything she can to get elected and slamming anyone else to the fullest extent that she can.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Help!
    Ah. Thank you. That did it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Help!
      I could go on ...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Help!
    psssh if she got elected it would be Hilarious.
    
    Seances on the Whitehouse lawn, crystal ball readings on where to nuke first/next.
    
    Also being slightly retarded (and thinking she's a witch) she'd probably spend billions trying to make a real-life hogwarts for overprivileged rich kids.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Help!
      Uh, the witch thing wasn't Bachmann. That was Christine O'Donnell, but nice try.
      
      Not that I like Bachmann, but false information is false information.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jack_sprat, 15 Oct 2011 @ 11:39pm
  
  Re: Help!
  Didn't Charlie Harper say something to the effect that "sex with crazy chicks is the third best kind of sex"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:28pm

A stopped clock is right twice a day. She's still batshit insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:37pm

It is from a response to a constituent letter. Assuming the letter was properly vetted, it is accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Michelle Bachman needs to be vetted.
  
  And by vetted I mean someone needs to put a bolt gun to her head then throw the corpse into an incinerator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, clearly it's the Tea Party that spews the hatred.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:15pm

She probably thinks IP stands for Internet Porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re:
  Her husband thinks it stands for Interacting Penises and is like totally in favor of them...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    She thinks Protect (me when) IP is a bill to make sure no-one peeps into the stall whilst your having a piss.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:31pm

derp derp clocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:54pm

I would like to see the letter she sends to constituents who contact her urging support for the legislation.

Experience suggests it may be a polar opposite to what is quoted in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 14 Oct 2011 @ 6:11pm

Actions speak louder than words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 11:50pm

Bachmann
Ah, that might explain why I also got a response email from Scott Brown... despite emailing him about ACTA months ago.

I guess this means that Bachmann is also one of "Google's pet senators." Obviously, she's just a hippie freetard who is spouting Socialist propaganda about how nobody deserves to get paid.

Having said all that: I know "the enemy of your enemy," and all that - but still: yikes. With friends like these...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2011 @ 12:18am

Oh boy, you guys are in great company. Sort of shows where PROTECT IP lands, somewhere between Bachman and Palin and the rest of the tea baggers.

Congrats Mike, you are clearly on the #winning team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- surfer (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 3:10am
  
  Re:
  um, this IS an open forum, like the old town hall meetings.
  
  there can be derp arguments over stopped/broken clocks on one side of the room, while debates over Bachmann being Palin in the center, et al..
  
  although, typically, the intellects converge in one corner or another, usually by the free coffee, to discuss the ramifications of infringing on the 1st Amendment with no oversight, something we have seen before.
  
  just saying..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 3:29am
  
  Re:
  Still tired of losing, eh?
  
  At least you didn't mention Marcus' ass this time...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re:
  Oh boy, you guys are in great company.
  
  Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Bachmann may be horrible, but the RIAA/MPAA/COC aren't any better.
  
  It's also somewhat ironic, since your side has been lobbing the "hippie"/"socialist" accusation against the free culture movement for years.
  
  It pisses you off that PROTECT IP opponents aren't so easily pigeonholed, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 4:22am
  
  Re:
  Remember that your side of the argument has accused murderers Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Crazy isn't excluded to just one side of a debate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilly8, 15 Oct 2011 @ 10:25am

If a fundammentalist Chritian nutjob, like Michelle Bachmann, comes out against Protect IP, then it must be bad.

As anybody who has followed censorship issues since the CDA days know, the Christian Right has tried to censor the Net. It someone from the Christian Right opposes a censorship bill, then you know its bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  She might be IN FAVOR of Protect IP and by publicly siding with it she hopes many people playing "dodge the loony" will switch sides thinking whatever she does, they must do the opposite.......................
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilly8, 15 Oct 2011 @ 10:39am

If a fundammentalist Chritian nutjob, like Michelle Bachmann, comes out against Protect IP, then it must be bad.

As anybody who has followed censorship issues since the CDA days know, the Christian Right has tried to censor the Net. It someone from the Christian Right opposes a censorship bill, then you know its bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  You'd think Christians would be in favor of the Net for several reasons:
  
  1. Lets you spread lies and sell bibles with ease
  2. A Net can be used to snare unwary children to drag them back to your vatican hideaway so you can molest them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  You'd think Christians would be in favor of the Net for several reasons:
  
  1. Lets you spread lies and sell bibles with ease
  2. A Net can be used to snare unwary children to drag them back to your vatican hideaway so you can molest them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  You'd think Christians would be in favor of the Net for several reasons:
  
  1. Lets you spread lies and sell bibles with ease
  2. A Net can be used to snare unwary children to drag them back to your vatican hideaway so you can molest them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  You'd think Christians would be in favor of the Net for several reasons:
  
  1. Lets you spread lies and sell bibles with ease
  2. A Net can be used to snare unwary children to drag them back to your vatican hideaway so you can molest them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2011 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It was pretty lame the first time. By the fourth it is breathtakingly lame.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Th (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 11:01am

Protect IP
It seems to me that this is not the most well considered piece of legislation. It clearly has what could charitably be considered dual use.

i.e.; While we might be thinking of some link-bucket aggregator site in some legislatively intractable country today, it could easily be interpreted by political opportunists against any site. I.e.; Accusing Matt Drudge of the eponymomous site, or Justin Raimando of AntiWar.com or Markos Z�niga of DailyKos to shutdown because they aggregate or provide content some original content provider might object to, such as a police beating or military protest,some utterance of corporate malfeasance or political gaffe.

So while there is a serious problem around content aggregator sites, the web is an inherently public forum and designed around the notion of sharing information.

If there is high-value information, it is presumed to be in the public fora OR behind some password/ssl protection at the least.

So much as it pains me, I find myself on the same side of an argument as Michelle Bachman although I do hope my rationale for arriving at my viewpoint is more sound than hers.

I would MUCH rather have myself on the side of having the right to show whatever I want, and have a complaint filed under existing mechanisms; because at the end of the day, if an author or private holder asked me to remove something, I almost certainly would, unless it was clearly some ideologically non-negotiable point. However this does not consider the person who operates exclusively from a malfeasant perspective.

It seems to my mind that the greater harm is done to the well meaning person who may constitute an objector to some ideological item, than harm or constraint imposed upon the malfeasant person who simply can effort in another direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 12:04pm

I still won't vote for her.That is the only thing I have heard from her that I support.Well at least one has come out against the hated PROTECT-IP Toilet paper bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm

This is ironic as hell, as her good friend and ally Bradlee Dean (Smith), in his ongoing efforts to stop people from using his own words to describe him, has gone from attempting to sue for pseudo-slander (the "false light" nonsense) to abusing copyright law in order to keep the general public from hearing what he tells his followers:

http://www.dumpbachmann.com/2011/10/censored-you-tube-terminates-dump.html

http://thecuckings tool.blogspot.com/2011/10/running-from-their-own-words.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2011 @ 6:55am

It wouldn't be surprising to find out that Bachmann taking a position on it is part of the delay.

Hahahahahahahaha....... do you seriously think anyone in the House cares what Bachman thinks? She's a nutjob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rxrightsadvocate (profile), 17 Oct 2011 @ 2:17pm

PROTECT IP flaw jeopardizes affordable meds
This article illustrates again that many groups from �both sides of the aisle� are expressing their opposition to this bill. RxRights is also concerned �about ambiguities in this legislation.� Specifically, PROTECT IP could cut off Americans� online access to safe, affordable prescription drugs from legitimate international pharmacies.

There is a major flaw in the PROTECT IP Act�s definition of what constitutes a �rogue� website. In terms of online pharmacies, it fails to distinguish between the �good guys�--the licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor�s prescription--and the �bad guys� who sell everything from diluted or fake medicine to narcotics without a prescription.

RxRights is dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. We are asking Americans to contact their legislators to urge them to oppose PROTECT IP due to its threat to our access to affordable medicine. Find out more at www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kamikaze, 16 Nov 2011 @ 9:15pm

Impossible
I can't believe Bachmann is actually agreeing with my side on something. This has never happened before.

I hate her slightly less for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]