House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?

from the slow-down dept

Tue, Oct 25th 2011 10:25am — Mike Masnick

For a few months now we've been hearing that the version of the PROTECT IP Act from the House of Representatives was going to be released "in a couple weeks." And yet, every time it got delayed -- often because new and unexpected opposition suddenly showed up. The supporters of PROTECT IP, such as the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, had always figured that this was going to be the an extremely easy bill to pass, but the very vocal opposition caught them a bit by surprise. During this time, we kept hearing from various House members working on the bill, that they would be listening to all of the concerns. During a visit to Silicon Valley last month, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who is helping to push PROTECT IP through the House, insisted that he'd heard the concerns from some in the tech community and that the bill would be noticeably different than the Senate version.

However, a variety of groups representing the tech industry -- including CCIA, NetCoalition and CEA -- pointed out a few weeks ago that they had not been consulted at all. This was problematic, since it was the entertainment industry driving PROTECT IP almost entirely, with almost no recognition of the serious problems it would cause for innovation and job growth. Just last Friday, members of the House working on PROTECT IP finally agreed to meet with these groups representing the tech industry, to hear their concerns. But rather than listening to those concerns and working together to fix the myriad problems with the bill, the latest report is that these Reps are about to release the bill they had been working on anyway, which retains basically all of the problems of the Senate bill... and that they're then planning an accelerated push to get it approved.

This is pretty disturbing. It suggests that even after they've been shown how this bill is a jobs-destroying, innovation-hindering, internet-breaking bill, they're going to rush it through anyway, without even listening to ideas on how to fix the bill. What a legacy these representatives must want.

As noted below, CCIA, NetCoalition and CEA have all asked members of the House of Representatives to slow down and let them actually be a part of the process. Let the tech industry be heard, and make sure that the problems with PROTECT IP aren't put into law, where those who support it will end up regretting it. Hopefully some folks in the House are willing to listen.

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: copyright, house of representatives, protect ip

76 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:55am

"It suggests that even after they've been shown how this bill is a jobs-destroying, innovation-hindering, internet-breaking bill, they're going to rush it through anyway"

What else do you expect? Everything this government has done, in the last three years, has been innovation-hindering, jobs-destroying, and business-styfling. It makes you wonder if they are doing this on purpose ... or if they just have their heads so far up the lobbyists asses that they can't see straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  Have you noticed that for every bill signed Obama always has a lobbyist in the background?
  
  Further, the contributions for this have been ridiculous. Sadly, I can't find any information in regards to how much they've paid people to look the other way as they're trying to pass this trainwreck of a bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Much like I hoped ACTA would be signed, and it has, I hope PROTECT-IP does pass. We are already seeing the reaction to new IP laws, court rulings, and government actions. The internet is already routing around the problem, Newzbin2 Teaming Up With The Pirate Bay To Defeat Site Blocking, VPN usage going up, and software to defeat ICE's domain name seizures.
    
    They thought the internet was a wild west before ... wait till they have a few more years of "IP enforcement".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Jay, have you noticed that almost every bill signed in the last 40 years has some sort of lobbyist or activist behind it?
    
    Blaming Obama is incredibly short sighted, even for a bagger like yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why because Obama is puny little thing that gets sidetracked by his vice that is the real power behind the White House push for this crap?
      
      If he didn't sell out, Obama is guilty of negligence.
      
      Democrats and Republicans are different only in name, they are conjoined twins.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny way to blur the issue. Add in "activist" and suddenly this becomes a partisan ordeal, ignoring the point made.
      
      Then insult the people pointing out the problem in order to show the problems of your position.
      
      Bravo on trolling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jay, I object only to because you point at Obama, but like any good Republican't, you are unable to accept that your side has done the same thing for the last 30 years as well.
        
        Gotchya in politics doesn't add anything to the discussion, especially when the side screaming has been caught at it just as many times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        American politics are humorously derisive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please...
        
        Reagan has had his fair share of bankers that he's relied on. And I'm not going to get into Bush and his problems with the financial sector in taking "lobbying" dollars. This was more an issue about how the private sector uses a LOT of money to control the ones passing legislation.
        
        I don't adhere to the Republican vs Democrat debate. It's partisan politics that does nothing but take focus away from the issues at hand.
        
        Maybe next time you would do better to understand what is said than try to make this a partisan issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jay, please... you are the one who brought up Obama and lobbyists. Why play the partisan card?
        
        Perhaps you need to pay attention to your own comments more - don't start out making it a partisan issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 12:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It wasn't. You just interpreted it that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
  
  Obama and the Dems certainly carry water for the entertainment industry (that's not remotely new news), but the GOP carries water for just as many lobbyists and special interests.
  
  Cutting taxes 18+ times would strike me as not exactly 'jobs-destroying'.
  
  Firing 10,000+ cops will significantly 'hinder' business, which is exactly what the GOP has done in blocking the bill Obama just put forward.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In my neighborhood the Police Department has consistently received annual raises of at least 5% since 2009, while the majority of my neighbors have actually taken pay *cuts* (if they're employed at all). They've also bought for themselves many shiny new cars. And motorcycles!
    
    In comparison, the my friendly local Fire Department voluntarily agreed to a complete salary freeze until the economy recovers.
    
    I have come to understand that other neighborhoods witnessed much the same thing. So firing 10,000 *unnecessary* and *overpaid* cops seems like simple, good ol' fashions budget cutting to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:33am

Yeah, why so fast? I mean, they've been making money on the backs of illegally obtained content for this long, what's a few more weeks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  "they've been making money on the backs of illegally obtained content"
  
  Being that copy protection lengths last so long ... perhaps it's the law that needs to be changed. The MAFFIA needs to stop making money off of bad laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    You recommend breaking the law as a good idea? Gotcha.
    
    And what do you care about copyright length? The stuff you guys rip off is usually less than a couple years old.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You recommend breaking the law as a good idea?"
      
      Please take some reading classes and improve your reading comprehension skills. I said the law needs to be changed.
      
      "And what do you care about copyright length?"
      
      I care.
      
      "The stuff you guys rip off is usually less than a couple years old."
      
      [citation needed]
      
      Plus when the government passes copy protection laws that are so unreasonable that the public deems them void, how is the public supposed to suddenly make the distinction between what constitutes a reasonable policy to follow?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - InternetCoward (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also see
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110228/23515813305/new-study-70-people-find-piracy-sociall y-acceptable.shtml#c661
        
        Also see
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/15454916127/disney-analyst-my-lack-imagination-nece ssitates-passage-protect-ip.shtml#c2360
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For the first story, read the comments. The reality is that only a small percentage truly support piracy, everyone else had a bigger or smaller restriction on support, and 30 disagreed entirely. When you add the numbers up, the pure support was low. Basically, Mike played the game of adding what might be considered the undecided voters onto his side to make the numbers work.
        
        The second story is just Mike putting words in someone's mouth. Nothing much more to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know when they use Techdirt articles as citations that they don't have anything to back up their BS.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Click the links on the links. The Internet is about linking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought it was a series of tubes... ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IP maximists don't even have citations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see any "maximalists" here. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        look in the mirror.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As opposed to having no citations at all? Like yourself. Right? When have you ever presented any kind of evidence to support ANYTHING you say?
        
        Depending which AC you are, not that it truly matters, the answer is "NEVER".
        
        Sure, scoff at Techdirt articles being cited. It's easy to scoff and dismiss something mockingly than present anything at all to refute the claims or present evidence to support what you say.
        
        The one who can't back up their BS is most definitely you and a few other ACs on here who think/speak like you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was updated in the post and you are making a point that few are arguing, which misses the points being argued.
        
        Some of the points being argued are the following
        
        Not everything that's immoral should be illegal. The government shouldn't attempt to regulate morality.
        
        Most people do not agree with our current IP laws. Agreeing with some concept of IP and the need to ensure that content and inventors are rewarded for their contributions is different from saying that government intervention is necessary or desirable (ie: through the passage of IP laws).
        
        If the majority of people really believed in IP principles strongly enough, they will likely generally follow them without any law forcing them to. If piracy is such a huge issue then perhaps that means that people don't believe in having such strong anti-piracy laws and those laws should be substantially repealed if we are to have a representative government. and if it's only a small minority copying (ie: because they either believe it's OK or they think it's only slightly immoral) then it shouldn't have such a huge effect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        content creators *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (and the part of that quote that I would like to emphasize in the first link is the following).
        
        "Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions."
        
        Which is exactly the point. We, collectively, can not easily come to a consensus over how long to wait before it's appropriate to freely copy content, but we can easily come to the consensus that the governments timetable (and that their perpetual extensions that effectively make nothing ever enter the public domain anymore) is unacceptable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The majority of people would like to be paid to not work and have all their meals made for them.
        
        So fucking what?
        
        If you don't know that everyone sees completely through these infantile entitlement fantasies you people have, then you're an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The majority of copyright holders would like to continue making a living off existing works without ever having to create anything new as a means of making a living.
        
        So fucking what?
        
        The founding fathers had it right: A 14 year copyright term renewable for another 14 if so desired. Authors are thus rewarded for contributing to the public domain while simultaneously being encouraged to create new works in search of additional income.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why do you care? What's wrong with artists making an almost decent living on their work?
        
        The reason you care is because you're greedy and don't want to pay for your entertainment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The reason you care is because you're greedy and don't want to pay for your entertainment."
        
        IP should not be about 'ensuring that we pay for our entertainment' it should be about promoting the progress and serving the public interest. That IP maximists want to make it about something else is more reason to abolish it. The underlying reason we have economies isn't simply to create jobs, it's to provide the public with goods and services. If those goods and services can be provided at no cost without an economy then we shouldn't have an economy.
        
        Things shouldn't be made artificially costly or expensive. The air you breath is free, for instance, so now you're greedy and don't want to pay for the air you breath. IP should not be about artificially charging for something that should be free. It should be about promoting the progress and expanding the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What's wrong with artists making an almost decent living on their work?"
        
        This is a false dilemma. That you must resort to such fallacious arguments only demonstrates the indefensible nature of your position.
        
        There is nothing wrong with artists making a living from there art. There something wrong with them using the government (IP) to do so, especially when doing so is to the public detriment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They're not making the living they should, because their product is being taken without permission. That's wrong. Period, end of story.
        
        As far as them using the government, you should stop using the government to enforce other laws or putting out the fire when your house is burning down.
        
        Your "rebuttals" are specious, infantile and idiotic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They're not making the living they should, because their product is being taken without permission. That's wrong. Period, end of story."
        
        I see, and are we being untruthful with this comment and using "they" to refer to artists?
        
        Or by "they", are you being truthful, and referring to the middlemen and other people who aren't actually creating anything and actually are the ones whose positions/profits are being potentially (far from proven) harmed?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 7:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Still trying to pretend record labels keep all the money and musicians get none?
        
        You're still wrong. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bjupton (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is besides the point, but:
        
        Breaking an immoral law doesn't mean you are immoral. In fact, breaking an immoral law is often a moral imperative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S, 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        True -- but also hopelessly over the heads of your target audience.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hothmonster, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      if i assume everyone who opposes my viewpoint if a criminal or morally bankrupt I don't actually have to defend my own beliefs to myself, let alone to other people. Thats how we killed the indians, enslaved everyone else and its how we are gonna keep making money despite our business model being outdated while still being able to sleep at night.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's a good thing nobody has ever broken an unjust law before. Gracious! We'd have civil rights and suffrage for everybody, that'd just turn this whole country into the wild west again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You don't expect anybody to wait life + 95 years do you?
      How many times to you want to pay for the same thing?
      Why people pay more(above $1) than cable companies pay($0.020)?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and it's not like IP maximists really care about the law anyways.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    That quote should have included "for this long" in it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  It is illegal to record TV or radio?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:38am

Dear Congress:
How much money would it cost me to not have this law passed?
(Assuming I win a mult-billion dollar lottery, that is)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:45am

But Mike, how can so many people with such deep pockets so willing to donate a lot of that cash to their congressmen & congresswomen possibly be wrong about something? Money is speech after all, the supreme court said so! If the opposition doesn't have any speech, err money, then how can we expect a good congressman & congresswoman to listen to them?

After all, rich billionaires must know best, that's why we should put billion dollar companies like BP in charge of protecting our oceans! That's why rep Joe Barton felt he had to apologize to BP over the oil spill!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  Well, the 1% is significantly greater than the 99%.
  
  Wait, what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vishal Bhagwani, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:45am

Obama, a one termer president
Steve Jobs had told Obama that he�d be a one-termer if he weren�t more business-friendly. If anything, it lends credibility to the argument among some on the Left that Obama isn't "liberal enough" in his economic policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:47am

'What a legacy these representatives must want.'
more like 'we're not bothered about any legacy. just thinking of the money that has been spent on us to get it through. dont you people realise, there is nothing more important in the USA/World than the entertainment industry? how can anything/anyone exist without it? forget the medical, car, energy, banking and all other industries. they're nothing in comparison!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:24am

Let's see now... who are these groups really?

CCIA members include corporations such as Google, Microsoft, LightSquared, Yahoo, AMD and Facebook.

NetCoalition Trustees: Bloomberg, CNET Networks, Google, IAC/InterActive Corp., Yahoo! Inc.

CEA represents 2200 companies that build and sell consumer electronics (you know, the stuff that needs content to be valuable).

Seems like mostly companies who's business models are predicated on repackaging content produced by others, or who have already sewn up narrow walled gardens and are unwilling to play by any other rules.

Nice! Next we will have an announcement that the sky is blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  You just named the companies that have been a shining star in this down economy. Tech has done well where old industries have not. But according to you, it seems we should choke them off as well just to be fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  CEA represents 2200 companies that build and sell consumer electronics (you know, the stuff that needs content to be valuable).
  
  Facebook is content. So is personal digital photography, which is then uploaded to Facebook. Do you think that all those photos are valuable? What is it, $1.29/photo?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    WHat is the value? I don't know - but try to have Facebook without the content and tell me how much they are worth.
    
    Without content (user content) Facebook is nothing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      With out Facebook that user content is worthless too. Ever go to someones house to look at a photo of what they had for dinner last night?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  And who are the groups that support the bill? I mean your logic cuts both ways except only one group is trying to pushing through legislation that would benefit them without giving the other group a chance to be heard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  That is right they are platforms for content where others can choose to make money out of it.
  
  The problem is some people don't want nobody making money or competing with them.
  
  Also some politicians are blind and can't see that the internet has become the new dominant media were the old faces don't matter that much anymore, being friends with Bono Vox in the 80's was cool and a good career move, today it could sank you to the depths of darkness, because nobody listen to Bono anymore, paying attention to old media power could irritate the new media power and that is Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There would never be an issue if the platforms were not based significantly on violating content. Simply, if someone chooses not to "compete" in the internet realm, they should just be left out, end of discussion.
    
    You cannot try to re-set PROTECT IP as being anti-competitive, because those that it "hurts" didn't make any content to start with, they just "borroweed" it. That is disloyal competition at it's finest, not something that should be used as a reason to shut down a law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The internet industry is NOT in competition with the content industry. That is like saying that farmers are in competition wit the trucking industry. Sure, with out the food the ship, the truckers would not be as valuable, but making trucking illegal, just so farmers can charge higher prices at a farmers market, is not the answer to falling food prices.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, talk about a delusional and misdirected analogy.
        
        You missed the part where the truckers just empty everything out of the famers market and truck it off for sale without bothering to pay for it.
        
        It isn't "trucking" that is being made illegal, it is "filling your truck with stolen goods" that is being clarified as illegal in context.
        
        You are trying way too hard to troll me, i think.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 26 Oct 2011 @ 6:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your logic, AC 58, is flawed. You are ascribing to infinite goods properties that are only true of physical goods. The very definition of infinite declares that no loss can occur, because the quantity of product is infinite and never-ending. You also fail to understand that most who infringe do not do so for profit, but merely for their own use and enjoyment. And many, if they enjoy what they obtained, often go on to purchase related content or the infringed content itself. Others use infringement to obtain backups of media they already have, since discs can be become scratched and unusable. The lines are not so distinct as you would believe.
        
        Basic economics clearly states that when the supply for a good is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price naturally gravitates to zero. This is a truth you refuse to believe, because it threatens everything you've based your worldview on. You, like other maximalists, are gripped by an irrational fear of change. Therefore, you find any excuse not to do so. You will not prevent technology from advancing or people from doing what is natural to do. You will succeed only in making yourself obsolete and irrelevant.
        
        Mike, I believe you place too much faith in our elected officials. They will not listen. The system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why, despite your misgivings about their methods, collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery. That cannot be done from inside the system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You are ascribing to infinite goods properties that are only true of physical goods. The very definition of infinite declares that no loss can occur, because the quantity of product is infinite and never-ending. "
        
        A wonderful argument, but it has been long since put to rest.
        
        First off, "the product is only "infinite and never ending" if you choose to pirate and share it. Otherwise, it is in fact limited by the number of DVDs made and number of digital files sold. Infinite only exists when someone other than the owner decides to give it away for free. So we are already talking from the stand point of illegal acts, never a good starting point.
        
        Second, the number of actual movies is not infinite and never ending, so we are never talking an infinite product base.
        
        "Basic economics clearly states that when the supply for a good is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price naturally gravitates to zero. This is a truth you refuse to believe, because it threatens everything you've based your worldview on."
        
        Nope, I believe it with all of my heart. However, I don't believe for a second that the legal supply is anywhere near infinite, and as long as you base your economic decisions on illegal activity, you will always fall into the logical track of "infinite supply means zero price". Quite simply, it is illogical to base your business decisions against illegal activity.
        
        I am not gripped by any fear of change. I am fearful of the widespread acceptance of crime as some sort of valid substitute for actual business activity. It seems we have traded a business of dollars for a business of internet pennies. I am not sure this is very logical at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First off, "the product is only "infinite and never ending" if you choose to pirate and share it. Otherwise, it is in fact limited by the number of DVDs made and number of digital files sold. Infinite only exists when someone other than the owner decides to give it away for free. So we are already talking from the stand point of illegal acts, never a good starting point.
        
        Second, the number of actual movies is not infinite and never ending, so we are never talking an infinite product base.
        
        Incorrect. You do not understand the nature of digital files. Once something has been converted into digital format and uploaded, it is everywhere. Copies of copies of copies of copies, ad infitum. The quantity of discs sold is irrelevant. All that is needed is one digital copy, and from that endless digital copies are inevitably made. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be avoided. It is the very nature of digital. It is as simple as highlighting a file in Windows Explorer and hitting Control+C and then Control+V - copy and paste. That is what you cannot comprehend.
        
        Nope, I believe it with all of my heart. However, I don't believe for a second that the legal supply is anywhere near infinite, and as long as you base your economic decisions on illegal activity, you will always fall into the logical track of "infinite supply means zero price". Quite simply, it is illogical to base your business decisions against illegal activity.
        
        Your logic, AC 67, is again flawed. Economics makes no distinction between legal and things that have been made illegal only at the behest of companies too gripped by the emotions of fear and greed to change. You must learn to understand what a bad law is, and that opposing or ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. And that copyright, in its current state, is indeed an unjust law. What is logical is to base one's business decisions against reality, not what you would wish it to be.
        
        I am not gripped by any fear of change. I am fearful of the widespread acceptance of crime as some sort of valid substitute for actual business activity. It seems we have traded a business of dollars for a business of internet pennies. I am not sure this is very logical at all.
        
        You do fear change, because you do not allow yourself to see how technology is changing how your business must be run if it is to survive. And I will point out again, that the sharing of copies - something that is a natural human behavior - has only been made illegal at the behest of companies who do not wish to change and adapt and admit that they no longer have the sole control over content that they once did. You must understand that some things that have been made illegal are not necessarily unethical, and that some things that are legal are unethical. One does not necessarily follow the other. Until you accept that, and accept that infringement falls into the category of wrongful illegality, you will continue to fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:46am

TechDirt is constantly rambling about the FUD packing MPAA and RIAA propaganda, but what about the FUD packing comments by the CCIA, NetCoalition and CEA? Where is the data to support job losses or adverse economic conditions? Perhaps it will spawn entirely new and innovative services to circumvent the monitoring efforts. Entirely new industries could be created because of this one piece of legislation just to circumvent the efforts of the legislation.

So before people start talking about job losses, maybe they should think about the potential job gains that will be seen because of new innovators finding ways around the monitoring efforts. But then again this is a legacy tech industry group trying to hold onto their existing business models, much as the MPAA and RIAA have been clinging to their business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  You are suggesting that perhaps a black market will crop up to route around this?
  
  And that this will also be an economic panecea?
  
  Sign me up!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:53am

For fun I looked up this bill on Maplight.org and it looks like lots of money is being thrown around to get this bill passed. However, one thing that I noticed that seems a little scary is that one of the top 5 donors to Patrick Leahy, the bill's sponsor, is Intellectual Ventures....

http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/586-patrick-leahy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:56pm
  
  Re:
  For fun I looked up this bill on Maplight.org and it looks like lots of money is being thrown around to get this bill passed. However, one thing that I noticed that seems a little scary is that one of the top 5 donors to Patrick Leahy, the bill's sponsor, is Intellectual Ventures....
  
  That has much more to do with the patent reform act that passed a few weeks ago. IV was a big supporter of that. I don't think they care about PROTECT IP at all. Of course, now that patent reform has passed, I wonder if IV will still be a big donor to Leahy in the future...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mischab1, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:52pm

Write your Representitive
I've finally been inspired to write my Representative and ask him to vote NO on PROTECT IP.
If you get inspired too, it's quite easy. :-)

www.house.gov/writerep/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:04pm

Bad wording
The CCIA letter helps the (MP|RI)AA cause by using the meaningless term, "rogue websites", that they've tried to coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cool guy 1, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:15pm

they are going to file law suit against the govement and tell the supreme to block the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:00pm

Within 10 years there will be exactly two jobs in the US: CEO and IP lawyer. All the companies will be getting rich suing each other. Everybody else will be on welfare. Nobody will be producing anything except three chicken farmers in Louisiana and they won't be allowed to spend their cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A farmer, 25 Oct 2011 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re:
  Oh dammmit! Well in that case, no eggs for YOU!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anoness, 25 Oct 2011 @ 5:55pm

This bill will pass easily... I can't believe it, but yes it will pass...
I guess this will lead as an escape outside US of a lot of web-entrepreneur, webmaster, innovators, and more and more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 7:10pm

Hopefully some folks in the House are willing to listen.

None of those people listen to anything. Companies donate them money, and they repeat whatever they're told by those companies' lobbyists, without understanding or caring about what it means or what the consequences will be.
That's not "listening", it's more like "recording".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 7:20pm
  
  Re:
  I believe "Parroting" is the correct terminology
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilly8, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:39pm

I could see Anonymous easily recuiting the many tech professionals who will be out of work because of this. The Anonymous people who have been arrested so far are amateurs compared the the pissed-off and out of work tech professionals they will certainly have no trouble recruiting. The kind of people that Anonymous will likely end up recruiting would know how to avoid getting caught, or at least not leaving enough evidence to convict at trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]