Rep. Darrell Issa Joins Rep. Lofgren In Saying That SOPA Is A Bad Idea

from the bipartisan dept

Tue, Nov 8th 2011 2:57pm — Mike Masnick

Supporters of SOPA and PROTECT IP love to claim that their bills are "bipartisan," but it appears that there's also some pretty serious bipartisan agreement that those bills are dangerous over-regulation of the internet. We'd already mentioned Rep. Michele Bachmann coming out against the SOPA/PROTECT IP approach to regulating the internet, and now Rep. Darrell Issa, head of the powerful Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has joined with Rep. Lofgren to express their concerns about SOPA. The two sent a "bipartisan" letter to their colleagues in the house, pointing to the LA Times article about many of the problems with SOPA, and argued that this is exactly the wrong approach at the wrong time:

H.R. 3261 unfortunately does not follow a consensus-based approach. It would give the government sweeping new powers to order Internet Service Providers to implement various filtering technologies on their networks. It would also create new forms of private legal action against websites�cutting them off from payment and advertising providers by default, without any court review, upon a complaint from any copyright owner, even one whose work is not necessarily being infringed.

Online innovation and commerce were responsible for 15 percent of U.S. GDP growth from 2004 to 2009, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. Before we impose a sprawling new regulatory regime on the Internet, we must carefully consider the risks that it could pose for this vital engine of our economy.

Nice to see more folks in Congress realizing that just because one industry wants to regulate the internet heavily, it doesn't mean it's actually a good thing for the rest of the economy -- and especially for the sector of the economy that's actually creating jobs and economic growth.

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, darrell issa, innovation, sopa, zoe lofgren

43 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The Incoherent One (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 3:21pm

Especially seeing how Issa is from California. They have had a tendency to lean more towards the copyright crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re:
  Issa used to be the head of the CEA.
  
  so yeah, this a real shocker here. LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Issa used to be the head of the CEA.
    
    Even more telling. After all, CEA members are certainly concerned about counterfeits and rogue products. But Issa and CEA both recognize that this bill won't actually help on that front, but will instead cause significant problems elsewhere in the economy.
    
    If anything, the fact that they're against this says quite a bit about how bad the bill is. Issa, also, is a strong IP supporter in general, holding dozens of patents himself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - frosty840, 9 Nov 2011 @ 5:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cea Eh?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 5:48pm
  
  Re:
  Issa is a tech guy with a large tech constituency. Lofgren has techies up her ass too. No surprise with either one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 11:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As opposed to what, a law guru / lawyer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 8 Nov 2011 @ 3:32pm

i think everyone here knows exactly what is going to happen. the bill will pass. there are too many in the pockets of RIAA, MAFIAA etc for it not to pass. i'm just waiting to see the fallout afterwards and how it's going to be explained away, then corrected. gonna be interesting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 3:42pm

We will protect America by giving those who don't work and produce anything more powers than God and taxing every American so they can snort more coke and buy another jet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:17pm
  
  Re:
  You say that as if snorting coke and buying jets is a bad thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 5:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah he just feels left out, jealousy is a horrible thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Looks more like a feeble attempt at trolling to me. FAIL!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 3:48pm

Is there any running count of how many members of Congress have taken a stand on one side or the other of the issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 5:50pm
  
  Re:
  The House bill just dropped. PROTECT IP, the Senate version now has 40 or 41 co-sponsors. Right now the Senate vote will probably be 99-1. The House battle is just now starting to shape up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:04pm

Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
Doesn't mean that lack of regulation is /good/ for the rest of the economy, either. Flip side of your "just because one industry wants to regulate the internet heavily, it doesn't mean it's actually a good thing for the rest of the economy". -- You never present a piece other than slanted to your immediate needs, dragging in Issa or Hillary Clinton as if both don't totally serve The Establishment. Issa is a snake, just like all the rest; his statements at any time depend solely on who bought him most recently.

Republo-fascists don't want to regulate industry so much as they want to promote the military and regulate The People, while Demo-fascists slant it more to bombing the world until it's safe for democracy, while pacifying The People with bread and circuses.

Why are you living in the 20th century, Mike? "Bipartisan", indeed. Wise up to how politics is now. There is only ONE party: The Total State.

By the way, could McKinsey Global Institute possibly have any globalists in it? Why should we trust their slant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
  ...You are a sad, strange little man. And I pity you.
  
  How are you supposed to change the establishment without working from inside the establishment? Other than another civil war. Which would be a bad idea. I hope I don't have to tell you why...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
    I believe the word you were looking for to describe the citizens of a country using violence to dismantle a dysfunctional or oppressive government was "revolution".
    
    Civil war implies two parties (not necessarily reflective of the total population or will of the people) with some kind of organizational structure akin to a government vying for control of a state or for autonomy.
    
    This is why when we threw out the British it was a "revolution" but when the Federal Government waged a war against the Southern states that wanted to leave the federation it was a "civil war".
    
    But what do you think would be wrong with another revolution if things truly do get bad enough? What signify a few lives lost over a century?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
      Why don't you start with something simple like camping out with your fellow malcontents at a nearby Occupy Whatever and see how it goes. Most of you sissies are as soft as butter and wouldn't last a weekend in a tent, much less participate in anything resembling an actual revolution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 7:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        Actually I think they are all economically misguided hippies, so I wouldn't be so quick to lump me in with them if I were you. Also I made no mention for or against needing one now, that was an invention in your mind; I merely posited the question about one occurring at all. Or are you saying that it is inconceivable that in this day and age any oppressed people would try to overthrow their government? (Also I have heard none of the occupy wall street people say we need an actual revolution; I have only heard them whine and ask for other peoples money; and I would agree most of them don't have the mental or physical fortitude to ACTUALLY fight for something they believe in.)
        
        I'm guessing the anger and contempt that allows you to quickly dismiss me as a "sissy" is just a mask for your own inadequacies and lack of resolve that it would take to sacrifice everything in pursuit of a more free world for your countrymen and children (if the time ever came, that is). Something with which I am more than willing to do.
        
        You're going to make alot of enemies if you assume everyone is as much of a shit-head as you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 7:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        I'm guessing the anger and contempt that allows you to quickly dismiss me as a "sissy" is just a mask for your own inadequacies and lack of resolve that it would take to sacrifice everything in pursuit of a more free world for your countrymen and children (if the time ever came, that is). Something with which I am more than willing to do.
        
        I served in the military. Talking about what you would do is a poor substitute for actually having done it.
        
        You're going to make alot of enemies if you assume everyone is as much of a shit-head as you are.
        
        Sorry if your feelings got hurt cupcake. If you want to treat this as a dating site, go right ahead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        Quick to make assumptions about the things I have done in my life again I see. As I said I'm not talking about fighting a foreign enemy, I'm talking about fighting a domestic one, and as that has yet to happen all anyone has to offer at this point is talk.
        
        And my comment about making enemies was only to highlight the fact that we shared similar views about the Occupy movement, and clearly have a few other things in common. We could have been on the same side, maybe even fought together; but you came to a quick (and incorrect) judgement and wrote me off as another un-bathed whiny teenager.
        
        This is a stupid argument, is all I'm saying. Try engaging your critical thinking skills and see past it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        Even the military has cowards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        Are you like those guys that buy medals on pawnshops and start bragging about their service?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        You are so brave I bet you like to teach the children a lesson to.
        
        Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
        
        Beat them into submission LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        Do you like to beat women when they disobey?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - sissies, 8 Nov 2011 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        Calling someone a SISSY brings me to question your manliness because you are either an ancient "get off my lawn" geezer, or we might just catch you wearing pink shirts once in a while. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Devil's Coachman (profile), 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        I wear pink shirts once in a while. I don't think doing so casts suspicion on my "manliness". Some of my shirts are silk, and I have more than two pairs of shoes. The word "sissy" seems to be most often used by the actual sissies, at least in my experience.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
        The sissies in Oakland say hello.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
      Revolution and civil war are the same thing really.
      
      Unless you don't count the UK crown as a organized group vying for anything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
  I truly believe you have mental problems and need help.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...
    .....said the man with nothing to contribute, and no valid arguments for or against anything. Troll. FAIL!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:06pm

Interesting how not much is being said about nbc/comcast merger in relation to how an internet provider and a studio combined interests either being liable for controlling how content iscontrolled or someone at comcast saying we pushing back at nbc people saying we don't want to be in the role of a police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  Interesting how not much is being said about nbc/comcast merger in relation to how an internet provider and a studio combined interests either being liable for controlling how content iscontrolled or someone at comcast saying we pushing back at nbc people saying we don't want to be in the role of a police officer.
  
  Comcast the ISP favors the bill, as does NBC/U. Problem for the other ISP's is that when one breaks ranks, it destroys them as a force. It already happened with the payment processors. Mastercard is now saying that it has stepped up and done the right thing and the others should not get financial rewards for shirking its responsibility in the ecosystem. The only real hold out is the search engines. They probably won't break ranks until the end, though I understand that at least one smaller player is getting nervous and is looking to cut a deal. Google has worn out its welcome and can't win the day. Time running out. If Google is smart, it will read the tea leaves and cut a deal before they get a shit sandwich stuffed down their throats. Frankly, I think it's too late to do anything other than wish them 'bon apetit'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I forgot the best part. Now the ISP's and payment processors are clamoring for the search engines to play a prominent role so that the responsibility is shared by all parts of the internet ecosystem. The ad network issue is really a Google issue so it's hard to isolate it, but is undermined by the payment processors willingness to forgo profiting on piracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 10:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Problem for the other ISP's is that when one breaks ranks, it destroys them as a force. It already happened with the payment processors. Mastercard is now saying that it has stepped up and done the right thing and the others should not get financial rewards for shirking its responsibility in the ecosystem. The only real hold out is the search engines. They probably won't break ranks until the end, though I understand that at least one smaller player is getting nervous and is looking to cut a deal. Google has worn out its welcome and can't win the day. Time running out. If Google is smart, it will read the tea leaves and cut a deal before they get a shit sandwich stuffed down their throats. Frankly, I think it's too late to do anything other than wish them 'bon apetit'.
    
    And folks, check out this nearly perfect specimen of "inside the beltway wishful thinking." It's really quite an amazing find. The truly stunning part is how sure this particular shill is, and how far off he is from reality.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 5:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Problem for the other ISP's is that when one breaks ranks, it destroys them as a force. It already happened with the payment processors. Mastercard is now saying that it has stepped up and done the right thing and the others should not get financial rewards for shirking its responsibility in the ecosystem. The only real hold out is the search engines. They probably won't break ranks until the end, though I understand that at least one smaller player is getting nervous and is looking to cut a deal. Google has worn out its welcome and can't win the day. Time running out. If Google is smart, it will read the tea leaves and cut a deal before they get a shit sandwich stuffed down their throats. Frankly, I think it's too late to do anything other than wish them 'bon a petit'."
      
      And folks, check out this nearly perfect specimen of "inside the beltway wishful thinking." It's really quite an amazing find. The truly stunning part is how sure this particular shill is, and how far off he is from reality.
      
      And the view from the ivory tower 2500 miles away is somehow more insightful? Maybe you'd like to list the Senators opposing PROTECT IP for starters and see how many representatives you can scare up beyond Issa and Lofgren. Then explain how that translates to a defeat for this legislation. You'll soon have your own shit sandwich to eat Masnick. I hope you enjoy it. In the meanwhile, please keep us amused with your nerd rage.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fm hilton, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:23pm

There's one other person who could stop them
That would be Ron Wyden, who has done that in the past-put an indefinite hold on a bill to keep it from ever being debated.

Hopefully he will throw his weight into the issue and threaten the same fate to these two bills if they get into the Senate.

It might even stop this ever-progressing over-regulation of the insanity.

This is what happens when you join stupid politicians with a and morally bankrupt and paranoid industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:41pm

That would be Ron Wyden, who has done that in the past-put an indefinite hold on a bill to keep it from ever being debated.

Sorry, it's not indefinite. His hold evaporates with a cloture vote. Cloture requires 60 votes. There are currently 40+ co-sponsors with more likely. How hard do you think it will be to convince twenty of the remaining 55 or so Senators that aren't co-sponsors that PROTECT IP should be brought to the floor for debate and amendment- you know, that whole democracy thing we do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:43pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, one more thing. There are no holds in the House like those in the Senate
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:25am
  
  Re:
  Apparently a lot since it has been some time now LoL
  Have you prepared a check for the 20 more senators needed?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 9 Nov 2011 @ 4:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    The only thing left is to make sure it doesn't bounce!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 5:25am

I have to wonder how a letter from two members of the HofR, which relies entirely on the contents of a newspaper article, is calculated to present a "compelling case".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rxrightsadvocate, 9 Nov 2011 @ 9:43am

SOPA not only stifles innovation, it endangers health
I'm glad to see that Rep. Issa and Rep. Lofgren have expressed their concerns about SOPA. Clearly, the bill could cripple tech industry innovation. In addition, it's important to acknowlede that SOPA could negatively affect the health of hundreds of thousands Americans by cutting off access to legitimate online pharmacies.

The bill broadly defines �rogue� sites and inappropriately groups real pharmacies � licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor�s prescription and sell brand-name medications � with rogues � who sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.

Simply put, Americans, especially those without insurance and seniors on fixed incomes, can't afford the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs in the U.S. Many have found dramatic savings by ordering through legitimate Canadian and other online international pharmacies. Cutting off this virtual lifeline would be unconscionable.

RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is asking Americans to send letters to Congress and President Obama encouraging them to oppose this legislation and protect access to affordable meds. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2011 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re: SOPA not only stifles innovation, it endangers health
  'm glad to see that Rep. Issa and Rep. Lofgren have expressed their concerns about SOPA. Clearly, the bill could cripple tech industry innovation. In addition, it's important to acknowlede that SOPA could negatively affect the health of hundreds of thousands Americans by cutting off access to legitimate online pharmacies.
  
  The bill broadly defines �rogue� sites and inappropriately groups real pharmacies � licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor�s prescription and sell brand-name medications � with rogues � who sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.
  
  Simply put, Americans, especially those without insurance and seniors on fixed incomes, can't afford the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs in the U.S. Many have found dramatic savings by ordering through legitimate Canadian and other online international pharmacies. Cutting off this virtual lifeline would be unconscionable.
  
  RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is asking Americans to send letters to Congress and President Obama encouraging them to oppose this legislation and protect access to affordable meds. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
  
  Thanks for stopping by to spam up the site. Do you think if online pharmacies selling counterfeit medicines were cut off from payment processors and ad networks as well as delisted from search engines it might actually benefit the legitimate people who are paying you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]