Over 100 Lawyers, Law Professors & Practitioners Come Out Against SOPA
from the serious-concerns dept
Supporters of SOPA keep tossing out Floyd Abrams' name as if it's some talisman, and that his word is final. Last I checked, Floyd Abrams is not the Supreme Court. Indeed, he's not even one of the nine justices. Or a judge at all. And his opinion is just one -- well respected -- lawyer's opinion. In fact, Abrams opinion concerning SOPA isn't even his own unbiased opinion. His opinion was written on behalf of his clients, including the MPAA and other lobbyists in favor of SOPA. And, even then, Abrams still admitted that SOPA would lead to the suppression of protected content. Either way, there are other lawyers out there, many of whom are just as well respected as Mr. Abrams. And when over 100 such lawyers get together and speak out against SOPA, perhaps one might come to the conclusion that Abrams' opinion on the legal aspects is one in the minority. This letter is a followup to the letter sent earlier about PROTECT IP, but noting that SOPA didn't fix any of the problems, and actually made many of them worse:While there are some differences between SOPA and PROTECT-�IP, nothing in SOPA makes any effort to address the serious constitutional, innovation, and foreign policy concerns that we expressed in that letter. Indeed, in many respects SOPA is even worse than PROTECT-�IP. Among other infirmities, it would:But... but... Floyd Abrams!Most significantly, it would do all of the above while violating our core tenets of due process. By failing to guarantee the challenged web sites notice or an opportunity to be heard in court before their sites are shut down, SOPA represents the most ill-advised and destructive intellectual property legislation in recent memory.
- Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of inducement in a way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.
- Allow the government to block Internet access to any web site that "facilitated" copyright or trademark infringement -- a term that the Department of Justice currently interprets to require nothing more than having a link on a web page to another site that turns out to be infringing.
- Allow any private copyright or trademark owner to interfere with the ability of web sites to host advertising or charge purchases to credit cards, putting enormous obstacles in the path of electronic commerce.
In sum, SOPA is a dangerous bill. It threatens the most vibrant sector of our economy -- Internet commerce. It is directly at odds with the United States' foreign policy of Internet openness, a fact that repressive regimes will seize upon to justify their censorship of the Internet. And it violates the First Amendment.
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, due process, first amendment, lawyers, pipa, professors, scholars, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://consumerist.com/2011/11/citigroup-gets-out-of-the-music-business.html
"In advance of Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act, a coalition of national consumer groups has reached out to the committee to urge them to stop this legislation, which they believe is too far-reaching and could end up hurting the consumers it intends to protect."
http://consumerist.com/2011/11/consumer-groups-the-stop-online-piracy-act-goes-too-far.ht ml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Could also be the effects seen in Sweden and other places as piracy has been slammed pretty hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Consumer spending on everything was up slightly compared to last year. Even though wages are flat, people have been dipping into savings to start spending again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Question: How many times do you have to repeat the same lie before you start to actually believe it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, you can't just say 'you need to adapt' without explaining how to do that! :p
BTW, you are speaking about technology companies that have done nothing but adapt. And those that don't? They shrivel up and die. Even big ones.
And the media companies? They are still trying to shove shiny plastic discs down my throat, and can't comprehend why I'm not thrilled to be buying them. Must be the pirates fault! Pass some laws! Quick! It certainly can't be that physical media is dying. And the sooner the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
try itunes.com
you clowns are losing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously? AAC audio that works on 2/5 *mp3* players in my house and DRM poisoned video that works on none of my TV's. Yeah, baby! Give me more of *that* kool-aid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your bullshit is transparent to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or are you so out of date that you think that plastic discs are only for music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But only an idiot or a troll pretends that the shiny disc market is still being shoved down our throats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An overweight pencil pusher from and industry famous for criminal behaviour cannot be serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They're the ones that have been whining about internet piracy for the last decade. Before that it was home taping, radio piracy, or phonographs.
As to criminal behavior? Where to begin? Drugs? Payola? Intimidating artists over contracts? Shady or outright illegal accounting practices? Those are all well documented over the last 40 years - longer than the modern tech industry has even existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safe Harbor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It is bullying, Barnes & Noble seems to be saying, in that Microsoft is asking for rates comparable to what it would charge for an entire operating system, claiming credit for Android, but when you look at the patents, they are for things that are utterly trivial or, in some cases -- a patent that only comes into play on dial-up connections, which obviously the Nook doesn't need -- for functionality Barnes & Noble products don't use or need."
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296
When has the system ever been abused?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A SOPA Thought Experiment
Some of that software may infringe copyrights.
So doesn't SOPA mean that any app store could be shut down over a single piece of allegedly copyright infringing software? A hardware manufacturer's ability to accept direct purchases blocked to accusations of copyright violations in their firmware or one of their drivers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough Already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough Already!
what they do have is truck-loads of cash...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough Already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough Already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These companies need to wake up and realize that the internet as they know it is coming to an end. The future is soon. These companies can no longer take it in the rear while getting a reach around from Google's "Adsensual". All we can expect now is the golden dream to come true. A warm yellow stream, splashing all over our chests from our elected officials. Keeping the internet firmly under control, and when that firm can't control it any longer. It will lash out, white hatred spewing all over techdirt.
Much like mike's very own words, and I quote.
a flaccid defense, not considering the tight safe harbor laws. The same moneyshot laws which give pirates tight, warm holes to enter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's a Freetard Troll, just can't come up with his own unique trolling methods he has to use the hard earned methods of other more famous trolls.
He's taking money out of the mouths of the children of honest working Shrills
Lets all Think of the children and remove these trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thats because the vote for this law is coming up soon, you dumb shit. The closer the vote, the more activity about it. Even a dumb shilltard like you should understand that, since you lobby harder and harder for laws like this and keep increasing the pressure as the vote gets closer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I did that because tomorrow there is a debate on SOPA in DC and I am getting desperate; my precious, beloved internet is never going to be the same, and I am concerned.
FTFY.
Seriously. This is a big deal. And it has nothing to do with piracy. Since I don't pirate, and pay for all my music and movies, the "piracy" part is meaningless to me. What does concern me is how this will hurt tons of important and useful innovations -- including many that you should rely on if you want to succeed going forward.
You're fighting for a bill that, if it passes, will only hasten your own demise. It's really quite astounding.
I'm fighting to make sure that the services you need to help make money in the future can be built. Why would you fight against that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The *vast* majority of articles on this blog are complaints about law enforcement actions or government legislation against piracy.
You are a true sociopath to think everyone doesn't see that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The true sociopaths are the people willing to derail the progress of humanity just go get to the next quarterly bonus level.
You are just a simple tool of those sociopaths.
If rampant piracy is the price for progress, freedom of speech and the free flow of information, then so be it.
And don't kid yourself. SOPA or not, piracy is not going away. You might as well fight gravity - the result will be the same. You'll end up red faced, sweating and dizzy, your fists clenched in impotent rage, having changed absolutely nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one ever said piracy was going to disappear. But the piracy environment you've known for many years is quickly coming to an end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the piracy environment was sort of fading, with the nice legal alternatives that were blossoming.
Good thing we have SOPA and the general troglodytism of the MAFIAA to crush any such newfangled ideas, right? Plastic discs, thats where the money is. I'm sure of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look what that did to the cannabis market: it made it Black overnight, and took money out of the economy (through not being declared for tax purposes) and put it into crminals' hands.
All SOPA is going to do is take more money out of the US economy and put it into actual criminals hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Everything in this law will eventually be ruled
unconstitutional.
- The tech companies will wake up and begin pushing back, that will more than likely include huge lobbying budgets, and buying up the media companies.
- In the end it will rush the demise of the old industry and allow a new industry to form, nature and business abhor a vacuum.
Yes of course it will be a couple years of pain, but in the end it will be for the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's how a republic's supposed to work, y'know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who can do, those who can't teach.
Let's just say it would be more interesting to see the opinions of practising lawyers, perhaps ones who have fought actual cases, rather than the theoretical scholars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It works out great, because if anyone disagrees with me, they're probably a liberal. And I can ignore them. I seem to be surrounded by liberals all the time, but it doesn't matter, because I'm hearing exactly what needs to be heard and filthy liberals and their marxist comments don't penetrate the thick wall of my skull. Why can't you do the same Pirate Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait that's you sorry ... carry on being a tool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
+1000 Trolling points to you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Role of Government
Crunchyroll is a competitive alternative to pirating anime.
Netflix is a competitive alternative to pirating movies.
iTunes is a competitive alternative to pirating music.
SOPA is not needed. Your job is not to pick and choose the winners and losers of the what is supposed to be a free market. SOPA is not going to magically cause pirates to start buying CDs, DVDs and other traditional media.
Please stop making everything worse by prolonging the inevitable failure of industries with fake scarcity business models.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Role of Government
Just not true. Itunes isn't making a dent in piracy, otherwise music sales would be way up... hint: 58% off in 10 years.
Anything that you have to pay for is unlikely to compete with piracy in the long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Role of Government
Music sales up 7%
$6.3 BILLION dollars is not chump change. Yet the music industry is competing against the movie and the gaming industry for the larger amounts. With all the money being made, what the hell do you have to bitch about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Role of Government
Could you be more ridiculous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Role of Government
But thousands of people are making home lemonade, costing me millions.
So obviously, my sales are down 99999%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the way, it was written by three, with the rest signing on to ride their coat tails. This is not at all unusual in the world of academia.
The far more pressing question is whether or not the letter presents a compelling case against either of the bills (Protect-IP and SOPA). The crux of their argument rests upon the First Amendment, which all persons (yes, even those who support the bills) agree is an important consideration. Thus, I was quite surprised, even at this late date, that they continue to promote a "vision" of the First Amendment with virtually no substantive analysis of existing case law.
Mr. Abrams has presented his arguments with a very thoughtful analysis of case law. Perhaps if the professors followed his lead they might be able to engage and traverse his analysis. For reasons that completely elude me, they have chosen not to do so. As a consequence I daresay that their letter will receive a tepid welcome at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ROFLMAO! Good Joke! ... Oh wait you were serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, sort of like how Creative America's letter in support of SOPA was written by some content industry PR flack, with 30,000 supporters riding on its coattails (and taking advantage of some mathematical extrapolation along the way)? This is not at all unusual in the world of legacy industries and various trade unions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok. Then I completely dismiss Abrams letter because it was written by the MPAA/RIAA with his name just tagged on it to ride the coattails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. The number of law professors who "sign on" to a letter does not automatically translate into all of them agreeing with every point made. "Coat tail" riding in academia is ubiquitous, especially when it can be added to one's CV.
2. The letter authored by the three named individuals bears no relationship to what would otherwise be a professional legal opinion. I urge you to read the letter again, only this time look at each of its three sections and ask yourself if they are presenting substantive or conclusory arguments.
Their First Amendment "analysis" is devoid of substance and the scholarship they each profess to pursue.
The DNS "analysis" is completely outside their area of expertise. They rely entirely on a quote from another author, and provide no insight into how this fits within the law. It would have been better had they simply omitted this portion since it comes across as little more than arm waving.
The remainder of their letter, and the one they argue most strenuously, is one of policy. Distilled to its essence, what it really says it that "This diminishes our standing in the world as the beacon of free expression. Other countries that have repressive regimes will use it to validate their truncating expression they do not approve of." Of course, it bears mentioning that the bills before Congress are content neutral, and focus only on matters material to the enforcement of copyright law. It also bears mentioning that a long history of judicial precedent recognizes and affirms that copyright law has been balanced to incorporate legitimate First Amendment concerns.
From the perspective of a lawyer, their letter would have carried far more persuasive force had they addressed and dissected the points presented in Mr. Abrams' letter. Why they elected to do otherwise makes no sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. The number of law professors who "sign on" to a letter does not automatically translate into all of them agreeing with every point made. "Coat tail" riding in academia is ubiquitous, especially when it can be added to one's CV.
2. The letter authored by the three named individuals bears no relationship to what would otherwise be a professional legal opinion. I urge you to read the letter again, only this time look at each of its three sections and ask yourself if they are presenting substantive or conclusory arguments.
Their First Amendment "analysis" is devoid of substance and the scholarship they each profess to pursue.
The DNS "analysis" is completely outside their area of expertise. They rely entirely on a quote from another author, and provide no insight into how this fits within the law. It would have been better had they simply omitted this portion since it comes across as little more than arm waving.
The remainder of their letter, and the one they argue most strenuously, is one of policy. Distilled to its essence, what it really says it that "This diminishes our standing in the world as the beacon of free expression. Other countries that have repressive regimes will use it to validate their truncating expression they do not approve of." Of course, it bears mentioning that the bills before Congress are content neutral, and focus only on matters material to the enforcement of copyright law. It also bears mentioning that a long history of judicial precedent recognizes and affirms that copyright law has been balanced to incorporate legitimate First Amendment concerns.
From the perspective of a lawyer, their letter would have carried far more persuasive force had they addressed and dissected the points presented in Mr. Abrams' letter. Why they elected to do otherwise makes no sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]