Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran And Maria Cantwell All Warn That PROTECT IP Will Kill Jobs
from the good-for-them dept
Quite an interesting day. Having Rep. Nancy Pelosi come out against SOPA was quite something. But the Senate has still been pretty quiet. However, it appears that some Senators saw the public outcry against online censorship, against regulating internet companies, against changing the basic regulatory and technological framework that the internet has been built on... and realized that perhaps they shouldn't stay quiet any longer either. Senator Wyden, of course, has been vocal about his opposition to PROTECT IP (and has put a hold on the bill), but now Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran and Maria Cantwell have also come out with a statement against PROTECT IP, saying that they, too, will put a hold on PROTECT IP.Our fear, which is shared by many, is that S. 968 as currently written will have the unintended consequences of undermining our nation's national security and our goals to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation.With significant concerns from both parties in both Houses of Congress, will supporters of these bills still try to push them forward as is? Will they finally let the tech industry into the discussions? Or will they continue to make ridiculous claims about how this effort to regulate the internet is to "protect the troops"?
As currently written, the Protect IP Act and the companion Stop Online Piracy Act legislation in the House unnecessarily risk an overbroad application of the new and unprecedented tools they provide to the U.S. Department of Justice and the private sector. An excessively expansionary application of these tools would undermine our national security and economic interests.
We are particularly concerned that the proposal authorizes the use of remedies that will undermine the infrastructure of the Internet. The nation's leading technologists and security experts say these provisions will kill our best hope for actually making the Internet more secure against cyber attacks. We take seriously the alarm expressed by the nation's leading investors in new online startups who say the proposal will dampen interest in financing the new ideas and businesses of tomorrow, and to legal and human rights experts who caution that the proposal enables the silencing of speech.
Unfortunately, the biggest lobbyists in favor of these bills -- the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, mainly -- are working over time to get them to move forward. They're telling Senators and House members that yesterday's protests, which inundated Congress with calls and letters against SOPA/PIPA were "just a fluke." We know that's not the case, but it would be nice if Congress heard that as well.
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, jerry moran, jobs, maria cantwell, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, senate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
The military argument makes no sense. There's a VERY REAL issue with online security, since both Protect IP and SOPA would kill off a decade of work on DNSSEC, which pretty much everyone agrees is key to protecting the internet going forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Seems sort of a poor argument to hold up needed laws, just to protect a security protocol that isn't even in real use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
So holding up progress today in order to account for an unused security protocol seems a bit weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
I see no need for those censorship laws, does anyone want laws that burden the small bunsiness, that can be used to censor anyone and can stop adoption of more secure protocols?
Heck even Sandia Labs say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
I do know that it will absolutely kill jobs. I should know, I'm in the community of a site called thatguywiththeglasses.com, which will be greatly affected.(the people on there know they will be.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
You see everything in terms of who is taking what stance for/against what concept. The rest of us see "arguments that make sense" and "arguments that are silly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Nobody could be so braindead to think that their inane method of commenting could do anything other than cementing the opposition and putting the Big Media coorperations and their minions in a bad light. They're doing their cause more harm than good, they must be able to see that.
Our beloved Mike is just afraid you won't have anybody to unite against if he wouldn't pay somebody to make idiotic comments.
For those of you with poor sarcasm filters: Yes, paragraph 1 and 3 are sarcasm. Paragraph 2 is obvious truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Nobody could be so braindead to think that their inane method of commenting could do anything other than cementing the opposition and putting the Big Media coorperations and their minions in a bad light. They're doing their cause more harm than good, they must be able to see that.
Our beloved Mike is just afraid you won't have anybody to unite against if he wouldn't pay somebody to make idiotic comments.
For those of you with poor sarcasm filters: Yes, paragraph 1 and 3 are sarcasm. Paragraph 2 is obvious truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Marcus you appear so far up Masnick's ass that your 'brains' are connected together. Forming a total IQ of 1.
So yes, you see everything in terms of what Masnick tells you to THINK.
Just like the good cult follower you are, weak mind, and willing to let others think on your behalf.
Marcus, you dont have to 'struggle to understand" ANYTHING, you just see what Masnick says and you're done.
Self thought, why bother eh..
Marcus I also notice you rarly if ever actually contribute to the article, but instead prefer to launch into attacks on anyone who happens to put forward a point that might be in contradiction to what "the Masnick" has programmed you to believe.
There are obviously enough weak minded people like yourself to keep 'the masnick' in 'employment'.
BTW: I know at least one person who is employed by things like SOPA and RIAA and that is Masnick !!!.
If it was not for copyright, patents, and things like SOPA then Masnick might have to actually find a REAL job !!!!
One that is not "Cult Leader" and "head brainwasher"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Darryl, are you *ever* able to make a post on here without not only disagreeing with Mike, but throwing in 'ad hom' insults as well?
BTW Marcus contributes often, and usually a good deal more understandably than the shill side, particularly your 'good' self. Plus, he has the added advantage of drawing out his 'fan trolls' for some epically funny conversations (when they don't get wrecked by threaded view).
I love to read dissenting views, but not when they are just thinly veiled attacks on someone (usually Mike or Marcus) or are just automatically reactionary and therefore illogical disagreements purely based on who is writing stuff. You will therefore notice the total lack of respect people who act like that get on here. You'll get more respect going onto Free Republic and spouting the Communist Manifesto...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
It should be obvious that I'm not advocating for minimal or no penalties, but the existing penalties for counterfeiting are a fee up to $15,000,000 and/or up to 20 years imprisonment. It's can be life imprisonment if your counterfeit product causes another's death. At this point increasing the penalty for counterfeiting is a very poor return on investment. Criminal counterfeiters either don't know or don't care what the penalties are. If they are making money then they will continue to counterfeit goods. period.
The legislation that stops counterfeiting will be the legislation that destroys counterfeiters' ability to make money, end of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
The current wild west of criminal infringement is a perfect example of of criminals evaluating the risk/reward trade off and stealing the content industry blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
The current wild west of criminal infringement is a perfect example of of criminals evaluating the risk/reward trade off and stealing the content industry blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
The current wild west of criminal infringement is a perfect example of of criminals evaluating the risk/reward trade off and stealing the content industry blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Am I gonna die? Do I need a princess!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
You're right... How the RIAA robs from musicians and how the MPAA robs from those boom operators should have people like Doug Morrison and Mitch Glazier locked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
You know, the library that's robbing publishers blind, due to easy and practically free access by the populous to all those books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wild West
Do only corporations have rights? Does no one else have rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
They have not gone after China because China does a whole lot more than counterfeit goods. The US has to come up with some way to get China to buckle down without pissing them off. That's the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another of the voices in my head is more positive. That voice is saying that perhaps SOPA has opened a lot of people's eyes to what big content is doing with IP. Perhaps there will be a backlash and we will actually get laws that recognizes fair use as an affirmative right and puts heavy penalties in place for copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change fail and hell freeze over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57326956-281/sandia-labs-sopa-will-negatively-impact-u.s- cybersecurity/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is government for?
No, I am not here to announce a move to try to become president, I am just highlighting the question of: What is the purpose of government?
Many people try to discuss how piracy is evil, and many others discuss how it exists because customer demands are not being met. Every side has some validity, some more than others, but in the end, does any of this address governments role in society and laws?
Given that our US government is created "For the people, by the people", we seem to forget the "for the people" aspect.
Why does the government exist? To watch over the public good. To provide for the public benefit. To inact laws that the public wants and needs in order to allow the public to operate in order, not in chaos, at the publics will.
The interesting part is, government is not there to create, judge, or protect any business models. This problem has only arose because some entity within the government decided to allow a corporation to be a "Citizen", but even then, that single corporation is 1 single voice out of all the citizens.
If you took the three biggest record companies, their "voice" should be 3. So, that would be equal to me, my mom, and my dads voice. This is how it should be, but instead we, the people, have let the government officials, who are suppose to look out for our interests, dictate based on how they feel about something. This allows corruption. Fill my pockets, I will help you get your laws passed.
Tell me, at what point does Copyright, IP, any of this become invalid because society chooses to ignore it? Is not the purpose of government to follow the peoples will? If they do not follow our will, then can we say they are even our government, our spokesmen, anymore? So they criminalized my copying an MP3. I guess they have that power, but is it their right? Should I be forced to submit to their will even when their will has been proven to not follow their mandate, to enact the publics will?
Some on here defending things like SOPA, PIPA, DMCA, seem to forget that, yes, our government can pass this, but if the government is acting outside of the realm of public consent, for their good instead of the good of the citizens, does that then means that we are obligated to follow that law?
If the government made a law saying you must shoot black people that you saw on the street after dark (This is part of an old law in Idaho that was never removed from the books, although it was "Could" not "should"), that we have the right and need to shoot them just because someone made a bad law?
Me, I feel if we do not stand against corporate backed censorship, than we will loose our voice. Even if this passes, people will still dictate our rules, and choose to ignore theirs, because it is our will, and the government should be governing for that.
Yes, some will be made examples of. Some will go to jail. Some will decide to go out of their way to follow the rules out of fear of loosing something, be it their freedom (incarceration), their money (Fines and litigation), or even their life. Ultimately though, if it is the will of the people, it will not stop. It will not be silenced. It will instead be bypassed, ignored, attacked. What RIAA and MPAA forget when they do this is, unjust laws will not turn people to them, but instead will create a backlash that will ultimately hurt them more than what they seek to prevent.
Me, I will fight against it. The harder they push, the more I pirate. The more they try to silence me, the more I will speak. Those who want to defend them, remember, you can cry about the illegality whatever you wish, but just remember. The government is for us, and our will is going to either triumph, or they will need to become the very communistic, fascistic, or tyrannical government they claim to be against to stop us.
So for me, the battle over things like SOPA is not against those nasty pirates. It is part of a whole. We saw freedom eroded with the patriot act. We see our public domain eroded by companies like Disney because they do not want someone else using Mickey Mouse. We see the attacks against Wikileaks for giving the people back the information their government has tried to hide from them. SOPA is just another step to erode the freedoms we live under, those that are left, and I will fight as long as possible to keep it.
So keep crying about nasty pirates. Keep trying to hide behind the artists that you claim to protect, while screwing them every way you possibly can. Keep trying to tell me how it is "For the children" and "For the soldiers" (PS I was in the Military, and that is a bunch of shit). It falls on deaf ears because we know the BS you spew, and will fight you until all dissent is ground into poverty, jailed for daring to be free, or so scared because you have become the tyrants our government was formed to protect us from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is government for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is government for?
That influence is bought and sold is of no doubt, but there is a limit to how much people will stand before it is stopped (Maybe not as a whole, but on individual basis: ie. Politicians that have went to far loosing their re-elections, people calling for impeachments, boycotts causing company hardships and possibly even collapse, etc).
Even if there is some control, find out how many businesses can exist when the very people who keep them going decide to eliminate them by voting against them with their dollars. In the short term, money can buy much, but in the long term, it will fail.
Do not believe me? Look at China, and what the internet and spread of information has done there. Before, if you spoke out against the government, you were found dead (What they call "Suicided"), arrested, or would just dissapear (What they call "Harmonized"). Now, more and more people are criticizing, and getting away with it more and more often, because of the revolution of the internet.
If the one technology can bring about so much change in a place that has been oppressed for so long by the powerful, do you honestly believe that the US will go the exact opposite way as more and more people become informed and educated about what is really happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
Your opinion does not equate to reality, and I do not jump on the bandwagon of "Capitalism is the root of all evil".
It is like any other system, a tool, that gets used for good, and gets abused for bad. Every system has benefits and flaws.
Please do not falsely claim that your opinion represents reality. I am not a figment of your imagination, and therefore I am not subject only to your reality. It just makes you look foolish.
As they say: The truth will out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
The Internet is a global society awakening. Those that fear that beget the likes of PROTECT IP. Government exists to PROTECT SOCIETY.. as it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
I just tend to be wordier in my writings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
Your money or your life. Choose. .. Not an acceptable choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
Plutocracy, yes.
Fascist, no argument.
But a capitalist society would not have a government trying to pick the winners and losers in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
Probably at this point I maybe once again wasting my time arguing with a brick wall full of delusional liberals who think they can fix the system even though it can't be fixed and that's how the system is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
What we have today in America is not true capitalism or else those industries would be allowed to fail, protection is something out of the communist book of thinking, where they believed that a central decision making was going to solve all the problems inside society, they failed at that, socialism was a nice idea but we are not there and Karl Marx was a rambling drankard which spouted some nice ideas made some good observations but it got a lot wrong too.
IP law is a communist ideology, where people want to control things and not let the market decide who is the better guy or gal to do the job.
Granted monopolies are the real problem not capitalism or socialism, the problem with socialism was communism the problem with capitalism is monopolies today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is government for?
Instead of a few trying to tell others how they should use something or how they should behave goes away once the tools for it goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is government for?
YES IT FREAKING DOES !!!!!!!!
This is typicle of the level of intelligenct displayed here on Techdope..
Yes, there are lots of rules and laws, and YES, lots of people do not like all the rules and laws and some people will even break those rules and laws.
but you live in a society, a social structure, that is ordered by rules and laws. The rules and laws are what that society has ASKED FOR..
There are always going to be some who dont like the rules and laws, especially those that make their living to breaking those rules and laws.
That does not make the law or rule wrong, it makes the person who breaks that rule or law wrong, and a criminal (someone who breaks a rule or law of your society).
No society or group can function without a set of rules and laws under which that group is guided by.
No society has 100% agreement with all the rules and laws, or even with specific rules and laws. But the MAJORITY of that sociiety fully understands that agree or not it is the framework and basis for a successful society.
That if people chose to defy any rule or law they did not agree with then that society would break down.
People who generally disregard rules and laws are the type of people who only think about ONE PERSON, themselves..
That you feel if you do not like a law you can break it, with NO REGARD for the effect of breaking that law might have on someone else in your society.
Say you dont like the law on stealing things (Theft), so you break that law and go and steal off people.
You have no regard for the people you steal from.
But if it happens that when you are out stealing, you house is broken into and everything stolen. Then you 'might' think that the law for some people is a GOOD thing, and that it is not right for someone to come and steal all your stuff.
Or when you come home to your empty house, do you say "fair enough" he must not agree with that law either..
Where do you live again ???
can you tell me the next time you are going out for the day ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is government for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is government for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to have a National Censorship Week on MAFIAA Products
Would be good to see it happen to them instead of to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to have a National Censorship Week on MAFIAA Products
What these companies simply cannot understand is that none of these laws they keep trying to push directly affects us, as none of us infringes. Nor are these laws going to make us once again magically spend our money on their products. They are simply pissing us off more and motivating us to turn our friends/families/associates on to alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry Moran, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth about ootb
He thinks that because he superficially looks like /Stephen Hawking/, that he is also one of the /great mind/s of his generation, albeit //unrecognized//. He has tried to establish himself as a key commenter on many blogs over the last several years, under many different names. But his overconfidence in his own /delusional/ intellectual prowess always ultimately led to him being the subject of //ridicule.
Be /gentle/ with him. He mostly means well, he just doesn't really get out in the world much and is lost in the /false reality/ of the LCD.
Oh yeah and about the whole //slash thing.../// that is the most expressive character that his tongue keyboard allows :)
//////////////
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth out of my ASS
What a total scumbag, moronic and purile statement to make.
It talks far more about what YOU are like that what anyone else is like !!!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth about ootb
Grow up little boy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
All it takes to get a bill past a filibuster or a hold is 60 votes.
There are other things going on right now with the bill, and they have nothing to do with the few senators that don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57326956-281/sandia-labs-sopa-will-negatively-impact-u.s- cybersecurity/
Apparently the other things going on is an enormous wall of criticism coming the way of that bill, I don't really think it will survive the onslaught, because if it does, Europe took notice and probably will respond in kind, because their business are at risk, Asia will not let that go either, Russia don't care about what Americans do, China will get even more agressive.
There are business concerns, privacy concerns, security concerns and more about that bill and I don't think those politicians are prepared for the backlash coming their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57326956-281/sandia-labs-sopa-will-negatively-impact-u.s- cybersecurity/
Are they too just freetards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
Sixty votes for cloture. Forty+ co-sponsors. One hundred Senators. Do the math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That letter is a big deal; withdrawing unanimous consent is real and it matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats on battling the SOPA opera
You know that Big Media won't take this lying down, they are going to come back with an even more outrageous bill, or perhaps a very cleverly worded bill. They still want their control over the media on the internet, and they are willing to sacrifice almost anything (even their own bottom line) to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a list of companies that support this and their contact info.
Boycott them all to the best of your abilities.
I will no longer be buying that new Fender Strat that I wanted and I have replaced all of my strings with Ernie Ball strings. Thank the Muses that Novation and Focusrite aren't on this.
https://boycottcensors.wordpress.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all laws kill AND MAKE jobs
If you are employed in a field that is against the law, or is going to be against the law, you have two choices.
1) to continue at that job and break the law.
2) find a new job and not break that law.
Lets say you are a company that makes a childs toy, you employ thousands of people who now ALL have JOBS..
Then it is found that the toy you are manufacturing is dangerous and can sometimes kill children.
It is deemed an "ILLEGAL" product.
All those factory workers lose "THAT" job !!!
What they would do is change their product so that it complies with the law (does not kill children) and make and sell that product.
You have also employed (indirectly) many other people (created jobs) of people who are responsible for ensuring that the toys that are sold are legal.
They would not have a job if no one ever producted an illegal product.
So all laws create some jobs and kill other jobs.
But the ones that are killed are the illegal ones that should not exist in the first place.
And all the jobs that are created are to ensure that continue to make legal products and not illegal ones.
So if your 'job' is predicated on an illegal activity, then you have an expectation that sooner or later you will 'lose' that job.
An illegal activity is generally not considered a job, it is usually considered a crime.
If your job is crime, you are a criminal not an employee.
How many criminals lodge a tax return ? and pay for law enforcement ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all laws kill AND MAKE jobs
At a guess, 3,126,359.. That would be about 1% of the US population :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all laws kill AND MAKE jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]