Cable News Finally Realizing That SOPA And PROTECT IP Are Bad News

from the here-it-comes... dept

Mon, Dec 19th 2011 3:33am — Mike Masnick

Well, well, well. We've noted in the past that while the serious concerns about SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA) have been all over the web and newspapers, they've mostly been mostly been absent from cable news... companies that are owned by the biggest supporters of these bills (the one "exception" was Colbert). But can cable news really continue to ignore the story while so many people are speaking out about it? Looks like the tide may be shifting. On Friday, Fox Business Channel had on Jim Harper from the Cato Institute to explain why these are terrible ideas and how Congress is trying to rush it through despite so many concerns: Similarly, it sounds like MSNBC is planning something as well. Will Congress really still be able to pretend that people don't care about these bills?

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: cable news, copyright, jim harper, pipa, protect ip, sopa

58 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Poster, 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:51am

I'm guessing the upper brass for these news networks held off on this for as long as possible, but with all of the opposition building up, there was no way for them to hold it off forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:05am
  
  Re:
  Maybe some of the controversy about a Mega Upload story getting Tech News Today- 391 removed from You Tube may have actual hit journalists ears. You can't cover news in a timely way with a take down notice burying the story for ten days. Even a Judge saw that as troubling.
  
  SOPA/PIPA could get your network disappeared from the US internet.
  
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-gives-umg-24-hours-to-explain-tak edown-spree.ars
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:58am

CNN did a couple things too. The first story I saw was basically a hit job that implied "everyone on the internet is a dirty pirate and they deserve SOPA." They've had a couple of small stories since then, but it largely ignores the real issues. It has been pretty disappointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:30am
  
  Re:
  What did you expect?
  CNN is owned by Warner Bros.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's exactly what I expected.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM Hilton, 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:00am

It's about their paychecks
I was wondering just the other day why there was no mention of either of those items in any news-like there was a news blackout in progress.
But it's really understandable: MSNBC is partly owned by NBC Universal, which is an entertainment company. Undoubtedly part of the cabal to make sure the bills pass.

Now to get the NY Times to really investigate them. That's the last holdout. I've not seen much reporting from them on it, and I wonder why-probably the same reasons. They don't want to upset their corporate masters who wish that this furor over the most regressive and retarded legislation of a lifetime would just get passed without any fuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim Harper (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:17am

From the Irony Department...
Each time I watch the video---concerned by the preview image which has me looking like a muppet---I get a Pfizer anti-counterfeiting ad that uses the loaded term "rogue website."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:25am

The people of this Country are really going to be angry when the whole story of this comes out.
Conservatives who believe in the Union and the Constitution I am sure will be pissed.
Liberals will be pissed.
Middle of the Roaders will see the dangers

2012 should be pretty interesting.Could be and I hope will be a huge March on Washington finally.
Those who are in favor of these Bills will and should be labeled as "Benedict Arnolds".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:01am
  
  Re:
  "The people of this Country are really going to be angry when the whole story of this comes out."
  
  No they are not. It's hard to garner sympathy for pirates, counterfeiters, and the like. When your starting position is "we break the law, but it's silly", you don't get much sympathy.
  
  Dylan Ratigan will very likely take the issue up to show rich companies like google as the "greedy bastards" he writes about. That will pretty much end the issue right there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    And the like? I mean, I understand why serial counterfeiters peddling bad medicine for profit is bad. I understand that casual copyright infringement is even worse but what's with ". . . and the like"?
    
    Do you mean there is something worse than copyright infringement that this bill targets, and what is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Casual copyright infringement is worse than medicine that doesn't work? You have some really fucked up values.
      
      Anyway, the issue with the legislation is that it's a job killer, it gives broad censorship powers to private corporations, and if its circumvention measures are implemented it will weaken our national infrastructure, leave us more open to personal, corporate, and governmental security breaches.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was being sarcastic, plus, I always find it weird how easily some conflate counterfeiting with copyright infringement, I guess the idea being both are against the law therefore equally bad.
        
        Kind of like how murder and jaywalking are the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, my sarcasm detector seems to malfunction when I'm in a bad mood. ;)
        
        It doesn't help that there are some on here that seem to legitimately try to make that argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jon P, 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When language like "...and the like" is put into legislation, that opens up its applicability to whatever the government wants. The very justified fear here is that they could use SOPA/PIPA to silence critics, much in the way that China, Iran, etc do today.
      
      That's not what this country is supposed to be about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - demented, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Given that the definition of "pirates" in those bills can apply to a seven-year-old who uses an anime picture as her avatar, I don't see much sympathy for the opposing side.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    When your starting position is "we break the law, but it's silly", you don't get much sympathy.
    
    When your starting position is "we need to piss all over the Constitution, privacy and security in order to control this new thing we don't understand just because some industry claims it's losing money", it's downright fucking scary.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: No sympathy
    If this go into effect there will be no sympathy show from "the masses" when youtube.com goes away.
    
    Of course, everyone always says youtube won't be affected. It'll just be smaller sites and worse sites. Youtube is too big. But the law doesn't talk about how big the site is.
    
    And anyway, if youtube will get different treatment, then we will need to really begin a discussion about whatever happened to equal treatment under the law.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    "It's hard to garner sympathy for pirates"
    
    It's hard to garner sympathy for bought politicians that pass rogue anti-competitive laws. It's hard to garner sympathy for those lobbying for and abusing those laws.
    
    I have no disdain for digital 'pirates' who merely copy information. Sure, I have no sympathy for them, I'm just mostly apathetic. While I myself try to follow the law and I don't generally infringe on content (at least I try not to intentionally break the law), I don't hold anyone else to a standard that requires them to follow rogue laws. If copy protection laws were more reasonable then I might be less sympathetic towards those who infringe.
    
    However, I do advocate IP abolition, or at least for the laws to be substantially repealed so that we can have a more reasonable set of laws.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "It's hard to garner sympathy for pirates, counterfeiters, and the like."
    
    So? That's not who the sympathy would be for. It's pretty easy to garner sympathy for the citizens in general.
    
    "When your starting position is "we break the law, but it's silly", you don't get much sympathy."
    
    That's not anyone's starting position, so this is also irrelevant.
    
    But you knew that already.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:42am

But.. But...
But Faux News, amirite? Comeon everyone! Bush=Hitler? Guys? Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re: But.. But...
  Me, me! Hm, class warfare! And, secret muslim! Uh... fat cat teachers!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 1:51am
  
  Re: But.. But...
  Yes, they're actually on our side for once. It's shocking, I know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JaseP, 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:51am

@gorehound
@gorehound,...

You underestimate the power of spin ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: @gorehound
  No I do not but I can dream..............
  We really are so screwed now it is sad and I mean really sad to me as a 55 year old man.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PhoneHackingFox, 19 Dec 2011 @ 5:59am

Interesting that in the list of supporters, Fox Business chose to ignore that they themselves, or at least the controlling company of Fox, namely News Corporation, are vigorously lobbying the US government to fast-track SOPA/PIPA into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LLC guru, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:06am

Congress
"how Congress is trying to rush it through despite so many concerns"
SOPA And PROTECT IP are the type of legislation that it is difficult to mobilize sufficient numbers of concerned citizens to blunt the influence of corporate lobbying money in congress. These issues take a bit of educating for one to understand the public harm and, unfortunately, the mainstream are not very well educated on the issues of the day. Further, they are not interested in spending the energy to educate themselves. The entertainment industry disguise their greedy power grab in other public purposes that appear to be good unless one digs. We need go no further than the name "PROTECT IP" to make this point. I'm not hopeful either of these bills will be stopped nor that the elected officials responsible for these abominations will pay for their sins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:02am
  
  Re: Congress
  Shut up nigger bitch. "It's not hopeful that these bills will be stopped"? Fuck your shit nigger, stop saying gay shit like that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:18am

Someday...
Now more than ever, the concept behind "personal computing" is under threat. The mega corps are pushing to do away with physical storage devices in favor of internet-reliant data storage such as cloud computing. I don't need to expound upon why this is a bad idea. Furthermore, the open dev environment pioneered from the internet's inception is becoming a thing of the past, what with corporate brands like Apple filtering every app for use with their products, and companies like Microsoft persistently reminding us all that the software we purchased doesn't [I]really[/I] belong to us. Intellectual property rights have superceded the individual's, it seems.

The dark ages of the PC/internet is dawning upon us. The draconian legislation that is SOPA/PIPA will give birth to an Orwellian internet. We're all going to look back at the internet's golden years as a bastion for freedom of speech, innovation and entertainment ...before the government and corporations took over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:42am

Just like newspapers blackout on the entire Righthaven affair except for some noteworthy exceptions like the Las Vegas Sun. The news media has shown they will not report on stories that effect them. It is an inherent conflict of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:12am

Terrible and downright misleading "interview" that makes it only to clear the Judge on FOX did not understand what he was talking about, and the individual from CATO went along without correcting him on his glaring wrong misstatement.

Note that the Judge talks about the AG being able to proceed without the involvent of the judiciary. This is untrue, and the Judge should have known better. I do not fault the individual from CATO because he merely went down the path that the Judge set up by not knowing what the legislation actually provides.

Whether or not one agrees with the proposed legislation, at the very least a Judge talking about it should be expected to know what he is talking about. Apparently, he decided to adopt the Nancy Grace approach and mislead the audience out of his own ignorance.

Hopefully, whoever presents the matter at MSNBC actually reads it before waxing poetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  A magistrate court order does not make this legal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    There is no such thing as a "magistrate court". Magistrates, to the extend one may be involved in suits of this type, sit as members of a Federal District Court, are well familiar with the rules of federal rules of civil and criminal procedure, and oftentimes handle some aspects of the preliminary stages of a pending lawsuit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    BTW, my comment was directed solely to a gross misstatement by the Judge on the Fox channel, and to nothing else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:37am
  
  Re:
  Could you back that up with text from the bill? Otherwise, your just another AC who won't mind lying about things like, "This only applies to foreign websites," when the actual text of the bill states differently. So I will drop you with one of your famous [citation needed] demands.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Rather than changing the subject, it would be more productive to point out why you believe the FOX interview is correct.
    
    I address issues one at a time, and on this issue the Judge and the individual from CATO are plainly wrong. See: Section 102 of the pending bill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not necessarily about the bill itself, it's about what effects tha bill allows, and how, given past experiences, the Bill will be used.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - kirillian (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He didn't change the subject. He merely asked you to back up your statement. He was stating that you are no better than others who have posted here, completely misstating facts, if you can't do so. While he kinda jumped quickly to this conclusion, I can't blame him either. There has been a LOT of activity recently from Anonymous Cowards trying to spam these threads with propaganda and no citations to back up their statements. Put up or shut up is the community attitude right now. Links are important. We go through the work to cite sources by putting links in our comments. If you want us to give you the respect you want. You can do so too. Link us a source. Sometimes a reliable source takes a bit of time to find because they are behind paywalls etc. Linking a source that is NOT behind a paywall is very much appreciated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think this is the same AC that comes on here to support the IFPI reports even though they're debunked repeatedly. He never links nor puts up where his reasoning comes from, merely trumpets the same lines supporting SOPA and against other reasonable measures.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe you are the same "Jay" who provides comments on a couple of legal blogs. Even there, when you are challenged and detailed explanations, cases, and statutes provided, you continue to insist that they are wrong and you are right.
        
        You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and I would never deny you that opportunity, but at least you should take the time to assimilate what others may have say on the subject.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        BTW, as a general rule I do not post on legal blogs anonymously, so you should be familiar with who I am.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're Betty, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope. Unless you post here consistently under the same name, I have no idea who you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At 27 I cited Section 102 of the current bill. That bill can be found at:
        
        http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=29 &ved=0CPABEBYwHA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjudiciary.house.gov%2Fhearings%2Fpdf%2FHR%25203261%2520Man agers%2520Amendment.pdf&ei=iG3vTqjDEInW0QH9ub3aCQ&usg=AFQjCNEQu1pUXbHW2F3R68El-CW9HCEjvg
        
        I presume this is responsive to your request.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Technically, there is no mention of it in the In Personam section. In Rem explicitly states that a Court Order is required to satisfy that the AG has done everything possible to find the webmaster for the cdomain.
        
        However, in 102 (c), it mentions that safe harbors only apply if you remove the DNS record immediately upon being served by the AG, NOT a judge.
        
        Nopte that failing to comply due to technical means being insufficient does not constitute a complete defense, but may be a mitigating factor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks for the link to the entire 71 page proposed amendment to the bill...really makes the point for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1. The bill was linked so that you could read Section 102, the one pertinent to the comment I made about the FOX broadcast.
        
        2. If you take the time to even casually look at Section 102 you will quickly note that the AG must go through the court system. The broadcast stated otherwise, which made what was stated manifestly wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, because a one sided hearing that the defendant doesn't know anything about is really going through the court system.
        
        (2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
        
        So if they can't find someone they follow Rule 65 for an injunction. What's amazing is how one sided the rule is:
        
        (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
        
        (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
        
        (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
        
        (2) Contents; Expiration. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry�not to exceed 14 days�that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.
        
        But if you want to try to challenge when this occurs:
        
        (4) Motion to Dissolve. On 2 days� notice to the party who obtained the order without notice�or on shorter notice set by the court�the adverse party may appear and move to dissolve or modify the order. The court must then hear and decide the motion as promptly as justice requires.
        
        And here are the problems with the AG using the notice:
        
        1) There is no verification of receiving a notice for the adverse party. Does the AG use email? Snail mail? Do they do a press release (as ICE does now) to show the time of the court hearing?
        
        2) The dajaz1 issue exposes the problem with this procedure. You can file all information about a quick dissolution, but the government can stall with secret court orders.
        
        3) In no way is this proportionate to the defendant. As evidenced elsewhere, the problem of not being heard in one sided hearings can cause a problem with of harming innocent people.
        
        ------------------------------------------
        
        For the most part, there is limited contact with the judiciary court. They seem to be there to rubber stamp the process without a clear indication of what's actually going on. I have to wonder how much forum shopping occurs for the AG to find a court favorable to their process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You should take a look at 102(b)(1) before jumping on to 102(b)(2). You will note that the former is a condition precedent to the latter.
        
        If you have a problem with FRCP 65, then that means you have a problem with every type of lawsuit under all laws that may be filed in the US district courts. What makes you view interesting is that it suggests you are willing to accord greater rights to persons who reside outside the US than you are willing to accord to those who reside within the US.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd like both parties to have a fair trial. It's rather difficult to do so when they are to defend a domain seizure from another country. Somehow believing a site outside the US is costing a company money is rather misleading as well. But that's another argument for another time.
        
        Those inside the US are already bullied by the ICE seizure process which is erroneous and woefully ineffective.
        
        Now you have SOPA to contend with as an outside "rogue website" which makes no sense.
        
        Judging from my own experiences in reading up on the process, there have been a number of problems with copyright enforcement and government intervention. It's quite difficult to support a process that does not allow the accused equal attention under the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Finally, a comment that is based upon your personal views, the very type of comment that cannot be criticized and you held up to ridicule because it represents how you feel about an issue. I might criticize your interpretation of a law, but I would never criticize you for how you feel about something. I may feel quite differently, but that is no good reason to say my feeling is better than your feeling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:37am

I will also state that it is very sickening to NOT GET THE NEWS on this SOPA/PIPA.
It is pretty much blacked out in nearly all of the Country's News Stations and Newspapers.So much corruption and non-reporting on the News Side which should be telling stories with an impartial mind but we all on techdirt know the real truth.

And the sad thing is we may not be able to do anything about this nightmare in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benny6Toes (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:42am

timing is everything?
Dylan Ratigan tweeted that they're looking into it and timing was everything. Ummm...it seems to me that if timming were everything, then they would have covered it before the markup vote was supposed to take place (last Friday). If timing truly is everything, then Dylan really needs to get a new watch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heretic, 19 Dec 2011 @ 8:03am

Not a bad move, they've waited until the bills have all but gotten through the sub-committee hearings. Now if the bill gets struck down, they appear balanced and fair and all that horse byproduct and if it passes their parent companies still reap the benefits.

Slick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:16am

That video has a fake medicine add before it, comparing ordering potentially non-authentic medications to playing Russian roulette. The cynic in me tells me that this has little to do with how much they care about you and more to do with how much they care about big pharma profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CJ (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 10:08am

Too many experts in Washington
Oops! My bad sorry. None of them in Congress know how the Internet works.

But really for a bunch of law makers/lobbyist trying to pass a Bill that they feel is right, there sure is a bunch of people saying it's wrong. Both can't be right, and sense the bill was made by a bunch of RIAA and MPAA wing nut lobbyist I say the proof should be on them. They must prove there is a piracy problem and they are losing millions or billions. I say they don't have a chance in hell proving it.

Their problems are caused by tied up courts trying to prosecute grandmas, and dead people. Paying outlandish fees to lawyers.

If Congress has their heart set too pass a Bill, then have them pass one to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, Proof of a case before trial is or could be a great way for all of us to save lots of money.

Getting those lobbyist out of Congress would be something to help/benefit EVERYONE. When money talks laws tend to go south, and don't help the public good of the people.

A vote that is bought is not a free country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:57pm

What's left out are any discussions over the outrageous nature of our current copy protection laws (ie: copy protection lengths).

This is one reason why the government established media cartel needs to be abolished, the government has no business granting monopoly power to a self interested media cartel. But, of course, any discussions about this would also be left out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re:
  (and no one dare criticize copy protection laws over the government established mainstream media).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gary (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 2:50pm

Beware The American Spring you are asking for Congress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]