Dear Lamar Smith & House Judiciary: Have You Learned Nothing From SOPA?
from the ridiculous dept
I've been hearing for a few months now that the staffers on the House Judiciary Committee, who were the main supporters of SOPA, haven't been able to let go of what happened (or even understand it). That's been pretty obvious from the few public statements they've made since SOPA failed. And now it's been made doubly clear. On Monday, we wrote about how Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee that he chairs were looking to rush through a piece of SOPA embedded in another bill. It wasn't one of the most controversial bits, but it was an issue we had raised with SOPA, even if it took a back seat to some of the bigger problems.What was stunning was that the SOPA protests were largely about process -- backroom deals, without public input or scrutiny -- and in this case, with this new bill (officially dubbed the Intellectual Property Attache Act) they not only did the same thing, but were trying to rush it through on a fast track significantly more extreme than SOPA. That is, they only shared the draft on Saturday and announced that there would be a markup on the bill (which they never even introduced) on Tuesday morning. That's rare. Normally, you officially introduce the bill, hold various hearings that involve experts, make some adjustments, and then hold a markup hearing to allow for additional amendments. In this case, they jumped right to that last step -- completely skipping over some rather major steps that would allow for public input and scrutiny.
In other words, they did the exact opposite of what the SOPA experience told them they should do.
However, because we and a few other sites pointed out the issues here, some of the original supporters of the bill began expressing doubts. Some others on the HJC offered up amendments -- including one that would say that the IP attaches couldn't just focus on enforcement, but also on limitations and exceptions like fair use (you know, actually focusing on what US law is, rather than what Hollywood wishes it would be). But apparently there is resistance to those amendments. However, because lots of people did speak up and let the HJC and Lamar Smith know that they would not accept them rushing through a piece of SOPA without public discussion, the bill has been (temporarily) delayed.
Of course, still not getting it, the HJC issued a petulant statement, effectively blaming us for this turn of events:
"This week, the House Judiciary Committee released a discussion draft of a bill that streamlines the IP attache program to help safeguard American intellectual property abroad. Unfortunately, some groups and blogs have misreported that this is a follow up to the Stop Online Piracy Act. That is not the case. The bill that the Committee currently is working on is a narrow piece of legislation to ensure better use of Patent and Trademark Office funds. The current draft increases organizational efficiency at the PTO and moves the IP attache program squarely within the PTO to ensure direct accountability of the IP attaches.The statement is partially misleading and partially false. First of all, the language is quite similar to a portion of SOPA -- so claiming that it's not a "followup" to SOPA is clearly false. This was a part of SOPA, and now it's a part of a new bill -- but ignoring the fact that it was in SOPA is simply wrong. Second, the statement is incredibly misleading, in that they suggest that they were always seeking feedback. That's not true at all. It was on the markup schedule for Tuesday morning -- and that was published on the HJC website for anyone to see (though it's since been taken down). Finally, no one else saw a draft until Saturday and no one in the press got it until Monday morning -- about 24 hours before the markup (despite HJC staffers promising some members that it would release the draft at least a week before any effort to move it forward). Basically, the HJC staffers who put out this statement are creating a misinformation campaign, claiming (incorrectly) that we and a few other blogs who wrote about this were the ones spreading the misinformation.
"Since releasing that draft, for which there is bipartisan and industry support, we are making some changes based on feedback from outside groups and Members. We plan to circulate a new draft based off those changes to ensure that the development of this bill continues to be an open and transparent process."
They can't even own up to their own attempt to rush this bill through. It's shameful.
As Ernesto Falcon at Public Knowledge has written, if you want to "shake the ghost of SOPA," perhaps try to not rush through a bill that you kept secret without allowing the normal process of public comment and feedback.
The latest controversy with the Intellectual Property Attache Act, formerly a provision within the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is entirely self-inflicted by its lead sponsors.At this point, we've heard that some Judiciary Committee staffers view sites like Techdirt as "the enemy." That's completely wrong. We'd just like them to not try to sneak bad bills through -- and to actually do their job and let the public weigh in on things. Is that so difficult to comprehend? This isn't political. We have nothing against the House Judiciary Committee as a whole. We'd just like them to actually acknowledge the public's role in the process. If they did so, perhaps people wouldn't complain and speak out. If they really are being "open" about this, then there wouldn't the this sudden surprise. There wouldn't be this attempt to rush things through... and there wouldn't be a public outcry. So it's in their own best interests to actually admit that the public exists and should be a part of the process, rather than snubbing them.
You do not have to be a political strategist to figure out that trying to pass a piece of SOPA might in fact inflame the wide array of opposition to SOPA. You also can not cry foul when you secretly develop the legislation, hold no legislative hearing on its merits, and attempt (and thankfully fail) to move the legislation through the Committee almost 24 hours after it was leaked to the press. Each of these steps flies in the face of the request made by opponents to SOPA for more openness, inclusion, and transparency for intellectual property policy decisions. It is as if the some believe that the business of copyright legislating can proceed as usual and that the Internet Black Out never occurred.
If the House Judiciary Committee wants to shake off the ghost of SOPA and avoid having legislation blow up in their collective faces, they need to rethink how they move intellectual property bills. The Committee must proactively work at justifying to the public why a bill is necessary and win their support for its passage before voting it out. It should stop trying to move bills first and put the burden on the public to stop them from blindly moving forward.
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: house judiciary committee, intellectual property attache act, lamar smith, sopa, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...the big content industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MPAA, RIAA, IPAA. Any more transparent and they'll be like a perfect window; we won't be able to see them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
Ideas cannot be owned. Once shared, those it has been shared with have as much right to use it as the person who thought of it.
The implementation of said idea is the only thing that can be expressed as property. If I say "I want to build a horseless carriage with a motor to make it move" - someone else says "Hey, that's a great idea". They go off making a wind-up vehicle, while I proceed with an internal combustion engine, or steam engine approach. Idea shared, implementation different.
It really is as simple as that.
Intellectual property isn't!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
I would argue that this, too, leads to problems. To use your example, what if we both went off and made internal combustion engines, but mine had more cylinders than yours, or one of them was a Wankel rotary engine? How similar do the implementations have to be before one of us can cry foul and claim infringement of property rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
I'm fine with that.
Each person takes the spark of the idea and implements it in their own way, just as it was intended.
Patents and copyrights were never intended to keep ideas away from people, it was only to prevent people from copying the implementation exactly - you know, 100% duplication of a physical item.
Look at the different kinds of barbed wire - each different implementations of the same idea, but each uniquely different.
So many forms of engines, carburetors, injection systems, plugs, ignition systems, etc - so that each is unique to a point.
That is how it's supposed to be - not saying "oh this interface is mine, I had the idea first, no one else can do it this way" - to return to car analogy - one that is used most commonly - gas, break and clutch pedals - we'd have a thousand different variations if the "interface" was patentable.
The idea isn't property, the implementation is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
If you want to be the sole owner of an idea, then you can never share it.
Once shared, it's no longer *just* yours. You came up with it initially, but you cannot control dissemination after you've shared it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
Copycrap has that shit about non-literal copying and derivative ownership which patents don't have at all, you have to show your implementation and if somebody else implements the same thing in a different manner you get no claims.
In that regard you wouldn't be able to complain about anything, unless you have patented every implementation possible, which is why patents are so expensive, but even that doesn't stop super patents pools from forming and legal wars from breaking out that affect negatively the public which IP law was designed to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IPIB - Intellectual Property Isn't Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One small error
On the contrary, it should be the essence of politics. You're letting the mess of what politics has become blind you to its true ideal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small error
/edit
And unfortunately, it seems like too many Congressmen can only conform their official actions to a tired red vs. blue partisan mentality. It's toxic and I advocate that we actually start voting the toxic players out with independent candidates with no alligience but to their constituents.
/end idealist rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small error
Ummm actually, when you report this type of news and expect transparency that does make you the enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One small error
Constitutional Terrorists - I like the sound of that. It's highly appropriate for for all of our corporate sponsored government members and staff.
I like it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about public support?
What about public support? This is, after all, a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about public support?(correction)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about public support?(correction)
Isn't that how it was written oh those many years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about public support?(correction)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about public support?
Find a 3RD Party and Vote for it even though for now you will Vote for a loser.I hate both Republicans and Democrats and will finally do what I should of done Decades ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OF COURSE it isn't a follow-up to the SOPA act, Pirate Mike! It's a copy-and-paste of the SOPA act. We are reusing SOPA under fair use terms. You know, fair use--that abomination you and your kind keep harping on about! Get your facts straight and stop letting Google feed you misinformation!
(uh.. did I do that right? The MPAA executive over there says I don't get paid unless I do the comment post right. Well, one blog down, 999 to go.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Better than the basest of trolls.
Keep working on it man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Mike Masnick and Techdirt Community!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Acting the Part of Drug Addict Enablers
Piracy is not Hollywood's problem. It is a symptom of their problem which is a fundamental and permanent problem with their business models. The government is acting in the same capacity as those that enable drug addicts. They may mean well but when you have industries that rely on government enforcement rather than meet the demands of consumers then neither they nor the government are serving them nor the public well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it states that there is bipartisan and industry support for this bill. that makes me suspect that, as before, not only did the entertainment industries, pharma etc see the bill a long time before the leaked copy, they were actively involved in drafting it. what is needed is for any contents of a bill that has been rejected to never ever again be able to be included in another bill of a similar nature, that would achieve the same or similar effect. if not, all that will keep happening is what has happened here. SOPA is basically killed but parts will keep being added to other bills or introduced separately until all those rejected parts come into force anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One sentence explains it all
If you're not a member of the club (i.e. an outside group) you're a nuisance that shouldn't be seen or heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally, I am one that don't look at things as bad ideas unless they were intended to be a bad idea. When you get human nature involve, things will go differently as planned and the results could be very different from what the person who created thought it would be. It's like saying the TSA "could" be a whole lot better at its job (and I'm using "could" loosely), but it all boils down to who is in charge and how things unfold in its run. It also differs from one person's point-of-view as well, especially when we are dealing with political bodies and the like (and we definitely are going to have various opinions on that alone).
So yes not of all of us hate the HJC... just those currently running it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lamar Smith
Come on, you American voters, do your duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In agreement
You know what, that's just fine, because the feeling is fucking mutual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In agreement
What I find especially contemptible about all this is the bad-programming-loop feel: try-fail-try-fail... and the inability of the players involved to understand that anyone who cares to look can see them as the tools they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In agreement
On the bright side, with the rulling that the ACA is Constitutional, members of Congress and their lobyist enablers will have access to proper mental health services going forward and not be rejected for having a pre-existing condition...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They learned that to carry out their moral obligation to protect the corporations, they have to rush bills through the process as fast as possible so that the evil bloggers, internet companies and the public don't interfere with their righteous mission. (I really wish that was a joke...)
Second, the statement is incredibly misleading, in that they suggest that they were always seeking feedback.
Yes, feedback from the entertainment industry. After all, they're the only ones who should have input into these kinds of bills.
We'd just like them to not try to sneak bad bills through -- and to actually do their job and let the public weigh in on things.
Their job, as they see it, is to serve whatever industry gives them the biggest campaign contribution.
We'd just like them to actually acknowledge the public's role in the process.
The public's role in the process is to bend over and take whatever the corporations want them to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
true colors
I would very much like to hear a member of the committee stand up and say this. But I suppose that would take courage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that how it was written oh those many years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My god. The people in the HJC and Lamar Smith are complete and TOTAL MORONS!
Apparently, they must have had a memory lapse about the SOPA thing and they're wondering why their bill didn't go through.
I got an idea: because we all hated it with our slagging guts.
I bet that once this IPAA/really original guys goes down and goes boom in their face, they might get the hint this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Reddit and TestPAC tried the billboards and the commercials, and the only one who even had an inkling of a chance (Sheriff Mack) couldn't raise enough funds.
At this point, the only thing that can really dethrone him from his position is a PR nightmare that the non-netizens of Texas will out him for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
All legislation is essentially fund-raising at this point. Federal elections should be publicly funded. That's the best way to get our government back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As long as people are willing to elect politicians based on handouts and promises even if it's absolutely clear (practically public, courtesy of Mr. Dodd) they're corrupt, I don't see many things that could help.
Nice big asteroid would be a bit extreme, but.... well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subcommittee.html
Or did you mean the underlings that work under them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Regulatory capture is your answer.
Yes, the mass realizations regarding censorship and security was what helped tip the fight against SOPA/PIPA, the discussion round here was, for quite a long time, far more wide-ranging.
The "ire" is actually quite consistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps now we know where some of our shills and trolls are coming from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change the rules?
We have just learned that staffers on the HJC and staffers from other committees have met and proposed changes to House rules that will allow the to adopt the progressive, inclusive and successful transparency rules used by the the USTR during its recent successful efforts to get ACTA enshrined as an international treaty. The USTR has followed this up with unprecedented transparency, public consultation and efforts to ensure that members of the US Congress can follow the moment by moment progress of the coming TPP agreement.
Rules in the US House of Representatives will be changed to copy this highly transparent, democratic, consultative process beginning Friday, July 13th at 12:01AM EDT.
Beginning at 12:02AM EDT please contact your Senator or Congressman at What_Constitution@WaltDisney.com.
Please remember that we are working for YOU, the citizenry of the United States. Improving legislative clarity, transparency, efficiency and efficacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. They must rush it through before the public and major websites have a chance to act.
2. They must keep the next one even more super secret so the people wouldn't even so much as know its name until it's passed (and I'd bet such a thing is being worked on right now)
As for the democratic will of the people, he and his industry paymasters know full well what our response is, that's WHY they do these backroom deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lamar Smith...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me the money bitches
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811
http://politicalcorre ction.org/blog/201111300004
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]