White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA

from the speak-up dept

Last week, as part of our trip of startup entrepreneurs, innovators, artists and venture captialists, we were able to meet with senior White House staff about our concerns over the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill that would fundamentally change the regulatory and policy framework of the internet, seriously hindering the ability to create new startups, new jobs and new platforms to help everyone. The White House has not officially taken a position on the bill, but one thing was made clear from the very start of the meeting: the legacy players in Hollywood and at the US Chamber of Commerce were putting a ton of pressure on the White House to support E-PARASITE, despite the fact that the State Department itself is quite worried about the bill, as it would almost entirely undermine all of its efforts to promote internet freedom around the globe.

I'm usually not one to believe in the power of various "online petitions," but since the White House has set up its own petition system, in which 25,000 signatures will guarantee a response, this actually seems like a case where just such a petition would work well. So it's great to see that someone has created just such a petition against E-PARASITE. Of course, technically it should be against SOPA, since the framers of the bill recognized just how silly E-PARASITE sounds, and removed that from the bill after everyone started making fun of them. Still, it's important to push this point home and let the White House know, in no uncertain terms, that the public is against this bill.

And it should be clear, by the way, that it's not just the public. Many people within the federal government are equally worried about this bill, which appears to serve no other purpose than to keep a few legacy players in Hollywood fat and happy, and keep them from having to actually innovate for a short while longer.

The real question, however, is whether or not the Obama White House wants to directly contradict Hillary Clinton and the State Department. Remember, Clinton has become a staunch defender of internet freedom against attempts to censor the internet worldwide. In her speech earlier this year, she noted:

So this is a critical moment. The choices we make today will determine what the Internet looks like in the future.... For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. We recognize that an open Internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground-rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And Internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But its benefits are worth it.

And that's exactly the opposite of the approach being taken by Congress, which aims to put forth a top-down policy of censorship. A top down policy that nearly perfectly mimics the functional nature of the Great Firewall of China. Should the Obama administration go against its own State Department, it will serve to undermine Clinton's long term efforts in pushing internet freedom around the globe. That would be quite a legacy to leave: to contradict one's own Secretary of State who is pushing for greater internet freedom, and impose a system of censorship on the US. Please tell the White House not to take such a drastic measure.

Filed Under: e-parasite, great firewall, internet freedom, petition, sopa, state department, white house

Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan

from the rewriting-the-dmca dept

Defenders of E-PARASITE/SOPA have been going out of their way not just to mischaracterize the arguments against the bill, but now they've reached the point of outright lying. The American Bar Association has an email list for its "IP Section," and recently there was a bit of a debate over E-PARASITE/SOPA, in which the myriad problems and dangers of the bill were put forth. Not one to let an opportunity go by to mislead, Viacom's VP of Intellectual Property and Content Protection, Stanley Pierre-Louis, decided to defend the bill. I'll have more to say about his various points later, but on one key point, he seems to not only be wrong, but at odds with one of the guys who supposedly "wrote" the bill. That is, Pierre-Louis responded to the charges that E-PARASITE is a backdoor to rewriting the important DMCA safe harbors by stating:

The criticism below views SOPA as a “back door” means “with which to bludgeon” innocent site operators by expanding the scope of secondary liability claims and diminishing DMCA protections. Of course, this view largely ignores that SOPA explicitly states that its provisions must not be read to expand or diminish either. And, it doesn’t. The fact that SOPA does not permit sites to take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement merely restates the law as it stands today. There is no rule that permits “willful blindness” of obvious wrongdoing under U.S. law, and nothing in the DMCA or any other statute has been deemed to hold otherwise.

Of course, this is one of the more nefarious tricks pulled by the authors of the bill. In a few different places, right before they totally decimate existing and established law, they put in a little thing that says, "nothing in here changes existing law...," even as the plain text shows that it does.

But, in this case, why don't we go to the source: Rep. Bob Goodlatte, supposed co-author of the bill, and the chair of the IP subcommittee in the House. When asked about criticism of the bill by Gautham Nagesh at The Hill, Goodlatte flat out admitted that the intention is to take away the DMCA's safe harbors:

"I think it is unrealistic to think we're going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision," Goodlatte said.

"Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things."

So, who do we trust? A Viacom exec with a history of trying to stretch, twist and break the DMCA (see: YouTube) by pretending that it requires actions it does not, or the supposed co-author of the bill, whose statements will certainly be used in a court of law down the road. And, if Goodlatte is admitting his intention was to change the DMCA with the bill, why did the bill even include that false claim that nothing in it changes the DMCA?

Filed Under: bob goodlatte, copyright, dmca, e-parasite, liability, secondary liability, sopa, stanley pierre-louis
Companies: viacom

MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized

from the expect-more-like-this dept

Here's a story that touches on a few different issues of importance around these parts. We'll get to the details of the legal ruling in a bit, but the background is really the key part. At the beginning of 2009, a company in Valencia, California, called L&M Optical Disc West, received an order from an authorized partner of the producers of the film Milk to manufacture the DVDs of the film. They began doing exactly that. On February 2nd, as part of a supposedly unrelated police raid, police saw those DVDs and found them "suspicious." They rang up the MPAA who sent over an "investigator," who falsely declared that the DVDs were unauthorized, leading the police to seize them (though, oddly, allowing the private investigation firm to hold them) and to declare to the press that they had found "pirated" DVDs of Milk. This happened despite multiple attempts by L&M staff to explain that they had a legitimate order, even offering to show the "investigator" the details of the order.

The following day, L&M provided the police with all of the evidence that they were authorized to make those DVDs, and the police sergeant told L&M's owner that the DVDs could not be released because they were "pirated." From there, a bunch of press stories followed, with the police repeatedly telling the press that L&M was being investigated for such "piracy," even after the MPAA and the police realized that the DVDs were, in fact, authorized. Months later, however, the press was still quoting the police as saying that L&M was "under investigation" for "piracy."

Because of all of this, L&M claims that customers canceled jobs with L&M and past customers chose to find new partners. It also meant that other vendors who used to send "overflow" work to L&M no longer did so. It effectively dried up much of L&M's business.

If this all seems pretty horrifying, think of how much worse this kind of situation may be about to get. First off, just a few weeks ago, we noted that Governor Jerry Brown in California passed a law that would let law enforcement do more of these kinds of raids but they no longer need a warrant to do so. Yes, despite this massive failure on such a raid, the government now has even more authority to do these kinds of raids, and the MPAA can continue to get away with providing bogus information and effectively killing businesses.

Take it one step further: this is the reason why so many of us are so worried about the new E-PARASITE bill. The MPAA and other copyright holders have a dreadful history and reputation for being inaccurate when it comes to accusing others of infringement. Yet, under E-PARASITE, they get to kill sites dead, without any recourse, before anyone even looks to see if the copyright holder's claim is legit. Doesn't that seem the least bit problematic?

Now, as for the actual case at hand, for which you can read the full decision (pdf and embedded below), it involved the court tossing out a lawsuit by L&M against the MPAA over all of this, using California's anti-SLAPP laws. We're big fans of California's anti-SLAPP laws, and while we find the MPAA's conduct in this situation reprehensible, the ruling actually makes sense. The comments that were the most problematic to L&M in the newspaper reports were not, in fact, made by the MPAA but by the police. If anyone is responsible, it should be the police who made them.

L&M tries to place liability on the MPAA by claiming that the police and the MPAA had a "joint venture" going in these raids, but that isn't supported by the facts. This raid wasn't done at the request of the MPAA, and originally had nothing to do with copyright at all. So, we agree that blaming the MPAA for the comments in the press is improper, as it's misapplied third party liability. Of course, there does seem to be a bit of irony in the fact that the MPAA appears to be working overtime to increase third party liability by undermining the kinds of safe harbors that protect a party from being blamed for the speech of others. However, it's no surprise at all that the MPAA is -- yet again -- too clueless to recognize how its actions undermine its own legal protections elsewhere.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, anti-slapp, defamation, dvds, e-parasite, infringement
Companies: l&m optical disc west, mpaa

US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill

from the not-the-case,-steve-o dept

Steve Tepp is the US Chamber of Commerce's (the world's largest lobbying group) point man on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. His latest move is to try attacking anyone who points out the problems of E-PARASITE/SOPA. First up? Demand Progress, who dared to call it a "blacklist bill." According to Tepp, it's not a blacklist bill, because the lobbyists who wrote the bill (potentially including Tepp himself) were smart enough not to write "list" in the text of the bill.

Of course the bill doesn't actually say that there's a list. Just as the Chinese Great Firewall doesn't actually involve the government "listing" sites, but merely threatens ISPs with liability if they let bad sites through, E-PARASITE massively broadens the definitions of what's "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" such that it now includes, more or less, the entire internet, and threatens sites with the equivalent of internet death: blocking from search engines, blocking from DNS (and more!), cutting off any funding sources. No, there's no "blacklist," there's just the threat of cutting off just about any internet site. On top of that, there's an awkwardly worded attempt to force every site to proactively monitor any infringement. Is that why the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't allow comments on its site? Or is it because it knows that no one actually believes the crap it shovels?

But Tepp's intellectual dishonesty is worse than just pretending that without the word "list" there's no actual blacklist. No, the really cheap move is to imply that only the "anti-IP crowd" is against this bill. This is the latest strategy of those who wish to massively regulate the internet so that it looks more like TV -- a broadcast medium, rather than a communications medium. They refer to anyone who points out the massive negative consequences of their legislative nastiness as being "anti-IP." You've seen it in Techdirt's comments for the past few weeks, with certain anonymous commenters throwing hissy fits about how I'm actually "pro-piracy," when I'm anything but. If you don't think this is part of the coordinated marketing campaign by the largest lobbying organization in the world, you're not paying attention.

So, Steve, let's be clear: being against this bill is not about being "anti-IP." It's about being pro-innovation, pro-internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits of an open internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits to the American (and world) economy that were created from an open internet that didn't involve misplaced third party liability.

The concerns of those about this bill have nothing to do with intellectual property and whether it's good or bad. It's about the collateral damage that such a vast change to the legal and technical framework that the internet has been based on for years will cause.

To brush those concerns away as being "the anti-IP crowd," is to show ignorance of what's at stake.

What we don't understand, Steve, is why you would seek to shut down the open internet, killing off more jobs than ever existed in the entertainment industry. We thought the US Chamber of Commerce was supposed to support small businesses. Instead, you're seeking to make any internet business nearly impossible, unless they've already hired a dozen lawyers. I guess if your goal is for full employment for trial lawyers, you're making headway. But, seriously, if you can't debate this subject honestly, don't be surprised when the next generation of businesses dumps the US CoC. Pro tip: pissing off every company of the next generation that might support your bloated organization is no way to build for the future. And don't think jobs "in the industry" will be waiting for you. Without the next generation of great startups that you're trying to kill off, the big content companies who pay your salary these days, won't have the new platforms they need to succeed.

Filed Under: anti-ip, attacks, blacklist, e-parasite, sopa, steve tepp
Companies: demand progress, us chamber of commerce

An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation

from the misdirection-or-a-step-in-the-right-direction? dept

Dear former Senator Dodd:

It was refreshing to hear your recent speech, in which you suggested that there really isn't a "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" fight, and that the two sides need to work together to help create the ecosystem where both can thrive. It’s hard not to agree with that assertion, absolutely. There isn't a fight between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and there never has been. Every new technology that Hollywood has decried as being terrible has eventually turned out to be a massive boost to Hollywood's profits and ability to make, promote, and distribute its works. If that's a "fight," then it's an odd one, in which we in the tech community keep providing all of the weapons Hollywood needs to succeed... only to see you frequently aim them at your own foot before finally working out how to use them properly.

So when you say, "'those who would pit' Hollywood content creators against those in Silicon Valley who create technology 'in a manufactured conflict more reminiscent of the Beltway chatter I learned to ignore on my last job,'" we in the tech community agree and celebrate that sentiment. The real debate isn't between our two "sides." It's between old and new -- whether there will be a level competitive playing field that enables our country's continued progress and job creation, or a market regulated so as to protect incumbents.

Unfortunately, the timing of your claim and the statement itself were odd, coming as they did on the very same day as some members of Congress introduced SOPA, which the MPAA was heavily involved in crafting. After all, despite numerous attempts to be a part of these discussions, we in the internet industry were denied any opportunity to even look at, let alone provide input on, the draft of a massive bill that would fundamentally change the nature of how the internet functions. As you well know from your decades of distinguished service in government, not circulating drafts of such laws or seeking input from those you seek to restrict and regulate is, to put it mildly, highly unusual.

That certainly did not strike us as being in the spirit of "cooperation" you put forth last week. The day after your comments, a group of us -- venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, artists and innovators alike -- all went to Washington DC to talk to elected officials, to express our grave concerns about the bill. Consider the thoughtful comments of one of us on the trip: Fred Wilson, an investor in Twitter, KickStarter (which has helped artists raise millions of dollars online), Indeed.com (a Texas-based job search engine), and many other services. In discussing the trip, he argues that this bill is the very opposite of cooperation.

At every turn during the trip, we were told that your lobbyists were working overtime to discredit the concerns of us in the internet industry, and to keep us away from the table as you sought to completely upend the legislative framework that allows the internet to thrive. How are we to work together to create all of those wonderful new opportunities for your industry to create, promote, distribute and monetize, if you are fundamentally blocking our ability to do so?

We can't build those tools for you if you restrict us by massively regulating the internet, making it much, much harder for new startups to form or receive investments. A bill like SOPA creates so much liability that it would be impossible for two engineers in a garage to build the next great startup unless they also had a dozen lawyers sitting with them. We can't help the artists and creators who were in our group with the new platforms they rely on, if these new innovative startups don't even bother starting. We can't help the users and participants who want new and convenient and legitimate access to content, as well as ways to make their own content. At the end of the day, both Silicon Valley and Hollywood work best when we focus on creating and providing what our consumers want. So, in many ways, we are in the same business.

I'm happy you can see that there's no conflict. Now, let's prove that by actually working together. If it's true that you believe that there's only a "manufactured conflict" between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, why don't we get together and work this out between us? Prior to this bill being introduced, no one from the internet side was invited to negotiate, or to review the legislation. We suspect the larger internet players would be happy to sit down with you, and can say for certain that the group of us who went to DC last week would be happy to represent investors and startups in such a conversation.

Why don't we start by throwing out SOPA and PIPA and talking about how we in the internet industry can (and already are) building the next set of weapons for you to succeed in the modern world. And let us help show you how to work those weapons, so you don't point them at your own feet first.

Let’s work together not only to help one another, but also to help artists, innovators and entrepreneurs alike. You have an open invitation to come to any of our offices and discuss this whenever you want, or we're happy to meet you anywhere in Silicon Valley, NY, LA or anywhere else in this country where amazing new technology and services are being created. But let's keep the conversation out of Washington DC, so we can focus on getting something done, rather than another round of "manufactured conflict."

Sincerely,

Mike Masnick, Floor64
Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures
Brad Burnham, Union Square Ventures
Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital
Heather Gold, artist/creator
Dennis Yang, Infochimps
Derek Dukes, Dipity (and new stealth startup)
David Ulevitch, OpenDNS
Josh Mendelsohn, Hattery Labs
And the other entrepreneurs, creators, innovators, artists and investors who came to DC last week to express our concerns about SOPA/PIPA.

Filed Under: chris dodd, e-parasite, hollywood, innovation, protect ip, silicon valley, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Go Daddy Supports E-PARASITE Legislation Even Though Its Own Site Is Dedicated To Theft Of Property Under Terms Of The Bill

from the find-a-new-gc,-folks dept

The supporters of the new E-PARASITE Act (the even worse version of the already dreadful PROTECT IP) have been pretty desperate trying to find any "tech" companies to support these bills. It's kind of amusing that the only ones they've been able to turn up so far have been some of the most hated companies around among techies. First, they had Monster Cable go to Congress in support of the bill, without even realizing that in Monster Cable's view, "sites dedicated to piracy" would include eBay, Craigslist, Sears and Costco, among others -- basically proving the point that the broad private right to action in the bill would be massively abused.

Their latest attempt to roll out a "tech company" supporting these bills is equally hated and equally laughable. I know that any time I mention GoDaddy in almost any context on this site, the anti-GoDaddy comments come flying fast and furious. So its reputation in tech circles is already suspect. And while in the past it was skeptical of E-PARASITE's predecessor, COICA, it appears that GoDaddy has been convinced to be the latest "tech company" to talk about why such laws are a good idea. The company's general counsel, Christine Jones, published a laughably misleading op-ed in the paywalled section of Politico. I won't bother quoting it directly, given that I don't want to be accused of circumventing DRM and face having my entire website shut down by an overzealous "notification" to my registrar under E-PARASITE (or merely an ICE seizure).

However, the really stunning thing is that Jones doesn't even seem to understand the bill that she's supporting. Specifically, she doesn't seem to recognize not just the compliance costs it puts on GoDaddy (or maybe she's hoping, as a large player, that GoDaddy is better to withstand the costs, while smaller competitors may go out of business -- but that's a particularly cynical viewpoint). She also doesn't seem to realize that under the bill's broad definitions GoDaddy itself is a "site dedicated to the theft of US property".

That's because among the definitions of a site that's "dedicated to the theft of US property" is this: if the site "is marketed by its operator... for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code." In other words, if you operate a site that enables or facilitates the sale of goods that bear a counterfeit mark... you're dedicated to theft of US property. So, let's take a quick wander over to GoDaddy... and, just for fun, let's see what happens if we try to register the domain Rolex.com. Rolex.com is obviously taken, but... oh wait... what's this... GoDaddy is recommending that I might want to register these other domains that are perfect for infringing sites. Ok. What about gucci.com? Oh look... more of the same: And, how about Autodesk, which has been an aggressive mover against anything that "infringes" on its intellectual property. Yup. It certainly looks like GoDaddy isn't just enabling the sale of goods that bear a counterfeit mark... but it's actively encouraging it. I think a very credible case could be made that, under this bill, GoDaddy is "dedicated to theft of U.S. property."

Yes, GoDaddy's own general counsel is supporting a law that could be used to kill GoDaddy and force it offline. Makes you wonder if she even read the bill. GoDaddy might want reconsider its support of this law until it finds a lawyer who actually understands what the law says.

Filed Under: christine jones, e-parasite, rogue sites
Companies: godaddy

MPAA Kills More Innovation; Zediva Shut Down Permanently

from the what-you-have-to-look-forward-to-under-e-parasite dept

Keith alerts us to the unfortunate and premature death of Zediva, an innovative startup that sought to make it easier for people to rent movies and make money for Hollywood. But in true Hollywood fashion, they killed it -- just like they wanted to kill the VCR a couple decades ago. Zediva, if you don't recall, let people rent movies remotely. It would load them up in a DVD player that you could log into. It legitimately bought the DVDs and used them just as you would at home if you rented a DVD and brought it home. The only real difference here was that the DVD player was at a central location, rather than your home. In a very weird ruling, a court determined that the length of the cord determines if something is infringing.

Such a totally nonsensical ruling should be ripe for appeal... but appeals cost money, and who's going to invest in a company shut down by a court? So, Zediva has capitulated and "settled." MPAA gets to hang another destroyed innovation on its mantle.

If you want to get a sense of the future under E-PARASITE/SOPA: this is it. Except it's even worse. Chris Dodd and the MPAA won't even need to go to court, they can just send a single notice to the payment processor for Zediva, and the plug would be pulled. Dead. Basically, the law would let the luddites at the MPAA simply kill off any new service they don't like or don't understand. And unless those companies have a dozen lawyers at their disposal, they're going to stay dead. Just like Zediva. Another bit of innovation killed by the MPAA. What a legacy the MPAA is leaving behind.

Filed Under: e-parasite, innovation
Companies: mpaa, zediva

US Copyright Office Still Out Of Touch; Supports PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE & Felony Streaming Bills

from the whatever-the-entertainment-industry-wants dept

The US Copyright Office, for years, has remained totally out of touch with the mess that copyright has become, often acting as the entertainment industry's voice within the government. There was some hope that when longtime boss Marybeth Peters finally left, that the Copyright Office would bring in some new blood who might actually recognize how hindering and damaging copyright law is today, and seek to actually help bring copyright law into the modern era. So much for that plan. New boss Maria Pallante has released a new report detailing the "priorities" of the Copyright Office... and its the entertainment industry's two favorite bills: PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE and the felony streaming bill. The full report (pdf) also supports the RIAA bailout bill/performance rights act, also known as the extra tax on radio stations, forcing them to pay to advertise music. While there are a few nods towards things like orphan works, it seems like the Copyright Office is about more of the same failed policies... just ratcheted up further.

In other words, the US Copyright Office remains totally out of touch with what's happening in the world and online these days, and how both of these bills will have massive unintended consequences; criminalizing perfectly reasonable behavior, putting massive burdens on job-creating entrepreneurs and startups, limiting investment into innovation, and fundamentally breaking important parts of the internet. But if it gets a few more dollars into some legacy Hollywood studio's pockets... well, the US Copyright Office is all for that. Sad. The US Copyright Office should be and could be a leader in fixing a broken copyright system. Instead, it appears to want to double down on the failed policies of the past, believing that greater enforcement and harsher punishments for actions done by millions is the answer. Scary stuff, but not surprising.

Filed Under: e-parasite, felony streaming, performance rights, protect ip, us copyright office

Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible

from the do-they-even-know-what-they're-doing? dept

This one is really quite incredible. Among the sponsors of the absolutely dreadful E-PARASITE Act, which imposes massive regulations across the entire internet sector, is Rep. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee. What's odd is that Rep. Blackburn, just a few months ago, went onto YouTube to emphatically explain why regulating the internet was a terrible idea: It's a short video, in which Rep. Blackburn says:

You're probably watching me on a high speed internet -- the same internet that has given us our competitive advantage. You know it took years for innovators and investors to create the online experience that you enjoy today. It really is the highway for all the goods and services and jobs that we need for the creative economy. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. They're right there at your fingertips because of the internet that we enjoy. But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene. But yet this policy, called Net Neutrality is the Obama administrations hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open free and prosperous.

First of all (and I say this as someone who agrees that the administration stretched its mandate with its net neutrality move), what she describes as net neutrality is not what net neutrality is. That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.

Amusingly, this very video is on YouTube, via Rep. Blackburn's official account. If this bill that Blackburn is co-sponsoring was in place as law just a few years ago, it's extremely unlikely we would have YouTube still in existence today. That's because a company -- let's just say "Viacom" -- could decide that YouTube was "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" (under this law -- which includes enabling or facilitating infringement) and could then issue a notice to all payment processors and ad providers, barring YouTube from ever being able to make money. That would have killed YouTube dead. A few years ago. And Blackburn would be stuck.

Instead, Viacom has tried suing, under existing copyright law... and to date the US courts have found that YouTube obeyed the law. And because of that, people like Rep. Blackburn can reach out to her constituents and explain why regulating the internet is bad. But what we can't figure out is, why is she co-sponsoring a bill that actually does massively regulate that same internet?

Filed Under: copyright, e-parasite, marsha blackburn, net neutrality, regulating the internet

New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act

from the please-sign dept

The big entertainment industry gatekeepers have been pushing PROTECT IP and now the new E-PARASITE bill, pretending that it's got the support of content creators. That's why you see bogus grassroots operations pop up, whereby the big gatekeepers, who do everything they can to not pay content creators, pretend that the laws that make them more powerful are actually about protecting artists.

But real artists and content creators recognize that PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE is really about shutting down the innovations and new technologies that have given them more control over their own destiny, a greater ability to connect with fans and many new ways to make money. And that's why they oppose this attempt by the US government to give the gatekeepers more control to hold back artists. A new letter from actual content creators is making the rounds, pointing out that contrary to the claims of the legacy gatekeepers, they do not support censorship bills like PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE, but prefer to believe in the power of new innovation to provide them with more opportunities.

We, the undersigned artists, have all been empowered by the Internet. Today, artists can reach large audiences and make a living because the Internet and digital tools have democratized the means to create, distribute, and promote our work.

We write to you today because we are concerned with S.968, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). Copyright law exists to promote the arts, but the new penalties in PIPA could be used against the new social media channels we depend on to make a living, and endanger freedom of expression.

If you're an artist, please consider signing on.

Filed Under: artists, copyright, e-parasite, protect ip, sopa