State Department Can't Take An Official Stance On SOPA Yet, So There Isn't One

from the okay,-let's-kill-this-off dept

An article by Carl Franzen over at TPM notes, correctly, that contrary to what many SOPA supporters have been insisting, the State Department has taken no official stance on SOPA. This is not a surprise. SOPA supporters lean heavily on that letter that Hillary Clinton sent to Rep. Howard Berman saying that IP enforcement and free speech were compatible goals. However, that letter was written before SOPA came out, and makes no reference to SOPA itself. As we noted at the time, what Clinton says is pretty meaningless as well. It's quite easy to see how IP enforcement can conflict with free speech rights -- it just depends on how it's done. To take an extreme example: if a law was created that shut down all blogs to stop copyright infringement, I think everyone (even SOPA supporters!) would agree that's a form of IP enforcement that also violates free speech. So the devil is very much in the details. And Clinton's letter doesn't discuss the details.

And there's a really good reason for this: it would be a massive breach of protocol for a federal agency to speak out about a bill prior to the White House taking an official stance on the bill. I mean, a huge breach. This is not something that federal agency bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. They likely do have internal positions, and will express their opinion to the White House (and to some in Congress), but they simply won't make a public statement until the White House has made its own position clear. And, in fact, as we've reported, we've heard from multiple sources that many, many people within the State Department aren't against the bill, and have put some pressure on other parts of the government over the bill. But that's different than having an official, public position.

So it seemed odd for Franzen to note that the State Department continues to have no official position... and then use that to suggest that my reporting was incorrect on the subject:

“The Department of State does not provide comment on pending legislation. The Administration is in continual contact with Congress on a broad spectrum of issues, including those related to the Internet and the protection of Intellectual Property. “

The news is likely to come as a frustration to the increasing number of those Web companies, writers and users who have criticized SOPA for being a broad overreach that would “break the Internet” from a technical and user standpoint and severely erode innovation, economic growth and Free Speech.

It’s also at odds with what avid SOPA critic and knowledgable IP writer Mike Masnick of Techdirt reported in late December 2011, writing: “Much of the State Department is strenuously opposed to the bill, knowing darn well that it would do significant harm to their efforts to push internet freedom and openness around the globe.”

I don't see how the two things are at odds. The State Department simply can't (as it notes!) make a public statement on pending legislation. But that doesn't mean that many people (and people in power) within the State Department are very much against the bill, and recognize that it would harm their "Internet Freedom" programs abroad. There isn't a public statement in either direction, not because the State Department's position are "at odds," with either view, but because the State Department won't make a statement on any pending legislation publicly, at least until the White House has made its position clear.

But having lots of people internally at State not happy with SOPA/PIPA is not "at odds" with the State Department not saying anything publicly beyond broad platitudes about the importance of both free speech and intellectual property.

Filed Under: internet freedom, pipa, protect ip, sopa, state department

Co-Chair Of Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus Says SOPA Would Interfere With Online Security

from the more-and-more-opposition dept

The opposition in Congress against SOPA continues to grow. The latest is a big one: the co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, Rep. Jim Langevin, has come out against SOPA, stating his fears that the bill would negatively impact "security and openness" online. He noted that it "would interfere with efforts to increase transparency and security online" and specifically noted that it would undermine DNSSEC and similar efforts that "help increase trust online."

Filed Under: congress, cybersecurity, dns blocking, jim langevin, pipa, protect ip, security, sopa

Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters... Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA

from the but,-of-course dept

While the debates about SOPA/PIPA have been raging all over the internet, and appearing regularly in all sorts of mainstream newspapers, they still have been almost entirely absent from TV news. We've discussed this in the past, noting that the major TV news players are all owned by media conglomerates who have been major backers of SOPA/PIPA. There was some indication that cable news was starting to pay attention... but things have gone quiet since then (perhaps upper management sent out a memo...).

The folks over at Media Matters decided to check in on this and have confirmed that the big TV news players have almost entirely ignored it, despite the widespread controversy found elsewhere in the mainstream press:

As the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) makes its way through Congress, most major television news outlets -- MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have ignored the bill during their evening broadcasts. One network, CNN, devoted a single evening segment to it.

The report does note that there have been articles online... but very few TV segments. It also discusses how much attention SOPA/PIPA is getting, concerning all the companies who have come out against it, the media coverage in the NY Times among other places, and the big GoDaddy flip-flop -- to highlight that this is a big story making waves.

Despite all of this, the response from American television news outlets has been to almost completely ignore the story during their evening programming. The lone exception was a segment on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer in December, during which CNN parent company Time Warner's support for the legislation was not disclosed. (Though Fox News Channel has apparently not touched the story during evening programming, conservative/libertarian host Andrew Napolitano has run several segments vocally opposing SOPA on his program, which runs on the separate Fox Business Network.)

It's postulated that perhaps the issue is the fact that SOPA/PIPA don't fall along easily scripted left vs. right lines:

The fight over SOPA does not fit into the usual left vs. right narrative that occupies so much of the political horserace coverage with which TV news outlets fill their schedules. The cosponsors of SOPA come from both sides of the aisle. Likewise, the most vocal opponents of SOPA in Congress are an ideologically diverse bunch, including Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Darrel Issa (R-CA).

Either that... or the corporate folks upstairs don't want to allow this to become an even bigger story.

Of course, as I was writing this up, Tim Cushing was writing up the same story (coordination, people, coordination!), with an alternate theory -- which makes sense too. So, everything below the line is his read on the situation:

---

Tim Cushing's analysis: Gray areas seldom make compelling news, especially when there's no political angle to take. Beyond that, I think the mainstream media silence is also explained by the outdated thought process that still believes that the Internet Is Not Real.

First and foremost, the evening news is generally a broad overview of the days' happenings. Not only do they not have the time to delve into an issue that mainly affects an "ethereal" service like the web, but they also (ignoring any corporate bias for the sake of argument) have no interest in doing so. The cliche that "if it bleeds, it leads" likely eliminates a war that involves a bloodless dismantling of the internet. The internet is generally trotted out only as an example of how things are bad (online bullying, etc.) or how things are cute/weird (any crossover meme that can be easily brought up, discussed and dismissed forever in less than 60 seconds).

Even though many news teams invite you to follow them on Twitter or Facebook, the connection seems to go no further than that. The percentage of the population that still relies on the evening news to get them caught up on the world is unlikely to care about legislation that affects the internet.

In essence, the internet is still treated like some sort of fad infested with tech-y nerds and thus can be safely ignored when dealing with Real Issues on the nightly news. This attitude is pervasive, both within content companies and among our representatives. The gatekeepers pushing the legislation need the internet as much as it claims it needs them, but they want their own internet, one closer in spirit to The Village than the Wild West.

Our legislators are still amused by their own lack of internet prowess, indicating that they still believe the web to be some sort of "outlier" whose opinions can be easily dismissed. It's a cognitive gap, but it explains why the mainstream TV news so willingly ignores SOPA and the building momentum of its opposition: it's just the internet. It can be either humored or feared, but never respected.

Filed Under: copyright, coverage, journalism, networks, pipa, protect ip, sopa, tv

'Nerds' Finally Get Their SOPA Hearings Over Technical Impact... But Not At The Judiciary Committee

from the good-to-see dept

While Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee still have refused to hear from the actual technology experts, Rep. Issa has now scheduled a SOPA-related hearing... in his House Oversight Committee, and it will finally allow tech experts to speak about the technological impact of SOPA. It's a good list of speakers including: famed security researcher Dan Kaminsky (who co-authored the paper about problems of SOPA with Paul Vixie and others), Stewart Baker (former DHS/NSA top official, who has warned about SOPA harming internet security), Dr. Leonard Napolitano (from Sandia National Labs, who also warned about the security problems), Michael Macleod-Ball (from the ACLU). And representing the startup world, we've got Brad Burnham (from Union Square Ventures -- probably the most sought after VC firm for startups today) and Alexis Ohanian, the entrepreneur behind Reddit, Hipmunk and Breadpig, and who has been an outstanding advocate for why SOPA is dangerous. Think of this as the hearing that Lamar Smith didn't want you to hear. Update: Reasonable point in the comments: this hearing is extremely one-sided as well. Perhaps that's fitting "counter-balance" for the pro-SOPA hearing that the Judiciary Committee held, but it still would be nice to have at least some "pro-" voices on the hearing. Of course, can you think of an actual, respected technologist who is in favor of SOPA? Yeah... didn't think so...

Filed Under: alexis ohanian, brad burnham, cybersecurity, dan kaminsky, darrell issa, dns blocking, dnssec, leonard napolitano, michael macleod-ball, pipa, protect ip, security, sopa, stewart baker

Rep. Paul Ryan Comes Out Forcefully Against SOPA After Reddit Pumps Up Opposing Candidate

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

This is kind of interesting. You may recall that, last month, when Reddit was casting about for a pro-SOPA candidate to oppose (along with an opponent they could back), for a little while they picked Rep. Paul Ryan. The Reddit community was actually looking for a politician who had supported both the NDAA and SOPA, and originally chose Ryan. This actually turned out to be a mistake, because Ryan did not support SOPA and his campaign quickly pushed out a statement to that effect. However, some of the wheels were already in motion, and Ryan's main opponent for his seat, Rob Zerban, quickly embraced Reddit, and was able to raise $15,000 in just 48 hours for his anti-SOPA position.

And while some had used this story to mock the potentially over-zealous crowd at Reddit... it looks like it did have an impact. Going further than his original statement, saying that Rep. Ryan was not a SOPA supporter, Ryan has now come out strongly against SOPA:

"The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House."

So, it looks like even if they got it wrong initially, the whole effort did certainly (1) make SOPA into a campaign issue for Ryan and (2) lead him to come out with a clear statement against the bill. And, yet, Lamar Smith still thinks there's no real opposition.

Filed Under: campaign issue, copyright, free speech, paul ryan, pipa, protect ip, rob zerban, sopa
Companies: reddit

Did Mitt Romney Just Come Out Against SOPA/PIPA?

from the maybe? dept

At a recent campaign stop, a small business owner asked Mitt Romney for his opinion on SOPA, noting that it would likely kill her business. Romney responded without discussing the bills specifically, but said that he's totally against bills like this that just focus on "stopping bad acts," and that he wants politicians to focus on encouraging businesses to do good things. I don't know if that's an unqualified rejection of SOPA/PIPA, but it sure comes close. He's talking about out-of-touch regulators who've spent their lives in DC, rather than in business, and "all they think about is how to stop business and stop the bad guys," (which does, in fact, describe SOPA/PIPA) but, Romney says, this is just a sign that "they don't like business very much." Indeed. SOPA/PIPA are very much bills that focus solely on trying to "stop bad guys," without taking into account the massive amount of harm that will be done to the good guys -- the companies who are innovating and are creating jobs. Given that he doesn't really discuss specifics, and just talks in generalities about bad regulations and harming business, it's possible that he has no idea what SOPA/PIPA are about, and gave a Generic Politicians'(tm) answer to a question. But hopefully more people will hold him to this, and get him to confirm that he's against these bills.

Either way, with more people asking about SOPA/PIPA, it's definitely starting to become a campaign issue...

Filed Under: business, mitt romney, pipa, politics, protect ip, regulations, sopa

Homework Assignment: Go Talk To Your Representative Or Senator About SOPA/PIPA

from the do-it! dept

We've already discussed how things will work at the end of the month when the Senate comes back into session and Harry Reid tries to put PIPA to a vote. However, as we noted, that only works if enough Senators are convinced to support a plan to move forward with PIPA and approve the first bill to allow an American internet blacklist to occur. That means there are just a few weeks to make sure that Senators are aware of the widespread outrage about these bills, and that they're not left falling for the lies that Hollywood and the bills' sponsors are spreading.

One way to do this is to go see your Senators and your Congressional Reps over the next few weeks. With Congress out of session, it's pretty typical for elected officials to hold "town hall meetings," and it's important for people to attend these sessions and speak up. I know that many people feel apathetic towards elected officials, and don't believe anything said to them will make a difference -- but that's not true. If they're at least hearing about the controversy and concerns enough, at least some will recognize that this bill is not something they want their names associated with and will back off. Unfortunately, these meetings are often scheduled with very little notice, and the standards/requirements to get in vary drastically. Thankfully, folks have been putting together some great resources to help you figure out when these are being held and how to take part.

• The good folks at Reddit are helping to crowdsource info about meetings.
• There's a Meetup.com page listing out known townhall sessions. Again, these often appear with very little notice, so check back often.
• Even without townhall sessions, you can and should reach out to your elected officials about meeting with them to express your concerns. Even if they don't actually take the meeting, hearing from enough people will alert them that there's widespread concern. Internet Freedom has set up a neat forum system, organized by state, that will both highlight when there are townhalls and, more importantly, provide details on how to request a meeting with your Senators. On top of that, it will allow coordination for those who do get meetings to go with a group of similarly concerned residents.
• EFF has a page about in district meetings, why they're important and how to set them up. It also has a one-pager with some basic facts that sums up the problems (pdf).
• Public Knowledge has also put together a quick two-page citizen packet (pdf) that highlights problems with the bills, and includes some "sample questions" that people might want to ask if possible.

Now, as a group of combined concerned citizens, we don't have the lobbying power of Hollywood or the US Chamber of Commerce, but constituent concerns do matter to politicians. They want to get re-elected at some point, after all. There's less than three weeks to make every Senator aware of the damage they're about to do to the internet, to innovation and to the economy if they're not well-informed about this bill. This is a true GoDaddy situation. While there are some efforts to have SOPA/PIPA supporters lose their next elections, all that's really needed is for them to recognize that this bill is bad news, and to refuse to vote to move the bill forward. That can be done, but it requires a lot of people speaking up and making a difference. Hollywood has the easy access, but the rest of us have the sheer numbers and the facts on our side. Let's make that work for us...

Filed Under: congress, get involved, meetings, pipa, protect ip, senate, sopa, town hall

Why Hollywood's Idea Of 'Innovation' Is SOPA

from the regulatory-capture dept

A ton of folks have been sending over Steve Blank's absolutely awesome detailed analysis of why Hollywood can't innovate... and the result is SOPA. It touches on many points we've raised separately, but puts it all together in such a fantastic and comprehensive package. Seriously: just go read it.

It kicks off by noting a key point that we've raised in the past, but which often gets underplayed: the vast majority of movie industry revenue these days comes from pay-per-view TV, cable, satellite, video rentals, DVD sales and online subscriptions/digital downloads. In fact, this is the part of Hollywood's business that it insists is most under threat from infringement. But, here's the thing: if the MPAA had had its way over the last century, none of those things would have existed. It fought tooth and nail against every innovation that resulted in those new and lucrative markets. Blank puts together a great historical list:

• 1920’s – the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can’t compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
• 1940’s – movie studios had to divest their distribution channel – they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. “It’s all over,” complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
• 1950’s – broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn’t compete with paid.
• 1970’s – Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie business and its lobbying arm, MPAA, fought it with “end of the world” hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket.  With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
• 1998 – the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
• 2000 – Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumers to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVRs reignite interest in TV.
• 2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
• Today it’s the Internet that’s going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

But that's just the preamble to his piece. From there, he explains how the industry set itself up to be so anti-innovation -- focusing on regulatory capture to help block innovation. The story reminds me of Andy Kessler's distinction between political entrepreneurs and market entrepreneurs. Political entrepreneurs focus on connections in government to create protectionist policies. Market entrepreneurs ignore all that and just build cooler products. In the end, the market entrepreneurs win, but the political entrepreneurs can disrupt their lives for a while and make it difficult.

But the end result is SOPA/PIPA rather than technology or business innovation:

The SOPA bill (and DNS blocking) is what happens when someone with the title of anti-piracy or copyright lawyer has greater clout than your head of new technology. SOPA gives corporations unprecedented power to censor almost any site on the Internet. It’s as if someone shoplifts in your store, SOPA allows the government to shut down your store.

History has shown that time and market forces provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology is a video recorder, a personal computer, an MP3 player or now the Net. It’s prudent for courts and congress to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.

What the music and movie industry should be doing in Washington is promoting legislation to adapt copyright law to new technology — and then leading the transition to the new platforms.

I actually think Blank underplays this a bit. The MPAA doesn't just have a "copyright lawyer" with more clout than a technology person... it's that the entire MPAA is designed around anti-piracy, with a whole series of execs and staff whose sole job is "content protection" -- not business model or technology innovation.

Either way, I highly recommend checking out the full article.

Filed Under: copyright, crying wolf, history, hollywood, innovation, pipa, protect ip, regulatory capture, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Has Hollywood Hubris Awakened Silicon Valley To The Importance Of Telling DC To Knock It Off On Bad Laws?

from the it's-possible dept

We've talked a lot in the past about how the tech industry frequently ignores what's happening in Washington DC, and takes the attitude that it doesn't want to be involved in policy debates, because folks are busy focusing on actually building companies. However, as we repeatedly learn, just because we want to ignore DC, it doesn't mean that DC ignores us. And that's a problem. It allows others to use the government as a weapon against innovations they don't like. For years, Hollywood has been able to do this successfully -- but, when they push too far, it seems they may awaken a political beast they'd rather not deal with: the geeks. You don't want to make the geeks angry. Yet, that's exactly what Hollywood has done with SOPA/PIPA... and this time, most of the public is on the side of the geeks, because we're all geeks now. We all use these technologies and services. It's why there's widespread public outcry against SOPA, but absolutely no grassroots support for the bill.

Larry Downes, over at News.com, has written up a great article highlighting how SOPA/PIPAhave awakened Silicon Valley to the importance of engaging in policy -- and comparing it to previous battles, like the infamous Clipper Chip fight, which brought us EFF, among other things. It seems that, when clueless bureaucrats push techies too far, they respond in a big way. The real question is whether or not this becomes a sustained thing. Disclaimer: I make a brief appearance in the article, in part because of my involvement with Engine Advocacy, a group which is helping to educate both sides -- entrepreneurs and politicians -- on these issues (and not just about SOPA, but a wide variety of such issues).

Downes asks the right question in wondering if we can keep this up, so it's not just in emergency situations. I sure hope so, and that's definitely part of the thinking behind Engine:

Establishing a permanent counterbalance to old economy interests won't be easy. Engine Advocacy's McGeary acknowledges that incumbent industries who want to reign in technological change are better organized and know every corridor and office on Capitol Hill by heart. So using social media and other technical advantages will be critical to even the odds. "We can't line up soldiers on an open field," McGeary said. "We need to be rangers and use the tools we have to fight a guerrilla war. The facts are on our side; not that that always wins."

Facts win in the long run... but we're hoping to make that long run a lot shorter, and we're hoping we can do it by using the very tools that Congress seems intent on hindering. But, in the end, for any of this to work, it's still going to take a lot of motivated people. Hopefully, the fight against SOPA/PIPA has shown what can be done when enough people do get involved and speak out.

Even more important, however, for the long run, is getting ahead of these issues. We shouldn't just be responding to ridiculous attempts by legacy industries to hold back innovation. We should be proactive in explaining to Congress why innovation is important for the economy and jobs, and why passing bad laws to protect legacy industries at the expense of job creating innovation is a dangerous idea for the economy. It can be done, but, again, it's going to take a lot of people being willing to take part.

Filed Under: clipper chip, dc, pipa, policy, politics, protect ip, sopa, technology
Companies: engine advocacy

PC Gaming Alliance Remains 'Cautiously Optimistic' On SOPA

from the mostly-neutral dept

With the news that the ESA supports SOPA and more and more gaming companies and related organizations coming out with their stances on the topic, I have been reaching out to some organizations that have yet to make a public stance on SOPA. One of these organizations is the PC Gaming Alliance, a trade group dedicated to building up the PC gaming market. With all the piracy that many companies complain about and their efforts to stop it using DRM, online authentication and other forms of validating a legit game, SOPA must seem like a godsend. However, the PCGA states that it is "mostly neutral" on SOPA and PIPA. I was asked to quote its whole statement to avoid being taken out of context, so here it is in its entirety.

Our Stance: The PC Gaming Alliance's position on these two pieces of legislation is MOSTLY neutral, on both pieces of legislation in their current iterations for several reasons:

1) These are both highly contentious forms of legislation; and it's simply too early to tell what the true impacts & implications are really going to be.

2) Several PCGA members belong to other organizations that either are in support of, or opposed to both or either Acts.

3) These Acts are, for the most part, in their infancy. Several indicators point towards both, or either, of them being overturned, being heavily modified from their current instantiation, or even outright not manifesting at all. This makes it difficult at best to endorse either of the Acts in their current forms.

Our Position Statement: The PC Gaming Alliance is always in strong support of protecting Intellectual Property, reducing counterfeit goods, and taking steps towards reducing or eliminating all forms of Piracy. To that end; we're remaining cautiously optimistic that these 2 pieces of legislation will accomplish the goals they're trying to tackle in way that doesn't result in encroaching on other freedoms, or create additional grievances for the consumers and developers they're designed to protect. The PCGA will continue to closely monitor developments on these two pieces of legislation and we'll likely take a more proactive stance based on the outcomes and desires of the majority of our members that we represent in the near future.

Matt Ployhar
(Pres. PC Gaming Alliance)

As Matt pointed out in points numbers one and three, with all the controversy over SOPA and PIPA and their questionable fate in both the House and Senate, this is probably the best stance (short of out right rejecting them both) that any interested party could take. I am glad to see them recognize that fact and that they are willing to stand by it. While Lamar Smith seems confident in SOPA's passage and the perceived lack of opposition, the reality is that SOPA is far from a done deal.

As for point two, this is a wholly different take from the ESA. The ESA has taken the liberty of supporting SOPA for all its members, regardless of the individual member's positions. If we look at the members of the PCGA, we can see that we already have a small variety of outlooks on the legislation. For one, we have Capcom that is happy following the ESA's lead. We have also learned that Epic rejects SOPA in its current form and 38 Studios does as well. So with this early conflict of opinions, it is probably best that the PCGA does not take a firm stance just yet.

However, I would take to task the idea that SOPA and PIPA are salvageable and are anything resembling laws that do what the PCGA hopes they will while not encroaching on anyone's freedoms. Even the OPEN act that has been introduced as an alternative has its own problems. I remain firm in my ideal that any problem with piracy is: First, a business model problem. Companies should do all they can do to mitigate piracy by providing the level of service their customers desire. Valve has shown this is possible and still make a profit. Second, a connection problem. Many customers feel disconnected from the developers of the games they make. If SOPA passes, that disconnect will only become worse as fans of games would be unsure of just how they can express their enjoyment of and excitement for games without being targeted under SOPA's enforcement provisions. Let's hope that more companies take such a "cautiously optimistic" point of view on SOPA while still remaining open to the idea that it may not be the solution they truly need.

Filed Under: pipa, protect ip, sopa, video games
Companies: pcga