US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement

from the disgusting dept

The more I end up learning about the US Chamber of Commerce and their blatantly dishonest lobbying campaigns, the worse and worse that organization looks. They seem to have no limits in the depths to which they'll stoop to pass bad legislation that favors some of their biggest supporters. We've pointed out in the past how one of the favorite tactics of supporters of PROTECT IP is to conflate counterfeit drugs with copyright infringement despite the two things being completely different and unrelated. But, as long as supporters of stricter copyright laws can toss in some claims about how "without this, people die!" they can get what they want. So, here's the US Chamber of Commerce putting out a propaganda video about someone who died from bad counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and using that as a reason to support PROTECT IP.

I've said all along that I agree that counterfeit drugs are a real problem (though, it should also be noted that I'm only talking about actual counterfeit drugs, not grey market or parallel import situations -- even though many wrongly lump these together). And I would have no problem with actual efforts to go after real counterfeit drugs. But the fight against real counterfeit drugs is totally unrelated to the issue of copyright infringement, and it's not just cynical, but disgustingly exploitative of the US Chamber of Commerce to use victims of counterfeit drugs to helps pass a law that is really meant to deal with copyright infringement. It's like saying to the woman in the propaganda video, "hey, your friend died to protect Hollywood from having to deal with online innovation." Disgusting. I'm all for stopping fake drugs. But "fighting rogue websites," isn't about stopping fake drugs. It's about helping the entertainment industry block innovation they don't like and don't want to adapt to.

Filed Under: copyright, counterfeits, drugs, protect ip, rogue sites
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Are There Any Politicians Who Know What PROTECT IP Is About? Senator Hutchison Thinks It's About Net Neutrality

from the worse-and-worse-and-worse dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. Last week, we wrote about Mark Lemley sending a letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo about the problems of PROTECT IP, and rather responding about that, Eshoo wrote him back about immigration. Then, we had another story about Senator Kristen Gillibrand receiving a similar letter complaining about PROTECT IP... and she sent back a letter talking about the unrelated "internet kill switch" legislation. And, in the comments to that post, Paul told us about his own letter protesting PROTECT IP, which was sent to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison... and she wrote back about net neutrality:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.

Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.

The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.

Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.

In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Is it really that hard to expect that, when we write our elected officials, they at least take the time to hear what we're saying? It seems like the staffers in these officials offices briefly skim the letters to see if there's a keyword they can hit on (or do they have software for that?), and then send back a form letter related to what they think the letter is about, rather than taking the time to figure out what it's actually about.

Can we actually expect any sort of informed debate and discussion on the serious problems of PROTECT IP when so many of our elected officials don't even seem to know what it is, and most certainly don't seem to want to hear from their own constituents about it?

Filed Under: anna eshoo, copyright, kay bailey hutchison, kristin gillibrand, net neutrality, protect ip

Senator Gillibrand Thinks PROTECT IP Is About The Internet Kill Switch

from the oh-come-on dept

Last week, we wrote about how Rep. Anna Eshoo (whose district covers much of Silicon Valley) is apparently so incredibly out of touch on what PROTECT IP is about (despite it having a huge impact on the economy of her district) that she thought it was really about immigration. We were willing to chalk it up to a busy staffer sending out the wrong form letter, but there's growing evidence that our elected officials simply don't know what PROTECT IP is about at all.

David Segal from Demand Progress was kind enough to pass on that they've been watching the responses from elected officials to letters sent via their form about PROTECT IP and nearly 50% of them seem to be about things totally unrelated to PROTECT IP. Are Congressional staffers really that busy or are our elected officials just clueless?

As an example, they sent over this letter, sent in response to someone who wrote to Senator Kristen Gillibrand protesting PROTECT IP, which, you'll note, has nothing to do with PROTECT IP, but is instead about the "internet kill switch."

Thank you for writing to me with regard to legislation that would give the federal government the authority to turn off portions of the internet in the event of a major cybersecurity incident. I understand your concerns.

In the 21st Century, access to the internet has become an indispensible communication tool and a forum for vigorous public discourse. We have seen the power of the internet leveraged to promote democracy and topple repressive regimes in North Africa. While the internet has become a great tool for good, it has also provided new opportunities for criminals to exploit individuals, disrupt commerce and attack governments. For that reason, Congress and the Administration are working on various proposals to better protect the United States against cyberattacks and cybercrime. This is necessary if we are going to be vigilant against existing and emerging online threats and ensure a coordinated and coherent U.S. approach to cybersecurity. In addition, I have sponsored legislation to foster greater international cyber cooperation and ensure that the United States is working with other governments to address the threats emanating from overseas....

It goes on in that nature, but never once mentions anything having to do with PROTECT IP. It's pretty sad that our elected officials can't even be bothered to understand this bill that so many people are against.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, internet kill switch, kristen gillibrand, protect ip

How The Monkeys & Copyright Debate Explains Why Congress Shouldn't Rush To Approve PROTECT IP

from the it's-not-that-simple dept

This week's episode of WNYC's On the Media might interest a bunch of you (though, hopefully most of you already listen to the show). First off, it has two of my favorite tech/legal commentators on other segments -- Joe Mullin on Righthaven's self destruction and Tim Lee on the "six strikes" agreement (which I still argue is more properly labeled "five strikes," but no one else agrees). And then (blatant self promotion) it has a short segment with me talking about why PROTECT IP is bad news... in which host Bob Garfield does a nice job bringing the story back around to the monkeys and their copyright woes.

The key point that we discuss is that, contrary to what some supporters of PROTECT IP would have you believe, determining what is, definitively, infringing is not as easy as they believe. They keep saying not to worry about PROTECT IP because it "only" applies to "rogue sites," or "sites dedicated to infringing activities." But all of that presumes it's easy to define what is a rogue site. But it's not. And that's proved by the fact that the list of "sites dedicated to infringing activities" put together by WPP/GroupM, with help from Universal Music, Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros., includes tons of perfectly legitimate sites, including the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Vibe Magazine and a bunch of hip hop blogs. It also includes 50 Cent's personal website... even though he's a Universal Music artist!

It's further highlighted by a stroll through history, and a look at the list of things the industry has previously declared as infringing, including the player piano, radio, the photocopier, cable TV, the VCR, cassette tapes, the DVR, the mp3 player and YouTube, among many other things. Frankly, the industry has a dismally poor track record in figuring out what's really dedicated to infringing activities and separating that from what's the next major platform for growth.

And where do the monkeys fit into all of this? Well, as Bob Garfield pointed out, it's this kind of confusion over copyright law, where some people insist that it's simple to understand this stuff, that leads to bad, overly-generalized legislation like PROTECT IP. Either that, or he was making a comment about the simian nature of our elected officials. Or maybe both. Either way, if you want to take a listen, get the podcast here.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, monkeys, protect ip

Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?

from the easy-question dept

We've already covered the white paper written by a bunch of the biggest names in internet infrastructure, explaining why PROTECT IP breaks key underlying elements of the internet. At the same time, we've seen the entertainment industry try to brush off these concerns. However, the guys who wrote the white paper have been speaking up lately trying to get our elected officials to recognize the consequences of passing PROTECT IP as is. But the really funny part is watching the technically clueless MPAA try to brush off these concerns. It's almost laughable. Basically, the MPAA stamps its collective foot, and insists that it couldn't possibly break the internet, and then suggests that "America's technology community" can fix any problems:

DNSSEC was designed to provide consumers with a secure, trusted connection to services like online banking, commercial transactions, and electronic medical records - not to foreign websites operated by criminals for the purpose of offering counterfeit and infringing works. These evolving protocols should be flexible enough to allow for government, acting pursuant to a court order, to protect intellectual property online.... We rely on the Internet to do too much and be too much to let it decay into a lawless Wild West. We are confident that America's technology community, which leads the world in innovation and creativity, will be capable of developing a technical solution that helps address the serious challenge of rogue sites.

Nowhere do they actually respond to the issues raised by Paul Vixie, Dan Kaminsky and others about how PROTECT IP won't just break the internet, but also make it more vulnerable to malicious hackers. Instead, the MPAA seems to be relying on the "but we don't think that'll happen!" argument. And the sad thing is that our elected officials are likely to buy that explanation from the MPAA before listening to those folks who actually helped build the very internet architecture they're about to break.

Filed Under: internet, protect ip, security
Companies: mpaa

Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed

from the but-of-course dept

The world's largest lobbying organization, the US Chamber of Commerce (which thrives off the fact that many people mistake it for a US government body), along with the biggest lobbyists representing the recording and movie industry, have ramped up their efforts to get PROTECT IP approved as quickly as possible. The groups held a conference on Capitol Hill and then began visiting Senators to talk about how much they needed this protectionism, because they're unable to adapt to a dynamic internet where they're no longer the gatekeepers. Who's doing this? Well, along with the Chamber of Commerce, we have NBC Universal, Sony Music and Pictures, Walt Disney Company, the MPAA, the RIAA, News Corp. (watch your voicemails, senators), the National Association of Theater Owners, Warner Music and the American Federation of Musicians.

Basically it's a who's who of those who want to change the internet from a communications platform into a simple broadcast medium that they can control.

And, of course, Steven Tepp, the main guy at the Chamber of Commerce (and a former government official with a history of mocking concerns of consumers when it comes to copyright issues) trotted out totally debunked stats:

"IP-intensive industries are responsible for the jobs of 19 million Americans, $7.7 trillion of our gross output, and 60 percent of U.S. exports."

Note the basic fallacy here. It assumes that "IP-intensive industries" only exist due to stricter IP laws. This is false. In fact, some of the most "IP intensive industries" around, such as the tech industry, are opposed to this law. That the Chamber of Commerce would stoop so low as to include those who are against this law in its argument for why this law should be passed really just highlights the kind of sleazy politicking the organization is famous for.

Either way, there's no doubt (there's never been any doubt) that PROTECT IP was introduced with tremendous support from certain lobbying groups who have tremendous sway in DC. They've actually come up against more roadblocks than they expected, but they're not going to let that stop them. This is the first stage of the endgame to get the law passed. To be honest, I'm surprised they've even had to go this far, because from the beginning it looked like they had the easy support. The fact that they felt the need to break out this little stunt shows that the opposition to PROTECT IP has actually drummed up enough noise that some politicians are concerned about the very real unintended consequences of the law.

And while politicians may be confused and send back the wrong form letters, don't let that stop you from at least making your voice heard. The folks at DemandProgress (with whom I have no direct connection, even if the MPAA will claim otherwise) have set up an easy form to use to make your voice heard. The EFF has set up a similar form. Both of these let you edit the form and say what you want, and making an impassioned and reasoned (and calm) argument in your own words is much more powerful than just submitting the form letter. Of course, the entertainment industry has set up its own form letter generator too -- but it's completely uneditable. In their world, creativity from the people is not allowed. Only the big industry gatekeepers are allowed to be creative.

Filed Under: lobbyists, protect ip
Companies: chamber of commerce, disney, mpaa, nbc universal, news corp., riaa

Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Silicon Valley!) Thinks PROTECT IP Is About Immigration?

from the well,-it-does-involve-ICE... dept

Last week, we noted that a bunch of law professors (at final count, 108) signed on to a letter to every member of Congress highlighting problems with PROTECT IP. One of the key authors of the letter was Mark Lemley, the respected lawyer and Stanford law professor, who is one of the leading voices on this and related issues. He, of course, sent the letter directly to his own elected official, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who represents a large part of Silicon Valley, and thus should be one of the Congressional Reps leading the charge against this horrific bill -- especially since a bunch of VCs (many of whom live and work in her district) have pointed out that if this goes through, they'll fund less innovation in her district.

In other words, this is an issue that Eshoo should be front and center on. Unfortunately, the only Silicon Valley Rep. who has actually bothered to pay attention and speak out against this has been Rep. Zoe Lofgren, from a nearby district. I've really been quite disappointed that none of the other Silicon Valley Reps, including Eshoo, Jackie Speier and Mike Honda, have spoken up about this awful legislation. But, it's even worse than that when it comes to Eshoo. In response to Lemley's letter, Eshoo appears to have responded to a totally unrelated issue: immigration:

"I do share your concerns about illegal immigration and have consistently supported legislation to strengthen our Border Patrol. Our immigration system is in dire need of reforms. This is a national security issue and an economic one as well. We have porous borders and illegal crossings which make us vulnerable on the security front. We have heavy backlogs to process those waiting to become citizens (years-worth) in a system that is highly strained, lengthy and inefficient. There are, as you know, 10 to12 million people in our country without legal status. Each of these issues represents a critical problem which must be addressed and I think they need to be taken up comprehensively to overhaul the system.

While I agree that more needs to be done to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into our country, I shall continue to vote against legislation that in large part places unnecessary burdens on individuals who have legally immigrated to the U.S."

Oops. Now, in our discussions about Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) group's Operation In Our Sites effort to seize domain names without due process and under very questionable legal theories, many people have asked: what does immigration have to do with copyright? The ICE folks and their supporters note that one of ICE's mandates is to keep counterfeit products out of the country, and the group has stretched and twisted that mandate into believing it now can run roughshod over any intellectual property issue, no matter how little it grasps the legal details. So perhaps in some twisted way, folks in Eshoo's office think that PROTECT IP is an immigration issue? Or we can go with Occam and his razor and assume that Eshoo's people sent back the wrong form letter. Either way, it's not particularly comforting to think that this is the level of concern they put in when a leading voice on a particular issue contacts them about a bill under discussion.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, immigration, mark lemley, protect ip

Why PROTECT IP Will Fail: Cultural Acceptance, Not Fear Of Punishment, Makes People Abide By Laws

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

Lawyer Ron Coleman has a post about the PROTECT IP Act, called "We're all infringers now," that's worth reading. While it covers similar ground to what we've said before, there's one line in there, towards the end, that is absolutely worth highlighting and repeating:

This new proposed law is a terrible way to try to solve [infringement]. Its passage would only drive the culture further yet from any respect for the rule of law as it applies to intellectual property. But if Big IP hasn’t figured out yet that it is cultural acceptance of legal norms, not fear of punishment, that makes a free society a law-abiding one -- if Big IP doesn’t understand what the de facto attitude of consumers regarding copyright has already become, and where it is already going -- then heck, maybe at this point the law professors and the rest of us should just let Congress already go ahead and give them enough rope.

This is the key point that many of us have been trying to drive home for years. It's the same key point that the SSRC report made in pointing out that "enforcement" and "education" are simply not strategies that work. And that wasn't based on theory. It was based on years and years of detailed research. And yet, to the industry and to the government there seems to be only one single tool in the box for dealing with the challenges of infringement: to scare people. But that only works if people are stupid. And we now have plenty of experience in recognizing that people don't culturally accept the claims of the industry on this issue, and no amount of threats and punishment are likely to change that.

Filed Under: cultural acceptance, laws, protect ip, punishment

Senator Jerry Moran Removes Himself As A PROTECT IP Co-Sponsor

from the good-for-him dept

As the march to pass PROTECT IP has continued, Senator Patrick Leahy has been able to bring on board some additional Senators as "sponsors" of the bill. However, at least one may be having second thoughts. SD points us to the news that Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas came on as a sponsor on June 23rd... but then withdrew his sponsorship four days later on the 27th. I have no idea if this was an error or if Senator Moran realized that this bill had serious problems. I have a request in to the Senator's office for more info and will update this post once we know more.

Filed Under: jerry moran, protect ip

Smear Campaign Ramps Up Against Those Who Believe Free Speech Is More Important Than Hollywood's Obsolete Business Model

from the what-innovation-has-the-internet-brought dept

When the entertainment industry got the usual suspects to push the PROTECT IP Act forward, the story around DC was that this bill was a slam dunk. Who was possibly going to resist a bill against evil "rogue" sites that were stealing our jobs and "ideas?" When Senator Ron Wyden put a "hold" on PROTECT IP, we were told by supporters of the bill that this was just a phantom protest and the bill was going to pass easily. It might still... but, it appears that some are beginning to get worried. After all, since the bill came to light, the complaints against it have been pretty clear and pretty loud -- and not from lobbyists, but from the actual people who understand it (much of the "support" from the bill comes from lobbyists).

Indeed, we've seen some of the most well-respected technologists, some of the top funders of innovation, biggest names in the news business and most recently, some of the most respected legal scholars all come out against PROTECT IP. And they're not all complaining about one small problem with the bill, but a series of them.

But, still, the folks who support the bill like to cling to the idea that the support for the bill is widespread and strong, and it's just a small minority against it. And, now, they're ratcheting up smear campaign attacks on those who see the problems with the bill. And, of course, Senator Wyden is apparently target number one. Take, for example, this hilariously weak attack on Senator Wyden from something called "The Chilling Report" -- a weak takeoff on "Chilling Effects," which is really a front for MiMTiD, an "anti-piracy" outfit we've written about before, due to it's laughable claim that forwarding on its takedown notices to sites like Chilling Effects was, itself, infringing (it's not). It appears that MiMTiD's John L. DuPuis is no fan of Senator Wyden, though, you won't get a coherent explanation of why from the blog post. But let's tackle some of the nuttier claims.

Of course the Rhode Island Senator [Sheldon Whitehouse] was referring to the total destruction of U.S. intellectual property over the past ten years.

Hyperbole much? Considering that actual research has shown greater creative output than ever before, how can anyone make such a claim with a straight face? If anything has been destroyed, it's the credibility of John L. DuPuis. "Intellectual property" continues to be created at record levels. Now, DuPuis might be just sloppy, and he could actually mean "intellectual property laws," even if he left off the "laws" part. But even then the statement doesn't pass the guffaw test. Over the last few decades, all we've seen are those laws (specifically copyright, since that's what we're really discussing) tilted further and further in favor of one party (and not the party that copyright laws were most designed to benefit). The 1976 Act was a massive expansion of copyright law. Add to that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the DMCA, ProIP and a few other changes here and there and all we've seen is the continuous expansion of copyright law.

The most vocal opponent of new common sense legislation by Congress is Senator Ron Wyden.... His views concerning the Internet are the most pernicious for copyright holders today

"Common sense" legislation is not legislation that censors free speech, puts liability on unrelated third parties, messes with the DNS system and is wide open to massive abuse. Seriously, DuPuis, just because you call something "common sense" legislation, that doesn't make anyone who understands the bill suddenly believe it. The bill is seriously broken.

Furthermore, Wyden's views are not at all "pernicious" for copyright holders today. He appears to actually understand the unintended consequences of something like PROTECT IP and has no interest in dealing with the fallout. Considering how many wonderful things the internet has created for "copyright holders" today, and Wyden's main concerns being that such innovations will continue to be able to be made and to spread, I'd argue the exact opposite of what DuPuis has said here. It seems like Wyden is looking out for copyright holders, by making sure that new laws don't prematurely kill off or slow down the sorts of innovations that have made it possible for content creators to thrive like they never have in the past.

Wyden’s criticism attempts to make it seem so dishonorable as he attempt to vilify members on the Judiciary Committee, who are unanimously in favor of tough new oversight. Wyden’s concise use of the age-old political ploy of invoking the language of Political Idealism has the desired impact on the misinformed and weak-minded. When reading Wyden’s idealistic and negative view of new Internet oversight many will say, “...How could anyone be against free speech?” Others will probably cry out, “That’s un-American for god’s sakes...” Of course everyone knows no fair-minded American could be against any of the basic tenants of a free society, free speech, and an unfettered open Internet. I would venture to say that we are all against giving licenses to foreign regimes to sensor the Internet. But of course that’s not the issue here. The issue is not, as Wyden would have you believe, stifling free speech or tearing down the foundations of the Internet. The issue is how to maintain an environment where pirates can continue to assault rights holders while some make billions of dollars ripping off content of legitimate rights holders.

I have to admit that I read this paragraph a few times over, and I'm not quite sure what DuPuis is really trying to say here. I saw no attempt by Senator Wyden to vilify the Senate Judiciary Committee (I, on the other hand, am happy to do so, but to claim that Senator Wyden did seems strange). The rest of the paragraph comes off as a "the lady doth protest too much" sorta thing. He goes on and on, sarcastically mocking the idea that free speech might be important, while failing to explain how the concerns raised by Senator Wyden and many others about free speech have not been shown to be false by any measure.

New legislation, in the view of the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee members, would put common sense remedies in place to stop the massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth from the United States.

Ah, once again, with the "common sense" claim. Maybe if you repeat it enough times someone will believe it.

Instead Senator Wyden releases a statement May 12th, 2011 referencing the Protect IP Act where Wyden chooses whimsical metaphorical references like “bunker busting bombs” and “strategic guided missiles” in referring to elements of the COICA legislation he opposes. Could these references be anymore misleading about the true intent of the responsible members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Could the choice of such incendiary references, which are carefully composed by member’s of Wyden’s staff, tell us more about Wyden’s true intentions than his assertions that innovation will be stifled or trampled free speech? In my view it had nothing to do with any of those assertions, but instead more to do with the preservation of Wyden’s own political future.

I think those statements show the exact intent of Senator Wyden: to point out that the bill is written in a broad way such that the impact will be felt way beyond the targets, and that the collateral damage will be severe. This is not a hypothetical. We've already seen that similar interpretations of existing US law for US sites (PROTECT IP is targeted at foreign sites) have taken down protected free speech, seizing tons of websites without due process. Furthermore, while folks keep insisting that this law will only be used against the "worst of the worst" "rogue sites," we've also seen that Universal Music seems to define "rogue sites" as popular hip hop magazines and blogs -- and even the personal site of one of its biggest stars. And DuPuis really thinks Senator Wyden is out of line for questioning the broad reach of the law?

After ten years of Safe Harbor protection crafted and set in place to protect intellectual property but also to provide protection for technological innovation, what do we have to show for it? What we have now is a nearly bankrupt record business, Mainland China running on stolen U.S. software and thousand of websites dedicated to copyright infringment.

Correction: there are some record labels that are nearly bankrupt, but the music business is thriving at unheard of levels. And, with new business models and new revenue streams, combined with innovative new tools for creation, promotion, distribution and monetization, musicians are actually making more money than ever before. Damn those facts. As for China "running on stolen software," various reports and studies have shown that the infringement rate in China has actually helped Microsoft, by keeping much of the country on its platform rather than moving to open source alternatives. In fact, Microsoft has admitted as much in the past.

So what innovation resulted from the Safe Harbors? By far the most notable has been Google, Facebook, Farmville Games, and Pandora, which are Internet darlings at the moment.

And this is the part that should just make you burst out with laughter. Yes, those are the only innovations. Pick and choose, much? You know what other innovations have come from those safe harbors? iTunes, eBay, Bandcamp, Kickstarter, Eventful, TopSpin, SoundCloud, TuneCore, SongKick and a ton of other awesome tools for creating, promoting, funding, distributing, connecting and monetizing.

However, the protections provided by the Safe Harbor has also resulted in the loss of billions and billions dollars and hundreds of thousands of American jobs here at home. So while these new and incredible technical innovations like Facebook and Pandora are celebrated as Internet wonders, the U.S. continues to have its intellectual treasure dished out to the rest of the world in the name of free speech.

Seriously? What "billions and billions of dollars" have been lost? Nothing's been lost. If you look at the actual economics, you see that the music industry has continued to grow all this time. Yes, some of the money has shifted around, and more of it is going to the actual creators, which may put some gatekeeper middlemen out of work, but that's how disruption works. And most of us consider that a good thing. And, in the meantime, if you seriously wants to pretend that the recording industry has "lost" more jobs over the past decade than the internet has created, you've got bigger problems than just getting the latest bad law approved.

Now let’s take a little closer look at Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-Oregon) point of view. His continuing diatribe concerning potential freedoms lost is tiresome and for the most part ridiculous. His references to “…given license to foreign regimes to further censor the Internet for political reasons,” seems a bit out of touch to me as I watch events of the “Arab Spring” develop on my flat screen T.V. Just for the record, when “oppressive regimes” do what they do to “oppress” they usually do so without paying much attention to the finer issues of freedom of the Internet. As we have seen in China, which incidentally is the recipient of most of our intellectual wealth, is oppressive but ironically China has profited greatly due to inaction United States Government.

Apparently DuPuis is unfamiliar with the State Department's own claims of wishing to support internet freedom around the globe, relying in large part on the US's record on free speech to do so. Taking a step back from that with a bill designed to censor websites is already providing regimes in India, China and other countries with an argument to justify their own (much more draconian) censorship regimes.

Today in China forty-three percent of elementary age students aspire to become computer hackers then march valiantly into cyberspace looking to steal more and more American intellectual property.

I'm not even going to ask what orifice the 43% number came out of. But even if that is true, I have to question what that has to do with PROTECT IP. As defenders of the law keep insisting, under PROTECT IP, these rogue sites would still be available outside the US. So this law would have no impact on these hordes of Chinese hackers.

I can’t help but think Senator Wyden should put his country’s survival before the needs of his misinformed and misdirected constituents. He should step up and do what is right. He should stop immediately in his attempts to “gut” every effort made by Congress to clean up the Internet and secure the rights of those who own intellectual property.

Wait, what?!? His "country's survival"? Is DuPuis really trying to claim that the country will collapse without PROTECT IP? It won't. Second, like all good politicians, Senator Wyden is listening to his constituents, but he's also doing what's right. Believe it or not, the two can be the same thing. In this case, he's paying attention to a very real risk to the technical structure of the internet and the basic framework of free speech in America.

Tragically, nowhere does DuPuis even bother to try to respond to those claims. And that's probably because he can't. The technologists who understand how the internet works have already weighed in and pointed out PROTECT IP breaks the internet. The investors who funded massive amounts of innovation online have weighed in and pointed out that PROTECT IP will stifle investment into new innovation. The lawyers and law professors who helped shape the laws that make sure that free speech is preserved online have weighed in and pointed out that PROTECT IP will hinder free speech. It seems like Senator Wyden is on the side of what's good and what's right here. The real question is why aren't the other 99 Senators lined up behind him?

Filed Under: john l. dupuis, protect ip, ron wyden
Companies: mimtid