Senate Minority Leader McConnell Tells Reid/Leahy To Kill PIPA

from the ouch dept

Looks like the next domino in the SOPA/PIPA fight just fell. Tony Romm is reporting that Senate minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell is calling on Democrats to drop PIPA. That has a high likelihood of killing off what little Republican support is left for PIPA, because where McConnell goes, so go most Republican Senate votes. As we predicted this morning, it's looking like this is becoming a partisan issue -- with the Republicans lined up with internet users... and Democrats lined up with a couple of big Hollywood studios who don't want to innovate. The real shame in that, of course, is that for many, many months, the only person keeping PIPA from moving forward was Senator Ron Wyden -- a Democrat... and it appears his entire party has totally abandoned him. I'm still worried this now becomes a partisan issue, but it's still pretty stunning that Democratic leadership appears to have made a really, really bad calculation on the politics of this bill.

Update: Here's McConnell's official statement:

“While we must combat the on-line theft of intellectual property, current proposals in Congress raise serious legal, policy and operational concerns. Rather than prematurely bringing the Protect IP Act to the Senate floor, we should first study and resolve the serious issues with this legislation. Considering this bill without first doing so could be counterproductive to achieving the shared goal of enacting appropriate and additional tools to combat the theft of intellectual property. I encourage the Senate Majority to reconsider its decision to proceed to this bill.”

Reading between the standard DC political lines... McConnell is making this partisan.

Filed Under: copyright, democrats, harry reid, mitch mcconnell, partisan, patrick leahy, pipa, protect ip, republicans, ron wyden, senate, sopa

Lamar Smith Follows Leahy's Steps With Plans To Delay DNS Implementation In SOPA

from the but-of-course dept

Well this is hardly a surprise given the trial balloons floated on Wednesday and Senator Leahy's announcement yesterday, but Rep. Lamar Smith has now said that, like Leahy, he wants to delay the implementation of DNS blocking within SOPA until it's been "studied." According to a press release:

"After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision. We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers."

Once again... the devil is very much in the details. And, to be honest, Smith technically "removed DNS blocking" from SOPA already. It no longer requires DNS blocking, but merely "reasonable measures" to block access to sites. So, it's not even entirely clear what he means here. Does he mean he'll remove site blocking? Or is he really leaving the document alone since it doesn't have DNS? Either way, it seems clear that the real plan here is to try to delay the controversial part until it's been "studied" and then implement it later...

Filed Under: copyright, dns, lamar smith, patrick leahy, pipa, protect ip, sopa

Senator Leahy Hopes To Rush Through PIPA By Promising To Study DNS Blocking... Later?!?

from the say-what-now? dept

As we noted yesterday, staffers in both the House and the Senate quietly started floating the idea that they would drop the DNS provisions in the bill... in the hopes that maybe it would calm down the growing unrest about SOPA/PIPA. Senator Leahy today made the first official statement on the matter, and it's ridiculous. Rather than drop the DNS blocking, or even hold off on voting on the bill -- both of which would be sensible steps in a much bigger process, he wants to rush the bill through... but ignore the DNS provisions until there's a chance to "study" the impact of them:

As I prepare a managers' amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property, threatening the safety and security of American consumers. However, the bill remains a strong and balanced approach to protecting intellectual property through a no-fault, no-liability system that leverages the most relevant players in the Internet ecosystem.

In other words, pass the bill now... then wait until all the furor dies down... and then we turn on the DNS blocking provisions when no one's paying attention. This is just nasty politics. It's an attempt to ram through everything while pretending to listen to constituent concerns. This lets Leahy and PIPA/SOPA supporters pretend that DNS blocking is no longer an issue in the bill... get the bill approved... and then figure out some way to turn them on later. Ridiculous.

It's incredibly important to let Leahy -- and every other Senator -- know that this is totally unacceptable. If there are big concerns on the bill, and he's suddenly going to release a manager's amendment that no one's seen yet, shouldn't we stop moving forward with the bill, give everyone a chance to digest what it's saying, explore the issues and concerns and then determine if the bill has any merit? Instead, he's still trying to move forward with a bill that has all sorts of problems: it still involves censorship for "information location tools" (just not DNS blocking). It still has a very broad definition for a rogue site. It still has the private right of action that will lead to a ton of lawsuits. There are tons of problems... and punting DNS blocking down the road to shove the rest through is just obnoxious.

Still, this shows that the public outcry has been working. Leahy more or less admits this in his statement:

The process in drafting the legislation has always been an open one in which we have heard from all third parties, and have worked to address as many outstanding concerns as possible. It is through this process that we have gained the support of the majority of third parties who will be asked to take action under the legislation, as well as a bipartisan group of 40 cosponsors in the Senate.

It is also through this process that I and the bill’s cosponsors have continued to hear concerns about the Domain Name provision from engineers, human rights groups, and others. I have also heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue. I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it.

That first paragraph is ridiculous. PIPA drafting has not been open at all. Traditionally such bills are widely shared with others, including those who oppose. PIPA was not. Traditionally, hearings are held for controversial bills. No hearings were held on PIPA. The tech community has repeatedly reached out and offered to be a part of the discussions... and it was ignored.

That said, the fact that he's "heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue" shows that the grassroots effort -- with many people calling, emailing and visiting the Senator, are having an impact. But it needs to continue -- and even amplify. Senator Leahy needs to know that this is not a reasonable solution. He needs to know that if there are concerns with the bill, we should wait band not rush it. He needs to know that if he's making last minute changes, he should be sharing those with the outside world -- who he claims is a part of the process... and let them comment on the bill.

Hell, he could just look at the Wyden/Issa alternative bill, OPEN. Whatever you think of the OPEN Act, the backers of that bill need to be commended. They put the bill up on the web and made it editable by all, so that anyone and everyone could be a part of the feedback process. That process has been ongoing, and out of that process, a final bill will be drafted. Why wouldn't Senator Leahy do something like that? Why wouldn't he slow down, let everyone explore the bill? If he's really serious about wanting to hear from everyone on the bill... why rush it through without hearing from anyone (except, we imagine... some lobbyists).
Filed Under: copyright, dns blocking, patrick leahy, pipa, protect ip, punt, security, study

Senator Leahy Praises US Gov't Censorship Of Websites As ICE Takes Another Victory Lap

from the they-live-in-an-alternate-reality dept

It really would be kind of funny to watch the US government congratulate itself for censorship of websites if it wasn't just kind of sad. At a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on intellectual property issues, Senator Patrick Leahy (top 3 campaign contribution sources: lawyers, entertainment industry, lobbyists -- you can't make this stuff up) praised administration officials for censoring websites based on questionable accusations from an entertainment industry who seems to think that their own content creators are running "pirate" websites.

Of course, Leahy apparently doesn't recognize the irony of condemning internet censorship in other countries while praising it at home when it benefits his biggest campaign contributors.

The same hearing gave ICE assistant director Erik Barnett one more chance to declare victory, though I note with some amusement that the text of Barnett's speech this time leaves out the bogus claim that no sites are challenging the seizures. Apparently he's realized that some people might call him on it when he blatantly misrepresents reality.

Either way, none of this dog and pony show is much of a surprise. You certainly wouldn't expect Senator Leahy to call one of the people who had their sites illegally seized to hear their side of the story. I mean, that might be embarrassing to actually hear that there's more than one side to this. He might have to hear about how the content creators themselves sent the content in question to these sites, and how the ICE affidavit to seize them misstated the facts of whether or not the content was infringing. He might have to hear how ICE didn't even ask the actual copyright holders, in most cases. He might have to hear how ICE doesn't seem to understand the technology, and doesn't seem to understand the difference between linking and distribution. He doesn't have to hear about how hardworking people who helped promote new artists and build their careers now live in fear of their own government. He doesn't have to hear about how these people are afraid to speak out, because the Justice Department has told them that if they do, they may face criminal charges.

No, it's easier to put on a show and pat yourself on the back for censoring those people and pretend that you've done something productive.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dhs, domain seizures, erik barnett, free speech, ice, patrick leahy, victoria espinel

Senator Leahy Supports Bringing Drugs In From Canada... And Also Banning Such Sites From The Internet

from the confused-isn't-he? dept

In the latest bit of evidence that Senator Patrick Leahy, who is the official sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act, doesn't even understand what it is he's proposing, the folks over at DemandProgress are pointing out a massive contradiction in two separate bills that Leahy has introduced. First, of course, we have the PROTECT IP Act, which pharmacies like Eli Lilly are cheering on because they know that it can be used to block access to foreign online pharmacies (mainly in Canada) that Americans frequently use for parallel import or re-importation of drugs at more reasonable prices. Of course, Eli Lilly won't come out and say that directly, but the fact that they hype up the key point that this bill will encourage search engines and others to take "voluntary action" makes it pretty clear that this is what they likely mean.

No one denies that actual fake drugs are a real danger. But too many in both the pharma industry and among our politicians never separate out fake (and often dangerous) drugs from either generics or parallel import drugs that are just as effective, but often much, much cheaper. While government officials will insist up and down that their only concern is with the actual fake drugs, what's noticeably missing from this bit of legislation is anything that makes that point clear -- meaning that search engines and others who don't necessarily understand the difference may feel pressured to block those legit online pharmacies. Which, of course, would make the big pharma firms like Eli Lilly quite happy.

So what's the contradiction? Well, at the same time that Leahy is sponsoring the PROTECT IP Act, he's also a co-sponsor of the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act which is designed to expand the ability of Americans to import cheaper drugs from elsewhere. Yup, so just as he's sponsoring a bill to allow more people to get cheaper drugs from Canada, he's also sponsoring a bill that will make that much, much harder.

Filed Under: canada, drugs, parallel import, patrick leahy, protect ip, reimportation

Senator Leahy Wants To Update Digital Privacy Law; Some Good, Some Bad

from the well,-it's-a-start dept

For years, there have been discussions in DC about how we need an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which was put in place in 1986 -- way before most people even thought about electronic communications. Much of ECPA was woefully out of date, especially when it came to content stored on remote servers. Senator Patrick Leahy has finally introduced a bill that would update ECPA, and in typical DC fashion, there are some good things in there, but plenty of bad things as well. The key points are that it would require warrants for searches of email and other electronic communications.

There's been debate on this for years, with some (mainly on the side of law enforcement) arguing that the "third party doctrine" meant that emails stored on third party servers were not subject to 4th Amendment hurdles (probable cause, warrant, etc.). To make matters more confusing, courts have issued very mixed rulings on the matter. The new Leahy bill tries to make it clear that accessing such email requires a warrant. That's a good thing.

The new bill would also require that those, whose content was accessed, be notified within three days and that they be given a copy of the warrant. There is a 90 day exception, in specific cases where disclosing the info would "imperil" an ongoing investigation or the ever popular, if overly vague, "national security." Another bit of good news: the law would cover location data from a phone or device -- something law enforcement has often tried to access without warrants.

The concerns about the bill, however, are focused on the fact that it offers an exemption, so long as law enforcement claims that the mater is one of "cybersecurity," which is, again, broad and vague and seems like the sort of "exemption" that will be used as a matter of course. There are also concerns that the bill does not include transparency in the form of reporting requirements, detailing how often these searches are done.

ECPA definitely needs updating, but it should be updated properly and without huge loopholes.

Filed Under: ecpa, email, patrick leahy, privacy

Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA

from the let's-define-this-more-clearly dept

As expected, Senator Patrick Leahy, who continues to be Hollywood's favorite Senator, has made it clear that he's going to reintroduce the COICA censorship bill, and he appears to be completely ignoring the very real First Amendment concerns that people have been raising by saying:

"There's no First Amendment right that protects thieves. It protects speech."

Seeing as he's a Senator, it would help if he were familiar with the law. As such, he would know that (1) copyright infringement is not "theft," and (2) yes, the First Amendment protects all kinds of speech, even speech made by criminals and (3) the Free Speech issues that many of us are concerned with are the takedowns of legitimate non-infringing content, which we've seen happen repeatedly by Homeland Security -- which is the type of program Leahy is looking to expand with COICA.

It's immensely frustrating that someone like Senator Leahy would flat-out mislead over these very serious concerns. Though, of course, I have some ideas why. Perhaps the fact that Time Warner and Walt Disney are the two largest contributors to his campaign, and Vivendi (owners of Universal Music), General Electric (until recently owners of Universal Studios) and Viacom are not far behind has something to do with it...

Filed Under: coica, first amendment, free speech, patrick leahy

Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?

from the ah,-law-making-in-action dept

This is hardly a surprise, but despite folks like Senator Ron Wyden pointing out the massive problems with Senator Patrick Leahy's COICA bill, Leahy intends to push forward with it. What's amazing is that he even seems to admit that there's no real evidence that it's needed. In his remarks pushing COICA, Senator Leahy noted:

"Copyright piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost the American economy billions of dollars annually and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. That is why inaction is not an option, and we must pass online infringement legislation in this Congress before rogue websites harm more businesses, and result in more lost jobs."

"Are reported?" By whom? Not the US government, who a year ago noted that all of the studies making those sorts of claims were bogus, and the various studies discussing these claims of "losses" to both jobs and the American economy have been thoroughly debunked. The only people still claiming that such things are factual are lobbyists and legacy industry insiders, who clearly stand to benefit from such laws that can be used to stifle innovation.

If Leahy is going to insist that these numbers are factual, shouldn't he at least have to say where he got those numbers from -- and also avoid relying on numbers from the very industries this law is designed to help?

So, what are the chances that Senator Leahy will put forth the details that prove why he needs to censor the internet to protect a few companies who don't want to adapt to a changing market? Anyone a constituent of Leahy's and willing to ask for specific references to such evidence?

Filed Under: censorship, coica, evidence, patrick leahy

Funny How None Of The Bills About Extending The Patriot Act Seem To Kill Off The Pieces So Regularly Abused

from the actually,-not-that-funny dept

We've already discussed how it appears that Congress is set to extend the Patriot Act with little debate yet again, despite the growing evidence of rather massive abuses of the law by law enforcement officials, with little to no evidence that the law has actually helped. As it stands now, in the Senate there are apparently three competing versions of the extension, and not a single proposal that would actually cut off the highly controversial sections that allow for spying on Americans with little to no oversight.

The three Senate bills kick off with one from Senator Patrick Leahy, which would extend the various provisions until the end of 2013, but would also include a tiny bit more oversight. Then there's a version from Senator Chuck Grassley which gives up on this fake "sunsetting" idea and just says let's extend the provisions permanently without any additional oversight, and let the US gov't spy on Americans with no plan to ever go back and see if that makes sense. Stunningly, Grassley is apparently claiming that "temporary extensions and the threat of oversight would hinder U.S. intelligence agents." Think about that for a second. Apparently Senator Grassley thinks that actually making sure the US gov't isn't abusing the law would "hinder US intelligence." Then there's Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has apparently tried to set up a "middle ground" approach between the other two, where it would extend the provisions until the end of 2013, but wouldn't increase any oversight: Note the ridiculous situation this sets up. Feinstein's bill is technically "in the middle," but it's a middle that's shifted all the way down at the end of the ridiculous spectrum where the only option is to extend these widely abused and not at all necessary provisions.

Meanwhile, over in the House, the new leadership is simply trying to rush through an entirely new bill that will just push off any discussion until next year.

Filed Under: chuck grassley, dianne feinstein, laws, patrick leahy, patriot act, review

Leahy Brings Back Patent Reform Act That Doesn't Actually Fix Any Of The Patent System's Problems

from the here-we-go-again dept

As was expected, Patrick Leahy has announced plans to reintroduce patent reform legislation next week. You can read the full text of the bill (pdf), but it looks pretty similar to what was attempted last year. More or less every year for a while now, Congress has tried to pass patent reform legislation. It comes out in January, with claims from those supporting it that this will be the year where it finally gets approved, and every year it dies. It's also worth noting that every year it's watered down more and more in that attempt to get it approved. It was a bad bill to begin with years back, and gets worse each year. It will do almost nothing to mitigate the actual problems of the patent system, and could do a few things to make them worse. It seems like a waste of time to even go through the motions on this again, knowing that it's likely to end up with the same fate as each failed attempt before.

Filed Under: patent reform, patents, patrick leahy