Patrick Leahy Says TSA Scanners Are Invasive; Will Investigate Them

from the well-that's-a-start dept

We've had plenty of problems with Senator Patrick Leahy on this blog, as his push is to always make intellectual property laws worse, such as with ProIP and now COICA. However, sometimes he does things that deserve kudos, such as his plan to investigate the TSA's new scanners, calling them "invasive." Leahy apparently wants the Senate Judiciary Committee (which he heads) to examine whether or not the machines really make sense. Of course, perhaps we should withhold any kudos until we find out what comes out of that "review..."

Filed Under: patrick leahy, privacy, scanners, tsa

It's January, Which Means Congress Promises Patent Reform That Will Never Come

from the like-swallows-returning-to-capistrano dept

Every January, it seems, we hear proclamations from Congress that this year (no, really!) will be the year that patent reform finally gets done. Of course, each year, when this proclamation is made, what comes out is a bill that is even more watered down than before and which will almost certainly make the system worse, not better. I have no doubt that this year will be more of the same. Senator Patrick Leahy, who has never met a form of intellectual property he couldn't make worse, has announced that patent reform is a priority this year. Chances are it will go nowhere again and that's a good thing. As is noted in the article, more and more politicians are actually recognizing that bad, half-baked, patent reform is worse than no reform at all. That's good. Of course, it doesn't mean that the patent system doesn't need reform, but at least we won't be dealing with patent reform that just makes a big mess even bigger.

Filed Under: patents, patrick leahy, reform

What Else Might COICA Be Used To Censor

from the it's-not-just-the-pirate-bay dept

Earlier this week, I put together a list of some of the technologies that a law like COICA might have banned in the past, noting that when they first came out, legacy industries condemned them as being "dedicated to infringing activities," which is the basis that the Justice Department would get to ban websites under COICA, in some cases with little or no due process. But some people have pointed out that it's worth pointing out some modern technologies that the entertainment industry is still trying to ban via lawsuit, which could potentially fit under the definitions in the law as well. For example:

• YouTube: While Viacom claims it's now okay with YouTube thanks to its ContentID system, if you read over Viacom's filings in the lawsuit, they make it clear that they believe YouTube was "dedicated to infringing activities." It's not hard to see that, if COICA had been around five years ago, there would be no YouTube today.
• Music lockers: As I mentioned recently, I've been playing around with a few music lockers, as a way of storing and backing up my (legal, authorized) music collection, and as a way to access it on the go. I can't see how it's infringing for me to make use of my own music in such a manner, but as we've seen with EMI's lawsuit against Michael Robertson and the MP3tunes locker, some record labels believe such things are "dedicated to infringing activities." Does it seem reasonable that the Justice Department can just block access to a site that lets me store my own music?
• Music search engines: Remember Seeqpod? It was a really useful search engine for music. It didn't store or transmit any music itself, but simply acted as Google. Warner Music and EMI both sued the company, forcing it to declare bankruptcy (and bizarrely, it was just bought by a DRM company). With a law like COICA, it would be even easier for the record labels and their former lawyers in the Justice Department to simply shut down really useful tools like Seeqpod.

And that's just the start. It's not difficult to think of all sorts of services that are coming out these days that are derided by anti-visionary industry lawyers as "dedicated to infringing activities." Do we really want to allow the federal government and a bunch of lawyers to kill off these technologies, without a lawsuit, and without a chance to demonstrate that they do a lot more than help people infringe?

Filed Under: censorship, coica, orrin hatch, patrick leahy, technologies

A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

from the dedicated-to-infringing-activities dept

The more I look at the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act," (COICA) bill proposed by Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch (and co-sponsored by Sens. Herb Kohl, Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Evan Bayh and George Voinovich) the worse it looks. The idea behind the bill is to give the Justice Department the ability to avoid due process in shutting down or blocking access to sites deemed "dedicated to infringing activities."

With such a broad definition of offerings dedicated to infringing activities, I thought it might be worth running through a list of technologies that and services that were all deemed "dedicated to infringing activities" in their early days, to give you a sense of what these Senators would have banned in the past with such a law:

• Hollywood itself: The history of Hollywood is that it was set up on the west coast in order to avoid Thomas Edison's attempt to control the movie making business with various patents. Hollywood was very much an entire industry dedicated to infringing activities in its early years.
• The recording industry: The origins of modern copyright law in the US came out of fears by musicians that the concept of any kind of automatic playing or "recorded" music would destroy the market for real live musicians. The fear of the player piano was a big, big issue in the early days, with sheet music producers claiming that piano rolls were infringing. So, the early parts of the recording industry were very much "dedicated to infringing activities."
• Radio: When radio first came about, it too was "dedicated to infringing activities." That's because it played music on the radio without paying.
• Cable TV: The very early days of cable TV involved the cable companies offering network television without paying for -- and, even worse, they were charging customers for access to others' content. The very core of the original cable TV system was "dedicated to infringing activities." Charlton Heston denounced cable as "depriving actors of compensation."
• Photocopying machines: When the Xerox machine came on the scene in the late 1950s, it freaked out the publishing industry who denounced it as being dedicated to infringing activities. Just as the 1909 Copyright Act was mainly a response to misguided fears of the player piano, some say the 1976 Copyright Act was in response to the Xerox machine. Some of the modern concepts around fair use came about due to lawsuits from publishers claiming that the photocopier was, in fact, dedicated to infringing activities.
• The VCR: By this point, you should know the famous Jack Valenti quote: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Yup. Dedicated to infringing activity.
• Cassette tapes: "Home taping is killing music." Need I say more?
• The MP3 player: Remember the RIAA's lawsuit against the Diamond Rio? They declared that such a device "stymies the market for . . . works and frustrates the development of legitimate digitally downloadable music." So, that iPod? Yes, it, too, was dedicated to infringing activity.
• The DVR: In 2001, a bunch of TV companies sued, claiming that the Replay TV DVR was an "unlawful scheme" that "attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services"

Notice a pattern yet? All sorts of new technologies tend to be berated and condemned as "dedicated to infringing activity," by legacy content industries when those new offerings first come along. It's only later on, when the industry learns to use those new tools of creating, recording, reproducing, performing, distributing, sharing and promoting that they realize those tools turned out to be quite useful in expanding, rather than shrinking, the industry.

Yet, here we are, with the list of Senators above, effectively looking to not allow that evolution to happen at all. They won't even give these new tools a fair trial (which, at the very least, was afforded to many of the tools in this list). Instead, they want to let the Justice Department (which, again, employs many former lawyers of the legacy industries) to simply put together a list of tools they believe infringe and to avoid due process in getting those tools effectively banned. The people making this list are not visionaries. They don't see how these tools can be quite useful to content creators. They're anti-visionaries. They only see how the new tools change the rules for the legacy industry. Do we really want anti-visionaries outlawing the next movie industry? Or the next VCR? Or the next iPod?

Filed Under: coica, copyright, orrin hatch, patrick leahy

Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?

from the questions,-questions dept

On Thursday, President Obama gave a speech to the United Nations that (not surprisingly) covered a lot of ground. But the bit that caught my eye concerned his commitment to a free and open internet without censorship:

We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security. We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.

Sounds good.

Around the same time Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was giving a speech at Georgetown University where he talked about some very similar points:

Today, I am announcing the official launch of an additional Task Force project -- one focused on preserving the global, Free Flow of Information on the Internet.

It's likely that many of you saw a recent cover story in The Economist alluding to "the Web's new walls."

The theme of the article is that the openness of the Internet is in jeopardy.

As the Internet has grown, and as it's become more central to the lives of people and to economies, we are seeing an increasing number of government policies around the world that restrict the free flow of information on the Web.

Many of these policy efforts, in particular those centered on censorship, have deep human rights implications.

Later on in the speech, he again worries about governments censoring the internet:

In recent years, however, we have seen a significant up-tick in threats to the free flow of information on the Internet.

Censorship continues to be a significant problem in too many countries, and a range of new Internet-related regulations, or other actions by governments around the world, are springing up as speed bumps on the information superhighway.

At one level, we are dealing with questions that concern national sovereignty. We recognize that enhanced efforts to combat cyber-crimes and to protect a nation's national security needs are necessary.

But there seems to be the growing risk that idiosyncratic regulations are implemented not to protect a state's legitimate interests, but rather to undermine fair competition or create market share for preferred businesses.

Again, all of this sounds good... but it makes me wonder how the administration feels about the new "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" from Senators Leahy and Hatch, which set up a system that avoids due process to censor websites in a clear attempt to "undermine fair competition and create market share for preferred businesses."

Unfortunately, it seems likely that Obama and Locke are all for this kind of censorship. That's because the "preferred businesses" that are helped by the COICA are the ones who support Obama and Locke. After all, it was just a few weeks ago that Locke gave a speech where he completely sided with the entertainment industry on various copyright issues, highlighting bogus data and ignoring tons of evidence that contradicted the statements he was making.

Chances are we're going to see more hypocrisy in the government -- claiming to be against censorship designed to protect businesses in other countries, but all for it at home, when those businesses are the ones contributing campaign funds.

Filed Under: barack obama, censorship, coica, gary locke, orrin hatch, patrick leahy

How The Attempted Censorship Of File Sharing Sites Avoids Due Process

from the day-in-court? dept

We've already covered how some US Senators are pitching a bill to censor websites that are deemed centered around "infringing" uses, and noted the irony of the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, decrying internet censorship in other countries. That said, the more people dig into the details, the worse this bill appears to look. The EFF does a good job highlighting many of the rather serious problems with the bill.

While most of the press coverage has discussed the process by which the Justice Department can go to a judge and get a website added to a blacklist, which ISPs and registrars will have to block, there's another part that hasn't received nearly enough attention: which is that there's an effective loophole that could allow similar blocks without judicial review:

The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines -- without judicial review -- are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

We've seen this game in the past, of course. Generally when you provide companies immunity for sites doing something, they'll do it. So, suddenly we're taking the most basic judicial oversight out of the process of allowing the Justice Department -- which, again, is still staffed with a bunch of former entertainment industry lawyers -- choose which sites should be blocked. It's difficult to see how anyone could think this is a reasonable idea.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, due process, orrin hatch, patrick leahy

Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home

from the hypocrite dept

We already wrote about yesterday's proposal, from Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch, for a law to censor and block any website that is deemed to mainly support copyright infringing behavior, under the misleading name "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (note the conflation of counterfeiting and infringement, yet again). Still, I did want to to post the full text of the bill, for those who wanted to see just how troubling it is: It seems particularly troubling that sites can be blocked if they have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose." As if there's no such thing as having non-commercially significant purposes.

But a bigger point is just how hypocritical the Senators supporting this bill really are. Reader Dark Helmet already did a nice job highlighting the massive conflicts of interest among many of the Senators supporting this bill -- including the fact that lead sponsor Patrick Leahy has among his top campaign contributors the TV/Movie/Music industries, with Time Warner, Walt Disney and Vivendi showing up near the top of the list. But, I'm sure that's got nothing whatsoever to do with this bill...

What strikes me as much more ridiculous is that Senator Leahy has been one of the more outspoken Senators against other countries censoring or filtering websites. Just a few months ago he gave a statement at a Senate hearing condemning regimes that censor the internet. And yet, just a few months later, he's trying to be the regime censoring the internet:

One of the most pressing challenges posed by the Internet is the censorship of online information. For some time now, we have witnessed the troubling efforts of repressive regimes -- such as the governments of China, Iran and North Korea -- to censor, or in some cases eliminate, their citizens' access to information via the Internet. Most Americans are by now very familiar with the troubling reports that the government of China has hacked into the private e-mail accounts of human rights activists. We must address these serious challenges to freedom of expression head-on.

The early advances of the Internet originated in the United States, and the world rightly looks to us for leadership on matters of Internet freedom. I am very pleased that, last month, Secretary Clinton boldly reaffirmed our Nation's deep commitment to openness and freedom of expression on the Internet. The Obama administration has taken a decisive and important step.

America must also take the lead in protecting those who simply provide a platform for Internet speech from liability for the content of online speech generated by others. Our Federal laws already do this. And we must work with other nations to find the best way to promote free and open Internet speech around the globe.

Read that, and then realize that he's proposing to do exactly what he's condemning those other countries for doing. He's using the power of the government to "censor, or in some cases eliminate, their citizens' access to information via the Internet." Some will claim that this is somehow a "different kind" of information, in that copyright infringement is "harmful." But, of course, the governments of China, Iran and North Korea all feel that the information they're censoring is equally "harmful."

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, patrick leahy

US Senators Propose Bill To Censor Any Sites The Justice Depatement Declares 'Pirate' Sites, Worldwide

from the like-youtube-and-scribd? dept

The entertainment industry's favorite two Senators, Patrick Leahy (who keeps proposing stronger copyright laws) and Orin Hatch (who once proposed automatically destroying the computers of anyone caught file sharing) have now proposed a new law that would give the Justice Department the power to shut down websites that are declared as being "dedicated to illegal file sharing." Other Senators signed on to sponsor the bill are: Sens. Herb Kohl, Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Evan Bayh and George Voinovich. Perhaps these Senators should brush up on their history.

They do realize, of course, that Hollywood (who is pushing them for this law) was established originally as a "pirate" venture to get away from Thomas Edison and his patents, right? Things change over time. Remember that YouTube, which is now considered by Hollywood to be mostly "legit," had been derided as a "site dedicated" to "piracy" in the past. It's no surprise that the Justice Department -- with a bunch of former RIAA/MPAA lawyers on staff -- would love to have such powers, but it's difficult to see how such a law would be Constitutional, let alone reasonable. And finally, we must ask, yet again, why the US federal government is getting involved in what is, clearly, a civil business model issue? The Senators quote the already debunked US Chamber of Commerce reports on the "harm" of intellectual property -- which just shows how intellectually dishonest they're being. They're willing to base a censorship law on debunked data.

Oh, and even worse, this proposed law is supposed to cover sites worldwide, not just in the US. For a country that just passed a libel tourism law to protect Americans from foreign judgments, it's a bit ridiculous that we're now trying to reach beyond our borders to shut down sites that may be perfectly legal elsewhere. The way that the law, called the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act," would work is that the Justice Department could ask a court to declare a site as a "pirate" site and then get an injunction that would force the domain registrar or registry to no longer resolve that domain name.

It's difficult to see how this is anything other than a blatant censorship law. I can't see how it passes an even simple First Amendment sniff test. It's really quite sickening to see US Senators propose a law that is nothing less than censorship, designed to favor some of their biggest donors in the entertainment industry, who refuse to update their own business models.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, arlen specter, censorship, chuck schumer, copyright, dick durbin, evan bayh, file sharing, free speech, george voinovich, orin hatch, patrick leahy, sheldon whitehouse

Even Senators Who Want Stronger Copyright Laws Are Worried About ACTA

from the as-they-should-be dept

We've been wondering for a while now about why the ACTA treaty is being negotiated in such secrecy -- since the treaty will almost certainly greatly expand copyright laws around the world, without any real judicial approval. So it's good to see our concerns are echoed even by politicians who have long supported Hollywood's efforts to strengthen copyright law. Following the recent Congressional hearings about ACTA, Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter (who were behind the Senate ProIP bill that would put a copyright czar in the White House and unsuccessfully tried to make the FBI Hollywood's private police force) have now sent a letter saying that they're quite concerned about the ACTA Treaty. They're worried both that it will be too broad and that it's being negotiated entirely in secret. When even the politicians who push Hollywood's legislation are questioning ACTA (which is being written by Hollywood insiders), perhaps it's time that ACTA negotiators finally open up the process and let the rest of us in.

Filed Under: acta, arlen specter, copyright, patrick leahy, sunlight, trade agreements

Senate Gives The White House A Copyright Czar

from the have-fun-with-it dept

The Senate has now unanimously passed the new entertainment industry-approved copyright legislation that was proposed by Senator Leahy earlier this year. After the Justice Department complained about the provision that would grant it the ability to take on civil cases, that provision was removed, but there's still plenty to be worried about by the bill -- such as the creation of a "copyright czar" position in the White House. While some of the worst provisions were removed, this still remains a bill that has one purpose: to protect an obsolete business model, rather than letting more innovative models proliferate. The House still needs to vote on its version of the bill, but it's quite likely to pass quickly.

Filed Under: business models, copyright czar, patrick leahy, pro ip, senate