Alexis Ohanion, founder of Reddit (and Hipmunk and Breadpig), is kicking off a neat campaign to send condolence cards to Senators, mourning the "death of the internet" in response to the effort to move forward with PIPA. In a video he put together, he questions why our elected officials, who admit they don't understand the technology, seem to have no problem at all moving forward with a bill regulating that same technology -- and shows the condolence card he's sending to his own Senators in New York.
"
He separately notes how odd it is that in this era of political gridlock, where almost nothing can get done in Congress, so many in Congress jump to push through bad legislation they don't understand -- written by the entertainment industry -- while ignoring the many real problems this country faces...
Because I can already hear some of the SOPA/PIPA supporters out there revving up the "but it doesn't kill the internet!" cries, let's dig into that issue. No one is saying that it kills off the entire internet, so that it goes away. What we've been saying all along is that it kills the established legal framework under which the internet has grown and thrived for decades. That's a big deal. Multiple studies have shown that the protection from secondary liability is a large part of what enabled the internet to grow the way it did, and to build the kinds of innovative new services that have shown up over the years. Taking that away doesn't mean that "the internet" goes away -- but it does mean that the key protections on which the internet were built are put at significant risk or, in some cases, wiped out. That's pretty scary if you want to see new internet services built up and to see existing ones grow. Under such conditions, sympathy cards seem perfectly reasonable.
Last week, we noted that Jimmy Wales was in favor of a blacking out Wikipedia on Wednesday in protest of PIPA, joining with Reddit and lots of other sites, but that the community need to weigh in quickly. It appears they've now done so, as Wales is telling students to do their homework early, because the site is a goner for Wednesday:
Student warning!Do your homework early.Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday! #sopa
In fact, it appears they're going even further than Reddit, who is going down for 12 hours. All English-language pages on Wikipedia will go dark for 24 hours -- starting at midnight DC time on Wednesday. For what it's worth, I've been told by multiple Congressional staffers that Wikipedia is a tool they all rely on pretty much every day -- so expect this to get some attention. The site will also be replaced with an action alert, asking people to call and write Congress -- and Jimmy says his goal is to "melt the phone lines." Considering how much usage Wikipedia gets, that's entirely possible.
This is a big move, and it's great to see Jimmy and the community willing to take a stand like this. Jimmy is also tweeting up a storm about why this is so important. He's also responding to false claims that the bills are "dead," by noting that SOPA (1) may rise again and (2) that PIPA is still alive and well.
Either way, come Wednesday, I'm curious if Congress is still going to be claiming that it's just a "small minority" of people who dislike these bills.
Chris Hayes, over on MSNBC, decided to be the first to seriously break the mainstream cable news' boycott over SOPA/PIPA with a big debate on the bill -- mainly between NBCUniversal's top lawyer, Rick Cotton, and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian. Chris's opening discussion is quite good, and suggests he's certainly sympathetic to all of us who are vehemently opposed to the bill. You can watch it below:
Alexis does an excellent job in the brief time he's given to speak (though Cotton gets probably four times the amount of time to speak), but what I wanted to focus on, are the lies of Rick Cotton, because it's simply despicable. He flat-out lies about the bills -- and, even worse -- does so in a manner that implies that it's everyone else who's lying about the bills. He kicks it off by insisting that the bills only apply to sites that are "wholesale devoted to theft." That's simply not true. He actually uses the word "wholesale" maybe two dozen times (at least). The text of PIPA -- the key bill at this point -- says that a site is considered "dedicated to infringing activities" if it "has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" infringement. That does not mean that the site is "wholesale devoted to theft." Under this definition, of course, a site like a YouTube (if it were based on a foreign domain) would be questionable, given that it has no significant use other than enabling infringement. That doesn't mean that it's always used to infringe, but it's main use absolutely enables or facilitates infringement. Cotton may want to believe the language says otherwise, but it does not.
Second, Cotton gets pretty angry about the "disinformation" around the bills, and insists that the bills "would not effect a single site in the United States." This is false. As we've explained repeatedly, while the targets of the legislation are sites with foreign domain names, the entire remedies section is about US sites -- meaning that they will have significant compliance costs, and potential liability under these laws. Furthermore, the anti-circumvention provisions of the bill are not limited to just foreign sites. Alexis pushed back on the anti-circumvention point, and Cotton claimed that Alexis was "simply wrong." But he's not. Cotton is "simply wrong" here again. Cotton claims that we should debate what's in the bill, and he should try reading the bill. In fact, Alexis has said that Cotton admitted after they were off the air that he was correct that the anti-circumvention provisions were not limited to just foreign sites. But that doesn't do any good for those who saw the segment but don't know the specifics.
Next, he claims it's totally wrong that a small amount of "legitimate activity would be threatened by this legislation." To be fair, Cotton and his buddies already got the power to take down tons of "legitimate activity" with the last copyright expansion bill they passed a few years ago, the ProIP bill. Either way, he's still wrong. Tons of legitimate content can and will be put at risk under these bills. We've already seen that companies -- including NBCUniversal -- have wrongly declared publicly that certain sites are "rogue" sites, despite the fact that they have tons of legitimate content. If you believe that Cotton and NBCUniversal will suddenly get better at finding sites that really only deal in infringement going forward, you haven't paid much attention over the last decade or so. Under existing law, we're already seeing legitimate websites taken down, and legitimate speech infringed upon. Hell, even the one prominent legal scholar who agrees with Cotton, Floyd Abrams, has admitted that protected speech would be censored under the bill.
Next, Cotton claims that the internet is "lawless" and that this whole thing is really a policy debate about how we finally put laws on the internet. This is, to put it mildly, insane. As Alexis points out in response, there are tons of laws that apply to the internet, and directly apply and are used every day to deal with infringing activity. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. In fact, as Alexis notes, the DMCA is regularly abused by copyright holders to go way beyond what the law is supposed to allow.
Towards the end, Cotton claims that when a court in the Netherlands ordered The Pirate Bay blocked in that country, traffic to the site dropped by 80%. That's a flat out lie. I mean, ridiculously false. First off, considering that the legal fight over that has continued for years, and the court only ordered ISPs in the Netherlands to actually block The Pirate Bay... five days ago -- and gave them 10 days to comply -- I'm curious as to how he knows how much impact such a court order has had (er... will have) on traffic to The Pirate Bay. Separately, in every other place that has ordered such a block, traffic to TPB has actually gone up, not down, because the court order to block tends to give the site more attention. Just to make sure, I asked someone in the Netherlands if TPB was blocked for them, and he sent me the following screenshot showing that it's totally accessible (though, they're warning about the new ruling!). Either way, Cotton was flat out, 100%, totally lying about these "stats" from the Netherlands. No such block has occurred.
All in all, this is the same duplicity that we've been seeing from SOPA/PIPA supporters for the last few months. They attack those of us with facts on our side as spreading disinformation, but when you look at the details you realize that it is, in fact, they who are flat out "wholesale" lying. Rick Cotton should be ashamed, and NBCUniversal should admit to its errors. Chris Hayes promises to cover the topic in more detail again in the future, and he should challenge Cotton on the multiple false statements he made.
While the lobbyists favoring SOPA/PIPA have decided that the talking point on the White House's statement opposing SOPA/PIPA as written really means that the bills, as they are, are great, it appears that no one sent Rupert Murdoch the talking points. Murdoch, who has been personally lobbying Congress in support of the bills, took to his relatively new Twitter account to lash out at the President:
So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten allsoftware creators with piracy, plain thievery. -
Of course, almost nothing in those statements is true. First, it's well documented that Hollywood spends ridiculously more money lobbying than the likes of Google. Second, Silicon Valley is the heart of software development. Kind of bizarre for him to claim that Obama's "paymasters" from Silicon Valley want to... um... destroy Silicon Valley. Third, nothing in the White House's statement said that they were solely supporting the other side's view here. They simply expressed specific concerns with the existing bill. Considering that they specifically rejected parts of the bill that would lead to censorship, excess private litigation and problems for online security... is Rupert Murdoch really coming out in favor of censorship, excessive private litigation and a broken online security system? Really, Rupe?
Next, when it comes to streaming films, it's true that Google puts advertising around certain videos on YouTube. However, it's not all videos, and their system (quite famously) allows the actual copyright holder to make the money from those ads, leading to a rather lucrative new revenue stream for many content creators. Furthermore, for years, people have mocked YouTube for losing a ton of money, so it's not like this is a particularly lucrative part of Google's business. As for filmmaking being "risky as hell," so what? Lots of things are risky, but most of us don't think that the government should censor free speech, break internet security and create massive undue litigation... just to make Rupert's investments less risky. That he seems to think that's a reasonable tradeoff shows just how Rupert Murdoch views the government: as a tool to funnel extra money to himself. Furthermore, his claims that it will lead to "less" are just laughable as well. The number of movies made per year has more than tripled in the past fifteen years, just as online piracy ramped up. Also, Nigeria, China and India -- three countries known to have more infringement than the US -- all built up huge film businesses over the last few years, despite all the infringement.
After thinking about it for a few hours, Murdoch went right back to it:
Seems like universal anger with Optus from all sorts of normal supporters.Maybe backing pirates a rare miscalculation by friend Axelrod.
He later admits that he had a "damn you autocorrect" moment in that first one. "Optus" was supposed to be POTUS, but his iPad "changed it." First of all, we haven't seen any "anger" towards Obama over this -- other than from Murdoch. Quite the opposite. We've seen widespread agreement (and surprise!) that the White House would actually dare speak out against Hollywood on an issue. And, once again, it's insulting and ridiculous (but typical of the disdain the Hollywood old guard has for the rest of the world) to claim that concern over censorship, excess litigation and online security problems means "backing piracy." As for the stats, it's nice to see him use the 2.2 million jobs number, rather than the 19 million jobs that is usually thrown around (someone in Hollywood really needs to get Rupe the talking points memo on this one), but even that is misleading.
[The] 2.2 million jobs figure, however, exaggerates Hollywood's contribution to the American economy. According to supplemental data provided to HuffPost by MPAA, only 272,000 people work for movie studios and television companies. The lobby group claims that an additional 430,000 people work in related "distribution" jobs dependent on Hollywood, legal web streamers like Netflix, the few remaining video store clerks and cashiers checking out DVD purchases.
But the vast majority of the jobs Dodd & Co. claim are threatened by online piracy are only peripherally related to the entertainment business. MPAA takes credit for nearly 1.6 million jobs at florists, catering companies, hardware stores and other industries that work with major movie studios, assuming that these jobs could not ultimately be out of a job without Hollywood help.
Yeah. 1.6 million of those jobs are not actually in the entertainment industry at all. Rupe, before you tweet, perhaps try learning the details of the "facts" you're about to spew so you look a little less ridiculous next time.
In a short appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, Senate leader Harry Reid continued to insist that the Senate intended to move forward with PIPA, despite the widespread concerns, despite the White House's statement against the bill, and despite multiple Senators -- including bill co-sponsors -- asking him to hold off putting the bill to a vote.
What's stunning is how misleading Senator Reid is being here. First, he claims that the bill is about "jobs," despite a total lack of evidence that that's true. In fact, as has been noted plenty of times here, the part of the economy that is creating jobs -- the startup/tech sector -- is the one who gets burdened by this bill. David Gregory then responds by pointing out that people keep pointing out to him online that this bill isn't really about jobs, and will harm the internet. Reid then tries to pretend that this is a new revelation. He notes that it was "reported out of the committee unanimously" back in May. That's true, but that was back before most people understood the bill, or the internet had spoken out. Even then, many of us were quite clear in speaking out about why this bill was a problem. But Harry Reid pretends that it's "just in the last few weeks" that anyone has raised concerns." That's flat out ridiculous.
Next he claims that he's working with Senator Feinstein on this, since she's "in the middle" of the issue, representing both Northern and Southern California, where the issue is loudest. This would be the same Senator Feinstein who is so tone deaf to what's happening in her own state, that just weeks ago she insisted that she didn't know the tech industry was upset about the bill.
But the really stunning part? After these bizarre claims, he says, of those who have complained about the bill:
"I think they're right. I think it could create some problems. That's why I've spoken Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Committee. I've written a letter to the ranking member Senator Grassley, saying that some issues have come up. I think this needs to be a winner for everyone -- not just for the content people.... so we need to work on this."
But then he still insists that they're going forward with the bill! He notes that he's expecting a "manager's amendment" from Leahy -- but Leahy has already said that the manager's amendment is just going to delay the implementation of the DNS issues. If Senator Reid really wants to make sure the bill is a "winner for everyone" then shouldn't we take some time to make sure that everyone's happy? It's doubly concerning that he appears to think these issues "just came up" in the past few weeks. That shows that he's totally and completely out of touch on the many months that people were speaking out against the problems of this bill. If anything that's even more reason to delay things, since Reid himself is admitting he's totally ignorant of the many, many, many problems that people have been discussing for months now.
It's such a politician's response: he pretends that he's in agreement with the concerns of everyone... but then immediately admits he's ignoring those concerns and pushing forward with a bad bill, which he clearly never understood, and which it appears he just found out there was criticism around, despite the fact it's been going on for months. Everything in this statement points to reasons not to vote on the bill on the 24th, and yet he wants to move forward with it. It's just stunning.
Following the White House's surprise move to effectively tell SOPA/PIPA supporters to go back to the drawing board and come back with bills that don't censor the internet, don't break basic online security tools and that don't create unjustified litigation -- SOPA and PIPA supporters are going full press spin to try to pretend this is "good news." I'm not joking. The MPAA came out with a pretty laughable statement that appears to suggest that the White House's statement means it's time to "stop the obstruction" and just pass the bills:
So now it is time to stop the obstruction and move forward on legislation.
Our industry not only fully supports free expression, our livelihood is built upon a vibrant First Amendment - it is the foundation of our industry and we would never support any legislation that would limit this fundamental American right. As had been made clear throughout the legislative consideration of SOPA and the PROTECT-IP Act, neither of these bills implicate free expression but focus solely on illegal conduct, which is not free speech. We agree with Secretary Clinton's recent statement that "There is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet."
Similarly, the MPAA, together with the RIAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, stunningly claimed that the White House's statement:
"clears the way for action on these important bills."
Talk about being in denial. This is laughable in a variety of ways. First, what the MPAA calls "obstruction" was actually the voicing of significant concerns that echo exactly what the White House claimed. For example, many of us spoke about the DNS provisions, and the White House clearly states: "Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online." Yes, both Leahy and Smith have promised to delay (not completely remove) the implementation of those provisions, but that would not have happened if so many people hadn't spoken out vocally about those provisions.
That's not obstruction. Those were legitimate concerns -- which the MPAA fought, tooth and nail, even to the point of denying that DNS blocking was any problem at all. And the concerns that remain are legitimate as well. It's insulting, and all too indicative of how the MPAA has managed the push for this legislation, that its response to the White House telling them to go back to the drawing board and to "work together with all sides," is to respond by saying, "just pass the bill already!"
Perhaps not too surprisingly -- since he's basically been the MPAA's mouthpiece in Congress on this bill -- Rep. Lamar Smith echoed the same claims when asked about the White House's statements:
"I welcome today's announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America's intellectual property," Smith said in a statement. "That's precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
No, actually, it's not. The current bill has tons of problems -- even if we leave aside the DNS provisions. It is very much likely to censor legitimate sites -- as pointed out by over a hundred legal scholars -- and it has a private right of action that is likely to lead to unnecessary litigation. These are exactly the things the White House just told Smith to fix. And his response is to ignore them? Stunning. But... this is Lamar Smith, who still can't hear any criticism of his bill. Perhaps he just thinks the White House wants to "pirate" more things.
Remember that big first petition to the White House against SOPA? As you may recall, that got enough signatures that it required a response from the White House... and that response has come out. It rejects the approaches found in both SOPA and PIPA. They say that "online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response" but that there are many things they will not support.
They will not support a bill that has the potential to censor lawful activity or inhibit innovation:
To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.
They flat out reject anything that involves DNS blocking:
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.
They do still say that new legislation is needed, but they want something where every stakeholder is actually involved:
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.
Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.
Make no mistake about this: this is the White House asking for a hard reset of SOPA/PIPA and saying start again from scratch. This is an astounding turn of events, and a much stronger statement from the White House than anyone honestly expected. This is almost entirely because of the outcry that came out of the internet over the last few months. Without that, it is unlikely that the White House ever would have come out with such a strong position that questions the key provisions of these bills.
It will be important to continue to be engaged and to make sure that what happens next really is reasonable. Let's hope that Congress actually recognizes the importance of what the White House is saying, and that any future process really is open. Congress has a way of ignoring things like this, and until Harry Reid agrees to put PIPA on the shelf and take part in this hard reset, people need to keep the pressure on the Senate. But, in the short term, this is a rather historic moment, in that it is a case where a loud public outcry really has had a major impact on this process. When the Senate introduced PIPA early last year, it was seen as almost assured that it would pass in something close to its initial form. Now that seems impossible.
Some late breaking news here: following Lamar Smith's announcement that the new manager's amendment for SOPA will remove DNS blocking (to be added back at a later date after it's been "studied"), Rep. Issa has announced that he will now postpone the "nerd" hearing that he was holding in the House Oversight Committee, which was originally scheduled for Wednesday. The key reason? Majority Leader Eric Cantor has promised him that he will not bring the bill to the floor unless there's real consensus on the bill. That's big news -- though, as Issa notes in his statement, it's worrisome that Senator Reid still seems to want to move forward with PIPA:
"While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House. Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote,” said Chairman Issa. “The voice of the Internet community has been heard. Much more education for Members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal.”
"Earlier tonight, Chairman Smith announced that he will remove the DNS blocking provision from his legislation. Although SOPA, despite the removal of this provision, is still a fundamentally flawed bill, I have decided that postponing the scheduled hearing on DNS blocking with technical experts is the best course of action at this time. Right now, the focus of protecting the Internet needs to be on the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has announced his intention to try to move similar legislation in less than two weeks."
Indeed. It is still important that Congress hears from "the nerds" and plenty of other experts concerning the implications of these attempts to regulate the internet, but if SOPA is not going to be rushed to the floor, such hearings and education can (and should) happen in due time, rather than rushing to get them in, just as Congress comes back into session. There are more important things for Congress to focus on.
Even a group of (very politically active) grandmothers have come out against SOPA/PIPA. They note that it's rare that they agree with internet companies like Google & Facebook (they've protested both companies in the past), but that this is a very important issue to them:
The language in both of these bills is written with a very broad paintbrush. Their passage would have a huge impact on the work of human rights advocates who speak out against injustice on sites that could easily be labelled “rogue” websites. It’s a slippery slope when censorship reigns.
The indymedia network that thrives on open publishing (and our favorite www.indybay.org here in the San Francisco Bay Area) would be subject to censorship, defeating the very purpose of its existence. Similar platforms created to provide anonymity to whistleblowers could become major casualties of these bills.
All to save Hollywood’s bottom line?
They specifically call out California's two Senators for supporting such bad legislation. Either way, at this point, it's getting tougher and tougher to find anyone who actually supports these bills.
It looks like the internet uprising really is having an impact. Senator Ben Cardin -- a co-sponsor of PIPA -- has put out a press release saying that he won't vote for the bill as written today, after hearing from many constituents. Oddly, he says he will remain a co-sponsor of the bill, but wants to amend the bill to take into account the concerns he's hearing.
Similarly, six other Senators, including two co-sponsors -- Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley (the two co-sponsors) along with John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee and Tom Coburn -- have asked Harry Reid not to bring the cloture vote he's promised to bring on the 24th. In other words, as many of us have been asking: don't rush this. This is huge news. With Senators -- including three co-sponsors -- coming out so forcefully to Harry Reid that this bill needs more time, Reid is much more likely to delay the cloture vote, and to leave PIPA aside for other business for the time being. Either way, the letter (embedded below) makes it clear that more debate on the issues in the bill were promised and never held. And, they note, that they're hearing more and more and more about the problems in the bill, and believe they should be discussed openly, before anyone is voting on cloture or on the bill itself.
All of this, by the way, is because tons of you (tons!) have stepped up and reached out to your Reps. and Senators and let them know that these bills are unacceptable. Let's see if Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy and Lamar Smith finally admit that they, too, can hear you.
Update: Harry Reid apparently cannot hear you. He has come out with a statement saying that the cloture vote will continue on January 24th, despite the concerns of so many Senators (even co-sponsors of the bill) because it's "too important to delay." No. He's wrong. What's too important to delay is a real careful look at the impact of such a bill.
Update 2: More and more Senators appear to be distancing themselves from the bill. The latest is Senator Pat Toomey who makes it clear he does not like any bill that involves the government being able to order blocks of links to certain websites -- something he calls "pretty disturbing."
