This is another example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. But now that it's clear that Sen. Hawley foments sedition, it would be prudent for Hawley's former "friends" to question every point of agreement with him. Instead, some Democrats will keep pursuing the same bad ideas that Hawley supported and still supports--rationalizing to themselves that by cutting Hawley out of their game, NOW they are on the path of righteousness.
Five years ago, Congress enacted the BOTS Act to target event ticket sniping. The FTC has brought a grand total of 1 BOTS Act enforcement action since then, yet I doubt anyone feels like event ticket sniping is fixed. So why would Congress think an anti-toy sniping law will fare any better?
"While some companies view applicants' social media posts when considering them for employment, very few are demanding social media account information as part of the application process"
Anyone willing to lay odds that both Berman and Mack will land softly into a position funded by Hollywood, one way or another? Opening line is 100% chance.
Of course, unblocking the sites would only solve part of the problem. There may not be much interest among USPTO employees in reading websites so antithetical to their existing views. Eric.
The government will almost certainly abandon any case they are going to lose. That way, they will avoid accountability indefinitely. Meanwhile, the government will keep grabbing new domain names using the same BS theories. Eric.
The idea that a government-run website would improve a website's privacy and trustworthiness is beyond laughable. It completely ignores the massive abuses of our trust and privacy our government commits every day.
I am a bit skeptical that any event organized along these lines would actually advance audience understanding very much. When I've organized or attended panels that featured both Hollywood insiders and vigorous opponents, my experience has been that the conversation tends to gravitate towards one or two irresolute debates:
1) High-level philosophical debates, like "Speaker 1: Piracy is theft! Speaker 2: No, piracy is a form of marketing!"
2) Bogus statistics debates, like "Speaker 1: File sharing reduces music album sales. Speaker 2: No, album sales declined due to unbundling."
I haven't found these so-called discourses very illuminating. My observation is that usually this back-and-forth results only in reinforcing the audiences' pre-existing beliefs as the audience gives in to their confirmation biases.
I think more productive discussions could be had by developing a clear and concise statement of "the problem." In my opinion, the SOPA/PIPA advocates never gave us clean statements of "the problem" because they figured they could slam home their overzealous proposals without much defense of their merits. Advocates vaguely alluded to problems like "foreign rogue websites" (although not much empirical proof that foreign rogue websites were costing rightsowners money, combined with the statutory drafting defect that it's difficult to separate the foreign website goats from the domestic website sheep) or "piracy costs American jobs" (which at best really means that only certain industries are losing jobs, and even that's debatable). Perhaps there is value to digging into these problems in more abstract terms--if we're concerned about American jobs, under what circumstances does copyright or trademark infringement cost net jobs, and how best to remediate that; or if we're concerned about the difficulty reaching offshore actors, should we instantiate geographic borders into a borderless electronic network, and if so, what tools are best to do so. When the problems are reframed that way, the proffered speakers from Paramount may not have the requisite expertise; or at best their perspective would be only one of several that would be valuable to the discussion.
More generally, one recurring problem I see with lunchtime events in law schools--especially with student-organized events--is when in-house counsel give a talk and there's no counterbalance. By definition, in-house counsel will espouse the corporate line (and indeed, they usually have professional responsibility duties against public statements against their client's interests), so these speakers are almost never "neutral" or "balanced." As a result, it doesn't matter if the in-house counsel are IP maximalists or minimalists; if they are presented on a standalone basis, then the audience is almost certainly getting only one side of the story, unrebutted--usually to the audience's detriment.
This is indeed good news and a success story for Internet advocacy, but the battles are hardly over. The pro-statute forces remain powerful and determined, and the actual rulings being issued by courts today without any statutory changes are very, very troubling. Eric.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
With Friends Like This...
This is another example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. But now that it's clear that Sen. Hawley foments sedition, it would be prudent for Hawley's former "friends" to question every point of agreement with him. Instead, some Democrats will keep pursuing the same bad ideas that Hawley supported and still supports--rationalizing to themselves that by cutting Hawley out of their game, NOW they are on the path of righteousness.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Wil Congress ever learn?
Five years ago, Congress enacted the BOTS Act to target event ticket sniping. The FTC has brought a grand total of 1 BOTS Act enforcement action since then, yet I doubt anyone feels like event ticket sniping is fixed. So why would Congress think an anti-toy sniping law will fare any better?
On the post: Freshman Representative Serves Up Immigration Bill That Would Make The DHS Do Things It Already Does
"While some companies view applicants' social media posts when considering them for employment, very few are demanding social media account information as part of the application process"
On the post: DOJ Drops Stupid Drug Trafficking Charges Against FedEx After Judge Criticizes Its 'Novel Prosecution'
UPS Settlement
On the post: The Silver Lining On The Grooveshark Ruling: At Least It Didn't Screw Up The DMCA Safe Harbors
True, but...
On the post: Why Do Police In Suburban St. Louis Have More Powerful Weapons Than Marines In Afghanistan?
On the plus side...
On the post: You Only Live Once, So Why Not Demand Payment For The YOLO Acronym You Didn't Invent?
On the post: Surprise: Two Of Hollywood's Favorite Representatives, Howard Berman & Mary Bono Mack, Defeated
On the post: The USPTO's Reality Distortion Field: Web Filter Blocks Critics Like EFF, Welcomes Maximalist Lobbyists
On the post: Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case
On the post: Perhaps The Dumbest Idea We've Heard Yet: Nationalize Facebook
The idea that a government-run website would improve a website's privacy and trustworthiness is beyond laughable. It completely ignores the massive abuses of our trust and privacy our government commits every day.
Eric.
On the post: Facebook Engineer Apologizes Via Reddit For Accidentally Blocking Imgur Across Facebook
On the post: PIPA Author Senator Leahy Gets His Reward: A Part In 'The Dark Knight Rises'
On the post: Does It Makes Sense To Charge Kids & Their Parents With Libel For Online Bullying?
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
On the post: Paramount Wants To Talk To Students About How They're All Thieves & Then Ask For Ideas On What To Do
1) High-level philosophical debates, like "Speaker 1: Piracy is theft! Speaker 2: No, piracy is a form of marketing!"
2) Bogus statistics debates, like "Speaker 1: File sharing reduces music album sales. Speaker 2: No, album sales declined due to unbundling."
I haven't found these so-called discourses very illuminating. My observation is that usually this back-and-forth results only in reinforcing the audiences' pre-existing beliefs as the audience gives in to their confirmation biases.
I think more productive discussions could be had by developing a clear and concise statement of "the problem." In my opinion, the SOPA/PIPA advocates never gave us clean statements of "the problem" because they figured they could slam home their overzealous proposals without much defense of their merits. Advocates vaguely alluded to problems like "foreign rogue websites" (although not much empirical proof that foreign rogue websites were costing rightsowners money, combined with the statutory drafting defect that it's difficult to separate the foreign website goats from the domestic website sheep) or "piracy costs American jobs" (which at best really means that only certain industries are losing jobs, and even that's debatable). Perhaps there is value to digging into these problems in more abstract terms--if we're concerned about American jobs, under what circumstances does copyright or trademark infringement cost net jobs, and how best to remediate that; or if we're concerned about the difficulty reaching offshore actors, should we instantiate geographic borders into a borderless electronic network, and if so, what tools are best to do so. When the problems are reframed that way, the proffered speakers from Paramount may not have the requisite expertise; or at best their perspective would be only one of several that would be valuable to the discussion.
More generally, one recurring problem I see with lunchtime events in law schools--especially with student-organized events--is when in-house counsel give a talk and there's no counterbalance. By definition, in-house counsel will espouse the corporate line (and indeed, they usually have professional responsibility duties against public statements against their client's interests), so these speakers are almost never "neutral" or "balanced." As a result, it doesn't matter if the in-house counsel are IP maximalists or minimalists; if they are presented on a standalone basis, then the audience is almost certainly getting only one side of the story, unrebutted--usually to the audience's detriment.
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
On the post: White House Comes Out Against The Approach In SOPA/PIPA In Response To Online Petition
On the post: Boo-Freaking-Hoo: RIAA Complains That 'The Deck Is Stacked' Against Them On CES Panels
On the post: ICE Propaganda Film Pats Itself On The Back For Censoring The Web; Promises Much More To Come
Next >>