The SOPA/'PROTECT-IP/Great Firewall of America Thread

[Drew Wilson]

Lot's of coverage happening in this, so in the event there's continous coverage, I decided to start this thread to prevent cluttering the forum. You can discuss, post updates, etc. for the upcoming Great Firewall of America legislation on this thread.

[Drew Wilson]

House Judiciary Committee SOPA Hearings Stacked 5 To 1 In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

Apparently the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."

Why is the Judiciary Committee so afraid to hear the concerns of the wider internet industry?

The five "pro" speakers are the Register of Copryights, someone from the MPAA, someone from Pfizer, someone from MasterCard, and someone from the AFL-CIO. The choice of MasterCard is deliberate, since Visa is against the bill -- because Visa recognizes that supporting a bill that requires them to cut off customers based on accusations of infringement is going to be a huge burden, and one that isn't good for their own customers.

Furthermore, the "one" against SOPA is going to be Google. This is a strategic choice, because the pro-SOPA folks know that Google is easy to dismiss on this topic, because they'll claim (not accurately) that Google just wants to profit from infringement. Google is already under a lot of scrutiny in Congress, and so it makes it much easier for pro-SOPA supporters to say that "ah, the only opposition is Google." And, yet, that's not true. Companies throughout the tech and internet industries have expressed concerns. Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay and over 160 startups have all come out against the bill. This isn't "just a Google issue." This is an issue of the entertainment industry trying to change the fundamental legal and technical framework for how the internet has functioned -- and in doing so, creating tons of liability and compliance costs for the part of the economy that is growing and has been creating jobs. Just because Hollywood is jealous, doesn't mean that they should get to use Congress to punish the industry that's doing well.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable

One of the talking points we've been hearing about SOPA from the lobbyists pushing to get it approved is that the majority of Americans are in favor of the bill, because they want to "protect" intellectual property or jobs. This has never made much sense, since SOPA doesn't protect jobs at all. It destroys them, by hindering one of the few parts of our economy that has been creating jobs -- new and small businesses, particularly in the tech community. Now, the same folks who brought you that incredibly in-depth study on media piracy in emerging markets, have come out with a new report revealing some of their latest research on infringement among Americans. There are a ton of useful data revealed here, but none more timely and key than the following:

56% of people surveyed oppose government involvement in blocking access to infringing material. This number increases to 64% when the term censor is used.

Furthermore, when asked specifically if ISPs, social media sites and search engines should block access to infringing content if it also meant that some legal content would also get blocked (basically the definition of SOPA -- where even the defenders of the bill admit it will block some legal content), only 36% say that's an acceptable form of copyright enforcement.

In other words, a majority Americans are very opposed to the methods and impact of SOPA.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

Viacom: Pass SOPA Or Spongebob Dies

It's the most unintentionally hilarious video of the year... Viacom has put out one of the most ridiculous "anti-piracy" propaganda videos yet, complete with debunked stats, ridiculous claims, ominous music... and lots and lots of Viacom employees admitting that they're too clueless to adapt to a changing marketplace, and begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs. Seriously. As the video goes on, the claims get more and more ridiculous, to the point where someone even threatens that if you don't keep buying Viacom products, Spongebob might no longer exist. And, really, that's the hilarious part. So much of the video is just people begging others to save them. They beg people to give them money. They beg the government to save their jobs. Nowhere, however, do they talk about actually adapting. Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that's the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn't do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.

Remember, this is the same company where the CEO made $84.5 million last year (a $50 million raise). I'd embed the video here, but remember that Viacom is trying to sue YouTube out of existence, so they didn't put it up on YouTube... in fact, they didn't put it up in a manner that lets you embed it anywhere. So you'll just have to go to Viacom's website and watch the video directly there yourself... costing Viacom's bandwidth. They could have gotten that bandwidth for free if they'd just posted the video to YouTube... but, as we're told in the video, "free" is "stealing." And it destroys jobs. Except for Viacom's CEO. He's doing okay.

Source

[Drew Wilson]

Ron Paul Comes Out Against SOPA; Joins Other Elected Officials Saying No To The Great Firewall Of America

It appears that more and more members of the House are realizing just how bad SOPA is. Joining Reps. Issa and Bachmann, who had previously spoken out about SOPA, a group of ten House members have signed a letter opposing SOPA. The letter was organized by Rep. Anna Eshoo, the leading Democrat on telco & tech -- but whose committee was not involved in the crafting of this bill for reasons that only make sense if the purpose of the bill was to regulate the internet without input from the industry being regulated.

The letter makes the same points many of us have been raising about SOPA. It's way too broad, does not accurately attack the problem it's trying to address, and will create massive liability for the internet & technology -- one of the few sectors growing today, and which has contributed a tremendous amount to economic growth over the past decade. Basically it makes the simple point: stifling the growing tech industry, to appease a Hollywood that refuses to adapt, is no way to go about managing an economy.

Among those who signed onto the letter are Ron Paul, showing that he continues to be internet savvy and recognizes that regulating the internet is a bad, bad idea. Others who signed on include Reps. Jared Polis, Mike Doyle (the man who introduced Girl Talk to Congress), Doris Matsui, Mike Thompson, Lloyd Doggett, Mike Honda, George Miller and Zoe Lofgren (who's been a vocal opponent to these attempts to stifle innovation from day one). We too often speak about politicians who aren't representing the best interests of the public, but it's great to see more and more elected officials recognize that SOPA is a gross overreach by a few big companies who don't want to adapt to a changing marketplace. Kudos to the Congressional Reps here for taking a stand and protecting jobs and innovation.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

Facebook, Twitter, eBay & Other Big Internet Companies Come Out Against SOPA

While Google has been pretty vocal about its complaints concerning PROTECT IP and SOPA, and Yahoo, LinkedIn and Zynga have expressed concerns elsewhere, the silence of large companies like Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Mozilla and AOL had been unfortunate. That appears to be changing. As a group, they have now all sent a letter to the key sponsors of both bills, arguing that the approach here is the exact wrong approach, and will do significant damage to the parts of the economy that are innovating and creating jobs today:

We are very concerned that the bills as written would seriously undermine the effective mechanism Congress enacted in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to provide a safe harbor for Internet companies that act in good faith to remove infringing content from their sites. Since their enactment in 1998, the DMCA's safe harbor provisions for online service providers have been a cornerstone of the U.S. Internet and technology industry's growth and success. While we work together to find additional ways to target foreign "rogue" sites, we should not jeopardize a foundational structure that has worked for content owners and Internet companies alike and provides certainty to innovators with new ideas for how people create, find, discuss, and share information lawfully online.

We are proud to be a part of an industry that has been crucial to U.S. economic growth and job creation. A recent McKinsey Global Institute report found that the Internet accounts for 3.4% of GDP in the 13 countries that McKinsey studied, and, in the U.S., the Internet's contribution to GDP is even larger. If Internet consumption and expenditure were a sector, its contribution to GDP would be greater than energy, agriculture, communication, mining, or utilities. In addition, the Internet industry has increased productivity for small and medium-sized businesses by 10%. We urge you not to risk either this success or the tremendous benefits the Internet has brought to hundreds of millions of Americans and people around the world.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

VP Joe Biden Explains Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Are Anti-American & A Bad Idea

A couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden gave a perfect, if unintended, explanation for why SOPA and PROTECT IP are such terrible ideas. Since his speech included a bunch of other things, we thought it would be good to highlight Biden's specific arguments that explain why SOPA and PROTECT IP are bad, and to give him kudos for making such statements, since they contradict the statements from Hollywood on this bill.



Unfortunately, even with Biden's clear and incontestable statements that show the massive harm that SOPA and PROTECT IP would cause for innovation in the US, this bill still has tremendous momentum in DC, thanks to a strong lobbying push from the legacy entertainment industry. In fact, don't be surprised if Biden totally contradicts himself in a few weeks and pretends that he's all for censoring the internet, harming innovation, and "fixing" what isn't broken on the internet. That's why we're urging folks to support American Censorship Day tomorrow, as the House holds its first hearings ever on how best to censor the internet. Biden's clear explanation of why SOPA & PROTECT IP are so bad should give pause to anyone supporting it -- and will certainly raise serious eyebrows if/when Biden (and the White House) later change positions on these bills. Oh, and if Biden does change positions, let's hold him to it, and make it clear that the American public doesn't appreciate flip flopping politicians, who completely contradict themselves, based on who's supporting what legislation.

More...

He actually hit the nail on the head. A few days ago, I already said that if SOPA was passed, I would fear for ZeroPaid's future. I don't think I can work on a website that I know could get shut down at any moment by government censors. If free speech is so intollerable, I will be forced to look for another website that resides in a country that respects free speech. My talent and my efforts are currently benefitting the US economy. If the US government ultimately states that innovation on my part is no longer welcome in the US, I will simply take my skills and talent to a website in another country. That country will benefit from my years of experience and I will continue to operate to report on news that happens from around the world. I will be happy to report on the continuing crackdown on human rights in the US and people who reside elsewhere will still know what is going on.

I may be one person, but I can assure you that others will take these measures as well if/when America bans innovation and removes the right to free speech. The only country that will suffer is the US.

[Drew Wilson]

SOPA Gives Me Powers That I Don't Want

I've had the privilege of working in two completely different worlds. I worked in technology, employed by Google for six years where I started and led Google Apps for Businesses. Then, I shifted into the movie business by leaving Google and producing a full length movie, Dead Inside, in LA. Our movie hits the market this week -- at a very interesting time with the copyright bill SOPA being debated in Congress.

I was amazed when I learned about the details of SOPA. This bill gives powers to content owners to easily and freely hurt many tech companies and could even go so far as to shut them down completely. Reading this from an entrepreneur's standpoint I immediately go on the defensive and hate it. After reading through the full bill, I finally realized "Wait wait wait...I'm a content owner, I could use this law." This is when I got truly scared.

As a content owner I would have power to send a simple letter to a payment processor accusing a client of theirs of copyright infringement. If the payment processor doesn't cut off a business relationship with my target within five days, they could be dragged into a convoluted legal process. I don't need to consult with a lawyer to do this, which is great because I don't even have one. I certainly can send simple letters out in my free time between takes on the set though. This is too much power for a single movie producer to have and it's way too much for any one else to have. A large tech company could defend itself in court, but small startups don't stand a chance.

The fact that many tech companies are very small and overly susceptible to the impact a simple accusation could have under SOPA is lost on many folks. While I was in LA, people on our set asked me what I did in addition to working the movie. I told them that "some of my time is spent advising tech startups." While a typical response in the Valley would be "Oh wow, which startups?" I was surprised to hear back "Oh, what's a startup?" After discussing this, many people on our set did not understand that most large tech companies start as two guys in a garage with an idea. Their concept of tech companies only included large firms of the world like Google and Apple. Now I understood that when people look at these laws, the concerns of small companies might be ignored because in some minds its obvious that tech companies have large legal arms to defend themselves.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

Geist: U.S. could claim millions of Canadian domain names in piracy battle

The U.S. Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debated over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that supporters argue is needed to combat online infringement, but critics fear would create the “great firewall of the United States.”

SOPA’s potential impact on the Internet and development of online services is enormous as it cuts across the lifeblood of the Internet and e-commerce in the effort to target websites that are characterized as being “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” This represents a new standard that many experts believe could capture hundreds of legitimate websites and services.

For those caught by the definition, the law envisions requiring Internet providers to block access to the sites, search engines to remove links from search results, payment intermediaries such as credit-card companies and PayPal to cut off financial support, and Internet advertising companies to cease placing advertisements.

While these measures have unsurprisingly raised concern among Internet companies and civil society groups, the jurisdictional implications demand far more attention. The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as “domestic” for U.S. law purposes.

The long arm of U.S. law manifests itself in at least five ways in the proposed legislation.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

Eric Schmidt Doubles Down On SOPA Bill, Describing It As “Censorship,” “Draconian”

We’ve already articulated our stance on the PROTECT IP, SOPA, E-PARASITE, or whatever you want to call it bill, which creates a dangerous precedent of blacklisting domains and concentrates power on rights-holders, and remains vague enough to be easily abused. Eric Schmidt has already spoken out against it, saying that Google would not comply with its restrictions. Today he upped the rhetoric a bit while speaking at MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

“The solutions are draconian. There’s a bill that would require ISPs to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.”

By dropping the C-bomb, Schmidt may have committed to becoming one of, if not the, most high-profile opponents of the bill in the tech industry, a position that may cause some inconvenience later. Luckily, he’s got the clout to back up his harsh words.

As already noted, it doesn’t really indicate a change in position on Google’s part. But Schmidt is taking up the mantle of vox populi, calling a spade a spade and calling censorship censorship. This is essentially a personal commitment to this cause, and his stature in the industry means that he’ll be spending a fair amount of time in Senate hearings regarding this bill. Good for him, though it helps to be at the helm of most important piece in the entire drama.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

Researchers Say SOPA is on the Wrong Track

On the eve of a hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, two releases from the research and academic community suggest that the current debate is on the wrong track.

First, a new study by the American Assembly at Columbia University shows that the American public is strongly supportive of copyright protection in general, including in the online environment, but opposes draconian penalties and censorship as the primary tools for ensuring copyright compliance. The study finds, for example, that very few people support uploading copyrighted music and movies to public websites and endorse enforcement efforts that accurately target copyright infringers. People support modest (less than $100) fines for online infringement. But 72% of Americans oppose internet disconnections; 69% oppose monitoring of internet activity; strong majorities oppose blocking or “censoring” websites with some lawful content and support mandates for judicial warrants and determinations before any restraints of information on the internet occur.

The views of the general public appear aligned with a broad group of law professors who have criticized the enforcement procedures in SOPA and its Senate counterpart, the Protect IP Act. Three leading law professors sent a letter to the House of Representatives today raising constitutional and policy problems previously endorsed by over 100 law professors with respect to Protect-IP. The letter charges that “[w]hile there are some differences between SOPA and PROTECT-IP, nothing in SOPA makes any effort to address the serious constitutional, innovation, and foreign policy concerns that we expressed in that letter. Indeed, in many respects SOPA is even worse than PROTECT-IP.” Among the “infirmities” of SOPA, the letter draws special attention to four, explaining that SOPA would:

“Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of inducement in a way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

Source

[Drew Wilson]

Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT



More...

[Drew Wilson]

SOPA/PROTECT IP Would Be Hideously Bad For Video Gamers

If a pair of bills on Capitol Hill, called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP, pass, you could be fined and thrown in jail for streaming (i.e., "performing") your video game speed runs or game play. Just as people post cute pictures and videos of themselves, their pets and their kids singing and dancing to copyrighted works, gamers of all ages routinely post pics and stream video of themselves during game play. All of these things have, for the most part, been considered "fair use" under the law. Tens of thousands of videos currently available online featuring game play from popular games like Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft and others could be made illegal under these laws.

Since games also rely on the unique and fresh content that gamers create structurally and within game play, SOPA/PROTECT IP would freeze such innovation. Creative new works developed out of the technology of video games could be stifled by these new laws. Machinima, or videos created using in-game tools such as in Red vs. Blue, may never have come about if SOPA/PROTECT IP were in place.

There are also serious "due process" issues with SOPA/PROTECT IP.

Under constitutional due process, if the government prosecutes you, you must have the ability to defend yourself before being penalized; and the prosecution and governing board must be a government body, not a private company such as YouTube, or a ratings entity like the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) presently mandates that a take-down notice regarding potential infringement must first be sent to the Internet service provider or host, which then must comply, if it wants to retain its so-called "safe harbor" protection. However, the alleged infringer can then send a counter-notice stating basically, "no we're not infringing, here is why." Under the current safe harbor provisions, the service provider is then required to put the material in question back up in 10 days if there is no further action taken on the part of the content owner.

More...

[Drew Wilson]

SOPA Will Have Grave Effects On The Health Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans

The House Judiciary Committee today is holding a hearing to examine the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill that proposes to address online copyright and trademark infringement by denying services to registrants, owners or operators of Internet sites. There has been much discussion on the technological implications of this bill, but Congress and the media have overlooked SOPA's major health implications--it would take away Americans' access to safe, affordable prescription medications from licensed, legitimate Canadian and other international pharmacies.

No one would disagree that websites illegally distributing "knock-off" goods, which include rogue online pharmacies, are a public menace. However, SOPA's definition of an Internet site that endangers public health (even worse than in its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT IP Act) is so vague and broad that safe, legitimate Canadian and other international pharmacies could be shut-down "in the dark of night."

This is because SOPA inappropriately groups together real pharmacies--licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor's prescription and sell brand-name medications--and the rogues, who sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.

This oversight is extremely dangerous for Americans (I am one of them) who rely on legitimate Canadian and other international pharmacies to import safe, affordable prescription medications they need to survive. For example, 90,000 people in Florida alone would lose access to safe, affordable prescription medications because of SOPA.

More...