Regional Talk > New York > SOPA, maybe I should start voting....

SOPA, maybe I should start voting....

quote:

---

Dear Tomasz,

Thank you for writing to me regarding S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act of 2011. I understand your concerns.

I am a cosponsor of this legislation because I believe that we must protect American intellectual property against foreign websites that infringe upon our rights. By empowering the Attorney General of the United States to go after foreign infringing websites, this legislation becomes a necessary tool to ensure that U.S. companies remain competitive in the world marketplace. I recognize that there are technical concerns with the enforcement of this bill that need to be addressed. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the United States Senate to ensure that this legislation protects the Constitutional rights of Americans and does not stifle lawful free speech or innovation on the internet.

Thank you again for writing to express your concerns, and I hope that you keep in touch with my office regarding future legislation. For more information on this and other important issues, please visit my website at »gillibrand.senate.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Kirsten E. Gillibrand
United States Senator

---

Respond with:

"I certainly agree that is important to protect our intellectual property but not in a manner that prevents Americans from lawfully creating such intellectual property in the first place, or otherwise conducting lawful activities and exercising their Constitutional rights. The PROTECT IP Act as written contains vague, even contradictory, wording that will result in a multitude of unintended consequences. Furthermore, as it was drafted without proper and adequate input from the public and business concerns outside of the entertainment and telecommunications industries, it suffers from an unconscionable lack of protections for individual American citizens and their lawful use of such property, not to mention denying Americans their rights to due process and recourse. Therefore, I urge you to immediately withhold your support for this legislation until these concerns can be properly addressed and accounted for through completely open and transparent involvement of the public."
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."

Well worded, thank you
--
Semper Fi

+1 for dcdsl

reply to DC DSL
DCDSL for Congress!

reply to Tomek
I didn't know that she was co-sponsiring this cr@p. She's getting a letter from me as well, along with a note saying that if she doesn't drop her support for this, she can kiss my vote goodbye next time she's up for re-election.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...

reply to Tomek
I sent a letter and actually received an response the other day. Really a messed up bill and most likely will not survive in the House.

reply to DC DSL
Well worded. I modified it slightly and sent this to the honorable senator:

quote:

---

S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act of 2011

Honorable Senator,

I am one of your constituents and voted for you in your last election. I am considering whether to do so again, and have serious concerns regarding the so-called "Protect IP Act". The way this bill is written, it is unconstitutional and represents a give-away to large corporate interests in the entertainment business.

I agree that is important to protect our intellectual property but not in a manner that prevents Americans from lawfully creating such intellectual property in the first place, or otherwise conducting lawful activities and exercising their Constitutional rights. The PROTECT IP Act as written contains vague, contradictory wording that will result in unintended consequences for law-abiding Americans. It was drafted without proper and adequate input from the public and business concerns outside of the entertainment and telecommunications industries. It suffers from an unconscionable lack of protections for individual American citizens and their lawful use of such property, not to mention denying Americans their rights to due process and recourse. I urge you to immediately withhold your support for this legislation until these concerns can be properly addressed and accounted for through completely open and transparent involvement of the public.

If you value the votes you receive from your constituents, and your own integrity more than you do 'campaign' bribes you might receive from large corporations; then I suggest you immediately act to can this piece of crap; stand up for the rights of American citizens and stop ass-kissing industries that could stick money in your pocket.

Respectfully yours,

Mr. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

---

quote:

---

If you value the votes you receive from your constituents and your own integrity more than campaign contributions that you might receive from large corporations; then I suggest that you immediately act to stop this bill from becoming the law and stand up for the rights of American citizens such as myself. I would also like make you aware of the fact that I will be closely monitoring the progress of this bill as well as your vote on it should it reach that phase. Should I find your name among those senators voting in favor of it, I am afraid that I will be unable to support you should you seek another term in your current (or any other) political office.

Respectfully yours,
Mr. xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
(a very concerned US Citizen and a NY State resident)

---

reply to Tomek
This is VERY interesting...

quote:

---

Top recipients for ALL supporting interest groups
Name Amount Received
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $864,265
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $665,420
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $556,525
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $544,424
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $416,250
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $347,406
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO] $341,700
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $337,525
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] $275,950
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $272,750

Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] $376,600
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] $269,050
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] $250,250
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] $184,932
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8] $183,100
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] $168,000
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] $163,450
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] $154,000
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] $150,550
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] $150,350

---

Some representation we have here in NY State. According to the piece of info from JRW2 above, Schumer is the #1 bribe campaign contributions recipient, with Gillibrand not too far behind...
--

Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...

reply to Tomek
»Another DNS Operator Opposes SOPA

reply to Tomek
Received a response from Senator Schumer earlier today. Exact text is below:

quote:

---

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for your contacting me in opposition to S.968, the PROTECT IP Act. Like you, I believe that consumers should have access to a vibrant and innovative online community to discuss their ideas and opinions. At the same time, we must not let the Internet become a haven for intellectual property thieves.

The threat to intellectual property owners over the Internet is clear. Every year, the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that copyright theft costs our nation about $58 billion in lost output, 373,375 in lost jobs, and $16 billion in lost employee earnings. These numbers present an unacceptable burden to US businesses. In addition, companies may be less likely to innovate because their products may be stolen by intellectual property pirates, creating a drag on the US economy.

The PROTECT IP Act addresses the problem of intellectual property theft online, but it also contains important due process protections to ensure that legal activity over the Internet is not disrupted. As you may know, the PROTECT IP Act would allow the Department of Justice to file a claim against a website that (1) has no significant purpose other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement, circumventing technology controlling access to copyrighted works, or selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services; or (2) is designed, operated, or marketed and used to engage in such activities. A judge would have to find that a website is intentionally violating intellectual property rights of an American entity before he could issue an order against that site. I believe PROTECT IP Act would provide law enforcement and intellectual property holders additional tools to protect American intellectual property from websites while still ensuring the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and due process. The PROTECT IP Act currently is awaiting action on the floor of the Senate, and I will continue to monitor this bill as it moves through the Senate.

Thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

---

quote:

---

The threat to intellectual property owners over the Internet is clear.

---

quote:

---

Every year, the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that copyright theft costs our nation about $58 billion in lost output, 373,375 in lost jobs, and $16 billion in lost employee earnings.

---

quote:

---

These numbers present an unacceptable burden to US businesses. In addition, companies may be less likely to innovate because their products may be stolen by intellectual property pirates, creating a drag on the US economy.

---

quote:

---

A judge would have to find that a website is intentionally violating intellectual property rights of an American entity before he could issue an order against that site.

---

I give Schumer's staff credit for at least reading the letter and returning the right form response letter.

As hard as it may be to believe, but it looks like SOPA had an epic fail in House Judiciary Committee today. According to the below, many congressmen (including the SOPA's lead sponsor) have acknowledged numerous issues with the bill and adjourned without voting on it or setting a further voting date. According to many tech sites, the bill should have sailed smoothly through the committee today and was well on its way to the House floor the way things were going. So this is great news.

»act.demandprogress.org/letter/sopa_win/

The bad news is that PROTECT IP Act is still alive and Harry Reid is planning to put it up for voting in as soon as Senate reconvenes in the New Year. Let's pound him (as well as Schumer and Gillibrand) with correspondence to try to get them to kill that as well.

While I have no doubts that even if killed, these two bills will return in some other shape or form, hopefully today's development goes to show that if you pound politicians enough, they just might listen.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...

A check bounced is the likely reason for it not hitting the floor...