how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to Tomek
Re: SOPA, maybe I should start voting.... 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
I think it's time to read this bill in its entirety.
He claims that it has due process provisions and that the domain for a site cannot be seized unless copyright infringement or distribution of counterfeit goods/services is its major purpose. He also claims that the courts would have to confirm the above before authorizing seizure(s).
I'm going to take the time and read the full text of this bill, and if I find no such provisions, I'm going to write back and rub it right into his face.
--
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...
| |
 JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
 ·Optimum Online
| Said by Schumer..
quote:
The threat to intellectual property owners over the Internet is clear.
I highly dispute that, it is most certainly not 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.
Numbers like this I find highly suspect at the very least and downright false when looked at in context with reality. 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.
I will argue that theft of this type occurs by other companies on a grander scale than any internet site could ever effect.
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.
Most judges have already shown their lack of understanding about the internet and how it works, I think in the last twenty odd years there has been a total of one judge that seemed to understand the "internet", and ruled accordingly.
I would also argue that none of the senators who are backing this have one clue what it entails or how it will affect things on the internet.
This is very bad, and I only see it getting worse. 
--
Politics is a disease, we need a cure!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | I give Schumer's staff credit for at least reading the letter and returning the right form response letter. | |
2 edits | said by AVD:I give Schumer's staff credit for at least reading the letter and returning the right form response letter. I would have to agree. I was expecting the general "We must fight piracy at any and all costs and by any and all means, blah, blah, blah...", but it seems like whoever read it actually understood what my concerns were and at least made a concerted effort to calm my nerves. Whether they succeeded is another story...
After reading the full text of PROTECT IP, I must admit that it looks good on paper. A site is at risk of being "blacklisted" in the US only if its major purpose is to distribute infringing materials and/or sell counterfeit goods. So generally speaking, sites like YouTube and Facebook are safe as that's not their primary purpose. Of course, some of their members do tend to post copyrighted materials on numerous occasions, and my guess is that the DMCA take-down process applies here. And if a $10 "ROLEX" watch manages to pop up on WristWatch.com and the company complies with ROLEX's request to take it down, the site can go on living. Not to mention that site "blacklist" requests have to go through court(s) and must be authorized by judge(s).
Wording like that leaves me to agree with JRW2  . Majority of the judges out there are in fact not tech savvy and/or paid off by Hollywood and tend to decide cases in their favor. I also agree with the fact that figures about piracy are grossly exaggerated and it does not have as profound effect on the economy as they say it does.
And by the way, I was talking about PROTECT IP Act, which is making its way through the Senate. I have not read SOPA yet, which is the House version of the same bill. Perhaps, that one contains broader and more vague language than the former.
--
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...
| |
| 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... | |
JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5 | A check bounced is the likely reason for it not hitting the floor... | |
| said by JRW2:A check bounced is the likely reason for it not hitting the floor... Now that would be poetic justice. Is it actually possible that RIAA/MPAA are poor enough to the point where they can no longer afford to bribe politicians to pass laws that protect their antiquated business models and stomp all over everyone else?
--
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... | |
|
