“If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.

These comments address a troubling new legislative proposal in Germany that would violate long-established rights of Internet services to make use of information online. The legislation would create a new Leistungsschutzrecht for press publishers, such as newspapers and magazines. Contrary to Article 10(1) of the Berne Convention, this proposed legislation would prohibit Internet platforms from displaying snippets of news stories without obtaining the publisher’s permission and paying a license fee for these quotations. While it is as of yet unclear, we expect that the new right will be administered by a collecting society, with newspapers that wish to exercise the new right being required to join. If this comes to pass, no search engine or affected social media platform will be able to directly negotiate with any publisher; they would instead be forced to enter into a blanket, compulsory license, or be penalized as an infringer of IP rights. Thus, the proposed legislation is simply a government mandated compulsory license, transferring money from one industry to another. As such, it would constitute a costly new market access barrier. Some commentators have even speculated that the legislation might force news search services and affected social media out of the German market, by not returning results for German IP addresses. At the same time, this proposal would have obvious debilitating effects on German-based Internet platforms.

The CCIA has commissioned studies by Mike Masnick, CEO of Floor64. See http://www.floor64.com/about.php. Mr. Masnick has commented on the case on the TechDirt website and on his personal friendfeed.com account. See Ex. X (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/11050519050/boom-jury-says-no-patentinfringement- google-oracle-case.shtml and at http://friendfeed.com/mmasnick/a3a94012/jurygoogle- did-not-infringe-on-oracle-patents).

At the core of the '545 patent is the basic idea that one can use advertisement as an exchange or currency. An Internet user can pay for copyrighted media by sitting through a sponsored message instead of paying money to download the media. This core principle, similar to the core of the Bilski patent, is an abstract idea. Indeed, public television channels have used the same basic idea for years to provide free (or offset the cost of) media to their viewers. At its heart, therefore, the patent does no more than disclose an abstract idea.

While machine-or-transformation logic served well as a tool to evaluate the subject matter of Industrial Age processes, that test has far less application to the inventions of the Information Age.... Technology without anchors in physical structures and mechanical steps simply defy easy classification under the machine-or-transformation categories.

Whether, or in what circumstances, a patent's general and indeterminate references to "over the Internet" or at "an Internet website" are sufficient to transform an unpatentable abstract idea into a patentable process for purposes of 35 U.S.C.

The stimulative efforts of our companies in promoting freedom, democracy and more open societies is matched by no other industry in modern times. In the Middle East and around the world tech companies have stuck our necks out to be true to our principles. In contrast, we can think of other industries and companies that have sometimes worked hard to protect themselves and their markets by propping up status-quo repressive regimes.

Our companies have helped the Arab spring evolve and made it more possible for Russians to protest suspect elections. Our companies have sacrificed profits to withdraw from countries that would use our platforms to violate human rights. The most significant example was the costly decision by Google to pull search out of mainland China - the largest Internet market. That voluntary act, taken because of a commitment to principle and concerns about security and free expression was uplifting to many, though mocked by those for whom profit matters above all else.

It is, therefore, especially outrageous to suggest that any of our companies, and especially Google, who are opposed to this immature legislation do so because they greedily want to do business with rogue sites.

We are also proud that 3 of our members, among the largest US Internet companies [Yahoo, Microsoft and Google] have formed the GNI to defend global Internet freedom and condemn filtering and censorship.

The government has shown how its zeal leads to carelessness in its unprecedented efforts to widely seize domain names for IP enforcement, which ICE undertook this year. Sites were wrongfully shut down based on allegations the user was engaged in criminal conduct deemed lawful by their courts. We are concerned the same low threshold will be used in making decisions to spy on U.S. citizens.

Some in Congress and the White House have apparently decided that no price is too high to pay to kowtow to Big Content's every desire, including curtailing civil liberties by expanding wiretapping of electronic communications. Even the controversial USA PATRIOT Act exists because of extraordinary national security circumstances involving an attack on our country. Does Hollywood deserve its own PATRIOT Act?

The legitimate desire to address some serious counterfeiting abuses -- such as medications or industrial components used in defense products -- has been hijacked to create draconian proposals to alleviate the content industry of the burden of protecting its own interest using its own extensive resources. The government's role in protecting the public's right to safe medicine and component parts should not be allowed to morph into supplanting the responsibility of private companies to use existing legal remedies to remove possibly infringing content online and bring legal action against those involved.

But there is a growing enemy that does not have respect for copyright at all. And this is a very different enemy.

When the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a study in April on the economic impact of intellectual property piracy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Assn. and the Computer and Communications Industry Assn. took out a full-page ad in newspapers around Washington, D.C. "Content industry piracy claims are bogus," the ad read. "For years, claims of huge losses from digital piracy have been used to justify harsh restrictions on innovators and consumers . . . They have harmed our competitiveness, hampered legitimate businesses and impeded innovation."

Who are these four groups and why would they take out full-page ads to suggest the ridiculous--that theft of intellectual property isn't really bad? The answer is, this is the new face of our enemy.

These four groups have an extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda. They all have an economic interest in the theft of our music or paying little to nothing for it. [And] they are intellectually dishonest in how they approach these fights.

I have put together a top 10 list of the positions taken by these groups that I will define as their extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda.

No. 10: They support changing the law to reduce damages for copyright infringement.

No. 9: They support the elimination of statutory damages for secondary copyright infringement.

No. 8: They favor rolling back copyright extension; in some cases, radically.

No. 7: They favor the elimination of the songwriter and publisher rights for server, cache and buffer copies.

No. 6: They oppose efforts to obtain the identities of individuals engaged in massive copyright infringement.

No. 5: They support extreme versions of orphan works legislation.

No. 4: They have filed legal briefs supporting anti-copyright positions of Grokster, Napster, LimeWire, Cablevision, Google, YouTube and Verizon.

No. 3: They oppose graduated-response protection for copyright owners.

No. 2: They oppose treaties that support copyright enforcement like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

No. 1: They actually argue that illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic helps the economy and doesn't hurt songwriters.

Among other things, the "creative community organizations" urged that:

• The federal government encourage ISPs to use, and companies to develop, monitoring, filtering, blocking, scanning and throttling technologies to combat the flow of unauthorized material online;
• Copyright holders be able to combat infringement by making a database of their works available to service providers, rather than submitting individual takedown notices. And once a work is taken down, service providers should be expected to employ "reasonable efforts" to prohibit users from uploading or even linking to them again;
• Copyright owners be able to block unauthorized streams of live broadcasts without going through the formal notice-and-takedown process;
• The federal government press search engines, social networks, hosting companies, domain name registrars and online advertising and payment networks to cooperate with copyright holders on efforts to combat piracy ("Encouraging these intermediaries to work with content owners on a voluntary basis to reduce infringements, and assuring these intermediaries that such cooperation will not be second-guessed, should be top priories that call for the personal intervention of senior government officials if necessary.");
• A federal interagency task force work with industry to interdict prerelease bootlegs of Hollywood blockbusters and crack down on U.S. services that assist foreign piracy hotbeds;
• States adopt "labeling laws" that "defined unauthorized online file sharing and streaming as a felony," giving state and local law enforcement jurisdiction to go after unauthorized copying online;
• States use consumer protection laws to go after file-sharing sites that "expose consumers to intrusion, viruses and revelation of personal data."

• The objectivity fallacy: highlighting how the studies from the entertainment industry that pretend to be objective are anything but -- and tend to greatly, if not ridiculously exaggerate the problem.
• The lost sale fallacy: of course, demolishing the industry's desire to pretend that each act of infringement represents a "lost" sale.
• The causation fallacy: showing how the entertainment industry always places the blame for its problems on infringement, even if there's little evidence to support that any troubles in the industry were due to infringement. Instead, the filing points out that there are many, many reasons why some companies in the industry have run into trouble that have nothing to do with infringement.
• The innovation fallacy: dismantling the industry's claim that infringement destroys jobs and discourages innovation, noting that it is historically evident that competition breeds greater innovation than gov't-backed monopolies, which can be shown to create economic rents and dead-weight loss.
• The industry size fallacy: a favorite of the entertainment industry, which bundles in all sorts of unrelated industries that just sorta barely are touched by intellectual property (furniture!) to make the industry seem huge, in an effort to imply the importance of extra protectionism. But the filing points out how flawed the methodology is, pointing to the CCIA's own (awesome) use of the same methodology to show that exceptions to copyright contribute more to the economy than the "copyright industries." This part also points out that if the industry really is so big, then it should be well positioned to withstand any challenges...
• The equivalence fallacy: picking apart how the entertainment industry likes to lump all forms of infringement into one "evil" bucket, without ever acknowledging that there are very, very different types of infringement, and understanding the differences is key in determining actual harm and any "enforcement" strategies.
• The theft fallacy: once again reinforcing that infringement is a different beast than theft, and even the Supreme Court recognizes this... though the entertainment industry seems unwilling to admit it.
• The silo fallacy: elegantly highlighting how the industry loves to talk up losses in CD sales, while totally ignoring how other parts of the business, such as live performances, continue to grow. It also highlights how, despite CD and DVD sales dropping, the number of albums and movies being made has vastly increased.
• The relevance fallacy: laying out the argument that, even if you accept the industry's claims of losses, they're often submitting aggregate data that includes a variety of different factors and information that may be distorting the direct impact on specific areas, and setting policy based on such aggregate data could be quite damaging.

The spread of the global Internet has facilitated the unauthorized and at times infringing distribution of certain forms of intellectual property, especially copyright-protected content. The ease and minimal cost of copying makes meaningful enforcement costly and difficult. This widely recognized problem has stirred passionate debate about how the problem should be handled by copyright owners, the government, and third parties. This problem is amplified and complicated by the importance of both the content and Internet industries in the U.S. export market, as well as and demands for the U.S. to assert leadership at the international level. This creates a danger of rigid, oversimplified policies toward infringement that (a) make little sense in other intellectual property domains, and (b) undermine the perceived legitimacy of the global intellectual property system.

The solutions to the real and perceived problems the disruptive technology of the Internet has caused for certain entertainment and luxury goods companies cannot be solved by greater government intervention or by shifting more costs to Internet companies. Rather, the solution lies in the evolution of business models to adapt to the new realities of the marketplace.