I wrote a physical letter to Senator Feinstein voicing my opposition to PROTECT IP. I thought it was particularly ironic that she pointed me to her YouTube channel at the bottom of the letter. That is one of the first sites that will be shut down should this ever become law.
Dear Mr. Cortright :
I received your letter expressing your opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.
America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly important to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.
The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) would give both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying. The bill would not violate Internet users' First Amendment right to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech. On May 26, 2011, this legislation was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration by the full Senate.
I understand that you oppose the "PROTECT IP Act." While I supported reporting the bill to the full Senate, please know that, prior to the close of the 111th Congress, I worked with California high-technology businesses and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to improve upon language from previous versions of the bill and to address the concerns of legitimate high-tech businesses, public interest groups, and others. However, I recognize that the bill needs further work to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working in cooperation with Chairman Leahy or by offering amendments on the floor of the Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the full Senate consider the "PROTECT IP Act."
Once again, thank you for sharing your views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
May I wish you and your family a happy and healthy holiday season.
United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. Feel free to checkout my YouTube Page.
AOL was one of the original walled gardens, and had the ability to do this too. Maybe they just really sucked at exploiting it. Or maybe, if you care about your customers like Amazon seems to, it's not worth it to try to eke a bit of value out of this at the cost of a potential huge backlash (e.g. the recent OnStar debacle).
If I owned a vehicle with OnStar, I'd get under the hood with some wire cutters or maybe a hammer and make sure that the device couldn't track me. Or is there something in the agreement where this equipment isn't really mine and is only leased to me for use with their service? I wouldn't put it past them.
If the guy is (was) smart, he'd exercise his 5th ammendment right and STFU about why he was flashing his lights. Then it's up to the prosecution to prove that he's doing it in order to alert other drivers to a speed trap. That's a pretty big hill to climb, IMHO.
And you know what? I had already downloaded the album from the InterWebs. And honestly, this isn't his strongest work. Even after multiple listenings, only a few of the new songs are really strong. The rest are mediocre.
So why did I do it? Well, part of the the appeal was the exclusiveness. Part of it was me wanting to support him because I want him to continue to create music. I believe in him. But also, the package offers his full back catalog with exclusive tracks. And for the super fan like me, that's what did it. The T-shirts and physical CD and all that jazz, that doesn't really motivate me. I'm in it for the music, and I can't get enough.
The whole premise behind this proposal seems flawed. Which has left me confused because usually I emphatically agree with TechDirt's stance on issues.
Even if one believed that NetFlix should somehow ante up for downstream network traffic, I don't understand why Sununu would agree to pay it for them. As a politician, he wants to fix the root cause of the problem and get NetFlix (and presumably every other internet service endpoint, like say... YouTube? BitTorrent? The Chinese students using traffic to send DDoS attacks against foreign sites) to pay on an ongoing basis. No one else should be covering the costs for these companies, whether it is the internet infrastructure companies, or individual politicians.
The reason is that we are exposed to the iTunes terms so much. Most software you install, agree to terms, and that's it. With iTunes, new terms come up with practically every update. You're looking at a 71 page scrolling dialog 2-3 times every year. It's like we all have a subscription to the latest ToS, and it is automatically opened front and center on our screens every few months.
I have a PokerStars account with about $100 in it. I have tried to both cash out and to transfer the money to another account several times over the past week. I've been locked out of all attempts. My emails to customer support have gone unanswered.
Personally, I really don't want the cash back. I just want it in an account that I can use to play poker online from time to time. I will figure out a way to work around this, as will most other savvy consumers, just like Canadians who have figured out ways to get DirecTV service.
Even if a business has closed wifi, the people with the key could still be accused of violations. Heck, even if no one uses the access point at all, copyright holders can still accuse. The only difference is that arguably you'd have a better defense if your access point was closed.