RIAA Claims That If COICA Isn't Passed, Americans Are 'Put At Risk'
from the um,-who-exactly? dept
Considering the serious concerns raised by the bill, you would think that everyone would be fine with holding such hearings. But, of course, when you know damn well that the bill almost certainly isn't Consitutional and its sole purpose is to censor upstart competitors and technologies that threaten your business model, you probably are less thrilled about hearings. And, so, it should come as no surprise that, at the end of this National Journal article about the request for hearings, the RIAA makes one of its more ridiculous statements in a while (and that takes some doing):
"The answer from these self-styled public interest groups can't always be 'no.' Congressional and administration leaders have made it clear that doing nothing is no longer an option. If these groups have a better idea than the meaningful, bipartisan approach like the one put forward by Chairman Leahy, we welcome their ideas on how to insure that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish."Of course, the answer isn't always "no," but the answer absolutely can and should be "no," when the proposal involves censoring websites, removing due process, and favoring certain legacy industries over new technologies.
But the really ridiculous part is the claim that, without this law, "foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish." Just what are these sites, and which Americans are "at risk" from them? So, let's see if the RIAA can tell us which Americans are put at risk by which site -- and I'm sorry, but your inability to adapt your business model to a changing market does not put you "at risk." So, once again, it's time for the RIAA to answer a straight question: which sites are putting Americans at risk, and how will this law protect them?