Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors

from the say-it-again dept

Senator Ron Wyden (who just joined Twitter) was kind enough to send over the remarks he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning COICA. It's an excellent read that highlights many of the points we've been making. Basically, he says that we need to be careful not to decimate basic principles of free speech and create all sorts of collateral damage in an effort to go after a few bad actors who can be targeted via other laws:
Make no mistake, I share the committee's goal of fighting counterfeiting and protecting our creative industries and the good paying jobs they support. The Internet has unquestionably created new opportunities to traffic in counterfeit and illegal goods. The fact that the law has not always kept pace with technology may make it easier for bad actors to exploit new opportunities. Congress is right to want to go after those who are "stealing American intellectual property." However, in writing laws to target the bad actors, Congress cannot afford to forget that the primary uses of the Internet are activities protected by the First Amendment, not civil or criminal violations.

[...] Yes, the Internet needs reasonable laws and bad actors need to be pursued, but the freedoms of billions of individual Internet users cannot be sacrificed in the interest of easing that pursuit. The decisions we make to police the Internet today will also govern how this relatively new medium will continue to develop and shape our world. I objected to last year's Combating Online Infringement of Copyrights Act not because it might reduce the Internet's ability to facilitate infringement, but because I believe it went about it in a way that would also reduce the Internet's ability to promote democracy, commerce and free speech.
He also laid out six specific points to consider in dealing with these issues. I agree with all six, and am particularly happy to see him mention the importance of separating counterfeiting from copyright protection, a key point that we've discussed here, but I had not seen anyone in politics pick up on until now.
  1. Don't be hasty. Good public policy is not made on the back of a galloping horse. While both Congress and law enforcement are understandably eager to go after bad actors, both must be mindful of the precedents that they are setting in the U.S. and around the world. The law is best applied when the government's assertions can be challenged before its actions are approved.
  2. Avoid collateral damage. Granting law enforcement broad authority to censor online content has a chilling effect on free speech. Narrowly focus law enforcement’s authority on those who are deliberately breaking the law or infringing on others’ property rights for commercial gain.
  3. Preserve Fair Use and secondary liability protections. These safeguards are fundamental to Internet commerce and explain why American companies have been so successful in the global marketplace. The network effect is such a powerful driver of commerce on the Internet that any restriction on links and referrals is a serious barrier to economic activity.
  4. Be mindful of how remedies can threaten and shape the integrity or architecture of the Internet. Decisions made today can have lasting results.
  5. Avoid taking actions that will empower foreign regimes to censor the Internet. The United States has led the world in promoting free speech; our example cannot be allowed to give authoritarian regimes any excuse to go backwards.
  6. Recognize the difference between copyright infringement and counterfeits. A one-size-fits-all approach towards trademarks and copyright may not be appropriate.
Once again, it's great to see Senator Wyden speaking out on these issues, but it's shame that he remains one of our only elected officials willing to pay attention to the problems with COICA and domain seizures.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

    Basically, he says that we need to be careful not to decimate basic principles of free speech and create all sorts of collateral damage in an effort to go after a few bad actors who can be targeted via other laws

    What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      duffmeister (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      We actually have a number of ways to do this: Berne Convention, WIPO, International Trade Agreements, and the like. A good list as a starting point is found here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/

      I think we should use what is already there and not enforce our laws on the sovereignty of other nations. It sets a bad precedent,makes us look like bullies on the international scene and also provides a way for other countries to begin to censor our peoples and freedoms.

      I am all for sensible reforms and agreements. I am against the US declaring itself the IP cops of the world as it tends to ignore the harms in favor of greater oppression by means of economic warfare.

      We really need to evaluate what the goals are and work towards them more holistically rather than in knee jerk reactions to questionable laws in the first place.

      If in the world of the 1800's where technology let distribution be difficult, 14 years was considered enough protection, why are we talking protections lasting over a century now? Why are they not accepting the very distribution methods that pirates and others are using to distribute their goods? Why can't this be a real dialog that discusses at face value the issues rather than always clothing it in disingenuous characterizations?

      Reforms are definitely needed. IP is not a tangible good and should not be treated like one. Should it be a protected item, yes. The problem is that fair usage and freedoms need to be considered as more and more ideas are locked up as if they were a physical object.

      I have never seen how an idea was lessened by it being in more than one mind. Isn't this how freedoms and ideas are supposed to grow? They spread and become stronger in the sharing not weaker.

      It is sad that the only way to legally send something to the public domain at creation is to intentionally put an "unclear copyright notice" on it so that there is never a clear copyright to assign to anyone.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

        Re: Re:

        None of those "methods" you suggest are powerful enough or timely enough. Most actions that end up in the "world court" are moot, because the people reponsible tend to die of old age before a judgement is reached.

        The speed of the internet means that harm is done rapidly, widely, and without borders. if you follow the discussions here you know that information travels far and wide and very quickly, often with millions of visitors and thousands of seeded copies of a nasty torrent spreading all over the world in a matter of days. The harm that is done by not taking direct action is immense, the recovery possible on the other side minimal.

        Failure to respect the rights of others (authors, musicians, artists, researchers, inventors, and so on) is a significant issue.

        Total freedom is not possible, for it only exists as anarchy. We trade some of our freedoms for security and peace, for a safer life and common understanding of basic laws that allow us to travel, to work, and to prosper. Without those sorts of rules, we quickly sink to the lowest common denominator, to the level of the lowest. We don't raise people up, we push the best down. Is that what you want?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I refuse to give up any of my freedoms in exchange for security. If I have a need for security, I'll handle it myself or contract with other.

          So far as the need to give up freedom for security, I only have this to say:
          ....................../´¯/)
          ....................,/¯../
          .................../..../
          .......... .../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
          ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
          ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
          .........\.................'...../
          ..........''...\.......... _.·´
          ............\..............(
          ..............\.............\...

          Benjamin Franklin was absolutely accurate on that score. And if you don't know the quote, you really should look it up.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The speed of the internet means that harm is done rapidly, widely, and without borders.

          Tell you what, you show me an unbiased study showing net harm and we'll talk about preventing said harm.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            ...aaand formatting doesn't work so well on the "Lite" page, it seems.

            My bad.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Did you hear the Tom Cruise is dead?

              He's been made dead on the internet any number of time. The speed of communications means that the rumor travels farther and faster than ever before, and the truth is hard pressed to chase it down. That is one something that is a simple provably fact.

              Now, let's consider the less obvious "Mike Masnick is a weenie who uses ghost writers". That is one of those things that could get spread all over the place, true or not. It is incredibly difficult to prove to be completely false, and no matter what attempts are made, the rumor is out there, circulating at high speed. Every visitor to this page (or the site that original mentioned it, you can find it if you look on Google), will come away thinking that. Maybe they tell their friends, or like the post. Without hours, that rumor could be everywhere.

              Now, if that website every day adds more and more like this to it's site, and more people like it, and that information become common knowledges, right or wrong, it is out there.

              Now, Mike could try to get an injunction against the site, sue them for their comments, etc. But because of his beloved Streisand Effect, the information is out there no matter what, and pointing at it would only make it spread faster.

              So if you buy the "effect", the rest follows.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And the point was to be incoherent?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                teka (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And where is the harm? you have still failed to come through with that.

                Ok, some people may believe a rumor for a short time that a celebrity is dead. The source of this rumor will experience a lot of negative notoriety when this is confirmed false. Anyone who repeats it will also have egg on their face for believing the internet without doing minimal fact checking. Tome Cruise is not harmed.

                Second example, Someone is spreading false statements. The reactions could be to.. a) overreact like you suggest or b) ignore it. The source full of negative and/or misleading falsehoods will be recognized for being outrageous or at least as unreliable as a tabloid. People who want to believe these rumors will not be swayed one way or another by taking action at the source, making it pointless. Just like your "masnick is a weenie" statement is just noise.

                Mike is not somehow harmed.

                Welcome to the internet.
                People do not always tell the truth here.
                Liars eventually get called liars, Other things are recognized as being more useful and therefor rise to the top.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:31pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Did you hear that Obama is a Muslim? He wasn't born in the US, you know?

                  Some lies don't go away.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:35pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Apparently they do or you would have been swearing here right now that he was a muslim but you know he is not.

                    And you be hard pressed to find a forum were someone said that and was not corrected by someone with links and sources :)

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:37pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Also when is ICE going to seize Baidu?

                    Or is those laws just for the people who can't defend themselves?

                    Why is Google China still serving music and movies?

                    I want to see the U.S. government seize Google's assets and put hundreds of thousands out of work and billions out of the market.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 6:48pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      No skin off my back, but you guys might want to chill on your "get google" shizz. You're not doing them (or yourself) any favors...

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:20pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Why?

                        You got Baidu, Google, Yahoo and Bing all powerfull and full of money doing exactly the things some people are saying are against the law, so now I want to know when are they going to be seized.

                        Have the U.S. government the balls to seize baidu.com? or those laws are just for the little guys who can't defend anything and are easy target? are those laws for everyone or just for the poor?

                        F. I had it with this BS, either they show they are serious and go after Baidu that is a full of infringement and the other search engines or just STFU because they don't have a clue about what they are doing.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        velox (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 11:05pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "you guys might want to chill on your "get google" shizz. You're not doing them (or yourself) any favors..."
                        -- the only shizz in sight is from that little wet dream you just had about taking down Google

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    That's something the internet did not have a hand in. Welcome to real life politics.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Except that people are a bit smater then you give them credit.

                Proof of that is P2P websites that have zero staff or money to pay for staff to curate the content, but somehow all those people get all the malware and fake files out of the system in seconds, is not that easy to spread bad information on the internet, even governments fail to do so even when their survival depends on it as recent events demonstrated LoL

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:22pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I just realize that this may be the reason you get upset about this website and others is because your FUD doesn't work anymore :)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                nasch (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The solution to false speech is true speech, not censorship.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Failure to respect the rights of others (authors, musicians, artists, researchers, inventors, and so on) is a significant issue.


          Fail to get a big stick to poke a bear could lead to grave consequences.

          Those rights were granted by that bear you are about to poke, with that short stick of yours.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Jose_X, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 12:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          >> None of those "methods" you suggest are powerful enough or timely enough.

          So you suggest the US fires its entire nuclear arsenal evenly around the globe so that infringers will be dealt with on a timely basis and without anyone escaping punishment?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Jose_X, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          >> Failure to respect the rights of others (authors, musicians, artists, researchers, inventors, and so on) is a significant issue.

          That is correct, and COICA is failing to respect the Constitutional rights of the majority of the voting public.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > The speed of the internet means that harm
          > is done rapidly, widely, and without borders.

          So the solution is to effectively repeal key portions of the Bill of Rights just because Disney can't sue someone fast enough for making an unauthorized drawing of Mickey Mouse?

          Really?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

      Re:

      The same laws we have to keep speeders of the Autobahn. No wait, I meant the laws we already have in place to go after tax Brazilian tax evaders. No, no, no, I was actually referring to the laws we have that disallow the Chinese government to restrict free speech. Hold on, we don't have any laws that prevent foreigners in foreign lands from doing things illegal in the US. Weird!

      Of course, if those infringers are US based, we have plenty of laws that take care of them already. If they are foreign-based, then they aren't infringing US copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

      US companies might have copyrights, trademarks and patents in foreign countries that those infringers are based in. In which case, those US companies should complain to those foreign countries that said countries aren't upholding said countries' laws.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Almost Anonymous (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

      Re:

      Where's the freaking 'off' button on you? Do you just sit at TechDirt's homepage hitting F5? Heck, I think I'd like you better if you just stopped at "Frist post!"

      Now to your post. Let's see, you're a lawyer-in-training who thinks that our laws should apply to foreign countries. I think you may have skipped a few classes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:57pm

        Re: Re:

        These are websites that are breaking U.S. laws. They choose to submit to U.S. jurisdiction when they choose to violate U.S. law.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're slipping, pal. Are you suggesting that by violating a law you are automatically in that law's jurisdiction, regardless of physical location? How many obscure laws from other countries are you breaking right now? Are you under that country's jurisdiction now?

          I think law school is having the opposite effect that you were hoping for.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If they are on a .com domain, they are "in part" in the US, and potentially subject to US law. The domain name is registered in the US and thus is subject to US law.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Baidu is a dot COM registered website well known for serving infringing products please seize that domain name and all their assets in U.S. soil.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 6:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                While I agree with this, a lot of people are unfamiliar with how much American money is in Baidu. Tremendous amounts. Insane amounts. It's entirely possible they've bought lobbyist protection.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  In other words those laws are just for little people and not big companies.

                  The U.S. government only have balls when they are talking down to the little guy's, funny how that works.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  velox (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 10:51pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "a lot of people are unfamiliar with how much American money is in Baidu. Tremendous amounts. Insane amounts. It's entirely possible they've bought lobbyist protection."
                  Anonymous, The crap you come up with sometimes is amazing.
                  Lessee... 'Baidu hasn't been seized because lobbyists are probably protecting them'.

                  Please recall that the domain seizures have been brought to us courtesy of career executive branch administrators at ICE, and not at the direction of elected members of Congress (with the latter being the more natural domain of lobbyists).
                  Notice that if lobbyists are able to sway the guys at ICE, then without prejudice we can plainly call it bribery and not campaign contributions.

                  So if you are suspecting that Baidu's "insane" money does buy protection, it would appear that you are painfully close to saying that guys in ICE are susceptible to bribes.....Hmmm.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You should read up on in rem and in personam jurisdiction, since apparently you have no idea what you're talking about.

            You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Why ICE didn't seize Baidu? it is a COM you know.

              They have many many pirate movies there, heck you can find everything for free and they have special sections just for that.

              Do the U.S. have the balls to do it?
              If not will they do it to India, Brazil, Russia, Italy, France and others?

              Those arguments are a travesty, we all know the U.S. will do nothing against big players outside the U.S. borders because it would mean the end of American business worldwide, but you keep saying people need to surrender their rights to get something that is not even in their interest.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              All good lawyers cite Wikipedia

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I pointed a non-lawyer to an article that would him understand jurisdictional issues. That article is very informative, and it links to other articles on similar topics. What's your problem with that? Or are you just intentionally being an ass?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I just checked "credibility" on Wikipedia and discovered that the term was coined in 1994 by President Ben Franklin after he rescued the Challenger astronauts from certain death.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 5:03pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Snore. Is there a problem with the "minimum contacts" article I linked to? Do you not think it's informative?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 5:06pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to read the article because your avalanche of dumb comments has capped out my bandwidth usage.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 6:54pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I actually marked that as funny. Gotta give props where they're due...

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    velox (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 10:59pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "I just checked "credibility" on Wikipedia and discovered that the term was coined in 1994 by President Ben Franklin after he rescued the Challenger astronauts from certain death."
                    Ridiculing your own imagined lie?
                    Sorry, not convincing ----> /sarcFail

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Baidu MP3 Search provides algorithm-generated links to songs and other multimedia files provided by Internet content providers. Baidu started with a popular music search feature called "MP3 Search" and its comprehensive lists of popular Chinese music (Baidu 500) based on download numbers. Baidu locates file formats such as MP3, WMA and SWF. The multimedia search feature is mainly used in searches for Chinese pop music. While such works are copyrighted under Chinese law, Baidu claims on its legal disclaimer that linking to these files does not break Chinese law. This has led other local search engines to follow the practice, including Google China, which uses an intermediate company called Top100 to offer a similar MP3 Search service.


              Source: Wikipedia: Baidu

              Baidu MP3 search with tones of (U.S. illegal) music.

              Seize that if you have the balls to do it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Google serve music and movies in China all illegal in the U.S. will they have all their assets seized?

              They are not respecting U.S. law according to you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are a person who is breaking a law in China. You chose to submit to Chinese jurisdiction when you chose to violate Chinese law. Please fly there immediately and report to jail.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          so thus that mean that India can seize all assets from American pharma companies that infringe on their laws?

          Thus that means China can seize Google to make room for Baidu? or Microsoft?

          Did every American go to China, India, Brazil, Russia, Italy and other places to file patents and trademarks?

          This will just be wild to watch.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So if IO have a website ending in '.co.uk' that infringes on US law, it's absolutely okay for US agencies to seize that domain without notifying me was Webmaster? Good to know I can't fight off those fucking leeches.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 6:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "These are websites that are breaking U.S. laws. They choose to submit to U.S. jurisdiction when they choose to violate U.S. law."

          Empire much?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 8:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Good luck enforcing that on foreign nationals not living or based in the US.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          G Thompson (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 10:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What the...

          Conflict of laws mean anything to you?
          Sovereignty?
          Jurisdiction?
          Enforceability?

          You realised you just basically stated that Thomas Jefferson et. al. were breaking the law in 1776 because they had previously chosen to submit to British law.

          The USA has absolutely NO, NADA, NIX Jurisdiction over any citizen from another country UNLESS and only UNLESS that Jurisdictions proper forum has allowed such, and is usually on a case by case basis.

          Oh and I can guarantee I break some sort of US criminal/civil Law every single day, the problem is the US would not stand a snowballs chance in hell of doing anything about it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 5:02pm

        Re: Re:

        I just looked at his profile and he has 43 comments just for today. He must be attending law school online at ITT Tech. Either that, or he needs to get a life.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 5:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ha. I'm sitting in a Sales Law class right now. Somehow I can multitask...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 5:59pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So you have been in class for 12 hours? Because that's how long you've been commenting today. I agree with the guy above. You need to be a better student or pick up some extra-curriculars.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 6:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You guys are finding some really dumb things to say to me. Why do you care when I'm in class or not?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 6:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                That's the pot calling the kettle black.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I think they're trying to say that a person who posts comments on a website he vehemently disagrees with for 12 straight hours has an unhealthy obsession.

                I'm not going to stoop to the level of impugning your academic or social skills, but I will say it's difficult to tell if you really mean half of the things you say, or if you're just trolling to elicit a response. I'm sorry for being disrespectful, but sometimes your comments appear to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Some of your comments give the impression that you're intentionally being closed minded or stupid.

                If you aren't trolling, I think a lot of people are being misled by comments that seem to be unnecessarily argumentative.

                Again, I apologize for my impolite, unsolicited opinion.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 8:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I don't feed trolls/Average_joes, I report them.

                  Seriously. If you see the orange avatar with red writing, do your best to click "report" and slide on by. Don't read it, don't respond to it.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 11:19pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    What's the matter? Can't respond to my posts with logical retorts? It's hilarious how much I threaten your guys' points of view.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Honestly, I don't care. It's just that you've behaved like a huge cockasaurus rex today, so I thought I'd connect with you on a personal level in the hopes that we me might someday find ourselves locked in arms with one another, deeply I entwined in a passionate kiss as we watch broke back mountain and sip fine red wine over imported cheese.

                That's when I plan to kill you with the schwatz....

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:16pm

      Re:

      What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?

      Before you ask this question first ask:

      "Is it necessary or wise to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP"

      If the UK had taken that attitude in the 19th century we would have gone after the US - because in those days US law allowed unfettered piracy of UK IP.

      Should the Royal Navy have invaded the US in 1850?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      I'm just confused as to why you aren't asserting that Senator Wyden obviously loves child molesters....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 3:27pm

      Re:

      Like COICA will change anything LoL

      Do you really think that if you start targeting other countries business they will stand still and take it like a man?

      Seize Baidu assets I dare you.
      Seize Indian pharma products I dare you.
      Seize Italian products I dare you.
      Seize Brazilian business assets in the U.S. I dare you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 5:45pm

      Re:

      "What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?"

      Well Pinky, it looks like we will just have to invade these freetard countries and show them who's boss. We can not have people in other nations thinking they can just govern themselves now can we?

      [/sarc jic]

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    "What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?"

    Isn't that what foreign policy is all about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 1:47pm

    So no laws? Is that your answer?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 1:50pm

      Re:

      Why the hell do we need to target foreign operations when it has no direct impact on the US economy?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 4:58pm

      Re:

      "So no laws? Is that your answer?"

      You left out stupid.

      "So, no stupid laws? Is that your answer?"

      Fixed it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 10:32pm

      Re:

      Oh the USA can in its infinite stupidity make as many laws as it wants to print, after a while you might run out of paper, or the money to purchase it from the countries you buy the wood pulp from though.

      Oh and lack of enforceability on laws is the major statement here. the USA can make billions of laws that effect foreign aliens whilst those foreign aliens are not within the Jurisdiction of the USA.

      The USA just cannot enforce those laws unless harmonisation happens within ALL countries.. Quid pro quo

      But go ahead, keep making laws that show daily that the USA is becoming basically the USSA and will be more and more ostracised every day. No wonder Russia, China, Brazil etc are trying to make a global currency that is not based in any way shape or form on the US$

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    CommonSense (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Wow

    This really makes me wish I could vote for him... I can't believe he's not only thinking about the current impact, but also the future impacts, and unintended consequences it may bring overseas.. My hat is certainly off to him. Just wow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 1:53pm

      Re: Wow

      It's a trick. He just wants to get re-elected to he can keep representing the interests of his electorate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:10pm

        Re: Re: Wow

        Wyden was just re-elected in the last election cycle. He doesn't have to worry about re-election for a few years. Also, he has typically not had to struggle to become re-elected, due to his relatively high popularity and the lack of strong opponents.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Re: Wow

        He just got reelected so I doubt it's that.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:10pm

    But... but... censorship!

    It's the new Techdirt theme of the month. Will there be hoodies?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:14pm

    Video published today on Wyden's YouTube channel:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA9QGFFf0_4

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jose_X, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      Thanks for the fresh link.

      The kind of potential abuse discussed in the clip is perhaps scarier than anything we are likely to ever see in the Patriot Act. It almost seems a few people can decide to murder or do just about anything and not have to explain their actions to Congress or to very many people ..and do so at will. Not only is having a few people make decisions for many without accountability or transparency a bad idea generally, but, when involved with potentially violent acts, this puts tremendous pressure on those few involved in the decision-making not to resist the will of those in the room with the big guns or vengeful nature. Judge, jury, and executioner merge into one.

      We need to root this sort of thing out of our government/military. Those with weapons and entrusted with power need to be accountable to the people. I think it's safe to say that we need as much transparency and separation of powers as is reasonable.

      We are not going to see change if few people end up pressing this issue. We need volume.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jose_X, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

        Re: Re:

        >> The kind of potential abuse discussed in the clip is perhaps scarier than anything we are likely to ever see in the Patriot Act.

        OK. Maybe not quite.

        There is tremendous value in having laws on paper whose text appeals to good principles and state fair things. It is a sad day for sure when lawmakers will get away with passing disgusting laws and not just us having the executive branch interpreting laws liberally to their twisted ends.

        It's very important to have both fair laws and fair interpretations.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 2:54pm

    Total freedom is not possible, for it only exists as anarchy

    Fear mongering at its finest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ben, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:01pm

    "They choose to submit to U.S. jurisdiction when they choose to violate U.S. law."

    So I, as an Australian, chose to submit to U.S. Jurisdiction when I started drinking alcohol at 18 as I was breaking U.S. Law?

    Uh how about go fuck yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 11:18pm

      Re:

      Were you in the U.S. drinking under age? If not, you didn't break any U.S. laws. I'm not sure what you're confusion is. Using the internet to reach out across borders to break laws is what I'm talking about.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:05pm

    Just read Wyden's comments. What can you say? Obviously someone from the pirate community got his ear, as he made sure to hit on all their talking points.

    It's a free country and everyone has a right to bend the ear of their congressperson.

    But his view is his alone in Congress, and ultimately the bill is going to pass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:34pm

      Re:

      Ultimately Baidu will grow their traffic.

      Are you going to be the one to say "but but piracy" to the Chinese?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 7:50pm

      Re:

      And that's how piracy and counterfeiting and copyright infringement and child porn and terrorism and the mob was defeated. The end.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2011 @ 9:06pm

      Re:

      Hope it passes then I will make sure I break the law every chance I get.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      velox (profile), Feb 16th, 2011 @ 11:14pm

      Re:

      "Obviously someone from the pirate community got his ear"
      ---Because obviously only pirates care about fair use, liability protection, constitutional rights, censorship, etc. etc.

      ---Obviously no one else in Congress would ever care about any of that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 12:58am

        Re: Re:

        Nah. While it was suspected long ago, it became obvious once he started regurgitating Joel Tenenbaum's defense brief.

        He's a cute little pirate puppet. Do you happen to know who the freetard on his staff is? Or was this the one politician that was dumb enough to drink Masnick brand Kool-Aid?

        whatevs. The bill is still going to pass.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 12:56am

      Re:

      and then I'd consider peaceful protests in the Capitol to stop government from functioning.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Shon Gale (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 6:25am

    Yea Ron!!! We love you in Oregon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This