Spanish Court Reverses Course: Says Linking To Infringing Material Is A Crime
New Research Brings Much Needed Objectivity To Game Piracy Numbers

Wyden: PROTECT IP Act Is About Letting The Content Sector Attack The Innovation Sector

Say That Again

from the don't-let-that-happen dept

Wed, Oct 19th 2011 08:18am -

For years we’ve seen Silicon Valley basically ignore what’s happening in Washington DC, and this has allowed certain other industries to take advantage of that policy. Hopefully, more people are beginning to realize that this is a problem and that speaking out and doing something may have an impact. Thankfully, some in Congress are helping to spread that word as well. Senator Wyden, who we’ve obviously mentioned a bunch due to his willingness to actually fight against attacks on free speech and innovation, showed up in San Francisco earlier this week to speak at the Web 2.0 conference, where he laid out the issues behind PROTECT IP clearly. You can see the full interview below:

Around the five minute mark, he lays out the real issue behind the PROTECT IP Act, rather than the BS claims of those supporting it:

Let me go right to the question of the PROTECT IP Act… What this is, at its heart, is a question of whether one part of our economy — the content sector — can use government as a club to go after another part of our economy — which is the innovation sector and everything that the internet represents.

My only issue with this characterization is that it’s a little broad. For example, Techdirt is, very much, a part of “the content sector.” But we’re quite worried about PROTECT IP. I recognize that the Senator was using shorthand, but it’s helpful to distinguish the legacy content sector from the next generation content players who don’t want to rely on the government to prop up our business models. Either way, the overall point is absolutely true, and it’s too bad that almost no one else in Congress is willing to address the reality of the situation. It has everything to do with a small group of companies — who are unwilling to adapt — trying to lash out at the industries they need most.

The PROTECT IP, when you really strip it down, is about whether or not you’re going to have arbitrary seizure of domains. Whether or not you’re going to have these vague standards for going in and seizing a domain. And then, and something I think is particularly ominous, ceding a significant portion of the authority over the internet to private companies, in effect, allowing them to bring private rights of action…. This legislation, in its current form, would take a significant toll on both freedom and innovation. And particularly now, when the digital space is one of the most exciting parts of an economy, where we’ve had some tough times.

The rest of the interview is equally interesting as well, touching on his efforts to make sure the 4th Amendment applies to the GPS info associated with your mobile phone, his efforts to press the Obama administration to reveal its secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, and a variety of other subjects that we talk about here all the time — including the idea that people here need to pay attention to what our government is doing and speak out when lobbyists and politicians are trying to hold back civil liberties or innovation.

I know it feels like we mention Senator Wyden pretty frequently, but there are two reasons for that: (1) So much of the things he gets involved in are the issues that we normally discuss here and (2) he’s one of the only people in Congress who seems to really be interested in these things. It’s good to see him come to Silicon Valley and spread that message directly to folks here.

Filed Under: , , , ,

118 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Wyden: PROTECT IP Act Is About Letting The Content Sector Attack The Innovation Sector”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
118 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

“he’s one of the only people in Congress who seems to really be interested in these things”

Actually, he is the only one in congress who buys into the whole freetard mentality. Let’s be fair here, there is plenty of interest in PROTECT IP, but it is mostly from people who can see the benefits to society in taking a stand against pirates, knock off artists, and scammers.

You wouldn’t want to talk about them, except to belittle their point of view. That’s okay, we all know where Techdirt stands.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

a question of whether one part of our economy — the content sector — can use government as a club to go after another part of our economy

I’m tired of store owners calling the police to try and stop shoplifters.

They shouldn’t be able to use government as a club.

/sarc

Wyden is a complete fucking idiot.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Don’t know if this is a troll, or one of the ACs that have been here recently to troll the trolls, but I’m going to say this anyways.

I’m for justice, but you seem to forget that justice is a two way street. It’s not just about punishing the guilty, but most importantly not punishing the innocent. When laws come out that are based on accusation and takes out the trial of peers, it throws justice out the window. To be for these laws is to be against the United Stats and civilized people everywhere.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Don’t know if this is a troll, or one of the ACs that have been here recently to troll the trolls”.

Maybe it was a pre-emptive troll of the trolls who troll trolls.

Isn’t it the new freetardian way to psuedo-troll and then call anyone with dissenting opinion a troll. And anyone who doesn’t worship Mike and spit at the media industry is accused of being an industry shill.

The Logician says:

Re: Re:

As you provide no evidence for your claims, only statements laced with opinions and colorful metaphors, your argument is invalid and will convince no one. Your attitude of snide arrogance, coupled with your willful blindness, merely serves to undermine your position, because no matter what you say, as long as those things remain, you will not be believed. Those who possess both intelligence and civility know better than to take you and those like you seriously.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."

I took it as directed at Mike, until saw your clarification that corrects your blunder.

Look, “The Logician”, you don’t even /have/ an argument, just some fake pompous rambling. You ain’t convincing anyone even that you’re a pompous twit, let alone a detached and objective observer.

The Logician says:

Re: Re: Re:2 @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."

I believe, Blue, that you hold a near monopoly on arguments that no one believes. What I said above applies to you as well. It is not logical for anyone such yourself to so consistently post such one-sided arguments for as long as you have here at TD without an external influence being involved. What threatens entrenched interests the most is the truth, and it is that which they and those who support them, such as yourself, seek to suppress. Yet what you seek is an impossibility.

It is fascinating how defensive trolls become when confronted with simple logic. Their own behavior condemns them. Hence why I seek to provide such logic. It exposes them for what they are, much as their own behavior does.

Jeff (profile) says:

Perhaps one hundred years from now, a historian will be able to look back on this legislation and say “this is where it started”.

The tech-innovation industry dwarfs the legacy content industry by at least an order of magnitude, if not more. Maybe I’m dense, but I cannot recall anytime in our (American) history where we willingly allowed a smaller industry dictate the terms for another whole industry.

It seems to me the TD community had a discussion several months ago about Google (1 tech company) being able to afford to outright purchase most of the music studios. I realize that the people at Google are smart enough to resist the temptation of investing in a sinking industry, but at what point does Google say “enough” and just purchase them to shut them up? This just doesn’t make any sense – its as if the orange growers are trying to dictate the terms of business to the auto industry… am I missing something?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yup, they will look back and realize that 2010-2014 was the time that the 15 year internet free ride started to grind to a halt, and the wonderful world of anonymous everything slowly evaporated.

As for Google “buying all the music companies”, I would consider that a blockage that would be worked around. Quite simply, Google knows so little about dealing with the public on any level that they would make the record execs look like the smartest guys in town.

Google (and many others) make at least part of their livings off the backs of the content producers. They aren’t going to set them up to fail, you can’t bleed them nearly dry otherwise.

Jeff (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If you believe that the internet is only 15 years old, then may god have mercy on your soul. It has only been in the last 10 years or so that the legacy content industry has been throwing its temper tantrums at congress. What about the 50 years prior? Sometime in the late 80’s and early 90’s the tech industry permanently eclipsed the legacy content industries – well before the ability to pirate media was widespread. As to your assumption that Google makes part of their livings(sic) off the backs of content producers… [citation needed]

Actually, I would say the tech revolution has prolonged the life of the legacy content industry for *far* too long. We tech geeks have given them enormous tools to promote, and distribute their works; securely, transparently, and in an astonishing array of formats. Yet they cling to their outmoded way of distributing their “art”, ultimately frustrating their customer who then chooses the path of least frustration (be it legal or not). The geeks of the world will not suffer the legacy content industry pissing on their work of the last half century or more. The legacy industry is at a crossroad – will they choose to continue frustrating and alienating their customer base, or will they adapt? Signs aren’t encouraging.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Jeff, the commercial internet (aka, what we use today) has really exists only since 1993, with the introduction of Mosiac. Previous to that point, the internet was a mish-mash of technologies, from Hypercard to Archie to Gopher, some of which trail back to the 60s and 70s.

Realistically, the “live date” for the internet for commercial purposes really started with the development of Netscape, late 1994 if I remember. That would make the “modern” internet as we know it 17 years old.

As for “e tech geeks have given them enormous tools to promote, and distribute their works; securely, transparently, and in an astonishing array of formats. ” This is true. But just like SMTP, you geeks forgot to include things like security, tracking, and proper user identification, rending the technology all but useless as the net has expanded.

Further, if someone wants to use those tools to promote their work, they are more than entitled to do so. The problem is when they use it to “promote” the works of others by giving them away for free. That isn’t productive, it is destructive.

If you have a better model, work it and use it and prove it’s better. But if your “better model” can’t compete without using, tagging along, and eventually sucking the blood out of the existing business, then you have failed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Quote:

Further, if someone wants to use those tools to promote their work, they are more than entitled to do so. The problem is when they use it to “promote” the works of others by giving them away for free. That isn’t productive, it is destructive.

And of course you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that giving away anything on the internet isn’t productive right?

Because if it isn’t why do record labels, TV studios and film producers give things for free in it?

Lion (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Seconded. Well linked.

So this begs a question: Can I torrent those listings marked “Free”?

If not than why not?

If so than what signal might that send to “big media” a.k.a mega copyright “*holders*”?

Perhaps that their new revenue model is what cable’s used to be (going down that – I’d say) and what every other website’s currently is? As in providing a service other than the crooked gangster powder pushing chick flinging trash dumping thug thumping shake down services?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

” But if your “better model” can’t compete without using, tagging along, and eventually sucking the blood out of the existing business, then you have failed.”

And here we arrive at the crux of your argument, that existing businesses need to be preserved a priori.

Existing businesses die all the time. This is not a bad thing. Get over it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

To say “the tech industry would be gone in less than a year without the content that comes from the entertainment industry” is really the most LOL thing I’ve read in awhile on this site. And I’ve ready some really moronic things.

Only a deluded person would think that without the entertainment industry, the tech industry would fail. Because we all know, technology would NEVER have come as far as it has were it not strictly for the entertainment industry. [rolls eyes]

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“The Internet is a global [interactive] communications network“

FTFY

The key word here is obviously interactive. Traditional television (including cable) is a broadcast medium, they transmit we receive, the end. The internet however is inherently interactive, we can have a discussion (e.g. email, instant messaging, or the comments on a blog), we can respond in kind to a broadcast (e.g. video responses on YouTube), or hundreds of other ways to communicate. Some broadcast companies are attempting to bridge the gap, but the majority seem to want to go back to the way things were (they talk we listen, the end).

This problem is that in life you can not go back, only forwards, you can make decisions to try to shape your future, but you can’t roll back the clock. This I believe is the key element of “information wants to be free” that many (most?) people fail to grasp. It is not about price, or value at all; it is about the idea that you cant put the genie back in the bottle, you can not reverse the entropy of a closed system. Thus information (& ideas) always flow in the direction of least restriction (like current following the path of least resistance).

Durpy_Hewvz says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Further, if someone wants to use those tools to promote their work, they are more than entitled to do so. The problem is when they use it to “promote” the works of others by giving them away for free. That isn’t productive, it is destructive.”

I beg to differ… in 2003 I was introduced to one of my favorite bands via a website called Project-J. This website showcased many then un-known Japanese music artists, had pictures of them and one singular mp3 download for each.

I happened upon a band called Dir en grey and became very interested in them. Enough to want to seek out more of their music, which I did via P2P. Because of the “nasty evil file sharers” their fanbase expanded -outside- of Japan in an age when CDJapan and YesAsia were pretty much unheard of (and who the hell would want to spend $40 on an imported Audio CD besides collectionist weeaboos anyway?) people were able to consume this band’s music and eventually the band began re-releasing albums in the states at affordable U.S. prices.

They were invited by Johnathen Davis to play on Family Values Tour in 2006 and their fanbase has grown to include more countries besides just the U.S. They just recently had shows in Peru, Argentina and Mexico. None of this would have happened if not for some “free-tard” sharing their music with other people on the internet.

out_of_the_blue says:

The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.

That’s the basic problem. If one can make money linking to pirated content, that’s not innovation, that’s just more piracy. “Content sector” fairly rightly sees people getting their products without paying — or more accurately, see themselves as paying for the products that pirates take — and are understandably outraged.

Disclaimer: YES, I recognize that problems with “PROTECT IP” will affect ME, but I have to put the blame for that on pirates and the leveraging grifters who facilitate them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.

Disclaimer: YES, I recognize that problems with “PROTECT IP” will affect ME, but I have to put the blame for that on pirates and the leveraging grifters who facilitate them.

When I was a wee lad in Junior High many many years ago, I was sentenced to detention because the substitute teacher that day told the real teacher that all the boys in class deserved it. Never mind that I wasn’t there that day, I got detention anyway. Do you know who I blamed for it? Not one of the boys who acted apparently badly. Not the substitute who made the accusation. I blamed the idiot teacher who doled out the sentence despite the evidence.

You are welcome to blame people who commit copyright infringement, but when innocent people get affected by stupid laws, I tend to blame the idiots who push for, enact, and enforce stupid laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.

When I was a wee lad in Junior High many many years ago, I was sentenced to detention because the substitute teacher that day told the real teacher that all the boys in class deserved it. Never mind that I wasn’t there that day, I got detention anyway. Do you know who I blamed for it? Not one of the boys who acted apparently badly. Not the substitute who made the accusation. I blamed the idiot teacher who doled out the sentence despite the evidence.

You are welcome to blame people who commit copyright infringement, but when innocent people get affected by stupid laws, I tend to blame the idiots who push for, enact, and enforce stupid laws.

What sort of pantywaist carries emotional scars from junior high over some trivial shit like this? I’d suggest getting some help but I doubt you could locate a therapist who wouldn’t burst out laughing in your face when you started blubbering about the unjust junior high detention and all of the “kick me” signs you endured. Man up, you sniveling milquetoast.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.

This is one of your more logical comments, so I shall respond in kind.

If one can make money linking to pirated content, then why don’t the owners of said content do the same thing? It would be easy for them to provide the content faster, better, and legally (despite what you may think, legally is a selling point).

As for your disclaimer, put credit where credit is due. Responding to piracy with Protect IP is just like responding to an insult with an RPG; over the top and will take out the innocent around your target.

Durpy_Hewvz says:

Re: Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.

Hello there Mr. Trigger, sir. I’d like to introduce you to my fine friend, Seiken Densetsu 3 (Secret of Mana 2), whom you’d never have had the chance to get to know had it not been for romhackers translating the game into english and uploading the patch file to apply to the rom.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The "innovation sector" attempts to leverage "content sector" products.

That’s some excellent reasoning. If my home is ever violated I may chase the trespasser with a shotgun and I can rest assured that, based on out of the blue’s logic, I can fire wildly after them as they go with reckless abandon because were I to inadvertently shoot someone else the trespasser would justly be blamed for that, not me.

The problem with the content sector is that it sees anything that reduces their bottom line, legal or not, as a threat and therefor constitutes ‘people getting their products without paying.’ Like the overzealous home defender they want wide reaching tools (shotguns) with which to attack over and over any group or individual they feel is assaulting them and, even if you assume their intended target deserves it which is far from always true, in so doing often damage innocent third parties.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Maybe I’m dense, but I cannot recall anytime in our (American) history where we willingly allowed a smaller industry dictate the terms for another whole industry. “

There’s been things like this for, such as with farmers and landowners. There used to be a time when a lot of people in some areas were farmers who rented land from a rich landowner, and grew crops on that land, and gave the land owner half their revenue in rent. The landowner was not a farmer, they were just making a living off real estate investments.

The problem started when the government was stepping in to stop food prices from spiraling even farther downhill (because too many people were farmers for a living, making it harder and harder to get by as a farmer). As part of those price control attempts the government would order farmers at times to destroy their entire years worth of crops, and pay them a bunch of money to compensate for the lost crops.

That’s where the landowner came in to screw with the system. The landowners had the law written so that the check would go to their pocket, rather than the farmer, since they own the land, rather than the farmer renting the land. Then the landowner would usually kick the farmer off their land for not paying them, and rent the land to someone else.

I’m 99% sure that the rules were eventually changed on this to give the check to the farmers.

Anonymous Coward says:

The PROTECT IP, when you really strip it down, is about whether or not you’re going to have arbitrary seizure of domains. Whether or not you’re going to have these vague standards for going in and seizing a domain. And then, and something I think is particularly ominous, ceding a significant portion of the authority over the internet to private companies, in effect, allowing them to bring private rights of action…. This legislation, in its current form, would take a significant toll on both freedom and innovation. And particularly now, when the digital space is one of the most exciting parts of an economy, where we’ve had some tough times.

OMG, this guy is so fucking stupid he doesn’t realize that there is NO SEIZURE PROVISIONS WHATSOEVER in the proposed Act. How can that be? He makes the same false, unfounded assumptions as Techdirtbag Nation. Then on top of that (like the Techdirtbags) he totally ignores the judicial component in any action taken against a website. It is truly unbelievable that a US Senator can be as uninformed as this on a bill he placed a hold on. The son of a bitch simply could not have read the bill to be making statements like this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Are you sure you understand what seizing a domain means in context? There are absolutely provisions in the bill for seizing a domain:
“(i) IN GENERAL- An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name?s Internet protocol address” – PROTECT IP 3(d)(2)(A)(i)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You’re drawing a distinction that is without difference. The end result in both cases is the same, a potential user types in a domain name and the owner of the domain name doesn’t get the traffic. If you want to call one ‘seizing’ and the other ‘not resolving’ then fine, you go right ahead, but don’t expect anyone else to go out of their way to make the distinction when it’s irrelevant.

That’s a very insightful set of insults. It’s so nice that, when presented with actual facts, you double down on the name calling. It makes you very easy to dismiss.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Sure, just gloss over the fact that ICE can only control domestic domains and that the provisions in PROTECT IP basically extends this enforcement power from U.S.
domain names to include non-domestic domain names as well (because what is the US government going to do to coerce the registrars in, say, Libiya?). Keep pretending it’s not the same thing even though the result was literally designed to be the same.

So, basically, your position is completely ludicrous.

Lion (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Like any other typical law mongering cunt you know damn good and well that they’ll be subject to secret interpretation, misused and abused in sinister fashion. Know that this has become yet another pathetic attempt to bolster the now truly pathetic cries of a dying delivery system.

Here’s a suggestion – have your client license their shit for what it’s worth and not for what they think it’s worth thereby rendering our already grossly overweight legal burden one item lighter. We are everywhere, now. No schedules, no countries and could pretty much care less about you and your interpretation and justification for PROTECT-IP at this point. So, get it passed fuck-twat, you’ll spur yet more innovation that you can cry about in the next round.

Perhaps, in the future, you could direct your misguided ass reamings to where they truly belong and get them out of my garden.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Are you sure you understand what ‘private rights of action’ means in context? There are absolutely provisions for private rights of action in the bill:

“(d) Required Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may, serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2), which have been identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, pursuant to subsection (a). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection:
(A) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDERS- A financial transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order.
(B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES- An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to or for such site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to–
(i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
(ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or placements that provide access to the domain name.
(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS- An entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine how to communicate such action to the entity?s users or customers.
(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of an action commenced under this section, the obligations of an entity described in this subsection shall be limited to the actions set out in each paragraph or subparagraph applicable to such entity, and no order issued pursuant to this section shall impose any additional obligations on, or require additional actions by, such entity.
(5) ACTIONS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER-
(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT- No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
(B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY- Any entity receiving an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Read D1:

“(d) Required Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may, serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2), which have been identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, pursuant to subsection (a). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

That’s a bit different then what Ron Wyden (D-Google) said:

“And then, and something I think is particularly ominous, ceding a significant portion of the authority over the internet to private companies, in effect, allowing them to bring private rights of action….”

There’s no acknowledgement that there is a judicial proceeding standing in between the private companies and an action against intermediaries. Moreover, the remedy Wyden apparently misconstrues as “seizure”- the de-listing from search engines and ISP’s is ONLY available to DOJ and NOT to private companies. It’s like this stupid fuck uses only Techdirt to get his information and form his opinion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m not sure what you thought ‘private rights of action’ were if not the ability to go to a court and be granted the powers enumerated above. That’s literally what the words mean. You seem to think they mean something a bit different (who knows what really).

It’s not misconstrued as seizure, it’s designed to do what a domestic domain seizure does to non-domestic domains. That’s literally what it was written to do. Keep harping on how different they are in implementation though because that’s the important part, not the intended result. I mean it’s not really an unlawful search if we use robot intermediaries, not our hands, to go through all your shit right?

Hilariously you point to the requirement for DOJ involvement as if ICE and the recent messages revealed by FOIA request from the copyright czar and other administration officials hasn’t amply demonstrated the regulatory capture prevalent in the copyright enforcement arm of the government.

David Muir (profile) says:

Patent Law

I was somewhat disappointed that none of the questions touched on patent law reform. I really didn’t like the way Wyden still referred to “intellectual property theft” as if that was a valid thing. The way copyright and patents get lumped together as “intellectual property” and then wielded as a big hammer against the citizenry… that seems to be a huge anchor on innovation. In my view, patent trolling and ridiculously long copyright terms are stifling innovation in a scary big way — possibly more than the other issues Wyden explores.

steer says:

facts

I don’t expect this to change the minds of those who are basically opposed to our intellectual property system as a whole, but I do think opponents should admit their true motives for opposition to the PROTECT IP Act, and not rely on gross mischaracterizations. As Mike notes in his post, Wyden claimed at the 2.0 conference that, “The PROTECT IP, when you really strip it down, is about whether or not you’re going to have arbitrary seizure of domains. Whether or not you’re going to have these vague standards for going in and seizing a domain.” That assertion is flatly and unequivocally false. Nothing in the PROTECT IP Act enables, allows, facilitates, or otherwise addresses the seizure of domains. Circulation and promotion of those claims echoes a lie.

Let’s have a discussion based on facts, not fantasy.

Lion (profile) says:

Re: facts

“… unequivocally false.”

You do have a point being that seizures and whatnot currently take place under some mystery, wobbly and distorted interpretation of current laws where any significant challenge requires vast resources.

So I wonder what truths the text of this law will discover?

What are the facts? What I’d like to know is who, in fact, wants this new law and why? Where did it come from? Is there really a mystery pool of money that has not been bled into hands already full?

On another vein I’d like to know when we’re going to get a fucking law that does something to help all of us, one besides funding the government for another quarter or two?

When are we going to get a ruling from the bench that benefits the lot of us?

When does that shit trickle down? Because this inverted gravity on rights thing is beginning to become intolerably uncomfortable?

Basically, PROTECT-IP is yet another little fucking annoying god damn edict from people with means whose brunt is borne by those with little.

Senator Wyden appears to be but one of an alarmingly small handful of folks charged with steering this US ship that seems to understand their task from the basest of levels.

There’s not much to discuss really. Semantics?

Yes, we could definitely do with some truths right about now, let’s leave the fantasy for future judgments.

Anonymous Coward says:

It seems that some of the people that are upset with Wyden here feel that entities such as Google are not a LEGITIMATE part of the economy. If that is their opinion,then so be it. However, I think that they must then admit that THEY think that NO broker in our economy plays a legitimate role. Anyone who makes a living connecting one with another, or helping a person find something, must be viewed, at least in their eyes, as engaging in an illegitimate or useless endeavor. That isn’t my opinion, nut it seems to be theirs.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Spanish Court Reverses Course: Says Linking To Infringing Material Is A Crime
New Research Brings Much Needed Objectivity To Game Piracy Numbers
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...