US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill

from the not-the-case,-steve-o dept

Steve Tepp is the US Chamber of Commerce's (the world's largest lobbying group) point man on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. His latest move is to try attacking anyone who points out the problems of E-PARASITE/SOPA. First up? Demand Progress, who dared to call it a "blacklist bill." According to Tepp, it's not a blacklist bill, because the lobbyists who wrote the bill (potentially including Tepp himself) were smart enough not to write "list" in the text of the bill.

Of course the bill doesn't actually say that there's a list. Just as the Chinese Great Firewall doesn't actually involve the government "listing" sites, but merely threatens ISPs with liability if they let bad sites through, E-PARASITE massively broadens the definitions of what's "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" such that it now includes, more or less, the entire internet, and threatens sites with the equivalent of internet death: blocking from search engines, blocking from DNS (and more!), cutting off any funding sources. No, there's no "blacklist," there's just the threat of cutting off just about any internet site. On top of that, there's an awkwardly worded attempt to force every site to proactively monitor any infringement. Is that why the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't allow comments on its site? Or is it because it knows that no one actually believes the crap it shovels?

But Tepp's intellectual dishonesty is worse than just pretending that without the word "list" there's no actual blacklist. No, the really cheap move is to imply that only the "anti-IP crowd" is against this bill. This is the latest strategy of those who wish to massively regulate the internet so that it looks more like TV -- a broadcast medium, rather than a communications medium. They refer to anyone who points out the massive negative consequences of their legislative nastiness as being "anti-IP." You've seen it in Techdirt's comments for the past few weeks, with certain anonymous commenters throwing hissy fits about how I'm actually "pro-piracy," when I'm anything but. If you don't think this is part of the coordinated marketing campaign by the largest lobbying organization in the world, you're not paying attention.

So, Steve, let's be clear: being against this bill is not about being "anti-IP." It's about being pro-innovation, pro-internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits of an open internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits to the American (and world) economy that were created from an open internet that didn't involve misplaced third party liability.

The concerns of those about this bill have nothing to do with intellectual property and whether it's good or bad. It's about the collateral damage that such a vast change to the legal and technical framework that the internet has been based on for years will cause.

To brush those concerns away as being "the anti-IP crowd," is to show ignorance of what's at stake.

What we don't understand, Steve, is why you would seek to shut down the open internet, killing off more jobs than ever existed in the entertainment industry. We thought the US Chamber of Commerce was supposed to support small businesses. Instead, you're seeking to make any internet business nearly impossible, unless they've already hired a dozen lawyers. I guess if your goal is for full employment for trial lawyers, you're making headway. But, seriously, if you can't debate this subject honestly, don't be surprised when the next generation of businesses dumps the US CoC. Pro tip: pissing off every company of the next generation that might support your bloated organization is no way to build for the future. And don't think jobs "in the industry" will be waiting for you. Without the next generation of great startups that you're trying to kill off, the big content companies who pay your salary these days, won't have the new platforms they need to succeed.

Filed Under: anti-ip, attacks, blacklist, e-parasite, sopa, steve tepp
Companies: demand progress, us chamber of commerce

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:06am

    Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.

    An AC disputes my statement "the fundamental good of copyright: protecting work-products so that /only/ its creators gain income from it, while grifters of all kinds are prohibited from doing so."

    >>> "that's not the fundamental good of copyright. it's supposed to just encourage the creation of art."

    Disagree about "art".

    >>> "it was never meant that /only/ its creators gain income from it."

    Sure it was. Constitution says "secure" to inventors and authors, right? "For a limited" time, THEN society gets it for free. I'm with ya that The Rich changed the terms so now it's effectively forever, but it was most certainly /only/ its creators for that limited time.

    >>> "i don't even know why that's a bad thing. if someone else finds a way to make money off of it by doing something the original creator did not, why is that bad? don't say "it's morals." give me an objective reason, 'cause the government doesn't pass "morals" as law."

    Objective reason: those who put money and time into projects deserve ALL of the benefits from it. (Note that I don't support those who put /merely/ money in as Mike does: I'd automoatically vest ALL employees of a start-up. But back to topic.) Conversely, those who put nothing into the pot DESERVE NOTHING. That's not merely a moral argument, besides which you're not going to get me to just dismiss the moral basis. -- Let's take Bill Gates and Microsoft. You probably contributed nothing to his wretched excess, I mean success. Do you believe that you can take Microsoft products and re-sell them as your own? (I'm for that, by the way, should be broken up, not even nationalized, just ended.) I don't mean just the "illegal" part of it that you can dismiss as a "moral" claim cloaked in legalities, I mean do you WANT to live off the labor of others? Without laboring the point, you're variously a slave-master or worthless grifter, then, a second-hander, and while you may actually enjoy that because it's all you're capable of, as a practical matter, too many of those who only TAKE will eat out the vital heart of the country. -- The Rich ARE doing so, and we need to reduce their numbers through 90+ percent tax rates.

    SHORT VERSION: not everyone CAN live off the work of others, so we MUST limit the numbers of those who DO.

    It's sheerly practical on the macro scale: we can't ALL be rich and lie around ordering servants. Someone has to labor. And labor is the SOLE means of creating wealth. When you take someone's work-product, you're stealing their labor. Yes, I know they're theoretically out nothing, but that simply CANNOT be let go without limit.

    I suspect you're pro-copyright, prodding me in hopes of eliciting an argument that you can use later. Feel free to.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.