Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBtr4aZtmrQ
January 18, 2012
Google Says Piracy Bills Puts U.S. Censorship On Par With China
NPR
Google’s Brin Says Piracy Bills Puts U.S. Censorship On Par With China
December 15, 2011
by EYDER PERALTA
Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin unleashed perhaps the most stinging criticism of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act that is working its way through Congress.
In a Google+ post, Brin said if the U.S. passed either SOPA, the House version of the bill, or the Protect IP Act, the Senate version, it would put the country in same league as China and Iran as far as Internet censorship is concerned. Brin said the bills were a “threat to free speech.”
Brin writes:
“Two bills currently making their way through congress — SOPA and PIPA — give the US government and copyright holders extraordinary powers including the ability to hijack DNS and censor search results (and this is even without so much as a proper court trial). While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don’t believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world.”
As we’ve reported, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are behind the legislation, which would create an Internet blacklist and they say control piracy.
Today, a group of technology A-listers, including Brin, sent an open letter to Washington stating why they oppose to the bill. The first one listed is the legislation’s mandate that web services monitor “what users link to, or upload.”
“This would have a chilling effect on innovation,” the letter reads.
The Internet moguls also say the legislation would change the “basic structure of the Internet,” and “deny website owners the right to due process of law.”
The letter is signed by some of the founders of eBay, Craigslist, Paypal, Twitter, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, Flickr, Mozilla, YouTube and others.
CBS News reports that “the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is meeting today to determine if a slightly, though still controversial, version of SOPA will move onto the House for a vote.”
Hollywood Tries to Wash the Web with SOPA
Bloomberg Businessweek
CONGRESS December 15, 2011, 4:30 PM EST
Hollywood Tries to Wash the Web with SOPA
The Stop Online Piracy Act aims to stop illegal streaming. It won’t
In the spring of 1982 a House of Representatives subcommittee decamped to Los Angeles to hold hearings about a new gadget called the VCR. Movie studios believed home viewing of feature films would destroy theaters and, ultimately, their entire industry, and they wanted Congress to do something to stop it. The late Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, warned the committee, “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” Home video is now Hollywood’s most profitable business.
Nearly 30 years later, movie industry executives flew back East to warn of a new threat: online subscription services that stream movies. Early this month, members of the MPAA met in Washington with White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Vice-President Joe Biden, and members of Congress to promote a bill—now in the House—that will attempt to shut down illegal streaming sites.
The studio heads have grudgingly come to accept free peer-to-peer file sharing. “Yes, you’ll have people who want to camcord the movie, be the hero in their mother’s basement,” says Jim Gianopulos, head of Fox Filmed Entertainment (NWS). “And yes, we live with that.” It’s the infringing for-profit services Gianopulos and his colleagues are after. Hollywood is no longer just worried about theft. It’s worried about competition.
The Stop Online Piracy Act—SOPA—introduced in October by Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) has broad support in both parties. If it becomes law, it would authorize the Justice Dept., with a court order, to direct U.S. companies to stop hosting or providing payment services to foreign sites that illegally stream American content. It could tell search engines to stop listing those sites and instruct domain-name registrars—the companies that ensure when you type in “jeffbridges.com,” you reach The Dude—to direct traffic elsewhere. Studio executives insist the bill targets foreign sites, but it also allows copyright holders to obtain a court injunction that would hit domestic sites in some of the same ways. The studios point to an appeals process, yet offenders would have to fight a court battle to prove their innocence after they’d already been disappeared from the Internet. A similar bill, called the Protect IP Act, is moving through the Senate.
As with many fights about the Internet, this one pits Google (GOOG) and much of Silicon Valley, which have a financial interest in keeping the Web open, against Hollywood, record labels, and software companies, which have an interest in keeping it closed. In a Jan. 12 speech in Washington, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said Smith’s bill would “criminalize the intermediaries” (like Google). Barry Meyer, head of Warner Bros. Entertainment (TWX), claims the studios are being “death-paneled” by the bill’s opponents.
The two sides are having an argument about the bill’s unintended negative effects, but there isn’t much to suggest there will be intended, positive ones. In a 400-page survey of piracy in emerging markets published in January, the Social Science Research Council, a New York think tank, discovered little evidence that enforcement efforts had “any impact whatsoever” on the supply of pirated goods. What worked, it concluded, are “firms that actively compete on price and services for local customers.” At least one studio has recognized this. In June, Warner Bros. announced a deal with You On Demand Holdings (CBBD) to stream movies in China, where piracy has eroded sales.
This may make sense in the American market, too. Joe Karaganis edited the emerging markets study, and now works on digital issues for the American Assembly, a research institute at Columbia University. In an August poll, he found that of the 30 percent of Americans who have illegally downloaded videos, 40 percent say the emergence of legal streaming services has made them less likely to do so. (Google funded the study.) As the studios point out, foreign websites charge Americans $40 for unlimited, illegal streaming of new releases. Hollywood sees these sites as an affront. Eventually—if the history of the VCR is any lesson—it will come to see them as a business model.
The bottom line: Among Americans who have illegally downloaded movies, 40 percent say they now do so less, because of legal streaming services.
Source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/hollywood-tries-to-wash-the-web-with-sopa-12152011.html
Rupert Murdoch Lobbies Congress To Restrict Internet
The Huffington Post
Rupert Murdoch Lobbies Congress To Restrict Internet
First Posted: 12/ 7/11 08:26 PM ET Updated: 12/ 8/11 08:32 AM ET
WASHINGTON — News Corp. honcho Rupert Murdoch threw his weight behind Congress’ attempt to restrict the Internet, personally lobbying leaders on Capitol Hill Wednesday for two measures that purport to combat piracy.
Murdoch’s media empire is among some 350 large corporations that have come out in favor of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, as well as the Protect IP Act in the Senate.
Both measures would require Internet operators to police activity online, and would mandate Internet giants like Google and AOL (the parent company of The Huffington Post and an opponent of the bills) and credit card companies to take down sites that have content deemed to be in violation of copyright rules.
The battle has pitted huge content generators like Disney and the motion picture industry against their online competitors, with each side reportedly spending some $90 million on lobbying efforts.
Supporters say the measures will help curb theft and preserve the integrity of the Internet. Opponents charge that the measures amount to censorship that will stifle innovation and impose higher costs on consumers.
News Corp. owns 20th Century Fox films and many television franchises such as “The Simpsons.” The firm has long lobbied on the issue, donating to members on both sides of the aisle.
The personal intervention of Murdoch shows how high the stakes are. Sources confirmed to HuffPost that the media magnate was pushing for the two bills, and that he met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Murdoch’s presence comes as high-profile opponents, such as Google’s Eric Schmidt, have been ramping up their public efforts to kill the bills.
Additional reporting by Zach Carter
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/rupert-murdoch-stop-online-piracy-act_n_1135452.html
The Colbert Report | Stop Online Piracy Act
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Source: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act
SOPA: Bipartisan Coalition Proposes Alternative…
The Huffington Post
SOPA: Bipartisan Coalition Proposes Alternative To Internet Censorship Bill
First Posted: 12/ 2/11 08:34 AM ET Updated: 12/ 2/11 03:59 PM ET
Sen Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is one of the sponsors of the alternative proposal.
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan cadre of lawmakers proposed a new framework for an anti-piracy bill late Thursday night, hoping to derail leading legislation that hundreds of law professors and web experts believe would crack the foundation of the Internet.
At issue is how Congress should deal with foreign websites that pirate American goods, particularly movies and music. For months, broad majorities in both the House and Senate have been promoting legislation that grants radical new tools to both the American government and private corporations to take action against rogue foreign websites, but the tactics deployed have alarmed Silicon Valley giants and free speech advocates alike.
Foreign piracy has traditionally been an international trade issue. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative keeps a formal, public blacklist of nations that do not respect American intellectual property — a list which U.S. administrations frequently use as a foreign policy cudgel against other governments on behalf of favored American businesses. The U.S. International Trade Commission, moreover, regulates imports of foreign goods that benefit from unfair trade advantages. Both the World Trade Organization and the World Bank arbitrate trade disputes between nations.
Nevertheless, for months lawmakers have been wrangling over a foreign piracy bill without resorting to trade policy. Both chambers have put forth legislation, dubbed the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” in the House, which would allow the Department of Justice to determine which individual foreign websites are “primarily dedicated” to piracy and shut them down if they are using a U.S.-based hosting service. It would also allow American movie studios and other copyright owners to demand that U.S.-based web hosting companies bring down entire domains if they believe that domain is “primarily dedicated to piracy.” A web hosting service could challenge this demand, and the dispute would then be decided in court.
“The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system,” wrote 108 law professors in a July letter to Congress. “The Internet’s Domain Name System (‘DNS’) is a foundational building block upon which the Internet has been built and on which its continued functioning critically depends. The Act will have potentially catastrophic consequences for the stability and security of the DNS.”
Late on Thursday, a handful of tech- and free-speech friendly lawmakers delivered the outline of a counterproposal. Instead of private corporations having the ability to bring down websites, they would be able to lodge a formal complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC would then conduct an inquiry into the website’s activity, and recommend whether or not to rule the site an unfair import. If the ITC ruled against the site, American payment processors and advertisers would be barred from doing business with the site — but no DNS blocking would be deployed, and the website would remain intact, albeit cut off from American funds like other rogue foreign operations.
The framework for the counterproposal was put forth by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) joined with Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) and John Campbell (R-Calif.).
SOPA on the ropes? Bipartisan alternative to ‘Net censorship emerges
Ars Technica
SOPA on the ropes? Bipartisan alternative to ‘Net censorship emerges
By Nate Anderson | Published December 1, 2011 5:52 PM
The Senate’s PROTECT IP Act and the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are so noxious that even the Business Software Alliance has serious reservations, and SOPA’s main backer had to take to the virtualpages of National Review today to quell a growing revolt among his conservative colleagues about “regulating the Internet.” Whatever you think of the legislation, it unquestionably represents a sea change in the US approach to the Internet, one which explicitly contemplates widespread website blocking and search engine de-listing.
The level of debate on an issue this important has been… suboptimal. (And hearings have been ratherlopsided affairs). Just listen to the rhetoric of SOPA author Lamar Smith: “Enforcing the law against criminals is not censorship.” Pithy, sure, but it doesn’t relate to any actual objections put forth by thoughtful critics.
But rightsholders do need some means of enforcing copyrights and trademarks, something tough to do when a site sets up overseas and willfully targets American consumers with fake goods and unauthorized content. Some sites can be leaned on when hosted in friendly countries, but many simply thumb their nose at US law with impunity. If you can’t go after the sites at the source, and you can’t lure their operators to the US (both tactics used with success in other cases), what’s left but blocking site access from within the US?
Fortunately, plenty can be done, and it can be done in a way that doesn’t raise the same immediate concerns about due process and censorship. One promising alternative was unveiled today by a bipartisan group of 10 senators and representatives. It ditches the “law and order” approach to piracy and replaces it with a more limited, trade-based system.
And the legislators behind it have put out a draft of the idea for public comment before they even begin drawing up actual legislation. (Does the Smoky Back Room industry know about this threatening behavior?)
Less cops and robbers, more trade policy
Here’s the plan, according to a draft seen by Ars Technica: online piracy from overseas sites will be taken away from the Attorney General and moved out of the courts. Instead, power will be vested in the International Trade Commission, which already handles IP disputes relating to imports (the ITC is heavily involved in the recent patent wars around smartphones, for instance).
The government won’t bring cases, either; rightsholders can petition the ITC for a “cease and desist” order, but only when the site in question is foreign and is “primarily” and “willfully” violating US law. Sites would be notified and would have a right to be heard before decisions are made in most cases, and rulings could be appealed to a US court if desired by either party. (“Urgent” requests could get preliminary and temporary letters based on a one-sided hearing, but the process also envisions “sanctions” for any company that tries to abuse the ITC process.)
Sites which are truly bent on counterfeiting and piracy are unlikely to pay much attention to a US-based cease and desist order, of course, so the new plan envisions two remedies. If such an order is issued, Internet advertising firms and financial providers would have to stop offering credit card payments and ads to the site in question. Website blocking by ISPs and DNS providers is not part of the plan, nor would search engines or others be required to remove links to such content.
The two-page draft of the plan is being issued so that “the public can provide us with feedback and counsel before the proposal is formally introduced in the House and the Senate.” And clearly, feedback would be useful. Can such a “follow the money” plan do anything about noncommercial piracy, for instance? Should it try to do so? But the whole shift in tone marked by the new approach looks far more promising than anything likely to come out of the mess that is SOPA.
Who’s behind all of this sweet sanity? Senators Wyden (D-OR), Cantwell (D-WA), Moran (R-KS), and Warner (D-VA); Reps. Chaffetz (R-UT), Campbell (R-CA), Doggett (D-TX), Eshoo (D-CA), Issa (R-CA), and Lofgren (D-CA).
Photo illustration by Aurich Lawson
