I received a reply today from one of the four congressmen I contacted yesterday. Analysis will follow shortly.
__________________
Dear Mr. ______:
Thank you for writing to me about copyright law. It's good to hear from you.
The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) would give the Department of Justice (DoJ) authority to identify and take legal action against websites that market counterfeit or pirated goods.
Illegal downloading of movies, TV shows and music is a real problem that harms industries, kills jobs and hurts our economy. We need strong copyright laws to protect the creative property of artists, and it is important that these laws be followed. However, I share your concerns about this bill. We need to make sure that the solution isn't worse than the problem. Any efforts to strengthen the protection of copyrighted materials must be well planned, avoid unintended consequences, and must not stifle free speech or innovation.
There are a number of provisions in the bill that I am concerned about, particularly language affecting Domain Name Servers (DNS). Legislation as wide-ranging as this needs a more open and thorough review from all sides of the debate. I am pleased that Senator Leahy — the author of the bill — has said he is open to changes to address this and other issues. The current language in the bill needs to be improved before I could consider supporting its final passage.
S. 968 has been passed out of the Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action by the full Senate. Knowing of your views is helpful to me, and I will keep them in mind as Congress continues to debate this issue.
Thanks once again for writing. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
___________________
First off, I have to say I'm kind of impressed that she took the time to actually read what I had to say and address the ideas directly. Points for that.
First problem: "The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) would give the Department of Justice (DoJ) authority to identify and take legal action against websites that market counterfeit or pirated goods."
IF the site is within the US, there is already a legal method of redress. It is for this reason that they specifically crafted the legislation to sound like it targets foreign sites.
BUT here's the rub: how is a foreign site beholden to US law? By definition, the law doesn't apply to another country. SO the law doesn't actually target foreign sites, but rather US sites that are in any way connected to those sites - like Google, Paypal, Visa, Youtube, etc. So... if the only people affected by this law are US companies who are ALREADY under sway of the US legal system, why not simple use the structures in place to pursue organizations at home? God knows that the government pressured Visa and Paypal to abandon Wikileaks for having the gall to publish US secrets on the internet, so it's not as though they haven't trod down that path to begin with. I still see no reason why any new law is necessary.
"Illegal downloading of movies, TV shows and music is a real problem that harms industries, kills jobs and hurts our economy. We need strong copyright laws to protect the creative property of artists, and it is important that these laws be followed."
Lies. Notice how she started with COUNTERFEIT GOODS which are actually scarce, and now she is focusing on ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS which are not. There is no evidence that illegal downloads harms the economy as a whole, and the fact that individuals are able to more efficiently allocate their dollars among actually scarce goods provides a net gain to the economy as a whole. If I don't have to spend money on music or movies (outside concerts or theatres), I can go to a play, or a restaurant, or any number of things. The only one who loses out is the individual who my money is no longer transfered TO, because he couldn't effectively compete with my other wants and needs.
Mentions concern re: DNS blocking and the like - good one. But then says "The current language in the bill needs to be improved before I could consider supporting its final passage." Which means she ultimately wants it to pass.
Well, at least she was somewhat honest and willing to communicate fairly - she has her concerns, and wants to see them addressed, but she ALSO wants to see the bill pass. Ultimately, it's disenheartening.
We now know where we stand. The fact that the repubs in SC stated their opposition to SOPA in an open debate is a major step forward, but then again, it's all pandering and vote seeking.
WE must rise to leadership. If we ever wish to see our freedoms restored, we must put ourselves on the front line. We must be willing to start placing people in public office who understand the nature of this generation and the technology that surrounds it. It is not enough to sit and wait until they take our liberty and freedoms from us - act up, rise up, and get people in public office!
When we have individuals serving as committee chairmen who actually understand technology and how it affects and interacts with the laws we create, THEN we can feel safe.
__________________
Dear Mr. ______:
Thank you for writing to me about copyright law. It's good to hear from you.
The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) would give the Department of Justice (DoJ) authority to identify and take legal action against websites that market counterfeit or pirated goods.
Illegal downloading of movies, TV shows and music is a real problem that harms industries, kills jobs and hurts our economy. We need strong copyright laws to protect the creative property of artists, and it is important that these laws be followed. However, I share your concerns about this bill. We need to make sure that the solution isn't worse than the problem. Any efforts to strengthen the protection of copyrighted materials must be well planned, avoid unintended consequences, and must not stifle free speech or innovation.
There are a number of provisions in the bill that I am concerned about, particularly language affecting Domain Name Servers (DNS). Legislation as wide-ranging as this needs a more open and thorough review from all sides of the debate. I am pleased that Senator Leahy — the author of the bill — has said he is open to changes to address this and other issues. The current language in the bill needs to be improved before I could consider supporting its final passage.
S. 968 has been passed out of the Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action by the full Senate. Knowing of your views is helpful to me, and I will keep them in mind as Congress continues to debate this issue.
Thanks once again for writing. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
___________________
First off, I have to say I'm kind of impressed that she took the time to actually read what I had to say and address the ideas directly. Points for that.
First problem: "The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) would give the Department of Justice (DoJ) authority to identify and take legal action against websites that market counterfeit or pirated goods."
IF the site is within the US, there is already a legal method of redress. It is for this reason that they specifically crafted the legislation to sound like it targets foreign sites.
BUT here's the rub: how is a foreign site beholden to US law? By definition, the law doesn't apply to another country. SO the law doesn't actually target foreign sites, but rather US sites that are in any way connected to those sites - like Google, Paypal, Visa, Youtube, etc. So... if the only people affected by this law are US companies who are ALREADY under sway of the US legal system, why not simple use the structures in place to pursue organizations at home? God knows that the government pressured Visa and Paypal to abandon Wikileaks for having the gall to publish US secrets on the internet, so it's not as though they haven't trod down that path to begin with. I still see no reason why any new law is necessary.
"Illegal downloading of movies, TV shows and music is a real problem that harms industries, kills jobs and hurts our economy. We need strong copyright laws to protect the creative property of artists, and it is important that these laws be followed."
Lies. Notice how she started with COUNTERFEIT GOODS which are actually scarce, and now she is focusing on ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS which are not. There is no evidence that illegal downloads harms the economy as a whole, and the fact that individuals are able to more efficiently allocate their dollars among actually scarce goods provides a net gain to the economy as a whole. If I don't have to spend money on music or movies (outside concerts or theatres), I can go to a play, or a restaurant, or any number of things. The only one who loses out is the individual who my money is no longer transfered TO, because he couldn't effectively compete with my other wants and needs.
Mentions concern re: DNS blocking and the like - good one. But then says "The current language in the bill needs to be improved before I could consider supporting its final passage." Which means she ultimately wants it to pass.
Well, at least she was somewhat honest and willing to communicate fairly - she has her concerns, and wants to see them addressed, but she ALSO wants to see the bill pass. Ultimately, it's disenheartening.
We now know where we stand. The fact that the repubs in SC stated their opposition to SOPA in an open debate is a major step forward, but then again, it's all pandering and vote seeking.
WE must rise to leadership. If we ever wish to see our freedoms restored, we must put ourselves on the front line. We must be willing to start placing people in public office who understand the nature of this generation and the technology that surrounds it. It is not enough to sit and wait until they take our liberty and freedoms from us - act up, rise up, and get people in public office!
When we have individuals serving as committee chairmen who actually understand technology and how it affects and interacts with the laws we create, THEN we can feel safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment