protect ip
Latest
Google, Amazon, Facebook and more confirmed as members of the Internet Association
Pitching itself as the first trade alliance to represent the concerns of the online economy, the Internet Association lobbying group has just confirmed its member companies and policy platform. As suspected Amazon, Facebook, eBay, and Google are joined by other large tech firms, under the leadership of Capitol Hill advisor Michael Beckerman, to form the umbrella public policy organization. Citing its three main areas of focus as protecting internet freedom, fostering innovation and economic growth, and empowering users, the Internet Association will represent regulatory and political interests of its member companies, and their employees. There is no word on what the first freedom or innovation to benefit from the associations collaborative-clout will be, but while we wait to find out, you can lobby on the source link for the Mission- and Purpose-statement containing press release.
Internet Association to lobby Washington, may tout Amazon, Facebook, Google among its ranks
Political lobbying is often a mixed bag at best. Still, there's a cautious amount of optimism surrounding the Internet Association, a soon-to-start lobbying group that plans to advocate for an "open, innovative and free" internet among US politicians. The unsurprising (if well-intentioned) aim is to prevent another SOPA or PIPA with more formal opposition than even the Internet Defense League can manage. Who'll be pulling the strings is nebulous -- officially, the Association will only say that former Congressional staff director Michael Beckerman is at the helm until a formal September 19th launch. That internet openness must extend to some very leaky representatives, however, as the National Journal, AFP and Reuters all claim that Amazon, eBay, Facebook and Google are charter members. None of them are talking on the record; we certainly wouldn't be shocked if the roster is real, knowing how much Google and other partners have fought takedown laws that would bypass much of the normal legal system. We're hoping that whatever manifests a genuinely rational counterbalance to media and telecom influences that often aren't very interested in protecting internet-only business models or due process.
PIPA on hold in light of 'legitimate issues raised by many,' says Senate majority leader Harry Reid [update]
It seems that the unending stream of protest from the internet, as well as from the meatspace, have helped to slow -- and potentially stop -- one of the broad reaching anti-piracy acts being proposed for legislation in the US Congress. An upcoming Senate vote on the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) has been postponed by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV).In a press release issued by Reid's office this morning, he cites "legitimate issues" brought up by protesters keeping the bill from being voted on, and calls on PIPA author and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to "continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans' intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet."Reid remains "optimistic" that the Senate will work out any issues with the bill "in the coming weeks," but given the bill's sister act in the house (SOPA) also getting a big delay, we're not similarly optimistic about PIPA's reintroduction. Additionally, Reuters reports that a "senior Democratic aide" speaking on condition of anonymity claimed the act was unable to garner support among the Senate, thus abetting in this delay.Update: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued a statement in response to the PIPA announcement, specifically addressing his SOPA bill in the House. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products." His complete statement can be found here. [ER 09 via Shutterstock]
The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of SOPA and PIPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act are two radical pieces of copyright legislation currently being pushed through the US government. Although the stated intent of the new legislation is to provide companies with additional tools with which to combat piracy, the bill's loose wording has raised some serious alarm bells. Opponents to the proposed law say it would give corporations the ability to shut down any almost any website under the guise of protecting copyright infringement. Gamers will be affected worst of all, as the loose wording of the law makes any website with user-submitted content potentially vulnerable to a shut down order. That could include YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, any blog with a comment section, or even any online game with a chat system. Perhaps the scariest part is that you'll be affected even if you're not in the US, as one of the new law's enforcement mechanisms is to remove a site from the DNS records, a move that assumes the US has jurisdiction over the global Domain Name System. AOL is among many huge companies strongly opposing SOPA, and so naturally Massively opposes it too. In this week's massive two-page Soapbox, I make the case for why you should be worried about SOPA, and I suggest what can be done to tackle piracy in the games industry. Comments can be left on page two.
PROTECT IP Act called unconstitutional by bipartisan group of law professors
Turns out Eric Schmidt is not alone in his vehement opposition to the PROTECT IP Act, and the resistance is hardly partisan. A group of over 100 law professors signed a letter (jointly authored by Mark Lemley, David Levine, and David Post) arguing that the legislation working its way through congress is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech can't be suppressed without the speaker being given an opportunity to defend his or her actions. Yet, under the bill being advocated for by the RIAA the MPAA, a judge can issue a temporary restraining order that will essentially shutdown a site based only on evidence presented by the government. The letter warns that, not only could overseas domain owners be cheated of the right to due process but, plenty of protected speech could be censored based a single piece of infringing material. As we warned, this can only get nastier and this nascent battle is still only just getting started. Check out the full letter at the source.
The Protect IP Act: Google's Eric Schmidt squares off against RIAA and MPAA
Protecting intellectual property sounds like such a noble cause that you'd have to be a anarchistic free-market extremist to be against the idea, right? Actually, we don't think Google CEO Eric Schmidt is particularly extreme in any definable way, yet this past week he spoke with gusto, railing against the proposed Protect IP Act, which was designed to "prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property." If passed into law, it would give the government the right to shut down any "Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" -- "infringing activities" largely being of the sort that allows dude A to download copyrighted item B from dude C when it's unclear whether dude C has legal rights to be distributing B in the first place. So, you know, it's targeting the Pirate Bay and its ilk, giving government officials greater power to sweep in and snag the domains of such sites. Schmidt calls this approach a set of "arbitrarily simple solutions to complex problems" that "sets a very bad precedent." The precedent? That it's okay for democratic governments to go and kill any site they don't like, something Schmidt says would only encourage restrictive policies in countries like China. While we don't think China really needs any sort of encouragement at all to keep on building up its Great Firewall, we tend to agree that this is a much more complicated problem than the Act makes it out to be. That said, one must admit that Schmidt's opinions are necessarily somewhat swayed by the knowledge that any such law would also have a negative impact on the business of search engines in general. But of course no such volley of words could go unanswered from the two shining knights of copyright protection, the MPAA and RIAA, which mounted up their corporate blogs, rode down from twin castles full of lawyers, and collectively told Schmidt he's full of it. The MPAA spun Schmidt's comments into some sort of act of civil disobedience, saying that "Google seems to think it's above America's laws." Meanwhile, the RIAA called the statement "a confusing step backwards by one of the most influential internet companies." Obviously it's only going to get nastier from here, so buckle your seatbelts, place your bets, and hang on to your BitTorrent clients.
