ProtectIp
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.
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.
