White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

N&P: Discussion of news headlines and politics.

Moderator: frigidmagi

Post Reply
User avatar
General Havoc
Mr. Party-Killbot
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm
21
Location: The City that is not Frisco
Contact:

#1 White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by General Havoc »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 06347.html
Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.

House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.

The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.

The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.

The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.

The letter also highlighted the following four points:

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.

Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.

“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."

On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.

On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision, the Wall Street Journal wrote.

The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."

A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.


Literally the first good news I've heard out of the news this year.

When SOPA landed on my radar, I got so angry that I spent the better part of two days calling up every member of the California slate of Representatives and speaking to their offices, staff, or voicemail, delivering angry threats concerning what I would do to their jobs if they voted for this bill. The responses I got varied from disappointing to non-existent to reasonably informative. I've been following the issue whenever I could bring myself to do so ever since, and it appears that someone over there has actually gotten the message. Quite a few congressmen and even senators have started backpedaling regarding their support for the bill, and talking about removing provisions that are the most egregious. And now this.

Obviously the issue is not yet over, but I'm glad to see some good news for once.
Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair...

Havoc: "So basically if you side against him, he summons Cthulu."
Hotfoot: "Yes, which is reasonable."
User avatar
Soontir948
Disciple
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:19 pm
21
Location: Queens, NY
Contact:

#2 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Soontir948 »

I really wished the local anti-SOPA/PIPA group didn't decide to organize Wednesday to protest outside of Gillibrand and Schumer's (both are cosponsors) offices, but that's out of my own needs. If they held it on Thursday, I'd be out there.

Sad thing is, when I emailed them, I didn't even realize they were cosponsors. :headwall:
Image
User avatar
Hotfoot
Avatar of Confusion
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:28 pm
21

#3 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Hotfoot »

And the MPAA continues in its grand tradition of being arrogant idiots, calling the protest blackouts an "abuse of power" and "dangerous gimmicks".

Link

:rofl:
User avatar
B4UTRUST
Dance Puppets Dance
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:31 pm
21
Location: Chesapeake, Va
Contact:

#4 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by B4UTRUST »

Hotfoot wrote:And the MPAA continues in its grand tradition of being arrogant idiots, calling the protest blackouts an "abuse of power" and "dangerous gimmicks".

Link

:rofl:
I saw that. The irony burns so bad...
Image
Saint Annihilus - Patron Saint of Dealing with Stupid Customers
User avatar
General Havoc
Mr. Party-Killbot
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm
21
Location: The City that is not Frisco
Contact:

#5 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by General Havoc »

Hotfoot wrote:And the MPAA continues in its grand tradition of being arrogant idiots, calling the protest blackouts an "abuse of power" and "dangerous gimmicks".

Link

:rofl:
Not that the MPAA's idiocies seem to have helped them any.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16623831
Sopa: US backers end support for anti-piracy bill

Eight US lawmakers have withdrawn their backing from anti-piracy laws, amid "blackout" protests on thousands of internet sites.

Two of the bill's co-sponsors, Marco Rubio from Florida and Roy Blunt from Missouri, are among those backing away.

Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia and blog service WordPress are among the highest profile sites to block their content.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has branded the protests as "irresponsible" and a "stunt".

The MPAA, Hollywood's primary advocate in Washington and a key supporter of the legislation, is led by former Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Dodd.

Both bills focus on responding to online piracy, specifically illegal copies of films and other media.

The bills would also outlaw sites from containing information about how to access blocked sites.

The BBC's Jonny Dymond says that with Mr Rubio and Mr Blunt withdrawing their support, the Senate bill - Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa) - that had looked likely to pass, now appears to be in trouble.

Mr Rubio is a rising star in the Republican party, and is often suggested as a viable vice-presidential choice for this year's Republican presidential nominee.
Bi-partisan backlash

Republicans and Democrats were among the lawmakers rowing back on Wednesday.
The list of senators no longer backing Pipa includes Mr Rubio and Mr Blunt, and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, all Republicans, as well as Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans Ben Quayle of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska and Dennis Ross of Florida said they were no longer supporting the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), joining Pennsylvania Democrat Tim Holden.

Mr Ross tweeted that he was no longer supporting Sopa, because as "a true free marketer, I want IP protected correctly".

In a Facebook posting, Mr Rubio said he and fellow Senators "heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the internet".

Mr Hatch called Pipa "not ready for prime-time" and said he would remove himself from the bill's list of sponsors.
Blackout on the web

The US news website Politico estimated that 7,000 sites were involved by early Wednesday morning.
Google did not shut down its main search but is showing solidarity by placing a black box over its logo when US-based users visit its site.

Online marketplace Craigslist asks site visitors to contact their representatives in Congress before moving on to the main site.

Visitors to Wikipedia's English-language site are being greeted by a dark page with white text that says: "Imagine a world without free knowledge... The US Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia."

If users try to access its other pages via search sites, the text briefly flashes up before being replaced by the protest page. However, people have been sharing workarounds to disable the redirect.

WordPress's homepage displays a video which claims that Sopa "breaks the internet" and asks users to add their name to a petition asking Congress to stop the bill.

"The authors of the legislation don't seem to really understand how the internet works," the site's co-founder, Matt Mullenweg told the BBC.
Other net firms that have criticised the legislation decided not to take part in the blackout.

Twitter's founder, Dick Costolo, tweeted that it would be "foolish" to take the service offline.
'Gimmick'

The moves were described as an "abuse of power" by one of the highest-profile supporters of the anti-piracy bills.

"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information," Mr Dodd said in a statement, calling the actions taken by the high-profile websites "yet another gimmick".

In addition to the MPAA's support for the legislation, the US Chamber of Commerce said claims against the legislation had been overstated.
"[The sponsors] announced they would roll back the provisions of these bills designed to block foreign criminal websites, striking a major conciliatory note with those who raised legitimate concerns," said Steve Tepp, chief intellectual property counsel at the chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center.

"What remains are two pieces of legislation that are narrowly tailored and commercially reasonable for taking an effective swipe at the business models of rogue sites."

The proposed legislation would allow the Department of Justice and content owners to seek court orders against any site accused of "enabling or facilitating" piracy.

Sopa also calls for search engines to remove infringing sites from their results. Pipa does not include this provision.

Google posted a blog on the subject claiming that the bills would not stop piracy.

"There are better ways to address piracy than to ask US companies to censor the internet. The foreign rogue sites are in it for the money, and we believe the best way to shut them down is to cut off their sources of funding."

The events coincided with news that the US House of Representatives plans to resume work on Sopa next month. The Senate is expected to start voting on 24 January on how to proceed on Pipa.

Even if Congress approves the bills, President Barack Obama may decide to veto them.

The White House issued a statement at the weekend saying that "we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet".
Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair...

Havoc: "So basically if you side against him, he summons Cthulu."
Hotfoot: "Yes, which is reasonable."
User avatar
Charon
No
Posts: 4913
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:30 pm
21
Location: On my boat, as always.
Contact:

#6 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Charon »

I wrote to all of my congressmen today. Found out my Representative was already against it, so I sent her a thank you e-mail.

As for my Senators, who are both co-sponsors to PIPA, I sent e-mails as well. Senator Gillibrand got a fairly stock response because really, I don't care about her one way or another. Schumer on the other hand...

I've always been a big fan of Schumer. He's been the Senator that actually seems to give a damn about Western New York and that means a lot to me. He's a likable guy, and he showed up unexpectedly to speak at my college graduation. That guy is *my* senator. So it hurt that he co-sponsors this bill and voted for NDAA (hard to find people that didn't there). I let him know this. Hopefully it will help to change his mind.
Moderator of Philosophy and Theology
User avatar
Soontir948
Disciple
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:19 pm
21
Location: Queens, NY
Contact:

#7 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Soontir948 »

Gillibrand also gave a bland response on Twitter about how she'll work to help rewrite SOPA. Not really satisfied with that.
Image
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
21
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#8 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Josh »

If we win this round, keep your eyes open for the next go-around. They will just try to get it again, either by letting the issue cool for a while and coming back with a re-branded bill or by trying to slide back in incrementally.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
User avatar
Charon
No
Posts: 4913
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:30 pm
21
Location: On my boat, as always.
Contact:

#9 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Charon »

Soontir948 wrote:Gillibrand also gave a bland response on Twitter about how she'll work to help rewrite SOPA. Not really satisfied with that.
Yeah I saw that and called her out on that. Asking her why she was co-sponsoring a bill that she had such big concerns about.
Moderator of Philosophy and Theology
User avatar
General Havoc
Mr. Party-Killbot
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm
21
Location: The City that is not Frisco
Contact:

#10 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by General Havoc »

Josh wrote:If we win this round, keep your eyes open for the next go-around. They will just try to get it again, either by letting the issue cool for a while and coming back with a re-branded bill or by trying to slide back in incrementally.
Maybe. But contrary to what people constantly warn gloomily, bills don't often get rotated through congress repeatedly like this. It's an incredibly expensive and intensive process to try and move a bill through congress, and congressional types tend to be wary of anything that can generate lots of negative publicity. I suppose we'll see.
Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair...

Havoc: "So basically if you side against him, he summons Cthulu."
Hotfoot: "Yes, which is reasonable."
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
21
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#11 Re: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Post by Josh »

General Havoc wrote:Maybe. But contrary to what people constantly warn gloomily, bills don't often get rotated through congress repeatedly like this. It's an incredibly expensive and intensive process to try and move a bill through congress, and congressional types tend to be wary of anything that can generate lots of negative publicity. I suppose we'll see.
Depends on the nature of the legislation and how it's introduced. For example, certain gun control bills are introduced every year in substantially the same form. They get shot down early on and nobody really pays attention. Chuck Rangel kept tossing out a draft bill every year for a while there too.

That wouldn't be the case with this, which had substantial support going in, still has enough support to be contended at the moment. Which is why I said they'd wait a while and try to re-brand it, or try to increment it in with amendments. The re-branding is something we saw with the Anti-Terrorism bill back in the nineties, which was reintroduced later as the PATRIOT Act.

So no, not SOPA II next year, but so long as MPAA is fixed on the same course of brute-force interdiction of digital piracy this stuff is going to be lurking.

Edited to add Rangel's draft bill.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
Post Reply