U.S. Chamber of Commerce Slams Protect IP Act Critics

November 4, 2011 -

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has some strong language for critics of Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) online piracy bill, the PROTECT IP Act. The group, which represents business interests in the United States (and is considered to be a largely conservative organization), fired back at critics on Friday who painted the bill as an effort backed by Hollywood and not businesses.

The anti-IP crowd is “tripping all over themselves trying to pretend (and convince others) that legislation against rogue sites is just for the benefit of Hollywood,” wrote Steve Tepp, chief intellectual property counsel for the Chamber’s Global Intellectual Property Center, in a blog post on Friday.

The response came after Politico posted a story indicating that both Google and Consumer Electronics Association were thinking of leaving the trade group for making web companies police the Internet. Yahoo left the Chamber in October, largely over its support of Sen. Patrick Leahy’s online piracy bill.

Tepp argued in a blog post that anti-piracy legislation is supported by plenty of companies outside of Hollywood including Caterpillar, Nike and Major League Baseball and smaller companies. He says that plenty of corporations want Congress to crack down on sites that sell counterfeit software, fake pharmaceutical drugs, entertainment content and other American-produced goods.

"The even bigger story is that rogue sites harm businesses and steal jobs across our entire economy," Tepp wrote. "And that is why the support for legislation to tackle rogue sites has incredibly broad support."

The IP protection laws before the House and Senate also have the support of the AFL-CIO, National Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Firefighters and more than 40 state attorneys general, Tepp wrote.

They face plenty of opposition from online rights groups and internet users who feel that these laws go too far, erode internet freedoms and don't provide a fair amount of due process to accused sites.

Source: Politico


Comments

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Slams Protect IP Act Critics

the entertainment industry (read: hollywood) has been crying bloody murder over piracy for a while now - of course they will be referenced in legislation that benefits them at the cost of others, the squeaky wheel gets the attention after all. how does Tepp not understand that? oh yeah, he's clueless regarding tech.

since hollywood is arguably the hardest hit by piracy, then in terms of "business", as Tepp says, hollywood's bottom line should have a measurable amount of resulting damage. But that's not the case,  they just keep breaking their own sales records and awarding themselves ever-increasing bonuses!

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/08/piracy-stricken-viacom-ceo-tops-pay-rai...

don't give up your freedoms for these lying fat cats! if you must give them up, give them up for something else worthwhile, not this!

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Slams Protect IP Act Critics

mmm.. straw men.

So their argument that it isnt' 'just hollywood' is they bring in a few other IP groups that are acting hollywood like?  That doesn't change the equation much....

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Slams Protect IP Act Critics

Some people forget that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is just another lobbying group. It isn't a government entity, unless you count all of the congressmen it owns. Also, you can see it spinning in full effect by calling those who oppose this bill as "Anti-IP." In addition, they fell as long as it is good for the industry, then it is OK to screw everyone else over.

Hellooooo! IP companies are doing better then they ever have in a time when the rest of us are just making it by. They aren't exactly wounded and dying, you know? In addition, just because it will benefit SOMEONE, doesn't mean it is OK to go to any lengths to do this. Things are pure black and pure white. You can EASILY support IP, frown on piracy, and yet feel that this bill oversteps what should be done.

Risking reductio ad absurdum, or perhaps not so much risking it as stepping right into it, let's compare this to the "soft on terror" accusation. Terrorists are bad. We would like to kill them. Carpet bombing an area with nukes will kill them. Ergo, if you feel terrorists are bad and want to kill them, you support carpet bombing an area with nukes. "But what about innocents that will suffer from this?" Shut up! If you don't support the carpet bombing with nukes, then you don't want to kill terrorists, therefore you are pro-terrorism (and ipso facto, weigh the same amount as a duck and/or very small rocks).

You can be pro-IP without resorting to the nuclear option. Just because we are against this bill doesn't mean we are anti-IP.

I'll see your "AD HOMINEM" (follow link under "blog post") and raise you a false dichotomy.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Slams Protect IP Act Critics

I'm willing to bet that these "businessmen" at the Chamber of Commerce have only a vague understanding of what they are supporting, which has also been heavily influenced by a greater community of absolute capitalization reinforced by corruption.

Not much support can be mustered for illegal profit of pirated media or pharmaceuticals, but that's just a diversion to usher-in legislation that provides unchecked power to an oligarchy. From a law-enforcement perspective, proposition to eliminate copyright infringement sounds justifiable,  but when laws are established that provide a broad umbrella for an agent to indiscriminately target anything or anyone who even links to sources of potential infringement, this will turn into a witch hunt. I can't imagine a more clever tactic than to anonymously post a few links to copyrighted material on a competitors website, then incessantly complain to it's webhost that the site is condoning piracy.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Slams Protect IP Act Critics

"No no no, this bill isn't about just one industry trying to buttfuck you!  It's about several industries trying to buttfuck you!"

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you usually divide up your Humble Bundle payments?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonthe lose of nn would not be good for us, but it will not be good for verizion/comcast/att in the long run ether.04/24/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonsadly yes. it would take another sopa day to achieve it.04/24/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoI am also confused. Are you saying NN would only become law if Google/Netflix pushed the issue (against their own interests)?04/24/2014 - 2:10pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, you are saying a lot of things but I am still unclear on your point. Are you saying that the loss of Net Neutrality will be good in the long run?04/24/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew WilsonOfcourse it does I never said it did not.though over time the death of NN will make backbone providers like Google, level3 and others stronger becouse most isps including the big ones can not provid internet without them. they can peer with smaller isps04/24/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, and that still plays in Google's favor over their smaller rivals who don't have the muscle to stand up to ISPs.04/24/2014 - 1:45pm
Matthew Wilsongoogle wont pay becouse they control a large part of the backbone that all isps depend on. if verizon blocks their data, google does the same. the effect is Verizon loses access to 40% of the internet, and can not serve some areas at all.04/24/2014 - 1:14pm
Neenekolack of NN is in google and netflix interest. It is another tool for squeezing out smaller companies since they can afford to 'play'04/24/2014 - 12:57pm
Matthew WilsonI have said it before net nutrality will not be made in to law until Google or Netflix is blocked, or they do what they did for sopa and pull their sites down in protest.04/23/2014 - 8:02pm
Andrew EisenGee, I guess putting a former cable industry lobbyist as the Chairman of the FCC wasn't that great of an idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=204/23/2014 - 7:26pm
Andrew EisenIanC - I assume what he's getting at is the fact that once PS3/360 development ceases, there will be no more "For Everything But Wii U" games.04/23/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Yes, obviously developers will eventually move on from the PS3 and 360 but the phrase will continue to mean exactly what it means.04/23/2014 - 5:45pm
IanCAnd how does that equal his annoying phrase being meaningless?04/23/2014 - 5:09pm
Matthew Wilson@Andrew Eisen the phrase everything but wiiu will be meaningless afer this year becouse devs will drop 360/ps3 support.04/23/2014 - 4:43pm
Andrew EisenFor Everything But... 360? Huh, not many games can claim that title. Only three others that I know of.04/23/2014 - 3:45pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/23/another-world-rated-for-current-consoles-handhelds-in-germany/ Another World fulfills legal obligations of being on every gaming system under the sun.04/23/2014 - 12:34pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-do-strong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/?comments=1 Here is another data driven article using sales data from steam to figure out if reviews effect sales. It is stats heavy like the last one.04/23/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenI love RPGs but I didn't much care for Tales of Symphonia. I didn't bother with its sequel.04/23/2014 - 11:21am
InfophileIt had great RPGs because MS wanted to use them to break into Japan. (Which had the side-effect of screwing NA PS3 owners out of Tales of Vesperia. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)04/23/2014 - 10:52am
RedMageI'm still disappointed the 360 never broke into Japan either. It had a bevy of great RPGs in the late 2000s.04/23/2014 - 9:48am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician