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

Will limiting Steam services to accounts that have spent at least $5 eliminate spammers?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonLost Kingdoms came out in 2002 this day. I played that game. I did not relize it was made by From Software. Lost Kingdoms was a good unique hard game.04/25/2015 - 4:56pm
MattsworknameOff topic, but, who heres playing Bloodborne, and if so, is it mercillesly murdering you every chance it gets?04/25/2015 - 7:35am
Matthew WilsonI think its a good article, and devs can take some lessons from life is strange.04/24/2015 - 10:24pm
Andrew EisenI tinyURL'd it. The world is safe!04/24/2015 - 10:23pm
Matthew Wilson@AE my bad there is nothing I can do about that.04/24/2015 - 10:21pm
Andrew EisenLooks like the spoiler is right there in the URL.04/24/2015 - 10:20pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://tinyurl.com/ok9pf6b a interesting opinion piece on the life is strange episode 2, and a dark event that happens in it. full warning major spoilers.04/24/2015 - 10:11pm
Matthew Wilson@mech no just she, nor her co workers have not. she never said it is not real.04/24/2015 - 8:58pm
MechaCrashWas she saying "I haven't experienced it," or "I haven't experienced it therefore it does not exist"?04/24/2015 - 8:31pm
ZippyDSMleeoy the skyrim paid mod thing is going over well. My 2 lints, I would not mind if Skyrim had a full SDK and not a crappy lil editor....04/24/2015 - 6:46pm
Andrew EisenWell, that is indeed crappy and nonsensical.04/24/2015 - 3:45pm
Matthew Wilsonshe got attacked for saying that she personaly has not experienced the harassment some other female devs have, and she got acused of defending GG and ignoring harassment. she ended up getting dog piled because of it.04/24/2015 - 3:43pm
Andrew EisenFine but do you recall ANY details at all?04/24/2015 - 3:38pm
Matthew Wilsonit was several weeks ago now, and I will admit to not saving it.04/24/2015 - 3:36pm
Andrew EisenAttacked HOW and by WHOM for not writing off WHO as evil? Do you have a link or anything?04/24/2015 - 3:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthat is the whole point she was not attacked for saying anything. she was attacked for being willing to debate in the first place, and not just write them off as evil.04/24/2015 - 3:28pm
Andrew EisenI know there's not a lot of room in the Shout box but goodness you're being vague.04/24/2015 - 3:26pm
Andrew EisenGreat, but that STILL doesn't tell me what she said, why she was attacked (or what the attack was) or what "standard line" she's following. Details, man. Details!04/24/2015 - 3:25pm
Andrew EisenOr what the heck Nina White (someone else I've never heard of) is actually referring to.04/24/2015 - 3:24pm
Matthew Wilson@AE she is a game dev. she used to do stuff with hormanix and now works with https://outact.net/#!/?page_id=2 she will often engage and debate both side.04/24/2015 - 3:23pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician