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

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician