SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

December 14, 2011 -

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) fired back strongly at critics of SOPA Wednesday, accusing various tech companies and their executives of not understanding the bill. He made a point of singling out Google for its opposition, calling it "self-serving."

"Companies like Google have made billions by working with and promoting foreign rogue websites so they have a vested interest in preventing Congress from stopping rogue websites," Smith said. "Lawful companies and websites like Google, Twitter, Yahoo and Facebook have nothing to worry about this bill," he added.

Smith’s response came after an ad that Google’s Sergey Brin, Twitter co-founders Biz Stone, Jack Dorsey and Evan Williams and Craigslist founder Craig Newmark launched Wednesday strongly criticizing the legislation. The ad featured an open letter to Congress and was set to run in The New York Times, The Washington Post and other publications. The ad says that Smith’s bill and the companion legislation in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), would chill innovations online, "deny website owners the right to due process” and hand “the U.S. government the power to censor the Web using techniques similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran."

They also said the bills would "undermine security online by changing the basic structure of the Internet."

Smith called the ad "nonsense," adding that amendments he unveiled this week addressed the major criticisms of SOPA.

The revision “narrows the scope of the bill to ensure that it only applies to foreign rogue websites,” Smith said. He also said that the amendments clarify the definition of rogue sites "as foreign websites primarily dedicated to the sale and distribution of illegal or infringing material or foreign websites that market themselves as websites primarily dedicated to illegal or infringing activity."

Smith also said critics have ignored his attempts to address the issues they have with the bill and accused them of "spreading lies about the legislation in an attempt to stall efforts by Congress to combat foreign rogue websites."

But his harshest criticism was for Google:

"In August, Google paid half a billion dollars to settle a criminal case because of the search engine giant’s active promotion of foreign rogue pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients," Smith said. "Their opposition to this legislation is self-serving since they profit from doing business with rogue sites that steal and sell America’s intellectual property."

Google didn't take Smith's comments lying down:

"We fight pirates and counterfeiters everyday and we believe, like many other tech companies, that the best way to stop them is through targeted legislation that would require ad networks and payment processors — like ours — to cut off sites dedicated to piracy or counterfeiting," Google said.

Google added that the changes Smith made to his bill to address critics didn't "clear up the tech industries’ concerns" that the measure would encourage government censorship on the Web and deprive site owners accused of hosting illegal content of due process.

Source: Politico


Comments

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

So, what is he saying, that only pirates and piracy enablers are against it?

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

"Companies like Google have made billions by working with and promoting foreign rogue websites so they have a vested interest in preventing Congress from stopping rogue websites," Smith said. "Lawful companies and websites like Google, Twitter, Yahoo and Facebook have nothing to worry about this bill," he added.

 

Read the first and last sentences.. if this is the real quote, it makes my brain hurt.

What he is saying that Google has a vested interest (re: monetary and harmful if the law is passed) while Lawful companies like Google have nothing to worry about?.

Please someone correct me if I'm reading this wrong.

High Tech Redneck

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

You're reading it wrong. Hit yourself in the head with a hammer about 50 or 60 times and then you'll be as stupid as your average politican and it'll make perfect sense.

How exactly is Yahoo legal when Google isn't? You can search for pirate websites on Yahoo too. Hell, you can post links to them on Twitter and Facebook. Or is this more along the lines of well these companies paid us to look the other way while Google isn't paying up so they're evil. You know the true nature of politics.

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

Because Yahoo paid him more money to word it that way.

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

Seriously, I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here on GP, but USA, can you please start taking care of your own country and LEAVE US ALONE! You have NO authority on us and it'd be nice for you to acknowledge this... (Again, this is targeted to those that believe that somehow USA have a "right" to govern or interfere in self-governing nation...)

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

Clueless, out of touch congressman sponsoring a bill written for him by an industry lobby, accuses the people who actually know a thing or two about computers and IP, of not understanding the bill.

Priceless.

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

Yeah. And yes, Google doesn't have anything to worry about. They're trying to protect US who DO have a lot to worry about! So you tell me who's "self-serving"!

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

When in doubt, attack the messenger, eh?

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

I am still amused that 'but we will only do it to foreigners!' is supposed to 'address concerns'...

Re: SOPA Sponsor Fires Back at Critics

Translation: I'm full of shit, but no one is falling for it, and that pisses me off.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
Michael ChandraLegal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
ZippyDSMleeYou mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
james_fudgesome states have "at will" employee laws10/20/2014 - 7:50am
quiknkoldIt says in the article that being in florida, you can get fired regardless if its a fireable offence10/20/2014 - 7:19am
Michael ChandraIf your employee respectfully disagrees with your advice, that's not a fireable offense. If they ignore your order, THEN you have the right to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 6:49am
Michael ChandraI... Don't get one thing. If you do not want your employee to do X, why do you tell them it's advice or a wish? Give them a damn order.10/20/2014 - 6:48am
james_fudgeA leak that had me worried about being swatted by Lizard Squad.10/20/2014 - 6:03am
james_fudgeIt should be noted that the author leaked the GJP group names online10/20/2014 - 6:03am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician