Photo: Andrew Dallos
Protesting today in New York, where Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are both listed as supporters of PIPA. Click for whip list.
Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) has pulled his sponsorship of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA. He writes:
"American innovation is a cornerstone to our nation's economic growth, and job creators have lost $135 billion in revenue annually as a result of rogue internet sites.
"While I believed the bill still needed much work, I cosponsored the Senate version of the Protect IP Act because I support the original intent of this bill - to protect against the piracy of lawful content.
"Upon passage of this bill through committee, Senate Judiciary Republicans strongly stated that there were substantive issues in this legislation that had to be addressed before it moved forward. I agree with that sentiment. But unfortunately, Senate Leader Harry Reid is pushing forward with legislation that is deeply flawed and still needs much work.
"That is why I'm withdrawing my co-sponsorship for the Protect IP Act.
"The right to free speech is one of the most basic foundations that makes our nation great, and I strongly oppose sanctioning Americans' right to free speech in any medium - including over the internet.
"I continue to believe that we can come to a solution that will cut off the revenue sources for foreign websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy that steal American jobs, hurt the economy, and harm consumers. But the Protect IP Act is flawed as it stands today, and I cannot support it moving forward."
We trust that Senator Blunt's decision had nothing to do with Vice magazine exposing him earlier today as a violator of copyright laws himself. In the last 24 hours, Senators Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, and Jeff Merkley have come out against PIPA. Senator Ben Cardin, a cosponsor of PIPA, said earlier this week that he won't vote for it.
UPDATE: Senator Representative Tim Holden, another cosponsor of the House version, withdraws his support. And Senator John Cornyn.
(H/t NBC's Kelly O'Donnell)
Photo: Andrew Dallos
Photo: Andrew Dallos
Leave a Comment:
At Last!
Proof of intelligent life!
Just wish the rest of the GOP had enough brains to satisfy the prerequisite for a successful headache.
proof of covering ones ass
This is a great Tweet!
@proudlib2 Marly
#OWS ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ . #SOPA #PIPA
I wanted to get it in before I become a "criminal" for posting it here and MSNBC for allowing it!
Yes, eye-catching brilliant tweet! I retweeted.
Gee, think it was being outted that made him change his mind? Probably, along with enough citizens with righteous indignation......THE PEOPLE UNITED, CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!!
Really? Google "NDAA" - or Google "Anwar Al-Awaki" (born and bred US citizen who our government assassinated, along with his natural born citizen 16 year old son 2 weeks later, without providing even one shred of evidence that he committed a crime or 'terror' act).
You are so right Senator Blunt. How DARE Harry Reed move a bill forward that YOU cosponsored, in the form you co-sponsored it and in the form it left committee. Why its almost like he wanted it to get an up or down vote so the people could hold you and anyone who supported this trash accountable. Imagine the nerve!
I'm just glad you can to your senses - with a little help from Reid and the people that is.
So he was for it before he was against it? I'm sure that Senator Kerry is spinning in his chair.
Sen Rubio (R FLA) just with drew his support for SOPA! They are dropping like flies! Love it! Obama also is stopping Keystone XL Pipeline..we now have a Strong Presidental image!
ww.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1
Sherrod Brown, too. My goodness. Maybe I should do my Nancy Grace impression which, though used by her for another purpose, seems to fit: "GUILTY! They are all guity! EVERYONE EVERYWHERE IS GUILTY!"
OR Sen. Merkley just posted he will not support SOPA!!
I doubt Blunt is withdrawing his support because he was outed. Reid is pushing forward because the lobbyists for the laws are dangling campaign contributions. There has been a lot of lobbying by both sides on the SOPA and PIPA legislation. Now that Google and a lot of other big sites have come out opposing it, some legislators are rethinking their position. Some opposition is coming from the business sector because most companies, large and small, have web sites that may be subject to a takedowns.
The premise for the law is that billions of dollars are being lost to piracy. That is correct. But most of that piracy is coming from Asia where movies are heavily bootlegged which is why the motion picture industry has been forced to accelerate their release of new movies on DVD. This law will do nothing to stop that piracy since those countries will not be affected because their sites are not with ISP's located in the US. The same logic applies to all the filesharing sites because they are not located in the US. At best, the law is going to block sites which have nothing to do with the wholesale piracy in Asia.
This is what I have not understood about SOPA and PIPA. Is the intention that by the US moving forward w/ this kind've legislation the rest of the world will? Why not try for a UN resolution? We have international copywrite laws intended to protect companies from lost revenue regarding illegal copywrite sales. Why not work on expanding those laws and treaties? Why not lobby the government to work closely w/ China and other governments to cut down on piracy? It does not make any sense to me how SOPA or PIPA addresses any of these issues. What does seem very clear to me is that people on YouTube who're making money off spoofing things that are otherwise copywritten- like video games- will now suddenly have their revenues cut unless they can pay the absurd fees. What's ironic about this- of course- is that video game companies make revenue off the spoof as it's an indirect form of sponsorship. And it's not just video games- people talk about the VMA's, or reality shows, etc. all the time online. Those too will now be subject to sponsorship. The only possible way I can see these bills helping to stop piracy would be if people are filming movies in the theater and then shipping those copies overseas. In which case current copywrite law already accounts for that and already attempts to correct for it. It's unclear to me how SOPA or PIPA would enhance current copywrite law (I feel like I'm repeating the same argument over and over RE: Voter ID laws).
The concept that "billions of dollars" are being lost to piracy is an untruth. That's only true when you count every person who is downloading as stealing from the value. The truth is that most people who download pirated content are never going to buy it in the first place. What it does do, and is seen in markets such as Asia, is spread the content virally for free, which actually encourages more people to buy the content when it becomes available. Movie sales in Asia and other places overseas are actually increasing at a very fast rate, contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe.
Listen to what Alexis Ohanian (co-founder of Reddit) had to say on UP With Chris Hayes on Sunday.
Adrian - Are you talking about the sale of movie tickets or the purchase of DVDs? With a very quick search I was able to find that movie tickets are selling at record rates, outpacing growth of movie-watchers around the world, but that's largely because of the amount of money put in to building theatres and the expanding middle class that exists there. Film producers are also looking at China as the next big source of revenue because of this trend, and how similar they are to American audiences (sequels gross huge dollars). The DVD market I couldn't find numbers on, but I doubt piracy has much if anything to do with the reason the Chinese are buying more movie tickets.
Intellectual property theft has been pursued by contacting the publisher for the last 3,000 years, and the publisher works with the complainant to resolve the issue.
Nobody would want to bulldoze the publishing house because one author *might* have done something wrong, but that is what SOPA and PIPA would do.
SOPA and PIPA fix a fantasy problem that was created by people that don't know how Internet law works.
Intellectual property protection works like this on the Internet.
This process is not broken, and it works just fine in hundreds of countries including the US.
Sorry, I meant to say "censorship" and not "sponsorship"
@Mouzer
China is one of the biggest markets for copyright violations and counterfeit goods. The other Asia countries are involved in some of this more or less. But despite treaties, these countries are not going to force takedowns. DVD's of new movies are being retailed in Asia for $5 despite the fact that MPAA has continuously asserted that they could not lower prices. This is a case of selling at what the market will bear and is not connected to COGS. The filesharing sites are all located in countries that will not enforce copyright laws. Pirate Bay is now moving to magnet links rather than torrent files, but both are still available. This is in spite of some of the principals being convicted and ordered to pay huge fines and go to jail. If the laws were enacted then US ISP's would have to set up blocks on sites on demand by a copyright holder. There is no intermediary to review takedown demands under these laws. And the takedown would be immediate and the site owner would have to convince the ISP that it is not a copyright violation. No ISP wants to get involved in this kind of fight.
The industry claims they are losing billions, but other than Asian piracy, the people who are filesharing would not buy the products because they are overpriced or bad films, music and so on. However, one artist did demonstrate that filesharing actually helped sales of his music.
There are legitimate uses of copyrighted material and sites do not have the resources to check every potential upload or post. Youtube would cease to exist along with Google vids. Companies will use the laws to suppress any use of copyrighted material. SOPA and PIPA only affect the US and other countries that cooperate on copyright piracy. There are a lot of countries and ISP's in foreign countries that the law will not stop. We can use proxies to get around any site blocking.
The Mouzer
No need to apologize.
Your comments are spot on.
@Batabback - The Asian problems are due to a failure in the market to meet the demand. It is arguable that because piracy is already so readily available it has increased the consumer demand for movie sales -- both Theater and DVD. The people want cheap and easy access to entertainment. That's where the demand is, both inside and outside of Asia. Right now the problem is that piracy supplies that demand much better than most of the market is willing to do.
Suppose your only access to movies is your local theater and a particular good movie doesn't play there, would you even know it exists? Enter piracy, suddenly your whole neighborhood has access and now you want it too. Demand was just created where it otherwise wouldn't have been.
I think the problem is that so many movies are poorly done or just outright awful and the movie industry is afraid that movies get panned. On the other hand, some movies that might be obscure will attract a large audience. If the movie industry wants to see how good a film is, they should check torrent sites and read the comments.
Senator Reid pushed the bill forward while public awareness was up. If they drag it out attention will fade.
For the sponsor of the bill to withdraw support because it was poorly written is hilarious.
Or maybe just amoment of rare honesty. Nah that can't be. No way no how.
It will be back for sure, but I do not think our attention will be allowed to "fade". Google and Jimmy Whales at Wikipedia are not going anywhere nor are the principals at the other sites protesting today.
This thing is a potato that has been heating for awhile. It is approaching really hot and there are easier things to be about if you are a member of congress than holding it.
The legislation needs a little work, don't you think?
Yes. Strike everthing after the Enacting Clause, and insert: Nevermind.
Sad to read in the vice.com article that friend of the show Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is a PIPA co-sponsor as well as a copyright hypocrite. :(
If a Senator steals from gas stations on the weekend, would that make him co-sponsoring a bill outlawing theft a bad thing? Hypocritical, sure, but there are very, very few people who aren't hypocrites. It doesn't mean that legislation they support is bad or wrong.
You know ... Sherrod suffers from the same thing that many people over 40 suffer from.
He didn't grow up with the Internet which is similar to being illiterate.
Congressional representatives and senators need an impartial and educated IT consultant that can sift through all the bull$hit and give them a simple analysis of the impact of legislation *before* they submit a bill so that they can avoid the appearance of having a very loud incontinence problem while sitting in the front of a church.
Congress just doesn't have that right now, which turns out to be embarrassingly funny once in a while when your not directly involved.
Sorry Sherrod. My apologies for putting it like that.
Fanaticism leads to fascism-no matter which side the fanatics are on.
Was disappointed to see that Rachel's coverage of SOPA/PIPA was relegated to the 1 minute or so at the very end of her show last night. Deserved much more attention IMO. Perhaps because NBC (which supports SOPA/PIPA) signs the checks???
Gosh maybe she thought the on-line debates were enough?
that argument could be made for just about any story. for every news story she covers, there are probably hundreds of online articles, forum debates, etc discussing said topic. that's one of the things that makes it news worthy. just seems to me she's missed an opportunity to educate a broader audience on the importance of this really BAD legislation...
Is there a petition we can sign to stop SOPA/PIPA????
Instructions can be found at the following for the next few hours:
Glad this is getting covered in blogs by contributing writers at MSNBC because the NBC/MSNBC primary coverage has been pretty aweful. When MSNBC and Foxnews give a story the same kind of coverage - using the same strawman arguments and presenting the same bias - that's more than a little freaky.
Even Brian Williams piece on it was pretty shameful; when you are saying one side "alleges" something could have certain consequences, the only reason to insert "somehow" is to show disdain for their argument or because you couldn't figure out how to use Wikipedia to look up their argument and honestly don't know. Still wasn't as bad - or at least it was more subtle - than Morning Joe's sycophantic interview with Dodd. At least MSNBC contributing writers are doing a good job blogging about the issue - but the official treatment is certainly lacking.
Of all the times journalists erroneously present a false dichotomy to an argument, its amazing how quickly so many from competing networks can suddenly learn to present a story without even the pretense of giving fair voice to "both sides." Sad that they can only seem to do it with multifaceted issues where fair presentation of multiple arguments is actually called for.
SOPA is another government effort to empower Wall Street to take away the rights and liberties of the 99 %. Ask yourself, “Who will profit from this legislation?” “Who benefited from raising the monopoly time of copyrights from 14 years to the life of the author plus 70 years?” Not society.
It looks more like something dreamed up by the Chamber of Commerce.
SOPA and PIPA are all about protecting the profits of five Hollywood studios, four multinational record labels, and six global publishers. I'm livid that maintaining their freakishly huge profits is considered more important than preserving the Constitutional rights of Americans, as well as our right to privacy. There is no way to stop piracy except by destroying our rights, and frankly I am not willing to give up a single right that I have. Are you? I'm also not willing to start spending tax money on The War on Piracy, given that I'm still footing the bill for The War on Drugs and The War on Terror.
Why do people against SOPA & PIPA so often rush to assure that, despite being against these bills, they are still concerned about "protecting IP"; could they possibly have succumbed to Big Content's propaganda? Over the years, Big Content has tried to stop television (it will destroy movies!), cassette recorders (they will destroy the music business!), copiers (they will destroy the publishing business!), VCRs (they will destroy the movie and TV business!), DVRs (they will destroy the TV business!)--all things that have been very useful to ordinary citizens. Big Content has learned from past failures and have all their ducks in a row this time, the propaganda machine has been working overtime--speaking of, "Creative America Campaign" apparently bought some ad time on Rachel's show, they just ran their ridiculous ad! Frankly, if Big Content did get dinged in the pocketbook, that would leave them a little less money for buying politicians, but I hadn't noticed that these guys were any less than obscenely rich, much as they like to quote insanely high figures for what they've lost, entirely without proof. I do not believe that "piracy" (can we find another word for this? How about "sharing"?) has damaged anybody's pocketbook, and even if it did, at this point, I don't give a hang about any multinational corporations' profits.
Besides, if Big Content didn't want people to share content, why has CNET (owned by CBS and Viacom) offered links to downloading/sharing software for the past dozen years, and instructions for use? Why did Disney, MSN, and AOL's sites offer links to software to search for and download copyrighted music, music that they did not own, for years? Where do you think everybody got "sharing" software from, anyway? Now these ginormous multinational companies are angry that the software they, themselves, pushed, for years, was used exactly as they outlined its use on their websites. It's like Louis in Casablanca, who's "shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here!"
There is a pretty simple explanation why Sen. Blunt and others had copyrighted material on their websites.
Leadership on both sides of the aisle and consultants tell them that they have to have websites because their constituents expect it and it is free 24/7 advertising without limits like the old fashioned quaint mailers.
Because they have better things to do (i.e. raise money) and they are computer illiterates, they tell a 24 year old staffer to plug a bunch of stuff into the pre-fab website templates they use.
The poor 24 year old staffer does exactly what s/he did in high school and college, namely, go on the net and grab some pictures and put them in the school project. Instead of an anonymous educational not-for-profit school project, they are making a very public commercial for-profit project.
It never even crosses the minds of the 24 year old staffers to get rights clearances. They don't buy images from one of the commercial image sites because they are too low on the food chain to spend money.
if it is so bad and endangeres the constitution and it's free speech amendment, then why did they "sponsor" this piece of trash in the first place? follow the money trail and you will have your answer, just like if you follow the money against the affordable healthcare act you will see why the repug-ni-cants opposed it too! or follow the money trail to see who wants Keystone XL pushed through without proper environmental considerations. e.g. the senators and representatives who own stock in the oil, pipeline construction, and shipping companies, who stand to become fabulously wealthy when they can buy cheap oil from Canada and sell it overseas to the highest bidders in China and India while ignoring the "energy independance" lies they tell, and stick it to the American taxpayers again when there is a spill. if they drill for oil on our public lands, or pipe Canadian oil across our aquifers, or truck it on the highway system we paid for, how come we have to pay full-prick-price to buy our own oil back from these taxpayer subsidized mega-corporations?