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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenI imagine they hope the clips they do host (some of which are rather long) are enough to entice viewers to watch the show on whatever channel it airs on.11/25/2014 - 5:54pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's odd that these videos are missing from the official Last Week Tonight page.11/25/2014 - 5:51pm
Andrew EisenRelevant or not, the guy's pretty darn entertaining.11/25/2014 - 4:58pm
WonderkarpJohn Oliver : Corporations On Twitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_7xur1iRc I feel like this is relevent11/25/2014 - 4:53pm
WonderkarpBurt Macklin, Anthropologist. I look forward to Jurassic Parks and Recreation.11/25/2014 - 4:36pm
Andrew EisenYep.11/25/2014 - 4:16pm
E. Zachary KnightDid Jaws 3 take place in a theme park?11/25/2014 - 4:14pm
Andrew EisenHey, they're remaking Jaws 3. Sweet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN411/25/2014 - 3:22pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/11/25/sony-to-refund-vita-customers-in-ftc-settlement-over-false-ads/ Sony is offering a refund to Vita owners who fell for their false advertising during the Vita launch.11/25/2014 - 2:49pm
Matthew Wilsondoes not shock me. people have been representing this as right vs left, but in truth its more like left vs even more left. better put is social libertarianism vs liberal moralism.11/25/2014 - 2:36pm
WonderkarpOfficial Occupy WallStreet Twitter Supports GamerGate https://twitter.com/OccupyWallSt/status/536928387869474818 heh11/25/2014 - 2:11pm
Matthew WilsonI saw that given that the gc adapters have been sold out everywhere, I thought it was higher.11/25/2014 - 11:49am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/11/25/smash-bros-sells-over-490k-on-wii-u-in-three-days/ Some good Nintendo news for a change.11/25/2014 - 11:48am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.865821-Irrational-Games-Rises-From-The-Dead-is-Hiring-Again11/25/2014 - 10:20am
Neeneko@james - yeah, the bar is low, but it still requires a DA that wants you to indict. This grand jury was so oddly handled I would not be surprised if the feds get involved.11/25/2014 - 10:19am
WonderkarpETSY find of the Day. http://tinyurl.com/pa7ymqb I want that on my wall.11/25/2014 - 9:31am
Michael ChandraThe Grand Jury isn't supposed to go "but there is reasonable doubt of their guilt, so no trial", right? I thought the whole idea was "there is reasonable doubt of their innocence, so let a full trial+jury decide."11/25/2014 - 8:41am
Michael ChandraExcept for when cops are involved. Which I never understood. In cases where police officers shot unarmed fleeing people in the back, how can you not assume there is a reasonable chance it was out of line?11/25/2014 - 8:40am
james_fudgeThe old joke is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich - that's how little evidence it requires. The bar is LOW.11/25/2014 - 3:19am
Wonderkarpstill catch 2211/24/2014 - 10:22pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician