SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

January 17, 2012 -

Public Knowledge let us know that, as many of us expected, markup hearings on the Stop Online Piracy Act will resume in February in the House of Representatives. The announcement was made by lead sponsor and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

"To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy," said Chairman Smith in a statement released today.

"Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February. I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property."

You'll note that Smith didn't happen to mention sending a bill to the President that protected free speech innovation or the integrity of the Internet...

Image Credit: lamarsmith.house.gov


Comments

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

So basically they're hoping this will be just long enough for us to forget and they hope we won't kick up a stink.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

"bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs"

prove it

 

"and protects intellectual property."

you mean, YOUR definition of IP

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

If anything all the sites that would die in the first week would kill jobs.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

"prove it"

Indeed.  For all the blather, I've never seen any evidence that jobs were lost due to foreign piracy.  Not that none exists but you'd think such data would be routinely rubbed in our faces.

"you mean, YOUR definition of IP"

As compared to what?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

As per opposition some other countries IP definition where science, software, human genome, math, etc. can't be protected. Or, you know, when the US of A says an IP is protected for XXX years and another country says X years. There is no consensus and what little consensus there was has been pushed through lobbyist in the US of A and then, through them, elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I do not pray to the US flag nor is there any reason for people in other sovereign land to. US laws should affect things falling under the US jurisdiction and the internet, by international treaties, is not. It was only placed under US safe-keeping.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

"Or, you know, when the US of A says an IP is protected for XXX years and another country says X years."

As I understand it, the XXX years only applies to American IP, which is what we're talking about.  It doesn't matter if a different country's IP is only protected for X years (assuming X is less than XXX).  America's definition doesn't apply to another country's IPs and their definition doesn't apply to America's.

"US laws should affect things falling under the US jurisdiction and the internet, by international treaties, is not."

American IPs do fall under US jurisdiction.  Far as I know, Congress isn't interested in the foreign piracy of foreign IP.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

And yet, with this law, US of A (please, America, you don't own our continent) is trying to strong-arm its definition over any varying one.

 

No it does not. This is like saying a US citizen abroad is held by US laws or a US plant the same. It might very well have rules to prevent it leaving the country, but once it's out, it needs to be retrieved by mutual agreements (unless, you know, you deploy an armed force on another country, something which, if done to the US, would provoke immediate war.)

 

The thing is, I don't quite know what you think is being enforced here. For the whole part of the law about counterfeits, you already have laws and huge budgets to control those at borders. For a lot of countries, those are applied on both borders (for example, we might not have the same laws as generic drugs as the US, but our borders still check before allowing our packages and travelers to go on US soils.)

 

So the only part left is the Copyright Infringement part. And you know what, you are failing every aspect of a law on this aspect:

-consensus: no

-enforceable: no

-majority of people either respect the law or will once implemented: all signs point to an ever growing no

-Copyright: improves innovation: Everything we know about the current system -> no

-breach constitutional rights: yes

-breach jurisdiction: yes

 

Every single aspect of this is broken or worse. Look, I've worked in the game industry for years. I now am at the head of a small indie studio and going to school at the same time (in a US school, no less, A+ grades) to receive a Game Designer training. And most people in the indie circuit, right now, think the same. Either copyright infringement is a draw between positive effects or its a net gain. It seems every time one our title gets wildly torrented, we start selling it better. It performs as our publicity without costing us anything. So the ones benefiting the most of IPs are, like always, the established giants who try to keep competition out. The thing is, they don't have an inherent God given right to IP. It was man given under certain assumptions and extended under similar assumptions. If the assumptions do not hold, then the IP concept must be either rethought or scrapped.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

I disagree that this law is trying to change anyone else's definition of copyright or that America is trying to own another continent.  All this law is attempting to do (and failing miserably at) is address the issue of foreign folks pirating American stuff.

"This is like saying a US citizen abroad is held by US laws or a US plant the same."

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, it's just saying that it's not okay to pirate American goods even if pirating a similar local good is perfectly legal (and this law isn't targeting the later action anyway).

For the most part, I don't think you and I are quite discussing the same thing here.  I'm going to put it plain as I can.  I don't have a problem with legislation targeting the foreign piracy of American goods (so long as it actually works and doesn't infringe on others' rights).  I understand and agree with respecting other country's views, laws, and procedures regarding copyright but as I said in another post, that door swings both ways.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

I live in Canada, which occupies more of America than the US. This is what I meant by continent (your use of America).

As for the rest of this conversation, it'd interest me to carry it on, however, I fear many things are currently at play to make us misunderstand the other. If you so desire, you have my contacts and I'd more than welcome an exchange on the topic, if not, I understand ^^ .

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

I think it is safe to say whoever votes yes for this is corrupt.  

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

Or willfully uninformed.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

Or wearing a blindfold made of MPAA money.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

"To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy."

Go for it!

Just make sure whatever you come up with, you know, actually works and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.  Cool?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

Uphold your own laws in your own lands to help your own industries? Sure! Just keep your hands out of other countries.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

I'm sure they'd be happy to (one would hope) so long as other countries and the people therein aren't pirating their stuff.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

If you read the text, they say it is to prevent other countries from offering stuff to US citizens. That's where they have the right (that you give them) to govern; those citizens. If they want to alter the right of another country, then they MUST go to that country and convince the ruling class (or, in an ideal world, the people.) Pirating is nice and all as a scary word, but you'll notice some country are not considering this illegal or, in fact, reprehensible. That's the right of those people as a whole to determine their own rules. The internet is divided by country. For example, .ca is under Canada's jurisdiction. US of A has no legal right to the .ca unless they breach international treaties, not even to pull it from the dns or put a ICE notice.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

"Pirating is nice and all as a scary word, but you'll notice some country are not considering this illegal or, in fact, reprehensible. That's the right of those people as a whole to determine their own rules."

Indeedy do.  But that door swings both ways.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

And what is *that* suppose to mean? You do not have the same laws as us, hence yours are invalid and we have jurisdiction on your sovereign country? Bull.

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

What the hell is with you?  Of course that's not what that means.  You want to give me a little credit?

It means that just as America has to recognize and respect other countries' laws, other countries also have to recognize and respect America's.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: SOPA Markup Hearings Resume in February

Actually, on US soils, other countries laws have no effect. It normally should be the same the other way around.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Whose next half decade of superhero films are you most looking forward to?:
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician