Intellectual Property Protection: Getting It Right
Despite being an intellectual property developer, I do not support the proposed Protect IP Act (PIPA Senate Bill 968) or Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA House Resolution 3261) legislation. Granted, piracy of Intellectual Property creates signifcant problems and those who profit by completely ignoring IP rights need to be stopped. However, typical of legislative redress, both proposals overreach in their attempt to resolve the situation.
Senate Bill 968 - Protect IP Act of 2011
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show
House Resolution 3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show
While this legislation attempts to curb the piracy of IP, it allows the Department of Justice to circumvent due process based upon their interpretation of what constitutes a violation and the justification for immediate action. Protecting property rights should not come at the expense of constitutional rights. If only for that reason, opposition to the proposed legislation is paramount.
If you look at the list of who supports versus who opposes the legislation, it breaks into two basic categories: Manufacturers and Service Providers. Those who manufacture or create products, to include electronics, entertainment, and most any product developed, manufactured, or produced, comprise the Manufacturers camp. Those who provide services, to include advice, information, and most any non-tangible service, typically for a convenience, fall into the Service Providers camp.
OpenCongress.org list of supporters and opponents for PIPA and SOPA
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money
Manufacturers continue to lose money to unscrupulous Service Providers, just as the states lose local tax revenues to on-line retailers without brick and mortar operations in their state. States cannot be allowed to arbitrarily shutdown on-line retailers for "stealing" tax revenues, and concurrently, the DoJ should not be permitted to disconnect sites from the internet without affording the right to due process. The legislation needs to be written such that any such attempts to disconnect a site must first go through a legal system affording the defendant the right to due process.
Today, in a dramatic effort to demonstrate opposition to the proposed legislation, hundreds of Web sites pledged to go dark for 12 to 24 hours. While the need to express opposition to the legislation was diminished by the White House announcement that President Obama would not enact such legislation in its current form, the majority of the sites maintained their commitment. Such protests might be considered futile since it only affects the site's customers and not Congress or the industry supporting the legislation. Yet, these blackouts demonstrate what could happen to Google, YouTube, or any one of thousands of other Service Provider sites if a Manufacturer with a strong enough lobby or political clout convinces the DoJ that a particular site violated its IP rights.
Without warning. Ignoring constitutional rights. A site could be disconnected from the internet. Arbitrarily.
Legitimate need followed by unjust implementation. We can do better. Though still requiring some fine-tuning, one potential alternative is:
Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN)
http://keepthewebopen.com/
Ultimately, the need to protect IP rights and local tax revenues on the internet needs to be addressed. Hopefully when that time comes, there will be more tech savvy members of Congress who will not be swayed merely by lobbyists and money, but by the content of the legislation and its overall impact on the world. After all, the U.S. continues to lead the world in emerging technologies, such as the internet, and as goes our country, so goes the world.
. . .
Senate Bill 968 - Protect IP Act of 2011
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show
House Resolution 3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show
While this legislation attempts to curb the piracy of IP, it allows the Department of Justice to circumvent due process based upon their interpretation of what constitutes a violation and the justification for immediate action. Protecting property rights should not come at the expense of constitutional rights. If only for that reason, opposition to the proposed legislation is paramount.
If you look at the list of who supports versus who opposes the legislation, it breaks into two basic categories: Manufacturers and Service Providers. Those who manufacture or create products, to include electronics, entertainment, and most any product developed, manufactured, or produced, comprise the Manufacturers camp. Those who provide services, to include advice, information, and most any non-tangible service, typically for a convenience, fall into the Service Providers camp.
OpenCongress.org list of supporters and opponents for PIPA and SOPA
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money
Manufacturers continue to lose money to unscrupulous Service Providers, just as the states lose local tax revenues to on-line retailers without brick and mortar operations in their state. States cannot be allowed to arbitrarily shutdown on-line retailers for "stealing" tax revenues, and concurrently, the DoJ should not be permitted to disconnect sites from the internet without affording the right to due process. The legislation needs to be written such that any such attempts to disconnect a site must first go through a legal system affording the defendant the right to due process.
Today, in a dramatic effort to demonstrate opposition to the proposed legislation, hundreds of Web sites pledged to go dark for 12 to 24 hours. While the need to express opposition to the legislation was diminished by the White House announcement that President Obama would not enact such legislation in its current form, the majority of the sites maintained their commitment. Such protests might be considered futile since it only affects the site's customers and not Congress or the industry supporting the legislation. Yet, these blackouts demonstrate what could happen to Google, YouTube, or any one of thousands of other Service Provider sites if a Manufacturer with a strong enough lobby or political clout convinces the DoJ that a particular site violated its IP rights.
Without warning. Ignoring constitutional rights. A site could be disconnected from the internet. Arbitrarily.
Legitimate need followed by unjust implementation. We can do better. Though still requiring some fine-tuning, one potential alternative is:
Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN)
http://keepthewebopen.com/
Ultimately, the need to protect IP rights and local tax revenues on the internet needs to be addressed. Hopefully when that time comes, there will be more tech savvy members of Congress who will not be swayed merely by lobbyists and money, but by the content of the legislation and its overall impact on the world. After all, the U.S. continues to lead the world in emerging technologies, such as the internet, and as goes our country, so goes the world.
. . .
Same problem all around the world: "tech savvy legislators"...
ReplyDelete