

One congressman's opposition to SOPA worth noting - gapanalysis
http://securityskeptic.typepad.com/the-security-skeptic/2011/12/one-congressmans-opposition-to-sopa-worth-noting.html

======
jordan0day
"4. Promote innovation over litigation. Our efforts should be to protect
copyrights and trademarks, not outdated business models."

To me, that is the juiciest nugget in the article. From all appearances, the
legislators arguing _for_ SOPA and PIPA don't care too much about our
complaints about potential legal abuse and curtailing of the rights of
American citizens and companies.

I think stating it instead as a market issue might help, sort of like "SOPA is
like something the buggy whip industry would have argued for."

~~~
gapanalysis
>the legislators arguing for SOPA and PIPA don't care too >much about our
complaints about potential legal abuse and >curtailing of the rights of
American citizens and companies.

I can't decide if this is sad, deplorable, or scary.

~~~
AgentConundrum
> _I can't decide if this is sad, deplorable, or scary._

That's a false trichotomy. It's perfectly possible for it to be all three of
these, and I'd say this is a fitting example of that.

------
yangez
Just because a congressman opposes SOPA doesn't make his statements magically
profound. Although the direction of his statement is intelligent, his four
points at the end are far too vague to be useful.

Phrases like "consider instead promoting approaches that empower users" and
"promote innovation over litigation" are nice sound bites, but they're very
"safe" opinions. No one's ever going to disagree with them. That makes them
lose their usefulness, however, as proponents can easily twist logic to claim
that SOPA satisfies those four points.

Not trying to disparage Wyden, but his statement here would be far more useful
if it drew a clearer line in the dirt.

~~~
mattdeboard
>they're very "safe" opinions. No one's ever going to disagree with them.

This is baldly, unequivocally false. There are PLENTY of senators and other
opinion leaders who would nod at these points then immediately start to spit
out arguments that would sound distinctly like they were arguing against them
(while in their mind they were agreeing with them). There is not a "clearer
line in the dirt." These are fundamental, ideological differences in what
"promoting innovation over litigation" means.

I think you're either trying too hard to be cynical or simply have a poor
understanding of how deep the divide is on this issue (among others, of
course).

~~~
yangez
Do you really think that any SOPA supporter is going to say they want to
stifle innovation in favor of more litigation?

"There are PLENTY of senators and other opinion leaders who would nod at these
points"

This is exactly what I'm saying. While WE know what Wyden intended, the fact
that he stated them in the form of vague feel-good platitudes means that it's
no different than if he were to just simply say "Be careful with SOPA," which
is unhelpful.

In contrast, Zoe Lofgren's early statement that SOPA would be the "end of the
internet as we know it" was an admirably bold statement that promoted
discussion and rallied opposition.

"I think you... have a poor understanding of how deep the divide is on this
issue."

The divide is over whether SOPA is beneficial for the country, not whether
innovation or litigation is better. You think congressmen who support SOPA are
actually trying to maliciously stifle innovation and suppress rights? I don't
know if I'm the cynical one here!

~~~
sp332
_Do you really think that any SOPA supporter is going to say they want to
stifle innovation in favor of more litigation?_

Well yes, although they wouldn't use those words. They would say something
about "defending artists' right to control their music." As you can see, this
is completely equivalent to supporting increased litigation at the expense of
innovation.

~~~
Confusion
They would simultaneously say they also 'promote innovation over litigation'.
When pointed at the contradiction, they'll see no generalization will ever
cover every case. Soundbite dismissed. And they are right, because Wyden also
prefers litigation over innovation in some cases. Almost everyone prefers
that, _in specific cases_. That's why it's a completely safe opinion to state.

------
jbooth
Wyden's been consistently on the right side of this stuff, he's been an
outspoken advocate of Net Neutrality for years.

~~~
dantheman
I don't understand how people can see the complete disgrace that is SOPA,
NDAA, and the myriad of other broken laws and think that getting the
government more involved in the internet is a good thing. Especially when the
problem doesn't exist yet, this preemptive regulation is dangerous. Instead of
advocating net neutrality, lets wait till these horrible abuses happen and
then decide if we want the government involved.

~~~
sp332
The Internet is already heavily regulated. Specifically, the problem with
letting the "market" sort out net neutrality issues, is that most places have
granted franchises to only one or two broadband providers. Since this
effectively makes real competition illegal, there must be "balancing"
regulations to prevent abuse of the customers.

Some ISPs already throttle certain protocols, and some were forging reset
packets to drop connections they didn't want on their networks. Others are on
record wanting to charge Youtube for each gigabyte of video they delivered to
a customer. We can pass consumer-protection regulation now instead of waiting
for ISPs to implement their stated plans.

~~~
dantheman
I think it'd be better to advocate that we remove the government granted
monopolies and handouts than try to add piles of red tape to the internet, and
open it up for censorship and other controls by special interests.

~~~
jbooth
Which government granted monopolies and handouts, specifically?

~~~
dantheman
In many municipalities cable companies are granted a monopoly.

<http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp>
[http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cable-franchise-
ref...](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cable-franchise-reform-
deregulation-or-just-new-regulators/)

~~~
jbooth
In "many", yeah, but that's more a product of market forces than anything
else. I happen to have negotiated one of these contracts from the municipal
side, and we didn't have a monopoly, we played the companies against each
other, because we were an attractive enough market to do so.

You're proposing more state/federal oversight to insure that municipalities
don't give away monopoly rights?

~~~
sp332
What recourse do your constituents have if they have different criteria for
picking an ISP than you did? Why remove the "market forces" in the first
place?

~~~
jbooth
Typically, monopolies are granted in exchange for running service to
unprofitable customers, anyone who wouldn't normally be connected. So those
consumers are pretty undeniably better off. If there isn't something like that
in the offing, competent town leadership would presumably use their attractive
market position to make cable companies compete to provide service.

------
schiffern
For easier dictation to congressional aides over the phone:

<http://tinyurl.com/wyden-sopa>

------
OstiaAntica
He's a Senator, not a congressman. Although both chambers are "Congress", the
title Congressman refers to a member of the U.S. House only.

