The pirate’s life is not for Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
Leahy is the architect and primary sponsor of the PROTECT IP ACT (PIPA), a piece of anti-online piracy legislation that was the target of an unprecedented mass protest by Web companies and users on January 18.
As a result of the protest, a number of lawmakers came out against PIPA and its sister in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Reacting to the sudden loss of support, leaders in Congress on Friday indefinitely postponed further action on the bills, effectively leaving them dead in the water.
But Leahy refuses to give up. On Monday, he read a lengthy prepared statement to Senate floor calling for the Senate to resume its work on the bill and decrying the negative “one-sided” treatment PIPA received on the Web, at the same time praising the Internet’s “democratizing impact around the world.”
Leahy’s statement is long, clocking in at 2,100 plus words, bringing up favorable excerpts from editorials in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal advocating that lawmakers pass anti-piracy legislation.
You can read Leahy’s statement in its entirety over at his website, but here are some of the more intriguing passages.
Leahy said rogue foreign websites are a terrible drain on the American economy, citing several figures to back it up:
“Rogue websites, primarily based overseas, are stealing American property, harming American consumers, hurting the American economic recovery and costing us American jobs. Stealing and counterfeiting are wrong. They are harmful. The Institute for Policy Innovation estimates that copyright infringement alone costs more than $50 billion a year, and the sale of counterfeits online is estimated to be several times more costly. The AFL-CIO estimates that hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost to these forms of theft… ”
At this point in his live address, Leahy repeated “hundreds of thousands of jobs,” for emphasis.
Still, Leahy remained adamant that PROTECT IP is the right solution to fixing the problem and said he hoped the Senate would resume work on it as soon as possible:
“My hope is that after a brief delay, we will, together, confront this problem. Everyone says they want to stop the Internet piracy. Everyone says that they recognize that stealing and counterfeiting are criminal and serious matters. This is the opportunity for those who want changes in the bill to come forward, join with us and work with us. This is the time to suggest improvements that will better achieve our goals…“…I hope that in the coming days the Senate will focus on stopping that theft that is undercutting our economic recovery. I remain committed to confronting this problem.”
Leahy blasted the Internet and critics for the bill for engaging in “hyperbole” when it came to PIPA, saying the legislation was tightly-worded and wouldn’t do what its critics accused it of doing:
“I am concerned that while critics of this legislation engage in hyperbole about what the bill plainly does not do, organized crime elements in Russia, in China, and elsewhere who do nothing but peddle in counterfeit products and stolen American content are laughing at their good fortune that congressional action is being delayed.“Nothing in PROTECT IP can be used to cut off access to a blog. Nothing in PROTECT IP can be used to shut off access to sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook or eBay. Nothing in PROTECT IP requires anyone to monitor their networks. Nothing in PROTECT IP criminalizes links to other websites. Nothing in PROTECT IP imposes liability on anyone. Nothing in PROTECT IP can be required without a court order, first, and without providing the full due process of our Federal court system to the defendants before a final judgment is rendered.”
As TPM earlier reported, that may not be the entire case, depending on how courts interpret the language in PIPA. Websites that rely on user-posted links, like Reddit and Twitter for example, could conceivably be considered infringing if a number of links were deemed “primarily infringing.” Not to mention the fact that even if those websites weren’t, the websites that users were linking to could be deemed infringing, and then it would be up to the web administrators to take down those users’ links, leading to a larger obligation on the part of the sites and to a potentially fragmented or broken user experience.
Leahy also noted how big of a champion of the Internet he’s been, historically:
“I admire and respect the marvelous advances of technology and, in particular, those represented by the Internet. I have promoted its democratizing impact around the world. I have fought to keep the Internet free and open, as it has become the incredible force that it is today. I have promoted its potential for access in rural areas, for distance learning, for increasing points of view and allowing all voices to be heard and as a means for small start ups and firms in Vermont and elsewhere to market quality products. Nor is this a newfound interest or passing fancy. I started and chaired a Judiciary Committee panel two decades ago on technology and the law and was a founder of the bipartisan, bicameral congressional Internet Caucus.”
Leahy also cited how much time he’s spent on drafting PIPA (2 years) and says he reached out to critics and the Web community to get PIPA right:
“Two years ago, I announced a bipartisan effort to target the worst-of-the-worst of the foreign rogue websites that profited from piracy, stealing and counterfeiting, while also ensuring that we protect the Internet. I have been working since that time to do just that. In 2010, the bill that Senator Hatch and I introduced was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee.I took seriously the views of all concerned. I reached out to the administration. We incorporated revised definitions suggested by Senator Wyden. We held additional hearings to which we invited Google and Yahoo!. And we redrafted the legislative measure and reintroduced it as The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, more commonly known as the PROTECT IP Act. Senator Grassley joined as an original cosponsor. I continued to work with all who showed interest. The measure was reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee in May 2011, and 40 Senators from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored it.”
Leahy’s staffers additionally told TPM on Monday that “he’s open, as he has been, to working with all interested Senators on this issue,” and that “you’ll see there is some commonality between the PROTECT IP Act and the Wyden-Issa proposal,” that is, the OPEN Act introduced by SOPA/PIPA critics Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).
We looked at them both, and the main commonality seems to be between how both bills would force American payment providers and advertisers to cut off their ties with foreign websites accused of piracy. The OPEN Act differs in that it would give the International Trade Commission the power to enforce these orders, compared to the PROTECT IP Act, which would give the U.S. Attorney General the power to seek court orders to do the same.
Still, Leahy’s a powerhouse in the the Senate — the second-longest serving Senator and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If anyone’s got the chops to revive PIPA, it’s him. Now we’ll have to see if anyone else bites. Leahy made reference to “Senator Kyl, Senator Alexander and others” who are willing to work with him on PIPA.
Before PIPA was shelved on Friday, Politico reported that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was said to be working on a grand compromise with Leahy to make PIPA more palatable to critics by removing a provision that would force search engines like Google to de-list (remove links) of websites accused of piracy. Staffers told TPM that the agreement had not reached any formal stage, but it remains to be seen if it will get further now. Stay tuned.
Correction: This article originally misstated that Sen. Leahy was Chairman of the “House” Judiciary Committee and brought the reading to the “House” floor, when in fact, he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and read on the Senate floor. We regret the errors and have corrected them in copy.
Carl Franzen
Carl Franzen is TPM Idea Lab's tech reporter. He used to work for The Daily, AOL and The Atlantic Wire (though not simultaneously, thankfully). He's never met a button that didn't need to be pressed. He can be reached at carl@talkingpointsmemo.com.
"Rogue websites, primarily based overseas, are stealing American property, harming American consumers, hurting the American economic recovery and costing us American jobs."
Protecting the American economy is indeed a noble cause. However, it is business' obsession with so-called Free-Trade that harms American consumers and costs American jobs, not online piracy. Pirated low quality goods? How about toothpaste laced with poisons? Cheap knockoffs of essential goods that break more easily than the packages they are shipped in? Throughout the heartland, all you need to do is open your eyes to find shuttered factories, jobless swathes through what were once proud manufacturing centers, and long lines at the Walmart turnoff. But Chris Dodd, Leahy's longtime Senate buddy, doesn't work for a non-profit trying to re-energize the American economy. He works for the MPAA. And they are not on your side. There is nothing noble about helping your cronies fleece the country.
Capitalism only works with effective government regulation; and robust enforcement of same.
Google, and Bing and the rest of the big tech HUGE, rich, corporations, have done a very good (and expensive) job of convincing people who should know better, who are usually in favour of business being regulated for the good of the 99%, that protecting Big Tech from any regualtion is in their inteest, or a matter of "freedom".
It isn't.
It's just about allowing their business model to be based on screwing creators of intellectual property.
If Google would block searches for illegal music and video and pharmaceuticals, then additional legislation wouldn't be needed.
they simply WON'T do it.
The little guys being hurt here are the songwriters and musicians and record producers and studios... very much the 99%.
Being screwed over by pirates and big tech isn't doing us a favour.
All the digs at media companies are a red herring - their investment made a lot of the art you appreciate possible.
Where is google's investment in new music or tv?
The vast majority of people attacking the RIAA or NBC haven't had any dealings with them - they've just been trained to parrot the talking points.
the new boss is the tech billionaires. They're not in it for your 'freedom'.
and it's not the same, it's much worse than the old boss.
weedy This is to me the worst argument in favor of SOPA: "Piracy is bad, therefore the only solution is this bill" which is on it's face ridiculous. Few reasonable people - including the 'big tech HUGE rich corporations' - are advocating piracy; to claim otherwise lacks credibility. What SOPA opponents are saying is this legislation is not the answer - it will have limited effect at much too high a cost.I wish we could put away the tiny violins and get past the 'it has to be THIS bill' drama.
weedy "Where is google's investment in new music or tv?" You have heard of YouTube, haven't you? The poor "little guys" being hurt -- there's your Red Herring. Big Media's answer is American Idol and a lopsided abusive contract. And SOPA/PIPA is simply designed to make sure that nobody else makes money from "their" act.
weedy There is nothing more frightening to corporate entertainment than real competition. How do you get rid of it? Grease the pockets of some a-hole, idiot congressman and poof, there's your extra 15% profit for next year. You don't have to actually create new and enlightening programs; you can put out the same old sh+t and legislate your competition away. Now of course the year after that when they need to show 15% growth it will be someone else stealing THEIR share so we get more legislation. You want to know who put Leahy up to this? Follow the money. Look at his campaign contributions. Guaranteed they will come from corporate media and media moguls trying to maximize their profits because a 100 million dollar yacht isn't enough; they need a 200 million dollar yacht.
All major media corporation outlets would not cover SOPS/PIPA they work inconjunction to blackut this bill from the public. What this proves the media is not the fourth branch of government it a puppet for big business. The internet needs a cooridnated effort to get the real news out to the public. This is a lesson learned but, not over.
This issue is a LOSER for Democrats, and they need to back away from it as fast as they can. The PR war over SOPA/PIPA has been lost, and Leahy of all people should be smart enough to know that.
You can always help fight back against scumbags like this, sign the petition at we the people. It's already over the threshold but every signature adds moral weight.
@Michael Leza I disagree strongly with his position on this bill. That said, when taking his record as whole into account, he's a fine senator and I object to you calling him a "scumbag."
gaijinlaw@michael Just because he's a senator doesn't mean he isn't also a scumbag. That has been my impression of him for a long time as well.
i wished senators fought this hard in protecting my privacy from big corporations and gov't. i forgot, i don't pay senators thousands of dollars
But Pippa has given up on Pat.
Oh, PIPA. That's different.
Never mind!
DF2691 Pippa Longstocking?
Leahy Sez : " The Institute for Policy Innovation estimates that copyright infringement alone costs more than $50 billion a year"The Institute for Policy Innovation you say? That sounds so... credible.Let's visit, shall we?http://www.ipi.org/ Nice tagline: "Advocating lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less- intrusive government."Their background?:"The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a think tank based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to "research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems."Interesting.
So, how about their credibility?:
"The IPI was solicited by tobacco companies in 1995 to submit comments in response to proposed federal regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricting the marketing of tobacco products. IP responded by sending comments in favor of the industry to the FDA."Ah. Well then. source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu...
They should realize that by now, with the unprecedented attention and revolt against the bills with those particular names, ANY legislation arising from Congress regarding IP addresses and internet stifling will be met with the same force of resistance. Sen. Leahy is digging his own political grave, while all of the co-sponsors flee the cemetery, lest they fall in too.
Someone seems to be doing a marvelous job of wiping out a bunch of file sharing sites without the law. Why is it we need this law again? And how exactly does regulating the internet and shutting down sites that offend bring about control of people making fake Rolex watches and fake medicine?
After reading this article, I conclude that the problem is that Sen. Leahy is seeking a legislative solution for what is rally a diplomatic problem; and the solution is not to restrict the access of Americans to the internet, it is to seek international agreement on what copyright is, what infringement is, and how to prosecute those who violate the copyright of one country from a platform in another. Sen. Leahy's solution seems to be to wipe out prostitution by castrating all the Johns.
Leahy won't listen to anybody but his paymasters at Time Warner and Disney. This stuff doesn't do the state he allegedly represents any good. He's lost track of us common Vermonters.
I would like to offer Senator Leahy the opportunity to bite me. That, or retire from an office he is clearly too old and clueless to continue in.
hrebendorf I agree. People should realize that if he keeps this crap up he is making a big opening for a Republican in Vt. Vermonters care to much about free speech for this.
John Bakerhrebendorf Vermont won't hesitate to elect another Independent to the Senate, though Bernie Sanders seems to be fine with PIPA and SOPA as well.
Renfield8MnhtnJohn Bakerhrebendorf I don't believe that's the case ( that Sanders is "fine" with SOPA/PIPA) , at least in their current forms:
"U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., stood alone among the Vermont congressional delegation in supporting an online anti-piracy bill, ratcheting up his defense of the measure Wednesday even as criticism mounted.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., the state’s lone House member, said the anti-piracy measures were too deeply flawed to proceed in their current form. Changing the proposals will be for the best, they said.
Leahy, one of the chief sponsors of anti-piracy legislation, said Internet sites such as Google, Craigslist and others that were part of a widespread online protest could “never” be subject to his bill’s provisions."
John Bakerhrebendorf That would be great... hopefully the R in office would mean one less progressive vote in Congress. Which isn't gauranteed in a party switch but you have a better shot of it atleast.
I get the feeling that @SenatorLeahy has lost track of his bill's content and of why people oppose it. He seems focused on the counterfeit goods (i.e. trademark) aspect, and isn't paying attention to the fact that what most people are disturbed by are the misuse of the law in putative copyright cases, the extra burdens placed on every ISP, the lack of due process before de facto punitive action, and the technically harmful mechanisms decreed for "blocking" infringing sites.
He should stop taking calls from his blatantly corrupt former colleague Chris Dodd, stop making desperately stupid floor speeches, and read up on what his bill does and why people like Vint Cerf and Paul Vixie and Dave Crocker and umpty-dozen other technical parents of the Internet have spoken out against his bill and its House analog not just because it is a threat to the free exchange of information but because it is a threat to the robustness and security of the Internet.
tl;dr Bill Cole
Leahy doesn't have the least ph#kk'n klue as to what the Internet is and how it works. He also doesn't seem to understand this concept of First Amendment.
"force search engines like Google to de-list (remove links) of websites accused of piracy."
And the accusations would fly. Might as well de-list everything.
Handy When I tell people that it can happen on an accusation they are blown away.
Accusation=Guilt. ref. Gonzales on GITMO decision. Handy
What a shame to see one of, what I thought, was one of the more sensible Senators get hoodwinked it to carrying water for these scum. I have said it before and I will say it again, we already have laws on the books to address this issue here in the United States. Go to the ITC and see what can be worked out to go after foreign websites and quit expecting american companies to police your content copyrights! The issues with these laws are more than just what the good senator pointed out in his little dissertation and he needs to take those concerns more seriously. When our government starts passing laws that circumvent our judicial system for a select few we are in serious trouble. These people pushing this DO NOT want to have to go to court and prove their case before they go after someone. That should scare the crap out of any law abiding citizen. Just so someone can make a buck? Then ends do not justify the means here people. Stay vigilant!
I'm kind of disappointed in Leahy. I have the feeling he'll become the CEO of the RIAA just as Dodd is the CEO of MPAA. Something is fishy here for him to be trying so hard to pass this thing with him having announced his "retirement".
pj70 That fishy smell is pure money. He is selling out his soul for this POS.
pj70 When I see Dodd on TV spewing this BS I can not help but think about what kind of "friendly" phone calls have taken place that we do not know about. I think there should be a complete investigation in to Chris Dodd and his influence in this whole mess. He is not suppose to have any contact with the Senators that he worked with for years yet here we see him being the mouth piece for the MPAA in this and we are to believe there is not some sort of contact between him and his old colleagues? Please don't insult our intelligence with this BS.
sidthesquidpj70 Money is non-partisan not bi-partisan.
sidthesquidpj70 I agree. But I do not think that goes quite far enough. He was a VERY powerful man in DC for a long time. We need to have a thorough investigations of his activitys and motivations not just now at his cushey MPAA position but also when he was in the Senate. Whose interests were really being served by Dodd Frank? Was it really about the consumer or was it more likely about accumulating power for himself, his political colleages, or some commercial interest?
pj70 I wasn't surprised in the least by Leahys questionable actions.
Because the wealthy media moguls can't possibly protect or sue or ?
Handy They want someone else to do their dirty work.
Reality check, please. I need some stats there Senator on those 500 billions of dollars lost, and um, could we get the info on those lost jobs? A link or two will do.
Cynner Yeah, the thing that gets me about these "lost jobs" are that the things that are pirated are already in the can and the "little people" are no long working on them post production. It seems the entertainment industry is telling us that unless we protect them so the can make more billions they won't make movies or music anymore. Ya know? Seeing what's in the theaters and listening to the music that's out there, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.
pj70Cynner We know that it is all lies and misinformation. That is why they tried to dismiss those of us who see through this as "geeks". The "geeks"know the truth so lets try and marginalize them. They got a taste of how well that works last week. I have explained the repercussions of this to countless less informed people lately and every single one is outraged to here how this would work. Education is the greatest weapon here and they know it.
Well, clearly, at this point it's no longer about the campaign contributions and all about Pat's personal butthurt at being thwarted. Because one old guy shaking his cane at those damn kids on his lawn wasn't enough.
And yet our senators do not have the guts to go after Wall Street banks that wreck our economy.
hora_del_cafe they also don't have the guts to go after the people who encouraged (fannie/freddie) and in many circumstances required those banks (politicians) to hand out loans to people who could not afford them. They THEN had to figure out a way to make a profit out of money that never existed and wasn't going to be paid back. Leading to somebodys ingenious idea to wrap up all that funny money into securities with pretty packaging and stick em on the stock market for a mighty profit.
Wrong side of history.
I guess he stays bought
Scumbag Leahy: He stood up to the Joker, but he's the architect behind PIPA.
carl your reporting is a little light
a quick check of wikipedia informs us thatt this is issue is a strong leahy cause as evidenced in the two sentences that were cut from the wiki leahy entry and pasted below:
In March 2004, Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the Pirate Act backed by the RIAA. In July 2004, Leahy and Hatch introduced the INDUCE Act. Both were aimed at combating copyright infringement.[10]"
"On September 20, 2010, Leahy introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, Senate Bill S. 3804, which would allow the court to issue a restraining order or injunction against Internet domain names which infringe upon copyright.[14]"
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like