Updated 11:10 am ET, Friday, January 20
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Friday morning announced that he would be postponing a vote on the much-criticized PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) that had originally been scheduled for Tuesday, January 24, handing opponents of the anti-piracy bill their biggest victory yet.
Reid’s statement also attempted to provide a face-saving way of letting down PIPA’s sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT). As Reid’s statement reads in full:
“In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.“There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.
“I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.”
Reid also took to Twitter to explain his position on the bill, saying he still thought that Washington, the tech community and the content industries supporting the bill could reach a compromise on new antipiracy legislation.
Reid tweeted: “There’s no reason that legitimate issues raised about PROTECT IP can’t be resolved. Counterfeiting & piracy cost 1000s of #jobs yearly #pipa,” adding in another tweet, “Americans rightfully expect to be fairly compensated 4 their work. I’m optimistic that we can reach compromise on PROTECT IP in coming weeks.”
Reid’s remarks on Friday came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday night released a statement calling upon Senate Democrats to “shelve” the bill until a compromise could be reached.
Both statements came in the wake of a massive online protest Wednesday, which saw upwards of 70,000 websites — including Google, Wikipedia, Craigslist and Reddit — black-out or partially “censor” their U.S. homepages in protest of the bill and its counterpart in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Numerous lawmakers in the House and Senate who previously supported one or both bills, and numerous lawmakers who hadn’t yet taken a position, chose to come out against the bills on Wednesday as well.
A markup hearing on SOPA is still scheduled to resume in February has been indefinitely postponed, see below!
First update: Sen. Leahy, PIPA’s sponsor, has released the following statement in response to Reid’s decision to scrap Tuesday’s vote.
It’s a doozy, with Leahy blasting the “knee-jerk reaction” of Senators who abandoned the bill and going on a screed about how “somewhere in China” or “Russia” and “many other countries” online pirates are celebrating Reid’s move.
“The United States Senate has identified a problem directly affecting American jobs, American workers and American consumers. When I first came to Congress, it was the practice of the Senate to debate competing ideas to address such a problem; regrettably, that is not the practice today.“The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the PROTECT IP Act in May. Since then, I have worked with both Senators and stakeholders to identify concerns and find meaningful ways to address them. Only when the Senate considers this legislation can we do so. In the meantime, more time will pass with jobs lost and economies hurt by foreign criminals who are stealing American intellectual property, and selling it back to American consumers. I remain committed to addressing this problem; I hope other members of Congress won’t simply stand on hollow promises to find a way to eliminate online theft by foreign rogue websites, and will instead work with me to send a bill to the President’s desk this year.
“I understand and respect Majority Leader Reid’s decision to seek consent to vitiate cloture on the motion to proceed to the PROTECT IP Act. But the day will come when the Senators who forced this move will look back and realize they made a knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem. Somewhere in China today, in Russia today, and in many other countries that do not respect American intellectual property, criminals who do nothing but peddle in counterfeit products and stolen American content are smugly watching how the United States Senate decided it was not even worth debating how to stop the overseas criminals from draining our economy.”
Second update: The architect of SOPA, Sen. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has announced that in the wake of the PIPA vote being cancelled, he’s also canceling the markup hearing on SOPA scheduled for February and all consideration of the bill “until there is wider agreement on a solution.” Full statement here:
Chairman Smith: “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.“The problem of online piracy is too big to ignore. American intellectual property industries provide 19 million high-paying jobs and account for more than 60 percent of U.S. exports. The theft of America’s intellectual property costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs. Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while American innovators and job creators are under attack.
“The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store. It is illegal and the law should be enforced both in the store and online.
“The Committee will continue work with both copyright owners and Internet companies to develop proposals that combat online piracy and protect America’s intellectual property. We welcome input from all organizations and individuals who have an honest difference of opinion about how best to address this widespread problem. The Committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation.
“The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution.”
Third update: Net Coalition, an Internet industry organization representing some of the largest companies online — including Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and AOL — has responded to Sen. Reid’s move to stop PIPA in its tracks.
As Markhan Erickson, executive director of Net Coalition said in a statement: “We commend Congress on recognizing the serious collateral damage this bill could inflict on the Internet. We remain committed to working with Congress to address the problem of piracy without compromising innovation and free expression.”
Fourth update: Numerous other Senators have weighed on in the news of the PIPA and SOPA suspensions, with all of them, including some co-sponsors of the bill, essentially agreeing that the moves were the right ones, given the lack of broad support for the bills at present.
Sen. McConnell, who called upon Reid to cancel the PIPA vote on Thursday, said he was “encouraged” by the news of PIPA’s indefinite postponement.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who had been the targets of a protest Wednesday by New York tech workers upset at the Senators’ co-sponsorship of PIPA, both released brief statements saying that the people’s voice had been heard. Sen. Schumer tweeted his statement and Sen. Gillibrand posted hers on Facebook.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the longest-standing opponent of PIPA, tweeted: “For all those who might have thought that their voice didn’t count in their government, I hope you now know it does.”
Fifth update: The MPAA tweeted a statement posted on its blog by, Senator Chris Dodd, currently the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, in which Dodd blasts Congressional leaders’ decision to halt the progress of SOPA and PIPA.
Dodd’s statement “applaud[s]” those lawmakers who didn’t budge in their support of SOPA and PIPA (there can’t be many of them left at this point) and accuses the rest of Congress of “failing to act,” saying “American jobs will continue to be lost,” as a result.
Read Dodd’s statement in full here:
We applaud those leaders in Washington who have chosen to stand with the millions of hard working Americans all across this nation whose livelihoods are threatened by foreign criminal websites designed to steal. As a consequence of failing to act, there will continue to be a safe haven for foreign thieves; American jobs will continue to be lost; and consumers will continue to be exposed to fraudulent and dangerous products peddled by foreign criminals.With today’s announcement, we hope the dynamics of the conversation can change and become a sincere discussion about how best to protect the millions of American jobs affected by the theft of American intellectual property. The threat posed by these criminal operations has been widely acknowledged by even the most ardent critics. It is incumbent that they now sincerely work with all of us to achieve a meaningful solution to this critically important goal.
Earlier on Thursday, Dodd said in an interview with The New York Times that the Web protests had decidedly shifted support for SOPA and PIPA in Washington. “This thing was considered by many to be a slam dunk,” Dodd told the newspaper.
More to come. Stay tuned.
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.
Very good deal for the Billionaires... but not very good for the artists that want to promote their music....
or
I SAY NO NO TO THIS RIDICULOUS "IP AVT"
I call on you to stand for a free and open Internet and oppose both the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Great news but the battle isnt over. If anybody is looking for an easy way to contact Senators or see their stances, try PIPArollcall.com.
DEAR CONGRESS AND SENATE: THE INTERNET DOES NOT NEED FIXING. LEAVE IT ALONE
As time progresses, the 10X Gap WIDENS EXPONENTIALLY, which is what the hell is going on TODAY! :O
Does it really surprise you that the same group wants to chip you & control you? The same ones who create unfair trade advantages for themselves via "fractional reserve banking" - do you know how the cash in your pocket is created? Every dollar you deposit, they print ten (10), TEN! TEN TIMES STRONGER THAN YOU
The UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL RESERVE PRIVATE CENTRAL BANK wants to MICROCHIP ALL U.S. CITIZENS before their 100-YEAR CHARTER ENDS ON DECEMBER 23, 2013 via RFID chips databased on the supercomputer "The Beast"! THEY WILL USE NEWT GINGRICH, ROMNEY, & Kenya-born Obama to FORCE YOU to ACCEPT the "MARK of the BEAST". Please, think about it carefully & vote RON PAUL if you don't want to be a RFID CHIP SLAVE for the rest of your life via RFID CHIP CONTROL: THEY WI'LL SHUT YOU DOWN OR JUST KILL YOU IF YOU DISOBEY, WITH A ONE-BUTTON PUSH: BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) !!!
Ron Yang The artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Mr. Banana Hammock?
sullivanstRon Yang I think he just takes too many pharmaceutical drugs.
Ignorance is bliss for you, isn't it? "The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof...CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THIRD PARTIES." US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5, CLAUSE 8. THIS IS WHAT MAKES THE FEDERAL RESERVE PRIVATE CENTRAL BANK UNCONSTITUTIONAL! THE EMPEROR'S NOT WEARING ANY CLOTHES! Abolishing the UnConstitutional Federal Reserve Private Central Bank, could also abolish the need to pay UnConstitutional personal income taxes. Let's tell Congress to pay the third party UnConstitutional Federal Reserve Private Central Bank a printing fee for printing our currency, not unpayable interest on every dollar. Thinking about the first dollar ever printed, How can INTEREST on a dollar ever be repaid if only a dollar exists in the economy? Permanent debt incarceration.
Kevin Schmidt Or perhaps too few.
Poe's law in action, either way.
it seems after hearing both sides of the story that the dems cannot keep their paws off of the internet, whether its taxing or regulating the internet. the dems seem to have a woody when it comes to anything internet.
if the dems were truly worried about jobs they would make sure countries are abiding by workers rights and environmental standards. this will prevent companies like apple from creating a copy right and going to a country that promotes slavery to have it built. i am sorry, when i buy something i want to be able to give it to whomever i please. it seems the democratic party believes in big corporations and gov't privacy rights over mine (ie carrier iq, patriot act etc)
democrats keep you filthy hands off the internet - tell chris dodd to go to heck
lamonth Chris Dodd already went to heck. He retired in 2010 from the Senate, and now heads up the MPAA.
Time to examine Leahy's favorite campaign contributors!
Allan J Krueger This whole event really puts an ugly spotlight on the Dems, and how beholden they are to the media conglomerates. Not all, but most of the stalwart supporters of it, unwilling to reconsider, have been Democrats. In the spirit of honest discussion, I think that needs to be said.
"Sen. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has announced...he’s also canceling the markup hearing on SOPA...“until there is wider agreement on a solution.” "
What he means to say is "until nobody's paying attention."
can someone please help me out - i use to be able to buy a book or music at a store and listen, copy, or give it to another individual without the law or democratic party trying to put me in jail. Question, if something becomes digital do i no longer own it, i just lease the item for my use only (then things should be a lot cheaper)
lamonth You never owned the content, ever.
You owned the physical medium, but the ownership of the content remained with the copyright holder. Making copies and giving them away has never been legal. It's just that people giving away single copies to friends has always been below the radar of enforcement actions.
It remains highly unlikely that you'll be sued for making individual copies to give to friends - the damages the content producers are likely to be awarded aren't likely to justify the cost of hiring the lawyers, and the lack of a profit motive keeps it out of the criminal realm. It's when you make something available to millions on a peer-to-peer network or publish an un-password-protected URL on a searchable site that you're going to get hammered.
sullivanstlamonth I suppose it would also depend on the copy you are making. Are you making a mixed tape? Or are you burning CDs to give to all your friends. There's a fair use issue in there somewhere.
Eustace Tilley 2.0lamonth <blockquote>I suppose it would also depend on the copy you are making. Are you making a mixed tape? Or are you burning CDs to give to all your friends. There's a fair use issue in there somewhere.</blockquote>
The record industry successfully sued people selling mixtapes. They decided that prosecuting individuals giving tapes to their friends was wrong side of the cost-benefit curve, partly because of the loss of recording quality when copying to an analog tape.
The courts have always frowned on claims to fair use when an entire work has been copied. The smaller the proportion of the work that's reproduced, the more likely a fair use claim is to succeed.
sullivanstlamonth No, they changed the copyright laws. It used to be consumers bought a product to do whatever you want, EXCEPT make copies to SELL. Now, the copyright laws are written (because of bribery) so that consumers purchase a medium with a license to use the content.
TotalRecall9lamonth That's a complete and utter fiction. You're totally wrong.
sullivanstlamonth You're wrong, corporate shill.
TotalRecall9 You have been wrong in every post you've made. It has never been legal to make copies, including mixed tapes; Xerox faced lawsuits when the photocopier was invented. It's just a whole lot easier when you can share an entire CD with a million people online, instead of having to copy a vinyl LP onto tape by playing it out one at a time.
Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright holders the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending"
NOT the sole right of reprinting for the purpose of sale, the sole right of reprinting for any purpose.
It has always been a violation of copyright to make an unauthorized copy, regardless of whether you make that copy for sale.
Your claim is, without mitigation, false.
midnight rambler Ummmmmm, even if Xerox was sued (which doesn't mean anything), they obviously WON. DUH!
sullivanst Is this something you wrote on Wikipedia? Please. And that was about BOOKS!! Obviously, that law has changed also, because 70 years after an author dies, it then becomes fair use!
TotalRecall9midnight rambler It was never in doubt that photocopying copyrighted works without permission was a violation. Xerox won because the primary intention of the photocopier was either for the copyright owner to copy items, or to copy non-copyright items.
sullivanstmidnight rambler No, it's not. The "primary intention" of a photocopier isn't for the sole use of "copyright owners"!
TotalRecall9 Of course it was about books. The first audio recording device had not yet been invented. Fox Talbot wasn't even born by then, so there was no such thing as photography, let along motion pictures.
The 1790 Act is even more explicit that copies are forbidden regardless of whether sold:
<blockquote>And be it further enacted, That if any other person or persons from and after the recording of the title of any map, chart, book or books, and publishing the same as aforesaid, and within the times limited and granted by this Act, shall print, reprint, publish or import, or cause to be printed, reprinted, published or imported, from any foreign kingdom or state, any copy or copies of such map, chart, book or books, without the consent of the author or proprietor thereof, first had and obtained in writing, signed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses; or knowing the same to be printed, reprinted or imported, shall publicly sell, or expose to sale, or cause to be published, sold, or exposed to sale, and copy of such map, chart, book or books, without such consent first had and obtained in writing as aforesaid, then such offender or offenders shall forfeit all and every copy or copies of such map, chart, book or books, and all and every sheet or sheets, being part of the same, or either of them, to the author or proprietor of such map, chart, book or books, who shall forthwith destroy the same : And every such offender or offenders shall also forfeit and pay the sum of fifty cents for every sheet which shall be found in his or her possession, either printed or printing, published, imported or exposed to sale</blockquote>
Printing was a violation in its own right. Reprinting was a violation in its own right. Publishing was a violation in its own right. Importing was a violation in its own right. Yes, selling was also a violation, but it was never necessary to establish the other acts were also violations.
sullivanstTotalRecall9 That's right. Because Copyright law remained static for 200 years. Just because you can use search engines doesn't make you a lawyer, you know.
TotalRecall9midnight rambler
<blockquote>No, it's not. The "primary intention" of a photocopier isn't for the sole use of "copyright owners"!</blockquote>
You're such an imbecile. Seriously.
The primary intention of the photocopier was to copy corporate documents. Those were either not copyright (since the law at the time required a copyright notice), or the company which was making the copies was also the copyright holder.
hotchTotalRecall9 Of course copyright law has not remained static for 222 years. It has been broadened both in the scope of covered material (as new technologies to recording and duplicating content have become available), and the duration of copyright.
Nevertheless, for all of the past 222 years (in other words, ever since the first law was enacted to realize Congress's enumerated power to enforce copyright), it has been a violation to copy a covered work, regardless of whether you sell it or not.
TotalRecall9sullivanst Not fair use. It becomes public domain. Fair use refers to a person's ability to use a portion of a copyrighted work for use whatever. It's sufficiently nebulous that Court's weigh in on the topic.
TotalRecall9sullivanstlamonth There was NEVER a "free copy" exception in copyright law. Judges did (and do) consider your profit in assigning DAMAGES... but liability did not depend on charging for the copy.
sullivanst Of course, the Copyright Act of 1790 was surprisingly mum about copying, say, recordings. It took a very long time (1906, I believe) before Congress wrote into law that recordings fell under copyright. After all, a performer is not a scientist or an author; the Constitution doesn't speak to them.
TotalRecall9sullivanst No. Seventy years after the author dies, it becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN (which is different from fair use). That is, unless Congress retroactively re-grants copyright, which the Supreme Court just decided they can.
Bernard HP Gilroy <blockquote>Of course, the Copyright Act of 1790 was surprisingly mum about copying, say, recordings.</blockquote>
It would be hard for an Act of 1790 to cover audio recordings when the phonograph was not invented until 1877 and commercially viable versions not for a few years after that.
sullivanstlamonth
"...you're going to get hammered."
Nonsense. They never go after the users, just the ones who run the P2P.
hotchlamonth
<blockquote>Nonsense. They never go after the users</blockquote>
Oh really?
Tell that to these people: http://betanews.com/2003/09/09/riaa-sues-261-inclu...
sullivanstlamonth I remember this and it proves my point. About a decade ago the music industry attempted a boneheaded tactic of going after file-sharing users. What it got them was a crap-load of bad press, along with their own analysis that it wasn't a financially viable strategy to be suing everyone and their daughter, so they stopped doing it.
hotchlamonth Erm. 2003 wasn't the last time they did it:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Downloaders...
sullivanstlamonth From the 2009 article:
"Four major record labels...plan to begin making their case today before a federal jury in what is only the second such dispute in the nation to go to trial."
And in keeping an open mind, I would revise my statement of "never" to "almost never."
hotchsullivanstlamonth Um, that's certainly not true. There was a period of a few years where the content cartel filed literally thousands of lawsuits against ordinary citizens for small-scale sharing.
hotchlamonth Second case to actually reach trial.
Very, very, very, very, very far from the second case filed. The targets of these suits almost invariably settled.
Admittedly it's now much more likely (after the RIAA and MPAA and ISPs worked out a series of deals) that you'll receive an email from your ISP telling you to stop sharing and threatening you with a termination of service than a writ for thousands of dollars per file, but the industry still retains the right to sue if they find your sharing particularly egregious or you persist despite the warning.
thank you all - quite informative
lamonth I agree. It's a good discussion. Some of us should do without calling each other idiots and imbeciles in every breath. But that's another matter.
.... PROTECT OPEN INTERNET,
AND OPPOSE BOTH; THE PROTECT IP ACT AND STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like