AfterDawn: Tech news

Congressman burns Google over anti-piracy act opposition

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 02 Dec 2011 4:29 User comments (15)

Congressman burns Google over anti-piracy act opposition SOPA would threaten Internet freedom? - "Blatantly false", says lawmaker.
Lamar S. Smith, U.S. Representative for Texas's 21st congressional district, has come to the defense of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which has faced considerable opposition from some of the world's largest tech firms, and pretty much every consumer / digital rights group.

Smith chairs the House Judiciary Committee and is the lead sponsor of the bill. Writing in the National Review Online, Smith stressed that SOPA only targets websites that are "dedicated" to illegal activity, whether it be peddling counterfeit goods or pirated movies.

He argued that the United States congress could not just sit back and watch as some of America's most profitable and productive industries come under attack, to the tune of up to $100 billion per year. One of SOPA's main functions would be to block revenue to rogue websites, the majority of which would be located outside the United States, and vehemently rejected claims that legitimate websites would get caught in the middle.

"Websites like Facebook and YouTube that host user content are not 'dedicated to' illegal activity, and they certainly do not make a business out of 'facilitating' the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit or pirated goods," Smith wrote.

He saved special criticism for Google Inc., which has come out in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

"Unfortunately, there are some critics of this legislation who are not serious about helping to protect America's intellectual property. That's because they've made large profits by working with and promoting rogue sites to U.S. consumers. Google recently paid half a billion dollars to settle a criminal case because of the search-engine giant's active promotion of rogue foreign pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients. Their opposition to this legislation is self-serving since they profit from doing business with rogue sites."

He also pointed out that the First Amendment to the United States constitution does not protect illegal activity, likening the problem of Internet piracy to that of child pornography.

"Like online piracy, child pornography is a billion-dollar business operated online. It is also illegal. That's why law enforcement officials are authorized to block access to child-porn sites," he wrote.

Tags: SOPA Google
Previous Next  

15 user comments

12.12.2011 4:36

"Dedicated" can be taken in many ways, and it will be taken to extremes just like everything the government does.

They already have the ability to do what this guy claims to want to do; so obviously they want to go farther than that.



22.12.2011 4:42
loijli
Unverified new user

law enforcement officials are authorized to block access to child-porn sites

Bollocks, that is a straight up lie!, there is no law.

also,
Viacom is already suing YouTube for a billion dollars. If SOPA had been in place in 2007, you can bet that Viacom would have used the provisions in SOPA to kill off all YouTube revenue first, rather than filing DMCAs and then suing. Viacom clearly believes that YouTube is (or at least was) "dedicated to illegal activity." And since Smith's own bill allows for this private right of action, it doesn't matter whether he really believes it will be used this way or not...

32.12.2011 5:20

The irony of US politicos (who legalized the bribing of themselves by the use of PACs) lecturing others is risible.
If these people were serious about crime and criminal acts they would turn themselves in.

42.12.2011 5:31

Quote:
Google recently paid half a billion dollars to settle a criminal case because of the search-engine giant's active promotion of rogue foreign pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients.
This quote alone raises a red flag that SOPA oversteps its bounds. What counterfeit drugs have to do with Copyright Infringement is anyone's guess. That's a matter for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), not Copyright lawyers. ...unless you've already planned out that you'll be using this law to prosecute multitudes of unrelated cases.

Yikes.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Dec 2011 @ 5:32

When laws allow unlimited ownership of ideas, it is to a society as iron fusion is to the core of a star.

When verified realities lead us to anger, we must learn to reevaluate our beliefs.

52.12.2011 10:36

SOPA is a blatant attempt to censor the 'Net. It effectively repeals the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000, which is bad enough, and replaces it with many more "guilty until proven innocent" powers for the media lawyers. I don't like being guilty until proven innocent.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Dec 2011 @ 10:43

dances_with_wolves

62.12.2011 11:17

Read the book 1984. If we allow our governments to keep going in the way they are we will be living in a world similar to the one Winston Smith lived in.

Being in political office is a privilage but many treat it as a career, this needs to change, and soon.

The president only gets to serve 2 4-year terms, that's it. Why do we not have similar rules for all other political offices. Mind boggling.

Sorry it was a bit off topic but I am sick of seeing all these politicians lately banning this or trying that and then there are the recall elections that are going on. Too much politics lately.

There the soap box is put away.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Dec 2011 @ 11:18

72.12.2011 11:35

Mr. Smith (funny how this already seems be the case, don't you think?) is an idiot already as Google owns/owned Youtube to begin with, which was one of his arguing points.

The very profiteering markets he seems to be defending are also the very corporations that never seem to pay their fare share & dodge everything else congress wants to know about their shady dealings, but when it comes to bleeding the public dry for more money or losing more money/control over property that wasn't really their's in the first place... well, throw a few hundred grand (or more, price is usually no object at this point) at your favorite hypocrite politician & they're off & running at the mouth.

Does the politician care if he/she sells your rights away? Not at all. They're under the delusion that they can buy their rights back from our conquerors because they are of a better stock or class than the rest of us plebes.


82.12.2011 16:50
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by LordRuss:
Mr. Smith (funny how this already seems be the case, don't you think?) is an idiot already as Google owns/owned Youtube to begin with, which was one of his arguing points.

The very profiteering markets he seems to be defending are also the very corporations that never seem to pay their fare share & dodge everything else congress wants to know about their shady dealings, but when it comes to bleeding the public dry for more money or losing more money/control over property that wasn't really their's in the first place... well, throw a few hundred grand (or more, price is usually no object at this point) at your favorite hypocrite politician & they're off & running at the mouth.

Does the politician care if he/she sells your rights away? Not at all. They're under the delusion that they can buy their rights back from our conquerors because they are of a better stock or class than the rest of us plebes.
I couldn't agree more Russ. The corruption, entitlement, and hypocrisy of these "politicians" has gone too far.
I'd also like to see where he came up with this 100 billion loss for our most profitable companies statement. That's a figure he obviously just pulled out of his a$$. It's nice to know how concerned they all are about corporate profits, and how little concern is left for the average citizen. Too bad the average citizen hasn't clued into the fact that whenever they want to strip away rights or freedoms, they just have to associate terrorism, and now child pornography with it.
Corporations run the country and unfortunately it will get worse before it gets better. There is only one thing that can change it.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Dec 2011 @ 17:01

92.12.2011 18:13

Some more! Do you think health care would pass if congress people would be included???

102.12.2011 23:33

Welcome to the modern USA, where Napoleonic law is on its way to becoming the norm. For those who don't understand - under Napoleonic law you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

Personally, I wouldn't want anybody coming after my dead cat because the riaa/mpaa/whoever-the-hell suspect he was illegally downloading/sharing protected files.

113.12.2011 15:56

The governments in the world these days only do what benefits them, not us. If they want to take our rights and freedoms away from us, believe me they will find a way. Occupy protesters are a good example of this. They get sick and tired of the crap that the government of the proud U S of A takes away from us, and frankly I have to agree with them, but it's gonna take a lot more than a handful of protesters to get things done. It;'s gonna take all of us combined to change things which sadly, most of the population seems to don't care at all. Just my 2 cents on the topic.


Chance prepares the favored mind. Look up once in a while and you might learn something. - BLUEBOY

123.12.2011 18:28

Originally posted by blueboy09:
...most of the population seems to don't care at all.
I don't necessarily think it's a lack of caring, but a grand dose of ignorance & a huge enema of not knowing who or how to get the job done. The whole thing smacks of a complete 'top down' revolution. I.e., clean house. We already know virtually every one of the senate 7 congress is guilty of insider trading & cronyism, so stick them in jail & start fresh with brand new folks in place of the politicians.

I say use the lottery system. Kind of like jury duty or the draft. You get sequestered away from family & friends until you do the job right & you don't go home until you do. Once you're done, the next poor bastard steps up. That way corporations HAVE to play the capitalism game like it was intended.

Hows that for a solution? At least it's one solution, just possibly not popular.

134.12.2011 18:51
Budrow
Unverified new user

Lamar Smith is a prostitute, clear and simple. He didn't write the bill, he knows virtually nothing about the intricacies or the ramifications and he cares not. Check his list of campaign contributors. His bribe for this bill was right at 79K from the poor widdle movie/music/entertainment conglomerates.

144.12.2011 22:08
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by Budrow:
Lamar Smith is a prostitute, clear and simple. He didn't write the bill, he knows virtually nothing about the intricacies or the ramifications and he cares not. Check his list of campaign contributors. His bribe for this bill was right at 79K from the poor widdle movie/music/entertainment conglomerates.
Why spend a million on a commercial when you can buy a politician for less than one hundred grand? Make them buy it whether they f*cking like it or not.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Dec 2011 @ 22:13

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

155.3.2012 1:10

Originally posted by dfwpilot:
Some more! Do you think health care would pass if congress people would be included???
What they should do is make the Congress dip from the same trough as other citizens. Social Security would not be on the verge of bankruptcy, and medical coverage would be affordable, and everyone would have it. And they might even manage to balance the budget. But until they have their *own* skin in the game, I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive