Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:00 PM ET, 11/23/2010

Wyden pledges to delay Internet anti-piracy bill

By Cecilia Kang

A legal debate over how to stop online piracy appears far from over.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) promises to stop a controversial Internet anti-counterfeiting and piracy bill from moving forward during the lame-duck Congress.

He recently called the bill, which has a provision that would allow the Justice Department to take down domain names of infringing sites and hold liable credit card companies and other partners, a "bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile."

Wyden's move to hold the bill, hailed by anti-censorship groups, will likely delay passage until the next Congress, experts say.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), passed the Judiciary committee unanimously 19-0.

"When a domain is taken offline, everything on that domain is taken offline, including non-infringing speech and valuable innovation," said the Electronic Freedom Foundation, a free speech group.

The EFF said that tools are already in place to fight piracy and that new rules won't give Web sites due process.

"Under current law, Hollywood already has powerful tools to police online infringement, such as the DMCA takedown process, that were the result of years of negotiation and include protections against abuse."

But Hollywood, television networks, book publishers and some independent film producers disagree. NBC General Counsel Rick Cotton, MacMillan President Brian Napack, independent filmmaker Ellen Seidler and Scott Harbinson, of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees union stopped by The Post to talk about their support for the bill.

Cotton dismissed complaints that the bill doesn't give due process to Web sites.

"The bill we are talking about sets a very high standards," Cotton said. "Rights holder have to go to Justice and have to go before a federal judge and have formal a finding that a site meets the standard we are talking about. There is no better process than going before a federal judge, in front of the press."

Napack said that third-parties should be included in the bill because they are part of an "ecosystem" that support online theft.

"Along the value chain between supplier and consumer, there are a number of people that the system relies on," Napack said. "There is an Internet service provider, an advertiser that put ads on pirate Web sites, a credit card company that facilitates the transaction. And without their participation there is no way to stop ecosystem working."

By Cecilia Kang  | November 23, 2010; 2:00 PM ET
Categories:  copyright  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FCC considers texting, cell phone photos to 9-1-1
Next: FCC delays December meeting, perhaps signaling net neutrality vote

Comments

What's next for Hollywood---banning the internet?

Technology has mooted their business model. Time for them to find another. They have no right to even inconvenience the public. I don't download illegally, and I don't care how much trouble Hollywood has with those who do. It's not my problem.

If Hollywood can solve this "problem" without inconveniencing me, fine. If not, too bad. They can just deal with it.

Now, if Hollywood wants to share their royalties with me, that's another story. Then I might be willing to suffer some minor annoyances---as long as the price is right.

And anyone who's ever dealt with Hollywood knows that is a very businesslike attitude by Hollywood standards.

Posted by: Garak | November 23, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh PLEASE. The RIAA and Hollywood's lawyers bought this bill, pure and simple.

Poor babies want the government to protect their monopolies on entertainment distribution by censoring the internet.

They are dinosaurs spiraling down the drain but still have enough money to try and buy legislation. The senators involved should be ashamed.

Posted by: info53 | November 23, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company