Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios.

One of these things is not like the others.

While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response.

We fully support the censorship of the internet, which baffles and scares us. However, this single step may have been too drastic. Please allow us some time to find stepping stones.

One of the authors, Victoria Espinel, made these suggestions to Congress last year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-con...):

* Ensure that, in appropriate circumstances, infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony;

* Authorize DHS (including its component CBP) to share pre-seizure information about, and samples of, products and devices with rightholders to help DHS to determine whether the products are infringing or the devices are circumvention devices; and

* Give law enforcement wiretap authority for criminal copyright and trademark offenses.

Doesn't look like a "soft" position to me.

I think the response to this letter represents everything that's wrong with the tech community's approach to SOPA, etc.

You can't pretend the political process doesn't exist. We live in a country of 300 million people, each other their own interests, and this is the ugly way they all get hashed out.

At it's core, the White House's response to this petition is both reasonable and an opportunity. Basically they say: 1) we don't want to shut down Google, reddit, etc 2) we can't ignore the grievances of copyright holders, and asks the internet community for help reconciling (1) and (2).

Some of the things facilitated through places like thepiratebay.org are completely illegal, and I don't think anyone is trying to justify those activities. What people are doing, rather, is creating this extreme dichotomy: either thepiratebay.org exists completely in its current form, or you have to censor the entire internet. That is not the dichotomy you want to create, because losing that battle would be of course disastrous.

Given the current climate, and the status of Google, Apple, et al as the only bright part of a dismal economy, the tech industry is uniquely positioned to help pass an extremely narrow law that does little more than give people the political ammo to tell the MPAA/RIAA "hey you already got what you want!" But that'll require a willingness to participate in the political process that I don't think these companies have.

You guys do know Victoria Espinel right? Her position as "Copyright Czar" was created by Obama's government.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Espinel:

Espinel received eleven letters of in support of the nomination from related organizations including the MPAA, the Copyright Alliance, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.[7] As the IPEC, Espinel has stated she has a singular objective: develop and implement a comprehensive, unified approach to IP enforcement for the U.S. government.[1]

So if the response reads a little suspicious, it's because she (and presumably the administration) has a side on the issue.

Words are very very cheap, especially in an election year.

If SOPA passes, the only way to fight it is to make sure it's reverse abused - if a fortune 500 posts a copyrighted image onto their site, get the entire website blocked. If a media outlet uses your youtube video inside their own video broadcast without permission, get their entire website blocked.

Pretty sure all the major news outlet websites could be taken offline at least once a month.

"We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values."

Wrong. We do this every single time we instruct a jury that the accused must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when we advise a drug dealer he needn't co-operate in his own prosecution. Our system explicitly agrees that the liberties it recognizes will be abused by some bad actors.

Failing on that principle, it fails on the less important ones. It doesn't support DNS filtering, but it doesn't reject it either. The implication is that it just might be okay if targeted with sufficient precision, and never mind the precedent set. Without recognizing the technical and civil rights principles that make DNS filtering unacceptable on principle, it goes on to place responsibility for piracy prevention on everyone -- "Washington needs to hear your best ideas".

In short, the statement accepts the MPAA's bottom line as an absolute requirement -- something must be done about piracy! -- without recognizing the tech community's as such. That, my friends, is how you lay the groundwork for a "compromise" in the eyes of well-meaning moderates who don't really understand the issue. If I were trying to set someone up as an unrealistic radical, I'd do so just like this.

Does the WH care about getting the fundamentals right in the eyes of those who really understand them? Or does it want to position those fundamentals as the excess demands of unreasonable people who just won't compromise constructively? A great deal could ride on the answer. And remember, the question is being put here by some White House staffer who doesn't seem to grasp the implications of the 5th Amendment.

This was a good response. It obviously doesn't solve the issue, but I wouldn't expect it to do so from a simple internet petition. What this does is block support for one of the more egregious parts of the bill and invites internet engineers to the table to craft a better bill.

The technology industry can't simply be reactive to bad laws. It has to be proactive in promoting the passage of good laws.

Get the signatories to this letter[1] and have them come up with a law, independent of SOPA, that defines protections for internet freedom.

After that's done (or in parallel), go back to the table with the MPAA and other SOPA sponsors to see how online piracy can be addressed in a way that does not conflict with the previous law.

1. https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/Internet-Engineers-L...

I posted this in the comments on the FastCompany article, but it applies here too.

"the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders"

New legal tools aren't needed in the US. If you're going to stop international piracy, you need to encourage other countries to pass DMCA style laws, not anything more draconian like 3-strikes laws. The DMCA has allowed innovation in technology to happen while still providing a method for take-down that results in a judge seeing it if it is contested.

I understand they're trying to find middle ground, but there really is no middle ground to be had. I also contest the idea that it's actually harming jobs. During the economic downturn the media industries have been doing just fine, much better than the rest of the economy. Combating piracy with SOPA and PIPA style laws will not result in an increase in revenue and will almost certainly result in a decrease. It shows a lack of understanding on the part of the White House.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here?

I want you to go home, and stop legislating the Internet.

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy

I don't believe this.

provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders

Here we go being policemen of the world.

The stated focus of SOPA reminds me a lot of the Patriot Act in that it's initial intent is focused on "foreign websites". The Patriot Act was defined as a tool to be used to monitor foreign communications but has gradually expanded to cover more domestic matters. Make the public accept something they're less likely to oppose by making it "not about them" ... then turn around and tweak a few provisions to expand the scope once all the pieces are in place.

new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity.

In short, reserving the right to build a Great Firewall around the US.

How can there ever be a legislative tool to fight foreign pirates? By definition, national laws only ever work within one's own border.

Isn't it sad to see how hard a time governments have with coping with internationalization?

A fantastic and eloquent display of saying virtually nothing at all.

Starts with them being strongly against SOPA/PIPA. Ends with them effectively being for SOPA/PIPA. Hmm…

How is cyber security risk related to online piracy? I dont get it.

I guess it reads so topsy turny because it was written by three different people; a legal expert, a security expert and a health care expert.

I'm with Neil deGrasse Tyson.. More engineers should get into politics.

A lot filler with no definitive position, for or against. You can't write a response that everyone in the country will approve of. Take a stance, please.

I'm not quite clear on how large-scale piracy has anything to do with security (cyber or otherwise).

"I guarantee that I will add a strongly worded signing statement that will indicate that I do not wholly approve SOPA when I sign it."

Sorry, but I have little faith that this administration will do the right thing. If Obama said what he will specifically not sign off on, then I might be a bit more optimistic.

I can see it now: "I don't agree with everything in this bill, but I'm going to sign it."

I just don't believe them anymore.

Oh, wait, didn't Obama claim similar concerns over NDAA? Good that he vetoed that bill.

As someone who has watched the US from outside, I find it difficult to understand how Obama has become the biggest sell out in history ever. This man is now seems the slave of the corporates that run the American congress. He seemed to represent hope, a new page and so many other things, and here we are in 2012, with the US wanting to gag the internet with despots and dictators from around the world waiting on the sidelines for these tools to be available.

How did this happen?

SOPA is bad.

Personally I do not understand why this gets so much more attention than the military spending act, which allows for indefinite detention on terrorist suspicion. And that includes US citizens.

Well, Barry, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

To quote a well known band, "We won't get fooled again."

"Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."

Online censorship is anti constitution, whether the activity is lawful or not. This whole thing is a mess.

Is there really a piracy problem? Is there not enough entertainment being produced?

tl;dr In this election year, we can't afford to anger either party.

undefined

Little kiddies, you might regret freeloading when justice smacks you as you try to make money on a blog or software in later years.

God is just. I win 10 lotteries a day, I'm not at all worried about justice.

Niggers. Not at all worried about public opinion -- everything is shrink actors. Evil British agents and shit who have no regard for God.

God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WALDEN.TXT

boo-hoo him out of Concord horizon. What do you mean by alarming the citadel at this time of night consecrated to me? Do you think I am ever caught napping at such an hour, and that I have not got lungs and a larynx as well as yourself? Boo-hoo, boo-hoo, boo-hoo! It was one of the most thrilling discords I ever heard. And yet, if you had a discriminating ear, there were in it the elements of a concord such as these plains never saw nor heard. I also heard the whooping of the ice in the pond

--------

Once, I said the difference between niggers and white people is niggers don't know the world is just. Jews have a hard time with the holocaust and are the biggest heathens. Retards! How can you read the Bible and not conclude the holocaust was punishment?

God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT

rs the corruption, of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance, that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.

3. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient fo

------

Jews in the Bible never learn. A stubborn people.

God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\BIBLE.TXT

sengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog.

39:16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.

39:17 And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice up

-----

I wuv my birds. (God laughed)