Howard Berman Concerned About Internet-Repressive Regimes, Except If They Help His Friends In Hollywood
from the mickey-mouse dept
We were just discussing the vast similarities between China’s internet censorship and what is being proposed in ACTA — but, of course, not everyone seems to realize those similarities.
Nick Dynice points us to the news that Rep. Howard Berman (who represents Hollywood and is sometimes referred to as “the Representative from Disney” given his longstanding support for any law that increases the scope of copyright law) is apparently speaking out against “repressive internet regimes” such as those in China, while at the very same time being a strong supporter of ACTA which could push for very similar “secondary liability” rules for ISPs in the US that are the foundation of Chinese internet censorship.
Nick also points out how amusing it is that, at the same time, Berman, in his role as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has also been knocking China for not doing enough to stop copyright infringement online, complaining about their “weak and ineffectual” measures.
So, apparently, using secondary liability to stop stuff Berman wants stopped is good, but using it to stop stuff Berman doesn’t want stopped is bad. But why is it that Howard Berman gets to decide when it’s appropriate to force ISPs to block content and when it’s not?
Filed Under: acta, censorship, china, copyright, howard berman, internet, repression, three strikes
Comments on “Howard Berman Concerned About Internet-Repressive Regimes, Except If They Help His Friends In Hollywood”
I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
But why is it that Howard Berman gets to decide when it’s appropriate to force ISPs to block content and when it’s not?
Because, thats exactly what we have lawmakers for.
Who else should we rely on to decide what is illegal and what is not illegal? A flock of seagulls?
I agree with your point mike, but your logic here is in need of some focus.
Re: I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
Because, thats exactly what we have lawmakers for.
That’s what we’re supposed to have *representatives* for. Representatives of the people, not special interests.
Re: Re: I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
Note to old guy lawmakers, plural so a single lawmaker does not get to decide. Also there is this thing called the constitution that has prohibitions against the lawmakers doing being able to make that decision.
Re: I agree with your point, but your logic is failing
“Who else should we rely on to decide what is illegal and what is not illegal?”
Certainly not the ISPs, which is who Berman who give the power to.
Mike, your analogy fails. You’re comparing the protection of free speech to the protection of piracy.
Everyone knows that a strong copyright does not hinder free speech.
Repressive internet regimes are bad...
except when I’m part of them.
yea and his holly wood buds IN the USA
we also see the riaa in canada gettign sued for not even paying artists in canada
SO WHO IS THE PIRATE
some kid not making money off downloading
OR these thieves who commercially have been selling to us
WHO runs the riaa OH YEA THAT WOMAN
Re: yea and his holly wood buds IN the USA
SO WHO IS THE PIRATE
some kid not making money off downloading
OR these thieves who commercially have been selling to us
not making money is the same as making money, just like standing still is the same thing as going backwards.
It's consistent under certain conditions
Like, if the goal is (as I suspect) to use “secondary liability” and “graduated response” as a choke-hold on not just file sharing but also on fair use and user-generated content (which no one ever seems to mention in this context, but which would be an obvious consequence of targeting services rather than the specific users who infringe–so obvious that it can’t be anything but an explicit goal)–anyway, if that’s one of the conditions and at the same time ensuring there is no censorship of the content Hollywood wants to sell to such a large market is the other condition, then this position makes sense.
In other words, Hollywood wants Hollywood’s content to be the only stuff that makes it through without any roadblocks. How is this not obvious, and why won’t they just cop to it?
Berman is a big business stooge.
I suggest effigy burning demonstrations in his home district. We have inventors from his district who are already considering this and they might be willing to join forces with others.
It is long past time that the people reign in questionable legislators. This is an issue which transcends party affiliations.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
I have to say Mike, this is one of those posts where you are stretching so far to try to make a point, that you are hurting your credibility.
piracy
Re: Re:
Care you explain how he is stretching himself to make a point? Pretty lazy, IMO.
The answer is obvious
“But why is it that Howard Berman gets to decide when it’s appropriate to force ISPs to block content and when it’s not?”
Because he is an Israeli and Israelis control the United States of America.