Leahy Takes Heat Over Support for Online Anti-Piracy Bill

Tweet

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is coming under fire from Internet privacy and free speech groups for legislation he shepherded through the Senate Judiciary Committee that some believe is a ham-handed approach to clamping down on piracy and copyright infringement.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 19-0 vote, and has the support of Hollywood movie studios, the music industry, labor groups and the Newspaper Association of America.

'The bill provides law enforcement with the ability to stop websites dedicated to online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods. The illegal products offered through these websites, which are often foreign-owned and operated, range from new movie and music releases, to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. Intellectual property theft costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion every year, according to estimates, and result in the loss of thousands of jobs, according to Leahy's office.

The bill would give the U.S. Department of Justice the ability to seek a court order to shut down specific domain names if they can prove to a court that the material being sold or distributed on that site violates US laws protecting copyrights. A "rogue" site, as Leahy calls it, is one whose sole purpose is to distribute contraband or illegal material.

However Internet privacy and free speech groups say the bill has the potential to cede Internet free speech to the government and the industry this bill sets out to protect.

"Given the fundamental due process values of our nation and the potential for other countries to enact similar mechanisms to retaliate against U.S. companies abroad, Congress must carefully consider whether it wishes to authorize Justice Department officials to blacklist websites in a manner subject to little process and limited judicial review," wrote nearly a dozen groups in a joint letter to Leahy earlier this fall. "Without judicial oversight, these blacklists could reach the websites of political candidates and advocacy groups. Numerous political campaigns have received copyright cease-and-desist letters or infringement notices, including candidates very recently in this cycle from both parties."

Another group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, dubbed the bill Hollywood's blacklist for the digital age.

"This is a censorship bill, with a blacklist and everything. Hollywood's previous adventures with blacklists were a dark period in American history. This time, it's not people suspected of being too communist, it's websites suspected of being too 'piratical,'" wrote EFF's Peter Eckersley in a lengthy legislative analysis of the bill. EFF is a non-profit that works to protect online free speech and commerce.

"Senator Leahy is leading the government into the swamp of trying to decide which websites should be blacklisted and which ones shouldn't, and they're going to discover that the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky," wrote Eckersley.

Leahy disagrees. He says the bill is not about deciding what content is good or bad on the Internet, rather the legislation is designed to give the U.S. Department of Justice the ability to go to court as a way to shut down "rogue" websites that solely sell or distribute pirated material.

"Rogue websites are essentially digital stores selling illegal and sometimes dangerous products. If they existed in the physical world, the store would be shuttered immediately and the proprietors would be arrested," said Leahy in a statement. "We cannot excuse the behavior because it happens online and the owners operate overseas. The Internet needs to be free — not lawless."

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act will give the Department of Justice a better process for cracking down on rogue websites, regardless of where overseas the criminals are hiding, Leahy added.

During a live call-in show on Vermont Public Television Thursday night, Leahy said he's not interested in seeing legitimate websites shut down, but rather websites whose sole function is to sell pirated or copyrighted material without proper authority.

He also promised to hold hearings next year to enure the DOJ is not abusing its power under the law.

"What these rogue websites do is theft, pure and simple. Some have argued that the conduct should be excused as free speech because it happens on the Internet. That argument contradicts the basic tenet of copyright law which, as Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor explained, is the very 'engine of free expression,'" said Leahy. "Ensuring that creators have the exclusive right to be compensated for their work is not only a critical characteristic of our economy, but is endowed as an essential right. Copyright law does not exist in opposition to our guarantee of free speech, it supports it."

Leahy's office said the bill would not affect people who are engaged in legitimate fair use of copyrighted material, nor would the bill be used to shutter popular websites — such as YouTube or eBay — or items posted that are either counterfeit or in voilation of US copyright laws.

US-based laws that can be used to crack down on counterfeiters and pirates already exist. This bill, Leahy's staff asserts, is to give U.S. authorities more tools to crack down on overseas scofflaws who happen to use U.S. infrastructure to operate and reach consumers. In fact, Leahy added language to the bill that gives the court a greater role in this process to ensure that the DOJ isn't going rogue on its own with the new law.

Still, some digital advocates, like the Washington, DC-based Public Knowledge, say they will work to improve the legislation in the next Congress if they can't make further improvements to the bill this session.

“We are disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning chose to disregard the concerns of public-interest groups, Internet engineers, Internet companies, human-rights groups and law professors in approving a bill that could do great harm to the public and to the Internet," said Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge. “We look forward to working with the committee next year to craft a more narrowly tailored bill that deals with the question of rogue websites."

Being criticized by free speech groups is new for Leahy, who is often seen as a champion of open government and has fought efforts to restrict what the federal government has to release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In 1996 he was inducted in the FOIA Hall of Fame.

Comments

[Casey]

There are surely ways to improve the language in this legislation and achieve the intended benefit without limiting innovation or speech. The idea is well-intentioned — we're talking about expanded authority to limit access to the larger-scale, clearly criminal enterprises that often exist overseas and profit from American intellectual property while expressing little to no interest in upholding global standards or treaty obligations.

It is a very real possibility that overly-broad statute would chill speech and innovation in the digital realm. I'm always looking for a middle ground, but I'm not sure consensus can form around that possibility, at least not at this stage.

My wife works at PK, and I work for another group that deals with innovation and access for musicians. I'm hoping that at some point in the sausage-making, this particular piece of IP enforcement gets the necessary amendments to relieve some of that tension your fine Senator may be experiencing.

[W.A. McLaughlin]

This bill reflects one of the major problems of the Internet. Getting somthing for nothing. Stealing ntellectual property is still stealing. Just because its on the Internet does not make a song or movie fair game for the thieves. countefiting and Piracy is criminal activity and it increases the price on those who act morally and honestly. If the bill is not perfect then it needs work, but for the internet to grow into its full potential change musts be made. Claims of infringement of Free speach is often the refuge of the corrupt, Theif and Troll. I am glad Sen. Leahy has the guts to recognize the problem.

[Sukie Knight]

I believe a correction for the words behind the acronym, EFF, is in order. I believe those letters actually stand for Electronic Freedom Foundation.org or eff.org.
Hope this helps.

[ward 2 resident]

Why is Leahy championing this legislation? Copyright is already draconian in the interest of big media, whose only contribution to art and expression are reality TV shows and comic book movies (Leahy starred in the last Batman film). What is this doing for Vermonters? Two weeks after an election and Leahy is back serving his constituency, lobbyists. Embarrassing.

[Random Arrow]

Leahy seems to really be losing his compass lately. Last year it was the Morses Line fiasco where he jumped in with both feet without understanding the hugely negative outcomes for the people and economy of Northwest Vermont and the Eastern Townships of Quebec.

This year he is playing the fiddle for the big donors in the Hollywood studios who apparently feel that the draconian "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" didn't go far enough in enforcing their "rights". These are the same bozos who wanted to make VCRs illegal since they were "tools of piracy". Come on Pat, your honor and the trust that Vermonters have placed in you are worth far more than campaign contributions you don't need and a cameo appearance in the next Batman movie.

I've voted for Leahy in every Senate campaign he has run in but I now feel like its too bad Fred Tuttle isn't still around to keep him honest.