We talked about how the deck is completely stacked in favor of the soup in the meetings of the House Judiciary Committee. As invited five people in favor of the law, and one against, one might think that it was undeniable. However, in the whirlwind intellectually dishonest in Congress, where it seems there is no denying the reality and stick his tongue to anyone who asks him, an anonymous employee of the Judiciary Committee insisted that nothing could be further from the truth, and audiences are perfectly balanced.

"Throughout the legislative process, we met with groups and societies with different views on how to deal with unscrupulous sites. Earlier this year, The Committee held a hearing on the issue of rogue sites that represented the perspective of public interest groups by the Center for Democracy and Technology. We also heard Floyd Abrams, a constitutional scholar, who claims to know the law to stop online piracy is constitutional under the First Amendment and due process provides enough. And tomorrow we'll hear a representative of Google, which opposes legislative efforts to control rogue sites. The allegations which the legislative process has been in the opposition are inconsistent with the facts.

"This project has strong bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee. theft U.S. intellectual property costs the U.S. economy $ 100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs. We must protect American intellectual property unscrupulous sites. The law to stop online piracy to stop the revenue stream to unauthorized sites and ensures that the benefits of American innovation will be the innovators of America. "

very little in this statement is true or Exact. First of all,

Floyd Abrams is a member of the public - her circulation was on behalf of the And at the same time, more than 100 law professors, practitioners and experts -. including many of the best names in the field - wrote a letter disagreeing with Abrams (and has even in his Behalf, not a client) is really poor quality so that the Committee suggests that the testimony by Abrams is a bit. views of the other party.

Furthermore, as explained, Google is not the only voice that speaks against this bill and to sign is the most cynical of motions by the committee. After all, they tried to claim that only Google is upset this bill, so I put Google as the only "against" the speakers, making them easier to marginalize. Worse, it appears that Google share some of the concerns of others lined up against this bill, their concerns are quite specific to Google. It is unlikely that the concerns of tons of other technology companies, content creators, innovators and others. And above that, there is no consumption, human rights organizations or the public at the hearing.

is the craziest of all. Remember,



only purpose of copyright is to benefit the public


. For is the ultimate parody, and the last insult to the essence of copyright.

Find best price for : --House----Judiciary----Committee----Google----SOPA--