Already know that today's audiences Soup for the House Judiciary Committee are fully loaded in favor of the law. However, with the public being launched, we wanted to snorkel and see what is going to say. Most of the evidence was disclosed yesterday, allowing us to spend time going through it - it's all included below. However, here's a sample of what is going to say ... with some additional comments (of course).

First, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (also known as head of the US Copyright Office). It must

be here to defend

the public

and ensure that the regulatory capture by a huge pair of stagnant industries does not happen. However, this is not how the Copyright Office of the rollers. Instead, his testimony is, fundamentally, the House U. S. Commerce main points of discussion (perhaps not a surprise, as the principal lobbyist for the US House who is in charge of directing this bill has recently worked on the US Copyright Office). If you had waited a reasoned argument on the return of the mass excess SOUP and general definitions, we will not Pallante.

My opinion is that if Congress does not continue to give serious answers to online piracy, the American author will eventually fail. The premise of copyright is the author of a creative work may be authorized to own and other proprietary rights of a few - a premise that has served the nation well since 1790. Congress has repeatedly acted to improve the enforcement provisions of the copyright in recent years, even in the online environment. Soup is the next step to ensure that our law is consistent with the offenders ....

[....]

The answer provided by the soup is serious and complete. It requires that all key members of the online ecosystem, including service providers, search engines, payment processors, and ad networks, to play a role in the protection of copyright - a approach I agree. Fight against counterfeiting online requires attention and commitment. It should be obvious that we can not intermediaries working against the current.

In other words, the IT industry success should be prevented and hindered, and my friends in Hollywood are too ignorant to adjust their business models. Really?

SOPA also measured. Correctly provides tools far broader and more flexible for the Attorney General, which offers owners of copyright. It is a sound policy option at the moment. The Department of Justice has experience in the fight against offenders online resources are used carefully, you should exercise discretion in the exercise of stock, and must present his case to court and obtain an order of the court before proceeding. In other words, while the copyright industries are very important (and certainly a source of pride on the U.S. economy), soup recognizes that many areas are based on, invest and contribute to the success of the Internet.

Almost none of this is true. Not measured. Is vague, broad and dangerous. The Department of Justice "experience" to get offenders to make Web sites without notice based on false information from the copyright holders ... and after threatening to appeal to those seeking criminal charges. It is not "use resources with care", which is the government-sponsored censorship.

is why it takes soup only limited tools in the hands of copyright owners, and gives the Attorney General the exclusive power to seek orders against the engine Research and Internet service providers. This does not mean that there should continue to evaluate Internet piracy and the impact of the soup or whether additional measures or adjustments may be necessary. In fact, current studies SOUP assigned to the Office of Copyright and the Coordinator of the application of intellectual property for these purposes as well. But I do SOPA provides a correct calibration at that time.

First, the "limited tools" includes the ability to completely cut funding to a website based solely on the allegations. Maybe I learned a language other than Pallante, but it is not "limited."



Also, how on earth can she say that it is "right sizing" although it admits that this issue has not been studied? Bill is completely "shoot first and then measure," without giving details on how effective - or bad - will be measured.



Like any legislation, SOUP deserve and can benefit from an intense debate. As the Committee works to improve and refine the bill, I know full account of a variety of perspectives and suggestions, including my fellow witnesses. That said, I think Congress has a responsibility to protect the rights of exclusive ownership, and we urge the committee to move forward in this spirit.



Yes, an intense debate that ignores most people opposed the bill, allowing only one party - it's easy dismissal - to discuss concerns about the bill. Intense debate ignores the public interest groups, for all purposes of copyright is to benefit the public. It's a bit embarrassing for the testimony of the head of the Office of the copyright, and ensure a legacy tainted in their role.


From there, he will defend the U.S. blacklist of sites dedicated to the Attorney General decides infringement (1) repeat the discredited House U. S. topics of conversation, (2) ICE praising attacks by highly questionable area, which is currently the case (a fact conveniently ignored) and (3) quotes (of course) Floyd Abrams, leaving aside what has been paid by the MPAA to give notice. Worse, citing the most controversial of his statement: is true, but

Find best price for : --Michael----DMCA----MPAA----Internet----General----SOPA--