Why do Kay Hagan and Mel Watt support legislation that would harm the open internet?

The rest of NC's honorables are as yet undeclared; more here on finding out who backs SOPA and PIPA.

More here.

Comments

[James]

Not sure about Watt. For Hagan it seems to be just another example of a "corporations are people" mindset.

[Dan]

Hagan has turned out to be terrible, arguably worse than Obama.

[Tony Wilkins]

Why don't you ask Kay?

My least favorite puppet is your buddy.

[Stephen]

This was helpful for me...

http://vimeo.com/m/31100268

[Occupy Hagan]

Easy! She has high power bankgangter friends in Hollywood who give her lots of Other Peoples MO......Occupy Hagan......

[polifrog]

It is unsurprising to me that the same people who prefer to view the collective action of individuals as the action of a single entity undeserving of political influence would view the internet the same way.

[Sue]

@Tony

Well, I *did* ask Sen. Hagan and urged her not to support the SOPA / Protect IP Act. And she replied. It's from Nov. 18 (I asked Rep. Brad Miller as well on a DK live blog) and it's about 4 short paragraphs. It's not a personal email (it starts, "Dear Friend") so I have no issues pasting it below (besides, I'm sure it's public record). NB: I don't agree with her position. But this is what she wrote,

--begin paste--

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, more commonly referred to as the PROTECT IP Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

On May 12, 2011, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (S. 968) was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill would allow the Attorney General or an intellectual property right owner who has been harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA), also known as a rogue website, to take action against that site. A site would be designated as an ISDIA if their sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, or promote or sale counterfeited works.

As you may know, I am a cosponsor of this bill and support the goals of this legislation. I am concerned about unscrupulous individuals engaging in the online theft of intellectual property, and believe that this bill represents a step in the right direction to combat this issue. I will keep your thoughts on this legislation in mind as it is further considered in the United States Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

--end paste--

I'll be writing to her (and to Brad) again. You should, too. I'm old enough to realize that I'm not going to agree with an elected representative on everything but it doesn't mean we don't agree on some things.

[Roch101]

"A site would be designated as an ISDIA if their sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, or promote or sale counterfeited works." -- Senator Hagan

Did Senator Hagan really misspell sell?

Spelling aside, her characterization of the bill is misleading (I don't know if the good senator knows this and is content to mislead her constituents or if she herself is misinformed.)

There is no due process for a site being designated as an offender, a copyright holder can just make the claim and kick start a cascade of legal obligations on other parties. The legal obligations for taking actions extend beyond the offending site to include ad networks, search engines, aggregators, and even infrastructure operators who may be compelled to manipulate domain name registries in a manner contrary to their proper operation—the kind of blow-it-up approach utilized by the censors of Communist China. Support for this bill betrays an ignorance of the way the internet works. Remember, all of these obligations and actions result from merely an accusation with no judicial intervention.

The ends do not justify the means of this proposed legislation. It is clumsy, overly-burdensome on parties only tangentially related to offenders and a real threat to the proper operation of non-offending portions of the internet. It needs major revisions and should not have Senator Hagan's support in its current form.

[Here is a great overview of the bill's problems from qualified legal and internet experts.]

[Roch101]

I wrote above: "Support for this bill betrays an ignorance of the way the internet works."

That's an assumption. It is possible that someone could support this bill while fully aware that it will change the way the Internet works for Americans, willing to give corporations autonomous ability to initiate Internet lock-downs.

[Andrew Brod]

"A site would be designated as an ISDIA if their sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, or promote or sale counterfeited works." -- Senator Hagan

And it should be: "if its sole purpose."

[Sue]

I am actively opposed to both of these proposed bills and I'm also actively contacting my representatives/senators to voice that somewhat educated opinion (I cited some links in my initial emails to them in addition to "just what Sue thinks"). However, I'm not actively admonishing Sen. Hagan's staff's grammar. Let's stick with the points and not get side-tracked. Roch's link is worth the read.

But mine is ONE email. Add yours. And get active.