White House will NOT support online piracy bills

[ibegurpard]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/white-house-sopa-pipa_n_1206347.html
"Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.

House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to target foreign websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that they would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power." (more)

I have been a VERY vocal critic of Obama and he needs to know that he is doing the right thing with this. Please do what you can to contact the White House and let them know you support their stance on this issue.

[Zalatix]

1. Indeed, everyone contact the WH. K&R!

[ibegurpard]

2. link to White House contact

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

[frazzled]

3. No, he said he won't support bills as they currently stand

I want to make that clear, because no matter what changes are made to these bills to get rid of the egregious aspects, people will come back to cite your post when/if a revised SOPA or PIPA is passed and signed, to try to prove that Obama said he would never pass them. And it won't be true.

The WH was pretty clear that it would support online piracy bills that meet certain criteria:

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.

The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.

The letter also highlighted the following four points:

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.

So no, Obama did NOT say he will not support online piracy bills. He will just not support those bills if they don't contain certain protections. Got it, folks? (Probably not)

[ibegurpard]

4. understood

and I would agree that stopping piracy is a worthy endeavor. However I am very glad to see that the White House recognizes the HUGE problems with the bills as they stand and will be watching this closely. I stand by my statement that they need to hear from us that we support their stance on these bills.

[frazzled]

5. I knew you would

I just don't want this to cause a flurry of "Obama goes back on his word again!" posts six months from now.

It was HuffPo's bad (as usual) headline, which I'm sure will be followed in the future with another misleading headline stating "Obama lied!"

[quakerboy]

9. So in otherwords

We know nothing. The end bills will be signed by Obama, and there is absolutely no way to predict what will be in them.

[frazzled]

11. No, you'll know what's in them

The bills are always available to read before passage and signing. He's stated the objectionable things that he doesn't accept. Why do you need to "predict" anything? Base your judgment on what happens in reality. We don't need any more chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling predictive threads in which people wring their hands about things they think might happen.

[quakerboy]

17. But we do not know. You are putting words in my mouth

Obama doesn't like the current wording. So it might change. But there is no way to know what part might change. Or even if anything will change.

In other words, the OPs headline is meaningless and misleading. Obama has made a statement, but it does not say anything about what he will do at the end of the day.

[frazzled]

21. You are right, the headline is misleading

But it's Congress that will have to come up with the bill that he can either approve or disprove. All he's said is that the currrent bill is unsatisfactory, and that any bill must protect freedom of expression and the Internet, etc. You can read.

[MADem]

15. They're online, so you can see them. THOMAS is our friend.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

[quakerboy]

18. You missed what I was saying

We do not know what end form of the bill Obama will choose to support, or at least sign into law(if you sign it, you support it, in my book). And by this statement there does not seem to be any way of guessing what it might be.

Could be that he Veto's or refuses to sign anything, and that will make some happy and some unhappy. Could be he signs the law into effect in its current form, and again some will be happy and others unhappy. Could be he works with congress to effect cosmetic or systemic changes to the proposed law, and signs that into being. Again, some happy and some unhappy.

And there is no way to predict, based on the statement, what will come of it all. Which means that the op title is misleading at best.

[MADem]

19. I guess I am missing your point, because on THOMAS you can see the bill the Prez will sign, or has

signed.

[quakerboy]

22. The bill that will be signed in the end is likely not in existance yet

If it does not exist, how would it be on THOMAS?

[MADem]

24. As it goes along, from committee to floor, they change it on THOMAS.

You have to keep looking. After it is passed, they will put the final bill that is sent to the WH up there.

[ihavenobias]

32. That's a fair point

I'm excited to see the president come out against SOPA. However it's possible that cosmetic/insignificant changes could be made to the bill (to confuse/pacify detractors) and THEN it would be passed (sort of like the NDAA - then we get to battle over confusing language and details).

At that point you would hear "he went back on his word!" AND you would hear "no, the bill was changed so it's good now!". The real issue will be if significant changes - changes that address the core problems of the bill - are made before it passes (if it passes).

It's not good enough to say protections were needed, changes were made and THEN is was passed. It all depends and for now I'm cautiously optimistic.

[frazzled]

34. I agree /nt

[Edweird]

6. Sure they will.

[ibegurpard]

7. I guess we'll see

certainly wouldn't hurt to contact them if you have been opposed to these bills and let them know you support their current stance.

[Edweird]

8. Meh. I see the current stance as a "I will not sign a bill that does not contain the public option"

redux. In don't support SOPA, nor do I support a 'polished turd' version of it.

[Zhade]

10. …until he "regretfully" signs them, of course.

We've seen this songndance before.

[RC]

16. Lots of times before.

And don't forget he is in Campaign mode also.

[bvar22]

30. "regretfully"...

..."with reservations",
and, if we are lucky, a useless Signing Statement.








You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[MadHound]

12. The President threatens to veto NDAA if it codify's indefinite detention.

Oh, wait, he didn't.

Same shit different day.

[TheWraith]

13. Pity he only said that in people's imaginations.

If he'd ACTUALLY said that, you might have grounds to complain.

[quakerboy]

23. Thats the point

And you skipped right past it. He didn't promise it, he didn't do it, and now any future republican president will have access to the precedent, with consequences to us all.

Will it happen again? We have the first part, a strongly worded statement that promises nothing. What comes next?

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Well, THAT means that this bad, bad bill is as good as signed:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[webDude]

20. Bullshit: NDAA

[Deep13]

25. I hope that means he will veto it. nt

[NorthCarolina]

41. No, I don't think he is saying that at all.

I believe it implies that while he would absolutely sign any such legislation, he would do so in conjunction with a strongly worded signing statement expressing his dismay for public consumption (I share your pain stuff). I think I'm starting to get the hang of the Obama jargon.

[hyphenate]

26. Good!

It'll be interesting to see how the major allies vote on this. I hope it's a majority of opinion.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. It'll be like the three Bush "free" trade bills Obama signed

In November- he'll demand a teensy fig leaf so that those not paying attention think he made substantial changes, then he'll sign it and the 1% will drink a toast.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. This was a relief to hear.

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. first they come for the foreign web sites.....

The White House has filed this official statement next to the NDAA file, the public option file, the Guantanamo file etc. etc. etc.

[dclark]

31. Rupert Murdoch/ SOPA

Rupert Murdoch used twitter to bash Obama's stand on SOPA. If republicans get their way, the internet we know will be gone. Rupert will be using his faux news to get his way and the dummies watching faux news won't realize what happened until it's too late. I think the censorship will be far greater than even the experts think it would be. Rupert can't wait to shut down every site that doesn't agree with his faux news.

[Capitalocracy]

33. Good on him if it's true. Let's hope he means it.

When even Google and Facebook are against you, you've probably crossed a rather important line. (That's not a reference to Obama, but to everyone who designed and supports this bill.) But I'm still not convinced this is over.

After all, what if they pass it as part of a poison pill? Or with a "veto-proof" majority? He'll just HAVE to sign it then, right?

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. Is this going to end up like the NDAA? I hope not!

I won't sign, I will sign, I won't sign, ok I'll sign

[undergroundpanther]

36. I'm scared

of what the second evil twin of SOPA, PIPA will do.It would make everyone on the net who has ever linked to 'copywrited' works a felon.

[ellacott]

37. Many Dems are supporting this bill

Al Franken, Sheerod Brown, John Conyers, Amy Klobuchar and Dick Durbin are among the Dems who are supporting this. Why are they supporting this?

Ironically, Michelle Bachman and Paul Ryan, Sensenner and Issa are supporting this.

[url]http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/[/url]

[Yukari Yakumo]

39. Easy

Hollywood has contributed greatly to their campaign funds.

And Franken, well, IS a part of Hollywood.

Curiously, Heritage Foundation opposes SOPA and PIPA. We have some strange bedfellows in this fight.

[ellacott]

40. Definitely strange bedfellows

I'm wondering why our progressive members of congress are getting a pass when they support it but Obama is getting criticized because he doesn't support it.

[lib2DaBone]

38. He will cave.. give it time....

[j.suttra.l]

42. I agree...Obama will cave

He said he would veto the indefinite detention bill...then he signed it into law. I believe he will sign one of these into law if it comes across his desk.