Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook:

The internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can’t let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the internet’s development. Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the internet.

The world today needs political leaders who are pro-internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-internet.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.):

The Internet has become an integral part of everyday life precisely because it has been an open-to-all land of opportunity where entrepreneurs, thinkers and innovators are free to try, fail and then try again. The Internet has changed the way we communicate with each other, the way we learn about the world and the way we conduct business. It has done this by eliminating the tollgates, middle men, and other barriers to entry that have so often predetermined winners and losers in the marketplace. It has created a world where ideas, products and creative expression have an opportunity regardless of who offers them or where they originate.

Protect IP (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are a step towards a different kind of Internet. They are a step towards an Internet in which those with money and lawyers and access to power have a greater voice than those who don’t. They are a step towards an Internet in which online innovators need lawyers as much or more than they need good ideas. And they are a step towards a world in which Americans have less of a voice to argue for a free and open Internet around the world.

Legal Team, Red Hat Software:

In a single generation, the Internet has transformed our world to such an extent that it is easy to forget its miraculous properties and take it for granted. It’s worth reminding ourselves, though, that our future economic growth depends on our ability to use the Internet to share new ideas and technology. Measures that block the freedom and openness of the Internet also hinder innovation. That poses a threat to the future success of Red Hat and other innovative companies.

The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA claim that the bills are intended to thwart web piracy. Yet, the bills overreach, and could put a website out of business after a single complaint. Web sites would vanish, and have little recourse, if they were suspected of infringing copyrights or trademarks.

The good news is that there is growing opposition from many quarters to these bills. Just this past weekend, the White House expressed serious concerns, opposing legislation — like SOPA and PIPA — that “reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Lanham Napier, CEO, Rackspace:

In my last blog post on SOPA and PIPA, I explained why Rackspace — along with much of the Internet community — opposes these bills in their current form. They are well-intentioned, but would do more harm than good. Their enforcement provisions could be easily evaded, and they would undermine the security and stability of the Internet.

Since then, I and other Rackers have been working with key lawmakers to fix the bills so that they will (a) actually be effective in fighting online piracy, and (b) avoid disrupting the Internet or imposing unreasonable costs on Internet users and service providers.

We at Rackspace are on the front lines of the battle against copyright infringers and other online criminals. We employ dedicated teams that take enforcement actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as our own strict Acceptable Use Policy every day. We agree that better tools are needed for this fight but SOPA and PIPA do not fit the bill.

Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Electronics Association:

“It is increasingly clear that bills causing collateral damage to innovation in the guise of fighting piracy are not politically viable. Now that unreasonable solutions to piracy have been shown not to work, it is time to explore reasonable ones. We urge policymakers to join CEA in support of the OPEN Act — a bicameral, bipartisan and narrowly targeted approach to fighting foreign “rogue websites.”

Paul Hortenstine, Motion Picture Association of America, which supports the bills:

The legislation targets criminals: foreign thieves who profit from pirated content and counterfeit goods. These foreign rogue websites are operating freely today while legitimate American businesses are opposing legislation that would block these criminal websites from the American market.

The Pirate Bay, a site that links visitors to pirated content and would arguably fit someone’s definition of “foreign rogue Web site”:

SOPA can’t do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we’ll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really.

To fix the “problem of piracy” one should go to the source of the problem. The entertainment industry say they’re creating “culture” but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv shows that make them think that they’re fat.

Ben Greenman, Contributor, The New Yorker:

Dear Spanish speakers, I was only joking when I said you think we’re all protesting soup. Geez: People are so touchy on blackout days

January 18, 2012 7:44 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@bengreenman

Ben Greenman

The crowdfunding bill, called the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, would allow companies to give out equity stakes in exchange for investments of up to $2 million.

The stakes wouldn’t count against the SEC’s famous 500-shareholder rule. And individual investors would be capped at putting in $10,000 or 10 percent of their annual income.

So, potentially, a start-up raising funding on a service like Kickstarter could make its donors true investors, rather than just giving them acknowledgment or some reward in exchange for their money.

Crowdfunding for start-ups is something people have tried to do before, but ever so carefully. For instance, a soon-to-launch company called Wahooly promises to help start-ups give out equity in exchange for social media marketing. Wahooly’s current model — which it says is designed to work with current SEC rules — is to become a shareholder in each participating start-up and then split any proceeds with its brand-advocate users.

Meanwhile, the House on Thursday also passed a bill called the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act that would remove a ban on start-ups soliciting accredited investors for capital.

And earlier this week it passed a bill allowing companies to do small public offerings of up to $50 million without registration requirements.

All the bills now have to pass the Senate before they can be signed into law.

“The definition of what is ‘disruptive of decorum’ will likely evolve over time,” Brendan Buck , a spokesman for the Republican Majority Transition Committee, told techPresident. “But of course devices are not to make sound and members are not to be speaking on their phones while on the floor. [But] if a member wants to read an amendment, for example, on their iPad, that would be allowed.”

[Image credit: Technologizer]

The reactions are all over the map, and no one is exactly happy. I’ve collected a few of the reaction statements below.

President Obama:

“This decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth, and job creation. As a candidate for President, I pledged to preserve the freedom and openness that have allowed the Internet to become a transformative and powerful platform for speech and expression. That’s a pledge I’ll continue to keep as President. As technology and the market continue to evolve at a rapid pace, my Administration will remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse, and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact.”

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, incoming Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

“The FCC’s hostile actions toward innovation, investment and job creation cannot be allowed to stand. We must use every resource available, including the Congressional Review Act, to strike down the FCC’s brazen effort to regulate the Internet. … Despite FCC claims that these are just rules of the road that everyone agrees with, anyone can recognize that what the Commission claims to be statements of broad industry support are really cries of ‘uncle’ resulting from threats of even more onerous regulation.”

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, incoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

“More troubling than the substance of the network neutrality rules are the legal theories underpinning them. If left unchallenged, this power grab will allow the Commission to regulate any interstate wired or wireless communication on barely more than a whim. For all these reasons, we plan to look at all legislative options for reversing the decision. We also plan to hold a series of hearings early next year on the substance, process and claims of authority underlying this proceeding.”

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts

“The FCC’s Democratic Commissioners should be applauded for reaching a consensus on rules that will protect network neutrality on the Internet. As Commissioner Copps, a lifelong champion of open communications and democratic discourse, said in his statement today, vigilant and vigorous implementation of the rule is critical to its success.”

Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen

“DISH Network applauds Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps and Clyburn for adopting critically important net neutrality rules. The Commission’s Order is a solid framework for protecting the open Internet. The new rules give companies, including DISH Network, the framework to invest capital and manpower in Internet-related technologies without fear that our investment will be undermined by carriers’ discriminatory practices. While we wish the Commission would have gone further to expressly prohibit discrimination on wireless platforms, we are pleased that there will be ongoing Commission oversight and enforcement authority.”

Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, National Cable and Telecommunications Association

“Our consistent view has been that the current ‘openness’ of the broadband marketplace can be preserved while simultaneously fostering the innovation and massive private investment needed to ensure the future growth and vitality of the Internet. While we agree entirely with Commissioners McDowell and Baker that new regulation is not necessary to accomplish that goal, it has been clear for some time that there were three votes at the Commission for rules that would go much farther than those adopted today. Thus, the question before us has been whether rules could be drafted in a manner that avoids a raft of unintended consequences and that preserves broadband providers’ ability to innovate and invest in a marketplace that justly represents a great American success story.”

J. Scott Holladay, Economics Fellow, Institute for Policy Integrity

“Today, the FCC voted on a batch of tepid new rules. Some net neutrality protection will be provided, but the exclusion for wireless will create barriers to new start-up content providers and chill content innovation over wireless Internet.”

“The new but not-yet-properly-defined ‘managed service’ exemption may amount to the first step down a slippery slope of non-neutral Internet service. The exemption should be carefully tailored to address only a small number of special categories of applications that cannot operate under the existing open framework.”

“The FCC rests these decisions on shaky legal ground. Rather than invoke its more robust regulating powers, FCC bases the new rule on legal authority that was called into serious doubt by court decision earlier this year making the long term prospects for the rule quite poor.”

The Writers Guild of America, East

“A compromise means the parties to a dispute reach agreement. Here, no one has agreed to anything. These tepid rules will be challenged in court and in Congress, and they fail in the most fundamental ways – permitting paid prioritization and all manner of discrimination in wireless. Our members write most of what people watch on television and in the movie theaters and increasingly, online. Today’s FCC vote will diminish our members’ ability to create and distribute innovative content and audiences’ ability to watch the content of their choice.”

“The settlement would alter the landscape of copyright law, for millions and millions of rights holders of out-of-print books,” Peters said. “It would flip copyright on its head by allowing Google to engage in extensive new uses without the consent of the copyright owner–in my view, making a mockery of Article One of the Constitution, that anticipates that authors shall be granted exclusive rights.”

The settlement, as Peters sees it, will allow Google (GOOG) to profit from the work of others without prior consent. “It could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets, for years and years to come,” she said. “In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the court.”

One of the more blistering attacks on the deal to date, especially given its source: The nation’s top copyright official. But Google nevertheless dismissed it as unfounded: “We think the settlement is legal, and we think it is structured well within the guidelines of what you can do in a class action settlement,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said during the hearing. “It certainly is not usurping Congress’s authority to do whatever it wants.”

A typically arrogant response from Google, though the company does appear to be conceding a bit of ground in the face of widening opposition to the deal. Responding to Peters’s criticism and claims that the deal will essentially grant Google a de facto monopoly over out-of-print books, Drummond said the company plans to make those works available to any book retailer.

“For the out-of-print books being made available through the Google Books settlement, we will let any book retailer sell access to those books,” Drummond told the committee. “Google will host the digital books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any internet-connected device they choose.”

Sadly for Google, that conciliatory gesture did not go over well with critics of the deal. “The Internet has never been about intermediation,” Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president of public policy, said of the company’s offer. “We are happy to work with rights holders without anyone else’s help.”

The Internet Archive’s Peter Brantley was even more disdainful. “I fail to see what’s really new here,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s like Macy’s telling Sears, ‘You can sell Macy’s clothing.’ There’s no fundamental change of the conditions under which Macy’s acquires those clothes. Google remains in control.”

Not because the notion is necessarily a terrible idea, mind you. But because musicians and music labels seemed unlikely to be beneficiaries of Washington aid.

Today, however, the music business got one step closer to getting the bill passed: The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation in a 21-9 vote. There’s a long way to go: If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the bill has to get through a Senate committee, then the full House, the full Senate and then President Barack Obama’s desk before it becomes law.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which hits my inbox almost daily with a press release decrying the act and promising its ultimate failure, assures me that “nearly half the House of Representatives already opposes RIAA efforts to feather the nest of foreign record labels.” And that kind of invective may help them quash this thing.

But let me reiterate: I still think the best way to kill this, if you were so inclined, would be to start calling it the “Britney Bailout.”

Per my previous story, here’s the campaign I would run if I was the NAB: “Slap up an ad that shows Britney Spears driving with her kid on her lap or staggering around an MTV stage or cavorting with K-Fed, and run a simple tag line: “Britney wants more money. Tell Congress not to give her any.” But again, what do I know?

Oooh. Here’s that Schoolhouse Rock classic:

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously Monday to delay the nation’s transition to all-digital television. Arguing that a major economic crisis might not be the best time for a congressionally-mandated switch, legislators pushed the mandatory conversion date from Feb. 17 to June 12.

But the U.S. House of Representatives didn’t buy that argument. Today, it torpedoed the legislation, saying a delay like the one proposed would confuse consumers and be a burden to wireless companies and public safety agencies waiting to use the spectrum the transition will free up. “In my opinion, we could do nothing worse than to delay this transition date,” said Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Commerce Committee. “The bill is a solution looking for a problem that exists mostly in the mind of the Obama administration.”

In a research note this morning, Cowen’s Robert Stone notes that the Senate will add the tax extenders to the bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on later today. Vishal Shah, solar analyst at Barclays, asserts in a note this morning that Senate approval of the bill could be followed by a House vote on the measure as soon as tomorrow.

Read the rest of this post

“We are deeply concerned that the Department of Justice may be considering a preemptive lawsuit to block Yahoo’s nonexclusive online advertising agreement with Google,” the letter says. “If such action were taken, we believe such an unprecedented [lawsuit] would detrimentally affect the online advertising market and electronic commerce. … We believe that robust competition serves the public interest but if the DOJ blocks this agreement we fear that the threat of additional scrutiny may chill future agreements. Similar agreements are commonplace in many industries and standard among Internet companies.”

Well, not exactly, as Norman Hawker of the American Antitrust Institute points out. “Contrary to the letter, similar agreements are not commonplace because industries with this level of concentration are not commonplace,” Hawker said. “If you ignore the economic text when you read the words, you can easily be misled into thinking the agreement is harmless. Read in context, however, the words of the agreement explain how Google could easily acquire Yahoo’s paid-search business.”

Read the rest of this post