10 thoughts on “Another Plum Appointment For Polis”

1. one of my favorite fruits and those from Chile that are available during the winter are just not very good.
   
   Oh, this thread is about an appointment to a committee. But, I sure miss getting a good supply of fresh vegetables and fruits during winter like we do in summer.

   Log in to Reply

2. I also really wanted to get on Judiciary in order to fight against SOPA (google it), which is a terrible proposal to censor the internet in the name of protecting intellectual property.

   This would apply the “China model” of internet censorship to the US, and give large corporations a huge advantage over start ups and disruptive, job creating businesses. If this bill had been law, we never would have had youtube or facebook, they never could have gotten off the ground.

   This bill would destroy jobs and jeapordizes free speech and ends the internet as we know it. It would set the precendence that each nation would have their “own” version of government-approved internet. I look forward to working in committee and the floor to derail and defeat this ill-concieved attempt to do something about the very real issue of online piracy (for which I have a bi-partisan alternative proposal with Zoe Lofgren and Darrell Issa).

   http://news.cnet.com/8301-3192…

   Log in to Reply

   1. I was surprised by this announcement, but glad to see someone with knowledge of how Internet businesses work added to the committee.

      Perhaps your reasonable voice on Internet freedom and fairness, and on drug policy reform and other issues will eventually soften some overly entrenched stances.  Good luck!

      (Les)

      Log in to Reply

   2. I’m just one of many posters here who believe you are doing a terrific job. I think this committee is just another venue to continue your efforts.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Thank you for all you do for Colorado, Rep. Polis! You’re a rock star!

         Log in to Reply

   3. Respectfully submitted.

      http://www.itif.org/publicatio…

      PIPA/SOPA has generated considerable controversy, much of it driven by false or misleading information. Much of this has been driven by “Internet exceptionalists.” For these advocates, the Internet is inherently different from the offline world and should be off-limits to the societal rules that a democratically-elected government wants to impose on it. Any attempt to impose limitations on illegal activities is decried as the first step to totalitarian repression. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), using some especially over-the-top language, calls SOPA “censorship,” a “massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation,” and claims it will “break the Internet.” As we will show in this report, these claims are completely false.

      Some criticism of PIPA/SOPA is driven by individuals and interests groups who oppose the current state of U.S. copyright law. These opponents believe (or hope) that the Internet Age marks the end of intellectual property rights. They generally believe U.S. copyright laws are too expansive and do not want to see them enforced. They bring criticism against PIPA/SOPA in the hopes of blunting the effects of policies they do not like.

      Other opponents of PIPA/SOPA are simply willfully blind to the current severity of the problem of online piracy and counterfeiting. For example, Andreessen et al. argue that “the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] gives rights-holders a way to take down specific infringing content, and it is working well.” Such a claim is clearly false given the level of piracy today and the fact that the DMCA only applies to domestic sites and users.

      Log in to Reply

      1. I think I can, with knowledge, say that the article is a biased piece of crap.

         Nobody in this debate is willfully blind to the problem or scope of online piracy and counterfeiting.  But the people promoting SOPA and the Protect IP Act do seem to be willfully blind to the overreach that both of those acts allow and promote.

         As soon as ISPs lose their partial status as common carriers (and IMHO they should gain full status as common carrier utilities, not lose the status they have…), then we will lose the free flowing discussion we have had on the Internet since its founding.  The simple fact is that both of these laws could shutter Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and ColoradoPols overnight.  Mandating that sites take an active role in policing all of the content that flows through them would put them out of business, and making them subject to procedurally deficient domain seizure policies would ensure the job was finished.

         Log in to Reply

      2. I’ll admit, I’m an advocate for Copyright reform.

         I’m not one of those “the Internet changes everything” anti-IP anarchists – I make money from my Copyrighted works, and I make Copyrighted works for my employer for them to make money off of, too.  I have Copyright interests in software, photography, written works, and music – I want to have legal protections.

         But the current Copyright laws are not meant to protect me.  They’re meant to perpetually monopolize the rights of the big guys, often at the expense of the actual artists.

         I certainly envision a day when business method patents and software patents are largely disallowed or at best granted for a few years.  I look forward to a return to much shorter Copyright periods of perhaps two 14-year terms.  I yearn for the day when most software and media are once again restricted to the right of first sale without oppressive licensing.  And perhaps most importantly, I look forward to the day when the RIAA is obsolete and twitching in its final death throes, and artists benefit from the new distribution channels that the Internet provides.

         Frankly, I don’t think the MPAA and RIAA are doing what they can to enforce the DMCA and similar laws in other countries.  I don’t think they’re working well to contain the Torrent sites that distribute pirated warez, and it’s been quite clear for some time that they treat their customers as though each one was a pirate rather than a sale.

         Find a better way – SOPA and Protect IP are a shame on this country’s founding principles.

         Log in to Reply

      3. My company sells software. Anything that can effectively stop distribution of illegal copies of software – hell yes I want that. We figure that for every copy sold we have 2 – 3 copies being used illegally. In some cases by the same entity.

         SOPA doesn’t do squat to help our case. It’s merely Hollywood trying to turn back the clock and stop the Internet from totally changing their industry.

         The fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind SOPA is that digital piracy can be stopped. It can’t. Neither can illegal drug use or teenage sex. All you can do is take reasonable balanced steps to mitigate it.

         My dad once made the comment that a lock only stops the honest man. That’s the system we use for most everything (except bank vaults). It’s what’s appropiate for digital media.

         Log in to Reply

   4. And thank you for fighting SOPA – as you say, it’s a horrible piece of legislation that destroys everyone else in a futile attempt to stop the changes in movie distribution.

      Log in to Reply