iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

PIPA Vote: Sen. Harry Reid Postpones Vote, Seeking Compromise On Anti-Piracy Bill

Harry Reid Pipa

First Posted: 01/20/12 09:34 AM ET Updated: 01/20/12 02:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- In a significant victory for open Internet advocates, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) both indefinitely postponed votes on controversial anti-piracy legislation.

"In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the Protect IP Act," Reid said in a written statement.

The move followed a frantic week of political jockeying on Capitol Hill amid intense online activism, in which Wikipedia and other major websites voluntarily blocked access to their content in protest of the bills. The Stop Online Piracy Act and its Senate companion, Protect IP, would have given the government broad powers to shut down entire websites accused of violating copyright laws -- without a trial or a traditional court hearing. Hollywood movie studios and other content creators would also get new powers to sue companies like banks and advertisers that do business with websites accused of piracy.

In the House, Smith had been planning to hold a committee vote on SOPA in February, which lobbyists on Capitol Hill expected to closely mirror whatever legislative language passed the Senate. While the delayed Senate vote does not necessarily mark a final failure for the anti-piracy legislation, it almost certainly delays any vote for months. During an election year in which lawmakers are particularly cautious about bringing up controversial legislation, the bill's supporters now face a steep uphill battle to pass anything on piracy at all.

Hollywood had been pushing the bills hard for months, and had secured broad bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. But free speech advocates warned that the power to shut down whole sites, rather than current powers to remove infringing content, created the prospect of widespread First Amendment violations, while tech experts noted that the anti-piracy tools envisioned by the legislation would threaten the basic functionality of the web.

Reid's decision to pull the bill was an unusually abrupt changing of the political tide in the nation's capital. As recently as Thursday afternoon, Protect IP opponents did not believe they had the votes to block the legislation on the Senate floor, and had almost no power to revise the bill's language ahead of a vote. On Saturday, January 14, the Obama administration issued a statement opposing the bill. Nevertheless, Reid refused to delay a vote on the bill, instead diving into a set of backdoor negotiations with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.). All three Senators supported the original bill. No Senator opposed to the bill was included in the negotiations about how to revise the legislation before bringing it to the floor for a vote, while tech lobbyists and experts were excluded from the talks, as well.

"The American people weighed in yesterday for a more open, transparent discussion and now we're told that the remedy is to go behind closed doors," bemoaned Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in an interview Thursday afternoon, the first Senate opponent of the bill. After Protect IP unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committe last spring, Wyden placed a hold on the legislation, barring it from coming up for a vote for months.

On Thursday afternoon, Wyden was particularly concerned about the vagueness of the opposition voiced by many new converts after Wednesday's protests. Some Senators explicitly called on Reid to delay the vote. But others, like Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) only revised their position by indicating they wanted to amend the bill, and stopped short of supporting a filibuster or delaying a vote.

According to Wyden, that strategy -- don't join a filibuster and fix tech-company concerns on the Senate floor -- was being promoted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top corporate lobbying group and a strong supporter of the bill. The Chamber was not immediately available to comment.

Hollywood, meanwhile, was going all-in on the airwaves. Motion Picture Association of America Chairman Chris Dodd, a former Democratic Senator from Connecticut, even threatened to cutoff campaign donations to Democrats if the bill didn't get a hearing.

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd said in an interview with Fox News. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

Dodd's statement was a rare acknowledgement of the dominant source of most corporate political power -- money. But it also revealed a significant weakening of Hollywood's power over the legislation. Just a few weeks ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had asked to broker a compromise between movie studios and Silicon Valley tech companies. But Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger, on behalf of all the major film companies, declined the invitation, a signal that the content industry felt confident about the strength of its position in Washington.

That confidence was deflated on Thursday evening, when, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that he would not support the bill, and asked Reid to shelve it. McConnell stopped short of threatening to filibuster the legislation, but an official statement from the Republican leader would provide political cover to any other Republican uncomfortable with the legislation.

That dynamic only deepened during Thursday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, in which the Republican front-runners all made statements criticizing SOPA and PIPA, a rare arena of agreement with the Obama administration for any of the candidates.

"This is not a 'let's-get-a-couple-of-good-old-boys-in-the-backroom-and-it'll-fix-this-thing' kind of problem," said Art Brodsky, spokesman for Public Knowledge, a leading open internet advocacy group. "The blackout protests proved that."

Hollywood is not giving up. In a written statement issued after Reid's announcement Dodd praised lawmkers who had supported efforts to crack down on internet piracy, and urged Congress to move forward with a compromise bill.

"With today’s announcement, we hope the dynamics of the conversation can change and become a sincere discussion about how best to protect the millions of American jobs affected by the theft of American intellectual property," Dodd said.

Dodd's MPAA continues to have many strong backers in both political parties, including Reid. Even Reid's announcement that he would not proceed with a vote on the bill reiterated standard MPAA talking points about the film industry's contribution to the American economy, including a dubious claim that movies "support" more than 2.2 million jobs -- a figure which is mostly derived from other industries that film companies do business with. Only 272,000 people are deployed directly by movie studios and television companies.

"There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved," Reid said. "Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs."

The online data visualization community visua.ly, which opposed the bills, produced an infographic illustrating the shift in Congressional support that occurred during the blackout protests on Wednesday. Take a look:

by visually via


See what other lawmakers are saying about the controversial legislation:
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- In a significant victory for open Internet advocates, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) both indefinitely postponed ...
WASHINGTON -- In a significant victory for open Internet advocates, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) both indefinitely postponed ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,468
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (52 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
spytheweb 12:38 PM on 01/20/2012
 "We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio."

whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada or a illegal alien working in a Las Vegas casino or building houses in NV.  Read More...
07:49 AM on 01/27/2012
Internet is speech just like money, just ask scotus
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zerovampire311
Somewhere between right and left is correct.
02:00 PM on 01/23/2012
The free flow of information on the internet undoubtedly creates more jobs than Hollywood would if there were stricter copyright enforcement. They're just mad the money isn't in their pockets.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:57 AM on 01/23/2012
Many people opposed this bill because it let the government shut down sites if a user is accused of piracy. Due process for a future date.

But isn't this exactly what happened with megaupload?
The Joler
nil sine labore
07:21 PM on 01/22/2012
Just wondering but if they did succeed in stopping piracy do they think it would make any difference. Their whole argument is predicated on the assumption that if people couldn't download the item for free that they would pay for it. Considering the crap that has been coming out of Hollywood for the last 20 years I doubt that many more people would pay to watch any of it by download mechanisms than do now. I suspect that most of the illegal downloaders would just find something else to occupy their time and Hollywood would still be stuck with the same failing business model as they have now. This is just part of the never ending replay of business failing to adopt to changing technology and developing new business models consistent with that technology. Hollywood could be making bucket loads of money out of the internet. They just refuse to change their thinking enough to do so. Maybe they need to go back to school and relearn the equation about quantity and price = sales and the potentialities this opens up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
max pain
10:46 AM on 01/22/2012
Your phone can be used to plot attacks. Therefore there should no longer be any phones. Your car can be used a a weapon. Therefore all cars should be banned. Put little Timmy age 9 in jail for downloadin­g. Zero tolerance.

Really?

It's time to regulate and censor the United Corporatio­ns of America who put profits ahead of rights and end the hyperbole ignorance Olympics once and for all.

You don't want to download then go back to analog, where that business model works. It clearly has been demonstrat­ed that the old models do not in a digital world. So we should be punished by a bunch of old men in another country who haven't a clue how to use a computer??­?

Rise up America. Please start taking back your freedoms before you are no better than China. We're all cheering for you. Go for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thelazypaperboy
01:15 AM on 01/22/2012
Something tells me that they may not be done ...
http://www.jrdeputyaccountant.com/2012/01/congressional-cowards-abandon-sopapipa.html
olddognewtrick
Half full or half empty...It's the same
09:09 PM on 01/21/2012
I prefer Sopas with sour cream and guacamole...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dtallwalk
07:50 PM on 01/21/2012
Man is it me or all the data on the people posting on the social cites it
Iike real time polling or you could call it snooping. This is the kind of stuff advertisers would be all over. You know manuplating the consumer. Do not like this feels creepie
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
06:31 PM on 01/21/2012
So their business failure is manifest, misunderstanding technology and how it's used in relation to their business. So what does the business look like now?

Movie is made, put into theatres, profit from screening and whatever ads are present. Maybe just the theatre makes money on the ads, what have you. Movie is then distributed on DVD/BR etc after the profit on the main release has completed. This then reflects the last tick of profit of the film. Some libraries buy the DVD for local interest and borrowing. Finally, someone torrents the movie for Internet Library distribution as long as people care to. That's pretty much the flow.

So, to make more money again they have a few choices available. They can replace distribution of DVD/BR or digital media and go back to analog. Not likely but that's a choice. Or, more likely, they can delay distribution of DVD/BR. Also they can leave good performing movies in theatres longer than currently.

Leaving the movie on as many screens as possible for as long as possible for a good film is the best way to profit from it before it is lost in distribution. Eventually even that dies down. No one can be forced to go see your movie. Stick a fork in it.

At that point no one should be punished for it now that they have an interest in it. The rest is free advertising.

That is the reality now. There's nothing wrong with it.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
06:12 PM on 01/21/2012
Going to a movie is more like you paid a screening fee to a movie that you can download a month or a year later, when it's no longer in theatres. If it wasn't true then the downloads would have ended movies entirely. This hasn't happened. This is how the movie is paid for and continue even now. That little window of delay is enough, they get their payments as screening fees. Any download after becomes advertising for any future sequels or from same director.

We don't need the media or the distribution channels anymore. Not even iTunes. The open digital marketplace has effectively made every movie free and the only means of recouping profit is to get people into theatres. Which means having a good product.

Recenly went to a movie. They were shovelling so much **** advertising for a full 20 minutes long before the movie started at a crazy loud volume I had my eyes closed the whole time, sometimes plugging me ears as well. This only reinforced why I don't go to movies. Apparently paying to see a movie isn't enough. They all want more from me.

The only place to really enjoy a movie is now at home. Quiet place, affordable drinks/snacks, no one babbling around you.

They are killing their own business. Legislating their business failures as wards of the state isn't how to be a profitable business. That's not capitalism.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
05:58 PM on 01/21/2012
I wonder if the bill was in ALL CAPS too, reflecting the old men who wrote it?
01:46 PM on 01/21/2012
Maybe this is the year Congress begins to get a clue about the internet?

.....naaah.
photo
Loyal Whig
"Some animals are more equal than others."
11:20 AM on 01/21/2012
I paid for the movie at the theater, I paid for the VHS, I paid for the DVD, I paid for the Blue Ray.
Who is the Pirate?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH canada
11:05 AM on 01/21/2012
The most controversial issue standing before the U.S. is Jp Morgan, bank of america, and all the other crooks not the internet.
10:52 AM on 01/21/2012
They must have read the bill before they signed it, how refreshing.......
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:29 AM on 01/22/2012
The only one who ever reads any of these bills is Ron Paul and that is why he votes NO as often as he does, as he did with this bill before Harry figured out he couldn't sell us out to his Left-Wing Hollywood Starlets.