Sometimes, They Listen

What follows behind the cut is the reply I received after sending an email to one of the state's Senators. The reply, albeit in some spots a bit generic, addresses every concern I raised.

I dunno, it's just nice to see communication, and I figured it was worth sharing for some of the interested parties. Let it be a reminder that it isn't useless to speak out. Once in awhile, people are listening.

"Dear Mr. Trulock,

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP Act), S. 968, and H.R. 3261, The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  It is good to hear from you.

The PROTECT IP Act was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 26, 2011, but votes on the Senate floor have been delayed.  While portions of the Senate bill are improved from the version introduced in 2010, there are a few areas that need further discussion before floor action should occur.  Although I cannot support the current version of Protect IP, prior to voting on this legislation I will be reviewing all of the concerns raised by constituents and affected parties to determine if any changes can be made to address those concerns.  

The House of Representatives has held hearings on this issue and has introduced their own version of the bill, H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.  Currently, H.R. 3261 is in the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, and it is broader than the Senate bill.  As a result, the House version is more vague than the Senate bill, particularly in the definition of what is considered a "rogue website."  In addition, the House bill packages several other pieces of legislation into its bill that are likely better considered on their own.  

There is broad agreement among government agencies and members of the internet industry that online infringement is a serious problem.  Theft of intellectual property such as pharmaceuticals, technology, and software costs the U.S. economy over $100 billion every year, according to some estimates, and online intellectual property infringement is a significant contributor to this problem.  I am working to ensure any final legislation protects law abiding citizens and intellectual property rights holders while narrowly targeting only the websites whose primary purpose is to market and/or sell counterfeit content.  The purpose of the bill is to combat illegal activity and protect innocent consumers, not to censor or restrict free speech.

Under the Senate legislation, only a court may determine whether a website is an "infringing" website and issue an order to block its domain name.  No action against a website may be taken until the Attorney General or qualifying plaintiff files the action in court, and a judge issues an order.  In addition, after filing the action, the plaintiff must provide  notice and service of process to the registrant of the domain name and any entities identified in the complaint that are required to take action under the bill.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to protect consumers who do not intend to break the law from becoming the victims of websites selling counterfeit content.  While the legislation will not reach all infringing websites, its goal is to address the "worst of the worst" websites that continually victimize legitimate consumers and violate copyright law by stealing protected material from rights holders.  However, such a goal should not come at the expense of national security or serious technological repercussions.  Thus, these particular issues, among others, must be addressed before I vote on final passage of any legislation.

Recently, I sent a letter to Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to delay the vote on the PROTECT IP Act that was set for January 24, 2012.  In the letter, I stated that we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cyber-security, damages to the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.  You will be happy to know that Leader Reid decided not to bring up the PROTECT IP Act on the Senate floor when the Senate returned from winter recess because of the issues raised with the bill.

In general, I believe the internet has flourished because the government has stayed out of the way.  I assure you I will remain vigilant against any unjustified government infringement of internet freedom. That is why I continue to work with bill sponsors to address these outstanding concerns. 

Again, thank you for writing and expressing your concerns.  I will be sure to keep them in mind as debate continues on this bill.  Best wishes!

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator"