If you tried to e-mail me Wednesday, you probably encountered difficulties with my website. It was not that my office was part of the Internet blackout to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – but the extra traffic and e-mails from people writing me about SOPA did temporarily bring down our contact form.
Listening to many constituents on SOPA yesterday is exactly what this process has lacked from its beginning: hearing from all sides about the bill and its effect not just on intellectual property rights but on the free dissemination of speech online. I was disappointed and greatly concerned when SOPA rolled through the Judiciary Committee without expert witness testimony on the DNSSEC (Domain Name System security extensions) provisions. In a rush to move SOPA through Committee so quickly, major cybersecurity concerns were overlooked, leading me to ask – as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity – what else was being overlooked in this rush to judgment.
The theft of intellectual property rights from those who create our music and film entertainment is a serious problem which should be addressed in a thorough and intellectually honest way. Up and coming artists all too often find themselves robbed of the fruits of their labor – but a right desire to protect their work should not lead us to rush a bill through Congress. We cannot afford to get this wrong. However, the legislation still raises a serious issue about government censorship of the internet and whether some remedies in the current SOPA legislation are overly broad.
While I was pleased that our efforts resulted in the removal of the DNS blocking provisions from the bill, the seriousness of this issue warrants further scrutiny. As the DNSSEC issue revealed, the Judiciary Committee lacks sufficient knowledge to continue consideration of SOPA at this time. The process should be opened up and we should hear from a diverse field of witnesses before acting. Those opposed to the remaining provisions of the bill should be heard. Only then will we have a basis for determining whether further action on this legislation is warranted.
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Lungren
Member of Congress
Listening to many constituents on SOPA yesterday is exactly what this process has lacked from its beginning: hearing from all sides about the bill and its effect not just on intellectual property rights but on the free dissemination of speech online. I was disappointed and greatly concerned when SOPA rolled through the Judiciary Committee without expert witness testimony on the DNSSEC (Domain Name System security extensions) provisions. In a rush to move SOPA through Committee so quickly, major cybersecurity concerns were overlooked, leading me to ask – as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity – what else was being overlooked in this rush to judgment.
The theft of intellectual property rights from those who create our music and film entertainment is a serious problem which should be addressed in a thorough and intellectually honest way. Up and coming artists all too often find themselves robbed of the fruits of their labor – but a right desire to protect their work should not lead us to rush a bill through Congress. We cannot afford to get this wrong. However, the legislation still raises a serious issue about government censorship of the internet and whether some remedies in the current SOPA legislation are overly broad.
While I was pleased that our efforts resulted in the removal of the DNS blocking provisions from the bill, the seriousness of this issue warrants further scrutiny. As the DNSSEC issue revealed, the Judiciary Committee lacks sufficient knowledge to continue consideration of SOPA at this time. The process should be opened up and we should hear from a diverse field of witnesses before acting. Those opposed to the remaining provisions of the bill should be heard. Only then will we have a basis for determining whether further action on this legislation is warranted.
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Lungren
Member of Congress
No comments:
Post a Comment