. . . Happy Fourth to you all! Along with 90 (and still counting) other Internet law and IP law professors, I have signed a letter (drafted by Dave Levine, Mark Lemley, and me) in opposition to Sen. Leahy’s “PROTECT IP Act.” [The letter is posted below - the text of the bill, if you're into that sort of thing, is posted here.]
PROTECT-IP Letter, Final

The bill, which will allow the government to obtain injunctions against domain names hosting allegedly copyright-infringing or trademark-infringing material, and to have those domain names deleted from the Internet’s databases, represents a serious assault on the fundamental principles that have built the Net — the design principles at the heart of its technical infrastructure, and the free speech principles it has done so much to foster and cultivate around the globe, all at the behest of your friends in the recording and motion picture industries. [If you want to see why it's a dreadful piece of legislation purely from the technical side, take a look at this white paper prepared by some of the most respected members of the Internet technical community]. We’ve seen this before — in last term’s COICA legislation, which thankfully died in Committee (thanks to Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who has continued his opposition to the Protect IP Act, and whom we should all thank for his efforts). It’s always hard to gauge how likely a bill is to become law, but I’m told there’s some momentum around the Protect IP Act, and hopefully those who actually care about the Net and its potential will rally in opposition.

And speaking of our old friend Thomas Jefferson … Larry Lessig, a friend and colleague, has contributed a very interesting short Foreword to what will become (soon?) the paperback edition of my book — you might find it of interest as you contemplate Jefferson’s contributions on this day …

Lessig’s Foreword to “In Search of Jefferson’s Moose”

Categories: Uncategorized    

    62 Comments

    1. Nelson says:

      If this law passes, the current administration will use it to find trademark-infringement violations on conservative and libertarian sites but not on liberal sites. Everything they have done so far makes that a certainty.

    2. Martinned says:

      Nelson: If this law passes, the current administration will use it to find trademark-infringement violations on conservative and libertarian sites but not on liberal sites. Everything they have done so far makes that a certainty.  (Quote)

      Silly… this is not a communist conspiracy, this is a rent seeking bonanza. Remember the Mickey Mouse Protection Act?

    3. Giant Frog says:

      “Law Professors PROTECT IP LetterPage 1

      ‘UDIW-XQH/DZ3URIHVVRUV/HWWHULQ2SSRVLWLRQWR3UHYHQWLQJ5HDO
      2QOLQH7KUHDWVWR(FRQRPLF&UHDWLYLW
      DQG7KHIWRI,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW”

      Austrian?

    4. Ted S. says:

      I’m to the point where I’d vote against bills named to come up with a snazzy acronym just on principle. Except maybe the “For Universal Commemoration of Kids, Youth, Oldsters, and Us Act”.

      That, and any proposed legislation named on the “Jane’s Law” model of taking some victim with a story that tugs at the heartstrings and putting his/her name in the legislation.

    5. Eli Rabett says:

      The Mickey Mouse will never die act.

    6. Guy says:

      Ted S.:
      I’m to the point where I’d vote against bills named to come up with a snazzy acronym just on principle.Except maybe the “For Universal Commemoration of Kids, Youth, Oldsters, and Us Act”.
      That, and any proposed legislation named on the “Jane’s Law” model of taking some victim with a story that tugs at the heartstrings and putting his/her name in the legislation.  

      Then they’ll just fall back on the tried and true method of naming bills things like “The Truth, Freedom, Sunshine, and Puppies Act”, or the “Against the Murdering of Orphans Act” or whatever.

    7. Skeptical Reader says:

      Happy Fourth to you all!

      We don’t call Veteran’s Day the 11th or Memorial Day the 31st, so I fail to understand why people refer to Independence Day as “the 4th,” a phrase that divorces the holiday from its purpose and meaning.

    8. Cornellian says:

      Excellent legislation, if your goal is to ensure that no one locates an internet server inside the United States.

    9. Just Dropping By says:

      Nelson: If this law passes, the current administration will use it to find trademark-infringement violations on conservative and libertarian sites but not on liberal sites. Everything they have done so far makes that a certainty.  (Quote)

      ***Psst!*** [sotto vocce] Nelson, you forgot to log in as Sarcastro before posting. [/sotto vocce]

    10. Soronel Haetir says:

      Just so you know, the embedded frame really messes with my screen reader. The VS site is all but impossible to use with it there (it’s normally very responsive).

    11. Jay says:

      Hopefully the scientists who built you will update your software soon, and you’ll be able to better understand how humans communicate.

      Skeptical Reader:
      We don’t call Veteran’s Day the 11th or Memorial Day the 31st, so I fail to understand why people refer to Independence Day as “the 4th,” a phrase that divorces the holiday from its purpose and meaning.  

    12. Ted S. says:

      Soronel Haetir:
      Just so you know, the embedded frame really messes with my screen reader.The VS site is all but impossible to use with it there (it’s normally very responsive).  

      I find that the embedded frame slows down Opera, too. When I posted my first comment up above, it made Opera freeze while the page was reloading. Then when I tried to go to another URL, it also caused Opera to freeze.

    13. Judge LearnedHand says:

      Where is the list of 90 signatories? I didn’t see it in the “final” version.

    14. mark parity says:

      I agree with the content as I’m able to view it (on other people’s sites).

      Scribd works some of the time with some browser software on some OSs. The real world is not a fan of “IE6 on Windows”. Please post real links to real PDFs.

      Also, Merry December 25th to you. Or happy January 1st. It’s not “happy fourth”. It’s “Happy US Independence Day.”

      Still, I can’t expect anyone in academia to imagine that a)their opinion isn’t going to be taken as gospel, b)that they need to do anything other than link to a link to a site that mangles PDFs, and c)wish me a happy DAY/MONTH.

      Best 12/31/end-of-days to you.

      Mark

    15. Disgruntled Neckbeard says:

      Giant Frog:
      “Law Professors PROTECT IP LetterPage 1
      ‘UDIW-XQH/DZ3URIHVVRUV/HWWHULQ2SSRVLWLRQWR3UHYHQWLQJ5HDO 2QOLQH7KUHDWVWR(FRQRPLF&UHDWLYLW DQG7KHIWRI,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW”
      Austrian?  

      I think it was encoded in some god-awful obscure codepage, and those of us with UTF-8 browsers see that jibberish.

    16. Law professors vs. the PROTECT IP Act « Crushing Cigarettes says:

      [...] other Internet law and IP law professors, David Post of the Volokh Conspiracy law blog has drafted and signed a letter in opposition to Senator Leahy’s PROTECT IP Act. Quoting: “The Act would allow the [...]

    17. Cornellian says:

      I find that the embedded frame slows down Opera, too. When I posted my first comment up above, it made Opera freeze while the page was reloading.

      Works fine in Safari.

    18. ChrisTS says:

      Nelson: If this law passes, the current administration will use it to find trademark-infringement violations on conservative and libertarian sites but not on liberal sites. Everything they have done so far makes that a certainty.  (Quote)

      Good to know that insanity does not take a holiday.

    19. markm says:

      Skeptical Reader:
      We don’t call Veteran’s Day the 11th or Memorial Day the 31st, so I fail to understand why people refer to Independence Day as “the 4th,” a phrase that divorces the holiday from its purpose and meaning.

      Memorial Day has been the last Monday in May rather than the 31st since 1968 – longer than the majority of Americans have been alive – so why would anyone refer to it as “the 31st”? What I consider the 4 most significant days that as observed are still tied to a particular date are Independence Day, Christmas, New Years, and Veteran’s Day. (And I suspect that for far too many, Veteran’s Day is forgotten, because you neither get time off nor presents.)

      Of those 4 dates, for only one is the spoken form of the date shorter than the proper name. Obviously it’s just a coincidence that this is the one the commies picked to brainwash us into speaking of by the date. (/sarcasm)

    20. Soronel Haetir says:

      Mark,

      I almost wish they would have used some other day for Veteran’s Day and leave 11/11 as Armistice Day, even though that change occurred long before I was born. They could have just as easily chosen VE or VJ day for veteran’s day.

    21. DaveM says:

      We are fighting on so many fronts in this country; wars without and wars within.

      A decade ago, I wouldn’t have worried about a law like the PROTECT IP Act, because I believed that something so obviously counter to the spirit of the Constitution would never get passed, and even if passed, would never survive a Supreme Cout challenge.

      But ObamaCare was a watershed for me. For the first time I realized that a majority of our representatives did not see the Constitution as placing any real limits on “what needs to be done.” This same sort of realpolitik is what guides the PROTECT IP Act. It is, simply, the confiscation of the plumbing of the Internet and the regulatory powers of the federal government for the benefit of one, specific market segment whose business model has been obsoleted by advances in technology.

      I have no confidence anymore that most of our current representatives would represent the interests of the people over those of business interests. Where are the politicians who are scoffing at such a naked example of overreach that is the PROTECT IP Act? Where are the ones who are calling instead for _more_ protections of the freedom of the Internet, the public square of our time? There are none.

      To have a better class of law, we need a better class of law-maker. Thankfully, we still have the vote, and the voting process is still open, fair, and free. It is up to us citizens to get more involved in the electoral process by joining nominating committees, encouraging alternative candidates, spreading the word, and, of course, by voting.

    22. Instapundit » Blog Archive » LAW PROFESSORS OPPOSE Senator Patrick Leahy’s dumb and dishonorable “Protect IP Act.”… says:

      [...] LAW PROFESSORS OPPOSE Senator Patrick Leahy’s dumb and dishonorable “Protect IP Act.” [...]

    23. Morning Media Summary says:

      [...] Media Summaryby Lee Doren on July 5, 2011 · 0 commentsin Odds & Ends Tweet Tech: And Speaking of the Inalienable Right to Pursuit of Happiness…: “. . Happy Fourth to you all! Along with 90 (and still counting) other Internet law and IP law [...]

    24. Otis B. Driftwood says:

      Martinned: Silly… this is not a communist conspiracy, this is a rent seeking bonanza.

      A significant portion of the so-called progressive agenda has been enacted with the help of rent-seeking corporatists and their lobbies.

    25. SDN says:

      Martinned:
      Silly… this is not a communist conspiracy, this is a rent seeking bonanza. Remember the Mickey Mouse Protection Act?  

      The Law of Unintended Consequences…. Never let a crisis (real or invented) go to waste.

    26. Giant Frog says:

      Disgruntled Neckbeard: I think it was encoded in some god-awful obscure codepage, and those of us with UTF-8 browsers see that jibberish.

      Both the letter and moose article are “charset=UTF-8″.

      With linux & FF5 the letter is gibberish, but the moose article is OK
      With linux > virtualbox/XP > FF4 both are OK.
      With linux > virtualbox/XP > IE6 it’s blank and hangs on the letter (didn’t try the moose).

      scribd kinda bites anyway.

    27. John Britely says:

      I find his points about the harm from even a temporary shut down compelling, but similar harms exist throughout the legal system, e.g., Duke lacross players, DSK, Sacramento DOE student loan warrant, freezing bank accounts.

    28. Opposition to the Protect IP Act | KEYTLaw says:

      [...] law and IP law professors, I have signed a letter (drafted by Dave Levine, Mark Lemley, and me) in opposition to Sen. Leahy’s “PROTECT IP Act.” [The letter is posted below — the text of the bill, if you’re into that sort of thing, is posted [...]

    29. Eric E. Coe says:

      Sen. Leahy is also associated with this stupid bill,
      again in service of his corporate masters,
      which has a lot of gamers (and other people) upset:

      http://notch.tumblr.com/post/7152523035/bill-s-978

      The man is a one-man wrecking ball to the net.

    30. Number 2 says:

      The bill, which will allow the government to obtain injunctions against domain names hosting allegedly copyright-infringing or trademark-infringing material, and to have those domain names deleted from the Internet’s databases, represents a serious assault on the fundamental principles that have built the Net

      To put it mildly….

      Would this law, if it passed, have even a prayer of being deemed constitutional?

    31. geokstr says:

      Number 2 says:
      Would this law, if it passed, have even a prayer of being deemed constitutional?

      If the Community Organizer in Chief gets to replace one of the conservative SCOTUS justices, of course it will be ruled constitutional, because it only means whatever the left wants it to mean.

    32. Law Professors Line Up to Oppose the PROTECT IP Act says:

      [...] government mandated censorship in the US. That includes a growing number of law professors who signed an open letter to express their opposition to the act. From the letter:We, the undersigned law professors who teach and write about intellectual property [...]

    33. Au contraire says:

      geokstr:
      If the Community Organizer in Chief gets to replace one of the conservative SCOTUS justices, of course it will be ruled constitutional, because it only means whatever the left wants it to mean.  

      So that must explain the vote in the recent Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. decision? You know, the one where the five justices with the strongest defense of your First Amendment free speech rights were Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

      Wait a second, did those last three recently become the “conservative” members you speak of?

      I guess what I am saying is that you should try to be a little less reductionist with your opinions.

    34. Richard Bennett says:

      Judge LearnedHand:
      Where is the list of 90 signatories? I didn’t see it in the “final” version.  

      Lemley, Levine, Post; the rest would be the usual suspects when it comes to conflating free speech with deliberately unlawful commerce. PROTECT-IP goes after stores that *sell* videos without a license.

    35. Law Professors Come Out Against PROTECT IP says:

      [...] constituency speaking out against PROTECT IP and the damage that it will do. This time, it’s a large group of law professors (over 90 have signed on so far), including some big names. The professors’ full letter is [...]

    36. Brunei and the Irony of Intellectual Property Rights « Y U NO HADOKEN?! says:

      [...] about it the wrong way. And recently, a bunch of law professors (90 of them so far) joined in and signed a letter opposing the IP act. Here’s an excerpt: Although the problems the Act attempts to address — online [...]

    37. Law professors want to kick PROTECT-IP to the curb | Single Name Server says:

      [...] The Volokh Conspiracy announced that more than 90 (and still counting) “law professors who teach and write about intellectual property and Internet law” signed a letter opposing Senator Leahy’s PROTECT-IP Act [PDF] and asked Congress to reject it. These legal minds determined that if passed, then the U.S. would be censoring freedom of speech as badly as “repressive regimes.” The start of the letter states: var myTarget='http://track.webgains.com/click.html?wglinkid=126979&wgcampaignid=95961&js=0'; var uri = 'http://track.webgains.com/link.html?wglinkid=126979&wgcampaignid=95961'; document.write(''); Although the problems the Act attempts to address – online copyright and trademark infringement – are serious ones presenting new and difficult enforcement challenges, the approach taken in the Act has grave constitutional infirmities, potentially dangerous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet’s addressing system, and will undermine United States foreign policy and strong support of free expression on the Internet around the world. [...]

    38. New U.S. law: nasty website killswitch | Security Antivirus Virus says:

      [...] far, over 90 internet law and IP professors have signed a letter in opposition, fearing that the legislation misses the intended mark by a wide margin. They state, “Although [...]

    39. US Dominance Online says:

      [...] there are many VC's (union square ventures) and professors of IP law among thousands others that are fighting to block the Protect-IP act which goes above and beyond to [...]

    40. Law Professors Come Out Against PROTECT IP | lemonadeday.net says:

      [...] IP and the damage that it will do. this time, it’s a large group of law professors (over 90 have signed on so far), including some big names. The professors’ [...]

    41. Expodomain.com » Law professors want to kick PROTECT-IP to the curb says:

      [...] The Volokh Conspiracy announced that more than 90 (and still counting) “law professors who teach and write about intellectual property and Internet law” signed a letter opposing Senator Leahy’s PROTECT-IP Act [PDF] and asked Congress to reject it. These legal minds determined that if passed, then the U.S. would be censoring freedom of speech as badly as “repressive regimes.” The start of the letter states: Although the problems the Act attempts to address – online copyright and trademark infringement – are serious ones presenting new and difficult enforcement challenges, the approach taken in the Act has grave constitutional infirmities, potentially dangerous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet’s addressing system, and will undermine United States foreign policy and strong support of free expression on the Internet around the world. [...]

    42. Controversial ‘PROTECT IP’ bill draws new criticism & opposition | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics says:

      [...] David S. Levine (Elon University School of Law) and David G. Post (Temple University School of Law) argues that “PROTECT IP” is the wrong way to go about solving the complex issue of [...]

    43. MLS says:

      If Lemley et al. are against it, then I am confident it will pass constitutional muster before the USSC.

      Seriously, the mantra “But, but…the First Amendment” wears a bit thin when it is constantly raised as to issues associated with copyright and trademark law that by far have absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. This is not to say that some portions of the pending bill might benefit from further clarification, but to denounce the bill in its entirety (and without any suggestions no less) is intellectual laziness at its worst.

    44. JP says:

      Since we’re complaining about holiday salutations, what’s up with the universal “Happy ___”? It’s Happy Birthday and Happy New Years, but in the Spirit of Merry (not Happy) Christmas, I suggest we think of other sentiments more appropriate to each holiday. For Easter we have “Christ is Risen!” For yes, the Fourth of July, how about “God Bless America!” For Mother’s Day, “I love you Mom!” For Thanksgiving, simply “Thank you!” Et cetera. Otherwise it’s just another “Happy Day.”

      mark parity: I agree with the content as I’m able to view it (on other people’s sites).Scribd works some of the time with some browser software on some OSs. The real world is not a fan of “IE6 on Windows”. Please post real links to real PDFs.Also, Merry December 25th to you. Or happy January 1st. It’s not “happy fourth”. It’s “Happy US Independence Day.”Still, I can’t expect anyone in academia to imagine that a)their opinion isn’t going to be taken as gospel, b)that they need to do anything other than link to a link to a site that mangles PDFs, and c)wish me a happy DAY/MONTH.Best 12/31/end-of-days to you.Mark  (Quote)

    45. Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional – Todd Library: Featured Resources Blog says:

      [...] ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    46. Richard Bennett says:

      This professors’ letter is one of the finest examples of perverse legal reasoning I’ve seen since Lessig’s Supreme Court meltdown in the “No Brainer” case.

      Unlawful sale is “free speech?” Really? Even when the content creator seeks to shut down the store? Really?

      Domain names always map to the same IP addresses, all over the Internet? Really? Ever heard of content delivery networks?

      Congressional staff will injure themselves laughing.

    47. LG says:

      Soronel Haetir:
      I almost wish they would have used some other day for Veteran’s Day and leave 11/11 as Armistice Day

      But there’s a reason for that: Armistice Day could too easily be interpreted as acknowledging the futility and waste of war. Instead, we need Veteran’s day to be a purely celebretory commemoration of those who participate in them.

    48. technology » Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional says:

      [...] ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    49. Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional | NVgoLinks says:

      [...] ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    50. Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional | Information Technology Leader says:

      [...] ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    51. Amerikaans wetsvoorstel is bedreiging van het vrije web at Muziek & de bibliotheek says:

      [...] de brief, gericht aan de leden van het Amerikaanse [...]

    52. Pampering The Pampered:the PROTECT IP act says:

      [...] under consideration in Congress: An ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    53. Usually what Big Hollywood wants…….Hollywood gets:the PROTECT IP act says:

      [...] under consideration in Congress An ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    54. Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional | goldcountrypatriots says:

      [...] 7, 2011 by goldcountrypatriots An ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    55. 90 Law Professors Oppose U.S. Anti-Piracy Bill | TorrentFreak says:

      [...] week a group of 90 professors wrote a letter opposing the upcoming PROTECT IP [...]

    56. Dozens of law professors: PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional | Fist A Goat.com says:

      [...] on July 17, 2011 by Cockmaster An ideologically diverse group of 90 law professors has signed a letter opposing the PROTECT IP Act, the Hollywood-backed copyright enforcement/Internet blacklist [...]

    57. IP Osgoode » Collateral Damage In IP Enforcement: PROTECT IP Under Fire says:

      [...] of controversy. It has received opposition from many prominent groups, including DNS experts, Law professors, venture capitalists and even major newspapers. The creatively entitled Preventing Real Online [...]

    58. The “Protect IP” bill « Internet Scofflaw says:

      [...] Protect IP bill is a terrible idea and it needs to go away. It would allow the government to shut down web sites [...]

    59. IPR in the News: July 2011 « VRA Intellectual Property Rights News says:

      [...] constituency speaking out against PROTECT IP and the damage that it will do. This time, it’s a large group of law professors (over 90 have signed on so far), including some big names.” [...]