Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has conclusively rejected the argument that passing laws to stop the theft of American intellectual property and protect the public health somehow benefits foreign dictators. (MTP readers will remember that the genesis of this concept was the flawed memo from the Google-backed Center for Democracy and Technology that has been parroted by numerous sources, see “Google’s Selective Human Rights Advocacy“.)
Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton responded unequivocally that claims the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, would conflict with U.S. foreign policy and undermine Internet freedom mischaracterize her January 2010 “Remarks on Internet Freedom,” which clearly stated that free expression does not protect “those who use the internet to…distribute stolen intellectual property.” She also reaffirms that “[t]here is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and
enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet.” She further addressed the argument that the rogue sites legislation “will undermine United States foreign policy and strong support of freeexpression on the Internet around the world.”
Secretary Clinton observed that “[t]he rule of law is essential to both Internet freedom and protection of intellectual property rights, which are both firmly embedded in U.S. law and policy….[Rogue sites legislation] will also ensure that our international partners understand they must meet their own commitments to Internet freedom and intellectual property protection online, just as they do offline.”
Sounds like that’s quite the opposite of what the fear mongers would have us believe. Looks like we may not be enduring a “Lessig Winter” after all.
Music Technology Policy 