Patento.absurdium

Repost: During the first Congressional hearing on their heinous P2P bill, Senators Berman and Coble -- the Congressional Bonnie and Clyde of Right to Read laws -- are crying foul over the media tumult they created. Some months back I made a post claiming this bill was nothing but a publicity stunt. Berman has since claimed his only goal was to start a debate on these serious issues, and now both he and Coble claim they have been unfairly treated by the media.

Copyright bill slurs are lies, say US senators. ZDNet Sep 30 2002 4:07AM ET
[...] "There have been some truly outrageous attacks," Berman said. "I never expected that anyone would challenge the underlying premise of the bill, namely that copyrighted owners should be able to use reasonable, limited measures to thwart peer-to-peer piracy". [...]

If I may be so bold, I believe this was exactly what Berman wanted, although I suspect he is genuinely a bit surprised at the negative public perception of his bill. The fact that he actually announced his bill at a meeting of the Computer and Communications Industry Association shows just how little he really understood.

[...] "I've never received such notoriety from a bill that I did not introduce," Coble said. "But if Howard Berman asked me today to co-sponsor it, I would do it again. It is our responsibility to promote efforts to reduce infringement or piracy of intellectual property."
Coble added, "Actually, Howard, when I decided to co-sponsor your bill, I thought it was relatively noncontroversial. But there are others who don't share your convictions about property rights and are currently attempting to march me into the woods for political re-education." [...]

Coble appears to know even less, and when speaking without the benefit of his aides spoon feeding him the words, makes a genuine ass of himself. This pair is the Laurel and Hardy of Intellectual Property but, sadly, are far more dangerous. They have no business making Copyright law, discussing Intellectual property in any form, or taking on themselves the responsibility of securing the creative freedom of our future. They simply have no clue except what they are told by MPAA and RIAA execs.

In typical, self-reinforcing fashion, only one person was asked to speak in criticism of the bill (there's really no need to listen to the opposing side when you already know you're right.)

[...] Gigi Sohn, president of the Public Knowledge nonprofit group, was the only opponent asked to testify. Under harsh questioning from the panel, Sohn stressed that she was not a copyright abolitionist and believed that there was a role for government in punishing widespread infringement. [...] [ Source: Moreover - IP and patents news]