We implore you to acknowledge that the Department of Justice cannot reasonably be a party to such tyranny. Please ignore the hollow pleas of selfish money interests in these matters. Turn your important attention, instead, to issues that affect us all. Focus on the security of our homeland and the protection of allies of freedom and democracy everywhere. Endeavor against evil, against greed and the corporate overlords who threaten freedom, indeed our nation's democracy, by their manipulation of defective law to dominate the People.

Sincerely,

Rafael O. Quezada Letter to Declan McCullach on similar issues from Alec French:

Declan,

I am responding on behalf of Representative Berman to the slew of articles
(including one linked to below and another yesterday) you have forwarded to
Politech that reference H.R. 5211, the P2P Piracy Prevention Act Rep. Berman
introduced in late July. Since those articles have likely created many misimpressions about the bill among Politech readers, I ask that you extend me the customary courtesy of sending this response to the Politech group. While you may identify me, and Mr. Berman welcomes a reasonable discourse on
the issue, I ask that you mask my email address.

Alec French
Minority Counsel
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property

In the article linked to below, in your article today on News.com, and in several other articles, you have written that H.R. 5211 "would permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic disruptions if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place." As I indicated to you during the radio program in which we participated a few weeks ago, this assertion has no basis. There simply is no "reasonable basis" language in the safe harbor created by H.R. 5211.

The actual language of H.R. 5211 is clear: new 17 USC 514(a)would only provide a safe harbor to copyright owners who actually impair the piracy of their copyrighted works through P2P networks - without regard to whether they have a reasonable basis to believe piracy is taking place. To put it another way: under H.R. 5211, a copyright owner who impairs lawful file-trading would not get the benefit of the safe harbor EVEN if that copyright owner had a reasonable basis to believe piracy is taking place.

The ONLY place that the words "reasonable basis" appear in the entirety of H.R. 5211 is in subsection 514(d), which provides P2P users with a new cause of action to sue copyright owners who wrongfully impair lawful P2P file-trading. There is no possible way to read the cause of action in 514(d), or the use of the words "reasonable basis" therein, as expanding, modifying, or otherwise affecting the safe harbor provided by 514(a).

On that note, several other articles you have written state that H.R. 5211 limits the remedies available to P2P users or others against whom copyright owners have acted wrongfully. For instance, your July 25, 2002 News.com article entitled "Hollywood hacking bill hits House" states that the bill "limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased." This assertion is not only wrong, it is directly contradicted by the clear language of H.R. 5211. In fact, to the contrary, H.R. 5211 provides P2P users with MORE remedies than current law against copyright owners who "hack", stop lawful file-trading, delete files, damage computers, or otherwise wrongfully interfere with file-trading.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9