5 comments

• 

  Tim Lee

  8 months ago

  What about defending immunity for Internet intermediaries under section 512 of the DMCA?
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  8 months ago

  The Progress and Freedom Foundation commendably advocates "Freedom". But there is no explicit statement concerning the nature of this "Freedom". Clearly there is a pro-business orientation as the language used speaks of the fostering the "online sector". This vague language implies a double standard. Freedom for some, but not for others. Freedom for the business community to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and without accountability. What about the consumer? Evidently the consumer is simply viewed as a corporate "revenue unit" with no rights. The ISPs may "own" the hardware, but without the consumer providing dollars they would not be in business. So we need to have a middle ground.
  
  The post notes the "proliferation of advocacy groups calling for government intervention online". Government regulation results when the private sector ignores/abuses the consumer. To avoid this situation, the PFF can take proactive measures. Missing from the mission statement of the PFF is a commitment to respect the rights of the consumer, the property rights of the consumer, and the freedom of the consumer. Freedom for all, not for some.
  reply
• 

  Adam Thierer

  8 months ago

  Steve.. We at PFF believe in "freedom for all" as in freedom from onerous government regulation. We aren't anarchists; certainly we need some minimal rules of the road. But, generally speaking, we support the freedom of consumers AND companies to act autonomously, without fear of suffocating government regualation. When their actions harm others, that's when government intervention is authorized.
  
  Thus, your statement about "Freedom for the business community to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and without accountability" is not what we advocate. No one, and no entity, has a right to do whatever it wants without regard to consequence. But government intervention -- which, at its core, is fundamentally tied up with the ugly thuggishness of state coercion -- should be kept to a minimum and only relied upon when individuals or organizations clearly violate the rights of others. I'm sorry that you favor coercion over voluntarism as the primary organizing principle of society, but it's a shortcoming that many in our modern statist society share with you.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  7 months ago

  TechDirt article: No Surprise Here: PFF Blasts Jammie Thomas Judge For His Mistrial Call
  
  Mike Masnick writes: "We've written plenty of times about the so-called "think tank" the Progress & Freedom Foundation. The group, which has called itself a "free market" think tank appears to be anything but free market when it comes to intellectual property issues. For years, it's been a huge supporter of increasingly strengthening gov't granted monopolies, often resorting to highly questionable arguments, such as suggesting that fair use harms innovation and that the DMCA shouldn't be changed because that would be gov't meddling in the free market -- ignoring, of course, that the DMCA itself is actually meddling in the free market."
  reply
• 

  TVS_TELEVISIONS

  4 months ago

  A lot of what is said here is above the level of thought that I want to engage in however I am all for the least amount of government intervention as possible and certainly against the possibility of bureaucrats legislating their way into my pocket through taxing internet sales. When is it going to stop. At roughly a 4% tax that the founders had little to no control over we initiated the beginnings of a new country--What does it say when we seem to have been conditioned to some say in excess of 60% tax (all in) with hardly a peep. And now with the largest transfer of wealth from the people that create to those that take thanks to the combined efforts of our last and current president--how long can we keep the engine going?
  reply