Economist Deirdre McCloskey will soon release her new book entitled "Bourgeois Equality:  How Ideas…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: A Powerful Tribute to Free Market Capitalism

Economist Deirdre McCloskey will soon release her new book entitled "Bourgeois Equality:  How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World." It it, she describes the unprecedented transformation  and improvement of human wellbeing through the power of economic freedom, as illustrated by this graph:

. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="568" caption="The Power of Free Markets"][/caption]

. As McCloskey summarizes, that's the result of the free market revolution:

. [I]n the two centuries after 1800, the trade-tested goods and services available to the average person in Sweden or Taiwan rose by a factor of 30 or 100.  Not 100 percent, understand - a mere doubling - but in its highest estimate a factor of 100, nearly 10,000 percent, and at least a factor of 30…[more]

August 18, 2017 • 01:52 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Myth Versus Fact: Debunking Dishonest and Inaccurate Claims Against Congressional Legislation to Stop Online Piracy Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, December 15 2011
Critics of the legislation do not deny the threat of online piracy by foreign sites or offer much by way of solutions, and instead level several broad falsities to advance their agenda.

Here’s something on which reasonable people agree:  Internet piracy by foreign rogue websites constitutes a malignant, persistent and costly menace to America’s economy and intellectual property (IP). 

Sadly, however, opponents of Congressional legislation to address that menace have waged a campaign extensively contaminated by myth, misstatement and outright dishonesty. 

Today, businesses reliant upon IP account for 60% of American exports, which are by nature more vulnerable to foreign piracy.  Those businesses also employ almost 20 million workers, pay their employees an average wage 60% higher than non-IP counterparts and produced almost $8 trillion worth of goods and services in 2008 alone.  That latter amount surpasses the gross domestic product (GDP) of every other nation on the face of the Earth. 

Meanwhile, parasitic overseas websites continue to threaten that IP wellspring of innovation, jobs and prosperity.  Foreign IP piracy now amounts to a $650 billion cumulative enterprise, one that inflicts $360 billion in loss annually and now accounts for approximately 25% of all Internet traffic. 

Domestic IP theft is already subject to prosecution, but foreign piracy remains largely beyond American legal recourse. 

To finally address that gap, the Senate introduced the PROTECT IP Act earlier this year with the support of such people as Marco Rubio (R – Florida), which achieved unanimous Senate Judiciary Committee support.  Likewise, the House of Representatives introduced the Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as “SOPA,” with the support of such people as Marsha Blackburn (R – Tennessee) and Lamar Smith (R – Texas). 

Critics of the legislation do not deny the threat of online piracy by foreign sites or offer much by way of solutions, and instead level several broad falsities to advance their agenda. 

Myth:  These proposed statutes “would go so far to protect copyright that they would strangle the Internet with regulation.” 

Reality:  The legislation targets sites that would already “be subject to seizure in the United States … if such site were a domestic Internet site,” or that are primarily designed or operated for the purpose of violating existing federal laws.  Obviously, no Internet site possesses the right to pirate the intellectual property of others, so it hardly makes sense to claim that targeting such sites would somehow mean the end of the Internet.  But more broadly, online piracy by domestic sites is already illegal, yet somehow the Internet has managed to survive in America. 

Myth:  SOPA or PROTECT IP somehow fail to provide due process and “give the federal government and Hollywood studios the right to censor and shut down websites.” 

Reality:  In order to obtain relief, prosecutors or private parties would have to petition courts for relief as with any other legal proceeding, with the panoply of due process protections.  For instance, aggrieved parties would have to provide notice of the alleged violation to the targeted site, which would then have the opportunity to rebut the allegations and present evidence.  Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 would apply just as in any other legal proceeding to obtain injunctive relief.  That means that relief could only be granted after demonstrating “specific facts” showing “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage,” a hearing “at the earliest possible time,” and “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”  Additionally, any court granting injunctive relief would have to provide “reasons why it issued” and “reasonable detail” of “the act or acts restrained or required.”  All of this ensures notice and a fair legal proceeding, which is the very definition of due process. 

Myth:  Anti-piracy legislation would unduly burden small Internet sites targeted by deep-pocketed plaintiff corporations. 

Reality:  The proposed bill states explicitly that court relief would require only “technically feasible and reasonable measures” by sites in question.  Further, there is specifically no duty to continually monitor, and defendants would possess the affirmative defense that they don’t possess the “technical means to comply without incurring unreasonable economic burden.”  In addition to the usual perjury protections, moreover, the legislation punishes any plaintiff that knowingly brings a false claim by holding them liable for not only damages caused, but also attorneys’ fees and costs.  The bill also empowers courts to modify, suspend or vacate orders whenever “the interests of justice otherwise require.” 

Myth:  Legislation targeting online piracy somehow constitutes “censorship” and violates the U.S. Constitution. 

Reality:  First of all, online piracy does not constitute “free speech.”  Second, otherwise illegal activity does not magically achieve sacred status or legal immunity simply because it occurs on the Internet rather than on a street corner.  Third, this legislation would remain subject to the same judicial review applicable to any other statute.

To be clear, none of this aims to assert that legitimate, honest and informed critiques of the proposed legislation do not exist.  Nor is it to assert that any Congressional proposal should be immune from scrutiny in order to ensure individual freedom to the greatest extent advisable. 

That said, the first preconditions for a prosperous and just society are rule of law and protection of property rights.  Anti-piracy legislation now before Congress finally addresses the threat of foreign piracy, and it’s unfortunate that so many opponents have resorted to inaccurate and flatly dishonest claims in an attempt to derail it. 

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
How many times between 1996 and 2016 did the U.S. Congress pass a full federal budget instead of relying on continuing resolutions or omnibus spending bills?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"We are in an age of melodrama, not tragedy, in which we who are living in a leisured and affluent age (in part due to the accumulated learning and moral wisdom gained and handed down by former generations of the poor and less aware) pass judgement on prior ages because they lacked our own enlightened and sophisticated views of humanity -- as if we lucky few were born fully ethically developed from…[more]
 
 
—Victor Davis Hanson, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow
— Victor Davis Hanson, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow
 
Liberty Poll   

Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things in the country are going now?