CFIF has long championed greater fairness for recording artists and protection of intellectual property…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF Strongly Opposes Senator Ron Wyden's "ACCESS to Sound Recordings" Act

CFIF has long championed greater fairness for recording artists and protection of intellectual property (IP) rights in the music industry.   Among other problems, current law generally protects recording artists' rights for post-1972 songs, but not pre-1972 classics:

. Under byzantine laws, artists receive just compensation whenever their post-1972 recordings are played, but in many cases not for their pre-1972 recordings.  That's an indefensible and arbitrary artifact that has persisted far too long.  Why should Neil Diamond receive payment whenever 'America' is played, but not classics like 'Solitary Man?'

Fortunately, the opportunity to correct that unfairness has arrived.  Even better, legislation to correct the existing flawed system arrives alongside other music legislation…[more]

June 18, 2018 • 11:43 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.
Press Releases
Coalition Urges Opposition to Use of Congressional Review Act to Overturn FCC Restoring Internet Freedom Order Print E-mail
Tuesday, January 23 2018

 In a letter sent to Congress this week, the Center for Individual Freedom joined a coalition of two dozen prominent organizations to urge opposition to usage of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

Read the letter below or view it here (PDF):


January 22, 2018

Dear Senators & Representatives:

We, the undersigned organizations, representing millions of taxpayers and consumers nationwide, urge Congress to oppose usage of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

For years, the Internet thrived and expanded into what we know today under the light-touch regulatory framework established under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That legislation, enacted in bipartisan fashion, allowed the web to grow rapidly, revolutionizing commerce around the world, creating countless jobs, and improving the lives of billions, all while keeping reasonable consumer protection mechanisms in place.

Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s 2015 decision to classify the Internet as a public utility under Title II was a solution in search of a problem, and disrupted the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) tried and true approach. Three unelected bureaucrats undertook the new Title II decision, whereas the prior classification was passed after long deliberation between elected representatives from both parties. This is not the way policy should be conducted, especially in an area that has such a substantial impact on the U.S. economy.

The FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order undoes this hasty, irresponsible measure. It upholds the principle that the power to change the law rests exclusively with Congress, not unelected bureaucrats.

Contrary to assertions that, without Title II internet service providers (ISPs) would be essentially unregulated, Title I allows the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and state Attorneys General to police unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive behavior by ISPs.

The best consumer safeguard in any market is always vigorous competition. Title II regulation is antithetical to this fundamental principle. Since the prospect of Title II regulation was first floated at the FCC in 2010, investment is $200 billion behind projections. Such public utility-style regulation also has a proven history of boxing-out more innovative startups in other sectors, while entrenching existing firms.

This lack of investment exacerbates the digital divide between rural and urban communities. The net cannot be neutral if government regulations deny access to the most vulnerable in our society. This is the reason why Democrats, such as Clinton administration FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, Senator Ron Wyden, and former Senator John Kerry all supported a Title I approach versus Title II for broadband Internet.

We urge you to oppose use of the Congressional Review Act on this matter. A CRA disapproval resolution would restore and make the FCC’s 2015 overreach permanent - the FCC could not disclaim Title II powers over the Internet.

Congress had the wisdom to allow a system that permitted business to thrive and still shielded consumers. Under Title II, the American people got neither. While we believe that the FTC, DOJ and state Attorneys General already have robust powers, there may be a need for additional legislation. However, that is a decision for Congress, not unelected bureaucrats.

It is for these reasons that we ask members of Congress to oppose any attempts to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

Sincerely,

Adam Brandon- President- FreedomWorks
David Barnes- Policy Director- Generation Opportunity
Mario H. Lopez- President- Hispanic Leadership Fund
Seton Motley- President- Less Government
Daniel Garza- President- The Libre Initiative
Bartlett Cleland- Managing Director- Madery Bridge Associates
Mike Wendy- President- MediaFreedom
Pete Sepp- President- National Tax Payers Union
Scott Cleland- Chairman- NetCompetition
Karen Kerrigan- President & CEO- Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
David Williams- President- Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Grover Norquist- President- Americans for Tax Reform
Lisa B. Nelson- CEO- ALEC Action
Phil Kerpen- President- American Commitment
Steve Pociask- President- American Consumer Institute
Daniel Schneider- Executive Director- American Conservative Union
Chrissy Harbin- Vice President of External Affairs- Americans for Prosperity
Andrew F. Quinlan- President- Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Jeffrey L. Mazzella- President- Center for Individual Freedom
Clyde Wayne Crews- Vice President for Policy- Competitive Enterprise Institute
Thomas A. Schatz- President- Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Katie McAuliffe- Executive Director- Digital Liberty
Nathan Nascimento- Executive Vice President- Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce
George Landrith- President- Frontiers of Freedom

 


Page 14 of 185
Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was NOT a pen name used by Benjamin Franklin?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley were right to withdraw U.S. membership from the U.N. Human Rights Council on Tuesday.While that council purports to defend human rights, it actually focuses on far less noble objectives. Namely, attacking Israel, challenging Western liberal values of free speech, and lending moral credibility to the world's most…[more]
 
 
—Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
— Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Recognizing that there will be more DOJ IG reports on DOJ/FBI issues, what level of trust do you have in the accuracy, fairness and conclusions of the just-issued report on the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation?