Blog

I thought we were finally finished with this.

And then, last Wednesday on the Diane Rehm Show, with another of her typical three vs. one panels, it all came back.

Not only did Texas learn from the Denton Disaster and take steps to prevent it from happening again, but so did Oklahoma, passing a clear ban on cities attempting to regulate below-the-surface issues such as drilling techniques and either blatant or de facto bans on fracking.

During Diane’s show, several called from Denton, and at least one of them repeated the lie that is at the core of the Denton fracking ban, or more specifically, the lie they keep repeating.

What is that lie? “We tried to regulate drilling activity, and it didn’t work. The fracking companies just ignored the regulations.”

Extended dance remix version of the lie: “We passed restrictions in Denton on the gas companies, but they still found ways to skirt the regulations and do whatever they wanted to do.”

IPI's Dr. Merrill Matthews joins ASCO, the world's largest conference of cancer specialists, tonight in Chicago to discuss the role research and development plays in fighting cancer and why innovation is critical for patients. 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign HB 40, a bill passed by the Texas Legislature that would pre-empt cities from banning hydraulic fracturing. IPI president Tom Giovanetti is featured in this NBC Channel 5 news package by Denton County reporter Brian Scott calling the passage of the “Denton fracking bill” a victory, saying it reasserts state law and protects free enterprise as well as the rights of  mineral owners. 

Republicans should enthusiastically support Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Yes, Obama is mostly right on trade. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This TPA extends past the Obama admin into the next, hopefully Republican, administration. So it's not just for Obama.

"Why not wait until we're sure the next president is a Republican?" some say. Here's the problem: Right now you can peel off a certain number of Dem votes for TPA because it's for a Dem president. If a Republican is president, you'll never get those Dem votes.

Now is the time for TPA. Not just because it's right, but because it's in the strategic interest of the next (hopefully) Republican president as well.

IPI president Tom Giovanetti joins NBC's Kristi Nelson and Todd Robberson of the Dallas Morning News on Lone Star Politics to discuss a bill moving through the Texas Legislature that would halt cities from outright bans on hydraulic fracking, discussing how rule of law should govern local rulemaking, not simply majority rule. Video begins at 10:34. 

Here's what you probably don't know: A 1986 law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), governs much of the electronic privacy activities of the government. And here's the weird thing--it provides protections for electronic data that is LESS than 180 days old, but not for data that is OLDER than 180 days.

Why did policy makers think that distinction made sense? I don't know, but it's one example of how a law written 30 years ago is completely out-of-date and incapable of governing the current data storage practices in the Internet Age. And especially in the age of cloud storage.

I've just received a copy of the lawsuit from the State of Tennessee against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the FCC's order that attempts to overturn laws passed in states regulating municipal broadband networks in those states.

The argument is pretty clear and straightforward, as indeed I think it is. This is a most blatant violation of federalism. There is no constitutional grounds for a federal regulator to think it can overturn laws passed by the duly elected legislatures of the states.

In the Order, the FCC preempts Tennessee law pertaining to the operation of municipal electric plants, including the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, an instrumentality of the City of Chattanooga, created and controlled by the State of Tennessee. In doing so, the FCC has unlawfully inserted itself between the State of Tennessee and the State's own political subdivisions. The State of Tennessee, as a sovereign and a party to the proceeding below, is aggrieved and seeks relief on the grounds that the Order 1) is contrary to the United States Constitution; 2) is in excess of the Commission's authority; 3) is arbitary, capricious and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act; and 4) is otherwise contrary to law. . . . Accordingly, the State of Tennessee respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order, and provide such additional relief as may be appropriate.

Amen.

I'm delighted that the Texas Legislature is considering legislation designed to address a concern I described in an op/ed in the Dallas Morning News a few weeks ago: That of municipalities taking away rights and protections of their citizens by majority vote on referenda.

My favorite line from my op/ed:

If I may be permitted a bit of hyperbole, tyranny isn’t OK just because it is approved by a majority of your fellow townsfolk.

IPI has long been involved in explaining to policy makers the many harms of copyright piracy. These harms extend beyond the obvious losses to the property owners and affect many downstream businesses that depend on getting business and employment from the copyright industries.

And it’s not a stretch to say that ignoring blatant, widespread piracy contributes to the erosion of rule of law and property rights. It’s problematic to say the least when a culture decides that they no longer need to respect the ownership of property simply because it’s become easy to steal and hard to prosecute.

Further, it’s reasonable to think that, over time, toleration of widespread and blatant piracy will have at least a marginal impact on the incentive to create high-quality content—the kind of content that requires substantial up-front risk and investment to create. No, piracy probably doesn’t impact your incentive to film your dog running around chasing its tail and post that on the Internet, but it certainly does impact the willingness of a record company or film production company to put millions of dollars at risk.

These are some of the reasons why we’ve argued that the United States has many reasons to facilitate the defense of intellectual property rights and to discourage illegal piracy of intellectual property, both domestically and internationally.

But in a free society, rule of law is reinforced not only by government action, but also by the voluntary actions of responsible people in the marketplace. We’ve also argued that, eventually, the interests of the entire Internet economy will converge around the importance of protecting content. A healthy Internet ecosystem requires rule-of-law, property rights, and the other basic institutions of a free society. There is nothing about the Internet that logically puts it at odds with the institutions of civil society that have been recognized as necessary for the function of analog society.

So we celebrated the Copyright Alert System (CAS), a voluntary agreement between content owners and ISPs to notify broadband customers that piracy has been detected on their accounts. And it’s why we’re pleased about the new Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG), a voluntary agreement between content owners and advertisers to avoid having their brands associated with illegal pirate websites.

Very interesting and well-researched piece today suggesting that the evidence is piling up about U.S. anti-fracking campaigns being funded (in part at least) by Russian interests.

Read the whole thing. Very detailed. But here's an excerpt:

A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

One of those executives, Nicholas Hoskins, is a director at a hedge fund management firm that has invested heavily in Russian oil and gas. He is also senior counsel at the Bermudan law firm Wakefield Quin and the vice president of a London-based investment firm whose president until recently chaired the board of the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft.

Trade may be the one area in which Congressional Republicans and the president can work together, and Obama has called the Trans Pacific Partnership a high priority that would not only strengthen the U.S. as a leader in the Pacific Rim, but also create jobs, boost investment, and be a boon to small businesses.   

So Secretary of State John Kerry's idea of diplomacy is to take James Taylor to France and have him sing to the French people "You've Got a Friend?!"

Recently, Eli Dourado at the Mercatus Center posted a blog in the wake of the Sony attack discussing stolen correspondence and privileged documents from the MPAA, which were leaked as collateral damage. I’m particularly disappointed to see Eli engaging in hyperbole that borders on dishonesty when he claims content owners are trying to “censor the Internet” and that MPAA is engaged in a “war against the Internet.” Preventing illegal activity on the Internet is not censorship, any more than preventing illegal activity on the streetcorner is censorship, and to use that language is sloppy, inaccurate, and even dishonest. This kind of hyperbole is often engaged in by activist groups, but is a surprise coming from some who claims to be a serious policy analyst at a serious policy organization. It’s also ridiculous for Eli to suggest that the whole episode surrounding Sony Pictures and the movie “The Interview” was a financial success for Sony. In truth, Sony has been devastated by the experience.

He suggests there are two lessons to be learned:  1) that the MPAA is trying to “censor the Internet” by reviving the Stop Online Piracy Act, the much maligned 2012 legislation aimed at combating online theft; and 2) that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the release of “The Interview” are proof positive that movie studios should bypass theatrical exhibition altogether and release their films online as soon as the director yells, “cut!”

At the outset, it is troubling that when we have just witnessed an unprecedented attack by a rogue-state on an American company, people continue to focus on salacious details revealed in stolen material rather than the big picture. Here, Dourado chooses to exploit the attack to perpetuate stale narratives to support his disdain for copyright.