from the office of John Kerry:

Thank you for contacting my online office. I always appreciate hearing from you, whether you’re getting in touch with us for help on a constituent matter or weighing in on the issues being debated right now in the United States Senate — whatever the reason for your email, please know that we read these emails diligently and please be assured that our office will work in a timely manner to respond to your comments and concerns. If this matter is time sensitive, I’d encourage you to also call my offices in Massachusetts or Washington and speak with a member of my team so there’s no waiting and we can begin to help you today. DC 202-224-2742. MA 617-565-8519.

A couple of quick notes:

First, this email account is not technologically able to receive a response to this email, it is only an outgoing account — so please submit any additional comments through my website at www.kerry.senate.gov — I always want to hear from you, and I always want to make sure that your feedback and comments are properly received here.

Second, if you are contacting me regarding casework because you need assistance in resolving an issue or filing a complaint, I ask that you go to my website www.kerry.senate.gov/services and download the privacy disclosure form and fax or mail a copy of your email and form to my Boston office. Once we have this information we can begin to process your case.

Lastly, please sign up for my electronic newsletter by visiting www.kerry.senate.gov/newsletter — it’s free, it doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime, and it doesn’t waste paper — but it’s another way for us to stay in touch and for me to update you on the work I’m doing and all the issues that affect Massachusetts which are being debated and voted on in the United States Senate.

for those keeping score, i didn’t actually get a response about SOPA/PIPA here, nor did i receive a real reply in a “timely manner”… unless that translates to “February”.

from the office of Scott P. Brown:

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act (S. 968). As always, I value your input and appreciate hearing from you.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968 on May 12, 2011. The PROTECT IP Act aims to provide law enforcement with tools to stop websites dedicated to online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods, which range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceutical drugs and consumer products.

I understand your concerns about online information sharing and censorship. On May 26, 2011, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member, approved S. 968, and it now awaits further action by the full Senate. As the legislative process moves forward, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

Please visit my website and public pages:

To sign up for my e-newsletter, click here. Next time you’re in Washington, plan to attend my monthly constituent coffee, RSVP here.

*** Please do not reply directly to this message as this mailbox cannot receive inbound messages. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please visit my website at http://scottbrown.senate.gov. ***

in other words: “i hear you, but… this is out of my hands.”

what i actually heard was “i agree with this bill for political reasons–the movie industry is giving us all boatloads of cash–but i also can’t lose you and the many tech-savvy constituents in Massachusetts, so… here’s a vague response that i hope absolves me of responsibility in case this thing passes.” well, at least he mentioned the issue at hand in his response.

also, it’s clear that senators like e-newsletters.

[ LONG PAUSE ]

in late January, long after SOPA and PIPA had been beaten into submission by an irate tech industry and tech-savvy consumers, i received this.

from the office of Scott P. Brown:

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act (S. 968). I am strongly opposed to this legislation.

As you know, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968 on May 12, 2011. The PROTECT IP Act aims to provide law enforcement with tools to stop websites dedicated to online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods. However, many Americans feared that S. 968 would stifle freedom of expression and harm the Internet.

The Internet has been a source of dynamic growth in our economy and is responsible for employing many people in Massachusetts. I have very serious concerns about increased government interference in this area and the effect of the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261, House companion legislation) on the Internet. On January 18, 2012, I announced my opposition to the PROTECT IP Act. You will be pleased to know that with opposition to the bill mounting, on January 20, 2012, the Senate Majority Leader announced that the scheduled vote on the PROTECT IP Act has been indefinitely postponed.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. As always, I value your input and appreciate hearing from you. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

… clap … clap … clap …

it is with that slow golf clap, dear Senator, that i mock your boldness in standing up against this bill in the 11th hour, with pressure mounting and the withdrawal of the bill a foregone conclusion. bravo, good sir. all techies in the 128 belt can breathe easier knowing that you have our backs.

but hey, at least he responded and cared enough to pretend to care. a full two weeks later, i received the following from the senior Senator.

from the office of John Kerry:

Dear Aaron:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP Act). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I have long championed the cause of innovation and an open Internet. Firms operating on and off the Internet strongly rely on intellectual property laws to help protect their investments and ensure a just return for their goods and services. Online piracy and copyright infringement hurts our economy and costs American businesses more than 200 billion dollars a year. Many infringers operate from foreign countries in order to avoid US law enforcement. As a result, under current law, American authorities are limited in what they can do to bring these rogue sites to justice.

As you know, the PROTECT IP Act was intended to protect American businesses from intellectual property theft on foreign websites. Among other things, the bill would provide the Attorney General with the authority to seek a court injunction against a foreign website that engages in copyright infringement. The court could also require U.S. websites to block access to websites found to be dedicated to infringing activities. For example, search engines could be required to disable links to the website that is found to be violating copyright of a US company.

However, there are a number of serious and legitimate concerns regarding the scope of the legislation, as well as the potential for abuse, censorship, or other unintended consequences. The authors recognize the legislation still needs work and I will oppose any proposal that would fundamentally undermine or impede the ability of people to communicate, compete, and innovate using the Internet.

I am pleased that Majority Leader Reid has indefinitely postponed Senate consideration of the PROTECT IP Act, and I will continue to review and work to improve legislation to both protect the intellectual property of American businesses and to ensure the web remains free and open. As I consider proposals to address these issues, I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me on this topic. Please don’t hesitate to reach me again on this or any other issue in the future.

“I have long championed the cause of innovation and an open Internet.” apparently not enough to stand against this clearly-flawed, industry-funded assault. read the text above — other than the sentence i quoted, the rest looks like MPAA boilerplate.

my favorite part of the reply? you’ll have to check out a screengrab — the two paragraphs that talk about the shelving of the bill are a much smaller font. subconsciously less excited about these points, or just a copy-and-paste issue with the MPAA template?

screengrab:

folks in the tech space are encouraged but only slightly, as PIPA (the Senate version of the bill) is alive and well. i’m personally concerned about SOPA being on the shelf, as i believe it’s far less dangerous out in the open where we can debate and poke holes in it. rather than killing it, the House opted to put it aside until consensus could be reached. this bill is not dead. its supporters can now work behind the scenes on Capitol Hill, drumming up support through political leverage, and then they can pass it in 6 months or a year, when everyone is far more concerned about some other bill trying to make its way through.

stay vigilant, techies. stay alert. we cannot rest until these bills are dead.

have any technologically-literate people considered running for public office? we can’t afford to wait 20-30 years until our generation (those who deeply understand the issues and tradeoffs of living in the information age) has taken over.

i’m saying the same thing that many before me have said — this is all over the web at this point, largely because those of us who run web-based startup companies rely on this medium for innovation and for our livelihood. i encourage you to speak to your representatives about this issue and spread awareness. a few months back, i reached out to my representatives and signed a petition on the White House website. just a few days ago, i received this response from the latter:

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget

Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff