Computer & Communications Industry Association

Last updated
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Formation1972
Purpose Lobbying

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is an international non-profit advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, United States which represents the information and communications technology industries. According to their site, CCIA "promotes open markets, open systems, open networks, and full, fair, and open competition." [1] Established in 1972, CCIA was active in antitrust cases involving IBM, AT&T and Microsoft, and lobbied for net neutrality, copyright and patent reform and against internet censorship and policies, mergers or other situations that would reduce competition. CCIA released a study it commissioned by an MIT professor, which analyzed the cost of patent trolls to the economy, [2] a study on the economic benefits of Fair Use, and has testified before the Senate on limiting government surveillance and on internet censorship as a trade issue.

Contents

Membership

CCIA members include a range of internet services companies to software to telecom companies such as Amazon, Apple Inc., BT Group, Cloudflare, Dish Network, eBay, Facebook, Google, Intel, Intuit, Mozilla, NordVPN, Rakuten, Red Hat, Samsung, Twitter, Uber, and Yahoo!.

Issues

Internet freedom

The group has lobbied against Internet freedom on issues like the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act, [3] testified on Internet censorship as a human rights and trade issue, [4] and also lobbied on privacy issues including government surveillance by the US National Security Agency [5] CCIA has also lobbied for net neutrality, filing comments with the FCC and amicus briefs in court so that no company or government could discriminate against similar content. CCIA has lobbied to ensure patent litigation reform, including the Innovation Act, and provides the website Patent Progress, [6] which is dedicated to patent issues. CCIA supported Section 230 when it passed in 1996 as it facilitated free speech online by giving companies some level of liability protection for both allowing the free speech and also removing some legal speech such as "hate speech" that may violate user agreements. Since then, CCIA has warned [7] against altering Section 230 as some in Congress sought to pressure social media companies with changes to the law.

Intellectual property

CCIA represents companies that hold patents and also rely on licensing patents from others to produce interoperable tech products. CCIA supports balanced intellectual property policies that support both patent holders and next generation innovation. It maintains a blog, Patent Progress, that covers issues like patent reform. CCIA filed an amicus brief in the Apple Samsung design patent case, which the court ultimately used in its ruling. The Supreme Court ended up agreeing a company should not gain another company's entire profits on a product over a design patent infringement issue. CCIA has been fighting for comprehensive patent reform for two decades and has issued statements supporting venue reform, as a fifth of the patent cases are ushered over to the Eastern District of Texas, which promotes itself as having procedures and juries that favor patent owners.

CCIA supports balancing copyright policy so that it incentivizes creators and also allows people to access information online. It has commissioned studies in the US and Europe that industries that rely on fair use and other copyright exceptions make up one-sixth of the GDP. The tech trade association has warned about court rulings such as Europe's right to be forgotten, which creates the ability for any EU citizen to "disappear" on web search results. In a New York Times article, which also ran on CNBC, CCIA Vice President James Waterworth said, "This ruling opens the door to large-scale private censorship in Europe. While the ruling likely means to offer protections, our concern is it could also be misused by politicians or others with something to hide."

Privacy

CCIA has also been an outspoken critic of government surveillance without checks and balances. CCIA CEO Ed Black testified against FISA renewal before the Senate in 2007, saying better checks and balances were needed, and he testified again in 2013 after the Snowden revelations about the scope of NSA surveillance. In a Washington Diplomat article looking at the impact of the leaks one year later, Black expressed optimism that people will be better able to protect themselves in the future and he has called on Congress to pass legislation to allow companies to disclose the size and scope of government requests and for the government to end mass bulk data collection.

CCIA Europe

Established in 2010, CCIA's four-person Brussels office advocates for its members on various issues with European regulators. These include copyright reform, the audiovisual services directive, e-Privacy, telecommunications, data transfers, and trade. As Europe transitions to a Digital Single Market, there's a chance to implement policies that enhance its innovation economy and support traditional industries increasingly dependent on the internet for collaboration and customer engagement.

Amazon Prime

CCIA is currently lobbying against antitrust bills in the United States that threaten to break up Amazon Prime and other big technology corporations. CCIA President Matt Schruers has stated: “At a time when the public faces rising prices on necessities, they can shop online for competitive offers a few clicks away, often on free services with free shipping. Smart antitrust policy happens when regulators focus on consumer harm, rather than targeting innovative sectors where customers are satisfied. The FTC’s case would result in fewer products to choose from, higher prices for consumers, and reduced options.” [8] The CCIA has also commissioned reports that criticize the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and other measures that would increase antitrust enforcement, particularly against tech firms. [9] [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is a Washington, D.C.–based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organisation that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression. CDT seeks to promote legislation that enables individuals to use the internet for purposes of well-intent, while at the same time reducing its potential for harm. It advocates for transparency, accountability, and limiting the collection of personal information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open Rights Group</span> UK digital rights advocacy group

The Open Rights Group (ORG) is a UK-based organisation that works to preserve digital rights and freedoms by campaigning on digital rights issues and by fostering a community of grassroots activists. It campaigns on numerous issues including mass surveillance, internet filtering and censorship, and intellectual property rights.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) was an American market-oriented think tank based in Washington, D.C. that studied the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. Its mission was to educate policymakers, opinion leaders and the public about issues associated with technological change, based on a philosophy of limited government, free markets and individual sovereignty.

Criticism of Google includes concern for tax avoidance, misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy and collaboration with the US military on Google Earth to spy on users, censorship of search results and content, and the energy consumption of its servers as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as monopoly, restraint of trade, antitrust, patent infringement, indexing and presenting false information and propaganda in search results, and being an "Ideological Echo Chamber".

In the United States, censorship involves the suppression of speech or public communication and raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Interpretation of this fundamental freedom has varied since its enshrinement. Traditionally, the First Amendment was regarded as applying only to the Federal government, leaving the states and local communities free to censor or not. As the applicability of states rights in lawmaking vis-a-vis citizens' national rights began to wane in the wake of the Civil War, censorship by any level of government eventually came under scrutiny, but not without resistance. For example, in recent decades, censorial restraints increased during the 1950s period of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In Miller v. California (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, be censored. While certain forms of hate speech are legal so long as they do not turn to action or incite others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups being denied marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, although the initial adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in Germany</span> Overview of Internet censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany

Although Internet censorship in Germany is traditionally been rated as low, it is practised directly and indirectly through various laws and court decisions. German law provides for freedom of speech and press with several exceptions, including what The Guardian has called "some of the world's toughest laws around hate speech". An example of content censored by law is the removal of web sites from Google search results that deny the holocaust, which is a felony under German law. According to the Google Transparency Report, the German government is frequently one of the most active in requesting user data after the United States. However, in Freedom House's Freedom On the Net 2022 Report, Germany was rated the eighth most free of the 70 countries rated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Economy Act 2010</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Digital Economy Act 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act addresses media policy issues related to digital media, including copyright infringement, Internet domain names, Channel 4 media content, local radio and video games. Introduced to Parliament by Lord Mandelson on 20 November 2009, it received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. It came into force two months later, with some exceptions: several sections – 5, 6, 7, 15, 16(1)and 30 to 32 – came into force immediately, whilst others required a statutory instrument before they would come into force. However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014, and other sections were repealed.

File sharing in the United Kingdom relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. In 2010, there were over 18.3 million households connected to the Internet in the United Kingdom, with 63% of these having a broadband connection. There are also many public Internet access points such as public libraries and Internet cafes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT IP Act</span> US Senate Bill

The PROTECT IP Act was a proposed law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S. The bill was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 11 bipartisan co-sponsors. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the bill would cost the federal government $47 million through 2016, to cover enforcement costs and the hiring and training of 22 new special agents and 26 support staff. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, but Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed a hold on it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop Online Piracy Act</span> Failed United States bill

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a proposed United States congressional bill to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods. Introduced on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), provisions included the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the websites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites. The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The Internet Association (IA) was an American lobbying group based in Washington, D.C., which represented companies involved in the Internet. It was founded in 2012 by Michael Beckerman and several companies, including Google, Amazon, eBay, and Facebook, and was most recently headed by president and CEO K. Dane Snowden before shutting down.

Demand Progress is a US-based internet activist-related entity encompassing a 501(c)4 arm sponsored by the Sixteen Thirty Fund and a 501(c)(3) arm sponsored by the New Venture Fund. It specializes in online-intensive and other grassroots activism to support Internet freedom, civil liberties, transparency, and human rights, and in opposition to censorship and corporate control of government. The organization was founded through a petition in opposition to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, sparking the movement that eventually defeated COICA's successor bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act, two highly controversial pieces of United States legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derek Khanna</span>

Derek Khanna is an American conservative political commentator and columnist. He has written for the Washington Post and The Guardian, maintains a blog with Forbes, and is a regular contributor with The Atlantic, National Review Online, Human Events and Politix. He is also an adviser and board member to several technology start-ups. He was listed on Forbes's 2014 list of 30 under 30 for law in policy for his work on technology policy and the successful phone unlocking campaign which resulted in the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act passing Congress and being signed into law by President Obama on August 1, 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market</span> 2019 EU copyright reform directive

The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, formally the Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, is a European Union (EU) directive which has been adopted and came into force on 7 June 2019. It is intended to ensure "a well-functioning marketplace for copyright". It extends existing European Union copyright law and is a component of the EU's Digital Single Market project. The Council of the European Union describes their key goals with the Directive as protecting press publications; reducing the "value gap" between the profits made by Internet platforms and by content creators; encouraging collaboration between these two groups, and creating copyright exceptions for text- and data-mining.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chamber of Progress</span> American trade group

The Chamber of Progress is an American trade group that represents technology companies on issues such as antitrust law, content moderation, and self-driving cars. The group describes itself as a progressive advocacy organization, while some have characterized it as an astroturfing corporate front group opposing government regulation and unionization. It was established in 2020 by Adam Kovacevich and is funded by Amazon, Uber, Meta, Google, Apple, Twitter, and other technology companies.

References

  1. "CCIA - Computer and Communications Industry Association". Official web site. Retrieved November 9, 2013.
  2. "New study suggests patent trolls really are killing startups". 12 June 2014.
  3. Edward J. Black (January 30, 2012). "Content, Copyright & The Internet — The Reality". Forbes. Retrieved November 9, 2013.
  4. "Tech Groups Propose Changes To TPP To Promote Internet Freedom" by Sean Flynn, Infojustice, March 4, 2012
  5. Brian M. Wolfe (July 18, 2013). "Tech Companies Want Greater Transparency After NSA Fiasco". App Advice. Retrieved November 9, 2013.
  6. "Patent Progress" . Retrieved May 27, 2015.
  7. "CCIA Warns Section 230 Bill Sets up Government Censorship of Online Speech; Less Freedom for Internet Sites to Remove Extremist Content". 19 June 2019.
  8. CCIA, CCIA. "FTC Announces Antitrust Case Against Amazon Retail Practices". CCIA. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
  9. Duncan, Felipe Flórez (2021-07-11). "A More Flexible, Effects Based Approach is Required if the DMA is to Foster Innovation and Protect the Value Platforms Offer". Competition Policy International. Retrieved 2023-02-07.
  10. Broadbent, Meredith (2021-09-15). "Implications of the Digital Markets Act for Transatlantic Cooperation".