Senator Orrin Hatch... And The Lies The Copyright Industry Tells

from the and-for-my-next-trick,-this-is-how-we-destroy-pirate-computers dept

In my last post, I walked through the misleading or outright false arguments by Rep. Wexler in defense of stronger copyrights. At the same event, Senator Orrin Hatch also spoke, and it's worth responding to him as well.

You in this room are the artists, the innovators, and leaders of the world copyright industry. Not only do your artistic works continue to encourage the creation of new works that inspire and delight us, but also your industry is one of the few that consistently generates a positive balance of trade.

This assumes, incorrectly, that copyright is the sole reason for the creation of artistic works or that positive balance of trade. The evidence suggests otherwise. There are many reasons why people create. Some have nothing to do with monetary incentive -- but even those that do have found that "copyright" is not the only way to make money, and, in fact may not be the best way to make money. Yet, those who do creative things are often limited by copyright.

Conversely, copyright piracy is the very antithesis of creativity -- crippling growth and stifling innovation in its wake. Beyond the cost to the copyright industries, piracy negatively affects all aspects of our economy.

Yes, the "antithesis of creativity." Folks like Ray Charles -- who invented soul music, but did so by violating copyright law? Yes, stifling innovation. How about Kutiman, the amazing DJ who recently mashed up various YouTube clips to create something amazing and new. According to Hatch, this DJ is the antithesis of creativity? Crippling growth and stifling innovation? I'd argue exactly the opposite.

In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the U.S. economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.

Yet another study that has been debunked. The study, which Senator Hatch conveniently did not cite (wonder why...?) was actually written by the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), a group of companies who have benefited greatly from the intellectual monopolies, and clearly wish to extract additional monopoly rents. Their study has been widely discredited and debunked, and was recently the source of controversy after the Conference Board of Canada mistakenly relied on its results -- which The Conference Board later withdrew and apologized for after realizing what a mistake it was to rely on those numbers. In the meantime, the only reason that research was used by The Conference Board was because the IIPA was upset with the actual numbers that showed copyright infringement really wasn't that big of an issue.

The problems with those numbers have been discussed elsewhere in great detail, but the two biggest problems are that (1) they greatly inflate the number of unauthorized copies that would have been sales otherwise and (2) they simply ignore the other side of the coin in terms of who benefits from infringement. That is, the industry loves to talk about lost jobs or lost tax revenue from infringement, but they ignore that an infringing piece of software may make another company more productive, allowing it to hire more employees, produce more and pay more in taxes. I do not know if the net benefit outweighs the loss to the "copyright industry" but totally ignoring the other side of the coin makes the study worthless. To rely on such a number is folly.

Just a few weeks ago, the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, on which I serve as co-chairman, unveiled its 2009 Country Watch List identifying several countries with ineffective intellectual property protections.

For years, countries like China and Russia have been viewed as providing the least hospitable environments for the protection of intellectual property. But this year, it was particularly disappointing to see that Canada, one of America's closest trading partners, was listed on the Watch List. This is another sobering reminder of how pervasive and how close to our borders copyright piracy has become in the global IP community.

The Country Watch List is based on the same bogus information in the IIPA report -- and has also been thoroughly debunked. The IIPA has been pushing for sanctions against Canada for years, despite no real evidence of any real problem in Canada, and plenty of evidence that unauthorized copying is a very minor issue in Canada. In fact, some of the stats on Canada seem to be based on little more than hunches.

I would think, that as a respected Senator, Hatch would want to rely on non-biased, factual information -- not information from an industry who stands to unfairly benefit from intellectual monopoly, and who has a long history of putting out false or deceptive numbers. Right?

Some of you have heard me say this before, but it bears repeating: There are many who do not understand that ideas, inventions, artistic works, and other commercially-viable products created out of one's own mental processes deserve the same protection under the law as any other tangible product or piece of real estate.

Being ignorant of the purpose of property is no excuse for lying, Senator Hatch. If Senator Hatch wishes to treat ideas as tangible property, why not pass a law to do so? Copyright and patent law does no such thing. Furthermore, as the pro-copyright and pro-patent supporters often insist on this site, neither copyright nor patent law protects "ideas." Copyright protects expression. Patent protects invention. We all know that those are somewhat arbitrary and misleading attempts to hide the fact that it really does put a limit on ideas, but it's nice of Senator Hatch to admit it outright.

Furthermore, and more importantly, if Senator Hatch believes that "commercially-viable products created out of one's own mental processes deserve the same protection under the law as any other tangible product or piece of real estate," then clearly the Senator believes in the right to resell such property once you bought it, at a reasonable price. So if I buy a copy of a song by Senator Hatch, clearly, by his own words, I should have the right to resell it to others or to make a copy of it -- just as I have the right to make a copy of a physical chair that I buy, or to resell the chair that I have bought.

Or did Senator Hatch not mean what he said? Did he really mean that only some property rights should be granted? That is, should we only grant property rights that favor big industries at the expense of both consumer and social welfare?

Appallingly, many believe that if they find it on the Internet then it must be free. I have heard some estimates cite no less than 80 percent of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.

Ah, a misleading demonization. Senator Hatch has "heard some estimates." Why not cite them so that they can be responded to accurately? Perhaps because Senator Hatch knows they do not hold up under scrutiny.

That is why the Pirate Bay case is so important. While the decision does not solve the problem of piracy and unauthorized file sharing, it certainly is a legal victory and one that sends a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated.

I'm sure the Senator is quite busy, so perhaps he missed the "strong message" that was actually sent: a biased judge sided against a search engine claiming it was responsible for the actions of its users. From that, thousands of people recognized that this was a patently ridiculous scenario, and signed up as members of a political party designed to protect consumer civil rights -- allowing them to win a surprise seat in the European Parliament. Quite a strong message. It seems to be the opposite of the one Senator Hatch thinks was given.

I strongly believe that if we're going to be successful in this fast-paced digital age, a solid partnership between the copyright community and the Internet Service Providers is crucial. I am confident that such a partnership can break up the current viral spread of copyrighted works on the Net.

Many countries have begun to take action by working closely with ISPs to curb online piracy. For example, France has adopted a three strikes law, which calls for ISPs to suspend a subscriber's service if they are accused three times of pirating copyrighted material. Across the globe, from Japan to the UK, from Australia to Brazil, there have been engaging discussions within the industry on how best to proceed on this front.

In the United States, I am encouraged with the developments that have transpired between content owners and some ISPs. Obviously, we still have a ways to go, but we are seeing a promising level of participation within the industry. I believe a flexible and free-market solution is essential if we are to be successful in this endeavor. As more of these discussions turn into actions, it is vital that these principles remain front and center.

To be fair, Hatch's speech was given the day before France tossed out the three strikes law as unconstitutional -- but that should still be instructive. The EU Parliament has made clear that cutting users off from the internet connections, especially based solely on industry accusations of infringement, represents a serious breach of civil rights. That a US Senator would support such a "guilty without proof" setup is quite troubling, and raises serious questions about his understanding of our constitutional rights.

As for being "encouraged" by the developments between content owners and ISPs at home, does he meant the fact that not a single ISP has agreed to sign up for the RIAA's three strikes program? That, at least, is encouraging to me.

On a side note, there is another benefit of stopping online piracy that is often overlooked. By reducing some of the infringing content online, the networks will be more efficient, thereby making more broadband capacity available for paying customers

On a side note, there is another benefit to forcing all automobiles to travel no faster than 5 mph with a man waving a red flag in front of them that is often overlooked. By reducing some of the speeding automobile traffic on roads, the roads will be more efficient, thereby making more road capacity available for drivers.

Do you see the logical fallacy? The broadband infrastructure can handle much greater traffic. Purposely limiting it doesn't increase efficiency. It does the opposite.

I am reminded of the time when Senator Leahy and I worked together on the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, which made the United States a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Passage of this law extended copyright protections beyond our borders to the worldwide coverage by the multilateral treaty.

And we are all worse off for it. Many scholars who have noticed the damaging effects of agreeing to the Berne Convention standards are quite concerned about what that has done to copyright. It has extended it well beyond reason. It has gutted the important public domain. It has hindered the ability of creative efforts. It was a horrible mistake by almost any measure.

When we passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, one of my goals was to address the problems caused when copyrighted works are disseminated through the Internet and other electronic transmissions without the authority of the copyright owner.

By establishing clear rules of the road, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act served as the catalyst that has allowed electronic commerce to flourish. I believe the DMCA, while not perfect, has nonetheless played a key role in moving our nation's copyright law into the digital age.

If by doing things like allowing security researchers to face lawsuits for finding problems in DRM and e-voting software, then yes, it's moved us into the digital age. If you mean by allowing all sorts of companies to use anti-circumvention provisions not to protect copyright, but to stop competition, then yes, you are right. If you mean by allowing people to issue takedowns on content they don't like, then yes, you are right.

But most of us don't consider those to be good things.

In 1998, Congress also passed the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act to ensure adequate protection for American works abroad by extending the U.S. term of copyright protection for an additional 20 years. This bill made certain that America maintained its international trading advantage by keeping pace with emerging international standards.

The Constitution says that copyright should be for a limited time -- initially 28 years. You have made a mockery of that, by now extending it to life plus 70 years. That "additional 20 years" created massive harm, locking up tons of content that lies useless that should be in the public domain. And for what? To keep Mickey Mouse from being in the public domain (while still protected by trademark law)? And those "emerging international standards" are nothing more than an industry-driven sham, designed to create a game of leapfrog. They first push one country to extend copyright, and then insist that we too need to extend ours to "keep pace with international standards." It's happening once again in Europe, with the push to extend performance rights. This is not "keeping pace with international standards," it's a handout to the entertainment industry that harms emerging artists.

Let me say a few words about the Performance Rights legislation. It is time to amend copyright law to establish performance rights in sound recordings. Some people are under the wrong impression that everyone in the music industry is making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive.

I believe that artists should be compensated for their work. This is an issue of fairness and equity. I agree with the position of the Department of Commerce Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, which reported that the lack of a performance right in sound recordings is "an historical anomaly that does not have a strong policy justification ... and certainly not a legal one."

No one is claiming that everyone in the music industry is making a fortune. Why even bring up that as a strawman? And no one has said artists should not be compensated for their work. What we're saying is they should earn via a business model, not a tax on radio stations. Why do you support taxing radio stations? Weren't you just talking about the importance of not harming creative industries in this economic time?

Last year, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to encourage the use of orphan works -- works that may be protected by copyright but whose owners cannot be identified or located. Countless artistic creations -- books, photos, paintings and music -- around the country are effectively locked away and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the copyright for the work is unknown.

Unfortunately, it often isn't easy to identify or find these owners of copyrighted work. To make matters worse, many are discouraged or reluctant to use these works out of fear of being sued should the owner eventually step forward.

Senator Hatch, do you not realize that the very problem of orphan works is due to your proud support of things like the Berne Convention standards and the Copyright Term Extension Act? Without those, orphan works are not much of a problem at all.

This is more of the same from Senator Hatch. Playing up the supposed benefits based on biased studies and information and ignoring all the harm caused. Any chance he'll reintroduce his plan to destroy the computers of people accused of infringing? That won him lots of fans last time.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Rep. Wexler And The Lies Of The Copyright Industry

from the time-to-do-some-education dept

Earlier this week, CISAC, a copyright collection society held its "World Copyright Summit," which was effectively a gathering of groups of collections societies and copyright holders who want to strengthen copyright at every turn, so that they can collect more cash -- without ever needing to actually give people a reason to buy. IP Watch has a good summary of the event, where you see it was basically a bunch of people trying to figure out how to have governments around the world force people to hand money over to them. As per usual, the only voice of reason appears to have been Gary Shapiro, who tried to tell the assembled folks that their strategy to date has been a disaster, and they need to understand the differences between "property" and "copyright." In response -- the audience groaned. It would appear his message did not get across.

That said, I wanted to respond to two of our elected officials who both spoke at the event and who said somethings that are quite questionable. Rep. Robert Wexler gave a troubling speech in which he claimed that those who look to protect consumer rights, and question the value of stronger copyright are "lying" and need to be dealt with. Senator Orrin Hatch -- who once suggested remotely destroying the computers of anyone suspected of copyright infringement -- gave another misguided and misinformed talk. Both deserve a response. Let's start with some excerpts from Wexler's talk -- and I'll cover Hatch's in a separate post:

In the public debate, outside Washington and Brussels -- and beyond trade journals and economic reports, most people, first, would not be able to describe what intellectual property is. Second, too many do not see digital piracy -- for example -- as the serious theft that we here in this room know it to be.

These regrettable opinions from the public at large are being harnessed by a ground swell of anti-intellectual property sentiment from the so called 'Napster generation,' which has come of age in a digital file-sharing era

Notice that he immediately goes with the demonization effort, rather than understanding the actual issues. He sets it up that people don't understand intellectual property, rather than that they may have a legitimate beef with what current intellectual property laws have created. He doesn't even consider the idea that many people do have tremendous understanding of intellectual property issues and have found them to be troublesome. Instead, he brushes it off as being the "Napster generation." Finally, he shows that he, himself, does not understand intellectual property (or the law!) in calling it "theft." Rep. Wexler should (as a lawyer and a Congressional Representative) be familiar with the difference between theft and infringement. That he is not is troubling.

Two years ago, as Chair of the Caucus, I sent a letter to my colleagues in the House of Representatives focusing on some of the major problems and challenges we face on intellectual property issues around the globe.

In a tongue and cheek manner, I used the genuine formation of the "Pirate Political Party" in Sweden as an abstract way to point out how silly and extreme those on the other side of this debate had become. Evidently, I was quite wrong about the extreme part.

As nearly everyone in this room knows, this week that same "Pirate Political Party" won a seat in the EU parliament. It won 7.1 % of the total vote in Sweden, and even more shockingly, it had the HIGHEST percentage of 18-25 year-old voters. That statistic should alarm all of us in this room who care about intellectual property law.

First of all, rather than mocking The Pirate Party, perhaps Rep. Wexler should have taken the time to actually understand its arguments. It is a party that is focused on important civil rights issues -- many of which Wexler appears to support.

The fact that younger people came out to vote in such large numbers is significant because we know that getting someone to the poll the FIRST time is the hardest part.

Those young voters are now much more likely to vote in the next election -- and the election after that. Soon, those 18-25 year olds will be home owners, and business owners and employees of major companies.

So doesn't it make sense to pay attention to their concerns and actually understand them before brushing them off?

First and foremost, those of us who understand the importance of intellectual property law have failed to do the job in educating others toward our point of view. Artists, creators, governments, and industry must join together to spread this message.

The truth is that we have a great story to tell and we must tell it better.

Our collective job is to raise awareness of the potential of intellectual property to contribute to the social, cultural and economic advancement of countries and individuals throughout the world.

We must send an unequivocal message that the theft of intellectual property -- whether the corporate piracy of software, organized crime manufacturing of optical disks, or personal Internet downloading -- will not be tolerated.

Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the so-called "creative class" which copyright supporters insist are enabled by copyright supposedly have not been able to tell this "great story?" Perhaps the problem is that there is no great story to tell. Perhaps the problem is that more and more people are recognizing that the "great story" is one that suppresses the rights of every day users, stifles innovation, holds back progress and stamps on our rights of free speech and communication? Has it occurred to Wexler that for the past decade, the industry has been telling this story over and over and over again -- and every time they do, more and more people realize that it doesn't add up?

We are facing two significant problems simultaneously. First, our voices are getting increasingly lost in a sea of misinformation from the anti-intellectual property community. And second, our opponents don't necessarily have to play by the rules.

The anti-intellectual property advocates are free to make simple arguments that often resonate with an audience because they are not based in "facts" or "legal rights."

First, it's rather demeaning to refer to those who believe in actually making sure that intellectual property laws live up to the values put forth by the Constitution ("promoting the progress...") are necessarily "anti-intellectual property rights." Folks like William Patry, James Boyle and Larry Lessig, I think, would all take significant exception to the idea that the ideas they put forth are "anti-intellectual property" and/or not based in "facts" or "legal rights." Rep. Wexler, have you read any of their writings?

And if we're talking about making simple arguments that resonate with an audience because they are not based on facts or legal rights, shouldn't we start with calling copyright infringement "theft"?

Perhaps the real problem is that the arguments put forth by these scholars actually is both based in facts and legal rights, and those facts and legal rights are compelling because they're true.

I found this out on a personal level, when I was in Congress during the original file-sharing debate about Napster. I remember unveiling a strongly worded statement against Napster and a defense of our intellectual property legal regime. I thought I sounded pretty good. I knew I wouldn't be popular with high school and college students in my district. But I was shocked when my father called me and said I sounded like I was on the wrong side of the issue. I knew if I couldn't even convince my own father -- that we had a big problem.

Or, if you couldn't convince your father, perhaps it suggested that you hadn't truly understood the issue and had made an argument that was poorly reasoned. Perhaps the problem wasn't with your father's views or the views of the students in your district -- but with your argument?

Julian Sanchez from CATO has discussed this exact problem, which he calls a "one-way hash" where "for every confused or muddled claim, it would take about a dozen paragraphs of explication to make clear to someone not intimately familiar with [the subject] what's wrong with it."

So, what a blogger in Sweden writes in a few minutes would take hours or days for the copyright community to answer in an appropriate factual response. It takes much longer to argue using facts and precedent than it does to say anything you want because it sounds plausible -- just like it takes far longer to make a movie than it does to steal it.

This is an odd statement for a variety of reasons. Amusingly, of course, it's Julian Sanchez (a sometimes contributor to this very site) who did an amazing job digging deep into research to discover that it's the copyright holders who have been flat out lying about the impact of "piracy" using entirely made up numbers. He, in fact, took the "confused or muddled claims" of Wexler and the entertainment industry, and used about a dozen paragraphs of explication to make it clear to Wexler and others, what's wrong with his very argument.

So what a politician in Washington says in a few minutes took hours or days from the consumers rights community to answer in an appropriate factual response. It takes much longer to argue using facts and precedent than it does to say anything you want because it sounds plausible.

Right, Rep. Wexler?

And, yet, Wexler is simply wrong here as well. Because Sanchez's well, researched, detailed analysis of the lies the copyright industry and politicians tell the public, did get the message out. Because those of us who believe in basing our opinions on factual information have no problem taking the time to read such arguments and understanding them. It's a shame you chose not to.

Even worse, the less someone knows about the subject, the more likely they are to be swayed by these empty arguments -- and the more likely they are to be convinced that they are right. And none of this is going away.

Perhaps we travel in different circles, but I have found the exact opposite to be true. Most people, having been taught from a young age, the "wonders" of intellectual property as a driving force to our economy, have an instinctual, inherent belief that more and stronger IP laws must be a good thing. I know I certainly felt that way for a long time. It was only as I was exposed to more facts, more details and more evidence that I began to realize just how troubling it is to create such intellectual monopolies, in an effort to create artificial scarcity, to lock up ideas and expression -- all to allow profit over freedom of expression. It's the people who spend more time trying to understand these issues that are so troubled by them. It's the people who read and think through these ideas on a daily basis who are so troubled by what you are suggesting. Rather than dismissing us all as know-nothings who haven't considered these ideas, why not try talking to some of us?

For example, a recent UN-sponsored internet governance forum in India brought together various international leaders to discuss the many global issues related to the Internet. This is an important topic, which should have rightfully generated a tangential interest in related intellectual property issues. However, at almost every single panel and discussion there was a significant intellectual property component. And the opinions expressed about intellectual property rights were largely unfavorable. So what we ended up with was a UN-sponsored event educating an international government audience about how strong intellectual property protection is a hindrance to the developing world.

This message is particularly frustrating for me, as I am sure to those in this room, because I believe so strongly that vibrant intellectual property law is a KEY to economic development in these same developing countries.

Perhaps the issue is that the folks talking about the problems of IP in the developing world had actually read the research that showed how damaging IP rights are in the developing world. Perhaps the issue was that they had bothered to understand the details and the facts, and didn't just go on the "strong belief" you seem to have, that is not backed up by facts.

Rep. Wexler, in the next few weeks, we are going to be running a detailed series on the question of IP in the developing world. I would recommend taking the time to read it.

The creativity and innovation that have transformed the United States and enhanced our standard of living should stand as MODELS for nations still in transition to healthy and resilient modern economies. Everyone here knows that intellectual property is the backbone of global economic competitiveness.

Actually, you should revisit what "everyone knows" because the actual research suggests something quite different. Especially in the copyright space, it was the lack of copyright protection that helped grow many of our creative industries when we were a developing country. It was our lack of copyright protection on foreign works that helped spread those books and ideas and helped us grow. It was the fact that Hollywood hid from Thomas Edison's intellectual property claims that allowed them to grow and thrive. It was Walt Disney's copying of the copyrighted film Steamboat Bill that kicked off the Disney empire.

It was only after these industries were built and established that they suddenly called out to the gov't for greater protection against new industries and new upstarts. The Copyright Act of 1909, which was a massive change in copyright law was driven, in large part, due to the supposed "threat" of the player piano. For the past hundred years, all we have seen is the growth and strengthening of copyright laws not as the backbone of our economy and global competitiveness, but because those industries did not want to compete against upstarts and innovations from around the globe.

Almost three quarters of real business value in the US is intangible. The most recent report found that the total copyright industry contributed $1.38 trillion to the US economy or 11.12 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. In 2005, the total copyright industry employed 11.3 million workers in the US or 8.5 percent of the total workforce. The licensing of U.S. patents contributed an additional $150 billion according to KPMG, and that number is growing.

There are millions of jobs created by the U.S. copyright industries -- and these jobs are more important than ever based on our economic crisis. With American, and international, businesses in such dire straights, the value of innovation of these businesses is even more important than ever. And while our overall economy has contracted, the innovation industries continue to grow both in American and internationally.

So why is this not a home run?

Because most people realize those stats are bogus. They realize that they are lies and not based on fact, but are spoken to an appreciative audience because they "sound plausible." The truth is much different, however. The jobs and the economic output are not due to copyright. They may be protected by copyright, but you and many others make the false assumption that those jobs and that content disappears in the absence of copyright. You make the false assumption that there aren't other business models that work much better and which help grow the economy even more, without relying on copyright.

My job for example is likely one of those many millions that are included as being within "the copyright industry." Yet, I reject that claim. I have built a company and a business model that, despite being in the falsely named "copyright industry" does not rely on copyright. The numbers you cite are bogus for the very reason that it assumes that those jobs don't exist absent copyright laws. That is simply not true. Did removing the sugar monopoly mean that no one made money in sugar any more?

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative cited 50 countries, even key allies, such as Canada and India, for failure to adequately protect U.S. intellectual property rights. A study by the Business Software Alliance showed that software piracy alone amounted to $53 billion in losses in 2008. Intellectual property theft isn't just software and movies anymore either. It is everything from copies of machine tools and counterfeit car parts to knock offs of golf clubs, designer handbags, watches and jewelry.

The BSA's study has been debunked left and right for years. Its claims of "losses" are laughable to anyone who looked at the "facts" rather than at the lies that are written out quickly because they "sound plausible." For someone who insists on not being misled by such lies, you seem to repeat them quite often yourself. We've done a detailed explanation of the mistakes in the BSA's analysis. Perhaps the research and the facts that went into that were too troublesome for you to read over in those many paragraphs, when you could just accept their quick and laughable claims because they "seemed plausible" to you?

Those of us in this room know how intellectual property can bring us together as you create the very technologies that speed communications and make physical borders obsolete. Let us capture and utilize the spirit of international reconciliation that will be fostered over the next four (or eight) years as impetus for us as an international intellectual property community to come together and work collaboratively.

Which "technologies" exactly are you talking about? The MP3 player which the folks in that room sought to have outlawed? The VCR which they called "the Boston Strangler to the movie industry"? The internet, which they're now looking to hamper with new laws and limitations? The player piano? The radio? The television? These are all new technologies that the "copyright industry" freaked out about when they first came about.

However, we must recognize that punitive measures and enforcement-focused outreach alone are doomed to failure in this digital age. It is the battle of message that we must win first and foremost. We can and we will succeed in this effort, but our tactics and messages must improve.

Yes. I agree. Your tactics and message must improve. Because based on this, you are spouting lies and misleading statements without bothering to understand the facts or the evidence. That won't convince anyone.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..