COICA Back Up For A Vote This Week, So Universal Music Ramps Up Astroturf Campaign
from the protect-protect-protect dept
The COICA online censorship bill is back up for discussion in the Senate this week, as (thanks to pressure from the entertainment industry) they hope to get it passed during this lame duck session. As such, it should come as little surprise that Universal Music Group Distribution President Jim Urie has sent out another one of his astroturfing emails to supporters, asking them to bombard Congress critters with support for censorship. A few of you sent in the message:Congress is listening to our message. Let's continue the fight against online piracy. If you haven't already done so, please click here to send an email to your Senator and Representative - it's quick and easy.Oddly, Jim Urie never responded to my challenge to him, to see if we could come up with reasonable solutions that don't involve drowning out those who disagree with him. Gee, I wonder why...
Jim
Update: And... in an interesting bit of timing, the news came out today that Universal Music is planning major cuts. Perhaps instead of focusing on astroturf campaigns and running to the government to prop up their business model, they should have focused on actually innovating.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: astoturf, censorship, coica, jim urie
Companies: riaa, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wonder no more!
; P
(Also, recursion is awesome.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonder no more!
I agree. Did you ever read G�del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonder no more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wonder no more!
Fractally Wrong. You need to get outside and look at nature a little more often. You might be right on one count though... the devil clearly made up negative integers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wonder no more!
We learn to associate "one" "1" as spelled as heard, etc, all with one concept because we allow the same neural cluster to be energized any time (or many of the times) we want to cover that concept of 1 (either as our consciousness "follows" other neural clusters towards implications and happens upon the "1" cluster or when we hear the word "one" spoken, etc).
Everything in our minds is a model, perhaps tied in to a specific clustering, that is tied to physical sensations.
That positive integers exist simply means that we can more easily see the similarity to such numbers with tangible discrete items. Eg, if we define 1, 2, .. as what we normally expect, ie, associate these with physical items in a way to pair them with our counting fingers and toes, then, as per the math model, there is no -1 cat; however, -1 has real immediate meaning if we ask different questions (eg, a question where we want to ascribe meaning to displacement and to direction when considering only 2 directions and using a frame that conveniently starts with 0 where I am located). This 1 has a greater number of direct representations in reality than does -1, but each are simply part of a model. What is real is the cat, not "1" (unless you mean that symbol as seen on the computer screen for example).
Anyway, these are just some ideas I have. I followed the links trying to find out about the book mentioned earlier and ended up leaving comments at the bottom of this page: http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wonder no more!
If you guys can't wrap your heads around negative integers, I hate to see what happens when you encounter negative fractional exponents.
And if you actually believe that negative integers are "against God" in some way, then I'm starting to understand why America is getting worse at science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One uses cash to stem the flow from old ones.
If you only have so much cash, its a real dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Word for the day: dichotomy.
The word you looked for is "choice" or "alternative".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) They shouldn't be engaging in astroturf campaigns at all.
2) They don't have unlimited resources, so the more they focus on one thing the less they can focus on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The more they spend on this sort of crap the faster they will fail. It will not make much of a difference time wise, about 6 to 12 months if my numbers are correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
secret
senator leahy, yup my senator, sure does love him some democracy (and yup i've already e-mailed him expressing my displeasure).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coincidence? Probably not. They're just going to use this to reinforce how bad things are in the recording industry (Err. I mean the music industry).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fashion bill up the same day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let that go to your head. It seems much more likely to me that he didn't want to waste his time on a dillhole like you. You don't really think he takes you seriously, do you? That's cute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that was SUCH an awesome burn! you must have some sort of super brainac powers that are incomprehensible to mortal man to come up with something so eloquently put as dillhole! i mean really... i just dont know that i should even be posting to comment on your superior verbiage in how you tore down every single point in this article piece by piece what with my lowly stature. why, i could barely keep up with it (and to be honest, i did have to look a couple of those words up... you are such the linguist!)
you know what? you should run for office. no really... with ideas like yours im betting that you would have the entire country whipped into shape in no time and that pesky terrorism thing would be just a distant memory once YOU were in charge...
/if youre gonna troll, at least have some style mmmkay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Mike, why wasn't the Grokster decision laid down by the US Supreme Court considered censorship?
Simple. Because it wasn't. And neither is this.
You and all the other pirates that lie about this bill are simply trying to create fear about the First Amendment because you know you have no leg to stand on when it comes to the profligate ripping off of musicians.
You're finally going get it in the ass like we have been getting it for a decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you don't know jackshit about labels, so quit using that tired excuse. Piracy massively dwarfs every example of label abuse in history, and even then, it doesn't excuse you or anyone else of pirating.
Quit rationalizing and fear-mongering. Nobody's fooled by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) While "not every instance of illegality results in a fucking trial", every instance of illegality that would potentially deprive a person of his constitutional rights most definitely should result in a fucking trial (unless, of course, the charges are dismissed).
2) Performers whose music gets the most illegal distribution tend to be the ones who are most financially successful, and their labels even more so. Pardon me, then, if I don't believe you when you say "piracy massively dwarfs every example of label abuse in history" (emphasis added).
3) Fuck off, troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to the RIAA, who keep on fear mongering that the artists will starve if it weren't for 95+ year copy protection lengths. Nobody's fooled by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100928/23171111206/riaa-claims-that-if-coica-isn-t-pa ssed-americans-are-put-at-risk.shtml
When it comes to meritless fear mongering the RIAA is a pro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those who criticize IP are not allowed to communicate their criticisms over broadcasting airwaves or cableco infrastructure and bad laws are to blame. Those who wrongfully control such communication channels, thanks to our broken legal systems, will never allow someone like MM to express his opinion on them.
This isn't fear mongering, censorship is already a reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm fooled by it! I'm scared half to death yet, I have a profound understanding of it all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, how is it that many artists are doing financially better *after* they allow their stuff to be downloaded for free?
Sell something scarce to your new fans that "pirated" the digital bits. It won't make you a zillion dollars, but you aren't going to make that much anyway unless you have a huge marketing arm behind you and few competitors also getting this *star* treatment. For most folks, the way to go is probably to allow "pirating" so as to build a decent fan-base.
To read about one example see http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20101019/01004711475/dear-dan-bull-a-case-study-in -musical-innovation.shtml
"I made more money from music that week than I had in my entire musical career previously. I'd say it was split 50/50 between sales of my album, and donations from people who just wanted to show their appreciation. It goes to show that filesharers aren't cheapskates; they're happy to hand over a bit of cash if they know who it's going to."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of the definitions of the word profligate is "Recklessly wasteful", another is utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipated". It seems to me that you are taking about the record labels and not the pirates.
"You're finally going get it in the ass like we have been getting it for a decade."
eww!!! who have you been hanging out with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is that really the best you can do when someone points out you're wrong? No wonder you guys keep failing to understand the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understand what? That since there will always be piracy, we should just do away with IP laws altogether and everyone can sell t-shirts? LOL! So fucking stupid. Never ceases to crack me up. The best part is that you really mean it. LMFAO!
Tell us again how Napster, Grokster, and that ilk were all just trying to play by the rules. They just wanted to be a team player, right? And it was the big mean ole industry that wouldn't let them. LOL! I love that one... still has me grinning. You are an endless source of amusement, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They didn't, they changed the rules and those rules are changed forever. You can either sit around crying about it, or sell in ways that allow me, as a fan, to enjoy music the way it should be in the 21st century. Not free, necessarily, but better than the piss poor job the industry's doing right now. Adapt or die, and good riddance if you can't adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I had suggested that everyone just sell t-shirts, you might have a point. But I have not. I'm not sure what you think you're proving in deliberately misstating my position, but it's not going to convince very many people that you are right and I am wrong.
Tell us again how Napster, Grokster, and that ilk were all just trying to play by the rules. They just wanted to be a team player, right? And it was the big mean ole industry that wouldn't let them. LOL! I love that one... still has me grinning. You are an endless source of amusement, Mike.
I never said they were just trying to play by the rules. Why must you deliberately misstate my position? Are you really so devoid of quality arguments that you must lie so regularly?
What I stated was that those companies -- unlike those who now dominate the file sharing space -- were quite open to working with the industry to create a compelling solution. If that makes you laugh, then you must be against YouTube's content iD system which is now making content companies a ton of cash.
Of course, if the industry had worked with Napster early on, perhaps we would have had solutions like that a decade earlier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least this dump isn't like TorrentFreak, where all dissenting opinions are immediately erased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, the symbol next to your name is a watermark that shows you are the same guy posting here under various other names. Changing the name doesn't fool anybody into thinking there's more than one guy pushing your lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm sure no one noticed how you punted and are incapable of defending piracy and the ripping off of musicians!
I promise I won't tell anyone! ; >
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the watermarks, why do you post under so many names if you're aware of them? I certainly can't think of a logical reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore, as Thomas Jefferson agrees with (and the founding fathers were generally very critical of IP laws), no one is entitled to a monopoly on anything. IP is what has to be defending, not its lack. and the industry is only demonstrating that it should not exist. They have done nothing to help show that its existence has caused society any good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should you. Noone takes you seriously anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you are a paid troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi JPJ. Not sure I understand the claim you are making. Where as I "thrown to the ground"? Please provide a specific example.
And I'm confused about the claim that I "can't justify" what I write. I have cited dozens of studies and research reports to explain the macro effects to support my positions, while also highlighting numerous individual examples to show how it works at the micro level.
So I'm sort of at a loss as to what further "justification" you think I need.
Also, considering your MO has been to throw around insults and only respond with more insults when people call you on it, i'm at a loss as to how you think that's convincing anyone. If you have evidence to prove I'm wrong, please present it. The last time you presented "evidence" it was a hypothetical example of a band that did not do anything to embrace new business models, and then suffered for it, which you falsely blamed on "piracy" without any evidence.
All of the evidence you presented suggested that whoever advised them gave them bad advice. I'm hoping you were not advising that particular band.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And give me a break. Those companies did not try to work with the industry "to create a compelling solution." That's some of the rosiest gloss I've ever seen anyone use to describe ventures that were built from the get-go on piracy.
Do you really think anyone is buying your bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technology giveth, technology taketh away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not a pirate. I've never downloaded or uploaded music (or other content) in an unauthorized manner.
Why must you lie?
I have accurately described the very serious First Amendment concerns with this bill. Many other organizations -- including the ACLU -- seem to agree. Do you just claim they're all "pirates" too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It has, along with other public interest groups, co-authored a letter to Leahy that speaks solely to international relations and policies concerns that it and the other groups apparently share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why must you lie?
Mike, you slimy fuck, you don't get off the hook that easily.
You're 10 times worse than a pirate. You're an avid pirate supporter and apologist. You go on and on about how piracy is just natural and we should all embrace it. You don't think artists should have any of the rights that copyright law secures to them, nor do think that artists should exercise the rights they already have. You have no problem with other people infringing on those rights. You admire the pirate movement and all it stands for, and you openly abhor anyone who supports or relies on IP laws.
Did I say 10 times worse than a pirate? I meant 100 times worse.
You aren't fooling ANYONE with your stupid fucking claim that you don't personally pirate. You can not personally pirate anything and yet still be one of the biggest supporters of piracy on the planet. And that's just what you are.
By the way, you fucked up today, asshole. Payback's a bitch, and now it's personal. You asked for it, fuckwad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, it's probably more fun just to watch you tie yourself up in your own moronic arguments and widely inaccurate attacks. Your own lack of rational discourse is undermining your arguments more than anything Mike could say, and you appear to be losing your grip on sanity in the process. Highly entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wasn't lack of spine. You suggested to me that you were apologetic about the way you went about your thread hijacking. I was being nice and not banning you. If you would prefer to be banned, let me know, it can be taken care of.
I can't believe that you're now giving me shit for not actually banning you and giving you a second chance. Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He can come back and play when he can control his crying.
His nonsensical rant almost made me post this response:
If anyone is spineless, it is that rooster_sucker� � average_joe� who thought he was so great and smart, got put in his place while being shown how stupid he is, and now won't even come back under that moniker.
You sound like you will make a great lawyer�, in the north Pole.
� ajs' trademark to denote his services.
� Not
2 lawyers are screwing and die at the same time. Who gets to hell first?
The one on the bottom, he had his shit packed.
But then I changed my mind and didn't bother to post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As always, if you cannot respond logically or with evidence, an insult generally will convince people you are correct.
Have you tried that in court yet? Please report back to us how it works.
You're 10 times worse than a pirate. You're an avid pirate supporter and apologist.
I am not a pirate supporter nor an apologist. My comments are directed towards content producers, helping them to better understand how they can make more money. For whatever reason, this seems to upset you and you feel the need to insult the messenger. I cannot fathom what good you believe that does.
You don't think artists should have any of the rights that copyright law secures to them, nor do think that artists should exercise the rights they already have.
Let me ask a simple question: if you looked at a situation, and by not exercising the rights you were granted by the government, you would find yourself better off, wouldn't it be morally wrong to then suggest the better path is to use those rights?
You have no problem with other people infringing on those rights
No, I do have many problems with it, which is why I do not do it.
You admire the pirate movement and all it stands for
Again, this is not true, and I have called them out on many behaviors that I do not like, such as (a) file sharing unauthorized material (b) ddos attacks (c) calling themselves pirates.
I do agree with many of their positions on certain reforms and free speech rights, but I'm far from admiring "all it stands for."
you openly abhor anyone who supports or relies on IP laws.
Abhor is quite a strong word and a rather inaccurate one. As noted, if I see how someone can be better off by not relying on IP, I think it would be wrong of me to lie and suggest they would be better off by relyng on IP.
You would prefer that I be intellectually dishonest just because you have no understood the economics at play here?
By the way, you fucked up today, asshole. Payback's a bitch, and now it's personal. You asked for it, fuckwad.
Aha. Well, that makes your position so much more convincing. Just a suggestion: for someone who constantly rants about how I am "biased" when presenting my opinions, I would think that openly admitting that you have a personal vendetta against me would suggest a much more serious form of "bias" on your part, one where you are going to personally attack anything I say, even when the evidence is behind me.
Seems like a rather self-defeating position. Might I suggest (in all seriousness and for your own benefit) anger management classes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
ahahahahahahahaha
You're a narcissistic sociopath. And soon, for the better of the world, everyone will know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? I've never seen him at any of the meetings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As always, if you cannot respond logically or with evidence, an insult generally will convince people you are correct.
Have you tried that in court yet? Please report back to us how it works.
Court? What are you talking about? I'm just an AC.
I am not a pirate supporter nor an apologist. My comments are directed towards content producers, helping them to better understand how they can make more money. For whatever reason, this seems to upset you and you feel the need to insult the messenger. I cannot fathom what good you believe that does.
Make more money by embracing and accepting widespread piracy and the loss of rights. You don't fool me, Mike. You might fool some people with your double-talk, but not me. I'm bullshit proof.
Let me ask a simple question: if you looked at a situation, and by not exercising the rights you were granted by the government, you would find yourself better off, wouldn't it be morally wrong to then suggest the better path is to use those rights?
OK, so you don't deny that you don't think artists should have the rights that they have. What a pro-piracy point of view.
No, I do have many problems with it, which is why I do not do it.
You may not do it personally, but you publicly are a vocal cheerleader for the pirates. That's worse.
Again, this is not true, and I have called them out on many behaviors that I do not like, such as (a) file sharing unauthorized material (b) ddos attacks (c) calling themselves pirates.
I do agree with many of their positions on certain reforms and free speech rights, but I'm far from admiring "all it stands for."
OK, so you think the DDOS attacks are bad, but other than that it's "Go Pirates Go!" Gotcha.
Abhor is quite a strong word and a rather inaccurate one. As noted, if I see how someone can be better off by not relying on IP, I think it would be wrong of me to lie and suggest they would be better off by relyng on IP.
You would prefer that I be intellectually dishonest just because you have no understood the economics at play here?
We all know you're anti-IP, Mike. That's why the pirates love you so. And don't pretend like your economics wins the day. That's so incredibly stupid. If your economics were so smart, wouldn't people be flocking to you for your wisdom? Some people do, but the vast majority do not. You're on the fringe and you always will be. You'll always be know-it-all sociopath too, but hey, nobody's perfect.
Aha. Well, that makes your position so much more convincing. Just a suggestion: for someone who constantly rants about how I am "biased" when presenting my opinions, I would think that openly admitting that you have a personal vendetta against me would suggest a much more serious form of "bias" on your part, one where you are going to personally attack anything I say, even when the evidence is behind me.
Seems like a rather self-defeating position. Might I suggest (in all seriousness and for your own benefit) anger management classes?
It's so cute how you think the evidence proves you're right. You're just too dumb to know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, you don't deny that by not exercising those rights they may be better off. What a prop-piracy point of view.
Yet again you don't deny that they may make more money, only stating that embracing widespread piracy and reduction in copyright protection is what is being suggested is somehow bullshit in itself. What a pro-priacy point of view.
Yet again, you don't deny that the economics may be right, only that because it's not the currently popular view (by what metric precisely?) that we're fringe and thus we'll never win. What a pro-piracy point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I respect that people have the choice of whether or not to exercise their rights. I don't make the unsupported claim as Mike does that artists are never better off exercising those rights. Mike can't think of one good thing IP has ever done in the history of IP, so obviously he has some really thick blinders on. He doesn't see it because he doesn't want to see it. I think he's one of the most close-minded pro-pirate anti-IP people there is. The thought that anyone takes him seriously cracks me up. I guess every cult has its followers, no matter how stupid the cult.
Yet again you don't deny that they may make more money, only stating that embracing widespread piracy and reduction in copyright protection is what is being suggested is somehow bullshit in itself. What a pro-priacy point of view.
If some people embrace piracy and make money, then good for them. It's silly to think that that works for everyone, and it's silly to think other people shouldn't have a choice to do otherwise. Only a sociopath like Mike thinks his solution is the only solution. And only a sociopath like Mike can't see that there is evidence all around him that IP works.
Yet again, you don't deny that the economics may be right, only that because it's not the currently popular view (by what metric precisely?) that we're fringe and thus we'll never win. What a pro-piracy point of view.
You are being cute and I appreciate that, but I'm not moved. Mike is a two-faced liar who can't even be honest about his true feelings, and I will continue to call him out on it. If his knowledge of economics is anything like his knowledge of law, and I suspect it is, then he's just an idiot who thinks he knows everything, but in substance, he is indeed utterly lacking. He might charm the half-wits, but the thinkers of this world are not impressed. His surface-deep understanding of the law is dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So too does Mike, he just doesn't agree with those choices and argues they should do otherwise. Do you not respect his right to free speech, charlatan?
That was funny.
It's silly to think that the choice is a God given right - it isn't, it's one that only exists through law and for expressly limited, economic purposes.
Then provide some. Not logical fallacies like "IP law exists and art is made" but actual, real, verifiable, trustworthy evidence. We've been waiting for some time.
You're being cute, I appreciate that, but I'm not moved. It's sad how much you rely on attacking personal reputation and talking up your personal vendetta into claiming Mike is a sociopath, whilst you constantly badger, demand and generally piss off others for no reason other than attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So that's why you wrote this:
By the way, you fucked up today, asshole. Payback's a bitch, and now it's personal. You asked for it, fuckwad.
It's pretty obvious who you are. I knew before Mike ever said anything.
Make more money by embracing and accepting widespread piracy and the loss of rights.
If content producers deliberately make their material available (on file-sharing sites or otherwise), no "piracy" is involved. No loss of "rights" are involved.
Those who do this, do better financially than those who depend on "rights." Pretty much kills two birds with one stone.
OK, so you don't deny that you don't think artists should have the rights that they have. What a pro-piracy point of view.
Of course, he said nothing of the sort, so you're just lying again. "Not exercising" does not mean "not having."
And you don't need to be "pro-piracy" to believe that copyright holders shouldn't have the "right" to stifle free speech.
OK, so you think the DDOS attacks are bad, but other than that it's "Go Pirates Go!"
And, of course, the downloading of illegal content. See (a) above. Which pretty much means he doesn't approve of pirates.
So, you're lying again.
That's why the pirates love you so.
You know what else pirates love? Paying for content. That's why pirates spend more on content than non-pirates.
No, that doesn't make piracy OK. It just means that when you fight it, you're fighting your customers.
...Sorry, bit of a tangent there.
If your economics were so smart, wouldn't people be flocking to you for your wisdom?
Mike makes his money giving economic advice to various companies and artists. How many people flock to you for legal advice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care if people think they know who I am. They can guess all they want. What I do care about is Mike confirming that he knows who I am in his posts. He can look at my IP and verify who I am. He is in a position of authority, and it is an abuse of that authority to "out" someone who has indicated that they wish to be anonymous by consciously choosing to post as an AC. It is a complete breach of trust, and I won't stand for it. If he does not stop abusing his power, I will simply use proxies. Would he rather know who I am and keep it to himself, or would he rather I disguise who I am and keep him guessing? The choice is his.
Of course, he said nothing of the sort, so you're just lying again. "Not exercising" does not mean "not having."
And you don't need to be "pro-piracy" to believe that copyright holders shouldn't have the "right" to stifle free speech.
It's silly to say that it's OK for people to have the rights, but that they just shouldn't exercise them. That's just semantics. Why should he be the one to decide whether or not someone else should exercise the rights they have? It shows a complete lack of respect on his part. It makes him a know-it-all. Trust me, the economics don't conclusively prove that his position is the only viable one. That's just ridiculous.
And, of course, the downloading of illegal content. See (a) above. Which pretty much means he doesn't approve of pirates.
So, you're lying again.
Nope. Mike's lying. Find me one article on techdirt where he shows any pleasure at a pirate being thwarted. Find me one place where he bemoans an artist having their rights infringed. You can't. Mike doesn't want artists to exercise the rights they have, and he thinks it's perfectly natural that others infringe on those rights. That's as pro-piracy as it gets, and Mike is two-faced charlatan.
You know what else pirates love? Paying for content. That's why pirates spend more on content than non-pirates.
No, that doesn't make piracy OK. It just means that when you fight it, you're fighting your customers.
...Sorry, bit of a tangent there.
They love paying for content, except for all of the content they don't pay for. You're trying to frame the issue as artists fighting their own customers. That's silly. The pirates are not customers. If they were, they wouldn't be pirates.
Mike makes his money giving economic advice to various companies and artists. How many people flock to you for legal advice?
I wouldn't even trust Mike to wash my car. I can't imagine why anyone would want to pay money for his advice. Oh well, to each his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what? If you really do want to be anonymous, why aren't you using proxies right now? You actually intend for Mike to know who you are, but not anybody else, like he's your secret Santa or something?
Honestly, you're creeping me out a little here. This is getting into restraining order territory.
It's silly to say that it's OK for people to have the rights, but that they just shouldn't exercise them.
If not exercising them makes you money, then it's anything but "silly." Also, I guess that means that anyone who doesn't automatically sue in every infringement case is "silly." As well as Creative Commons, who offer licenses that intentionally don't exercise certain rights under copyright law.
Why should he be the one to decide whether or not someone else should exercise the rights they have?
He has an opinion, based on research, experience, and economics. But it's not like he's holding a gun to peoples' heads, and taking their rights away. That would be what COICA is for.
You're trying to frame the issue as artists fighting their own customers. That's silly. The pirates are not customers. If they were, they wouldn't be pirates.
What a ridiculous statement. People can download infringing material belonging to a rights holder, yet still buy other material (or even the same material) from that same rights holder. Statistically, they are more likely to do so than those who did not download infringing material.
On the other hand, if they're kicked off the internet, sued into bankruptcy, or arrested by Homeland Security, they certainly can't buy anything.
The only sane way to "frame the issue" is as copyright holders fighting their own customers. Even worse: they are fighting everyone else's customers, too. They aren't just shooting themselves in the foot; they're shooting everyone around them in the ass.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to pay money for his advice.
Mostly because his clients make more money using his advice. But I guess you don't like it when people make money. Oh well, to each his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he's deliberately trying to create situations where he can pass himself off as the little guy in all this. He's actively trying to get Mike to lose his temper or otherwise so that he can use any reaction to discredit Mike for this silly vendetta.
Either that or he's gone batshit insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is the same guy I think it is, this seems like the more logical choice. I mean, he and Mike used to disagree a lot - even get angry - but it was mostly about legal facts.
He never used to just come here and call people a "slimy fuck," lie about what they say, and punctuate his vitrolic comments with "LOL! ROTFL!" in a bout of Freudian reaction formation.
I think maybe we broke his brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I prescribe sleep. I know it is hard to do when someone on the internet is wrong, but try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plenty of people here seem to have figured out who you are. I never identified who you were. Asking if you tried your silly debate tactics in court does not reveal who you are. Do you know how many lawyers comment here?
As I said, I figured out who I think you are the same way everyone else did: by what you are saying. Your mannerisms are a dead give away these days.
Make more money by embracing and accepting widespread piracy and the loss of rights. You don't fool me, Mike. You might fool some people with your double-talk, but not me. I'm bullshit proof.
I find it odd that someone who would so blatantly misstate others' positions would then call themselves "bullshit proof." I did not say they should embrace a "loss of rights." I said that if they embrace a smarter business model, they can do much better. Often embracing that may mean giving away content for free, in which case there would be no "piracy" as it would be authorized. So, no, I do not embrace what you say.
Lying about my position may be fun for you, but thankfully, most people here can read and understand what I am actually saying.
And I find it odd that you still seem to think that embracing smarter business models and making more money is somehow a bad thing. Strange.
OK, so you don't deny that you don't think artists should have the rights that they have. What a pro-piracy point of view.
It has nothing to do with "should." I will note that you chose not to answer my simple question. I wonder why not. I will ask it again: If embracing new business models, even if it means making use of fewer rights, you could make more money, is it wrong to tell you that? I would appreciate a straight answer, especially given your behavior in demanding answers from me and going on petty tirades if I don't answer you within some never-stated period of time that you decide. Seems only fair, no?
You may not do it personally, but you publicly are a vocal cheerleader for the pirates. That's worse.
I have not been a "cheerleader" for "pirating." I may have supported specific legal fights on particular basis, but it's a bit of a stretch to think that because I support things like free speech and due process for those accused of unauthorized file sharing that it means I support their specific activities. In point of fact, I have spoken out against their specific activities. For example, with both Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum, while I have supported some parts of their legal campaigns, in both cases I have noted that the evidence suggests they did, in fact, engage in in unauthorized file sharing, and I thought both should have settled and paid up rather than pushing their cases.
OK, so you think the DDOS attacks are bad, but other than that it's "Go Pirates Go!" Gotcha.
I believe anyone can read what I wrote and note that is not true. I'm not sure what you think it accomplishes to misstate my position directly under where I stated it. Do you think no one will read what I wrote first?
We all know you're anti-IP, Mike. That's why the pirates love you so. And don't pretend like your economics wins the day. That's so incredibly stupid.
I see. So, don't say the evidence says what it says. I'm not sure what you want me to do. As far as I can tell, your argument is that I should not make use of the actual evidence, and instead I should be intellectually dishonest until I agree with you? Please explain why I should ignore the evidence?
In what way is providing and relying on actual research and data "stupid"?
If your economics were so smart, wouldn't people be flocking to you for your wisdom? Some people do, but the vast majority do not.
Indeed. It is, of course, possible that I am wrong. But I can go through a very long list of people who noted rather basic points of fact with evidence and people did not flock to their ideas initially either. The list is long and well known. I do not deny that some of these points seem counterintuitive to those who do not actually choose to look at the evidence.
As it stands now, the evidence I have seen convinces me that my thesis is the one that makes the most sense. Yet, I was convinced of this position due to evidence. I used to feel quite differently. If you wish to convince me otherwise, it would help if you could provide evidence to support your position, and I will consider it, just as I considered this evidence. However, to date, your "evidence" appears to consist of insults and threats. That, to me, suggests someone who has not thought this through, and does not appreciate having his sheltered world-view challenged.
It's so cute how you think the evidence proves you're right. You're just too dumb to know better.
I have been going through the research on this particular subject for many years. Again, I started from a very different position, but the overwhelming nature of the evidence has pushed me towards my current view. I believe that you never stop learning and never stop seeking more evidence. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary of my points, I would appreciate you providing it so that we can all learn from it.
Otherwise I'm left wondering on what you base your positions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find it odd that someone who would so blatantly misstate others' positions would then call themselves "bullshit proof." I did not say they should embrace a "loss of rights." I said that if they embrace a smarter business model, they can do much better. Often embracing that may mean giving away content for free, in which case there would be no "piracy" as it would be authorized. So, no, I do not embrace what you say.
Lying about my position may be fun for you, but thankfully, most people here can read and understand what I am actually saying.
And I find it odd that you still seem to think that embracing smarter business models and making more money is somehow a bad thing. Strange.
Right. People should embrace what you think are smarter business models. No deference is given to what other might think are smarter business models, and your view is the only one worth having. Anyone who disagrees with what you think is smarter is just wrong because only you can be right. We all got it, Mike. Message received.
It has nothing to do with "should." I will note that you chose not to answer my simple question. I wonder why not. I will ask it again: If embracing new business models, even if it means making use of fewer rights, you could make more money, is it wrong to tell you that? I would appreciate a straight answer, especially given your behavior in demanding answers from me and going on petty tirades if I don't answer you within some never-stated period of time that you decide. Seems only fair, no?
If that were necessarily true, then you'd have a point. Your error is in thinking that the "evidence" shows that it's necessarily and universally true. The "evidence" shows no such thing. Considering the FACT that you can't even come up with ONE SINGLE indicium of evidence that IP has EVER done any good, it's hard to take you at all seriously. In fact, in my opinion the fact that you say the evidence supports your point of view is virtually dispositive that it in fact does not. You're just a blogger who thinks he knows better than everyone else. A blogger who thinks the "evidence" is 100% conclusive and that the rest of the world who thinks otherwise just doesn't get it. It's rather amusing.
I have not been a "cheerleader" for "pirating." I may have supported specific legal fights on particular basis, but it's a bit of a stretch to think that because I support things like free speech and due process for those accused of unauthorized file sharing that it means I support their specific activities. In point of fact, I have spoken out against their specific activities. For example, with both Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum, while I have supported some parts of their legal campaigns, in both cases I have noted that the evidence suggests they did, in fact, engage in in unauthorized file sharing, and I thought both should have settled and paid up rather than pushing their cases.
It's hilarious that you deny that you're one of their biggest fans. Maybe I'll start keeping a list of all the little pro-piracy things you post. Apparently you'd be surprised. And in what way does pointing out the fact that those two pirated mean you're not pro-piracy? I don't follow you one bit. Point to one article where you say that they were WRONG to pirate. Point to one place where you agreed with the plaintiff in an infringement suit. You can't, because you think piracy's OK. We can all see that. Do you not know yourself very well, or are you intentionally dense?
I believe anyone can read what I wrote and note that is not true. I'm not sure what you think it accomplishes to misstate my position directly under where I stated it. Do you think no one will read what I wrote first?
Mike, we can all read what you wrote. Apparently you think that it's possible for someone to read your blog and think that you're not rooting for the criminals. Maybe some people don't see it, yourself included it would seem, but those of us with brains can see right through your twisted, two-faced propaganda.
I see. So, don't say the evidence says what it says. I'm not sure what you want me to do. As far as I can tell, your argument is that I should not make use of the actual evidence, and instead I should be intellectually dishonest until I agree with you? Please explain why I should ignore the evidence?
In what way is providing and relying on actual research and data "stupid"?
Thinking that the little sliver of evidence that backs your position proves all while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary as being "faith-based" is what's stupid. Thinking that your take on things is the only correct take and that anyone who thinks differently is stupid. Pretending like you understand everything and anyone who disagrees with you must understand nothing is stupid.
Indeed. It is, of course, possible that I am wrong. But I can go through a very long list of people who noted rather basic points of fact with evidence and people did not flock to their ideas initially either. The list is long and well known. I do not deny that some of these points seem counterintuitive to those who do not actually choose to look at the evidence.
As it stands now, the evidence I have seen convinces me that my thesis is the one that makes the most sense. Yet, I was convinced of this position due to evidence. I used to feel quite differently. If you wish to convince me otherwise, it would help if you could provide evidence to support your position, and I will consider it, just as I considered this evidence. However, to date, your "evidence" appears to consist of insults and threats. That, to me, suggests someone who has not thought this through, and does not appreciate having his sheltered world-view challenged.
You can't even see one shred of evidence that IP does any good. You are not a person who can be reasoned with. You are a closed-minded fool.
I have been going through the research on this particular subject for many years. Again, I started from a very different position, but the overwhelming nature of the evidence has pushed me towards my current view. I believe that you never stop learning and never stop seeking more evidence. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary of my points, I would appreciate you providing it so that we can all learn from it.
Otherwise I'm left wondering on what you base your positions?
Any evidence that differs from your view will immediately be met with unyielding criticism and be declared as "faith-based." The irony is that you're so deeply dug in to your faith-based world that you don't even know how blind you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've stated this numerous times, time to back it up.
Show us "one shred of evidence that IP does any good."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hilarious. You respond to my detailed explanation of why you misrepresented my position and lied, and your response is to misrepresent my position again.
I have never said that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong or that only I can be right. I admit that I am wrong all the time. But if I see something that is not supported by the evidence I will challenge it. I'm really sorry that you seem unable to comprehend this.
If that were necessarily true, then you'd have a point. Your error is in thinking that the "evidence" shows that it's necessarily and universally true. The "evidence" shows no such thing. Considering the FACT that you can't even come up with ONE SINGLE indicium of evidence that IP has EVER done any good, it's hard to take you at all seriously. In fact, in my opinion the fact that you say the evidence supports your point of view is virtually dispositive that it in fact does not. You're just a blogger who thinks he knows better than everyone else. A blogger who thinks the "evidence" is 100% conclusive and that the rest of the world who thinks otherwise just doesn't get it. It's rather amusing.
We have had this conversation multiple times before and I find it odd that you once again feel the need to misrepresent my position. I have never said that there is no evidence of IP doing good. I have said there is plenty of evidence of people benefiting from IP. What's *LACKING* is evidence that it benefits society as a whole.
If you have some, I certainly would like to see it.
It's hilarious that you deny that you're one of their biggest fans. Maybe I'll start keeping a list of all the little pro-piracy things you post. Apparently you'd be surprised. And in what way does pointing out the fact that those two pirated mean you're not pro-piracy? I don't follow you one bit. Point to one article where you say that they were WRONG to pirate. Point to one place where you agreed with the plaintiff in an infringement suit. You can't, because you think piracy's OK. We can all see that. Do you not know yourself very well, or are you intentionally dense?
I'm sorry that you seem to have so much trouble comprehending this: explaining how people can be better off by embracing what the technology allows, and recognizing that unauthorized copies is going to happen no matter what doesn't mean that I'm saying it's okay to do.
I recognize this requires keeping more than one thought in your head at a time. I would have thought that you could do that.
Posting how responding poorly to the fact that people make unauthorized copies is not being "pro-piracy." It's really a little scary that you can't seem to comprehend the difference.
Mike, we can all read what you wrote. Apparently you think that it's possible for someone to read your blog and think that you're not rooting for the criminals. Maybe some people don't see it, yourself included it would seem, but those of us with brains can see right through your twisted, two-faced propaganda.
I trust most people can read and comprehend properly. There will always be exceptions who come here with a pre-conceived notion and refuse to learn. Willful ignorance in action is sad to see. If you would take a step back from your slightly creepy obsession with me, you might realize I don't say what you seem to think I say.
Thinking that the little sliver of evidence that backs your position proves all while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary as being "faith-based" is what's stupid. Thinking that your take on things is the only correct take and that anyone who thinks differently is stupid. Pretending like you understand everything and anyone who disagrees with you must understand nothing is stupid.
None of the statements you make above are accurate. Let's take them one by one.
First, the "evidence" I talk about is not "a little sliver" of evidence, but consists of (at this point) over 300 studies.
Second, I have never said that evidence is "faith-based," and I would appreciate that you cease lying about what I say. It doesn't make you look very good. What I have said is that arguments that are not evidence based are faith-based.
Third, I have never said that my way is the only correct way. If that were true, I would not have open comments on this site and regularly learn new things and change my opinions because of it. I'm always learning new things from people much smarter than me.
But just because I think the evidence I've seen disagrees with your view on the world, it does not mean I think I know all. It just means that I haven't seen the evidence that you think makes your position correct.
If you have it, please share it.
As for people who disagree with me. There are lots of them, and many of them are brilliant. I have never stated nor implied that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. However, if I do see a stupid *argument* I will call it out as such, and I will back it up with evidence.
Do you have a problem with that?
You can't even see one shred of evidence that IP does any good. You are not a person who can be reasoned with. You are a closed-minded fool.
No, again, you misstate my position, despite me explaining it to you in detail multiple times. There is plenty of evidence that IP helps certain individuals. The question is if it's a net positive. And on that, I have yet to see the evidence. You appear to believe you've seen such evidence. Can you share it?
I'm not close-minded at all. I keep the comments on this site open because I expect to learn from the community, and I quite frequently do. It helps if they provide actual evidence though. To date, you have not. I'm not sure why, since you seem so sure of your position.
Any evidence that differs from your view will immediately be met with unyielding criticism and be declared as "faith-based."
No sir. I have never called evidence "faith-based." Evidence is not faith based. Arguments may be. However, if the evidence is actually weak, I may challenge the assumptions. I don't see why you would think that's a bad idea.
The irony is that you're so deeply dug in to your faith-based world that you don't even know how blind you are.
I don't believe in faith-based arguments. I support my arguments with evidence. Again, I ask you to present some evidence to support your position, and I will compare it to what I have already seen.
I'm sort of at a loss as to why you have never presented any evidence to support your position, but instead spend all your time flat out lying about my position. It really makes me wonder about your motives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Boohoo, scary...
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? I don't see why those two points of view are incompatible.
I don't pirate anymore, mainly because the industries no longer produce anything I'm interested in. Yet I'm a very vocal supporter of piracy, mainly because I'm for anything the copyright cartels are against.
I WANT to see your industry crash and burn. I WANT you to dry up and your seeds to blow away in the wind. I WANT your industry to become an historical footnote, on how NOT to handle the public.
And yet thanks to music sites like Jamendo and web series on sites like YouTube, I've basically lost all interest in cartel-produced media, especially music. Therefore, I have no reason to download it online. I'm a non-pirate that supports piracy.
Problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Empty promises from you like always. Why is Wikileaks still up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have you been checked for autism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So this great new law of yours (paid and cried for by the industry) is introduced and noone gives a damn cause they simply move their sites to the many places where US law doesn't mean anything.
See the connection now, or is your autism standing in the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Congress has more pressing issues to consider, hopefully they agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply stated, an action In Rem is a lawsuit just like any other, with a plaintiff and a defendant. What makes an In Rem action seem a bit unusual, and perhaps surprising for those who do not practice law, is that the defendant is a "thing, tangible or intangible", and not a "person".
For example, it is not at all uncommon to see In Rem actions bearing titles such as " U.S. v. 3,000 Microsoft Flash Drives".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people don't want this bill, it's the big corporations that want this bill. and, as evidence, this bill
a: will likely be discussed in secrecy, with the public not being invited (which only shows that the U.S. is likely the reason ACTA negotiations were kept secret since the secrecy of this bill shows that they like to discuss these issues secretly)
b: The bill was temporarily suspended during the elections to be brought up after the elections. Politicians know that supporting this bill will likely get them fewer votes because they know that the people do not support more IP laws.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/13300411241/coica-censorship-bill-shelved-for-now .shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
go talk to a doctor about your apparent issue with NPD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Mike Masnick shares the same problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your ad hoiminems are getting tiring and you're a troll. No really, you're a fucking troll. Adn GOD, do I not want that imnage in my head.
So shut the fruck up, get a life and stopp using ym razoir to shave your funzone. IT comes back all slimy and smelling of sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not giving them a dime, but that is not that serious the real problem is how they are run. The cost of production is over the top many times over and they will not be able to sustain that, eventually they all are going broke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously what good are laws that nobody fallows?
The good thing is that this may encourage more people to look for alternatives (legal ones) that incorporate and align their philosophy(politics) with their own views.
Jamendo FTW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They will slap the public and the public will slap them back hard. Just look at their financial reports to see them falling to the ground like rocks.
There is no saving anyone determined to go to the great beyond.
Here is my synthesized vocal expression of this whole thing.
echo "hahahaha" | festival --tts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If COICA was IRL
First of all: if COICA is used against the same types of sites that the Dept. of Homeland Security radied, then they're mostly non-commercial forums, where users (not site owners) post links to content. Aside from that, there's also a significant amount of discussion about the content - such discussion being a clear-cut example of speech that should be protected.
In other words, it's not guaranteed that the sites themselves are infringing (since they neither host nor post content themselves). They may be guilty of "contributory infringement" (a la Grokster), but that is not criminal infringement.
So. Given all that, what would happen if COICA was applied to brick-and-mortar businesses?
My example was "Coming Through the Rye," the unauthorized "Catcher In The Rye" sequel. Their American distributor was SCB Distributors.
COICA would allow the Attorney General to seize all of SCB's assets, and prevent SCB from distributing any book whatsoever, all without a trial.
Whatever your stance on piracy, this is clearly an abuse of authority, and a violation of the First Amendment.
And you can bet good money that within a couple months, sites like Wikileaks will be considered "pirate" sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You just use the labels/RIAA as cover for ripping off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bottom line: This bill has a long way to go before it could make its way into the body of US law, and at each step along the way there will likely be proposals for amending some of its provisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]