Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
from the isn't-that-always-the-case dept
The two elected officials we've seen push back the most on plans like COICA are Senator Ron Wyden and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. So, it should come as little surprise that the two of them have released a statement saying that the answers the government gave Wyden after he asked some questions about the domain seizures were were insufficient. I particularly like Senator Wyden highlighting the government's complete failure to explain how linking is infringement:�Particularly troubling is their refusal to explain how linking is different than free speech. Given that hyperlinks in many ways form the foundation of the Internet, efforts to go after one site for linking to another site � which the Administration is currently doing and the Protect IP Act would expand on � threaten to do much more than protect IP. There are many actions that we can all agree the Administration can and should be taking to crack down on counterfeiting of U.S. goods and the illegal sale of U.S. IP products that don�t involve advancing novel and unsupportable theories like holding sites liable for linking.�It's really unfortunate that it appears there's only one Senator and one Congressional Rep who seem willing to actually push back against these abuses of free speech rights, but kudos to Wyden and Lofgren for standing up for pesky little things like the First Amendment.
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: copyright, domain seizures, free speech, linking, protect ip, ron wyden, zoe lofgren
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Enjoy them while you can...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The cheese stands alone...
It makes little difference in this case. The vote will be overwhelming. And if Wyden is too big a dick about it, he may well find holds on some of his own pet bills and lots of trouble from groups he's pissed of on PROTECT IP.
Lofgren doesn't have a prayer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The cheese stands alone...
Depends upon ones point of view.
1) For some, the end justifies the means and getting there is all that matters.
2) Many realize there is much more to it and appreciate the willingness to express opinion regardless of consequence.
3) Others simply laugh because the emperor has no clothes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
Google definitely, but they're really not that big in the scheme of things.
Microsoft pays $200 million out of their own pocket every year in anti-piracy lobbying and legal action. They just got a special anti-piracy law passed in Washington just for them.
Apple hates the thought of ANYONE anywhere breaking their DRM, and with their desire to see iTunes and Apps sell and grow well, they're not in any mood to advocate for pirates.
Facebook is not a piracy based platform. Minimal piracy takes place on it. Ditto with Twitter.
As for ISPs, many of them are cable companies, so while they don't want the responsibility of filtering, it's a bit irrational for someone like Comcast (that owns lots of TV stations and just bought NBC Universal) to come out claiming piracy is a good thing.
Amazon obviously has no interest in piracy.
Even GoDaddy supported COICA and domain seizures. The overwhelming majority of their business is legitimate, and they'll will continue to make a huge amount of money either way.
I am anti-piracy so I see this as a good thing. If you're wondering why the tech giants don't speak out in favor of "freedom" online, it's because it's generally not in their interests to do so.
Google and its piracy friendly brethren aren't big enough to control the dialog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
Let's say I have a perfectly legal blog that gets indexed in Google and one day decide to put on my Jolly Rodger tricorn and upload a copyrighted movie to it with no prior warning. Suddenly, Google's liable even though they had no way of knowing.
What about a site that offers perfectly legal free-licensed media? Would Google have to delink them on some random MPAA exec's complaint that "all movies ever (c) to us"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
The government should focus more on serving the public interest and not on serving the interests of those who want to be monopolists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
In some foreign countries (namely, broke ones without much money, probably at least partly thanks to a government that tries to artificially secure jobs) those who show films are more open to showing foreign films instead of only showing their own.
People watch U.S. content because other countries are open to foreign content in general (and not just to U.S. content). and those countries also watch local content too. And Americans watch local and foreign content as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
No, it doesn't, because the word monopolist applies. Patents and copy protections are monopolies.
"First of all, none of the studios own theaters."
Yeah, so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
Fist of Fury
Game of Death
The Grudge
Let the Right One In
The Killing
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
And yet, America is the innovator. Odd, that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
We're actually talking about the tech companies in favor of hyperlinks and appropriate allocation of liability. There are probably quite a few of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See U.S. v. O'Brien and Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For reading pleasure ...
1st amendment ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
4th amendment ...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
5th amendment ...
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
14th amendment ...
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Prior Retraint ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
Copyright clause ...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This won't damage free speech
To frame this as a debate about "free speech" is disingenuous. These black market entrepreneurs are essentially thieves any way you slice it. To defend them only diminishes rightful defense of free speech when it IS an issue as with political discourse in oppressive societies.
It's time for people to examine what's happening online and work to find solutions. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I'm sure that's also the case for Senator Wyden.
Certainly everyone should be mindful of what's at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it's clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community. This isn't just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies. Their distribution outlets are also limited and for many digital sales comprise their main source of revenue. When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete. This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This won't damage free speech
You mean the use of similar laws to shut down over 80,000 legitimate sites was a non-issue?
Funny.
It's about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily.
I see. So you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between theft and infringement. Tough to take you seriously when you can't get the basics right.
Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money.
First of all, they don't steal. They may infringe, but that's different. And if they're making money, then why isn't the industry competing and setting up their own shops? Because the reality is that these sites aren't really making much money. It's a myth thrown around by those who wish to clamp down on innovation because it upsets their legacy business models.
To frame this as a debate about "free speech" is disingenuous.
No. It's not. When we see how many reports of the government totally screwing up and seizing blogs with protected speech on them and music that was given by the copyright holders... it is not disingenuous at all. It's real.
It's time for people to examine what's happening online and work to find solutions.
Hilarious. For the better part of a decade I've been pointing out solutions. And I get called a "freeloader" and a "sociopath" for it. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve lawmakers trashing the Constitution. Those solutions are called: understand the economics and create a better business model. Plenty of folks are doing it already and it doesn't require any such law.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I'm sure that's also the case for Senator Wyden.
It's not a one vs. the other thing, really. Google doesn't actually "profit from piracy" -- please give that myth a rest already. And this law is NOT about protecting those who create content. It's about protecting the business models of a few obsolete middlemen.
Those who create content today are making MORE MONEY than ever before.
Certainly everyone should be mindful of what's at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it's clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community.
Last I looked, the studies on this have shown the "impact" has been that more content than ever before is being made, and more money is being made by more creators as well.
So, um, why must something be done?
This isn't just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies.
Another myth. Over and over and over again we've shown that there are plenty of folks, small, medium and large who are being quite successful embracing these new business models. The risk to them is not bigger, it's much less, because they no longer need to rely on a few gatekeepers.
Their distribution outlets are also limited
Ha! I call bull. Their distribution outlets were entirely limited by a few gatekeepers until a few years ago. Now they have the power to go direct or go to one of a ton of new sources of distribution.
When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete.
It's easy to compete. Ask anyone who's tried.
This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Another talking point myth from the copyright maximalists. The "playing field" has been massively tilted towards the gatekeepers for over a century, and this bill just seeks to tilt it even further.
Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
I respect the law. I've never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life. And I'm incredibly fearful of laws like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
They don't need to. A pirate site that distributes millions of copies of work that cost billions of dollars to produce may only have one or two 'employees'. They don't have to pay a cent towards cost of production, so every penny they get from ad revenues over their hosting costs is profit.
They can easily make a couple hundred grand a year (or more if they're savvy). The economic value they destroy is of course much greater than that.
Why should legitimate content creators have to compete with parasites like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
They don't have to. They can find other jobs. There will be other legitimate content creators without IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
No, it costs everyone else money to ban those sites and to enforce such bans. It maybe good for the monopolists who benefit from their government imposed monopolistic jobs, but it's bad for everyone else. Everyone else (the govt and service providers) must police these bans which is economically inefficient for everyone else and costs money. The govt takes that money from tax payers and so businesses have to pay their employees more to provide those employees with less and so they would be unable to hire as many employees. and Fewer service providers will be willing to bear the policy burdens necessary to police these laws and so fewer service providers will exist to hire employees.
The purpose of government isn't to create jobs, digging a hole and filling it back up is a job but it contributes noting useful. Art, in itself, shouldn't be something the government should try to artificially create jobs for. Doing so directs labor away from other marginally (though not necessarily absolutely) more important sectors of the economy and hence reduces aggregate output elsewhere. If the govt is gong to artificially create jobs for something it should be for something other than art. Aggregate output is the ultimate purpose of having an economy to begin with. What you want is for the government to direct what needs to be produced and to secure jobs and that sounds similar to communism. Communism doesn't work. Government imposed monopolies don't work. Job security is not the governments job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
(and, personally, I don't care if these monopolists lose their job, they deserve to lose their jobs. They're, thanks to their lobbying efforts, largely responsible for the oppressive state of our current IP laws and for them to simply lose their jobs isn't retribution enough).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
and to say that IP abolition will result in a couple million more unemployed is nothing but unsubstantiated FUD. The record industry isn't one of the U.S. major industries and their size pales in comparison to the tech industry. If anything, these tech regulations will cost more jobs and already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Disney alone pulls in $38 billion of revenue a year. Google is only $28 billion.
Microsoft is even more strongly anti-piracy than the RIAA (look at their new Washington law) and pulls $60 billion revenue a year. And that doesn't even get started on the tens of billions each attributed to the book publishing, TV cable, movies, and porn industries.
Where are these giant tech companies in favor of piracy?
How much revenue does TechDirt pull a year? ArsTechnica? Wired? Because those are the only ones I see (beside Google and their advocacy buddies in the EFF) clamoring for a "free", "open" Internet at all costs.
Everyone else seems to recognize there are compromises to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Those legacy industries don't employ anything like that number of people.
As always you need to lie in order to pretend that you have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
And if the PROTECT IP act isn't passed, every one of those millions of people will lose their jobs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Most of those are employees have jobs that do not depend on IP.
For example the software industry has very few programmers writing programs that are sold in ways than depend on copyright.
Most write bespoke programs that remain in house or are transferred to a single commissioning client. Many also write code that is distributed as open source s/w.
Once again you lie by suggesting that anyone who works in a job where copyright or patent laws apply somehow depends on those laws for their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Which in fact makes about as much sense as the notion that truckers, taxi-drivers and bus drivers would be unemployed if there were no speed limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Government imposed monopolies reduce aggregate output. More aggregate output requires more labor and hence more employment. Government imposed monopolies cost jobs. The number of people who lose their jobs as a result of competitors who can't hire people exceeds the jobs gained through the number of people that monopolists hire. and the overall aggregate output is lower.
This is econ 101. Govt imposed monopolies result in less aggregate output and a more centralized distribution of that aggregate output.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Doesn't sound believable unless prepended with "To my knowledge".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Doesn't sound believable unless prepended with "To my knowledge".
and of course the same applies to everyone - including the IP maximalists themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
But it's ok when they do it because they are not filthy pirates like everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
You mean the use of similar laws to shut down over 80,000 legitimate sites was a non-issue?
Funny."
Boo-hoo ICE tried to take down child porn sites and people got caught in the slip stream.... for a few hours to a couple of days. No lasting damage. Where's their outrage that their provider was providing a playground for diddlers.
"It's about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily.
I see. So you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between theft and infringement. Tough to take you seriously when you can't get the basics right."
Parse words all you like doughboy. The fact is that people unlawfully convert the copyrighted content of others to their own use. If you sleep better by calling it infringement instead of stealing fine. No one takes you seriously.
"Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money.
First of all, they don't steal. They may infringe, but that's different. And if they're making money, then why isn't the industry competing and setting up their own shops? Because the reality is that these sites aren't really making much money. It's a myth thrown around by those who wish to clamp down on innovation because it upsets their legacy business models."
Same parsing as above. They are making money on content they're not entitled to profit from. And you then blame the people who are being stolen from? Classic apologist-speak.
"To frame this as a debate about "free speech" is disingenuous.
No. It's not. When we see how many reports of the government totally screwing up and seizing blogs with protected speech on them and music that was given by the copyright holders... it is not disingenuous at all. It's real."
Having some legit material doesn't immunize you any more than a pawnshop with 75% stolen goods can make the same claim. How come your no one has come forward and even ADVANCED a free speech defense?
"It's time for people to examine what's happening online and work to find solutions.
Hilarious. For the better part of a decade I've been pointing out solutions. And I get called a "freeloader" and a "sociopath" for it. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve lawmakers trashing the Constitution. Those solutions are called: understand the economics and create a better business model. Plenty of folks are doing it already and it doesn't require any such law."
There are plenty of legitimate alternatives, however they require to pay. There is no business model imaginable that can compete with free. Oh, you forgot "apologist".
"Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I'm sure that's also the case for Senator Wyden.
It's not a one vs. the other thing, really. Google doesn't actually "profit from piracy" -- please give that myth a rest already. And this law is NOT about protecting those who create content. It's about protecting the business models of a few obsolete middlemen."
Read about campaign funding at opensecrets.com. And again, no business model can compete with free.
"Those who create content today are making MORE MONEY than ever before."
Try making a living as a freelancer on a film set, bozo. Then get back to me.
"Certainly everyone should be mindful of what's at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it's clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community.
Last I looked, the studies on this have shown the "impact" has been that more content than ever before is being made, and more money is being made by more creators as well.
So, um, why must something be done?"
Again, ditch the slap shoes, bulb nose and little tin horn and get out and talk to some of the middle class workers in the creative industries
"This isn't just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies.
Another myth. Over and over and over again we've shown that there are plenty of folks, small, medium and large who are being quite successful embracing these new business models. The risk to them is not bigger, it's much less, because they no longer need to rely on a few gatekeepers."
See response above
"Their distribution outlets are also limited
Ha! I call bull. Their distribution outlets were entirely limited by a few gatekeepers until a few years ago. Now they have the power to go direct or go to one of a ton of new sources of distribution."
Could you please give me the names of people who are earning a full time living doing this?
"When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete.
It's easy to compete. Ask anyone who's tried."
You are breathtakingly full of shit. So Producer A spends $1 million producing a film that will never get a N. American box office release. Scumbags 1-10,000 steal and distribute the film on their websites. Producer A out-competes them and wins the day. That is an astonishing statement even for apologist douchebag such as yourself.
"This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Another talking point myth from the copyright maximalists. The "playing field" has been massively tilted towards the gatekeepers for over a century, and this bill just seeks to tilt it even further."
We'll see, because this bill will pass.... easily.
"Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
I respect the law. I've never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life. And I'm incredibly fearful of laws like this."
Peddle that nonsense elsewhere. You are a professional apologist and another one of Google's lickspittles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
It's over. You lost. Deal with it and move on with your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Deal with it and move on with your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Maybe - but when the act of copying costs zero - then that part of the process can no-longer be monetized.
Go take a course of Mathematics and then one on economics - when you've done that you will understand why you're wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
That's exactly part of the point that MM is making. If people want recorded music then they will find a way to fund it with or without monopoly privileges. These monopoly privileges are not needed to monetize recorded music. For example, bands normally monetize most of their recorded music through concert tickets, not CD sales.
I see you're starting to learn. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
"If you sleep better by calling it infringement instead of stealing fine."
If your failure to understand one of the most basic principles keeps you awake at night, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Good luck here, man. It seems all you love is holding an inane position that says "But... But... Piracy!"
Sad and disappointing that you believe so much in Authoritarianism, but every last part of your post has been refuted. What's worse is that you still like to use that childish rhetoric. Maybe if you can act like a mature adult, the debate can continue. As it stands...
*shakes head slowly*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
All this attacking of Google is politics of envy.
The fact is that about 12 years ago Google's success was available to anyone who was smart enough to come up with their search algorithm.
What all the anti-Google complainers have in common was that they weren't that smart. Sorry - you've only got yourself to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
It isn't based on the federal government enforcing their monopoly privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
It's based on giving people something they want - without legal strings attached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Google does not have a monopoly position in the search market place. But you knew that and I'm guessing that is why you placed the word within quotation marks. It appears to be a cheap attempt to mislead others. I'm fairly certain that most readers of this site are not that easily swayed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I'm sure I heard it somewhere on the web, and if it's not true, why won't he provide us with the information that proves he didn't?
It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and this is just a mean and nasty accusation that will tarnish his reputation and have him liked to child porn for the rest of his life... but it's not like there is any lasting damage to his reputation, amirite?
/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This won't damage free speech
You have done exactly what others of your ilk have done again and again, toss out the talking points of the industries that are trying to essentially cripple the internet.
The repeated use of the word "theft" in your comment just pushes people to think you're nothing more than an industry shill (possibly paid by how many times you spew this garbage on as many blogs as you can).
If you believe that you have a valid comment on the subject matter of the article (but probably not) then by all means, post away.
If not....kindly be quiet.
My 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
MM would never get on the airwaves due to lack of talent, not opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Censoring this from an Internet subsidiary is pointless since CBS already knows that those who have access to the Internet and are interested in this stuff have access to criticisms elsewhere as well. So there is no point in not benefiting from the ad revenue that an IP critical audience brings, or else that audience will simply go elsewhere and hence generate an audience elsewhere. Still doesn't negate the fact that pro IP is broadcasted over (govt) monopolized communication channels while criticisms are not.
As far as 'talent' is concerned, the expression of Mikes viewpoints isn't art, music, or theatrics so talent is irrelevant. Merit is what's relevant and it should be left to the public to see if his viewpoints have merit. For the government to pass laws that allow a gatekeeper, or someone like you, to decide what has merit and what doesn't and to deny any media access to those viewpoints just because someone like you thinks they don't have merit is government imposed censorship. Mike Masnick and Larry Lessig are certainly more knowledgeable on what he discusses than many of the IP maximists that the mainstream media does allow on the mainstream media (and Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine are certainly more knowledgeable than many of them), some of which don't even have degrees. IP maximists are known to avoid publicly debating IP critics because they know that their viewpoints have no merit. If Mike's viewpoints really don't have merit then the media should allow him the opportunity to express his viewpoints and then the MSM can also criticize his viewpoints and defend theirs as well. But they won't because the MSM can't defend their viewpoints.
As far as I can tell, MM has managed to gather a huge audience of people who agree with him without the help of a govt imposed monopoly. The MSM gets their audience due to govt imposed monopolies. Do you have a blog? If so, how many people read your blog? Perhaps not as many as Mikes because your opinion has less merit? Is that why you're here? From what I tell, pro IP blogs deny comments because those comments get overwhelmed with criticisms that IP maximists can't respond to. Anti - IP blogs have no problems gathering a huge audience of those who agree with them, and opening up their blogs to comments, despite not benefiting from govt imposed monopolies, yet IP maximists must comment on techdirt and slashdot to get an audience (or they must rely on govt imposed monopolies). Maybe IP maximists can't get their views accepted because their views have no merit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
and if they don't have merit then the public will make that decision. Why should the govt pass laws that allow gatekeepers like yourself to make that decision a priori? Why should your opinion be the only opinion with merit just because you said so? Let the people decide, stop trying to decide for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Better for that ad revenue to stay with CBS, where they can use it for campaign contributions and lobbying that helps expand their IP agenda, than for it to go to other sources that are truly against IP and that can use that revenue to suppress IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I'm no industry spokesman but I have no problem mixing it up with freeloaders, apologists, excuse-makers and particularly techdirtbags Mike and Larry.
There's a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing.
So bring it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Intelligent businesses would consider them potential customers, court them, sell to them.
But yours is not an intelligently run business - when you have no better ideas than to buy legislation, on top of legislation that is already weighted in your favor, then you have proven your industry to be too stupid to survive as a business. Your market has told you for over a decade as much. More law won't make you more money. More law like ProtectIP will only bite you in your own ass, guaranteed, since it applies to you too, don't forget that.
You're not special snowflakes. Grow up and get off your duffs and do the work of running a business.
And get the hell out of my government. Pay your own goddamn freight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Whether you or Mike Masnick want to accept it or not, the fact is that all the movie studios and record labels that were founded many years ago and built the industries which so many people now think they're entitled to avail themselves to, did so because their investment was protected by IP law.
There is no evidence that you or Masnick have that can demonstrate that the majority of people, both consumers and creators, would be happier with a DIY system that doesn't utilize the above already built knowledge base and infrastructure.
It's a fantasy designed to get readers to his blog which is how he makes his pennies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
And where is your evidence that none of that knowledge and infrastructure would exist without copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Whether you or Mike Masnick want to accept it or not, the fact is that all the movie studios and record labels that were founded many years ago and built the industries which so many people now think they're entitled to avail themselves to, did so because their investment was protected by IP law.
The movie studios were founded in California to avoid the patents of Edison. So in fact far from being protected by IP law they did their level best to ignore it.
Your country ( I presume) the US ignored the IP of other countries for about half of its existence.
Your opinions are devalued by your ignorance of history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
The only fantasies people indulge in here are the shilltards like you who actually believe these kinds of laws will make a dent in file sharing rather than drive people to darknets or sneakernets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Yes it is. It is outrageous to expect that tax dollars be spent upon the pursuit and persecution of non commercial copyright infringement offenses.
" ...their investment was protected by IP law."
There is no such thing. Possibly you refer to laws which address copyright, patent and trademark.
"There is no evidence that you or Masnick have that can demonstrate that the majority of people, both consumers and creators, would be happier with a DIY system that doesn't utilize the above already built knowledge base and infrastructure."
What are you rambling about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I, for one, do not want IP laws to exist. and many here don't. So at least that's at start.
and if the majority of people really thought that these laws were important enough to exist they will likely follow their principles voluntarily without needing laws to force them to. IP maximists keep complaining that everyone pirates their stuff, if it's only a small minority that pirates their stuff then it shouldn't be a problem. If it's a large majority then that is evidence (though not absolute proof) that no one wants these laws.
and I suspect that the people want these laws about as much as they want copy protection lengths to last 95+ years. These laws weren't put in place because the people want them, they were put in place because industry wants them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
When you have no rational argument all you can do is dole out unjustifiable insults.
There's a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing.
Other than a breathtaking arrogance that somehow believes you are "special" and better than all of us "ordinary" people - without having the courtesy to find out whole we are and what our abilities might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Yet somehow, Big MEdia cries, "Exceptionalism!!!!" whenever sokmething happens that they aren't used to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
My home is in Heaven, and I want to share it with by telling you all to leave your house and all those corporate material things and live in the woods like a True Christian should. Fish with your bare hands, build a fire with sticks, study on the Lord's word until the Second Coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or is there an app for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
There are many people who would create without these laws and there are many people who create and release their works under licenses that are at least in part designed to circumvent these laws. For you to define the 'creative community' as those who hold your pro-IP position and then to argue that 'the creative community' is outnumbered is meaningless.
If the majority of people do not want these laws to exist, as you seem to indicate, then these laws simply shouldn't exist. Creative communities (and not by your narrow, pro-IP, definition of the word) will exist perfectly fine without these laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
So your argument as to why IP criticisms get censored from the MSM is because you assert that superior than everyone else and you assert that only your opinion counts. No one else's opinion counts because you said so.
The better explanation is that you can't defend your position and you know it and so you prefer to censor opposing vies. If it's true that you're right then you should have no problem defending your position against critics instead of resorting to (using bad laws to) censor them.
Like I said, censorship is real and the laws are written to allow tyrants like yourself to arbitrarily censor arguments just because they don't like them and can't defend against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Which certainly does not prove your point at all. Bummer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This won't damage free speech
The problem here is that the entire internet is going to be put under siege for the actions of a few, and the stupidity of the politicians. Lets look at the numbers ...
According to netcraft "December 2010 around 266,848,493 websites are available on the world wide web."
vs
-weblockers
-the pirate bay and about a hundred other sites
-p2p software that isn't coverd by this law
-Torrent software again not covered
266,848,493 legit sites vs about 10,000 sites .... hmmm thats a ratio of ...
26685 to 1
That seems like a really fair approach. (sarc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's good to see.......
This third party liability campaign of the industries has to be quashed. I'm sure it won't be but it should be or there goes just one more liberty U.S. citizens have to the corporate machine.
I say it's time to get rid of all of them. It seems that they have forgotten that they are our employees. It's time to remind them. Fire all of them come next election cycle, warning to those who replace them. They follow the same path, they're next.
Damn I hate ranting, must have spent too much time offshore this time.
My 2 cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also keep in mind that this issue making him a "hero" here is way down on his priority list, with his two top priorities being the fishing and lumber industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a bill. It has been introduced. Mark-up is next week and will probably go out of committee 19-0 just like COICA did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a bill, it has been sponsored. S.968. I posted the list of sponsors earlier today. Please keep up.
Also keep in mind that this issue making him a "hero" here is way down on his priority list, with his two top priorities being the fishing and lumber industries.
What does that have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see from Thomas that it was filed 5/12.
Why my reference to the two industries? Because a recent Senate hearing you discussed had Wyden on the panel, and these were the only two things he talked about. Add some language to the bill and he will fold his tent. Deny him his fish and trees and he will go nuclear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul would strike down IP laws too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all of the apologists, freeloaders and those calling for the overthrow of our government that has sold out the Constitution; I offer the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are any of those people actually here? And what exactly is your point by posting the copyright clause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]