Being Concerned With Free Speech Implications Of PROTECT IP Does Not Mean You Think You're Above The Law
from the oh-come-on dept
Wow. In the legacy entertainment industry's latest "you're either with us or against us" mentality, it appears that expressing concern about the free speech implications of bills like PROTECT IP means you're a horrible, horrible person. Both the MPAA and RIAA are quite upset about Eric Schmidt coming out against PROTECT IP and saying that the impact on free speech would be disastrous. Both responses are so sickeningly disingenuous, it really makes you wonder how out of touch they are.Let's start with the RIAA's statement:
"This is baffling. As a legitimate company, Google has a responsibility to not benefit from criminal activity. In substance and spirit, this contradicts the recent testimony of Google's General Counsel that the company takes copyright theft seriously and was willing to step up to the plate in a cooperative and serious way."Um. Except that nothing in what Schmidt said actually contradicted Kent Walkers speech, nor did he say they don't take copyright infringement (not theft guys) seriously. He was expressing very legitimate concerns about the free speech implications.
On to the MPAA's statement, which echoes the RIAAs, but is a little more fleshed out:
In April, Google senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker testified before Congress that 'Google supports developing effective policy and technology tools to combat large-scale commercial infringement.' That’s exactly what the PROTECT IP Act is designed to do -- it creates a narrowly-drawn, carefully constructed solution to the threat to American jobs and America's economy, a solution that protects and strengthens our right to free speech. As constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams wrote, '[c]opyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment.'This is really shameful how the MPAA twists the debate. First of all, the PROTECT IP does not effectively combat large-scale commercial infringement at all. That's just wishful thinking. The actual infringement will continue. Second, there is no evidence that it will support American jobs or the economy. In fact, the reverse is almost certainly true, as these kinds of laws will harm large parts of the internet that enable new jobs.
But the really sickening part is the Floyd Abrams quote. While it is entirely true that copyright violation is not protected by the First Amendment that's not what Schmidt or anyone else raising these issues are concerned about. No one -- not Schmidt, not us -- is arguing that copyright infringement is protected by the First Amendment. We're saying that this tool will be used against non-infringing and perfectly legal speech. And that's not a theoretical concern. We've already seen it happen multiple times with the existing ICE domain seizures, in which blogs and sites that were not violating the law were seized.
That's the concern.
Furthermore, as Schmidt made clear in his statement, he was also noting that once you justify the censorship of some speech just because you're trying to stop infringement, you open the door to much more censorship of speech. Traditionally, the First Amendment caselaw has been clear: if you're going to strike against illegal speech, you have to very narrowly focus on just that speech. PROTECT IP does not do that. It casts a wide net. But, once you have that door open, saying that it's okay to shut down some legitimate speech in an effort to stop some others, that will only expand.
Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws.Oh, come on! Of course that's not what Schmidt is saying and the MPAA is being obnoxiously disingenuous in suggesting otherwise. He's not saying they're "above America's laws." He says that the RIAA/MPAA-written laws should not be above the Constitution. That is, these laws should not violate the First (or in other cases the Fourth) Amendment. By saying that Google would fight, he doesn't mean ignore, he means challenging the Constitutionality of these laws in court.
Sad that the MPAA has so little actual substance behind its arguments that it's forced to blatantly mislead like that. Typical, but sad.
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, eric schmidt, free speech, protect ip
Companies: google, mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pure Spin
I don't believe he was saying Google wouldn't follow court orders and injunctions, just the crap that ICE or the RIAA/MPAA might ask them to do outside of the law (i.e. the mafiaafire scandal). The PROTECT IP Act has a provision for third parties to shut people down with shady out of court accusations, maybe he was referring to not doing that as well.
The corporation he chairs is not going to blatantly break the law if this passes. If an injunction comes in maybe they'll push hard for a stay but that will be the most that they'd do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pure Spin
next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This is really shameful how the MPAA twists the debate. First of all, the PROTECT IP does not effectively combat large-scale commercial infringement at all."
Interesting conclusion about a law that hasn't been yet enacted much less enforced.
"That's just wishful thinking. The actual infringement will continue."
Yes, dedicated freelaoders will be able to continue to get something for nothing.
"Second, there is no evidence that it will support American jobs or the economy. In fact, the reverse is almost certainly true, as these kinds of laws will harm large parts of the internet that enable new jobs."
There have been a number of studies in the US and abroad about job loss due to digital theft. Love to see your study on why the reverse is true.
"But the really sickening part is the Floyd Abrams quote. While it is entirely true that copyright violation is not protected by the First Amendment that's not what Schmidt or anyone else raising these issues are concerned about. No one -- not Schmidt, not us -- is arguing that copyright infringement is protected by the First Amendment."
Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
"We're saying that this tool will be used against non-infringing and perfectly legal speech."
Why would this tool be any more subject to abuse than any of the other laws on the book that first require a judges order before implementation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, studies funded by content industries, where content companies are asked to estimate how much they lose a year to foreign piracy. Great studies.
Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
Hey, you got one piece right. Domain siezure only applies to non-domestic sites. How about search engines? How about links from domestic blogs?
One last thought: if the US can censor the internet, why can't France or GB? We've seen that France and Great Britan both issue super-injuctions, what would stop them from deciding that reporting on a certain French offical is illegal? Or some British football player? Logically, they should be able to take out the entirety of our news system. After all, it's against the law in their countries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, studies funded by content industries, where content companies are asked to estimate how much they lose a year to foreign piracy. Great studies."
Feel free to cite apologist studies. Do you reject every study whose conclusion calls into question your moral imperative to freeload?
"Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
Hey, you got one piece right. Domain siezure only applies to non-domestic sites. How about search engines? How about links from domestic blogs? "
Read the bill. There are no seizures.
"One last thought: if the US can censor the internet, why can't France or GB? We've seen that France and Great Britan both issue super-injuctions, what would stop them from deciding that reporting on a certain French offical is illegal? Or some British football player? Logically, they should be able to take out the entirety of our news system. After all, it's against the law in their countries..."
Once again, even 1st Amendment scholar Abrams, and Lord High Apologist Masnick both agree that infringing content isn't covered by the First Amendment. France and Britain, like China are autonomous countries. If France chooses to block US news stories about their pervert IMF banker so what? That's a matter for the French people in French courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that's a very big concern. I know that the Chinese Government is in awe of how far you have fallen as a nation in such a short time, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, only those that use a badly flawed methodology like the ones you seem to be refering to. It's kinda weird tough that you think these results would impress anyone. I also doubt pulling ad hominems out of your ass won't win over anyone either to your way of "thinking".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assumed guilt, isn't it wonderful? You don't need to prove anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Buck Lateral
Bad analogy - try this one.
France was making fine wines while the ancestors of any current American wine producers were still living in Europe. France decides that American wines are ripoffs of the real thing and after secret deliberations - at which only French wine makers are present - permanently and definitively removes all American wine producers from the internet.
btw "their pervert IMF banker" tells me a lot more about you than it does about Mr. Strauss-Kahn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny that you ask that. I believe something similar is often asked of internet protocols and determination of copyright infringement.
I would ask why this ^^^^^^ tool is anymore subject to abuse than other shills, but I save questions like that for passover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The existing laws are abusive enough (ie: 95+ length copy protection lengths) and they're already abused enough. Anyone who wants to expand these abusive laws is selfish and likely wants to expand them just to abusive them due to their selfish nature.
"There have been a number of studies in the US and abroad about job loss due to digital theft."
What studies? Asking the opinions of IP maximists? That's not a study.
"Love to see your study on why the reverse is true. "
You'll just ignore it. and job creation isn't an end of itself, aggregate output is. Digging a hole and filling it back up is a job but it doesn't produce anything beneficial.
"Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection? "
What does it matter, shouldn't we be encouraging their free speech? Why should we be hypocrites and tell them, "do as we say, not as we do".
"Why would this tool be any more subject to abuse than any of the other laws on the book that first require a judges order before implementation?"
The other laws on the books are already abusive. This is just an expansion of those abusive laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nothing beneficial save the endless hours of thumb exercise when its on Every Single Channel... oh wait, I have VODO on uTorrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt you know any indie label employees that don't have jobs anymore because kids get their music from MediaFire for 19 bucks a month instead of paying the band/small label.
But I personally know many.
Stop talking about things you have no clue about. And stop trying to defend the indefensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Says you. How very convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why? Its evidence for the nefarious nature of these laws.
"we know that's not why you're here to argue ;)"
I'm here to argue that IP laws need to be abolished. What's your point?
"I doubt you know any indie label employees that don't have jobs anymore because kids get their music from MediaFire for 19 bucks a month instead of paying the band/small label.
But I personally know many."
You people need to stop with the "but jobs" meme because we know that's not why you're here to argue.
First of all, musicians hardly ever got much money through CD sales, they almost always got most of their money through concert ticket sales. The record labels are the only ones who made money through CD sales and if anyone loses money due to piracy it's the record labels, not the musicians. So piracy hasn't really ever cost them anything, if anything, it helps promote the music and many musicians don't mind their works being pirated and have expressed that opinion.
You pretend that piracy is the reason why they don't have jobs. The fact is that the record labels produced fewer music related jobs than what the Internet helps to produce now, since now people don't have to go through the record labels anymore to gain recognition and market their works (not to mention that the record labels often didn't even pay many of their artists what little money they owed, only to the big artists). Being a musician is an exception no matter what and musicians are rare with or without piracy. To turn around and blame everything on piracy is disingenuous.
"Stop talking about things you have no clue about."
Techdirt readers know what they're talking about, you're the one who has no clue what you're talking about. Yet you're here talking about things you have no clue about. Hypocrite.
Scratch that, you're just dishonest. Most IP maximists are.
"And stop trying to defend the indefensible."
Stop telling others not to do that which you are doing, especially when those others aren't the ones doing it. Hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have every right to argue about them.
What I'm trying to defend is quite defensible. You make too many assumptions because you see infringement under every bush and behind every tree. Nobody could possibly have any other use for the Internet than infringement. There couldn't possibly be any other reason YouTube is successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I doubt you know any indie label employees that don't have jobs anymore because kids get their music from MediaFire for 19 bucks a month instead of paying the band/small label.
But I personally know many.
Actually, I know a ton of people who have NEW jobs at new companies and new (smart) labels, that have those jobs BECAUSE of what the internet allows.
In fact, I'd bet I know a lot more of those people than the people you describe.
The people you describe are out of work not because of kids getting their music from MediaFire, but because your friends FAILED TO ADAPT. Sucks for them, but welcome to progress.
Do you know people who lost their jobs making buggy whips when automobiles came around too? Does that mean we should have made cars illegal? That seems to be your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because of pirating?
Can't wait to hear this one.
And the buggy whip meme? Please spare us irrelevant analogies; do you have an analogy that involves lawbreaking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stagecoach business that fails to adapt to changes due to innovative new vehicles.
Music business that fails to adapt to changes due to innovative musicians selling direct to listeners.
Where does lawbreaking come into this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Music business that fails to adapt to changes due to innovative musicians selling direct to listeners.
This doesn't make any sense because it isn't true.
Have a cite?
But the music business has adapted to lawbreaking by encouraging the enforcement of piracy laws.
You just don't like it so you whine.
Seriously, you should have just ignored the question like Masnick did when you realized you were out-debated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that legacy businesses who were afraid of competition from automobiles made them illegal, don't you? So, yes, the buggy whip analogy fits. What is and what is not illegal is determined by the regulators, not be economics or morals. And, if you have a strong enough lobbying group, you can make anything illegal.
We've explained this to you before. Why you repeat false allegations, I really can't fathom. It's quite strange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You do realize that legacy businesses who were afraid of competition from automobiles made them illegal, don't you? So, yes, the buggy whip analogy fits."
A swing, and a miss.... strike three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you and your friends are failed musicians. That proves only one thing: you suck.
Can you hear this? It’s the world’s smallest “freetard” violin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would say, that if free speech is a good idea at all, it should be afforded to all. It's a right, not a privilege, after all. If we, the US citizenry, allow you, the shilling PR flackery, to redefine free speech as a privilege, then freedom of speech is just something to be taken away as punishment when the citizenry misbehaves. Oh, wati... that's what the horribly-named PROTECT-IP bill appears to do.
You may make it illegal, but you'll never make it unpopular. Your PR will come back to haunt you. Mark my words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please explain to the class, good sir, how a natural right is 'undeserved' just because someone is not an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no viable legal or Constitutional basis to challenge PROTECT IP. Evidence of is seen in the ICE takedowns. Those sites either stayed down or popped back up with foreign domain names, out of reach of US law enforcement.... for now. PROTECT IP will actually leave the"free speech" rights in tact. They can still offer their infringing wares, just not with the aid of US payment processors, search engines or ad networks.
Let me make a prediction for you. This fight is going to go the same way as you middle school dodgeball games. Remember those?
[ 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:
Freedom of speech is a natural right of all humans, preserved by watering the liberty tree with the blood of free men. Shame on you for demeaming the memory of those who kept tyranny away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, the Constitution tells the government what it can do. The Bill of Rights tells it what it can't."
Absolutely correct, but you conveniently left off the most pertinent part:
Actually, the Constitution tells the government what it can do to all individuals in the world. The Bill of Rights tells it what it can't do to all individuals in the world.
I know you want to ignore this simple fact, but that does not make it untrue: The Constitution of the US applies to all human beings, not just Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why? the law is only there because people put up w/ it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the law is only there because people put up w/ it"
No one puts up with it, they just ignore it. Thats one of those things big content doesn't get. No laws are going to change human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Michael O’Leary (MPAA)
Within one month of it's passing, it would ban all use of film stocks in America due to phony pollution concerns.
It may be news to you but PROTECT IP isn't even passed, so it doesn't belong in the category of "America's laws" just yet.
Put the brakes on your spin machine before Google shows you how lobbying is really done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well since "piracy" also leads to sales I would hope that the *AAs would reject those sales and return that cash so they don't benefit from this criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No it doesn't.
All sales stats show drastic losses since Napster that continued until Limewire was shut down.
Stop lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's more musicians working now than ever before, if I understand correctly. But cite something to the contrary so I can look for myself, please.
Also, the movie studios, the other part of piracy, the main part of piracy now, have been having record box office year after record box office year.
So, to you, I have to say: put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Working? Got a population adjusted cite to back that up?
I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dare you. No, I double dog dare you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No
Also, U.S. stats say fewer musicians are working.
I'm not addressing the bill described above - just pointing out that you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
Over the last few years, the number of musicians and singers has increased significantly."
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/qc/job_futures/statistics/5133.shtml
Also see
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=127434
But that's besides the point. I don't want the government to artificially create more musicians. I want the free market to determine where labor should be directed. Artificially directing more labor towards musicians directs labor away from other sectors of the economy which reduces aggregate output in those other sectors (and aggregate output is the whole purpose behind having an economy, so that we can have things, jobs are useless if they don't produce useful stuff, it's like digging a hole and filling it back up). Not that music isn't important, but the free market is perfectly capable of creating music without government intervention. If the government is to artificially direct labor towards any sectors (and hence away from other sectors) it should be towards sectors other than music. For one thing, we need more doctors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
and why is that my problem?
Why is the government trying to make that my problem by forcing me to abide by all these laws, forcing various service providers to comply with these laws (laws that often require them to be psychic to know what's infringing and what's not) and hence to pass the costs of complying with those costs back down to me, and by using my/our taxpayer money to enforce those laws (taxpayer money that could be spent producing more marginally relevant jobs elsewhere in the economy)?
Why has job security suddenly become the governments job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
So DVD sales will naturally fall. Theater sales haven't decreased much because Facebook, Twitter, etc... don't draw much attention away from peoples out of home entertainment, so since that stays about the same, theater sales stay about the same. People tend to desire a balance between in-home entertainment and out of home entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
Economics 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So are you saying that taking something that belongs to a successful business is OK? That's interesting.
Maybe the record box office comes from the fact that it's kind of hard to sneak into movie theaters.
"So, to you, I have to say: put up or shut up."
About the kind of argument I'd expect from someone whose avatar looks like it has an extra chromosome. I assume it's a good likeness of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not taking in the sense that they're losing anything that they're rightfully entitled to. No one is rightfully entitled to a govt enforced monopoly.
"Maybe the record box office comes from the fact that it's kind of hard to sneak into movie theaters."
Isn't that kinda the point? People often go to the movies for the experience. Such an experience is a scarcity that can be sold. Techdirt readers believe there is nothing wrong with charging for movie theater entrance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't make me laugh. This is all about freeloading and an exaggerated sense of entitlement. People illegally download and stream movies and TV because it's easy, free and low risk. Legally downloading and streaming copyrighted content could be a scarcity that could be sold (more widely) too, if it was not competing against free or a price point that doesn't actually include the production costs.
And what's with this monopoly shit? Paramount, Sony, Warner Bros, Fox, Disney, NBC/U- they all compete. Throw in the mini-majors, independents etc. How's that a monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not us that have a sense of entitlement, we have a natural right to copy as we please. No one is entitled to the air we breath, but everyone has a right to it.
However what no one is entitled to is a government imposed monopoly, and such is not something that anyone has a natural right to. Those who have a false sense of entitlement are those who think the government owes them monopoly privileges when it in fact does not. These laws do not exist because anyone is entitled to monopoly privileges, the founding fathers recognized that they are not, they exist only to promote the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess that you have adulterated the term "monopoly" as a substitute for copyright. The founding fathers put copyright protection in the Constitution because they realized that in order to promote creation, creators need a period of exclusive use in order to profit from their innovation. Funny how you apologists jump up and down waiving your copy of the Constitution about due process and free speech and when it comes to Constitutional provisions for copyright seem to have a convenient memory lapse. That's called hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't need one, just like I don't need a moral defense to breath air or drink water. Not everything needs a moral defense.
"Air is a natural resource, not creative output of human beings. "
and?
"Are you so desperate to freeload?"
IP doesn't exist to stop freeloaders, it exists to promote the progress. If the law is designed to stop 'freeloaders' by impeding on my natural right to copy then this law should be abolished.
If you view something as freeloading then simply don't release your work to the public. But don't expect others to spend the time and effort and money to enforce and abide by your monopoly desires. Forcing others to incur the expense and inconvenience of enforcing your business model is freeloading. Copying one another is not freeloading.
"The founding fathers put copyright protection in the Constitution because they realized that in order to promote creation, creators need a period of exclusive use in order to profit from their innovation."
They thought that it would promote creation, but notice how they did not put it in the constitution because to prevent 'freeloaders' from freeloading. It was to promote the progress and expand the public domain. The founding fathers were very skeptical of IP but eventually thought it was OK if it be very limited in nature. But what we have now is nearly as limited as what the founding fathers had (ie: length, coverage, penalties of infringement vs penalties of falsely claiming privileges over something one has no privileges on, IP being opt out and potentially requiring a psychic to know what's infringing, etc...).
"Funny how you apologists jump up and down waiving your copy of the Constitution about due process and free speech and when it comes to Constitutional provisions for copyright seem to have a convenient memory lapse. That's called hypocrisy."
The constitution does not provide anyone with copy protection laws, it provides congress with the ability to grant these laws if it chooses to, but only to promote the progress and they can only last a limited time. Congress doesn't have to grant these monopoly privileges if it chooses not to and I urge congress not to.
and the founding fathers were very skeptical of IP laws and I think their initial skepticism was correct. The constitution got this wrong and I think the constitution should be modified in this regard to explicitly ban IP laws federally and to put a reasonable blanket limit on copy protection lengths on a state level so that states have the freedom to pass such laws if they chose but the lengths shouldn't exceed a reasonable and specified number of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Likewise, don't want your content used by others, don't do anything that will give the public access to it. Don't broadcast it on public airwaves for starters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if the air is cleaner as a result of my invention, what I spent on it is my problem, not anyone elses. I don't care if you spent a million dollars cleaning the air, polluting it, etc... you can't then turn around and charge people for breathing such air.
What you spend on something is your problem, it's not anyone elses. Don't make it anyone elses. These monopoly privileges are just that, a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to them. Society grants limited privileges in exchange for more creative output but society is not obligated to grant such privileges, such grants are a privilege that society optionally grants. I, as a member of society, demand that the government remove these privileges. Hopefully enough other members agree with me to get these privileges removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's a bad thing that the air we breath isn't a scarcity that can be sold? Should the government monopolize that too?
Just because making something artificially scarce means it could be sold doesn't mean it should be made artificially scarce. Copy protection laws don't exist to make things artificially scarce just because doing so makes them sellable, it exists to promote the progress and to expand the public domain. The whole point of having markets with buyers and sellers is to provide us with goods and services, if we can get those things at no cost then there is no reason for such markets to exist.
This is just selfish mentality on your part, but IP maximists are generally selfish so I don't expect any better.
"And what's with this monopoly shit? "
The government grants monopoly power to copy privilege holders over what it is they're selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry about your monopoly/copyright issues. Get in you time machine and talk to the founding fathers about it and maybe they;ll take it out of the Constitution for you. There are all kinds of substitutes for a given film. Some even legitimately free. Why not enjoy those instead of freeloading? Because tis is what the debate is all about. You are just too fucking cheap to pay for the latest Transformer movie so you steal a copy instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The founders understood that while a limited monopoly(james madison actually used that word for such grants) might be useful to promote progress, they were not something you had an absolute right to.
[ 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: Re:
I understand the difference between air and a motion picture. But your argument is that
"Legally downloading and streaming copyrighted content could be a scarcity that could be sold"
The point here is that this is irrelevant. Just because something is could be a scarcity that could be sold doesn't mean it should be a scarcity to be sold.
"How much money was investing in creating the air, how many artists and technicians worked to create it?"
I don't care if you spent a million dollars digging a hole at the beach, that gives you no right to perpetually prevent others from walking over that hole and to use the laws to do so.
What money you spend on something isn't my problem, it's your problem, and I don't want you to make it my problem by making service providers incur all the costs of abiding by your (almost) arbitrary IP requirements and forcing them to hire a qualified psychic to tell them what is and what isn't infringing (because those costs will come back down to the user), forcing others to go through the inconvenience of abiding by your requirements and trying to determine what is and what isn't infringement (with no requirement on the privilege holders part to facilitate the process of helping us know by opting in for example, hence shifting that burden onto others to magically know), and forcing taxpayers to pay for the costs of enforcing these laws.
"You are just too fucking cheap to pay for the latest Transformer movie so you steal a copy instead."
Calling it stealing is a lie, why should anyone take the opinion of a liar seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Calling it stealing is a lie, why should anyone take the opinion of a liar seriously?"
Parse words all you like douchebag. Taking something of value from someone else is stealing. Most rational people view it as such.
You and the hysterical zealots like Masnick are outstanding examples to help make the case in front of the people actually VOTING on the matter. The apologists and freeloaders are off the deep end with their rhetoric. "It'll break the internet", "It will violate free speech (in Russia?)" "It's not stealing" "they can't stop us" It's the MPAA/RIAA's fault" etc, etc. If any of you think your rantings are resonating with Senators and Congressmen you're mostly wrong. Zoe Lofgren and Ron Wyden are pretty much all you've got, and are both light-weights. There's a few fencesitters, but once they are handed the articles and comments from the Techdirtbag insane asylum and other Unibomber-esque forums, they run to the other side of the issue as fast as they can. Masnick is already regarded as a buffoon and a figure of fun on the Hill. The overwhelming number of lawmakers are already supporting. That's why COICA went out of committee 19-0 last Congress. Everyone's on board. So please keep pumping the looney tunes, it will only serve to make the vote more one-sided than it will already be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you are disingenuously conflating two different definitions of the same word. One definition, making a copy, does not deprive the person being copied from what it is that's being copied. There is nothing immoral about this definition of the word. The second definition, taking something and depriving someone else of it, is immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re:
"Then you are disingenuously conflating two different definitions of the same word. One definition, making a copy, does not deprive the person being copied from what it is that's being copied. There is nothing immoral about this definition of the word. The second definition, taking something and depriving someone else of it, is immoral."
It's these sorts of tortured responses that proponents of PROTECT IP love to cut out and send to Senators. You use pseudo-intellectual words like "conflating", while posing absurd arguments.
To address your argument, while you can contend that a copy doesn't equal a sale. Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some. But the point you ignore is unjust enrichment. By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing.
This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers. You refuse to acknowledge that there is something wrong with what you do. Then you bulwark you bullshit premise with hysterical Constitutional arguments and specious due process claims. This is why no one but crackpots like Wyden and Google employees like Lofgren take you seriously in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, a copy is not a sale. If you mean that a copy does not equal a lost sale, even if it does equal a lost sale, that doesn't make it wrong. Opening up an ice cream shop next to someone elses Ice cream shop may cause the first mover to lose sales but that doesn't make it wrong.
"Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some."
Which makes it no less wrong.
"By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing. "
and you breath air and are getting something for nothing. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting something for nothing. The purpose of IP is not to prevent people from getting something for nothing, it's to promote the progress and to expand the public domain so that more people can get some'thing' for nothing'. The founding fathers understood this. If IP is about preventing people from getting something for nothing then it should be abolished. Making people pay for things for the sake of preventing people from getting something for nothing does not make good law.
"This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers."
Lets see how much longer voters keep these lawmakers in office.
Lawmakers are not the ultimate authority of morality. Just because they maybe bought by corporate entities does not make them so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If our politicians don't get their act together and start making our IP laws more reasonable (instead of attempting to expand them), they will find themselves out of a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, I had no idea. That's really significant. Who's the sixth largest in the US? The Whigs? Nazis? Communists? All forces to be reckoned with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
""To address your argument, while you can contend that a copy doesn't equal a sale. "
"No, a copy is not a sale. If you mean that a copy does not equal a lost sale, even if it does equal a lost sale, that doesn't make it wrong. Opening up an ice cream shop next to someone elses Ice cream shop may cause the first mover to lose sales but that doesn't make it wrong."
Did the owner of the second shop rig a line to the ice cream machine of the first and siphon off his product and sell it for pennies on the dollar compared to the actual owner of the ice cream?
"Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some."
"Which makes it no less wrong"
Which makes it no less right.
"By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing. "
"and you breath air and are getting something for nothing. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting something for nothing. The purpose of IP is not to prevent people from getting something for nothing, it's to promote the progress and to expand the public domain so that more people can get some'thing' for nothing'. The founding fathers understood this. If IP is about preventing people from getting something for nothing then it should be abolished. Making people pay for things for the sake of preventing people from getting something for nothing does not make good law."
Nobody invested millions of dollars creating air. No one owns air. And no one can do without air. Its entertainment you cheap fuck. If you can't afford to pay the creator, then do without.
"This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers."
"Lets see how much longer voters keep these lawmakers in office."
This is an enormous joke. This administration has more affinity for the netroots than any other in history and really don't give a shit about abetting continued freeloading and digital theft. Things will get worse for you, not better in subsequent elections.
"Lawmakers are not the ultimate authority of morality. Just because they maybe bought by corporate entities does not make them so."
Maybe not, but they are law m-a-k-e-r-s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they even make self referential comments about being law-makers. Too bad they do not follow the laws they supposedly write. Who actually writes the laws? Lobbyists do, and I have read accusations that a large number of your elected representatives do not in fact even read the laws that they sign on your behalf. I suppose that means they should be called law $igner$.
I eagerly await your adolescent response in which I am accused of stealing things. I find it interesting that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is assumed to be guilty of criminal activity. It is almost as if there were a law which stipulates disagreement with you is a criminal act. I'm sure the imaginary property industry pundits would find such a law irresistible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are just a numbskull- claiming that lobbyists write the bills and lawmakers blindly sign them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have accused others of stealing without any evidence to support your claim. Why do you lie about it?
"I let people know that they're piracy apologists"
If they disagree with your manifesto, they are by default guilty of stealing. Try reading your own crap dude.
"You are just a numbskull"
Yup, that is a real good rebuttal. Way to go - you win. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That way you can choose to be insulted if you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for whether or not I get insulted, I really do not care either way. I am just trying to offer you some constructive criticism and a view into how I think you are perceived as a result of your actions.
On the other hand, if this is just a tactic to make people think those who support the PROTECT IP laws are ignorant and throw insults around as a cover, nice strategy. It is working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That way you can choose to be insulted if you like."
1) When all else fails, resort to name calling.
2) Fling everything, maybe some will stick
3) ?????
4) Profit !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's being 100% accurate.
Link
"The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Congressman Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill and John Conyers, Jr. as saying, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process"."
Leahy is doing the exact same thing with the Patriot Act now. Not allowing it to be debated but just to have the laws passed "for national security purposes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have the right to make your views known and I do not contest that right, however, please keep in mind you lose credibility when you resort to cursing and/or making fun of people you do not agree with. You may think you are a defender of justice but this type of action is synonymous with school yard bullying. In the future I recommend you take this into consideration before clicking submit. Thank you for your time and have a good day.
Bnesaladur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taking as in depriving them of that which is being taken. Copying isn't taking anything, it's merely copying. Taking and copying are two different words for good reason, they have two different meanings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm not saying "taking something that belongs to a successful business is OK." Context, man, context is everything. Also, reading comprehension helps.
The statement was made that "all sales" were down from when Napster started, to when Limewire was shutdown. I merely pointed out that wasn't true, that even the most pirated things (I'm told), "movies", haven't caused a drop in sales.
Concentrate, "buck". There's lots to be learned here, and you're missing the point by trying to spin for the search engines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But that's only in CD sales, right?
There's more musicians working now than ever before, if I understand correctly. But cite something to the contrary so I can look for myself, please.
Also, the movie studios, the other part of piracy, the main part of piracy now, have been having record box office year after record box office year."
How does a company's revenue or profitability affect the discussion over whether illegally appropriating its intellectual property is right or wrong?
[ 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:
a) 7" is killing the industry;
b) 8-track is killing the industry;
c) VHS/Betamax is killing the industry;
d) MTV is killing the industry (WTF?);
e) CDs are killing the industry;
f) DVDs (the video kind, not the versatile kind) are killing the industry.
And yet, here it still is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA had nothing to do with VHS or DVDs and record labels embraced or INVENTED the other tech you mentioned.
Just stop already. You're not convincing the world of anything other than that you're a lying, moronic freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hahahahahahahahahhahaa
*deep breath*
bwa-hahahahahahaha!
Wow. The mere idea that you can spew such obviously incorrect and factually wrong information shows just what kind of an industry shill you are. Wow.
NONE of those were "invented" by the RIAA/MPAA, and as a matter of fact its the EXACT OPPOSITE. They did everything they could to KILL all of those. ALL. To say otherwise, and worse to LIE blatantly about how they "embraced" these shows you are a total plant here to spread misinformation.
-MP3 invented by Fraunhoffer Labs, Germany. Embraced by Diamond who put out a Rio mp3 player which was SUED BY THE RIAA to get it pulled from the market. There are DOZENS of stories like this JUST around the mp3 tech where the RIAA used lawsuits to PREVENT the tech from spreading.
CD - James Russell invented the compact disk in 1965. James Russell was granted a total of 22 patents for various elements of his compact disk system. However, the compact disk did not become popular until it was mass manufactured by Philips in 1980. SUED by the music industry in its first incarnation. They later, grudginly, went along ONLY when they realized they could jack the price of an album up 60% (from about $10-12 to 16-18), a move which they PROMISED (and I have the article from 1983 to prove it) that prices would come down to about $6-8 "in a few years" due to the tech being so much easier to make than LP. Guess what happened? Right.
And the BIG lie: VHS. Invented by JVC after seeing Beta (invented by Sony) succeed in the marketplace. Beta was SUED by, you guessed it sparky, the MPAA and movie industry. They LOST by the way, and the head of the MPAA said "'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony to the House of Representatives on why the VCR should be illegal. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". So what happened to the movie industry? Lets see....it died, right? Its gone, right? Right.
So, you are not only wrong, you are a blatant liar as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The compact disc was specifically made for music by Phillips AND SONY, and the music industry never sued to stop it.
And of course you blew off the other examples.
Go jump in front of a bus, you worthless freetard.
[ 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:
But I had to laugh at "freetard". Then I thought, "hey, good name for a web site!"
Then I went one step further and popped "freetard.com" into my browser. Lo and behold, someone already has a web site up and running with that domain name! LOL!
Oh but wait! I had an idea that "copied" someone's already implemented idea!! OMG AM I A CRIMINAL NOW?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said it does, the poster was responding to another post. But you knew that already, you are just being disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Says you. How very convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quake meet boot ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quake meet boot ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
Routers that route infringing packets to their destination?
ISP's that provide connections?
Major Internet backbones that carry infringing packets?
Electric utilities that provide the power to facilitate infringement?
Your old "facilitating" infringement is getting tired. Lots of innocent parties "facilitate" infringement. "Facilitating infringement" is just a code word for "we want everyone else to have liability and stamp out piracy for us". Nevermind that even the content owners seem unable to identify which bits are infringing or not.
I want infringement to stop. I really do. I just don't want to punish innocent parties. Go directly to the infringers.
Does a CDROM drive facilitate infringement?
Does an mp3 player facilitate infringement?
Does a walkman cassette tape player facilitate infringement?
Does a VCR facilitate infringement?
Does the US Post Office facilitate infringement?
Do backpacks facilitate infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
Also, foreign-based? Like Gitmo, of course, or the old Panama Naval base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
Then you will have more competitors such as Flattr come up as alternatives.
All he sees is the US isolationist policy, not the ramifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
any US-based payment processor would be subject to the law.
And your rant sort of torpedos the mantra about US corporate imperialism and US policy meddling that so dominates the apologist viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
It's not an apologist viewpoint, it's looking at what this type of inane law will do on a global scale. It's still not looking all that promising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In typical RIAA/MPAA fashion they are putting out their same old bullshit concerning bla bla bla.
This by now is boiler plate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What stops this from being abused in a similar way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would you want to stop Protect IP from being abused in a similar way to bogus DMCA takedowns?
Think of the artists that need to get paid!
You must be a pirate.
Next you'll start thinking people should be able to communicate freely and unmonitored. You'll start saying the RIAA should not be able to get a subpoena to search service providers, or even your home, based on a gut feeling that you might be a pirate.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MPAA and the RIAA...
That's really all there is to it. There's no point in parsing their statement; they're ALL lies. They will do say ANYTHING in order to keep the money flowing to their executives.
The artists get none of it, of course. It's all about the boundless greed of their executives, and their personal wealth. So it's hardly surprising: these are people who would pimp out their own children if they could profit by doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Can Play That Too!
Is the MPAA’s Michael O’Leary really admitting to being a child molester?
See, it's easy to play that game!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are two freedoms, physical freedom is to sin, rebel, and worship money, financialism, and materialism, and spiritual freedom is to serve the Savior of the World. Physical debt isn't the problem, spiritual debt is. The way to cancel your spiritual debt is to invite the Lord's Son into your heart.
Please read John 3:16.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"..solution to the threat to American jobs and America's economy"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schmidt's speech on PROTECT-IP
We could add that this would open the door for repressive societies to censor freely without criticism, since that would be what WE would be doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because of pirating?
Can't wait to hear this one.
And the buggy whip meme? Please spare us irrelevant analogies; do you have an analogy that involves lawbreaking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Because of what the Internet allows.
The internet allows lots of lawful things that create new jobs. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Example: artists connecting with fans and avoiding the major labels.
That was a lot harder or impossible to do before the Internet.
How is lawbreaking relevant?
But then it would be out of character for pro IP people to not call people names or assume the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't rip it off, douchebags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you actually bought them, you'd know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy CDs?
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for whether or not I get insulted, I really do not care either way. I am just trying to offer you some constructive criticism and a view into how I think you are perceived as a result of your actions.
On the other hand, if this is just a tactic to make people think those who support the PROTECT IP laws are ignorant and throw insults around as a cover, nice strategy. It is working.
Good. Insults should make you laugh at some level. Glad you're not like some of the thin-skinned, Nancy boys that fly into a rehearsed nerd rage.
There's been a lot of punches thrown by both sides. Your side has suggested the MPAA guy quoted in the article is a child molester and fucks farm animals. Hardly examples of class and refinement.
The PROTECT IP minority seems to be monopolizing the term "douchebag" and "apologist" but frankly if you put the diatribe before the decision makers, the infringing side of the debate has fallen way short on the free speech and due process issues. The arguments that infringing is not stealing and somehow OK plus all of the Ted Kacyzinski talk makes you guys look like crackpots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I honestly do not grok why you cannot get this. I PAY for my music, or get it free and donate directly to the artist. I would rather donate than pay those actual thieves and contract-breachers over in Big Music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again it is true too much diatribe goes before the decision makers. As for infringing, my personal opinion is as follows. People who create products should be compensated thus; however, for one, attempts to hinder technology can be counter productive as well. For instance, laws have been pushed to ban torrents and that is simply a bad idea. Many legitimate uses for torrents exist, for example World of Warcraft updates, although I do not play the game it does have a large player base. For myself I need torrents for any large download or I simply can not download it, for example Open Office and any linux distro, both of which are distributed free of charge.
Secondly if a problem is occurring with the current system one can look at it two ways, spend lots of money on lawyers to fight the problem or look at ways to adapt so the problem works in your favor. For example, I know a guy in a band and they post download links to all their songs and lyrics on their website. It has encouraged people to try their stuff and it works for them. People are willing to give money to things they feel are worthy of it. That is the basis of fund raising. Instead of arguing that they shouldn't have to fund raise consider that any time you go to work you are fund raising for yourself, if you are not worth the money you are demanding you will not get paid. In short, quality of the products are declining while costs of the products and quantity of products are rising, all this in a declined economy. The math does not add up.
Something has to be done to help ensure that the creators of the products get paid but something also has to be done to ensure it is a good solution for all parties involved, including the purchaser, current laws/constitutional rights, and the technological backbone supporting the whole structure. Any law has to take the whole picture into account. I simply do not feel that is the case, I think both sides have major and minor proponents ignoring certain aspects. I also feel that the average citizen is being largely ignored by their governments in favor of major corporations bottom line. I think for most people that is one of the biggest problems.
As for the definition of infringing, it is not stealing, it is a breach of contract. Theft is larceny, which is different. But both are illegal. Stop trying to convince people otherwise and focus more on showing people how infringement hurts people, and please try and keep it realistic if your side will. I would also like contracts that are simple for the average consumer to read and understand.
Thanks Buck Lateral for your time, I expect a intense rebuttal ;)
Take care,
Bnesaladur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry to disappoint, but I have no intense rebuttal. Yours is a balanced, reasoned position that I have little to disagree with.
I do not agree that torrents should be summarily banished. As you note, they can provide a legitimate service. Unfortunately, they're often misused by freeloaders.
I think we're seeing positive change in business models of entertainment delivery. I get that people are frustrated by the slower pace of development by the legitimate outlets than the illegal ones, but I still don't see that as justification for infringing. It's entertainment for Christ's sake. It's not water, food or medicine. Mankind could survive without and having to wait a bit to watch the latest movie hardly excuses the behavior. As far as price goes; I really like caviar. But the price is so high that I seldom can afford it. So I simply don't consume much. I substitute other things.
Regarding the stealing discussion. The flip side of the coin is unjust enrichment. People are getting something of value without compensating the owner. Does the owner lose a portion of his inventory when someone wrongly acquires a perfect digital copy? No. Do all of those illegal copies represent a lost sale? No, but clearly some do. The term stealing is admittedly an oversimplification, but still largely accurate particularly emphasizing the unjust enrichment facet.
Thanks for the civil discussion. Not quite as lively as the usual WWE Smackdown but probably more productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm glad we could have this discussion as well.
As to it being entertainment, I think this points to a deeper problem within our society where people are more willing to pay for what they find fun than what they need. On the flip side they are more willing to fight for what they find fun than what they need. I still feel more work is needed before closing the debate and it is nice to be able to actually HAVE a debate for once as opposed to a primitive flinging of digital feces.
As for caviar, I have yet to try it but I do like expensive scotch so I hear you there. Hopefully we as a society can work together and come to a reasonable solution to this whole thing, but I doubt it. Either way we still have caviar and scotch. ;)
Take care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Howard The Dork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Howard The Dork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Howard The Dork
S/he will be singing quite a different tune - but who will want to listen (much less "copy").
Stand strong in unity or stand alone in defeat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Howard The Dork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks eejit...
Howard The Dork's spokesman though maybe you can answer whether he has explored the appellate process. Also what personal loss does he suffer? His goofy video can't be seen for a few days while this is sorted out?
My guess is that the problem stems from posting entire copyrighted music tracks on his YouTube video. I'd guess that would be about the same as buying music and posting it online anywhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thanks eejit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: thanks eejit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Jay
Your suggestion was that the lawmakers have no idea what the bills does, nor the implications of the vote is baloney. how do you think the markup and debate takes place if no one knows what the bill says?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Jay
We "hire" 2 Senators per state. It's THEIR job to read, learn and most of all, LISTEN to what the constituents in their districts/states want and vote accordingly.
The do not do that, nor do they read the bills they pass. How can anyone not see the serious problem with that - and the ramifications that follow?
All the excess lawyers, assistance etc. etc. should be unnecessary. They are a burden on the taxpayers and have no interest in the will of the people. (Only in their taxpayer funded paychecks.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Jay
Then why is it that the main ones not wanting to debate the bill are the ones that "drafted" them, namely Leahy and Reid? Why is it that they want to hurry and push it through on dubious grounds rather than in the open?
The political process is very time consuming and debates usually take years of legislation. And it was confirmed when the Patriot Act was first drafted, no one had time to debate it, merely vote yes or no. And guess what the majority party did?
Now, compare this to Mitch Glazier (slipped in words to a bill), or now Judge Beryl (influential on the Patriot Act, the Net Act, DMCA, etc)
Come on man, read the bill. Pay particular attention to the 2 minute Youtube at the bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Jay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Jay
What's incredible is that you missed the TD article about the current status of the Patriot Act...
Perhaps instead of trying to say it's me that should do some homework, you need to do some research?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @Jay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Jay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Jay
Jay, my point was my lack of knowledge on parliamentary procedure and whether one can debate the merits of a bill already enacted into law when the vote is simply to extend it. I don't know, nor particularly care. Feel free to engage others from the black helicopter crowd on the issues surrounding the extension of the Patriot Act. Out of caution, be sure to wear your tin foil hat so as not to reveal your opposition to the NSA, DIA and CIA who are doubtlessly interested in your subversive activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Jay
Legislators don't really look at all of the bills that hit their desk. That was the point I was making. Ironic that lobbyists do tend to know more about the laws they want to pass, than the senators who bring the bill up in legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Howard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Howard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Howard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Howard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Howard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I like my scotch with digital shit on the side, it brings out the flavor, so bring it on. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let the sniveling begin!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My example addressed a specific comment by someone else. So I'm interpreting yours as an analogy for removing infringing sites from the DNS.
There are lots of obvious flaws. First of all, those American wines cost money to produce. So French wines are not competing with free. Second, as American wine producers are legitimate, static enterprises there are remedies at law for any claims against them. Third, France itself has laws regarding infringing content. Fourth, France would only be able to banish American wine producer from French search engines. American wine producers websites would still exist, as will those rogue websites.
Other than that, your example was flawless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The article and Mr Schmidt's comments concerned removing sites from the DNS - apologies for being on-topic
It was a hypothetical example but in reality there are plenty of sites selling rip-off items which also cost money to produce. Louis Vuitton is not competing with free.
What is the relevance of 'Free' here? Only an RIAA/MPAA shill would think the discussion only concerned 'Free'. Unless, of course you are thinking of free as in speech as opposed to free as in beer. Nah - if you thought that way you could only support Mr. Schmidt's comments.
Remember - as you mentioned above - this concerns removing sites from the DNS. Is there any evidence that the sites recently cut off by removal from the DNS had the chance to answer their accusers? The remedy at (bought-and-paid-for) law did not demonstrate much due process.
Absolutely. And your point was?
Here is where you seem to be the most confused. Both the article and Eric Schmidt's comments concern removing sites from the DNS. Even you mentioned it above. I could also point out that Google is not a registrar and does not manage a top level DNS. Contrary to the RIAA and MPAA bogus comments quoted in the article, Google could not place themselves above the law because to do so they would have to be able to manage a top level DNS. However they are at liberty to see the bigger picture and fight by legal means (lobbying, publicity campaigns) to oppose a law they believe to be oppressive and unconstitutional. Taking a lesson from the RIAA/MPAA school of commentary I am curious to know how the many brave American soldiers facing death in foreign countries feel. Is preservation of the freedoms enshrined in the constitution as important to them as is maintaining the cash flow into the MPAA/RIAA and the companies they represent? I think we should be told.
Back on topic - These sites would disappear globally. Just like the rogue websites, American wine producers would have to re-register under a different domain name and spend time and money returning their web presence to its original level. I understand Firefox has a handy add-on for that.
Here I should declare an interest. I am probably more respectful of copyright than most people. If I really want to listen to commercial music I listen - occasionally - to the radio. I run Linux from choice and despair when I meet people - all Windows users - who tell me they have Terabyte disks full of downloaded movies (and expect me to be impressed). It's only because I find your attitude so appalling that I am bothering to write this. That's not intended to be a personal attack - just my opinion.
But what annoys me even more is the American attitude that their law overrides anyone else's. Whether it is black ops in Pakistan or removing a foreign business from the internet because they annoy an American corporation.
I was hoping you might stop to think how you would feel if a foreign country could unilaterally remove an American company from its source of income, but perhaps I over-estimated your imagination.
If your gut response is "that could never happen because America owns the internet" then watch while the rest of the world routes around the speedbump called America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first is a dangerous precedent in that the legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty and a law like this could allow websites to compete with their competitors by suing them to shut down their websites. I think a monetary penalty to plaintiffs that use this tactic and come up short needs to be in place to help prevent that.
The second is simply a matter of diplomacy. If I tell you that you have to comply with my house rules despite not being a part of my house, you may retaliate in kind. Potentially causing problems for all, like downsizing the internet from the world wide web to a country by country basis. Right now, onc example is, if you need something that you can't find in country, you can use eBay to get it from wherever the product is. If such a situation were to occur, that could be no longer the case.
In closing, I think this law feels like a attempt to curb a problem that the lawmakers are having trouble fighting and are swinging wildly to solve. The problem with that is that while you may solve it, you cause a lot of collateral damage. I can understand that I guess, the US government has a history of not caring about collateral damages, simply calling it acceptable losses and sweeping it under the nearest rug.
Back to work now, hehe, afk for a few hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hard as it may be, I'm going to try not to splatter digital shit in your scotch. Regarding the lack of proof required, I point you to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The protections afforded every civil litigant are operative under Protect IP. I don't understand how that is insufficient or how you can assert that these rogue sites are somehow entitled to better protection under the law. And though it may negatively impact on foreign infringers, the enforcement actions are taken against American companies that enable the websites. Not the sites themselves. Those rogue websites are perfectly free to operate, albeit without using US-based assets to enable them.
"The first is a dangerous precedent in that the legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty and a law like this could allow websites to compete with their competitors by suing them to shut down their websites. I think a monetary penalty to plaintiffs that use this tactic and come up short needs to be in place to help prevent that."
You really must have finished the bottle of scotch before writing this. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept in criminal law, not civil law. Again, it's as though you're oblivious to the fact that a judge must first be convinced that the website is "dedicated to infringing activity". That is actually quite a hurdle. There has to be a good face effort to notify the website owner too. Finally, a countersuit is an appropriate avenue against someone bringing trumped up charges, but because a judge examines the evidence and first determines that the site is dedicated to infringing activity, it's unlikely a countersuit would be entertained unless the accuser flat out manufactured the evidence.
"The second is simply a matter of diplomacy. If I tell you that you have to comply with my house rules despite not being a part of my house, you may retaliate in kind. Potentially causing problems for all, like downsizing the internet from the world wide web to a country by country basis. Right now, onc example is, if you need something that you can't find in country, you can use eBay to get it from wherever the product is. If such a situation were to occur, that could be no longer the case."
I have a hard time seeing how hard feeling over denying US payment services and US ad support to rogue websites enrages legitimate governments to the degree that they go North Korea on us and batten down all of the hatches. I don't think international governments are so committed to piracy that they flip the boat over it. Makes no sense.
"In closing, I think this law feels like a attempt to curb a problem that the lawmakers are having trouble fighting and are swinging wildly to solve. The problem with that is that while you may solve it, you cause a lot of collateral damage. I can understand that I guess, the US government has a history of not caring about collateral damages, simply calling it acceptable losses and sweeping it under the nearest rug."
I'm having a hard time envisioning the collateral damage. Again, it has to be a website dedicated to infringing content. That's a fairly high standard. The very occasional website that has a mix of infringing and non-infringing content knows what he's got and will have to make a decision on which way to go. By and large these rogue websites are simply criminals looking for a way to make money selling the property of others. These aren't dissidents or activists. No political speech will be curtailed. It's merely entertainment, stolen entertainment and the entire uproar is about those freeloaders outraged about it being harder to continue to get something for nothing.
"Back to work now, hehe, afk for a few hours."
Hope you have a nice hangover!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. You claim the hurdle is high. That's simply not true. In the sites that ICE has already taken offline, the affidavits were riddled with errors, including one site where all of the songs listed were sent by the copyright holder, and in one case the song was declared as infringing by the RIAA lawyer... despite the fact that the artists was not signed to an RIAA label and had his own manager send the song to the site. On top of that, the affidavit had numerous technological errors.
So I see no evidence that there judges set a high bar here at all.
2. For all your celebrating, the thing that gets me the most is that you actually think this is going to have an impact. It won't. It will have collateral damage, and non-infringing, protected speech will be silenced. But it won't make anyone buy any more music.
Don't you think that's a problem? You people have become so focused on "stopping piracy" that you haven't realized piracy isn't the problem. Getting people to buy is. This law has zero chance of actually helping, but has a very high probability of causing serious problems.
That's what we're concerned about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How many of those sites contested the takedowns in court? Dedicated to infringing doesn't mean 100% of the website content is infringing. Just like a pawn shop whose goods may be 80% stolen and 20% legit, both commercial enterprises are major purveyors of illegal goods/content. If the percentages are switched, then you may have a point. But we haven't see a case where a given website was taken down for a small percentage of infringing material among a mass of legitimate stuff.
What collateral damage. Lets say the first site that is hit by Protect IP action is tvshack.bz. It was tvshack.com but ICE took it down and it became tvshack.bz. Acknowledging that infringing content doesn't enjoy free speech protection, what protected speech is silenced? How does cutting off ad support stifle protected speech" How does cutting off payment processing squelch free speech? How does knocking them off of US search engines (but remaining on foreign ones) impair their protected speech? And what do you think is their protected speech?
And maybe it won't mean increased sales, maybe it will. I don't know and neither do you. But it will mean that the site operator will not be unjustly enriched from the work of others. And it will mean that the sites many customers will not receive a benefit to which they are unentitled.
The problem with apologists like you is that you acknowledge the need to protect copyright, yet oppose every reasonable measure to protect it and never offer a solution of your own. You pimp for unjustly enriched rogue site operators and freeloaders. The bill will pass and time will tell. My guess is that if this bill wouldn't slow things down you wouldn't be reduced to hysterics and fear mongering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While the post I am replying too was directed at Masnick I have been thinking lately on what I would do, in part due to my discussions with buck lateral (and Buck Lateral, who I have to assume is just buck not logged in) as well as some ACs, most of which are probably also buck. So to buck, thanks, although I do disagree with you vehemently, I am putting a lot more thought into what I would do versus just being upset over it. It is hard to really develop a good solution without having some opposing opinions to help hone away the weaknesses of your ideas. There are a lot of sides here, not all immediately obvious but all of which may be drastically affected by any attempts to solve this problem, one would be a fool to ignore that. My goal is to gain a more complete understanding of all sides, so keep up the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good grief! Take a chill pill already! Then give me one good reason why you should be taken seriously, Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is possible to discuss stuff without such statements. You should try it. It doesn't make you look good.
How many of those sites contested the takedowns in court?
As discussed earlier this week, they will. The DOJ is stalling.
Dedicated to infringing doesn't mean 100% of the website content is infringing. Just like a pawn shop whose goods may be 80% stolen and 20% legit, both commercial enterprises are major purveyors of illegal goods/content. If the percentages are switched, then you may have a point. But we haven't see a case where a given website was taken down for a small percentage of infringing material among a mass of legitimate stuff.
Yet.
But don't you think it's a problem if ANY protected speech is taken down? The First Amendment certainly does. And the pawn shop example does not apply, because thats not a speech issue.
The First Amendment jurisprudence is pretty clear that if you're censoring speech it needs to be NARROWLY tailored to just target the problematic speech.
That did not happen here.
That's serious collateral damage.
What collateral damage.
Many of the seized sites were blogs and forums with a ton of protected speech. You may not see that as protected speech, but you're wrong.
I've talked to the operators of many of these sites, and they're seriously freaked out. Their own government, the one who's got important things to do has targeted their sites -- in some cases super popular sites that the labels and artists used regularly to promote their own works, took it away, and suggested they're criminals. It's freaking *scary*.
Lets say the first site that is hit by Protect IP action is tvshack.bz. It was tvshack.com but ICE took it down and it became tvshack.bz. Acknowledging that infringing content doesn't enjoy free speech protection, what protected speech is silenced?
I don't know anything about that site. The sites I do know about had a ton of protected speech seized.
How does cutting off ad support stifle protected speech" How does cutting off payment processing squelch free speech? How does knocking them off of US search engines (but remaining on foreign ones) impair their protected speech? And what do you think is their protected speech?
If you can't figure that out, you need to head back to school and learn how the First Amendment works.
And maybe it won't mean increased sales, maybe it will.
It won't.
But it will mean that the site operator will not be unjustly enriched from the work of other
Don't make me laugh. That's got nothing to do with it and you know it. Most of these sites don't make much money. And if there's "unjust enrichment" let the copyright holders sue and hash it out in court. Don't have the gov't broadly censor based on a faulty understanding of the tech.
And it will mean that the sites many customers will not receive a benefit to which they are unentitled.
You are no longer entitled to view this blog. Can I sue you the next time you stop by?
The problem with apologists like you is that you acknowledge the need to protect copyright, yet oppose every reasonable measure to protect it and never offer a solution of your own
I'm not an apologist. I'm a realist. I don't acknowledge the need to protect copyright. i think it's a waste of time to protect copyright. I think that there are much smarter ways to make money and protecting copyright is a fool's errand that helps no one.
You pimp for unjustly enriched rogue site operators and freeloaders.
I "pimp" them? Whatever does that mean? Be specific.
The bill will pass and time will tell. My guess is that if this bill wouldn't slow things down you wouldn't be reduced to hysterics and fear mongerin
How dare I be concerned about free speech?
Is it possible that I am actually concerned about the implications of this bill? Considering all the evidence we have makes it clear that (1) this bill will have massive unintended consequences and (2) won't help the content industries, is it really so wrong for me to raise these issues?
Will the bill pass? Yes, absolutely. Will it help you? No. Will it trample over people's rights? Yes, absolutely. That's why I'm concerned. Claiming it's because I want piracy to continue is ridiculous. Why would I want that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You both raise good points but I think the problem is as follows, more or less.
One side views the other as opposing protection of copyright and supporting piracy where the other side sees a opponent that does not care about free speech and other rights being damaged as long as copyright is not infringed upon. That is a problem. We are fighting the same war and taking casulties and we aren't even on the same battlefield. Its a good way for the world to walk by you and laugh while they do whatever they want, for better or worse.
I think both sides need to sit down and have a talk with clear heads, and listen, that is the important part, the listening. Say look, here is what I am concerned about, and here is why, the other side takes notes and repeats it back to ensure accuracy. Switch and repeat. Once both sides understand each other highlight anything that may be in direct conflict, like I want it to be dark all the time vs I want it to be light all the time. Iron out those kinks rather than fighting over everything.
The sides are not opposed to each other, they just have a different perspective. If I stand beside you and say there is a house over there and you see a tree, we can fight about it or realize you can't see it because the tree is in your way, but both are still there. It is not a perfect analogy but it conveys the same idea, in a nutshell, we both see potential problems and are concerned because we both want to protect peoples rights. Remember the different perspectives? That can work to our advantage in a powerful way. Working together perhaps we can find a way to protect both sets of rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for criminal vs civil, I will admit I do not know everything about the differences but I do know the FBI has utilized the Patriot Act to bypass the need for a warrant while investigating copyright cases, which would imply criminal rather than civil. As far as protection under law goes, I believe in equality and am primarily worried about that going in decline. Honestly when the FBI uses a act designed to protect the citizens from terrorism to investigate civil cases, what does that say about what to expect?
To the next part, I have already covered the copyright link to criminal law so let us discuss the judge being convinced. I made these claims based on my own suspicion that the judges will rule in favor of the plaintiff in that regard, especially since this "good faith effort" really only applies if the defendant has an American address listed. HINT: if the site is not operating out of the states, they probably do not have one. If the address does not exist the AG may commence an "In Rem" action, essentially, just shut it off as there will not be a defendant. The rest of the comment is based on how the internet works, not commitment to piracy that is at issue.
EXPLANATION OF DNS AND IP (if you do not like technical details you may want to skip this paragraph): You punch in www.insightcommunity.com and your browser request is transferred to the DNS server your IP settings are programmed to ask. This DNS server then sends back the appropriate IP address, in this case you might get "208.53.48.254". Next your browser will connect you using this info. The law really doesn't stop anything. It is easy to find the IP and type it in yourself, in fact I have given you the IP for insightcommunity, try it, it took me seconds to find. Really all the law does is allow the judge to disconnect the domain name from the IP in some DNS servers but there are thousands you can program you IP settings to ask. The problem lies in the fact that if other countries start following suit with similar laws you may have to keep changing your DNS settings any time you want to view sites from a different area which will be confusing for a lot of people. It is easy but if you are unfamiliar with it, it can be confusing.
As for the infringing content standard being fairly high? Don't make me laugh. Time and again cease and desist notices have taken down content from YouTube and various other websites that is not infringement. The reaction is to ask question later, meaning time and again people are penalized simply because someone else was not paying attention to what was going on. Sure it happens in other areas everyday but that doesn't make it right.
As for these websites being devoted to making money selling the property of others, that is blatantly false. They might make enough to operate the site from advertising but the product is free, that is the issue. It is not a question of do I pay twenty bucks for the CD here or ten there, its do I pay twenty bucks here or get it for free. It is an economical no brainer, 100% off. And yes some of them do it as activism and/or as a political platform so that is incorrect as well.
The cost of production is down, pass that on to the consumer. The other issue I have is the some inability to find certain music or movies because they are too old but they are still copyright because it lasts 99 years or whatever it is anymore. Some infringement is just a last resort, so make it easier to acquire old works.
And no, no hangover, just a long day. Thanks anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't really compare DMCA notice and takedown to a US attorney appearing before a judge and making a case that a site is "dedicated to infringing activity" can you? That's bullshit and you should be ashamed for trying that weak shit with me.
"As for these websites being devoted to making money selling the property of others, that is blatantly false. They might make enough to operate the site from advertising but the product is free, that is the issue. It is not a question of do I pay twenty bucks for the CD here or ten there, its do I pay twenty bucks here or get it for free. It is an economical no brainer, 100% off."
Many of those sites make money selling subscriptions or accept payments for faster downloads. Then of course, there's the ad revenue. Bottom line is that the rogue site has no moral basis to make a dime on the work of others.
"And yes some of them do it as activism and/or as a political platform so that is incorrect as well."
They steal and monetize the property of another as activism or a political platform. A pity you weren't around to defend the Weather Underground after the Brinks robbery with that theory.
"The cost of production is down, pass that on to the consumer. The other issue I have is the some inability to find certain music or movies because they are too old but they are still copyright because it lasts 99 years or whatever it is anymore. Some infringement is just a last resort, so make it easier to acquire old works."
At last, a lucid point. I agree that it's difficult to find some vintage movies. however, I have never found that a good enough reason to become a freeloader. It's not like you were starving and took a loaf of bread- You wanted to watch "Abbot & Costello Meet The Mummy" and couldn't wait. A piss-poor excuse in my book.
"And no, no hangover, just a long day. Thanks anyway."
You misunderstand, I was wishing one on you. Soon you'll likely be paying for more of your content, so you should begin developing a taste for Cutty Sark, the bong water of scotch. Thanks for letting me slap you around so. I look forward to our next meeting. Cheers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You misunderstand my basis for my arguments, I download things like Open Office and Linux while I am working to save money to get further training with network security because I want to become a network forensic investigator. I deal with network problems both as a hobby and for a living where I deal with an ISP with account setups and maintenance including onsite work, dealing with people and the internet is my job, I hear peoples problems. I also have an interest in politics so I do my democratic civic duty in voicing my opinions. I pay for my movies and music, mainly dealing with indie artists because I support their business models. Its not about getting free music, I don't care about that, its about the network and the politics and what I see as fraudulent uses of various laws, and laws that seem built for whoever has the most money not whoever got the most votes. I have said it before, I support supporting the artists, though I do not give a damn about the RIAA/MPAA who I think have become more concerned about themselves than the artists and thus counter productive.
In the end perfection is delivering a quality product cheaply and efficiently in quantity while maintaining the economic ability to continue doing so into the future. Cheaply and efficiently in quantity means digital transmission over an unhindered internet. Quality relates to that but also means having artists worth paying to produce their works. Maintaining the ability to continue into the future means they get paid enough to be able to carry on their work in, wait for it, the future. I do think most, though not all, of the entertainment world gets paid way to much and some of that money should be put in places like food production and all things medical, you know, things we actually NEED to survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
U.S. politician's do this to the little guys every day. They're robbing us blind under the cover of law. But that's okay? I don't think so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to stir up the pot a bit.
Also we need to protect artists rights to promote their music independantly and IF THEY WISH TO DO SO, offer their music, THAT THEY CREATED, for free. I have contact with a band who does just that as a promotional thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Protect IP Act's 1st Amendment issues has been thoroughly vetted by the leading constitutional scholar in the country. Yet you somehow think you know better, or he has somehow sacrificed his impeccable reputation in order to satisfy a client's objectives?
Interesting how you claim these rogue sites don't make much money and in another breath oppose cutting off access to US-based ad and payment processing services.
I definitely take issue with the this. There are non-US payment processors and likely non-us ad networks. Granted that they are less convenient but a determined rogue operator has alternatives. I'd also guess that the terms of service of US operators have a passage or two about prohibitions related to infringing activities.
Finally, please explain how the disappearing of a site that is dedicated to infringing activity from Google, and cutting off ad revenue and payment processing "tramples over peoples rights".
Still waiting for a proposal on a alternative plan to curtail infringement by foreign-based rogue sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should be noted that his report *was* at the behest of the industry -- and that in a later report he started to back down from his earlier claims, and did warn that as written there could be first amendment questions.
But, yes, on this one, I think he was wrong, in part because he doesn't understand the technology. While I respect him quite a lot, he has been getting sloppy of late, as was witnessed with his horrible editorial on Wikileaks that was based on multiple incorrect facts.
Interesting how you claim these rogue sites don't make much money and in another breath oppose cutting off access to US-based ad and payment processing services.
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Just because they don't make much money, does it mean that they should be cut off from their ability to make money? I'm not following your logic.
I definitely take issue with the this. There are non-US payment processors and likely non-us ad networks. Granted that they are less convenient but a determined rogue operator has alternatives
And what about a non-rogue site that has been deemed rogue by industry players who just don't like the competition?
Finally, please explain how the disappearing of a site that is dedicated to infringing activity from Google, and cutting off ad revenue and payment processing "tramples over peoples rights".
There's a little thing called the First Amendment. The jurisprudence on it is clear: if you are to censor speech, it needs to be narrowly tailored to block only the offending speech and not other speech.
I explained this in my previous comment.
Still waiting for a proposal on a alternative plan to curtail infringement by foreign-based rogue sites.
How about you stop worrying about something that has no impact, and focus on actually creating a smarter business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It should be noted that his report *was* at the behest of the industry -- and that in a later report he started to back down from his earlier claims, and did warn that as written there could be first amendment questions."
The report was also at the behest of the unions. And the report was commissioned because this group (including the MPAA) respects the First Amendment and sought the opinion of the foremost expert in the world on the First Amendment.
"But, yes, on this one, I think he was wrong, in part because he doesn't understand the technology. While I respect him quite a lot, he has been getting sloppy of late, as was witnessed with his horrible editorial on Wikileaks that was based on multiple incorrect facts."
Are you even a lawyer? A first amendment scholar? Please Masnick, you are unworthy to carry the man's briefcase and you characterize him as "wrong" and "sloppy"/ You are absolutely out of your mind.
"Interesting how you claim these rogue sites don't make much money and in another breath oppose cutting off access to US-based ad and payment processing services.
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Just because they don't make much money, does it mean that they should be cut off from their ability to make money? I'm not following your logic."
The point is if there isn't much ($) at stake what's the big deal with cutting off access to US-based enablers? There are alternatives. But in any event, I find it indefensible that that someone profits from the work of another. Try to remember we're not talking about a couple of kids swapping a movie file. These are websites that wrongfully distribute copyrighted content of another for personal profit. I don't find that free speech nor to I believe they have a "right" to be abetted by other US corporations.
"I definitely take issue with the this. There are non-US payment processors and likely non-us ad networks. Granted that they are less convenient but a determined rogue operator has alternatives
And what about a non-rogue site that has been deemed rogue by industry players who just don't like the competition?"
This is usually where you cite a takedown of YouTube, which is bullshit fear-mongering. There are thousands of foreign websites that monetize the copyrighted content of others for personal profit. That is their sole purpose for existing. To suggest that Netflix will use this tool to squash the competition is laughable.
"Finally, please explain how the disappearing of a site that is dedicated to infringing activity from Google, and cutting off ad revenue and payment processing "tramples over peoples rights".
There's a little thing called the First Amendment. The jurisprudence on it is clear: if you are to censor speech, it needs to be narrowly tailored to block only the offending speech and not other speech."
Floyd Abrams apparently disagrees with you.
"Still waiting for a proposal on a alternative plan to curtail infringement by foreign-based rogue sites.
How about you stop worrying about something that has no impact, and focus on actually creating a smarter business model?"
Do nothing, let the freeloading continue and allow the unjust enrichment of rogue site operators. Great idea Masnick, exactly what I expect from an apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The report was also at the behest of the unions. And the report was commissioned because this group (including the MPAA) respects the First Amendment and sought the opinion of the foremost expert in the world on the First Amendment.
And who, might I ask, do you work for? My name is with this post. People know who I am. Who are you?
The MPAA did not ask because it respects the First Amendment. They asked because they knew if they could get Abrams support (and, I like how you ignore how he has walked back down from his original unqualified support), they kne that rather than actually address the problems, they could just keep pointing to "but Abrams supports it!"
Arguing to authority rather than arguing the facts.
Are you even a lawyer? A first amendment scholar? Please Masnick, you are unworthy to carry the man's briefcase and you characterize him as "wrong" and "sloppy"/ You are absolutely out of your mind.
When you can't argue the substance, insult me instead.
Very convincing. If you want to argue caselaw, I'm happy to wipe the floor with you.
The point is if there isn't much ($) at stake what's the big deal with cutting off access to US-based enablers?
You do understand the difference between $1 and $0, right?
But in any event, I find it indefensible that that someone profits from the work of another.
No you don't. People profit off the work of another all the damn time. Everyone does. You almost certainly do. In economics, it's called positive externalities, and it's scary that you think positive externalities are bad. Positive externalities are the basis for economic growth.
Try to remember we're not talking about a couple of kids swapping a movie file. These are websites that wrongfully distribute copyrighted content of another for personal profit. I don't find that free speech nor to I believe they have a "right" to be abetted by other US corporations.
But that's not what we're talking about. I already told you that we're talking about well known INDUSTRY and ARTIST-supported blogs and forums that distributed NOTHING, copied NOTHING and obeyed the law.
If you don't see the free speech concerns there, you really need to open your eyes.
This is usually where you cite a takedown of YouTube, which is bullshit fear-mongering.
I made no such statement. I'm talking about the sites that WERE taken down. That did not infringe.
To suggest that Netflix will use this tool to squash the competition is laughable.
Who made that suggestion? Geeze. You can't argue the facts so you make up things you pretend I said.
Keep up here, Buck. We're discussing something serious and you're making up fantasies that you think we said.
Floyd Abrams apparently disagrees with you.
Less and less so. He's coming around. And then you and your friends will minimize what he has to say, of course.
But, again, let's not argue authority. Let's argue facts.
And the fact is that this is prior restraint.
Do nothing, let the freeloading continue and allow the unjust enrichment of rogue site operators. Great idea Masnick, exactly what I expect from an apologist
End on an insult, rather than respond.
Anyway, for someone who hates freeloaders, why did you ignore my statement that you are no longer allowed to use this site. You are now officially freeloading and benefiting from a site which you have no right to. Where can I send the invoice for violating my rights?
Seriously, if you have some freeloaders, but you make more money, then why care about the freeloaders? Turn the freeloaders to your own advantage. That's what smart people are doing. It's the clueless who are begging the government to break the greatest tool for promotion, creation, distribution and connection ever made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not this again. Every time so new maximalist comes to the site and thinks they've "got me" with this one. All the content here is public domain. You're free to do whatever you want with it. Other sites do. Go for it.
I've explained this before:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
But, since I know you're so offended by the idea of anyone profiting off of someone else's work, you would never do it.
Will you admit you were wrong? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As expected. You don't apologize for making false statements, nor do you address the actual points I raised about protected speech.
PROTECT IP simply extends this protection to foreign websites that are beyond the grasp of law enforcement.
No, it does much more than that. Which is exactly what we're concerned about, and which you fail to respond to.
Do go on. At least you didn't throw in a gratuitous insult this time.
But guys a lot smarter than you
Oh wait, you did.
Like you have the right to share your stuff if you like, you should also respect the right of other creators of intellectual property to not share theirs freely, particularly when that right is protected by law
I absolutely DO respect their rights to do so -- though I will point out that it is a fruitless effort and will not help them.
What I do not respect is attempts to massively increase the power of those laws in such ways that it would have massive unintended consequences.
In the meantime, I will note that you refused to answer my question about your role. I find that quite telling.
Please admit to the audience your stake in the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is simply wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Already explained why you're wrong about all of this. There are currently a bunch of other sites that copy our content. It hasn't impacted us negatively at all, and I've explained why:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
But, frankly, if you think you're so smart and can make money off my content, please do. I'd learn something and then use it to make more money myself.
That is simply wrong.
How so? I have no problem competing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever taken an accounting course?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Number of products produced, nor overhead, should affect the law. It is either one way or the other and the fact that Mr. Masnick is exercising his constitutionally protected right to freely express his opinions in regards to a law he views poorly constructed should not cause him to be regarded as a joke anywhere. In fact I doubt that it does, at least not in policy circles, perhaps in the "people who don't agree with Mike Masnick" circles. Many people have views one way or the other on countless topics and complain to there friends but never really make their views known, these people are the ones that should be regarded as a joke for not doing their civic duty as part of a democracy.
As far as credibility is concerned Mr. Masnick has both a bachelor's and a masters degree, both focused on business, from Cornell University, which is consistently ranked top 15 world wide. It is public knowledge and since his posts as Mike Masnick, rather than as a obsolete football play, we can easily know this with a little research. He also is a CEO of a company that is based upon the very views he has, and it works. We do not know who you are Buck, and in anticipation of you bashing me for saying that, yes you don't know who I am either, but we do know Mike and his credentials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't know who I am and I don't care who you are. Masnick has a nice pedigree but in the end his zealotry works better for my side than his, And that suits me just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You accuse others of zealotry while going on with a personal fight against Google. Points for consistency in pointing fingers. But you've just made it impossible to actually take you as anything other than a bigot. I just feel sorry for you. Good luck with your personal crusade against piracy. And say hi to the windmills for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I actually believe that free speech can co-exist with copyright protection. I don't believe that free speech extends to a website that takes the copyrighted content of others and monetizes it for personal profit. Cutting of their sources of revenue seems like just desserts to me. I also don't believe that adding a small amount of legal content inoculates an infringer whose primary focus (and revenue) is derived from the copyrighted works of another.
And good luck with your personal crusade for freeloading. PROTECT IP will pass. It's not a magic bullet. dedicated freeloaders will still be able to get something of value for nothing while crowing about their free speech rights. If that's what it takes to convince yourself it's OK to get something of value for nothing, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Free speech could coexist with copyright if there were some flexibility with it. You're again, being dubious as you always will be. You can't say for one second that "no one should profit from others" because there's plenty of ways that people do.
DjStevePorter profited in a number of ways. He turned this into this. A DMCA takedown on this makes NO sense. When you're discussing the international market, the main problem has been availability. If there were legal alternatives in other countries, piracy would be less likely to occur. But again, you ignore this for some bigoted opinion that somehow a copyright owner NEEDS to enforce a copyright instead of finding a way to make money. Just another example of infringement: Joffrey, family man. This takes two different elements, combines them to become a new expression. That's what our society does, it takes elements and finds new ways to make them work. PIPA doesn't allow that at all. It's basically a Youtube takedown for domains. And since it's coming out that the govn is afraid of actually trying this in court, I wouldn't be all too amazed if more judges come out against these types of things.
As has been told to you, time and time again by others, there's no personal crusade for freeloading. You've used that excuse and it's bone dry. I pay for what I support. This, I support.
This, I support. These are artist funded projects that basically show quite clearly that laws impeding the rights of society do not need to be passed. Of course you want politicians to make this legislation. It helps your bottom line by making copyright about the middle men that profit from it.
Of course you want PIPA to pass, it does absolutely nothing to show why enforcement of copyright will make the holders more money. And you've yet to explain why free speech concerns (ie, the prior restraint issues of the current domain seizures) have yet to come up. I doubt you ever will. You've been pointing fingers at the strawman group (pirates) for so long, I guess it's always easier to see people as that other than underserved customers.
PIPA may pass. But the consequences of that bad ruling will flourish. What's absolutely amazing is how you think that the buck stops with the law. We've already seen how the DMCA, the Sonny Bono, the NET Act, and all other forms of enforcement have failed to bring the results that you seem to cherish so greatly. The free speech concerns will continue to be brought up with PIPA, and I'm sure you'll go right on ignoring them as you always do in order to blame piracy, freeloaders, and those who see the growth of the authoritarian state as all too important.
Eric Schmidt brought up valid concerns and I'm inclined to agree. Mike brings up valid concerns and you call him zealous. No one is doing any attack on people but you. Grow up. The argument is how the law is being used for impeding free speech. The discussion is how PIPA and inefficient government litigation is inane and unnecessary to actually assist creators. You keep trying to make this a spacious argument that people are "freeloading". This doesn't help artists get paid, and claiming that your backers want to help them, while they look out for their own interests is the problem here. Not the internet allowing people to communicate.
With that, I'm done with this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's good. You are too stupid to continue as a worthwhile participant anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, kind of like last November's elections? ? ?
"Google and the astroturf groups it bankrolls at least have a sense of what can be accomplished without ending up with shit on their faces. "
IDK...lawsuits 'round the World kind of seem like a bit of poo on their "faces" but maybe that's just me. (Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/05/google-responds-to-paypal-trade-secrets-lawsuit.php)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Both sides"? There are only two sides? I'm not a zealot. I'm not trying to incite anyone to agree with me. And I'm not looking for any sort of "compromise." I'm trying to review reality and help figure out what's best for society. How is that zealotry?
Google and the astroturf groups it bankrolls at least have a sense of what can be accomplished without ending up with shit on their faces. They distance themselves from extremists like Masnick because any perception of allegiance makes their whole side look like screwballs instead of players in the policy game.
Yes, because it's SOOOOO "extreme" to suggest ways for artists to make more money. It's SOOOOOO "extreme" to suggest that the laws that you're paid to push won't work and will create more problems than they solve.
Seriously?
If I'm considered "extreme" then you're not paying attention.
Masnick has a nice pedigree but in the end his zealotry works better for my side than his,
Again, what are these "sides"? Who's "team" are you on? Who's "Team" am I on? This isn't a game. We're trying to discuss reality, and if your team is the one denying reality, well, good luck to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Branding you a nutjob happened well before I knew who you were. LIe the saying goes one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
The bill is going to pass. We'll we see about the impact on both piracy and free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Two sides from what I can tell. Those pushing for passage of Protect IP and those who oppose its passage.
Really? You think that we're all here discussing one stupid bill? Your narrow-mindedness is noted.
The people on the sidelines are spectators, so yeah- two.
How about those of us who actually care about content creators and what's best for the public? Apparently we're "spectators"?
Branding you a nutjob happened well before I knew who you were. LIe the saying goes one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Because I care so much what a few small-minded DC "policy people" think of me? Once again, this has nothing to do with your little world.
The bill is going to pass. We'll we see about the impact on both piracy and free speech.
Of course the bill is going to pass. You've had the votes from the beginning. Frankly, the real shocker was that you guys are so inept that you failed to pass COICA last year when you had the votes for that too. But passing stupid legislation isn't what we're really discussing here. You just haven't realized it yet.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]