Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
from the collateral-damage dept
Last year, after the entertainment foisted COICA on an unsuspecting public, Paul Vixie -- a guy you should listen to when he's concerned about the technical impact of something on the internet -- explained why COICA's reliance on DNS block was incredibly stupid. Not only would it not work, but it would fundamentally fracture the way the internet works, creating massive collateral damage. Last week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed forward with PROTECT IP, we mentioned in passing a new report from Vixie and other internet technology gurus explaining why PROTECT IP's focus on the DNS system would cause tremendous damage. While we had mentioned it, lots of folks keep submitting it, and judging from the ridiculous claims of those in favor of PROTECT IP, the folks in DC pushing for this bill are apparently still ignorant of what the report says -- so we're posting about it again. The report, titled Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill (pdf) is worth a read. The five authors are incredibly well respected, and the entertainment industry folks who are trying to claim this paper can be ignored are going to come out of this looking quite silly.These are concerns that shouldn't be taken lightly. The paper's authors also make it clear that they're not in favor of infringement, and in fact support enforcement of IP laws. They just recognize that this particular solution is dumb and counterproductive:
Two likely situations ways can be identified in which DNS filtering could lead to non-targeted and perfectly innocent domains being filtered. The likelihood of such collateral damage means that mandatory DNS filtering could have far more than the desired effects, affecting the stability of large portions of the DNS.The defenders of propping up the business models of dying industries will brush these unintended consequences as no big deal or a "small issue" at the expense of "saving" the entertainment industry. This is because they don't understand the technology at play, the First Amendment or the nature of collateral damage. It's pretty ridiculous in this day and age that we still have to deal with technically illiterate "policy people" and politicians trying to regulate technology they clearly have little knowledge about. Only those who don't understand the technology think the collateral damage described above is minimal.
First, it is common for different services offered by a domain to themselves have names in some other domain, so that example.com’s DNS service might be provided by isp.net and its e-mail service might be provided by asp.info. This means that variation in the meaning or accessibility of asp.info or isp.net could indirectly but quite powerfully affect the usefulness of example.com. If a legitimate site points to a filtered domain for its authoritative DNS server, lookups from filtering nameservers for the legitimate domain will also fail. These dependencies are unpredictable and fluid, and extremely difficult to enumerate. When evaluating a targeted domain, it will not be apparent what other domains might point to it in their DNS records.
In addition, one IP address may support multiple domain names and websites; this practice is called “virtual hosting” and is very common. Under PROTECT IP, implementation choices are (properly) left up to DNS server operators, but unintended consequences will inevitably result. If an operator or filters the DNS traffic to and from one IP address or host, it will bring down all of the websites supported by that IP number or host. The bottom line is that the filtering of one domain name or hostname can pull down unrelated sites down across the globe.
Second, some domain names use “subdomains” to identify specific customers. For example, blogspot.com uses subdomains to support its thousands of users; blogspot.com may have customers named Larry and Sergey whose blog services are at larry.blogspot.com and sergey.blogspot.com. If Larry is an e-criminal and the subject of an action under PROTECT IP, it is possible that blogspot.com could be filtered, in which case Sergey would also be affected, although he may well have had no knowledge of Larry’s misdealings. This type of collateral damage was demonstrated vividly by the ICE seizure of mooo.com, in which over 84,000 subdomains were mistakenly filtered.
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: dns, internet, paul vixie, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I like "The defenders of propping up the business models of dying industries". The industries are not dying, the demand for their products is higher than ever. This isn't a lack of demand for music, movies, or television. The demand has increased dramatically. Everyone wants 50 new buggy whips. They just don't want to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This breaks nothing.
Subdomains? No shit. What's the surprise there? If the parent domain doesn't want to kill the illegal subdomain off, that is their choice to live with.
Other sites that point and rely on pirate sites? They'll fix their scripts the next day to stop relying on pirate sites.
Virtual hosting? Again, no big deal. Especially since PROTECT IP doesn't even filter by IP, it filters by domain. And sites like The Pirate Bay aren't exactly on shared hosting plans.
Yawn. Wake me up when you whiners have something substantial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This breaks nothing.
PROTECT IP is to bypass the requirement of talking to the host. If a subdomain is the offender, they won't use precision. They'll just blow the entire domain itself off the net. That's the reason, they don't want to deal with the actual hoster.
Site that rely on pirate sites? Google, Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Digg and all them would be a target under PIPA.
Virtual hosting: DNS has to comply, so if you take down the host DNS server all the virtuals will fall as well.
Yawn. Wake me up when you know wtf your talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Google, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, and Digg have to remove pirate sites, but none can be taken down under the language of PROTECT IP themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Nothing hysterical about expecting copyright law to be enforced.
Saying "BUT THE INTERNET WILL BE BROKEN!!!" if copyright law is enforced? Now that's some prime hysterical FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
So your definition of the 'normal' world is a world that agrees with your opinion?
"Nothing hysterical about expecting copyright law to be enforced."
A: Nothing hysterical about wanting copy protection laws to be abolished. It is hysterical to think that society should sacrifice so much just to implement laws that don't need to exist.
The laws themselves are hysterical. 95+ year copy protection lengths is insane.
"Saying "BUT THE INTERNET WILL BE BROKEN!!!" if copyright law is enforced? Now that's some prime hysterical FUD."
The government already broke everything outside the Internet with oppressively plutocratic laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
I think this is what gets me all riled up about the perception of prescriptive law supporting businesses that suck.. but I like this part - "PROTECT IP themselves"
Find your own effing crap and take care of it.. and if you can't then make more effing crap and take -> better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This breaks nothing.
They may be minor to you. But to people who have actually built successful business on the Internet they are not minor.
Subdomains? No shit. What's the surprise there? If the parent domain doesn't want to kill the illegal subdomain off, that is their choice to live with.
What's an illegal subdomain?
Other sites that point and rely on pirate sites? They'll fix their scripts the next day to stop relying on pirate sites.
You're right. In fact, they'll fix it so fast the takedown wouldn't have mattered. Why would we do that again?
Virtual hosting? Again, no big deal. Especially since PROTECT IP doesn't even filter by IP, it filters by domain. And sites like The Pirate Bay aren't exactly on shared hosting plans.
It's a big deal to someone who relies on said virtual hosting for their livelihood and has it destroyed in the collateral damage.
Yawn. Wake me up when you whiners have something substantial.
Maybe if you spent less time sleeping you'd have a greater understanding of these matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Blogspot responds to takedown requests. If someone starts a "piratecontent.blogspot.com" domain that is blatantly infringing, and they receive notification of that, they will kill that subdomain, thus protecting them under safe harbor.
Furthermore, PROTECT IP requires that domains be dedicated to infrining to be considered for blocking.
Blogspot would only be taken down under PROTECT IP if:
1) They were hosting a large amount of pirate material, and/or
2) Willfully refused to take it down once notified.
Don't use Blogspot as a shield to try and pretend PROTECT IP would in any way hurt them. It would not.
If you are an ISP that makes a living out of hosting pirate material on shared plans, that is your choice. And again, PROTECT IP filters by domain, not IP.
If you're suggesting they'll get a new domain, this hasn't happened in other countries that have blacklisted sites like The Pirate Bay. The major sites rely on brand recognition of their domain to get visitors. The second they lose that because all their identifiable domains have been blocked is the second they lose credibility.
At that point, phishers and spammers can start a thousand "thepiratebay12233.com" sound-a-like domains for scamming. To the layperson just looking for a quick fix, the brand loses value completely.
Again, I don't see how any of this breaks anything, except the nice little cottage industry pirates have built for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
You suggest government censorship of the internet to keep the pirates from having a free meal. I can't wait until they actually start to try and define what sites dedicated to infringement actually means. That isn't broad at all and could never be used to say take down something the government doesn't like (wikileaks)
This opens up some flood gates and won't actually fix any of the problems with the content distribution industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Not just for the content industry, but to take down wikileaks and try to "starve" them from US support however indirectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
it's already happened. demonoid.com has already moved to demonoid.me and kickasstorrents.com has already moved to kat.ph. both of those TLDs are not controlled by ICANN.
those "major sites" won't be affected because they're already out of protect IP's grasp.
PROTECT IP won't do any damage to piracy. all the damage it does cause will be collateral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Oh wait...
You're scared to death of losing your easy free lunch, aren't you Freetardo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Let me be brief. No technologist with any will whatsoever will ever be affected by what you're supporting punctuation period
so yes, free as in dom as in no money due and so the more you take from me the less I care for you - tiddledee doo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
Let me be brief. No technologist with any will whatsoever will ever be affected by what you're supporting punctuation period
so yes, free as in dom as in no money due and so the more you take from me the less I care for you - tiddledee doo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
You mean those that continue unabated under new names already? Or those that preemptively changed domains to .me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.
And I've said it a million times: I enjoy Creative Commons, copyleft, and Creator's Mark endorsed content. I don't give a DAMN about your retail garbage, and won't download it, not even for free.
Get it through your skull already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This breaks nothing.
Vixie is one of the few -- VERY few -- people on the Internet who sees beyond the concerns of the moment and understands the deep consequences of technical decisions. If you don't understand why he's right, the best algorithm to use (and this is the one I use) is:
1. Learn more
2. Re-read his statement
3. Return to step 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like the automobile was disruptive technology to the entrenched horse and buggy.
Yes, the demand for music, movies and TV may be higher than ever. Those who provide what people want will succeed. Those who don't won't.
That also was true for transportation. The demand was higher than ever! Those who provided what people wanted, succeeded. The horse and buggy didn't succeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Statement fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People that use it might as well grab a marker and write "doofus" on their forehead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Asserting that it has been debunked is different than actually debunking it. Just because you can assert that it has been debunked does not mean it has been debunked.
"People that use it might as well grab a marker and write "doofus" on their forehead."
Good argument there, way to debunk things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
{{Citation Needed}}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trying to use buggy whips as an analogy is moronic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because yo don't like the analogy doesn't diminish its validity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your rebuttal is not valid because it simply amounts to calling the analogy 'moronic'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is easily one of the stupidest analogies the freetards have ever rolled out.
In fact, they have to use secondary analogies to try and make sense out of the buggy whip one, LOL.
But feel free to keep using it. I have no problem with ineffective pirate propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that you're misrepresenting the analogy.
Music is analogous to transportation.
Buggy Whips = a specific method or type of transportation.
Cars = a new method of transportation.
and the point is that when businesses argue for new laws, it's usually for laws in their own personal interest, not in the public interest. and the government often grants those laws for nefarious reasons, to support specific businesses that don't want to compete in a free market, a market that better serves the public interest and not just their own private interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
buggy whips = subset of entire transportation experience.
recorded albums = in demand.
buggy whips = not in demand.
=
Freetard's buggy whip analogy is the definition of freetarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"RIAA et al = subset of entire music experience.
buggy whips = subset of entire transportation experience.
recorded albums = in demand.
Transportation = in demand"
You would even be closer.
You disingenuously replaced "Transportation = In demand" with "buggy whips = not in demand."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're a bit late to the party. October 2010:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/01311411586/the-revolution-will-be-distributed-wiki leaks-anonymous-and-how-little-the-old-guard-realizes-what-s-going-on.shtml
February 2011:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/17251712913/distributed-party-we-is-already-control .shtml
The industries are not dying,
Stage of Grief: Denial.
The demand has increased dramatically.
And the supply has increased infinitely.
They just don't want to pay.
I'll pay marginal cost, or slightly above. With infinite supply, marginal cost is zero. Fix your prices to reflect reality instead of fantasyland, then I'll buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can compete. You just don't want to. Lazy bastard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, you misunderstand. You're right that the demand for content is increasing dramatically, but NOT in the form that the legacy parts of the industry are delivering it.
Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.
The analogy stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.
The analogy stands.
I'm still struggling to see how the analogy works. What is the "form that the legacy parts of the industry" is not delivering? I listen to lots of music on demand. I also download mp3s and buy CDs. I listen to music on satellite radio and regular radio, and I listen to podcasts. I get my music in lots of forms from the "legacy parts of the industry." What form exactly are they not providing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Forms that don't involve doing nothing on the labels part other than imposing taxes for uploading to private locker accounts?
Forms that don't arrive several months after the cinema releases?
Forms that are actually affordable by those in emerging economies?
Forms that aren't arbitrarily region restricted for the sole purpose of price discrimination?
How about forms that don't involve laws with low standards of evidence and low standards of due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The legacy industries (example):
MPAA and their constituents
RIAA and their constituents
Facing off against the internet. What the MPAA and RIAA want is to control distribution. This is anathema to how the internet actually works. Sure, you can "control" some resources. These two organizations are using laws to control startups and demand high prices (rents) from businesses. This is to keep them indebted to the old tradition of these organizations remaining the gatekeepers.
However, these organizations do not give legal access to places outside of the US. The MPAA and RIAA believe in "windows" of access to content. They believe in regionalization. They believe in a lot of controlled distribution in various forms. These are the issues with their thinking. The internet allows new forms of distribution that do not *need* to be controlled. They are the new Luddites, abusing the law to enable their way of control over everyone in the field. That is the problem.
There is nothing wrong with downloading an mp3, but it's a lot of the behind the scenes shenanigans that continue to frustrate businesses and people.
"What form exactly are they not providing?"
They aren't providing value for their products, and merely overpricing it. You might feel that a song is not worth $1 per track, feeling that you should price each song individually, based on its own merits. So either you pirate the songs of an artist, paying for it later on through Apple, or you pay for only the songs you want after you listen to them on Youtube.
The services that become successful (Spotify, Netflix) are taxed HEAVILY for that success in the US. This does not make sense. They provide services and the entitlement industries are taxing them for having success. There's nothing that says we couldn't have much better products if the legacy industries stopped complaining, for two seconds, to figure out how to make money on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We know. God, we know. You ask and ask and ask, we explain and explain and explain. And yet you still don't get it. I think the problem is entirely yours.
So one more time for the record, the analogy compares content distribution methods with buggy whips, not the content itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For free? You damn thief!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are confusing perhaps a change of delivery method with a change in the product. The product hasn't changed.
Buggy whip makers were making a product for an industry that ceased to exist. Their business died because there was no longer a demand for buggy whips. The record labels / movie companies / tv companies are producing a product that is in higher demand than ever. In fact, what is pirated / shared the most is exactly that product.
If everyone stopped watching hollywood movies, if they stopped listening to music, and stopped watching all forms of TV and instead started perhaps only seeing plays or listening to street side minstrals, you might have an argument. But the fact is that the movie, music, and TV buggy whips are in higher demand than they ever were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you think that's true, then you don't realize what music labels' product is....
"Buggy whip makers were making a product for an industry that ceased to exist."
This just in, the transportation industry ceased to exist 100 years ago. Oh wait....
"The record labels / movie companies / tv companies are producing a product that is in higher demand than ever."
No, they aren't. Please, PLEASE try to follow along. Music labels do not make music, musicians do. Movie companies do not make movies, directors and actors do. TV stations do not make shows, directors and actors do. The folks you're talking about have a different product, one that revolves SOLELY around the delivery method, and their delivery product is waning in demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This. ^
The companies that people are defending don't create content. Their business was always in being the gatekeeper: being the only one who could do promotion/distribution. That was the real product of the labels/studios. Promotion/distribution. That's the product that is obsolete, because people don't need the labels/studios for promotion and distribution any more.
So, once again:
buggy whip makers : record labels
buggy whips : old distribution channel
transportation : music
Clear enough yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Itunes, Amazon, and other services are proof of the matter: They aren't selling discs, they are selling music.
The buggy whip guys are the record stores. They are the ones who have lost as the industry has moved to other deliver methods. But in the end, the demand for the products made by the music / movie / tv / etc industries are still there.
The only real difference at this point is that morally, people don't feel obliged to pay for what they are consuming.
So yes, your analogy is very clear, but still very wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they were merely selling music they'd be complete failures, since it can be had for free somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a publisher, your primary product is always distribution and promotion. After all, the livelihood of your business fundamentally centres around selling copies of CD/Cassette/Vinyl. Selling specifically in music or books or films is effectively an act of specialisation, perhaps based on interest or passion, perhaps not.
As a music publisher however, you're likely not satisfied. Many artists who decide to sign distribution deals with you are happy with their lot, or have little interest in the daunting task of trying to appeal to millions of people all at once, perhaps happy in their niche, perhaps simply not sure about what changes may be made to give them that wider appeal. So what do you do? You integrate.
The business has not changed from being about selling convenience as CD/Cassette/Vinyl. You simply exert more control over the creative side to ensure you can sell those 1,000,000 blank shiny discs you just bought because you weren't happy simply helping an artists get heard. It made sense to integrate like that because it allowed you an unmatched control over the selection process, and anything that didn't quite work out, you could change it. Even better, you can keep the copyright to carry on exploiting the songs indefinitely!
So no, what was being sold is convenience on the consumer side (listening to music they liked when they want) and promotion on the artist side (getting heard in general). Choosing who you decide to promote and exerting influence to ensure the product sells more CD's is just rational business sense. It has no relation to the future of music as a whole, nor does it mean anything when you can't sell CD's any more because good quality mp3's can be distributed cheaply and independently of you.
That is, assuming you don't confuse yourself into thinking you are the embodiment of music as a whole and get laws passed to force people to pay for a cheap commodity like distribution and tell people alternative methods of promotion will never work, or when they do work, tell everyone they're exceptions.
Is that a concise enough explanation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy christ, NO THEY AREN'T. They essentially contract with those producing the content, they do not produce it themselves.
"They enter into contracts with musicians, artists, actors, and so on to produce content for their brand, which is what they sell."
That makes zero fucking sense. They contract to produce content FOR the band? Could you possibly have it ANY more backwards? The contract to distribute the music for the band, not produce it. The band produces the music. How do you have the basics so backwards?
"Itunes, Amazon, and other services are proof of the matter: They aren't selling discs, they are selling music."
This is awesome. You actually just labeled them correctly "services" and then claimed they were selling something physical (product). You literally proved yourself wrong in a single sentence. Utterly amazing....
[ 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 record label is the same, with their contracted artists producing content for the label, which they in turn sell. That selling is independent of the method used for distribution.
The distribution is independent of the product. Record labels sell their music via CD, digital downloads, vinyl, tapes, and other methods (including streaming). The distribution is part of but separate from the creation part, which the labels also participate in, by financing recordings, by providing staff such as producers, recording engineers, and so on. Labels often have song writers on staff or on contract who can work with artists to refine their material before recording.
Record labels are not purely distribution companies, nor are they purely restricted to selling CDs. Yes, they sell music, but they are also key in the production of it.
Selling the product doesn't mean they aren't involved in other parts of the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Key? Not in your wildest dreams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Record labels and movie studios are venture capitalists.
Artists CHOOSE to work with them.
You want that taken away? Why are you anti-choice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Internet has replaced every other function or made them substantially cheaper.
Funding required is much less than it used to be and artists are increasingly choosing other ways to get it.
There are still plenty signing the old draconian contracts though, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's still the artist's choice. Why are you anti-choice?
Support artists. Don't pirate them and don't be anti-choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That only supports record labels.
"and don't be anti-choice."
Abolish the FCC (or make them act in the public interest). Abolish cableco monopolies. Put in place more stringent laws, with greater penalties, against collection societies that threaten to sue restaurants and other venues that try to host independent performers under the pretext that someone 'might' infringe. Give the artists more choices to better distribute their content without having to go through so many govt imposed monopolist gatekeepers. Advocate for better laws that don't artificially restrict content distribution into the hands of a few monopolists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not making any sense.
Artists wouldn't CHOOSE to sign with a record label if only the record label was benefiting.
Why are you anti-choice?
Just tell us already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course I am. Most record labels hardly pay their artists much and even then they often don't even pay their artists what they owe. Artists don't benefit from this.
"but promotion, etc..."
The need for much of their 'services' is artificial in nature, due to a legal system that wrongfully and artificially monopolizes many information distribution channels into the hands of a few corporate entities at public expense. The Internet is starting to correct that to some extent, which is good, but a lot work still needs to be done. Unfortunately, IP maximists want to pass Internet governing laws that turn the Internet into the same plutocratic atmosphere that the legal system has wrongfully turned everything outside the Internet into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just tell us already."
Why won't you stop beating your wife?
See what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Par for the course here.
Neither myself or my wife are being discussed.
However the AC that knows nothing about artists, the music business or record labels is discussing how he wants the choice for artists to sign with record labels and benefit from the relationship taken away. He's anti-choice.
Are you anti-choice also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one here is saying that record labels will go away altogether. What this blog and most of it's commenters are talking about is the reduced importance of record labels as methods of recording, promotion and distribution become cheaper and easier for the artists themselves to do. Thereby directing money (profits) into the newer methods and greatly reducing the profits and profit-making ability of the record labels as they are no longer the only game in town, or even the most important game in town.
Just like some people still drive buggies and therefore need to procure a buggy whip http://www.bigdweb.com/prodinfo.asp?number=65-5219&CAWELAID=568705956, some artists will not want to do the recording, promoting and distribution on their own, and so will procure the services of a record label.
The problem is that record labels are still structuring their companies and their services as if they're the only game in town. And even worse, they're pouring massive amounts of money into Washington politics to put laws on the books to keep themselves the biggest game in town with overly broad, sweeping laws that restrict free speech and the ability of our culture to do what it does best - which is build and elaborate upon what came before. THAT is what I, and many others, have a problem with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be fooled, IP monopolists want to do nothing short of extending their monopoly power over to the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the one that's anti-choice. You're denying me the choice of exercising my inherit right to copy.
[ 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:
Partly because the legal system wrongfully and artificially limits their choices (ie: through the use of broadcasting and cableco monopolies and laws that effectively deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick preaches that artists can do everything by themselves because of the internet.
Are you disagreeing with him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
B: Currently, sure. After the government is done with it ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Less and less these times cause the gatekeeper's power is diminishing. Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Newspapers are having the same trouble as the music gatekeepers. They used to be the only way for a journalist to reach a large audience. Now people have started getting their news from the internet where a journalist/author can produce his content without the assistance of a gatekeeper. We see a new style of content delivery gaining ground for news and classic newspapers are finding they have to adapt to stay in business. The demand for news and talented people delivering news has not declined but the supply of news sources has grown by a ridiculous amount while at the same time the margins for producing and distributing that news have greatly diminished. It is greatly parallel to the state of the recording industry.
"The distribution is independent of the product. Record labels sell their music via CD, digital downloads, vinyl, tapes, and other methods (including streaming). The distribution is part of but separate from the creation part, which the labels also participate in, by financing recordings, by providing staff such as producers, recording engineers, and so on. Labels often have song writers on staff or on contract who can work with artists to refine their material before recording."
This is true. Although 30 years ago to have a record produced that had the potential to reach millions of people you needed to go through a major label. Today you have a practically free content delivery system that allows you to reach the entire globe. Also the equipment needed to record and master a studio quality album used to be very costly, now with a little know how you can produce something of great quality on a mac book.
Now the problem arises because the recording industry wants to stick with the old 1989 way of doing things because it netted them amazing profits. This means regaining and maintaining their position as gatekeepers and refusing to adjust price points for new modes of delivery.
The were able to make these profits because it was a very small industry (the number of major players) and a very restricted industry (the amount of money required to be a major player). They used to hold all the cards and if an artist wanted to reach millions of fans they had to go through the existing industry. Now that door is open and the industry wants to close it as fast as possible before all their control is gone. Today you can see more and more minor labels reaching large audiences and representing major artists. You see more already established artists experimenting outside of the profit margins of the industry. But in much the same way that over 1/3 of Steam users still use windows xp people, as a whole, tend to accept change slowly and the industry has one last chance to stifle many of the technologies that shift the power from their hands into that of the content producer before the majority begins to move to these new and alternative means of production and distribution.
The other reason I mention was the refusal to adjust price points. The cost of a cd was justified by the production of physical media, all the trappings that media was stored in, and the delivery of that media. So why should a digital copy of a cd cost the same amount(or often times more if you buy by song) as an actual cd, case, and liner notes that had to be physically created, physically packaged and physically driven across the country? The only reason is so they can continue selling cds. There is no reason digital songs cant be a fraction of their current cost except it would (probably) hurt cd sales. There is no reason entire back catalogs can't be pulled up and released for a few dollars for an entire artists discography (I mean old stuff that is currently unavailable on physical media could be re-released for a few dollars an album instead of the same cost as a new album). Why are old early 80s tv shows the same price as brand new tv shows? There is no reason except maintaining a high fixed price across the market is good for the gatekeepers; not the artist, not the consumer just the label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As soon as you start referring to record labels as gatekeepers you pretty much lose the battle. It isn't in their economic interests to make things unavailable on purpose. I am sure they would love to sell you everything they can. There are restrictions that exist, costs involved, and so on to make the product available or to make older product available again, especially to a significantly limited or small marketplace.
If you don't understand all that goes into the business, then it is hard to understand why. Piracy is cheap because it respects nobody's rights, it doesn't have to track sales, it doesn't have to assure quality, it doesn't have to pay taxes, it doesn't have to account for residual payments, it doesn't have to pay songwriter credits and all those other things that come with the deal.
It all comes back to the same thing: If there was a profit to be made, they would be selling it. They don't get rich keeping things away from the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do I pirate news? Its fact, someone write about it and makes it freely available on the web, now I'm pirating news? My point was the new market place of digital news has weakened the market place for paper news. Newspaper companies have had to shift into the new digital maketplace and find ways to innovate and stay relevant. Their decline has nothing to do with people pirating news stories it has everything to do with learning to compete with a new media.
"As soon as you start referring to record labels as gatekeepers you pretty much lose the battle. It isn't in their economic interests to make things unavailable on purpose."
You just showed how little you know about what you speak. Gatekeeper doesn't mean block access it means control access and there is certainly a ton of profit to be had by restricting access or, as you say, they wouldn't be doing it all the time. The term stems from when they were literally the only way to mass produce an album, it remains because of their attempt to maintain a stangle hold on the market.
What is the 28 day time frame between a dvd being on sale and available for rent? That is restricted access.
How about the Disney Vault? They release a movie on a limited run, then wait a few years and re-release it at full price. It keeps the market from getting flooded and guarantees that it wont have to compete with second hand copies in a few years and can sell at full price. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault
How about emulators? Nothing is stopping Nintendo from selling a cheap emulator of pcs and than their entire NES back catalog for a dollar a game. The tech exists, the games are tiny and require no formatting or work to release on an emulator. Emulators are not hard to build and fans have been doing it for free for ages. So why do they restrict access? So they can release a few old games a year on their new console at a high price.
I could go on and on with examples of gatekeepers restricting access, but I shouldnt have to. There are tons of examples right in your face. Control over the flow of information allows you to release the information as you see fit for the price you see fit. The legacy industry could license to all the internet start-ups that to have a license, allow the market to compete and watch the price of digital music drop to 10 cents or less a song but that would ruin their outdated business model which happens to be where they make the most profit. So instead they restrict the marketplace and fix prices. http://www.google.com/search?q=itunes+pricefixing
"I am sure they would love to sell you everything they can. There are restrictions that exist, costs involved, and so on to make the product available or to make older product available again, especially to a significantly limited or small marketplace. "
First of all a digital release is not a small market, its global so that idea is tossed right out. Second those restrictions that keep them from releasing Mr. Bellividere for 50 cents an episode are restrictions they created and demand remain in place. It also allows them to sell box series sets for 150$ or 30$ a season. Seeing as how a person can rip and distribute the series for 0$ i find it hard to follow your logic that its not cost effective for them to release it. It is cost effective just not compared to overpriced box copies.
"Piracy is cheap because it respects nobody's rights, it doesn't have to track sales, it doesn't have to assure quality, it doesn't have to pay taxes, it doesn't have to account for residual payments, it doesn't have to pay songwriter credits and all those other things that come with the deal."
Tracking digital sales = less work than tracking physical
What does paying taxes have to do with anything?
Thanks to the magic of secret accounting that doesn't have to be shared with anyone they dont seem to have to do the rest of this stuff either.
But yes I understand the label does do some work but it doesn't want to profit relative to that work, it wants to profit off of a style of distribution that died sometime around 1998. That area of the market is dead, trim the fat innovate and survive don't try to prop up your dead model with bad laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are playing a game of trying to link things together that are separate. The facts of a situation are not copyright, the story written about those facts is. They are not the same thing.
It is difficult to have a discussion about complex issues when you insist on tying things together, when they are not at all the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhm... Yes it is...
Find a way to worm your way between an artist and their fans. Find a way to access the money and filter it so you get to keep a decent amount and the rest goes to the band you keep. Find ways to make multiple licenses on the same music, play your music on the radio and keep the consumers coming back to you. Albums should only come once a year, and regionalization should occur over time, between the US, UK, Brazil, etc.
"They don't get rich keeping things away from the public."
I'm sorry, but that's absolutely false, or else the gatekeepers wouldn't want to change copyright law in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He FINALLY got it!?
This is (almost) exactly correct. The newspaper doesn't do nothing of course, they sell ADVERTISING (or in internet terms "page-views") but the newspaper has never actually sold the content.
That is why the 'subscription' was often less than the cost of the paper, ink, and/or printing the newspaper itself. The subscribers are not the actual customers of the newspaper, they are the product, the actual customer is the advertisers.
Do you understand it yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Music delivery has changed, and that's what has the RIAA pissed. People aren't forced into paying $15 per CD when all they want is a single track. They now have a choice of all or part of an album. Once a track is purchased, excuse me, licensed, there is no need to ever buy a license again. If I download a DRM-free tune from Amazon.com. It's mine forever. I can listen to it on as many devices as I want and even burn my own CDs. I can even upload that file to Amazon's cloud and access it anywhere. That's why the entertainment industry is screaming that they need protection. Not only do people have the ability to buy the music they want, but they won't have to buy it again and again.
Lastly, and this will have a huge impact going forward, my son has never been in a music store. He wouldn't know what to do with a CD. When he wants music he goes to Youtube, like all his friends. The entertainment industry better wake up soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That isn't a change in distribution methods, that's just piracy.
As for your son, nobody is suggesting he can only have music by visiting a physical music store. That is horrid strawman created by piracy backers who want to make the choice "music store or pirated" with nothing else in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is human nature not a development of the digital age, people have been giving away tapes and cds for decades and they would have been giving away vinyl if you could easily copy it at home.
"They aren't pissed at a change of distribution, they are pissed a piracy"
I would argue that they are scared and pissed at the what shifting entirely to the new means of distribution would do to their profits. If content were only distributed digitally there would be no excuse for the high prices as the margins do not justify it. The existence and prevalence of physical media allows them to justify the cost of a digital song, because they want to keep it close to that of a physical song so they are not cannibalizing their own profits. As digital distribution becomes the primary means of music delivery the purchase price will continue to drop to reflect the marginal cost of production. The only thing that prevents this shift towards marginal cost is the lack of competition. There are already sites out there offering 10 cent songs, as they grow and the amount of content they have access to grows that is only going to force the other major players, like itunes, to adjust their price to stay competitive.
Protect IP is another attempt to stifle competition, prevent innovation and maintain a stranglehold on the market so they can keep the cost of their products so high above margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Why else would they feel entitled to Amazon paying for it's new service? They want pay-per-use but it's just not gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
itunes.com
amazon.com
rhapsody.com
etc. etc.
Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.
The fact that you are the owner of this blog and are reduced to using blatantly silly and inept analogies proves that you're just interested in defending piracy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
amazon.com
rhapsody.com
Too little, too late. How many years after Napster that they finally were dragged kicking and screaming into supporting these distribution methodes?
The fact that you are the owner of this blog and are reduced to using blatantly silly and inept analogies proves that you're just interested in defending piracy here.
Actually the fact is that his analogy still stand and your tries to disprove them are blatantly silly and inept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your argument is another spin on conflating stealing with infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. A physical medium is not necessary.
2. There are no 'store shelf fees'.
3. It costs extremely little to 'ship' something to someone over the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right. That's why overall music purchases hit an all-time high in 2009, and have been climbing since at least 2006.
You see, the "dying industry" isn't the overall music industry. It's the recording industry - the "CD industry."
They are the buggy-whip makers, and CD's are the buggy whips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To save time and space let me repeat
I just don't see it.
I just don't get it.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To save time and space let me repeat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To save time and space let me repeat
This is making hay about nothing and hoping people are technologically disinclined enough not to realize how small the complaints are.
MANY countries (and no, not just Iran and China) have now instituted domain level filters at the ISP level. Last I checked the Internet is still functioning.
Is there some special Jingoism that makes it different when America does it?
When Germany, Italy, or Israel filter illegal sites, nothing happens except that those sites are filtered, but when America does it, "IT WILL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTERNET!!!!"
Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
I've developed websites professionally for a large software company for over a decade I think that those complaints would break the Internet.
This is making hay about nothing and hoping people are technologically disinclined enough not to realize how small the complaints are.
No, you're hoping the technologically disinclined won't realize how devastating they will be.
MANY countries (and no, not just Iran and China) have now instituted domain level filters at the ISP level. Last I checked the Internet is still functioning.
Is there some special Jingoism that makes it different when America does it?
When Germany, Italy, or Israel filter illegal sites, nothing happens except that those sites are filtered, but when America does it, "IT WILL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTERNET!!!!"
This isn't an internet filter. This taking down a domain hosting thousands of legitimate sites because one raised the ire of the entertainment industry.
Give me a break.
No. The Internet is more important than you're legacy distribution business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
I would love to know where it says in PROTECT IP they can do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
But feel free to keep wasting your time trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat
Germany filters what since when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Needs some help
1) every other person/business who resides/exists on it
2) every person/business who commutes by it
3) every person/business who does 1) and 2) on any side roads
and so on. Then maybe their eyes will unglass and they'll stop to think what it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Needs some help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is really the heart of the issue:
If implemented, this section of the PROTECT IP Act would weaken this important effort to improve Internet security. It would enshrine and institutionalize the very network manipulation that DNSSEC must fight in order to prevent cyberattacks and other malevolent behavior on the global Internet, thereby exposing networks and users to increased security and privacy risks.
Combined with this:
DNS filters would be evaded easily, and would likely prove ineffective at reducing online
infringement. Further, widespread circumvention would threaten the security and stability of
the global DNS.
It's a major change to how the internet works with little real impact. This is a power play by Big Entertainment, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their intent is to cause as much 'collateral' damage as possible.
Do you honestly think that preserving free speech is anywhere on the governments agenda? If that were so, the laws in place outside the Internet wouldn't do such a good job of censoring free speech.
IP criticisms don't make it on public airwaves or across cableco infrastructure, despite the fact that our IP laws are absolutely indefensible, yet pro-IP propaganda is communicated over these information communication channels. Why? Because the laws wrongfully grant monopolists monopoly power to exclusively use these communication distribution channels and it is not in the interests of monopolists to criticize monopoly privileges.
Crazy garbage can make it over public airwaves, things like "The end of the world is coming next month, the rapture is going to occur tomorrow" before the very reasonable IP criticisms can. The opinions broadcasted over public airwaves (and cableco infrastructure) are often extreme nonsense, often a smokescreen designed to distract us from more important issue and opinions, yet their influence still convinces many ignorant people of their validity, but legitimate discussions over the problems caused by IP laws and all the many many government imposed monopolies? They never get broadcasted. Only pro-IP propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buggy Whips
Boy, reading through the comments I lost my original train of thought - it's like a zoo around here at times.
But I do have one question, if anyone would be so kind...why is it that just because tech savvy people - and even some of us not-quite-as-tech-savvy-but-sort-of-tech-savvy people who have serious concerns about this invasive and unconstitutional "PROTECT IP" bull, are constantly labeled "pirates", "Thieves", etc.?
I don't understand this - maybe I haven't been participating long enough, IDK, but it continues to baffle me because I'm a long-time advocate of privacy and respect for the privacy of others and my own. That is all that drives my sentiments on this issue.
These laws are insane. Utterly and completely insane. And it's really quite scary to see people actually think it's "Okay" and should be enacted.
I pay my cable company a hefty monthly fee. I subscribe to a movie tier. I get lots of channels of both music and TV shows in addition to the movie tier. When I watch a movie on that movie tier, or a weekly series on my television screen, it's okay. If I watch it on my computer at a time that is more convenient for me - which, BTW, I pay the same company to access the Internet - suddenly some of you want to label me a "pirate" or a "thief"?
What am I missing here?
"Kool-aid" must be doing quite a business these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buggy Whips
D: Knock knock!
M: [giggling] Who's there?
D: KGB*.
M: KGB who?
D: [slaps M. hard across the face] KGB will be asking the questions!
*Wherein replace KGB with IP Maximalists.
You are the lowly consumer. Despite your supremacy of numbers, you have no place at the table in these discussions. You are a walking wallet to be opened at all times in all ways forever and ever amen. Your convenience is of no import. Your innocence is terminally at issue. Whether you pay or not, whether you buy or not, you are a ticking time bomb of criminal activity. Because you are not them. Because you can't possibly understand. Because you can say no. Because you hold discretion over your own spending. Because you are merely a citizen.
You are the customer and therefore the enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buggy Whips
Because the people using those labels are deliberately setting up a false dichotomy. It's a pure propaganda move, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as criminals.
On this site, you'll notice that most of these individuals post anonymously. I honestly believe it's because most of them work for an industry that will benefit from these laws, and are coming here in order to hijack the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah ha.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit of RIAA/MPAA etc. nazi's are trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]