Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?

from the dangerous-ideas dept

Thu, Jun 2nd 2011 8:32am — Mike Masnick

When COICA was first introduced last year, we pointed out that, based on the very broad definition in the bill of "dedicated to infringing activities," all sorts of useful technologies would have been banned, had it been the law at the time. This is a big problem. As Matt Mason and others have shown repeatedly, new technologies that are almost exclusively used for infringing are often a leading indicator of innovation -- showing what consumers want, what the technology allows... and how it challenges old business models based on artificial scarcity. Over time, the market adjusts and adapts and everyone is better off. But that's only if we don't ban things based on the belief that because they're mostly used for infringement today, they'll be used exclusively that way forever.

And, of course, we've pointed out the shift in language choice by copyright maximalists in the last year or so, such that they keep talking about how these legislative and enforcement efforts are solely focused on "rogue sites." Because who's going to argue with that? It's a sneaky and misleading language choice, because a "rogue" site can be defined in all sorts of ways.

Canadian IP lawyer Howard Knopf has an excellent point about how you could easily define Google as a "rogue site", based on the way some maximalist supporters define the term:

The issue of "rogue" websites arose at the recent Fordham conference. I asked a question along the following lines that raised a lot of eyebrows:
Q: What would you call a website that allows one to instantly find thousands of free unauthorized files of a specified type (such as "torrent") of Lady Gaga, Pirates of the Caribbean or whatever else may be of interest?

A: The answer, of course, is Google.

Here are official instructions from Google itself on how to do precisely the above.

So, if you are doing legal research and want to find anything I�ve written or that refers to me and want it to be in PDF format, simply do a Google search for:

filetype:pdf Howard Knopf

Likewise, if you want to find lots of free and likely illegal torrent files of music or movies, simply enter:

filetype:torrent Name of singer, song, movie, etc.

Is Google a rogue or pirate website or "dedicated" to such activity? Hardly.

Can it be used to find illegal copies of music, videos, etc.? Yes - easily.

Should this feature of Google be disabled? Absolutely not because there are countless perfectly legal and useful torrent files out there waiting to be searched and downloaded.

Thankfully, the new definitions in PROTECT IP, while still quite vague, are pretty clear that to be defined as a rogue site, a site has to have no non-infringing value -- but already we've seen that sort of definition stretched, with the seizures of some sites that were posting content given to them by the copyright holders for the sake of promotion, but which the government insisted were all infringing, based solely on a statement from a lawyer at the RIAA, who was not in a position to know. Similarly, when technologies like radio, photocopiers and the VCR came on the scene, they, too, were used almost exclusively for infringing efforts because the legacy industries hadn't yet figured out how to embrace them and use them for valid reasons.

Yet, with PROTECT IP, the goal is to freeze the existing setup at a moment in time, and not allow any of these services to advance and find those additional non-infringing uses. The industry, of course, will insist on two things: that (a) it will come up with those non-infringing uses on its own and (b) these sites have no intention of ever obeying the law. Yet, history shows neither assertion is true. The legacy industries will fight actually adapting (or make half-assed efforts at it), rather than allowing the innovators to lead the way forward. On top of that, we should be quite fearful of how this definition will inevitably expand over time.

If there's one thing that's constant, it's that the industries propped up by copyright law are always seeking to expand the law and to expand the definitions in its favor. PROTECT IP is problematic for all sorts of reasons, but its ability to hinder such important innovations by blindly declaring them "rogue" is one we should be quite fearful of.

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, infringement, innovation, protect ip, rogue websites
Companies: google

161 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Christopher Gizzi (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:12am

Has and will be
Google has, and (for the foreseeable future) will be, a rogue site. From it's quick ascension into search and ad dominance, deep crawling, data mining, and software (Gmail, Docs, Books, Music, etc). It will always be considered a site outside the law or some societal norm... to someone.

From news, to music, & software - someone is always going to hate Google and call them rogue no matter what the law really says. Even if someone passed a law that said Google and everything it does is completely legal, someone will want to block or stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: Has and will be
  So THAT'S why my network admin CYBLOCKED IT! (not kidding btw)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:40am

Google is a rogue company, forget just website. Many of their business models depend on farming customer information, on tracking their users, in collecting private data, and providing access to copyright material without full permission.

You only have to look at the history of Google, from the digitzing of books to Youtube, from the wi-fi gate to the sheer volume of data collected on their users to know where their business models sit.

They will be cheered on by the counterculturists on this and other sites, but in the end, they are often doing online what would never be tolerated in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:59am
  
  Re:
  "They will be cheered on by the counterculturists on this and other sites, but in the end, they are often doing online what would never be tolerated in the real world."
  
  It is tolerated in the real world. The Books and Youtube thing is nothing, why you seem to think they're wrong is beyond me. The WiFi thing is blown way out of proportion and not valid in your argument. And as for the information they collect on their users, you never heard of a Giant Eagle card or a Best Buy card? They don't give you discounts and free things for nothing, they use those cards to collect a hell of a lot of information about you.
  
  Google does exist in the real world and people aren't as stupid as you make them out to be. Google (and others) is tolerated in the real world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re:
  Yea cause brick and mortar businesses never track your purchases via frequent shopper cards, create trends, targeted advertising, etc. Every business worth it's salt tracks its customers so it can better meet the customer's demands.
  
  As far as providing access to copyrighted material without permission, we can just throw out Youtube. Thats user content, and protected thanks to the DMCA, and tested in court, thanks to viacom.
  
  As far as digitizing books, Many people say they have the right to, especially books that are now in the public domain. Do you think that the publishing industry would have settled with Google if they had a case they knew they would win? either way google books I would say is up in the air, and by no means definitive.
  
  Wi-fi Gate? collecting fragments of data that were publicly broadcast from people who didn't secure their routers? There have been people war-driving for wireless for years before Google. For example in Seattle "In December 2004, a class of 100 undergraduates worked to map the city of Seattle, Washington over several weeks. They found 5,225 access points; 44% were secured with WEP encryption, 52% were open, and 3% were pay-for-access." This really doesn't seem like a big deal or threat to me, please someone enlighten me.
  
  Any other concrete example you want to bring out while we're at it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Brick and mortar business don't follow you down the street, they don't filter through your email looking for keywords, they don't track everything you ever search for in the world, and they don't track your every movement online.
    
    Wi-fit gate is an issue because it allows for the positional tracking of users, and can associate a single wi-fi connection to a user, and thus connect an otherwise anonymous user to a given address. Much of what Google does isn't nasty alone, but when combined with all of their other businesses, it becomes a powerful tool to track users.
    
    If you use wireless to connect to the web, and have a google search bar or google activated browser, or use android, Google has more than enough information to know your likes and dislikes, and from the data could likely determine you home address, your name, your place of work, and so on. Considering that they know what profile on facebook is yours (because you left yourself logged into Google services while you surfed), they can put it all together and make a profile for you. So when you surf to a site with google ads, they can offer you up exactly what you were just searching for.
    
    Try it out - search google for something you normally don't go for, and then start surfing sites with google ads. You will be amazed to see what comes up - the products you were just searching for. Do it wirelessly (like looking for a nearby restaurant), and you will get local based food ads.
    
    Alone, none of it is particularly evil. Combined, it is dangerous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - taoareyou, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cell phones track your movement. Local and federal governments can access your smartphones at stoplights and other places. Every credit card transaction is tracked and your buying habits are traded as a commodity. Cameras are everywhere, in a metro area you are likely photographed/filmed 200+ times a day. Unsecured wi/fi is used by even your friendly neighbors. Your ISP keeps detailed records of all your online activities in order to hand them over to the government whenever it asks.
      
      Nothing that Google does is any different than anything else going on in our modern lives. The only people whining about Google are those who haven't been as successful as they have at monetizing.
      
      Google isn't the one you need to worry about. They don't maintain an armed force that can come kick in your door and take you away at gunpoint when a neighbor uses your wi/fi for something they don't like.
      
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996 .html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's a nice story, and if he had properly secured his wi-fi, he wouldn't have an issue. Would we have the same discussion if he left his garage unlocked for years, and a neighbor moved in and ran a grow-op in it?
        
        The same rules from the real world apply online.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT, 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...if he had properly secured his wi-fi, he wouldn't have an issue. "
        
        Just like the people Google captured data fragments from?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "if he had properly secured his wi-fi"
        
        I have one simple question. WHY?
        On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Launched Against Google, Because Some Woman Didn't Secure Her Own WiFi
        BearGriz72 (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 10:16am - Open WiFi Supporter
        
        I have deliberately set up an open access point at home. It is firewalled, isolated from the rest of my network and bandwidth limited to 500k (to prevent negative impact on MY use. I am not trying to be an ISP) However if one of my neighbors or customers wants or needs to use that connection under those restrictions they are free to do so, that is what it is there for. I have a secure wireless network as well for my use and those friends I trust that may be at my place, but the idea that somebody might try to make that illegal just chaps my hide.
        So why should anybody be FORCED to secure their wi-fi again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So is a clueless political class but you don't see people giving two shits about that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ComputerAddict (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Brick and mortar business don't follow you down the street, they don't filter through your email looking for keywords, they don't track everything you ever search for in the world, and they don't track your every movement online.
      
      1) No one forces you to use google, Google doesn't track "Everything I do online" because I don't use one search service. Although personally google is the default but for specific things like products sometimes I start at Amazon, or newegg.
      
      2) If you dont like the tracking, but like google's effective search results, turn off tracking https://www.google.com/accounts/DeleteService?service=hist
      
      3) Don't Log in to google or use google Chrome's Private browsing mode (also available in other browsers)
      
      Wi-fit gate is an issue because it allows for the positional tracking of users, and can associate a single wi-fi connection to a user, and thus connect an otherwise anonymous user to a given address. Much of what Google does isn't nasty alone, but when combined with all of their other businesses, it becomes a powerful tool to track users.
      
      It only allows positional tracking if you go hopping around open networks, While logged into google, and are on a google page. Which seems like a much bigger security threat (being on an unencrypted wifi connection) than google knowing where you are.
      
      If you use wireless to connect to the web, and have a google search bar or google activated browser, or use android, Google has more than enough information to know your likes and dislikes, and from the data could likely determine you home address, your name, your place of work, and so on. Considering that they know what profile on facebook is yours (because you left yourself logged into Google services while you surfed), they can put it all together and make a profile for you. So when you surf to a site with google ads, they can offer you up exactly what you were just searching for.
      
      If your that worried about google why would you have Chrome, or the Google Browser bar?
      
      Try it out - search google for something you normally don't go for, and then start surfing sites with google ads. You will be amazed to see what comes up - the products you were just searching for. Do it wirelessly (like looking for a nearby restaurant), and you will get local based food ads.
      
      Sweet! I love ads that I can actually use, unlike all the penis enlargement spam I get to email inbox. Google is the only advertiser that I've actually purposefully clicked on ads... Because they were RELEVANT.
      
      Alone, none of it is particularly evil. Combined, it is dangerous
      
      The same thing can be said about client's actions with their own data. Like Presidential Cabinet members that give out passwords via email phishing scams.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  Many of their business models depend on farming customer information, on tracking their users, in collecting private data
  
  Wow, if those are traits of rogue companies, I'm pretty sure every fortune 500 company is a "rogue" company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re:
  Google is a rogue company, forget just website...
  You're just jealous of them because you were too stupid to do what they have done.
  
  Morally they are no worse than any "rightsholding" company - and far better than most.
  
  This is just the politics of envy.
  
  End of...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:41am

The problem with idiotic laws
"a site has to have no non-infringing value"

There's one site that I know of that has non-infringing value that I guarantee will have an AC arguing that it's the vary definition of a rogue site. The Pirate Bay. They offer quite a bit of legal downloads. And think about it, if you wanted to share your works, wouldn't you go to the largest torrent site on the web?

That's the problem with the kinds of laws that tries to put blame on the tool not the user. You make the law too tight and you violate human rights. You make it so it doesn't, you lose the meaning of the law.

Simple answer, don't make these kinds of dumb-ass laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: The problem with idiotic laws
  There's one site that I know of that has non-infringing value that I guarantee will have an AC arguing that it's the vary definition of a rogue site. The Pirate Bay.
  
  uh, google is publicly traded company based in california, and the pirate bay has a pirate ship for a logo.
  
  your argument is obviously invalid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re: The problem with idiotic laws
    and the pirate bay has a pirate ship for a logo.
    
    Apple flew a pirate flag on their flagpole for quite awhile.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:03am

Yet, with PROTECT IP, the goal is to freeze the existing setup at a moment in time, and not allow any of these services to advance and find those additional non-infringing uses.

I just don't buy the argument. The PROTECT IP Act does not block any technologies. Innovation is allowed to take place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  try busting some fud instead of just not getting it or not buying it all the time. You not being convinced is not fudbusted. We get it you believe individuals will always do bad while government agencies and corporations will never abuse anything. Thats your problem not ours. Try a community college critical thinking class it might help you start to get things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Rather than personal attacks, why don't you address my point?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      because we have in the 20 other articles on protect ip but you just dont see it. change your name to guywhodoesntunderstand until you actually start busting some fud
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll take your answer to mean that you don't really have an answer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        maybe its because I don't like explaining things that the article does a good job of explaining if you think critically. but fine ill bite and explain it to you.
        
        The key point is in the sentence you quote: the goal is to freeze the existing setup at a moment in time. They want to hinder the things they don't like rather than compete with them. Rather than adapt to the state of technology and find ways to make their profits with available tech they want to pretend it doesn't exist and make it law that everyone else pretends it doesn't exist. You get things like this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02133314472/yet-another-company-rigs-up-silly-technical-se tup-to-let-you-watch-broadcast-tv-your-mobile-device.shtml completely convoluted ways to do things that are simple, easy, and convenient to the customer. Broadcast tv is fucking free anyway, but because of stupid laws its illegal for you to help me watch it, I have to have an antenna or I'm a thief.
        
        Giving the industry power to stop anything they don't like simply because they don't like it will hinder innovation. If the industry had this kind of power 15 years ago bittorrent would have been made illegal and not be the amazing tech it is today. The industry always wants to block new tech that it is afraid of if we let them we will not get the next vcr or next mp3 or whatever innovation that comes out next that they are afraid of. They want to halt change so they can continue doing business as they have for the last 70ish years. So giving an industry that has proven to be scared of everything new and very reactionary broad sweeping powers is a bad idea.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But legitimate technologies can still be developed that compete with them. And if they don't compete, they will get left behind. The whole "going to stifle innovation" argument just doesn't seem plausible to me. Innovation will happen either way. You couldn't stop it if you tried.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And if they don't compete, they will get left behind."
        
        unless laws are enacted that allow them to not compete despite the popularity of other methods.
        
        For example most of these streaming sites are a fantastic example of how cable tv should and can work. If my pay tv service was half as useful as ninjavideo was I wouldn't have needed ninjavideo.
        
        You are right that they can't stop innovation. Its just a shame they are gonna make some great innovators felons before they adapt
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        funny how he just runs away, I guess it so he can say "i just dont get it" next time we talk about this stuff
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I didn't run away. I'm trying to get some work done. I'll chime in substantively when I take a break this evening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        i meant fudbuster, unless you are an unlogged in fudbuster. in which case i didnt realize the post above mine was you and therefore retract my running away post
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, I'm using my wife's computer and I'm not logged in as FUDbuster. That was me responding above.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        unless laws are enacted that allow them to not compete despite the popularity of other methods.
        
        The laws don't stop others from legitimately competing.
        
        For example most of these streaming sites are a fantastic example of how cable tv should and can work. If my pay tv service was half as useful as ninjavideo was I wouldn't have needed ninjavideo.
        
        Ninjavideo isn't competing in a legitimate way.
        
        You are right that they can't stop innovation. Its just a shame they are gonna make some great innovators felons before they adapt
        
        What's a shame is the notion that the only way to "compete" is through illegal means.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The laws don't stop others from legitimately competing.
        
        Hmm. Well, they were certainly used to try to stop all sorts of others, who the industry insisted were not "legitimately" competing, but which later became important and valuable services and technology.
        
        Of course, if you were around at the advent of radio, I'm sure you would have claimed they weren't "legitimately" competing. Ditto for cable television. And I'm sure you agreed with the RIAA that the MP3 player was not "legitimately" competing, right?
        
        That's the point. When you throw in that word "legitimately" and let the RIAA define what that means, you get important innovations killed off before they can really develop.
        
        Ninjavideo isn't competing in a legitimate way.
        
        See: "Cable Television isn't competing in a legitimate way."
        
        What you mean is that *today* under the laws that the legacy industry passed, *this site* isn't competing in a way that those legacy industry players *feel* is fair.
        
        What we're saying is that if those sorts of sites are gaining usage and attention, they're innovating and showing the industry what consumers want. And that means there are ways to embrace that and make money for the industry. Shutting them down kills that off.
        
        What's a shame is the notion that the only way to "compete" is through illegal means
        
        No one said "only." But this cherrypicking (and it is cherrypicking) of what is "legitimate" and what is not based on what is inconvenient for the legacy players, is highly problematic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmm. Well, they were certainly used to try to stop all sorts of others, who the industry insisted were not "legitimately" competing, but which later became important and valuable services and technology.
        
        Of course, if you were around at the advent of radio, I'm sure you would have claimed they weren't "legitimately" competing. Ditto for cable television. And I'm sure you agreed with the RIAA that the MP3 player was not "legitimately" competing, right?
        
        That's the point. When you throw in that word "legitimately" and let the RIAA define what that means, you get important innovations killed off before they can really develop.
        
        But radio, player pianos, VCRs, MP3 players, etc. were all technologies that were allowed under copyright law. I don't really follow how those are examples of things that copyright laws disallowed.
        
        See: "Cable Television isn't competing in a legitimate way."
        
        What you mean is that *today* under the laws that the legacy industry passed, *this site* isn't competing in a way that those legacy industry players *feel* is fair.
        
        How is taking and giving away for free what other people invested time and money in legitimate competition?
        
        What we're saying is that if those sorts of sites are gaining usage and attention, they're innovating and showing the industry what consumers want. And that means there are ways to embrace that and make money for the industry. Shutting them down kills that off.
        
        And I think that's great. I also think a site can gain usage and attention while innovating and the showing the industry what consumers want without infringing.
        
        No one said "only." But this cherrypicking (and it is cherrypicking) of what is "legitimate" and what is not based on what is inconvenient for the legacy players, is highly problematic.
        
        No one said "only," and I've been asking if that's your argument. Apparently it's not. Does that mean you agree that innovation can occur sufficiently without infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But radio, player pianos, VCRs, MP3 players, etc. were all technologies that were allowed under copyright law."
        
        There's the first mistake.
        
        " I don't really follow how those are examples of things that copyright laws disallowed."
        
        Please reread the Sony vs Betamax ruling. Reread it until you get it. The VCR was >This is something pirates can't compete with. Once it's out, find other scarcities. It's that simple.
        
        "And I think that's great. I also think a site can gain usage and attention while innovating and the showing the industry what consumers want without infringing."
        
        Look at some of those rogue sites on the ICE, get back to me about how that's fairing. If the legacy industries can keep dominant pressure on "pirate competitors" the industry can't change.
        
        "Does that mean you agree that innovation can occur sufficiently without infringement?"
        
        The VCR has infringing uses. So how are you going to pick out the infringing and non infringing uses?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But legitimate technologies can still be developed that compete with them.
        WRONG
        
        They will find a reason to cripple any technology that competes with them. That is how they work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't consider taking someone else's property and giving it away for free to be real competition. Nothing's stopping anyone from creating their own content and distributing it any way they want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've obiously never been to an American flea-market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't consider taking someone else's property and giving it away for free to be real competition. Nothing's stopping anyone from creating their own content and distributing it any way they want.
        
        No one took anything. It was not property.
        
        People are LINKING to content elsewhere. Seriously, I think we may need to auto change your name to FUDspreader when you post such ridiculous lies.
        
        It's sad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can understand how that wouldn't make sense to you if you don't realize that property just means rights. Linking in an infringing way violates others people's rights. Intellectual property just means rights, you know.
        
        I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling me names and saying I'm lying. I'm trying to have a productive conversation. It's unfortunate that you are so hostile to dissenting points of view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have to agree with the AC. You've been doing this for some time now. People answer your question, but then you go back to level 1 without any form of rebuttal. If you're going have a question answered but then ask it in the next thread, it's like you're ignoring people. That's quite rude.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I asked about the buggy whip/recording industry analogy twice. I never got an answer that I thought was satisfactory. I get the analogy, I just don't think it works. Other than that, I can't recall any recent questions I've asked over several threads. Enough of this, though. Let's talk about the issue of what technologies the PROTECT IP Act blocks. That's the topic. I don't think it prevents any new technologies from arising since I don't think piracy is necessary for a new technology to do so. If I'm wrong, tell me why.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DannyB (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        I asked about the buggy whip/recording industry analogy twice. I never got an answer that I thought was satisfactory. I get the analogy, I just don't think it works.
        
        You asked for a different analogy that involved lawbreaking.
        
        Nobody was talking about any lawbreaking. We're talking about advancing tech (such as automobiles) and entrenched business models that refuse to adapt (such as record labels).
        
        No lawbreaking involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DannyB (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Let's talk about the issue of what technologies the PROTECT IP Act blocks. That's the topic.
        
        Any technology that might have some potential to be used for piracy. Technology can be used for good or bad things. Get used to it.
        
        I don't think it prevents any new technologies from arising since I don't think piracy is necessary for a new technology to do so.
        
        Piracy is not necessary for new tech to arise. What IS necessary is to NOT have laws that make the new tech illegal before it arises.
        
        The problem is the laws you want are so vague that they could make anything arbitrarily illegal. Anything that can be used for piracy is illegal. Newsflash: the internet can be used for piracy. TCP/IP can be used for piracy. Computers can be used for piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  Right, innovation is allowed to take place once all the copyright maximalists approve of it.
  
  Remember how much fawning the MPAA did over the VCR at first?
  
  Remember how enthralled the RIAA was with MP3 players?
  
  Boy oh boy, those copyright maximalists sure encourage innovation don't they? I shudder to think where we'd be without their innovation encouraging behavior.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    That still doesn't answer what innovation or technology the PROTECT IP Act will disallow.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, so we have to know what innovation is coming before it comes? Maybe the innovation comes from a "rogue" website. Maybe the innovation is the RIAA giving away promotional music to websites? Oh wait, they did that, and then had the domain seized.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      the point he is making is these companies have a long history of trying to stifle innovation if they don't think it fits their business model only to later find out it is insanely helpful to them and their customers.
      
      We shouldnt be passing laws written by (or strongly influenced by) these industries, that have a history of over reacting to and trying to stifle new tech. We shouldn't give these industries more power to block whatever they want with only accusations.
      
      To ask us what the new idea is that this is going to block is stupid. Obviously we don't fucking know what the new innovation is it hasn't been created yet. The point if the industry had their way they would have blocked plenty of innovative tech that is so important we take it for granted today. Now you want to give them more power to block things and ask why we think it would stifle new innovation? Why the fuck do you think this won't stifle new innovation?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point if the industry had their way they would have blocked plenty of innovative tech that is so important we take it for granted today.
        
        I just don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just websites dedicated to infringement. You can create any website or technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just websites dedicated to infringement. You can create any website or technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just radio, which is dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just player pianos, which are dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just photocopiers, which are dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just cable TV, which is dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just the VCR, which is dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just the MP3 player, which is dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        I don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just YouTube, which is dedicated to infringement. You can create any other technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
        
        Need I go on?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's cute. I've never found your argument that this is just like radio, player pianos, VCRs, etc. to be that persuasive. The differences are significant. And the argument that because maybe some technology might have been blocked had something happened that didn't actually happen isn't that persuasive either. Talk about specious and faith based. Moreover, none of it convinces me that the PROTECT IP Act will actually block new technologies. Why does a new technology have to infringe? That seems to be your premise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why should innovation have to take place 'legally'? Legally speaking, you can be perfectly fine, but you can be violating the spirit of the law's intent.
        
        Thw law is not there for the benefit of a few, it is there to keep the peace. A law that does not act to keep the peace is no law at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > I've never found your argument that this is
        > just like radio, player pianos, VCRs, etc.
        > to be that persuasive.
        
        Yes, that's your answer to everything. You never say *why* it isn't persuasive. You never explain *how* it doesn't apply. You just say it doesn't and you're not convinced and that's apparently supposed to be authoritative.
        
        > The differences are significant.
        
        Well, then explain them, for the love of god!
        
        > And the argument that because maybe some
        > technology might have been blocked had
        > something happened that didn't actually
        > happen isn't that persuasive either.
        
        Then tell us *why* it's not persuasive, genius. I can't believe the law professors whose classes you purportedly attend let you get away with this kind of argument from authority on your exams. Well, it doesn't fly here, either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I feel like I explain myself in detail with regularity, more so than most on techdirt.
        
        The "radios, player pianos, VCRs, etc." situations are different because those were actually new technologies that had significant uses other than infringement.
        
        Arguing that something could have happened that didn't doesn't really convince me that something will happen that shouldn't. It's faith based, as I said. An example of something that actually did happen would be better. Moreover, I don't see how pointing to, say, VCRs, shows how the PROTECT IP Act will thwart new technologies. It's a tenuous argument at best.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's blocking streaming sites, and criminalizing websites based on faith alone. From streaming, you can see the popularity of a series in another country or see how a community builds around certain shows.
        
        You've just destroyed that community that might support other innovations. They could make their own fan based site. Or, someone makes other homages.
        
        Another example, the Kinect has a lot of hacks. Someone has actually made a similar holographic projector like the one from Star Wars. What if he displays it on Youtube and needs funding to make more reliable components? A DMCA takedown stops that.
        
        Then, if anything, if he was from Germany, Microsoft could go for his domain, preventing him from discussing the imaging. That's how you can prevent someone from talking about it. Censor them without a trial or criminalize their behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > The "radios, player pianos, VCRs, etc." situations are different
        > because those were actually new technologies that had
        > significant uses other than infringement.
        
        So were mp3 players. So was cable TV. So is cloud music storage. Etc., etc., etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " Moreover, none of it convinces me that the PROTECT IP Act will actually block new technologies."
        
        Confirmed. Your entire premise is to to feign ignorance over how EVERYONE is telling you EXACTLY how PIPA is blocking innovation. You choose to ignore it.
        
        So which are you really looking for, the forest or the trees? What is it about innovative technologies that you can not seem to understand even though EVERYONE is explaining this in minute detail, about how PIPA wants to block technology from progressing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I hear people making thin arguments about how maybe it could happen given how something else could have happened but for the fact that it didn't happen that way. If you think you can convince me, give it a shot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > I just don't buy the argument.
        
        It's been explained to you ad infinitum in terms even a child could understand.
        
        If you "just don't buy it" by now, you're either profoundly stupid or playing dumb for effect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's been explained, but never with arguments that I find to be conclusive. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just seeing if anyone has a good argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  Well, you got my vote for funny.
  
  That's some fine, fine satirical humor there. Keep up the good work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    What technologies will it block?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry, I don't feed trolls.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It seems more likely to me that you just don't have a good answer to the actual question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't care. You're just asking for a rebuttal without wanting to learn anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If someone can point me to a technology and make out a case that it will be blocked by the PROTECT IP Act, I would seriously like to see the argument. I am actually here to learn. It may seem like flaming, but it's really a genuine desire to suss out the issues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the problem. Imagine if PIPA came out when the VCR was popular. It would have caused it to become a worse alternative than the Betamax.
        
        The MP3 player infringes on copyright to an nth degree. You can freely put your mp3s on there without worry of a receipt.
        
        The DVR -> VCR recording but with a DVD.
        
        Live Streaming -> basically makes it damn near illegal. So if you're a streaming site outside the US, you basically have to use local businesses to keep up. What about if you download a live stream? Remixing? How about a bit the cloud servers that Google, mp3tunes, and Amazon are bringing up?
        
        And something that is most troubling is the cost to innovation this brings about.
        
        Let's say a German man comes out with a new way to make holographic imaging possible. He uses the Kinect (Microsoft) along with music from Ke$ha on a video to demonstrate his proven concept.
        
        Well, if this goes on, he's proven the imaging, but the music just made him liable for infringement. So ICE takes down his webpage and any support that he's had is gone from the US, all before he can show his proof of the holographic imager effect. No more Paypal account, no more Visa card, Master card, or anything resembling US financial services. All because of an allegation and he happens to live out of state.
        
        Tell me, how much would that actually cost us?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clarifying: The first part is about taking an infringing piece of equipment, seeing the legal uses, then showing how PIPA would hamper that equipment.
        
        The VCR was >
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clarifying: The first part is about taking an infringing piece of equipment, seeing the legal uses, then showing how PIPA would hamper that equipment.
        
        The VCR was >
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or that the question has already been answered on several other posts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I must have missed those.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly, look more carefully.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The Wheel.
      The Carriage.
      The Torch.
      Fire.
      
      Just to name a few.
      
      ...OH, wait, you were serious?
      
      Okay then;
      
      Emulation of abandonware.
      Live streaming;
      FLV files.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know what "emulation of abandonware" means, so you'll have to walk me through that one.
        
        Live streaming already exists. The PROTECT IP Act will not take away this technology or prevent it from progressing. Only sites dedicated to infringement will be affected.
        
        FLV files? They will exist as always. I don't see how the PROTECT IP Act will take away flash video.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        let me get in my time machine so i can name some tech that doesnt exist yet. Live streaming wouldn't exist if protect ip had existed 10 years ago, neither would flv.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Act would attempt to make it so that 'Rogue sites' like Justintv wouldn't be usable to, say, stream a live raid for WoW or RIFT.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And rebroadcasting someone else's copyrighted works is necessary for innovation how?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because, and you keep missing this, the site has non-infringing speech as well. Are you being deliberately obtuse for a reason?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't just wrap your infringement in non-infringing speech and then all of the sudden be immune to liability. It doesn't work that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So they there is no such thing as fair use in your world is there?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Only sites dedicated to infringement will be affected."
        
        You keep repeating this mantra. Repeating it does not make it so.
        
        Proof: moo.com
        
        Stop lying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Under the PROTECT IP Act, seizures such as mooo.com would not happen without substantially more due process. Not sure this stifles innovation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yay for deliberate obtuseness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Read Mike's post from Jun 3rd, 2011 @ 1:04am, then get back to us (or not).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nathan F (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  Napster was an innovation. The music industry didn't like it so they didn't work with it to make it better and useful to their consumers, so it went down as a ball of fire.
  
  A lot of times innovation will begin by people doing something outside the law, or something industry leaders don't want happening. Usually they come about because someone sees an economic or marketing need that isn't being filled.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ken, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    If the music industry had of embraced Napster from the beginning they would be enjoying the golden age of music right now and raking in record revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars but they fought it and are now suffering the consequences. They are now in the situation the movie industry would have been in if the VCR was successfully destroyed as they tried to do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    I get that some things that are infringing can lead to new technologies. What I don't get is the innuendo that infringing things are necessary to create new technologies. Nor do I see how the PROTECT IP Act blocks new technologies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nathan F (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'd wager that peer to peer client technology grew at the rapid pace it did because of the infringing activities of Napster and its cousins. Web based video became mainstream thanks to YouTube, which as we have seen can have infringing and non-infringing uses.
      
      PROTECT IP would block new technologies because the legacy industries would scream and yell about how this newfangled tech is infringing on their ability to make money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It might block a technology that relies on piracy to gain traction. But does technology need piracy? Couldn't the same technology be developed, but just play by the rules?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Couldn't the same technology be developed, but just play by the rules?
        
        play by rules that are bought and paid for by legacy industries that don't want to be displaced by new technologies?
        
        see the problem? it's called "the pirate's dilemma" which basically boils down to "sure this thing is illegal at this moment in time, but the efficiencies it creates will create a lot more for the industry in the long run."
        
        this was the case with cable tv, radio, the cassette recorder, the photocopier, tivo, the mp3, etc. and it will be the case with the next new technology that does what all of those other copying technologies did, i.e. 3d printing.
        
        and before you say "then work to change the rules" i'll counter with "code trumps laws" and "action is cheaper than control". you can't stop a distributed movement with central authority.
        
        we don't have to change anything. the technologies that enable us to do what we want are already here and there is nothing that hollywood, its lobbyists, or the global intellectual property cartels can do about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        D. Hope-Ross (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This must be one of the posts that FUDBuster missed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        New technologies are free to displace the dominant ones by doing things better and by legitimately competing. Real innovation wouldn't need to infringe to do this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yaya for deliberate obtuseness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is, if it's infringing, then it's not really innovative, is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        D. Hope-Ross (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd say that torrenting music and movies was innovative when it was first happening.
        
        Likewise, I'd say Girl Talk's approach to music is pretty innovative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right. But could you say that innovation could not have happened but for infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let's just say yes. Can you please move the conversation forward?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Real innovation wouldn't need to infringe to do this.
        
        cable TV did infringe. the cassette recorder did infringe. the VCR did infringe. the phonograph did infringe. radio did infringe. Tivo, MP3, photocopiers, all infringed.
        
        something new infriges at first, and then hollywood cuts some sort of licensing deal. that has been the history of media innovation for a hundred years... up until a decade ago.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you know you are the person that wont see a star even if the star is falling over his head, so teh answer to your question is yes, why because inovation is meant to take place by the needs of the people not by te rules set by a corporation, but don't worry i know you will dircard this coment and say i dont see it or thats not true or some other denial
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If a star was falling over my head, we would all be dead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DannyB (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Technology does not rely on piracy to gain traction.
        
        Example: BitTorrent.
        
        It was created to distribute large Linux image files. Legal files fully authorized to be distributed by the copyright owner(s).
        
        It was used by its intended users for its intended use. That is all the traction it needed. It filled a need.
        
        Oh, wait. It, like many other tools, can be used for piracy.
        
        So here comes PROTECT-IP to make such tech illegal.
        
        Is that enough example for you, or will you be back on the next thread asking the same question, again, and again? (Nevermind, I already know the answer.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ken, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Danny
        
        You inadvertently made a huge point that often times the creators of a technology do not alway see the full potential and applications of their creations. Remember the Internet itself was designed as a method to communicate during a nuclear war then for academia to share information. The originators of the Internet had no idea what it would become. It was people who "stole" their Intellectual property that made the Internet what is is today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nor do I see how the PROTECT IP Act blocks new technologies.
      
      Um. Then what's the point of the Act? It's all about blocking new technologies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point of the Act is to block sites dedicated to infringement, whether copyright or trademark. New technologies can still be developed, so long as they aren't developed on sites dedicated to infringement. Are you arguing that new technologies REQUIRE infringement to be developed? That's an interesting argument if so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Historically, the new technology becomes "infringing" *after" it's been developed when the industry attempts to get new laws passed that makes it so rather than embrace it.
        
        I wonder why they still keep doing that though when eventually the new tech becomes the greatest thing that ever happened to them. There's no reason why the Internet can't be that as well, if they don't succeed in getting it turned off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're all arguing with someone who doesn't understand what the future is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If my accursed post had come up right, I could have clarified up above. I'm just going to leave it there as a computer error and clarify here.
        
        VCR - Infringing
        MP3 - Infringing
        Internet - Infringing
        HD - Infringing
        All tools are infringing in some way shape or form. Some websites are not "dedicated to infringement" and the imperative should be on things happening AFTER a site has been charged with a crime, not before.
        
        I'd love it if we could expand on the "time shift concept" of the betamax/VCR debates. Sadly the "inducement" ruling trumps this and we've seen the effects.
        
        What I would argue is that the entire point of infringement misses the point of what new technologies can do. You're not a criminal for infringing. It's not causing the economic downturn of society. People are finding new ways to compete in the marketplace and copyright is becoming more of a socio-economic barrier to success.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ken, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are correct about the socio-economic barriers. If you don't have much money don't even think about creating anything because law-suits and threats of law-suits now go hand-in-hand with any creative venture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brent, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:18am

Underground Internet
The answer may be to devise a new Internet that does not rely on ISPs and has no central servers but every computer on the network directly connects to each other. If Congress does not watch out an underground Internet will emerge that will be out of reach to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Underground Internet
  CNN 2020: The UN's World Cyber security team is still cracking down on the "global darknet," composed of pirates and criminals with their unregulated internet...
  
  3 dead in the latest raid, as the unarmed geeks put up mild verbal resistance and the armed Special Forces team were forced to shoot them. A 3 bedroom house, 17 servers, a bank of hi-capacity routing switches were confiscated after the raid.
  
  Up next, what kind of danger does this organized criminal resistance to the global well-regulated internet pose to you and your children?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re: Underground Internet
    "Up next, what kind of danger does this organized criminal resistance to the global well-regulated internet pose to you and your children?"
    
    close but the "what kind" makes the statement less scary. It should be: Up next, the secret danger such organized criminal resistance to the global well-regulated internet pose to you and how it can kill your children?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rooben (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:47am

Missing The Point
The point of all of this is to continue to drive civil issues into criminal.
Previously, the RIAA/MPAA would have to do this work themselves. Their lawyers, their lawsuit, they are the plaintiff.

Now, we can drag this into the criminal courts, where you as the taxpayer is the plaintiff, and the infringer is criminal. This way, the US Government is the one protecting the profits of these consortiums. This way, they can continue to maximize profits, and let the taxpayer foot the bill on any issue that infringes on their profitability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:54am

The problem with artificial scarcity
The problem is this: it's artificial.

The scarcity does not exist. Try all you want to create scarcity. The reality is it does not exist, and people will take advantage of the vast availability.

Instead of trying to create artificial scarcity, you could instead take advantage of the vast availability yourself. Just imagine. Sitting back and doing nothing while Amazon sells downloads. Netflix sells streaming, etc. They are NEVER out of stock. You never have to resupply them. You just get perpetual fees.

The only thing stopping this dream? The unwillingness of one of the parties to be reasonable.

So, people will turn elsewhere.

Then the unreasonable people go after everyone except for the real pirates. They'll spout the "enablers and facilitators". Here's a clue: that includes the internet itself. Why not just shut that down?

Boy: do not try to create artificial scarcity, for that is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.

Neo: the truth?

Boy: there is no scarcity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:05am

Still waiting for your alternative definition of what constitutes a rogue website Masnick. Any time now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  Still waiting for your alternative definition of what constitutes a rogue website Masnick. Any time now...
  
  Wait, so your friends make up a stupid and meaningless phrase and then use it everywhere, and then when I point out what a dumb and vague phrase it is, you insist I have to redefine it?
  
  I pointed out that it's a pointless phrase. It doesn't need an "alternative definition" because it's a phrase that doesn't make any sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re: (Got your google cheque this week Mike ?)
    I pointed out that it's a pointless phrase. It doesn't need an "alternative definition" because it's a phrase that doesn't make any sense.
    
    I'm sure you ment 'that doesn't make any sense TO ME'.
    
    Masnick your level of denial is amazing !
    
    to the point where you cannot even acknowledge something could possible exist if it was something you happen to disagree with.
    
    (and who happens to pay you) !!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Masnick you go on Russian television to denounce a bill and make a substantial objection about how over broad the definition of rogue site is. And offer nothing in return. It's like the only play in the apologist playbook. Your friends at CDT were largely responsible for that definition. At least while they share many of your objections, they engage in the process of crafting a balanced bill. You on the other hand are seemingly committed to promoting infringement by opposing every reasonable measure proposed and offer no alternative of your own.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      NOT RUSSIAN. Russian-funded, yes, but it's the ENGLISH LANGUAGE version. And if this is what you call balanced, I have a House to sell you. It's White.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Masnick you go on Russian television to denounce a bill and make a substantial objection about how over broad the definition of rogue site is. And offer nothing in return.
      
      I offer plenty in return: don't pass this dangerous and unnecessary bill. There is no reasonable definition for allowing censorship.
      
      Your friends at CDT were largely responsible for that definition. At least while they share many of your objections, they engage in the process of crafting a balanced bill.
      
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Because one organization I have nothing to do with suggested poor language that made a very bad bill slightly less bad... I suddenly have to support the bill? Really?
      
      You on the other hand are seemingly committed to promoting infringement by opposing every reasonable measure proposed and offer no alternative of your own
      
      Please, do not make libelous statements. I have never promoted, nor supported, infringement. This bill is not a "reasonable measure."
      
      The alternative, which I have offered (contrary to your compulsion to lie) is for the people who pay your bills to LEARN SOME ECONOMICS and ADAPT to a changing market place.
      
      It's not hard. I've helped many content creators do that. But the folks who pay your bills apparently prefer regulatory capture, breaking the internet, and censorship to the hard work of modifying their business.
      
      How does it feel to be an enabler for that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timo, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:21am

Bit torrent technology is the most efficient way to distribute a very large file over a network. The fact it can be used to distribute "pirated" files does not change this. Many companies use this techonology for perfectly legal operations. Protect IP would prevent such technology from being developed today... if only they could.

Say you bought a DVD and it's copy protected. I assume (not an expert on copyright) you can make a backup copy in case it get scratches and doesn't play as expected anymore. I guess any software (technology) circumventing this "protection" so you can make your own personal backup might be targeted by PROTECT IP.

Go back in time, run PROTECT IP and you'll prevent the technology necessary to create tape recorders, VCRs, CD/DVD writers. Hell, even probably hard drives and USB thumbs. Because they can be used to infringe and because that's exactly what they have claimed in the past. Tape recorders will kill music, VCRs will kill movies, etc.

If I understand correctly, any new technology that can be used for any reason the copyright fascist don't like could be potentially blocked by PROTECT IP.

Cloud computing might be the next bogeyman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:22am

I'm loving the headline for this article. That's why people are so dismissive of you Masnick. Hinting that Google could be considered a rogue site as an absurdity. For starters, Google is a US corporation not a foreign one which is the subject of the PROTECT IP Act. So for starters, Google is already subject to existing US laws that ICE has used against infringing sites that have been subject to civil forfeiture. And somehow Google has escaped seizure. How about that? Maybe that's because nobody other than you thinks that Google meets the definition under the law. Your rhetoric gets nuttier by the day. I can hardly wait to forward this to some lawmakers who are on the fence as an example of how certain self-styled opinion leaders in the tech community contend the law applies. Thanks for the gift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  > Hinting that Google could be considered a rogue site as an absurdity.
  
  You obviously missed the first post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  I'm loving the headline for this article. That's why people are so dismissive of you Masnick.
  
  You may be dismissive of me, but plenty of "people" (generally much higher than your paygrade) are not. But keep believing that no one cares about what I have to say. It's cute.
  
  Hinting that Google could be considered a rogue site as an absurdity. For starters, Google is a US corporation not a foreign one which is the subject of the PROTECT IP Act.
  
  First of all, I didn't do it, Howard Knopf did -- and if you think he's not respected in this field, you're so far gone that you really should pipe down.
  
  Second, we weren't discussing just foreign sites. We were discussing the general "rogue site" bullshit you and your friends keep spreading.
  
  So for starters, Google is already subject to existing US laws that ICE has used against infringing sites that have been subject to civil forfeiture. And somehow Google has escaped seizure. How about that? Maybe that's because nobody other than you thinks that Google meets the definition under the law.
  
  Again, we're not talking about the definition under Protect IP. And you would know that if you read the post. Knopf was making a point about how stupid and vague "rogue sites" are as a phrase.
  
  I can hardly wait to forward this to some lawmakers who are on the fence as an example of how certain self-styled opinion leaders in the tech community contend the law applies. Thanks for the gift.
  
  Please do -- repeatedly. I will assume that most lawmakers can actually read and comprehend what I actually wrote, rather than your insane misreading of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    You may be dismissive of me, but plenty of "people" (generally much higher than your paygrade) are not.
    
    Wow Mike, how far up your own ass are you !!!!.
    
    That single statement sums you up perfectly !
    
    elitest dirtbag ?
    
    Mike it is certainly NOT below you to resort to nasty personal attacks, that are not remotely related to the issues.
    
    But if someone questions your delicate sensibilities you launch into the 'but im far better than you will ever be'.
    
    It's sad that is all you are really capable of doing.
    
    And probably why you are not doing a 'real' job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The fact that you and your AC buddies are here every single day posting this kind of stuff on every single story on speaks volumes. Is says that indeed many people *are* listening to Mike and that he's hit quite a nerve.
      
      There are millions of people posting all manner of opinions on the Internet 24/7 and most people don't give two squirts about 99.999% of them. Think about it. If what he was saying was what you claim it is you wouldn't even be here. You'd have better things to do.
      
      As a side note: your posting style severely degrades your potential influence here and you're failing to convence people to come around to your way of thinking. Maybe you should start a blog?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We're here to make sure Masnick's daily lies aren't blindly accepted by some unsuspecting web user who found this dump on Google.
        
        That's it. Nothing more.
        
        The rest of the stuff? Masnick does that to himself without even realizing it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trust me, the 'unsuspecting web user(s)' who stumble upon this site via Google can comprehend what is being discussed just fine. Your attempts at obfuscation and coal-raking aren't doing you any favors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah right, he needs a dumbo like you to explain it to him. Consider us convinced, LOL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      -You're nobody!
      
      -I'm somebody!
      
      -Wow, you're so full of yourself!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously, where's the hall monitor when you need them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ComputerAddict (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I will assume that most lawmakers can actually read and comprehend what I actually wrote, rather than your insane misreading of it."
    
    Whoa.. Bad Assumption.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I'm loving the headline for this article. That's why people are so dismissive of you Masnick."
    
    "You may be dismissive of me, but plenty of "people" (generally much higher than your paygrade) are not. But keep believing that no one cares about what I have to say. It's cute."
    
    Really? How many of them will be voting on the bill?
    
    "Hinting that Google could be considered a rogue site as an absurdity. For starters, Google is a US corporation not a foreign one which is the subject of the PROTECT IP Act."
    
    "First of all, I didn't do it, Howard Knopf did -- and if you think he's not respected in this field, you're so far gone that you really should pipe down."
    
    Please Masnick, he didn't write the headline, you did. And what was your purpose there?
    
    "Second, we weren't discussing just foreign sites. We were discussing the general "rogue site" bullshit you and your friends keep spreading."
    
    What's the point? Google is an American company subject to existing law. If there was a case to be made, it would have been. More Chicken Little shit.
    
    "So for starters, Google is already subject to existing US laws that ICE has used against infringing sites that have been subject to civil forfeiture. And somehow Google has escaped seizure. How about that? Maybe that's because nobody other than you thinks that Google meets the definition under the law."
    
    "Again, we're not talking about the definition under Protect IP. And you would know that if you read the post. Knopf was making a point about how stupid and vague "rogue sites" are as a phrase."
    
    So are you saying that Knopf used an example he knew had no bearing? Rogue site, as you noted comes more fully defined tan just "rogue site".
    
    "I can hardly wait to forward this to some lawmakers who are on the fence as an example of how certain self-styled opinion leaders in the tech community contend the law applies. Thanks for the gift."
    
    "Please do -- repeatedly. I will assume that most lawmakers can actually read and comprehend what I actually wrote, rather than your insane misreading of it."
    
    What they see is the fantastic conspiracy theory whacko world that the apologist/freeloader community lives in, where any responsible attempt to rein in infringing behavior is met with nearly insane theories and scenarios that culminate (as your frequent contributor Josh likes to believe) with the CIA planting microchips in people's skulls. That's the picture they get. So don your tin foil crown and rave away,
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT, 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What they see is the fantastic conspiracy theory whacko world that the apologist/freeloader community lives in, where any responsible attempt to rein in infringing behavior is met with nearly insane theories and scenarios..."
      
      You mean just like the fantastic whacko world that the the music and movie middleman community lives in, where any new technology that provides people with content in the form they want it is met with nearly insane theories and scenarios of industry doom. Do you need that list of technology again? Piano players, home taping, VCR, DVD, MPS, digital lockers, etc...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really? How many of them will be voting on the bill?
      
      We'll see, won't we? Though, again, in your little world, that's all that matters, huh? Getting this bill that your paymasters want over the goal line.
      
      Some of us have bigger plans. You have the votes. We both know this bill will pass. I'm working on the bigger game.
      
      Please Masnick, he didn't write the headline, you did. And what was your purpose there?
      
      Actually, he did. Facts really are not your strong suit, are they?
      
      What's the point? Google is an American company subject to existing law. If there was a case to be made, it would have been. More Chicken Little shit.
      
      The point is to highlight the problems of the whole concept of "rogue sites." That this went over your head really suggests that you shouldn't be involved in shoving this bill down the throats of citizens of this country.
      
      So are you saying that Knopf used an example he knew had no bearing? Rogue site, as you noted comes more fully defined tan just "rogue site".
      
      Reading comprehension. That's not what I said at all.
      
      What they see is the fantastic conspiracy theory whacko world that the apologist/freeloader community lives in, where any responsible attempt to rein in infringing behavior is met with nearly insane theories and scenarios that culminate (as your frequent contributor Josh likes to believe) with the CIA planting microchips in people's skulls. That's the picture they get. So don your tin foil crown and rave away
      
      I have no "conspiracy" theory. I'm not a freeloader. I'm not an apologist.
      
      I love how when you have no facts at your disposal, and no basis for your rantings, your response is just throw around insults.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really? How many of them will be voting on the bill?
      
      And who gives a fuck? Coming up with these laws what make a dent in piracy and it'll be fun to watch you whine again on this blog, shill.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  Looks like we've got ourselves a rogue commentator. Somebody should make a law against rogue commentators.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:10am
  
  Re:
  That's why people are so dismissive of you Masnick
  
  Dumb shills like you? Who gives a fuck?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:43am

"I just don't buy the argument. The PROTECT IP Act does not block any technologies. Innovation is allowed to take place."

That's utter and total bullshit. With this act we wouldn't have youtube.

Hell, with this act we wouldn't have Google, or any other search engines. Can you imagine if in the mid 90s the PROTECT IP act was in place and all of the sudden search engines popped up and now all of the sudden is was possible to *gulp* search for pirated content. These dinosaur companies would have annihilated every single search engine based solely on this.

To say this doesn't hamper innovation is just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  Well, a many-to-many communications platform is harder to work with than a one-to-many communications platform, oh, I see what they're trying to do.
  
  Turn the internet into television.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re:
  YouTube shouldn't have been allowed to become the number one video site; they gained their advantage over other sites by encouraging infringing videos on their site.
  
  That's unfair.
  
  Don't know about you, but I prefer to live in a country where a business has to compete fair and square.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "they gained their advantage over other sites by encouraging infringing videos on their site."
    
    [Citation Needed]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    I prefer to live in a country where a business has to compete fair and square.
    
    Fair as in bring politicians? Yeah, the high horse really suits you shills.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:59am

"The point of the Act is to block sites dedicated to infringement, whether copyright or trademark. New technologies can still be developed, so long as they aren't developed on sites dedicated to infringement. Are you arguing that new technologies REQUIRE infringement to be developed? That's an interesting argument if so."

You're telling us what the point of the act is? Who are you anyway? Have you read the full text? Are you aware of unintended (IMO they're fully intended) consequences of such broad and over-reaching legislation? Do YOU realize there's already a system in place for dealing with infringing sites? It's called DMCA, it's called cease and desist, it's called filing a lawsuit etc etc ETC.

Without this law even in place yet we've seen innocent people have their domains seized without any due process, we've seen sites seized that posted content PROVIDED to them by big content themselves. We've seen sites seized that have been declared LEGAL in their home country. All this act does it make it easier for law enforcement to continue these unconstitutional procedures. You can't fix an issue by throwing more legislation at it. Once technology grows out of it's current set of shoes then these same guys will be pushing the next act in place of the PROTECT IP act, it's never ending. It's all about control, it's all about protecting legacy business, it's all about protecting PRIVATE business. None of it is about protecting the artist or consumer. The gatekeepers want a cut, at any expense, and you're dumb enough to think all is well. I feel sorry for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:08am

Yeah, nobody cares what Mike has to say, he only has over 750,000 RSS subscribers. Do you know how insane that is? That doesn't even cover daily visitors such as myself who don't subscribe, or the daily visitors who come in via other sites.

Alexa currently has TechDirt as the 3,628th most visited site in the United States.

That's ALOT of dismissive people, LOL. They all must be exactly like you, freaking out their legacy industry is dying and looking for someone to blame and talk shit to on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am
  
  Re: For you he is a GOD !!!
  Yeah, nobody cares what Mike has to say, he only has over 750,000 RSS subscribers
  
  WOW, I guess that makes him almost a GOD to you then !
  
  yes lots of people might follow him, (as if anyone really cares), but I would expect most of those would be to see what the latest oddball claims and comments Mike will come up with next. It's always good for a laugh...
  
  You know what they say about worshiping faulse idols !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re: For you he is a GOD !!!
    Did you notice how what you said was totally wrong?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:22am
    
    Re: Re: For you he is a GOD !!!
    Oh, the envy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:12am

Even if the act is passed, even if we become a communist country who are only allowed to visit websites deemed approved by the Government, you will not stop infringement and you will not stop piracy.

Your legacy industry is forcing the internet to use alternative DNS systems and anonymous networks like TOR. That is the future of the internet and you pushed us there.

No laws you ever pass will ever put more money in your pocket. You guys are playing for pride now and we're calling your bluff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:42am

Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
Similarly, when technologies like radio, photocopiers and the VCR came on the scene, they, too, were used almost exclusively for infringing efforts because the legacy industries hadn't yet figured out how to embrace them and use them for valid reasons.

As usual Mike you display a complete lack of knowledge of the real world.

Radio, do you honestly belive "most" people sat by their AM radio with a tape recorder and lifted music ? You HAVE to be freaking joking right Mike????

VCR's, haha, the vast majority of VCR's when they first came out were PLAY ONLY, Umm, mike you CANNOT record on a play only.

Do you remember your local video shop ? thats what VCR's were used for, not for copying heaps of movies off the TV.

But the primary use of VCR's when they were first introduced (and still are) is in the recording and TV industry's, mainly for archiving.

But it has always been the case if you want to watch a video you went to the local video shop and hired it for the night.

You have NO IDEA what so ever about radio do you mike ?

Do you think what radio "first came out" there was the ability to easily record content off the radio.

(that is well after Radio itself because usable, where is it primarily used for COMMUNICATIONS, (ie two-way radio).

Photocopiers, again its a joke, how many people do you honestly believe would bother to photocopy a book or more than a few pages.

You have obviously never ever worked in a business, they use photocopiers all the time, but they do so to make multiple copies of their own internal documents.

For you to make such statements clearly shows (at least to me) that you do not have a clue what you are talking about, and have absolutely no knowledge of history, or you just lie to make your own story sound more possible.

When are you going to buy a clue ?

I mean really, when you make statements like that all you are doing is destroying what littleis left of your own flagging reputation.

But im sure you can convince a few 12 year olds that you are the oracle of the planet, and are all seeing and all knowing.

Good luck trying to convince the rest of the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
  As usual Mike you display a complete lack of knowledge of the real world.
  
  Are you serious?
  
  Radio, do you honestly belive "most" people sat by their AM radio with a tape recorder and lifted music ? You HAVE to be freaking joking right Mike????
  
  No, and that's not what I said. Darryl, please look up the history of radio and how it was decried as an infringing technology. It wasn't people recording, it was the people broadcasting.
  
  Honestly, if you're going to attack me for not knowing history, it helps for you to actually know the history. You don't.
  
  VCR's, haha, the vast majority of VCR's when they first came out were PLAY ONLY, Umm, mike you CANNOT record on a play only.
  
  Do you remember your local video shop ? thats what VCR's were used for, not for copying heaps of movies off the TV.
  
  But the primary use of VCR's when they were first introduced (and still are) is in the recording and TV industry's, mainly for archiving.
  
  Those three sentences seem to contradict each other. And the local video shop came well after the technology was introduced. Again, your knowledge of history is wrong.
  
  Photocopiers, again its a joke, how many people do you honestly believe would bother to photocopy a book or more than a few pages.
  
  You seem to be totally clueless on the history of the photocopier as well, and the claim that it was an infringing device.
  
  For you to make such statements clearly shows (at least to me) that you do not have a clue what you are talking about, and have absolutely no knowledge of history, or you just lie to make your own story sound more possible.
  
  Hilarious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
    yes mike you are right, and the egg came before the chicken.
    
    yes, the photocopier was used for infringing SOMETIMES, VERY VERY VERY VERY rarly, generally it is cheaper and easier to buy the book than to try to photocopy it.
    
    But Mike, IN THE REAL world they are not used, and have never been used for illegal copying of anything.
    
    Just as in Radio, Mike if you are such an expert, then why is it you can make such stupid and pointless comments ?
    
    You live in some form of dream world, where everything you say is true.
    
    I do not know how old you are, nor do I care, but it is clear you HAVE NO IDEA at all, and have at best a weak grip on technology and even less on the law.
    
    Nice try, but once again, you fail to prove anything, you just repeat the same thing as if it will become true the more times you say it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
      Yes photocopiers are never used for infringing purposes. People are very careful to never copy a copyrighted page in a public library or in a university library.
      
      I can also offer you a prime price on a historic bridge. Well under market value becasue I need the money quickly so I can move to Nigeria.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
    Those three sentences seem to contradict each other. And the local video shop came well after the technology was introduced. Again, your knowledge of history is wrong.
    
    yes, thats true, and what were they used for at that time ?? Mike ?
    
    Do you think people purchased them for their houses so they could record off the TV with them ?
    
    No of course they did not. that is just stupid to even consider that, have you any idea of what a VCR (or video tape machine) cost as a proportion to gross income ? in say 1970 ?
    
    (also remember the first ones were PLAY ONLY, for the general consumer market).
    
    For a very long period audio and video tape technologies were "studio only" equipment, it was not until much later that cassete and Video recorders came onto the market.
    
    And they most certainly did not become consumer items until there was a strong infrastructure of 'video shops' and music shops that sold cassetes.
    
    Radio and photocopiers, again get a clue, it is just not worth while to photocopy books or anthing beyond a few pages, and most photocopiers are used for rutine business applications, just like the desktop printer.
    
    Radio, that is just crazy, or to use your own words 'insane'.
    
    I think you really need a break Mike, get away from it all, see that there is a real world out there. It's not all just about hate..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CrushU, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
      (also remember the first ones were PLAY ONLY, for the general consumer market).
      
      Sorry, what does VCR stand for again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TDR, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
  Darryl, why are you even wasting your time here? As was pointed out above, Mike has a very substantial following (750,000 readers via RSS subscriptions alone, not counting other non-subscribing visitors) and is doing quite well at "convincing the rest of the planet" as you put it, of what his concerns are (which are quite valid, I might add).
  
  You, on the other hand, have as yet never once provided any kind of useful input or anything remotely approaching a point, and never any hard evidence for your position. Until you do, do yourself and all of us a favor and go away. You're not a very good shill, but then most industry apologists never are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:43pm
    
    nice rant, when are you going to get to the point ?
    You might want to read your own post again, before putting the other foot in it.
    
    hard evidence of common sense is something you are going to have to deal with.
    
    If you cannot work out yourself that in the 1930's when radio is super popular, that there was NO real way to 'record off the radio'.
    
    Video tape machines would have cost $25,000 to buy when first introduced (for a cheap one) that was 'studio' only applications.
    
    Yes, may by last year when you were at school you sneeked some illegal photocopies, but if you have ever worked in business, there are thousands of copiers and NONE are used for infringing.
    
    It's not the technology they are trying to stop, they welcome new technologies, but its the application of that technology and the use it is put too that is their issue.
    
    There is nothing wrong with a gun if you need it to live and eat, but a gun (the technology) can also be put to 'bad' purposes, like shooting someone.
    
    BitTorrent is a great technology for moving large files I agree, but if those large files are files that you do not own then it's the same as using the gun for a bad purpose.
    
    It's not the technologies fault, it's the person or people who misuse that tech for their own greed and gains.
    
    (that is how you address the issues, and not just attack the person and provide no argument at all).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
  well at least he is getting more coherent
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT, 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:11pm
  
  Re: Radio !! VCR's !!! Photocopiers ? Ya think !!!!
  "VCR's, haha, the vast majority of VCR's when they first came out were PLAY ONLY, Umm, mike you CANNOT record on a play only."
  
  Nobody complained about the early video tape players, they tried to stop the the Video Cassette Recorder, Your confusion proves that you're the one with a lack of knowledge.
  
  This was also the device compared to the Boston Strangler by the MPAA. So they certainly didn't agree with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:53pm

Definition of a rogue web site?
I presume it's a maverick website with a book deal.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:18pm

Mike and his finger tip grip on reality.
Does anyone remember the 'bad old days' when thousands of people were using photocopiers to copy published book, and to see those photocopies on street corners or from 'car boot sales'.

They were TERRIBLE days, no sooner was a book released, that people would be knocking on your door trying to flog you a photocopy of said latest release..

it was terrible, book shops went out of business, writers stopped writing, publishers stoped publishing, Sales of books droped to virtually ZERO.

And from that time until today, "there has been NO NEW BOOKS EVER WRITTEN"..

Yes the writing and book industry is no more, it was destroyed by all those nasty pirates with their xerox machines.

Thats why no new books are ever written, no new authors start in the business, and why no one bothers to write any more, because all they have to do is photocopy someone elses work.

Video Tape, thats terrible as well, see how that has completely destroyed the TV industry, the movie industry, and the picture broadcasting industry..... ALL GONE, ALL DESTROYED by terrible technology, (VIDEO TAPE!!!).

That why you do not ever get any new releases of movies, or documentries, or shows or sports or anything else.

Because all those terrible people stealing that material and making it available on video tape !!!.

It's the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT.... DAMN YOU TECHNOLOGY !!!!!!!! DAMN YOU TOO HELL....... !!!!

And of course all those THOUSANDS OF PIRATE RADIO station that fill the airways, so many you cant find a 'real' commercial station because there are SO MANY PIRATES broadcasting pirate radio...

It's a terrible state of the world, we do not have books (on photocopies), we do not have any new TV and video material, as it is all stolen and on Video cassets.
We cant listen to the radio because there are SO MANY pirate radio stations flooding the airways.

Why did you not include PRINTERS ? like the original printer, or the "gastetner" machine ?

In Mikes world, the invention of the printing press should have resulted in massive copying of books, (ie many many copies of the SAME book).

It's funny how that just did not happen did it, we have lots of books, we have lots of radio stations, we have lots of publishers, we have lots of movie makers, film and video makers..

But according to MIKE (the GOD) we have NONE of this because this technology was ONLY (mainly) used for infringement..

Its funny (and sad) that Mikes perception of the world is totally at odds with reality, ie what actually really happens.

But if mike can get a few more page hits, and put his 'reputation' on the line for a few more Google $$$$$$ then that appears to be the ONLY thing Mikes cares about, (ie Mike)..

perhaps one day you will open your eyes Mike, and come to the realisation that you have overdosed on your own Cool-aid, and you really need to step-back, and take a frech look at your own perception of the world.

We are just trying to work out if you are deeply confused, stupid, or simply blindly biased.

Either way you claims and statements simply do not reflect reality.

And if you do not have a grip on reality, what do you have a grip off? (I really dont want to know!!!))

But I can guess,,, and I am sure you think it FEELS NICE !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnsmith999, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:37am
  
  Re: Mike and his finger tip grip on reality.
  WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON......... YOU SEEM TO BE LOOSING YOUR GRIP ON REALITY
  
  VCR - Video Cassette Recorder
  
  We had one in the early 80's it was used for recording TV
  
  What colour is the sky in your world !!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:57am
  
  Re: Mike and his finger tip grip on reality.
  Keep trying Darryl. It gets funnier each time you misunderstand what I said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2016 @ 9:10am

darryl just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]