MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
from the and-that's-what-you-get dept
For years, we've discussed how questionable it is that federal law enforcement, including the Justice Department and Homeland Security, often acts as the private police force of the entertainment industry. At times there's been a bit of a revolving door, with the RIAA/MPAA hiring former federal law enforcement officials to head up their "anti-piracy" efforts, and the existing federal groups sometimes seem to return the favor by taking on cases that clearly should be civil matters between the private companies in the entertainment business and those it feels infringed on their rights.Over the last few years, the fact that the feds have effectively been working as the entertainment industry's private police force has grown more and more obvious. No one from Homeland Security seems willing to explain (and trust me, I've asked multiple times) why it is that when ICE did its domain seizures, it relied solely on claims from the industry and (even more ridiculous) announced the first round of seizures from Disney headquarters. Can you imagine how people would react if the FTC announced it was filing antitrust charges against Google... from Microsoft's offices? Or if the FCC announced it was blocking the AT&T-T-Mobile merger from Sprint's offices? Such scenarios seem preposterous, but ICE doesn't seem to recognize the clear conflict of interest in acting as the private police force for an industry, rather than actually doing its job.
Perhaps part of that is because the entertainment industry is spending a ton of money lobbying law enforcement agencies directly. Most of the time when you think about lobbying activities, you think about talking to politicians to try to get them to pass certain laws, or talking to regulators to have them adjust or change certain rules and regulations. You don't tend to think of lobbying law enforcement directly in order to convince them to do your private bidding. But, the MPAA does.
According to a disclosure report, the MPAA spent $400,000 lobbying a wide range of US government departments in the first quarter of 2011 including the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, ICE and the Vice President’s Office. Issues on the table include so-called “rogue sites” including RapidShare, streaming, graduated response (3 strikes) and domain seizures.There are no real surprises in the content covered. It's the same stuff the MPAA has been pushing for a while now. But the fact that they're directly lobbying the FBI, the Justice Department, Homeland Security and ICE should raise some eyebrows. Law enforcement should not be influenced by the desires of private companies -- especially ones with a long history of failing to adapt to changing technologies and trying to get those technologies declared illegal. Imagine if, rather than a civil lawsuit, when the VCR was introduced, the movie industry could have just had the FBI declare the things illegal?
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, criminal, doj, fbi, homeland security, ice, joe biden, law enforcement, lobbying
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The more I read here, the more depressed I get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The more I read here, the more depressed I get
When I report that my house was robbed, the police finds a trace of the suspect (HIGHLY unlikely) and gets a warrant, somehow I don't get to go into his house with them and look for my stuff. I wonder why that is... Oh yeah, I'm not sitting on piles of cash that I could bribe them with.
And I'm not even kidding about bribes either. Each year, the music/film industry actually awards the police department that was most successful in fighting "piracy" by buying them hardware etc. The police should be catching real criminals, but instead time and public money is wasted so that they can run errands for some American companies. How can something like this go on in a country of law, I really do not understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the fact that the Fed has become the strong arm of the corporations should surprise nobody, they already owned the legislative branch, the next logical step in complete corporatocracy, is the executive. That'll just leave the judicial branch, and they are appointed, so once the MPAA is in position they'll just appoint the same guys they put in the Fed from their law offices right into SCOTUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy or corruption in government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
That said, there was ONE successful prosecution of criminal copyright infringement, and that was WAY back in the 18th Century. One succcess in over 300 years does not make me a fool, expecially considering I'm not an expert. I had to dig deep to get that.
And as for "Techdirt Idiot Laureate," I'm fairly certain I have good competition in you, coming from the Village Idiot school of advocacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If they were doing a good of it, don't you think there would be more going on?
There are laws on the books, and the industry people are trying to get the FBI and other agencies to take the situation seriously. Since the President's of the companies are not going to spend their time calling around, they hire people to do it. Lobbying? $400,000 would be a pathetic lobbying budget.
It's just more rhetoric from the anti-copyright voices out there that desperately don't want existing laws to be enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
$400,000 may not seem like a lot but when you add to it the millions they spend on congressional campaigns, it begins to add up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I thought Pollyanna was a fictional character
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You can't acutally believe this, can you?
The fact that you try to claim knowledge of some 'law' about something then preface it wit 'i think' kinda of invalidates you point.
The fantasy here is you don't think the feds are getting kick backs because of some law, when they have demonstrated a clear disinterest in laws that are inconvienient to them.
5 years from now when the MPAA's boot is crushing our collective human face(because of people like you) I hope you accidently click a link that leads to 'infringing' content and are arrested and raped in prison, just for the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
This won't happen.
Everything said here is basically about why that won't happen.
The problem isn't that the MPAA, RIAA etc will get their way and no-one will be able to get hold of music or movies etc without paying exorbitant rates. The biggest problem is that in the process of failing to achieve this goal, the MPAA and RIAA etc are actually actively damaging the businesses who are funding them as well as undermining basic rights for everyone. Together they are deluding themselves into thinking that they can make their old systems work, if they can just tighten up legislation still further or have more enforcement.
The simple fact is that, the actual value of copies in the digital world is close to zero, any business that acts as if it were otherwise will fail. All the legislation, all the enforcement is all an enormous waste of time, energy and money and worst of all it is damaging to everyone, including those most in favour of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
So where did the $400,000 go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
> more than $25.
You can't give the employees themselves gifts, but you sure as hell can give it to the agency itself in the form of donated equipment, facilities, etc.
In these days of slashed budgets and belt-tightening, even the FBI would welcome large corporate donations that help fund the agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
$400,000 in a single quarter is not a pathetic lobbying budget by any stretch of the imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
you should look into that statement further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You will please note that at no time is anyones life or physical well being in danger as could be the case for a breaking and entering situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
The issue here is not a protection issue so much as the root problem with the way people think about Copyright today. As Mike is careful to note (multiple times), Copyright's intention is really to benefit the public (as discussed in this article). Given this, there are two stakeholders in any Copyright discussion - the Copyright holders and the public.
Saying that their going directly to these various Federal groups is no different than you calling the police is tantamount to saying that the sole purpose of Copyright is to benefit the Copyright holders, regardless of the best interest of the public.
While I don't have a fundamental disagreement with them directly contacting these organizations, I do have a strong opposition to the fact that these organizations are not investigating the other side of the coin. By simply spewing the "facts" that the Copyright holders provide as to the reasons why they seized the domains, these organizations are, as Mike notes, "propping up an outdated business model" instead of looking to fairly address the problem with facts from both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You should check with Masnick on this. I inferred that he DOES NOT believe that copyright holders are stakeholders in the copyright discussion. Which I find asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
How did you infer that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Please don't try to spin this. For once Masnick looked back at an assertion he made, manned up and said he was mistaken. There's nothing wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I actually was going to throw a party, and really hoped you could come and wow my guests with one of your spiffy poetry readings set to music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haters gonna hate
(shhh! Google paid them personally to disagree with you)
Yep, everyone here, is paid by the mean copyright machine to have no say in the censoring of media. No say in how they like new media, and no say in finding artists outside of the music/movie industry you represent.
And when we factor in the new ways that people look for media outside the industry, all I can say is that time does not appear to be on the side of those you represent. I wish you well in your ad hominem attacks. It just proves the point that you have even less of an argument as time goes on.
Hell, Marcus owns you in the insult department. I have to outsource my insults to him and pay him x2 the amount. And we did it all with google's money just to watch you shake your fist at Mike as he proves you wrong with valid points.
What a world....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: haters gonna hate
Masnick serves a purpose. His shrill, extremist rantings are used as examples of the intellectual depth of arguments against commonsense anti-piracy legislation and policy. He is far more useful to my side than his own.
In the end, you will lose. The first nail in the piracy coffin was leaked earlier tonight:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20073522-261/top-isps-poised-to-adopt-graduated-respon se-to-piracy/?tag=mncol;posts
Add felony streaming and Protect IP and it's all over for all but the most hardcore infringers. But hey, at least you have your sycophant gig to see you through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: haters gonna hate
{sigh}
The DMCA is around.
The Net Act is on the books.
Napster makes no money while Spotify is making a decent amount with its "freemium" model.
Meanwhile the movie industry only uses Netflix and doesn't want to make their own infrastructure.
All of the business model problems going on aren't going to solve those problems. And still you want to link to the graduated response as if that's going to fix everything for your masters. Bravo, but still misguided by a long shot.
"Add felony streaming and Protect IP and it's all over for all but the most hardcore infringers. "
You really don't see the consequences of trying to lock up people for embedding or going after domains, do you? Two things could possibly happen here:
1) The judges snap back hard with the Rojadirecta or other precedents
2) The piracy problem you "solve" migrates to newer areas.
The end game for you seems to be getting these laws passed. Bravo. The consequences of the passing is what everyone is discussing. Pile it up with all of the other problems of government and you're preparing a massive backlash. But I guess, being insulated away from the discussion is the name of the game, right?
Tsk tsk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*edit*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: haters gonna hate
In case anyone is curious, he's talking about this: http://vimeo.com/7268786
He seems to think I am embarrassed about it just because it's kind of silly and not particularly good (the lack of rehearsal is visible to say the least)
I do agree with you on one thing though: I don't own you. If I did, I would put you up on eBay, then probably get shut down for selling medical waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: haters gonna hate
Dude, that coffin has so many nails in it, I don't think there's any wood left.
But you know what's not in it? Anyone infringing. They're still over there, doing more of it every day.
And while you continue to insist that I'm "pro-piracy," you're (again) missing the point. I'm not in favor of piracy or infringement at all. I don't engage it in any form and never have. I've never had Napster or Kazaa or Limewire or anything like that. I've never used the Pirate Bay.
My point is that all of these "nails" don't stop shit. And they don't help your paymasters put in place a better business model. You guys are so focused on "piracy" as the problem, you seem to have missed the fact that it's the fact that you can't figure out how to put in place a smart business model to save your fat paychecks.
I'm the one who's actually trying to help. I'm the one working with artists and helping them earn more money. I'm the one working with new and innovative startups to put in place better business models. The folks listening to me realize that fighting "piracy" is meaningless. It's a pointless war that doesn't help.
So, keep shooting nails into that shattered box. You seem to have missed that the real party is somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: haters gonna hate
Masnick, if that were really the case, you wouldn't have this blog devoted to bitching about piracy enforcement.
You're hilarious. But very useful. We use you as the poster boy for Freetard Nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: haters gonna hate
It takes a special kind of ignorance to be unable to understand the larger "picture" here regarding copyright issues and instead, cling to silly, nonsensical name calling such as "freetard".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: haters gonna hate
If anything, I would think you guys with use the Piratebay guys as poster boys since ya know... Their site has been a running gag for the industry these last few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: haters gonna hate
My secret is simple: be completely honest. I mean, just look at the guy - the material writes itself! When I point out that there is more electrical activity in an ounce of Kardashian ass-fat than in his entire brain, it's not so much an insult as a public service announcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: haters gonna hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I think you are confusing me with you, and Mike with your uncle when he drinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Says fuck lateral. Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You find it asinine because those are the interests you represent. You are paid to find it asinine.
But the point stands. I'd be willing to grant that they are *a* stakeholder, and that my original post on the subject was a bit too strong. But the problem is that thanks to people like you, the government seems to believe they're the only stakeholder. And that's asinine.
The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public. Full stop.
The way that is done is to create beneficiaries out of copyright holders. Does that make such holders a stakeholder? I guess, but it certainly should not make them the one driving policy. The policy should be entirely focused on what benefits the public. The copyright holders will *always* claim that the best way to benefit the public is to give them more control/power/rights. Yet that may not (and often is not) true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Well, that's a meaningless statement. Even corporations are made up of members of "the public". How do you define the word in this instance?
That's not true. I hold dozens of copyrights, and I don't feel that way. I can name a lot of musicians that agree: DJ Shadow, George Clinton, RJD2, Steinski, Tricky, Bjork, Fugazi, El-P, OKGo, Negativland, Trent Reznor, MF Doom, Biz Markie, Sonic Youth... the list goes on and on. Even some oddballs: U2 as a group apparently doesn't, but I know from an interview between The Edge and Negativland that he doesn't agree with strict-IP enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Anyway, Mike Masnick is not a copyright holder by his own intention. It was foisted upon him - and Cory Doctorow, and myself, and millions of other unwitting copyright holders - by the actual people who give a shit, who are generally referred to as 'copyright holders'. Since that's how they refer to themselves.
Moving on to the actual points raised...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
However, you have charmed me by listing several of my favourite artists above. You're all right, Huph!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
So it's not corruption, it's not inside poker. Everyone has the same access to the people in the decision making process. It's just that few people are sympathetic to the need to freeload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Funny. Let's take just one lobbyist. Mitch Rosen. He knows the Justice Department quite well, given that he used to work for them in 2002. He would have a few friends while campaigning for stronger copyright laws in the RIAA. So the matter of not resonating seems to be more of a bias to one view point based on familiarity.
" The problem is that the real issue is about freeloading. "
It's never been and you know it.
"That's not to say that people aren't mindful of Constitutional protections."
Yeah, with the IP lookups, and the settlement letters of yesteryear along with the domain seizures that pass muster... Where's the government's argument, *in court*, about the domain seizures? Better yet, where's the prosecutions for the first domain seizures?
" Everyone has the same access to the people in the decision making process."
The absolute most laughable thing is trying to say that I have access to my Senator and Congressmen who have advocated publicly for these laws, making the entire nation weaker as a whole. Who would you rather listen to as a Senator that has had the same office for 10+ years? The people that will elect you through gerrymandered voting or the new gift giving lobbyist that is funding your campaign?
Yeah, tough choice...
"It's just that few people are sympathetic to the need to freeload."
Never has been about "sympathy to freeload", it's about a system that's not hearing the public. I guess you can continue that argument if you want, but that doesn't make it any more true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Every congressman and senator has district offices and you can meet with them or senior staff by calling for an appointment. Ever tried?
And who do you think works for EFF, CDT and PK? They didn't come from Manpower Temporary Services, you know. They are accomplished, experienced professionals. They could use more resources and I'm sure they'd appreciate a check.
I understand that it's easier to criticize and find fault than to roll up your sleeves and try to make a change. With your considerable skill at the former, you might be surprised at your success in the latter.... if only you cared enough to actually try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Yes. My Congressman, Tom Cole, told me that my husband - not me, even though I was calling for myself - could meet with him if he got eleven other veterans together and flew to Washington D.C. So I have to ask... Have you ever tried?
And who do you think works for EFF, CDT and PK? They didn't come from Manpower Temporary Services, you know. They are accomplished, experienced professionals. They could use more resources and I'm sure they'd appreciate a check.
A check? Really? I think they prefer the contributions that I send via their websites, but whatever. In reality, where I live, the amount that I can donate is dwarfed by the amount that a single corporation can and does donate, so your point is moot.
I understand that it's easier to criticize and find fault than to roll up your sleeves and try to make a change. With your considerable skill at the former, you might be surprised at your success in the latter.... if only you cared enough to actually try.
Vocally criticizing these issues is part and parcel of 'rolling up your sleeves' and attempting to make changes. Obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If you are a lobbying group, you certainly can. Or did you miss the 'number of attendees', etc. on the form?
See, if you fill out that form for yourself, you'll get a call from a senior staff member who won't answer any questions on any of his positions and tells you that you cannot make an appointment at all, but if your veteran husband wants to get other vets together and fly to DC (and agree to be photographed with Tom Cole), he'll see you.
In DC. After the photo op.
If you write, you'll get a very expensively printed letter back that very carefully says nothing at all. If you write and e-mail enough times, you'll get an angry e-mail that may or may not be from Tom Cole himself, but whoever they are is angry and not very eloquent. Also, they should use more line breaks. But whatever. It's still not helpful.
Cole serves on Budget and Appropriations so these sorts of issues are out of his area of expertise.
So you're saying that following your suggesting and contacting my rep about these issues would be... useless? Even though that's a direct contradiction from what you said earlier?
Yeah. Thought so.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Have you ever tried contacting your representative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I send letters. I get forms right back. Nice way to prove my point.
The rest of your argument is pretty much moot since I've already researched the Senate and who I am voting for.
Next time, stop grasping at straws and stick to facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If you want a meeting call or just show up at the district office, or go to a town hall meeting. Senators and Congressmen have large staffs that are paid to ignore letters from crackpots like you. I assume that your letters are rants instead of requests for meetings so they may have already figured that you're nuttier than squirrel shit and are ignoring you. If you really want a meeting, put on a jacket and tie (not your clip-on) and try to refrain from acting like a jackass while you ask to have a word with senior staff or counsel. Try to appear reasonable. Best bet is to ask about the representatives position and why s/he holds it. Then explain your different viewpoint (if necessary).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
infer
v. infers, inferred, inferring.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.
The only one of these 4 options that you could realistically defend is number 4, that you are hinting or implying the position to Masnick.
And yes, that is asinine, but then why did you do it.
Having been given the prime cuts, and then demanding more and more, the copyright maximalists go on to claiming eternal ownership of the entire cow and that they are not only entitled to be paid extra whenever somebody makes something out of any part of the cow. But still expect to be paid even more when someone uses that thing that someone else made out of any part of the cow at any point currently within lifetime+70yrs but should any part of the cow survive until then, will want the term extended.
Want to wear those shoes, you'll need a licence.
Want to wear them outdoors, that'll be another higher licence.
Want to wear them outdoors in a place where more than 20 people are gathered, top dollar for that.
When the cowboys are paying the police directly and encouraging them to check you out for illicit shoe wearing,
not to mention seizing your shoes without notice or trial then the law will only be doing it's job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I'll choose to defend: Definition #1:
From Masnick's May 2 article:
"Some might argue that copyright holders are a stakeholder, but I think Rick Falkvinge has it exactly right when he notes that the copyright industry is not a stakeholder at all, but a beneficiary of copyright law."
Note that the title of the article stated that copyright holders were not stakeholders but beneficiaries.
So feel free to follow up with more stupid, uninformed rants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
For heaven's sake, them being beneficiaries of the law is the only thing that gives them any standing to be referred to as stakeholders, that is after all their stake in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Seriously, are you slow or something? Of course they're beneficiaries. As is the public. But Masnick's May 2 article forwarded the contention that the copyright industry WERE NOT stakeholders. That's what I took issue with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Marcus seems to have grasped your rather fox newsy way of misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise of what is being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Dude, if you really think that semantics game made you a winner those corps should really pay more money to fund a better shill. You're pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
- They are "stakeholders" in the sense of having an obvious interest in the outcome
- They are not "stakeholders" in the sense of copyright protecting their rights, because in fact copyright is what grants them those rights in the first place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Why should he when you're already doing a pretty good job at this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If I you take the police chief out to an expensive dinner and for the next month your ex wife has her car impounded 5 times due to a series 'paperwork errors' it's pretty obvious what happened.
The fact that you have the testicular fortitude to attempt to pass this off as 'nothing to see here' makes me weep for your children, or anyone else who may attempt to learn the difference between right and wrong from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Indeed. And if this was a case of a crime occurring and the MPAA then calling law enforcement to report a crime, you'd be correct. But this is not. This is a *lobbying* disclosure. They were distinctly lobbying *by their own admission*. The issue is that they're not reporting a crime, they're asking the government to protect their business model and go way beyond what they should be doing -- which often means making decisions based almost entirely on the say-so of one party (a party that stands to benefit).
So the rest of your comment makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
No, a more beneficial analogy would be a local chamber of commerce meeting with the police to discuss problems unrelated to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Like it or not, we're not discussing enforcement of criminal infringement. So my analogy is spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Stop trying to pretend it's about anything other than that. You're not fooling anyone and you just look silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
i mean, could it get any more obvious what's happening here? Stop trying to pretend it's about anything other than that. You're not fooling anyone and you just look silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Hm. Many, MANY years ago I purchased a little vinyl 45 record I was gaga over called "I Think I Love You" by David Cassidy.
I played it so much I wore it out and had to purchase another one.
Then an album came out with the song on it I 'just had to have' so I purchased that.
Then I purchased it on a cassette.
Then I purchased it on an 8 track.
Then I purchased it on a CD.
Now I finally have an mp3 of it so I can FINALLY stop PURCHASING THE SAME DAMN SONG by the SAME DAMN ARTIST.
WHO IS GETTING/HAS BEEN RIPPED OFF? Rumble on TechDirt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You are if you pay them $400,000 before you call them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
There, fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
> the cops, I'm not "lobbying" for them to be
> my "private security force."
No, but if you spend $400,000 buying the cops brand new cars and equipment in exchange for the promise that they'll give you and your house top priority over everyone else, you are lobbying them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
They won't bother to turn up. Too busy working for the MPAA etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
LOL... we are talking about the labels who routinely rip off artists, remember? The major beneficiaries of these laws are the middlemen, not the creators.
Anyway, your analogy is broken. For it to be correct, your calling the police would be based on zero evidence (equivalent to "I think that guy over there took some of my stuff but I can't tell you if it was him and can't prove I lost anything"), still be in possession of your stuff (infringement != theft because you've lost nothing tangible) and divert police resources from other, more serious crimes to protect what you think you might have lost.
"just as entitled to ask the police to enforce the laws as the couch potatoes"
When you start learning the ways of the real world, you might realise that "us vs. them" doesn't exist outside of crappy movies, and that the laws these people are trying to force through negatively affect content creators who don't happen to have sold their souls to major corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must admit, as a shameless piracy apologist you are without peer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't speak for Mike, but I know I want copyright infringement back in it's proper place on the list of priorities for things we need our government to look in to. You know, towards the bottom.
Seriously, you can't think of any crimes that are perhaps more important and deserve these resources? None?
Side question: What is your definition of 'piracy apologist'? Just so I know what you mean when you type it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
God, you are so full of shit. In terms of corruption, the US is 22/178 in the world. Tied with Belgium and ahead of France, Spain and Portugal. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No only that, but it's a ranking of corruption relative to others. That makes no comment on the absolute level of corruption.
That said, I actually don't find the arguments that there's significant corruption here all that persuasive. I believe that in most instances, those supporting such things really do believe they're doing the right thing.
I still believe there are inherent corruption issues, but I don't think corruption is the real issue here. It may be a symptom of something else in terms of regulatory capture more than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree that there's no giant corrupt machine at work - but there are lots of little pieces of semi-corruption contributing to a very broken system. In fact that's kind of how I feel about humanity and its morals in broader philosophical terms: there are very few "evil" people, but every single person contributes at least a little bit to the grand universal wrongness that fucks with us all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The extra part about VCR's wasn't needed. The article made it's point without it. Saying that the FBI could make something illegal kills so much of what was right with the article because the FBI doesn't create laws, they only enforce them. In my personal opinion you should have ended with "Law enforcement should not be influenced by the desires of private companies." That sentence completely makes the point. It stands on it's own because it is absolutely true and it didn't need the little what-if dramatic flair after it.
Keep up the good work, but try to stay clear of the dramatic. It honestly takes something away from your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's dramatization at the end of a well written article that isn't needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that last sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue is that if the FBI had like ICE today been able to seize VCRs for infringement on the say so of the industry which basically said that it was their only use and having the end (from in the end) where a judge actually says if they were right or not as far away as it is for those whose domain names were seized by ICE then VCRs would probably never have become popular and the industry would be making a lot less money and probably still complaining about how TV destroyed the film industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if someone tried to ban the VCR *now* would the analogy work.
Who cares if somebody offered an opinion prior to a piece of tech being introduced. There was no data to confirm or deny the suspicions.
That is not the case with the subjects discussed here; we have over a decade of data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Let's not forget the windowing they continue to do (which piracy now plays a part), the regionalization, and all of the ways the movie industry tries to control the market through regulatory capture.
Yeah, the VCR analogy works, and the data from *not* banning that technology can still be used today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He can't help himself. Turning wild claims and outlandish conclusions into catch phrases is at the core of his writing. He's provided countless laughs (at his own expense) for people who are forwarded his tripe as examples of the substance of the arguments against various copyright bills, policies or enforcement actions. Masnick has clearly staked out his turf as the clown prince of piracy apologists and his laughable, overzealous drama is integral to his buffoonish charm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're one of those people who can't understand that the general public doesn't necessarily want things for free, they just don't want it served up the way the media industries are serving it when there are better ways. People don't want the government working with corporations to better both their bottom lines while screwing over the public. No one wants to be nickel and dimed to death paying multiple times for the same thing in different formats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what they say they want. But they attack every single attempt to legitimately stem the flow of infringing material. Never, do they offer their own proposals to address the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
add value, give the customers a reason to buy etc etc etc., but as it doesn't involve undermining basic rights whether through or bypassing legislation you don't consider them valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you spot the difference between the two?
That underlines the difference between price and value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever actually read the site? I spend an inordinate amount of time showing people who actually create content how to make more money.
You claim I don't offer proposals? You're full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
such a pity that they are simply saying to avoid getting feet wet we should all walk on the ceiling.
Their proposals, don't, can't and will never work.
You cannot actually prevent people accessing content, there are too many ways around it. You cannot by legislation or DRM prevent people copying.
What this site is all about is about businesses not destroying themselves by wasting time and money attempting to command the waves to advance no further when the real solutions are to adapt business strategies to the fact that the tide is very definitely coming in and to take advantage of the new possibilities that that opens up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also those laws are not only feckless they are useless, I see my 50 year old wife pirating all the time and I doubt she even knows she is pirating, now go explain to people they can't take a picture of a magazine to show to their friends or try to explain why they can't record music from radio stations please I want to see you come out alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Answer these three questions:
a) What is "dedicated to infringing activities"?
b) What is "purely for commercial gain"?
c) What is a "rogue site"?
And don't give me that crap about just linking to torrents instead of everything, that's doing the same damn thing these fuckwits always do. And I should know. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. You know how you address rampant infringement? By putting in place a better freaking business model. So, yes, I am pointing to proposals to do just that.
The problem is that folks like yourself are so blind to reality you think that infringement is the problem. It's not. It's the symptom of a failure on the part of an industry that refuses to adapt.
CDT et al are at least in the game offering language and taking part in deliberations on proposed laws and policies. You only offer criticism and absurd conclusions about the potential impact of these laws and policies.
Why waste time offering up language for bogus bills that aren't needed and will only serve to do more harm than good?
You are so mentally focused on this being a policy issue that you don't realize that it's not. Why should I care if CDT wants to get involved and waste their time that way? I think it's a mistake because they're stooping to your game, and pretending this is a policy issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get that you don't like the game. But really you only have two choices, either play it or heckle from up in the cheap seats. Your call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just full of hot air.
Until you do that, you're just using the "business model" meme as a cover for your piracy apologism.
Any business that gets their product ripped off does not have a business model problem, they have a law enforcement problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The pivotal scene is where the lead finds out that the key toi being the prophesied hero is that, "There is no secret ingredient."
There is no secret ingredient for success. That's why there is no "One size fits all" business model that will make everyone a mutlimillionaire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick (who has a business degree) accuses the record industry of having a business model problem, yet then refuses to provide an alternate business plan that a bank or investor could consider.
He's totally full of shit, and this is but one example of that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, perhaps this is why the record industry is failing - you people are not only stupid enough to not realise the reasons why your business is failing, you also insist that the people pointing this out to you have to provide the solution for you.
This sloth and idiocy is also apparently backed up with illiteracy - Mike has written hundreds of articles discussing alternative models that are already being used or experimented with to varying degrees of success, and these articles often also discuss the flaws and/or benefits inherent with each model.
It's not Mike's fault that your industry is screwing itself, nor that you lack the common sense to see the alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great point. Everyone ELSE should do the work FOR them - and PAY them.
What an industry. Me thinks we need a whole new "entertainment industry". This one is corrupted, broken, out of touch, inhumane, lazy and becoming utterly useless. All they're good for now is causing trouble (they've nothing better to do?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the next few months we embark upon a massive campaign to get just $1.00 from those of us who agree with the stand of Mr. Masnick. When we reach $500,000 we "lobby" these gov't entities ourselves and see what happens.
What do you suppose they would do?
Bet with the right effort that $500,000 could be reached, too. Just $1.00? I'd be in - in a heartbeat for 10 times that as I imagine many others would, as well.
Just every day little guy citizen's - no organizations. Because the way it's supposed to be, is government remains OUR servants - not our masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's funny to see a shill like you and his paying corporate masters suckin' each other's dicks over this. Granted, since all you've achieved so far is a really, really strong belief that those little schemes of yours will actually make a dent in piracy. Try again, suckers, LOL!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, and that's why you and your ilk take him seriously enough to show up here all the time and whine. Or is it just one poorly paid shilltard who finally wised up stopping to use the same IP address? Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and i actively look at the writings of peple paid to think in a certain manner(do you even try to not sound like a paid flunky?) and laugh cause you'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The last person that tried that went into hospital with acute alcohol poisoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Easy, move to darknets and sneakernets (harddrives, flashdrives are cheap, you know) and NOT PAY A FUCKING DIME TO YOU ASSHOLES.
Who's oooooooing now, sucker ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He can't help himself. Turning wild claims and outlandish conclusions into catch phrases is at the core of his writing. He's provided countless laughs (at his own expense) for people who are forwarded his tripe as examples of the substance of the arguments against various copyright bills, policies or enforcement actions. Masnick has clearly staked out his turf as the clown prince of piracy apologists and his laughable, overzealous drama is integral to his buffoonish charm.
samefag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or does it not count when it the department instead of the regular flat foot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they might find it harder...
However there are quite a few agencies, and some of them might still be honest and consider it bribery.
Bribing the federal forces is easy enough; just contribute to "election campaign" funds and then get your own attorneys to work in DOJ and FBI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rogue
I mean really, either a site is engaging in illegal activity, or it isn't.
If it is, then take it down and arrest its operators. If it isn't, then its activities are, by definition, perfectly legal and there's no difference between it and any other site on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rogue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rogue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rogue
> needs to be defined before we can go and
> arrest people unjustly.
It's a meaningless term conjured up by the entertainment industry to pejoratively label anything they don't like to convince people that there's something nefarious afoot with sites which are otherwise perfectly legal.
They know that these sites are doing anything illegal, but they don't like them, so they make up this term, which has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever, in order to make the sites they don't like suspect in the eyes of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rogue
Reminds me of what happened when they started with the 'pirate' label. Kinda makes me want to start my own website, something along the lines of TheRogueSite.org or maybe TheRogueTavern.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't you mean bribery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graduated response a done deal
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20073522-261/top-isps-poised-to-adopt-graduated-re sponse-to-piracy/?tag=mncol;posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graduated response a done deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graduated response a done deal
Has not been signed and could still unravel. Yes, they've finally done it. Piracy is now over. That was easy. Thanks for coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Graduated response a done deal
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/isps-plot-graduated-response-to-piracy-can-this-plan-really -work/51233
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Graduated response a done deal
Honestly, despite much of TechDirt's fears of collateral damage, which I'm sure is a very real danger, I've decided that I'm rooting for your new laws. I really am. Getting much of the public away from label garbage will be the best thing that ever happened to free independent music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graduated response a done deal
Dream on, sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, as it's known in capitalism, "investing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
{sigh}
"The DMCA is around."
DMCA isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. In internet terms, it may as well be written in sanskrit. Look for an update in the near future.
"Meanwhile the movie industry only uses Netflix and doesn't want to make their own infrastructure."
Well there's Hulu, Amazon and more. Plus more coming
"All of the business model problems going on aren't going to solve those problems. And still you want to link to the graduated response as if that's going to fix everything for your masters. Bravo, but still misguided by a long shot."
Graduated response is just one of many tools. Protect IP will hurt the foreign sites and Felony Streaming addresses a hole in current legislation.
"Add felony streaming and Protect IP and it's all over for all but the most hardcore infringers. "
"You really don't see the consequences of trying to lock up people for embedding or going after domains, do you? Two things could possibly happen here:"
"1) The judges snap back hard with the Rojadirecta or other precedents"
Rojadirecta is in litigation. Reading the tea leaves, I not exactly trembling. I don't know what other precedents you are talking about. Likely, nor do you.
"2) The piracy problem you "solve" migrates to newer areas."
Not for millions of users who aren't technologically savvy or are otherwise unwilling to use untrustworthy alternative DNS systems.
"The end game for you seems to be getting these laws passed. Bravo. The consequences of the passing is what everyone is discussing. Pile it up with all of the other problems of government and you're preparing a massive backlash. But I guess, being insulated away from the discussion is the name of the game, right? "
These laws aren't the end. Just a tourniquet. There's a lot more work to be done. If by backlash you mean the sort of hissy-fits thrown on Techdirt, I don't find that alarming. Amusing, but not alarming. Perhaps you can join in the AC's revolution where he said I'd be among the first to be lined up and shot after the freeloader coup d'etat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like an invitation, to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He'd be running around like a cockroach in the light, trying to find some place to hide and denying he ever supported such things as he has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The judges snap back hard with the Rojadirecta or other precedents"
Do you mean those same judges that so many Techdirtbags characterize as being corrupt and in the pocket of Big Content?
"Aaand again, you're grasping at straws."
I don't know what straws you think I'm grasping. But why don't you go and find a big-boy tie and hear the news from you own elected representative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Yawn*
Well there's Hulu, Amazon and more. Plus more coming"
HUGE notice for you, most downloads actually come from outside the US. I don't know how you missed that data.
"Graduated response is just one of many tools. Protect IP will hurt the foreign sites and Felony Streaming addresses a hole in current legislation."
Right, because it's been so effective in Canada, France, the UK, and Korea so far... And streaming, cutting into multimillion dollar profits... Really? You're going with that logic?
" I don't know what other precedents you are talking about."
The domain seizures that are endorsed by the government are going to have more people rise up against them. That's one conclusion. Especially pulling this "no due process" BS in the US. Of course, you'll naturally say "but it IS in the bill! Rojadirecta, being a foreign site, doesn't qualify!" Well, we'll just have to see. RD gets its site back though, I'm sure there's at leat 4 more sites waiting to take on the government that doesn't seem to know what it's doing so far.
"Not for millions of users who aren't technologically savvy or are otherwise unwilling to use untrustworthy alternative DNS systems."
Perfect, keep the populace uninformed about other options such as opendns.com or *gasp* mooo.com. Seems more and more that no matter what "holes" you look to plug, there's going to be a lot more to fill. It must be hard to admit that law and litigation can't solve everything...
"These laws aren't the end."
Yeah, we've heard of the New World Order or whatever. I've heard the conspiracy theories and all that. Blah, blah, blah. The fact that these laws are passing doesn't mean they'll hold muster. Just because you believe in them, doesn't mean, they're lawful. It just means people will be more apt to disregard them.
"Do you mean those same judges that so many Techdirtbags characterize as being corrupt and in the pocket of Big Content?"
[citation needed] You're the only one saying that right now. I criticize the legislative branch and executive branch for being pretty corrupt but you just seem to use a huge brush for comments.
"I don't know what straws you think I'm grasping."
The straws that say you seem to know how I discuss policy issues with my elected officials. You don't. You like to criticize. Meanwhile, I've had dialogues cut short with the form letters about how "s/he is looking into an issue" when in fact, they're not. No follow ups, nothing in the way of a speech about this issue or that. When a politician votes over 80% in line with a political party, there's a problem. They don't represent their constituents, they represent something else entirely. So again, you're misinformed on my plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOBODY should be influenced by the desires of private companies. If those in power weren't a bunch of idiotic, weak-willed, spineless twerps, they'd just laugh lobbyists out of their offices and run things their way. That's how a republic is supposed to work! The one with the best ideas gets the most votes, and then runs things as they see fit.
As much as I'd like to blame lobbying for America's current state of corpocracy, the fact of the matter is that if the people elected were actually competent, lobbying would never work, so those companies would've given up on the idea long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]