RIAA: LulzSec & Anonymous Show Why We Need PROTECT IP
from the say-what-now? dept
Ah, the RIAA will apparently stoop to pretty much any old ridiculous argument to get PROTECT IP passed, I guess. The RIAA's Mitch Glazier has written a typically ridiculous blog post defending PROTECT IP. Most of it tries (and fails) to counter the very credible claims of folks like Paul Vixie (who knows this stuff) that PROTECT IP (1) won't work and (2) will break the internet and cause tremendous collateral damage. The arguments against Vixie pretty much amount to quoting people, who have known associations with those backing PROTECT IP, saying that "eh, things won't be that bad, and we can minimize unintended consequences."But where it gets totally ridiculous, as noted by ZeroPaid, is at the end, where Glazier honestly tries to claim that PROTECT IP is needed... because of LulzSec. I'm not kidding:
And in a world where hackers set their sights on new targets every day – most recently the official United States Senate website, allegedly the CIA’s public website and Arizona’s law enforcement database – do we think a lawless Internet defended to the extreme is a good thing?If I understand the argument Glazier is making here correctly, it's that "some people totally unrelated to any of this do bad stuff on the internet, thus it's fine to break the internet to protect the obsolete business model of the people who pay me." Is that convincing? The fact that there has been some hactivism going on of late has absolutely nothing to do with PROTECT IP.
And, in the meantime, if Glazier's point is that we need to "protect" musicians, perhaps he should focus on doing something about the guy who works for the RIAA who once (as a Congressional staffer) tried (and temporarily succeeded) to take away the right of musicians to reclaim their copyrights by secretly changing the definition of "work for hire," by making an overnight change in an unrelated bill that no one noticed until the bill was already passed. This is the same guy who went to work for the RIAA a few months later, on a half-a-million dollars a year salary. Oh wait... that guy was also named Mitch Glazier.
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: mitch glazier, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking can't be stopped with blocking websites
Do you close the whole city because you got robbed? No, you get a better security system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check this out
and this
http://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-Threats2008-2013.pdf
Much more on point links and info at:
http://www.belowgotham.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Mitch Glazier makes a statement such as this, the public isn't the audience. The public isn't even in the same league as those who are the audience of these "negotiations".
Remember, we have Senators that are downright dumb when it comes to piracy. They aren't going to know Mitch Glazier's background in "typo correction" anymore than the average Senator doesn't know what oversight means.
Now we're asking all of these people to go against the grain and against all of the money for their morals that they checked at the door when they became a Senator/Congressmen. With a few exceptions, how many of them actually would vote no when the money is so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When Mitch Glazier makes a statement such as this, the public isn't the audience. The public isn't even in the same league as those who are the audience of these "negotiations".
Remember, we have Senators that are downright dumb when it comes to piracy. They aren't going to know Mitch Glazier's background in "typo correction" anymore than the average Senator doesn't know what oversight means.
Now we're asking all of these people to go against the grain and against all of the money for their morals that they checked at the door when they became a Senator/Congressmen. With a few exceptions, how many of them actually would vote no when the money is so much?
So my take from this is that you are defeated. You have conceded that Protect IP is a slam dunk and now there's nothing left but to lay down the inflammatory rhetoric. There are reasoned arguments to make. Allegations of stupidity, corruption, immorality, etc. is the refuge of the uninformed, lazy or defeated. In turn it allows the entire opposition viewpoint to be marginalized as being a collection of nutjobs, radical zealots and professional malcontents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So let's get this straight:
Instead of looking at all of the money passed around, you'd rather sit here and attack the person, yet again, and go off on a tangent where you don't even respond to reasoned debate, but obfuscate the issues raised.
Like here, where the understanding is that Mitch Glazier's argument is targeted at Congress, which is why the dissonance is strong in him.
Or how about the valid data that shows the largest contributions?
Here's the top 5 since you seem not to notice: (For the bill funds on the left, against the bill funds on the right)
Barbara Boxer CA $1,625,823 $122,115
Harry Reid NV $1,302,249 $262,500
Al Franken MN $1,231,850 $45,905
K. Gillibrand NY $1,218,737 $106,805
Chuck Schumer NY $1,174,200 $109,650
Now just look at all that money coming to Senators... Maybe next time, read the quotes instead of going on a tangent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Barbara Boxer--->CA---->$1,625,823----->$122,115
Harry Reid------->NV----->$1,302,249----->$262,500
Al Franken------>MN------>$1,231,850----->$45,905
K. Gillibrand----->NY----->$1,218,737--->$106,805
Chuck Schumer-->NY----->$1,174,200----->$109,650
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The money to support the bill is 8.5 times more than the $4.9 mil to vote no to it.
You can even see the time line of the contributions, which allows people to see when the most money came in (Sep-Oct 2010) Just from looking at the graph, that's when the hugest surge of lobby funds goes in. Which makes sense considering every two years election day is in November.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But accusing those who actually understand these things of supporting child porn? And cheering on the idea that people might get raped in prison for protesting?
What are those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can't say it's ok to censor one entity but then say it's not necessary for another.
Would you prefer if we used spammers as an example?
[ 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:
No surprise there, fuck lateral. Rest assured I'm gonna rub it in your face when none of this defeat will actually have made a dent in piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was only a matter of time when one of the protectionists would use the Lulzsec and Anonymous movements as reasons for more protectionism. And you know what? Gullible politicians are going to buy it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hackers and Intellectual Property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aku soku zan
and in a completely different country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawless
Also; the fact that there are laws online won't prevent hackers from hacking... obviously, because there are, and they do. This guy= mindless talking bobblehead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lawless
There's some candy in this van for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The End of the Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure enough we have seen what a mess it has become. It is now used for everything from false take downs to a method used to attempt to control speech with a handful of pretty much every other reason you can think of thrown in. It's turned into a snake's nest.
ACTA has been in session around the world. The effects of that if the world becomes signatory will be felt for a long time to come. Just like DMCA, it too will be another snake's nest.
When the net gets killed so it can be all the corporation's wet dream of a world wide market without the need of brick and mortar stores, it will also turn to being the best place to rob. Crime won't go away because you have a law.
The only thing that will reduce crime is security. That one item has proven over and over to prevent robbery. You make it tough enough to break in, the chances of robbery go down as the criminal will go somewhere else for easier pickings.
Making laws has never changed moral behavior. Prohibition did't work, anti-abortion laws won't work, nor does the War on Drugs work. All are attempts at changing moral behavior into what some group sees as what it should be. Throwing money at enforcing those laws only makes for smarter criminals, not for making them mind moral laws.
The proposed Protect IP is worse in that it isn't trying to enforce moral law, it's trying to enforce the equivalent of sectioning off a piece of atmosphere and claiming sole ownership to it. That's even worse than increasing security as there's no place to build a fence to increase security in imagination land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pointless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frak You RIAA
i refuse to pay one damn cent for any of your manufactured BS.NOTA !!!
I will never support any artist who signs with these asses.I would rather take what I owned by the now RIAA pig signer and throw their shit into my garbage.
You will never take our rights away.We will fight PROTECT-IP as best as we can.We do have rights in this country and PROTECT-IP goes against the Constitution of this country.You and your paid-off cronies in Washington will not be able to lock down the Internet.GET A FUCKEN LIFE.
We will do what we have to in our intelligent techie way to circumvent any BS you try and put in our way for freedom of the Internet.
YOU ARE FOOLS !!!
You would rather waste even more of our tax paying money to play Internet Cop or whatever you want to call it.You would rather force ISP's to foot part of this disgusting bill forcing prices for Internet Access to go up just when our great economy is so well off.
YOUR DAY WILL COME !!!
one of these days you will get what you traitors to the US way of freedom deserve and it will not be pretty for you.
YOUR INDUSTRY IS A DINOSAUR !!!
like the old but cool reptiles of the past your day has come.Even Mick Jagger came out and said a few years ago that your greedy shit industry would not sign The rolling Stones now.The days you took chances and gave us unigue and cool artists is long gone by decades.You are nothing but a dinosaur about to go extinct.
ARTISTS DO NOT NEED THESE ASSES !!!
any artist nowadays can put their own stuff out,book their own tours, and put together their own merchandise.use facebook,internet,music reviews,etc.No artist even needs to be on these bloated piece of feces labels.Just go DIY and reap the money you make instead of being reamed up the ass.
aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.....enough ranting and raving.I am frothing at the mouth over PROTECT-IP
PS: make sure to not ever give a vote to any of the government who agreed with this toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? Because we want it that badly.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a ridiculous comment, he's just desperately throwing anything out there now that every respected technologist and venture capitalist is against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Hell With The MAFIAA groups
Until the MAFIAA groups change their status quo to a competetive business model.. I recommend, and openly encourage, the following: Use a public Wi-Fi, use various encryption techniques to tunnel through their firewall/proxy. Make sure your location is not within the establishment that offers the access. Don't use micro$oft or apple OS as a computing medium. Always mask/falsify your MAC address. Don't describe your specific exploit techniques and personal experiences to others. Get whatever you need and move on to the next available Wi-Fi. Don't use the same Wi-Fi more than twice in one month. Whatever works for you.. keep it to yorself. Most importantly, Enjoy the Revolution! Power To The People. Power To Anonymous. Power To Lulzsec. Nuff Said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]