Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
from the but-of-course dept
The world's largest lobbying organization, the US Chamber of Commerce (which thrives off the fact that many people mistake it for a US government body), along with the biggest lobbyists representing the recording and movie industry, have ramped up their efforts to get PROTECT IP approved as quickly as possible. The groups held a conference on Capitol Hill and then began visiting Senators to talk about how much they needed this protectionism, because they're unable to adapt to a dynamic internet where they're no longer the gatekeepers. Who's doing this? Well, along with the Chamber of Commerce, we have NBC Universal, Sony Music and Pictures, Walt Disney Company, the MPAA, the RIAA, News Corp. (watch your voicemails, senators), the National Association of Theater Owners, Warner Music and the American Federation of Musicians.Basically it's a who's who of those who want to change the internet from a communications platform into a simple broadcast medium that they can control.
And, of course, Steven Tepp, the main guy at the Chamber of Commerce (and a former government official with a history of mocking concerns of consumers when it comes to copyright issues) trotted out totally debunked stats:
"IP-intensive industries are responsible for the jobs of 19 million Americans, $7.7 trillion of our gross output, and 60 percent of U.S. exports."Note the basic fallacy here. It assumes that "IP-intensive industries" only exist due to stricter IP laws. This is false. In fact, some of the most "IP intensive industries" around, such as the tech industry, are opposed to this law. That the Chamber of Commerce would stoop so low as to include those who are against this law in its argument for why this law should be passed really just highlights the kind of sleazy politicking the organization is famous for.
Either way, there's no doubt (there's never been any doubt) that PROTECT IP was introduced with tremendous support from certain lobbying groups who have tremendous sway in DC. They've actually come up against more roadblocks than they expected, but they're not going to let that stop them. This is the first stage of the endgame to get the law passed. To be honest, I'm surprised they've even had to go this far, because from the beginning it looked like they had the easy support. The fact that they felt the need to break out this little stunt shows that the opposition to PROTECT IP has actually drummed up enough noise that some politicians are concerned about the very real unintended consequences of the law.
And while politicians may be confused and send back the wrong form letters, don't let that stop you from at least making your voice heard. The folks at DemandProgress (with whom I have no direct connection, even if the MPAA will claim otherwise) have set up an easy form to use to make your voice heard. The EFF has set up a similar form. Both of these let you edit the form and say what you want, and making an impassioned and reasoned (and calm) argument in your own words is much more powerful than just submitting the form letter. Of course, the entertainment industry has set up its own form letter generator too -- but it's completely uneditable. In their world, creativity from the people is not allowed. Only the big industry gatekeepers are allowed to be creative.
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: lobbyists, protect ip
Companies: chamber of commerce, disney, mpaa, nbc universal, news corp., riaa
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact is, it doesn't matter which one you use. It matters that our voices are heard
If we are allowing Steven Tepp to make up facts that are harming our freedoms in the name of their profit, it's time to explain to our Senators what those facts are. I personally left in my letter, something about "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" along with "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" as just two examples of great reading material. I discussed how there is no economic evidence to convince anyone that stronger enforcement of copyright is needed.
All of this is done in less than 500 words (I believe the maximum...) along with being very clear and concise.
Please, everyone. Write to your Senators, be polite, and do your best to educate them about the misguidings of not only Protect IP but also the Six strikes legislation. We don't need another controlled medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you'd better think of a reason why the government shouldn't be going after websites that sell fake prescription medication, counterfeit clothing and bogus brake shoes as well. The bill has wide, bipartisan appeal for a number of very good reasons. There are no Senators, other than Wyden, who will go against this bill based solely on the aspects related to motion pictures, television and audio recordings. Do you really think any of these guys will vote against a bill that prevents consumers being duped into buying bogus medications? Or faulty brake parts or knock-off clothing and accessories?
Most Senators see a difference between free speech and free entertainment and support the former, but don't think the First Amendment protects your rights to free entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you, Masnick and the rest of the freeloaders have your head in the sand about reality.
No Senator believes you people deserve to be protected from breaking the law. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except this law grants 3rd parties immunity for 'voluntarily' ("That call from Lieberman's office had nothing to do with our decision") doing what the government shouldn't do without due process. Sounds like their all in favor of protecting vigilantes "from breaking the law [sic]".
The only protection I'm asking for is simple due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the umpteenth time, any website that has an action taken against it under the Protect IP Act enjoys the same rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as any other civil litigant.
[ 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:
As far as a rogue website being "voluntarily" cut off, you'd have to look at the payment processor's contract with the site. The website owner could certainly sue the payment processor for breach of contract if the cut off was contrary to the agreement. It is absolutely false that there is no immunity if the payment processing contract is abrogated absent a court order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No they can't. Here's the text from the bill:
No financial transaction provider or Internet advertising service shall be liable for damages to any person for voluntarily taking any action described in section 3(d) or 4(d) with regard to an Internet site if the entity acting in good faith and based on credible evidence has a reasonable belief that the Internet site is an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
[ 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:
And where's the good faith and credible evidence for the domain seizures?
Better yet, where is that good faith and credible evidence of harm to the market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the US Government?
You're either insane or high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I, (insert CEO's name here), being of sound mind, do hereby acknowledge that I knew that the so-called credible evidence I used (Universal Music's list of naughty websites ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/16364214774/did-universal-music-declare-50-cents-own-websi te-is-pirate-site.shtml ) ) was uncredible hogwash. The real reason I stopped service was because I own stock in his competitor and I thought blocking several large transactions from going through would be a great way to prevent him from making payroll.
Love, (Insert CEO's name here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the fact that less than 10% of the populace likes this bill must mean something, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Moran just missed the boat, didn't he?
No, Moran got a visit from Google reminding him that his sponsorship of the Protect IP Act may be a problem for the company making a significant investment in a high speed fiber optic network in his state. What? You thought he had an epiphany?
And the fact that less than 10% of the populace likes this bill must mean something, doesn't it?
According to what poll? Frankly, you are talking of your ass. I doubt that 10% of the populace (30+ million) even have heard of the bill. You really should begin statements like this with: "Once upon a time....."
http://www.perle.com/articles/Google-to-bring-high-speed-fiber-optic-network-to-Kans as-800476515.shtml
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about looking on popvox where I've discussed it above?
Link
374 people polled currently. Look at where the support is. Look at what these people are writing to their senators. Perhaps I should of said "Less than 10% of people writing in, etc" but the point stand that there is not a lot of support for this bill at the current time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is what you hang your hat on, it is truly pitiful. This can only mean that Masnick is taking advantage of the mentally challenged in an effort to bolster his weak position. Shocking!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
get a business model that will work instead of expecting to get paid for some old crrap you did years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CONflation, anyone?
There are already laws which cover all of the activities you have described--and said laws are poorly enforced. How is making new laws going to solve the counterfeiting problem which you're conflating with intellectual (see: imaginary) property issues? The answer: it will not.
Not bad though, fairly convincing if one overlooks the logical and continuity errors. Your grade: C+
Try harder, you can do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CONflation, anyone?
Really? Because the entire purpose of the law is to cut off the flow of cash by disallowing US-based payment processors and ad networks from monetizing these websites. As we have seen, foreign websites like this are beyond the reach of US law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CONflation, anyone?
Which is it?
If it's the stupidity option, aren't your scared?
If it's the sovereignty option--are you TRYING to start wars??
Besides, with history as a guide I can reliably make the claim that making a law against something and cutting off the cash flow are inversely proportional. Once it is made illegal the profit margins for those willing to flaunt the law will only get higher.
Of course, we're talking about real, not imaginary, goods and services here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CONflation, anyone?
Which is it?
If it's the stupidity option, aren't your scared?
If it's the sovereignty option--are you TRYING to start wars??
Ignore the sovereignty? Protect IP allows orders to served on US payment processors, US ad networks and US search engines. Foreign rogue websites are free to continue to operate, but without US-based assets.
Do you actually think the US will be attacked because YuriTV.ru can't make money from US ad networks or take Paypal? You are truly a dope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CONflation, anyone?
Why ICE didn't seize anything in China?
Because they know if they did that China would seize every American asset they could put their hands on.
Maybe Spain should start seizing American assets because they broke Spanish law in some other part of the world and since they are in Spanish soil they are criminals now and should have all their assets seized.
Will Europeans stand by while ICE seize assets from European companies and individuals that did nothing wrong under their laws but broke American law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CONflation, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is what they are hoping. That they kind hide the things we oppose under law that no one would oppose.
"Most Senators see a difference between free speech and free entertainment and support the former, but don't think the First Amendment protects your rights to free entertainment."
I won't. But dont think your right to be paid trumps my right to be free. Just like you shouldn't think you can sneak things that will hamper my freedom into a bill that deserves to be passed, the parts about counterfeit drugs and physical counterfeit goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what debates and amendments are for. Wyden blew it. He had a chance to be heard but has now pissed everyone off and is totally isolated. Chances are that the final bill will look a lot more like the House version, which will be much less to his liking because he chose to engage in ham-handed grandstanding rather than serious debate and negotiation.
"Most Senators see a difference between free speech and free entertainment and support the former, but don't think the First Amendment protects your rights to free entertainment."
I won't. But dont think your right to be paid trumps my right to be free.
No, my right to be paid for my movie trumps your right to get it for nothing. And the guys doing the voting agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This bill is all about Counterfeit Drugs and Brake Pads, not about the entertainment industry.
SO.. this bill Is about Imaginary property and the entertainment industries "right" to get paid being more important then the rights of citizens.. Keep it straight, man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have a right not to have my lifestyle hampered because you make a shitty movie and blame piracy because no one wants to give you money to make a second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry friend but you have NO "right" to be paid for your movie. You have the right to TRY to be paid for it.
There's a difference that you types don't seem to ever get.
And try again but he's not saying he has a right to get it for nothing. However, the MPAA/RIAA have for years among others gamed the copyright law system to make sure nothing ever reaches the public domain. And that was never the intent of copyright or patent law.
Another fact that is so often ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SUPPORTING FREE ENTERTAINMENT OR BOGUS MEDICATION! This is about the integrity of the internet and about the the ability from descending voices to be heard. See a post from earlier today here on TD about how legislation like this would be abused. Nice try, AC. Maybe if YOU had some conviction you would put your real name behind your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're talking about Richardson, you're wasting your time. Maybe you should move to Rohrabacher's district, he's more in your camp.
Oh, and it's "dissenting voices" not "descending voices".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exercising my right to speak with my representative is a waste of my time? Go to hell, AC.
Ok, it's your time to waste. But be prepared for the bum's rush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So typical. When the people supporting this bill can't come up with a response to the massive censorship and unintended consequences of the bill, they fall back on the scare tactics of fake drugs and brake pads.
If that's the problem, write the law to deal with that: have it cover counterfeiting (not copyright) and have it on counterfeits that have the possibility to cause real physical harm.
But they won't do that, because those things are included in the bill as cover to get the other parts passed. And the "AC" here knows that, because he's one of the people who helped craft the bill and is part of the folks shopping it around.
[ 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:
If that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a regular parade of pro-IP AC's repeatedly calling Mike names and making completely false allegations about what he says and believes. Buffoons and a figures of fun would not attract such attention and mostly be mostly ignored. Instead these ACs' posts reveal their fear that what Mike says might penetrate the thick skulls of politicians and the unwashed masses and undermine their efforts to introduce the next round of ratcheting up copyright laws in their favour.
"You somehow believe that your free speech rights entitle you to free entertainment."
I challenge you to find even one quote from Mike that makes this assertion. Nobody is "entitled" to free entertainment, just as nobody is "entitled" to make any money from the entertainment content they produce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this guy isn't a shill he has been so brain washed. I feel sorry for him in about 5-10 years. His entire career path, and reason for being, will have come to an end, and there will be nothing left of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, look who just admitted that he flat out knows that he's conflating a very real issue -- counterfeit drugs and machine parts -- with something totally unrelated, in order to shove through a bill that he knows will result in censorship and massive unintended consequences.
Limiting access to infringing content equals censorship?
Tell that the Vibe Magazine or 50 Cent, who's own website was deemed "dedicated to infringing activities" by his label. Or how about to the various blogs who had their domains seized for posting links to music that was *sent to them by the musicians/labels themselves*. Yes, that's censorship.
The foreign rogue websites can still operate
The problem is that people like you think it's easy to determine what is a rogue site. 50 Cent would disagree with you, I imagine.
This is why you are regarded as a buffoon and a figure of fun
I am a lot of fun, thanks. Must be why I've had chiefs of staff from multiple Senators, none of whom I've spoken to before, reach out to me in the last week alone to discuss these issues. Clearly, no one takes me seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, look who just admitted that he flat out knows that he's conflating a very real issue -- counterfeit drugs and machine parts -- with something totally unrelated, in order to shove through a bill that he knows will result in censorship and massive unintended consequences.
A rogue site whether engaged in selling counterfeit goods or infringing content is subject to action under Protect IP. Again you seem to equate free speech and free entertainment.
Limiting access to infringing content equals censorship?
Tell that the Vibe Magazine or 50 Cent, who's own website was deemed "dedicated to infringing activities" by his label. Or how about to the various blogs who had their domains seized for posting links to music that was *sent to them by the musicians/labels themselves*. Yes, that's censorship.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of this dispute wit Vibe or 50 Cent. I can only suppose that there was an agreement about the right to use/distribute material that was violated.
As far as the Operation In Our Sites seizures, the courts will resolve the propriety long before you and I will.
The foreign rogue websites can still operate
The problem is that people like you think it's easy to determine what is a rogue site. 50 Cent would disagree with you, I imagine.
I talk about a sites ability to continue to operate, you respond about the difficulty or ease of determining what is a rogue site. I guess I should say "Oh look, the piracy apologist doesn't respond to the actual points raised."
This is why you are regarded as a buffoon and a figure of fun
I am a lot of fun, thanks. Must be why I've had chiefs of staff from multiple Senators, none of whom I've spoken to before, reach out to me in the last week alone to discuss these issues. Clearly, no one takes me seriously.
Really? Which ones. While I doubt it's true, perhaps some Senators asked staff to perform due diligence and get the opposing side. I'm delighted that you were chosen to give it. I'm sure they were giggling away as you spun your Chicken Little scenarios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want either a complete chain of causality showing exactly how the sharing of a specific file has harmed a specific artist at a specific time in a specific way, backed up with empirical non-industry data, or a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Choosing to do neither is admitting you are wrong and I am right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, and just to respond to this bit of idiocy, must you resort to blatant lies to support your position? I have never said anything of the sort, nor do I believe it. I, personally, do not feel entitled to any "free entertainment," and pay a shitload of money to the musicians and filmmakers I like.
You should try it, but I'd bet your entertainment budget is a hell of a lot lower than mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that you've bragged about how much content you have on your drives, and that you run, along with Ernesto at Torrent Freak, the biggest freetard blog on the web, most sane people are going to roll their eyes at that claim.
You might want to use a tiny amount of your site here with a page showing some receipts as proof.
Not holding my breath. Nor, do I imagine, anyone else is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if this is true (I'll take you at your word) you think that that means it wasn't paid for? You don't think anyone would actually *gasp* spend money on content?
I have gigs and gigs of music on my computer and ipod as well (all paid for, or otherwise obtained legally).
You're saying that that means I support piracy?
You're saying that no-one in their right mind would actually buy loads of content, so if they have it, it must be pirated?
I'll take that as an admission that you realise that most of the shit you and your ilk sell simply isn't worth paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that you've bragged about how much content you have on your drives,
So if this is true (I'll take you at your word) you think that that means it wasn't paid for? You don't think anyone would actually *gasp* spend money on content?
I have gigs and gigs of music on my computer and ipod as well (all paid for, or otherwise obtained legally).
You're saying that that means I support piracy?
You're saying that no-one in their right mind would actually buy loads of content, so if they have it, it must be pirated?
I'll take that as an admission that you realise that most of the shit you and your ilk sell simply isn't worth paying for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should he have to prove anything to an asshat shilltard like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says who? A paid shilltard and his ilk. It must be true then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I want to see the USA go after websites in China, I want to see them try and say they can seize Chinese assets in the USA and nothing will happen, I want to see the smart asses try to explain why Brazil, South Africa, India and Russia should not pass laws allowing them to seize any American assets found in their borders if they commit a crime in U.S. soil but it is against the law in those countries.
The U.S. will be given their asses in a plate if they go ahead, because not even Europe will let that happen without retaliation unless they are utterly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have a friend who had a bladder infection - she's had them before so knew the symptoms well. She called her doctor asking for some antibiotics. They told her she'd have to come in for a visit ($130.00 MINIMUM). Then she'd HAVE to have a urine test - no idea what those cost but no doubt not cheap. Then over pay for the antibiotic from a pharmacy.
Since, like so many, her taxes have soared, her income has tanked, she can't afford health insurance because she has to pay for everyone else in the public sector, she found a Canadian pharmacy, bought antibiotics for $58.00 which totally took care of the problem for her. And she has plenty left over in case she gets hit again. She literally did not have the $ to go through that whole process and spent a fraction of the $ to rid herself of the infection.
The medicine was by no stretch "Fake".
Should something like that happen to me, I'm thrilled to know I can do this as I can't afford any health insurance, either as a self employed, taxed to the max "subject" of the latest regime.
What kind of coldhearted, inhumane bastard are you that you want people to keep being robbed and exploited by those already rolling in dough, unable to get enough? Some simply because the "have a name".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A swing and a miss. I am absolutely for your friend obtaining cheaper prescription medication. I personally favor national health insurance with a single payer. What would have happened if your friend had received aspirin, or chalk dust instead of the antibiotic she needed? There are rogue pharma sites out there doing just that. They operate outside the reach of US law enforcement and can't be shut down under existing US law. Protect IP would enable the Justice Department to get a court order telling payment providers to stop processing payments, ad networks to stop advertising and having the site disappear from US search engines. Those steps would all help to insure these soul-less predators stop exploiting people who need medication and seek to obtain it at a reasonable cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not legislation, it's a voluntary agreement between the content industry and ISP's. I doubt writing to Senators about "six strikes legislation" will do anything other than reveal that you're an idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Also Mike failed to mention the fact that there were companies like Eli Lilly, McGraw-Hill, Rosetta Stone, Acushnet, and Nike (hear that Wyden.... Nike) who attended the breakfast briefing and were part of 5-6 groups calling on members of congress. As much as you want to depict Protect IP as being all about movies and TV, its not. It's about counterfeit Nike shoes and Titleist golf balls. It's about books, software and prescription drugs. And while content companies will certainly benefit, many aspects of the economy will benefit from the Protect IP Act as well. That's why this bill is going to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's like saying a bank decides to "voluntarily" allow currency distributions to armed robbers.
And while content companies will certainly benefit, many aspects of the economy will benefit from the Protect IP Act as well.
Laugh test: FAIL
Funniest thing I've read all day.
So, when it passes, and the economy does not benefit, will you admit you were wrong and start advocating for it to be repealed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
.... and then more enforcement
and then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When they can't get it for free, they'll buy it. Decades of entertainment fiscal statements are proof of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The last one where record movie profits are increasing yearly? While all this file sharing is taking place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This bill will do nothing to stop or slow free content, legal or otherwise.
Passing the NET Act didn't do it.
Passing the DMCA didn't do it.
Killing Napster didn't do it.
Killing MP3.com didn't do it.
Killing Morpheus/Grokster/Kazaa/Edonkey didn't do it.
Harassing torrent sites didn't do it.
Passing PRO IP Act didn't do it.
Killing Limewire didn't do it.
Passing PIPA won't do it.
Stop playing whack-a-mole, causing "collateral" damage on my rights, and adapt to the real world - or get out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting theory. Actually there are a lot of people who point to the death of Limewire and the rise of services like iTunes as something of a turning point.
Domestic law is adequate for US registered infringing sites. Protect IP will cut the water off for foreign sites, the "six strikes" MOU will cut into P2P and the felony streaming bill will be the cheery on top. Along with the proliferation of more sites like Netflix and Hulu Plus, these forces will combine to improve but not stop infringement. Dedicated freeloaders will probably be slowed, but certainly not stopped.
And along the way, your right to call the President a dick or the Speaker an uninformed bumpkin or to advocate for whatever you please will continue unencumbered. You can still accuse the CIA of masterminding the 9/11 attack and proudly sell tinfoil hats on-line so your friends won't have their thoughts read by the NSA. You can still discuss how the government is covering up UFO's and how flouride in the water supply causes impotence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you ignore Napster and Grokster, when they're more prevalent in IP law, what with the Grokster inducement, that hurt Limewire.
"Protect IP will cut the water off for foreign sites, the "six strikes" MOU will cut into P2P and the felony streaming bill will be the cheery on top"
Yeah... With extradition for people in other countries to the US to overcrowd our prison systems even more. Great plan. Let's feed the world through imprisonment.
"Netflix and Hulu Plus"
Did you not just read that Netflix is being pinched and Hulu Plus is DoA? Where's the other legal options to drive the price down? Or are we just going to look at monopolistic competition why piracy comes in to save the day? Great argument when you have even the government deciding on selective enforcement of copyright laws that they've made up.
"And along the way, your right to call the President a dick... Yadda, yadda, blah"
Great way to end an argument. Instead of providing substantial material for debate, just go right up and admit you don't have an argument and there's no end game. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess only time will tell which of us is right. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll be perfectly with admitting it. Will you?
Actually there are a lot of people who point to the death of Limewire and the rise of services like iTunes as something of a turning point.
iTunes is successful for a number of reasons, but its success has nothing to do with the killing off of whichever P2P windmill system the legacy industry is tilting at today.
Domestic law is adequate for US registered infringing sites.
Oh, really? So you're admitting we don't need any changes to the law. You're not helping your position.
Protect IP will cut the water off for foreign sites, the "six strikes" MOU will cut into P2P and the felony streaming bill will be the cheery on top.
You really have not the slightest idea how the internet works, do you?
And along the way, your right to ... will continue unencumbered.
Promise? Say I'm a member of a forum that allows me and others to exercise my free speech rights. Some members post links (not the actual content, just a pointer) to unauthorized streams of sports programming, exercising their rights. The US government wouldn't decide to try to shut the forums down?
You know what? I have reached my limit. I'm done trying to explain reality to the likes of you. Take all the rope you need to go hang yourself and your industry. I'll just gladly eat popcorn, make pithy comments from the cheap seats, and watch the accelerating failure cascade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, really? So you're admitting we don't need any changes to the law. You're not helping your position.
Please note Operation In Our Sites was conducted under existing US law. Protect IP is targeted exclusively at non-US sites which are largely immune from action under existing law. Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"US jurisdiction" is being used like the wedgie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Limewire shutdown is significant. It comes at a time when Itunes, Amazon downloads, and plenty of other "pay for download" services are on the upswing. More over, those pay services are also getting social traction, where it is acceptable in social groups to send someone to itunes to buy something.
You can blame the appstore mentality, people have a whole lot less of an issue spending $1 or $2 to get something they really want now.
You can also blame the widespread adoption of smart phones and tablets over laptops and desktops. People's lives have changed, and they are moving away from the very tools that make P2P possible.
At the same time, the legislative and enforcement regimes are pushing hard on the other side. PIPA, and (unpopular on techdirt) moves by ICE, and similar are all having an impact on the public's perception of what is illegal, they are pushing down the artificial barriers created online, and generally making it harder to the criminals to operate.
It isn't a sudden "oh, no more piracy" thing. It's more a question of slowly turning the boat around and sailing back to the legal harbour. The golden age of file sharing is probably over, you can tell your grandkids you lived through it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. File encryption is way up, as well as participation in dark nets. The tools file sharers use to "hide" from prying eyes have grown significantly faster than the tools to monitor them...
"The Limewire shutdown is significant. It comes at a time when Itunes, Amazon downloads, and plenty of other "pay for download" services are on the upswing. More over, those pay services are also getting social traction, where it is acceptable in social groups to send someone to itunes to buy something. "
Agreed, they are both good services, and are socially acceptable, as such, they deserve to make money.
"You can blame the appstore mentality, people have a whole lot less of an issue spending $1 or $2 to get something they really want now."
Agreed. Perfect example of how you can compete with free. It's still easy to download this stuff for free, yet people are choosing to spend money instead.
"You can also blame the widespread adoption of smart phones and tablets over laptops and desktops. People's lives have changed, and they are moving away from the very tools that make P2P possible."
Not sure what the device has to do with anything.
"
At the same time, the legislative and enforcement regimes are pushing hard on the other side. PIPA, and (unpopular on techdirt) moves by ICE, and similar are all having an impact on the public's perception of what is illegal, they are pushing down the artificial barriers created online, and generally making it harder to the criminals to operate."
Absolutely agreed, great point! But you fail to mention that although it's harder to operate, it's also near impossible to track because the "criminals" are using technology that the government has zero hope of ever breaking. Do you think everyone knew how to use napster, or kazaa right off the bat? Or did someone sit down and show them/explain to them online how to do it. Just because the mole doesn't pop back up, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. it just means you cant see it anymore...
"It isn't a sudden "oh, no more piracy" thing. It's more a question of slowly turning the boat around and sailing back to the legal harbour. The golden age of file sharing is probably over, you can tell your grandkids you lived through it."
I would love to tell my grand kids that, but they are so busy showing me how to hack a ps3, xbox, mod some video game, "hook some exe", or access some crazy hidden website with all their stuff on it that i can't get a word in edgewise.
Big content are breeding a new generation of pirate, one that far out distances the "napster" generation. If you can find them, good luck legislating them into submission. My money is on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually probably not really counterfeit - made in the same factory by the same workers - just cutting out the middleman's profit.
It's about books,
Publishers - not authors (middlemen again)
software
Proprietary software - not open source - which is a big part of s/w these days.
and most definitely NOT about the largest part of the s/w industry which is bespoke s/w - no it's about the bit where middlemen get a cut.
and prescription drugs
cutting out generic alternatives - to make sure the middlemen get a cut - and stuff the poor people who can't afford healthcare in your country.
And while content companies will certainly benefit, many aspects of the economy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H other middlemen will benefit from the Protect IP Act as well.
In other words it's a bill bought and paid for by middlemen to make sure they continue to get their cut without doing anything useful and make everything more expensive/less efficient for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Mike, but this is almost certainly one fight your team is going to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The alternative would be to start with a blank sheet of paper every time. I trust it's obvious even to the inferior people defending ProtectIP why this is a poor strategy for economic growth and societal survival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those who are opposed to all IP laws are at least consistent. Everyone else seems to be in favour of laws that protect their IP and opposed to laws that protect IP belonging to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Explain exactly who doesn't like this bill and how you can be so disingenuous in an argument with no proof for yourself but your own word.
[ 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:
Explain exactly who doesn't like this bill and how you can be so disingenuous in an argument with no proof for yourself but your own word.
Do you really want to eat another shit sandwich? I'd have thought you'd be almost full by now.
[ 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:
Let me get this straight, you talk about ONE company and they represent the entire tech industry? You're full of it, and you need to brush your teeth after that meal.
When I say the VC/investors of tech, they represent the tech industry more than you have.
When I talk about Google, they have a stake in an internet not broken through DNS removals that the government doesn't understand.
When I look at all of the startups in various industries that depend on the internet to run without a lot of allegations of copyright, this includes companies such as apps developers, Evernote, Megaupload, Google Music, or the number of growing developers on Amazon or through independent channels for music on live.fm, pandora, Escapist, turntable.fm, etc.
You really need to learn how to answer a question instead of making yourself look small and petty. It doesn't suit you.
[ 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:
Along with Valve Entertainment
Mozilla
MAFIAAFire
Google
So here's a nice easy translation for you.
That definition of your is too broad to accurately account for all of the technology industry. I could also add in AMD and Alienware, since they're part of the tech industry as well. That's not a sweeping generalization. It's showing that the tech industry is quite vast with a lot of parts in it for your "everyone profiting off the backs of others" statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everyone else seems fine with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. I deal with plenty of VCs, but I can't recall ever meeting one who expects a fast return. The average time for return on a VC investment is seven years. Only someone who doesn't know a damn thing about venture capital thinks it's about fast returns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To turn it around though I would like to ask where your citations are regarding the assertions you made in your post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How to make an interactive pop up?
Making packging of electronics round?
Paying others not to produce cheaper versions of a drug?
Using public funds to generate discoveries and taking it all without paying back the public expenses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Says the team to buy laws in order to protect their interests.
Says the team who regularly commit acts of accounting that would get them disbarred from chartered accountancy in any other profession.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
Quick guess...
They get more power than they can dream of. Of COURSE they want Protect IP to pass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never really believed people were paid to write logically weak and laughably false statements on small independent blogs or if they existed that techdirt was worthy of their time
after some of these posts though....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oddly these "logically weak and laughably false statements" have traction in Congress. Unlike the specious arguments and preposterous statements of the professional lobbyists for Google, Yahoo and their marionettes, EFF, PK and CDT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember the framework of this discussion: politicians listening to lobbyists and ignoring experts; the desperate attempt to get the government to listen to more than one side of the story. Here we have the greatest flaw in the comment: although it is clearly an attempt at a dissenting voice, it does not, in fact, contain any dissent.
The author doubtless believes that those in Congress actually understand the issues, and are making well-informed decisions.
This comment will be the subject for this month's essay. And before you start writing, a word of advice: Any essay that uses the phrase "series of tubes" will not score higher than a "C".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider this... I spent 20 years of my life protecting your ability to tell me "tough shit". I've lost friends and brothers and sisters in arms to protect your ability to tell me "tough shit" - your attitude says it all... you bought the law, you win... don't ask me to protect you again, when they are hauling you off to the wall.
I am also incredibly incensed that you would paint me with a 'freeloader' brush. Once again, I spent my *youth* protecting your livelyhood, and you should have the good graces to thank those who made it possible, not call me a 'freetard' or anything else. Your inability to see that there are people from many different walks of life opposed to this law, reflects your narrow-mindedness, and speaks volumes about the authors of this law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Shill, I dont even know if this guy can center a camera but I would give him 10 bucks right now to see his movie cause he isnt a complete douchebag, since he probably didn't make one Im just gonna go buy something else from Kevin Smith since I'm sure that makes your skin crawl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I served too, so spare me the self-righteous indignation. 11Echo-Whiskey1 M60(A2) TC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*puts 10,000 quatloos on Jeff*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
have a nice night!
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Typical IP maximalist and village idiot mantra: "If you don't agree with me, you are against everything I stand for." There is no middle ground...everything is absolute.
I don't agree with "freeloading." I pay for what I consume, when the author/artist/creator asks for payment. However, I don't agree with this law because it breaks the internet, can be abused by folks who don't have a proper claim (since there is no due process and all that is required is an accusation,) and it isn't fair for the consumer. So I guess in your eyes, I am a freeloader. Well, hate to say it, but there are far more of us than there are of you...and sooner or later, the pendulum will swing the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL
You're a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.
You have no idea who I am, nor do you know anything about me. How do you know I am lying? Or, is it that you are attributing your particular foibles to everyone else? You steal from others, therefore everyone steals from others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
interesting since EFF at least PREDATES the internet and all those other tech companies that now exist. you sir need some fact checking before spouting NONSENSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
interesting since EFF at least PREDATES the internet and all those other tech companies that now exist. you sir need some fact checking before spouting NONSENSE!
Context, Deane, context. Thanks for the history lesson, but the rest of us have been discussing the Protect IP Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FACEBOOK is CENSORING a video about ANONYMOUS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP9q61Fjlqo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In addition I have been an assistant instructor in an IP class at PSU in Pittsburg, Kansas. I can tell you first hand that all Intellectual Property Right Law are about is protecting money flow. Take America's very own hero Thomas Edison, who stole Heinrich Goebel and Joseph Swan's light bulb designs (don't forget what Edison did to Tesla) through some very questionable methods including settling a IP infringement suit by making the Plaintiff a business partner then completely buying him out (Swan) and "purchasing" the Goebel patent from his widow (for far less money then it was "worth") after stating to Goebel that there was no value to it. Edison is remembered as the "Inventor" of the light bulb yet what he patented wasn't his to patent.
Just like the example set by the "great" Thomas Edison, the tech industry is built on the work of others. They cannot afford for anymore restrictions on IP simply cause too many people and companies hold patents on the same designs.
Another small point here: Radio and Television are communications platforms that the government has restricted to broadcast media. What the FED doesn't like is that the internet fosters the exercise of *Gasp* the First Amendment, and they cannot regulate it like they can "broadcast media." And the funding to the lobby groups, well i know several lobbyists from minor groups and they get paid to support what the government wants them to support but cannot openly state in many cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW, Edison's actions and motivations aside, what his patent secured was certain improvements to filaments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The heck? Didn't I read somewhere that they went out of business or something the other day? How are they still lobbying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
News of the World went out of business. Its parent corp, News Corp, is still very much in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no doubt
I have no doubt that this fool hardy (not going to fix a thing) piece of legislation will pass with a large majority of votes. We shall see where the chips fall in the end, and it is my hope that someone which the knowledge (and money) will be able to mount legal challenge through the courts once our government trips over itself trying to do the dirty work for the content industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no doubt
I really have no idea who you people think you're foolng at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no doubt
I am not looking at this as a roadblock to thievery, but as a poorly written over-reaching law which will inevitably be used to further curtail the rights with which this country was founded upon, and all in the name of "saving" Mickey Mouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no doubt
Wait. I though the spin-of-the-day was that this bill is all about protecting us poor pitiful citizens from fake prescription medication, counterfeit clothing and bogus brake shoes.
How does it make more difficult to share files again? That must have been yesterday's spin and I can't quite remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is no doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation
Congressmen need the money for re-election campaigns and to pay for drugs, hookers, and expensive trips to resorts while ignoring the people that voted for them.
Politicians are mostly stupid who simply do what they are bribed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://nsputnik.com/2011/07/against-protectip-act-list-of-people-and-orgs/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't underestimate me.
That would be impossible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbying?
In other words, Protect IP is being pushed by a mountain of cash and not the desire to do the will of the people.
If we suppose the bogus stats about the economic value of IP Centric Industries are true, then why is it that those industries have been growing without this legislation?
My gut feel is to say, let this be a lesson to Congress since they don't seem to remember the short lived PROHIBITION and how that turned out. If the DNS system is damaged then cleaning up that mess will be far more difficult than just repealing a bad law and saying "oops". Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are the big internet guys?
Something else that I have been thinking about lately, is lobbying and passing laws, Are we to the point where it is easier and more influential to write to a company and have them make a donation to get heard, rather then just write a letter to your representative yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are the big internet guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where are the big internet guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being clear and direct
I typed out a real letter--on real paper--and told my Senator that I understand the technological and legal issues in great detail, and that if they vote for this bill I will vote against them in the next election and encourage all my friends and family who ask me for advice about the government to also vote against them.
Don't waste their time; there's enough people explaining the tech and legal issues to them. Just make it perfectly clear that a vote for this bill directly results in votes against them in the next election. They can understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you a masochist or something?
1. Not intimately familiar DMCA, so would appreciate a citation of a "good faith and credible evidence" requirement. Doubt you can, but am open.
2. Domain seizures were approved by a judge. You should talk to him about your gripe.
3. Is this where I cite a study and you reject it? For you to argue no harm to the market, you'd have to prove that no one who obtained a free copy of the work would have purchased it. You can argue degrees of harm but unless Masnick conducts a study based exclusively on a sample of his stooges, there's no way you can back that up. Quite frankly, it's an embarrassing assertion, even for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) Seeing what passes for "good faith and credible evidence" has been sorely lacking.
2) No shit, Judge Nagel signed the first affidavit. The magistrate judges pass through anything, and this has been discussed at length with all of the failings of law enforcement who think a warrant somehow grants them immunity. We discussed how warrants can be wrong, how the domain seizures have dubious evidence, and here you are forgetting all of that to make your dubious statement. Also, the judge was a she. Get your facts straight.
3) The problem when you put your post right at the bottom is you never link to what you're asserting. Your studies such as the 301 report have been laughable at best.
You've yet to even try to debunk the "Media Piracy report" which is far more in depth than any industry studies. So what do you do? You make up some false claim on me when most if not all evidence of DMCA takedowns are based on a company not liking something they see on the internet. Bravo. Now try again, Buck. This time, act like you want it.
Btw, Here's a study to look into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to make music, pick up your instrument and make some nice new music. Want to make a movie? Get your camera, write a script, and knock yourself out. There are no gatekeepers stopping you from exercising you free speech rights.
Now,if you want to copy someone else's music, or someone else's movie, you get a different story. That isn't a gatekeeper issue, that is a lack of creativity on your behalf issue.
Let's just be clear - there is nobody in the movie or music industries who can stop you from making something new. There are no gatekeepers, except perhaps in Mike Masnick's mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happens when everything is encrypted?
http://www.infowars.com/top-torrent-pirate-bay-would-to-encrypt-the-entire-internet-from-prying- eyes/
People, like the internet, have learned how to route around blockages in communication. You do not want to be considered "blockage". But I tell you what...I'll make a deal with you. I'll give you (your company) the 150 dollars a month I have budgeted for "entertainment", and you give me any movie, any song, any file I want, when and how I want it and I will... never...download another file again. If you do this not only have you secured a customer, you have moved from a "cultural evil that needs to be pwned at every opportunity", to a valuable service that I couldn't imagine not having. You do that, and you have taken out piracy.. you win! Game over! cha-ching! You can take all that money that you're spending on lobbying against your customers, and spend it on more programming..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am in suppory of the PROTECT IP bill for the following reasons.
I want more regulation, and more government intervention in everyone life. You see I am a Tea Party Member. The more stupid self defeating things you do the more our party will grow.
I also want you to create laws that prevent the intellectual property industries from being able to adapt.
I want you to cause jobs to go over seas. With no money coming back to the states.
I want to see people out of work and living on the street. This way they have no place to go and will be easy to bus to DC for rallies.
Signed
Mr. S. Ark Asm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Yes Men fix the USCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Letter
deeply concerned by the danger the bill poses to Internet security, free speech
online, and innovation. The PROTECT IP Act is dangerous and short-sighted, and
I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress in opposing it.
It is important to note that the Entertainment Industry, in various forms, has
opposed every technological innovation since the player piano - record players,
radio, television, the VCR, digital MP3 players - this is nothing new.
Also, independent studies* have shown that unauthorized copying is nowhere near
the problem that Entertainment Industry's lobbyists make it out to be.
Please take a stand for the American people and at least ask Hollywood to
justify their desire to have the government police the internet for them.
Regards,
*
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers /FileSharing_March2004.pdf
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahaha, you're calling me out anonymously TDR?
I want either a complete chain of causality showing exactly how the sharing of a specific file has harmed a specific artist at a specific time in a specific way, backed up with empirical non-industry data, or a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Choosing to do neither is admitting you are wrong and I am right.
OK, but first, I want either a complete chain of causality showing exactly how the sharing of a specific file has not harmed a specific artist at a specific time in a specific way, backed up with empirical non-apologist data, or a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Choosing to do neither is admitting you are wrong and I am right. Now, run along douche nozzle- the clock is ticking. BTW, nice cut and paste job of earlier (and equally) absurd post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is bad about the PROTECT IP Act?
Because it has have bad parts, even though it has the good parts, it should be thrown out. The good that the bill would provide is worthless when you take the bad parts into consideration.
Due process of US citizens, the reliability of the internet for commerce and education, and the need for the US to be seen as an advocate for freedom of expression are more important than the billion profits of multinational corporations whether infringement occurs or not. Period. We are better off without their power.
Make a bill that does not lump in stopping counterfeit drugs in with shutting down websites with mere accusations and maybe we will be satisfied.
And for the record: WE DO NOT DEMAND FREE ENTERTAINMENT. This is a lie. From here on, when this is repeated, it this will be proof that this accusation is a lie.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with the concentration of power in any one part of government. They probably could not have seen the concentration of corporate power moving to the private sector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nick, to set the record straight; it also deals with foreign mascara websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Correction: it tries to deal with foreign rogue websites profiting US content dedicated to infringing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Beat It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IevBHt6IKX8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill threatens access to affordable meds
PROTECT IP's language fails to distinguish between rogue online pharmacies that do not require valid prescriptions and trusted, safe pharmacies that always do. If enacted, this bill would take away Americans' access to safe, affordable prescription medications online--even from trusted, legitimate Canadian and other international pharmacies.
RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. Like the EFF and DemandProgress, we are encouraging people to speak out against PROTECT IP. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Don't Know How I Overlooked This Idiotic Statement
Masnick, don't you think that since it is government officials and lawmakers that are being lobbied by the US Chamber of Commerce, that they may not mistake it for another government agency? I'm pretty sure they know the difference between the Chamber and the Department of Commerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Don't Know How I Overlooked This Idiotic Statement
From what I've gathered, the US Chamber has been very litigious in getting tort reform passed along with stricter draconian measures in copyright law.
Steven Tepp worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He still has buddies that look favorably on what he's saying. But looking at his speaking record, the guy is a walking BS factory. I remember when he was discussing the ACTA, how he mocked others general concerns on the panel, rather than address those points. When he wrote for the CSM, he used the same lines of rhetoric, based on arbitrary amounts he pulled out of his ass (the $58 billion), conflating piracy to theft (a famous tactic when nothing is lost), and overall obfuscating facts to make his points obscure. Perhaps he commands some special favors, because getting the job with the US chamber of Commerce seems like a great step up from what he was doing before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Reps are clueless
Senator Cornyn is still chewing on my protest of this bill. But Kay Baily Hutchison has already responded!
Yeah!
She carefully explains that we do not need additional regulation to insure net neutrality....
Wait, HUH?
Oh I get it. If I sent a message to her via EFF it must be about net neutrality. No need to read what I actually say.
Nuts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reps are clueless
That said, KBH supports Protect IP. Cornyn is a co-sponsor of the Felony Streaming Bill, which will likely be rolled into Protect IP. Sorry, but I doubt either will be sympathetic to your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reps are clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Reps are clueless
Did you miss my suggestion entirely?
"You'd be better off asking for a meeting at a regional office."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reps are clueless
However, Kay Hutchison is retiring next year, so she's not particularly interested in this, I believe.
Here's the candidates of next year
Ron Paul just dropped out to focus on his presidential election.
John Cornyn has about 3 more years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]