Senator Gillibrand Thinks PROTECT IP Is About The Internet Kill Switch

from the oh-come-on dept

Mon, Jul 18th 2011 2:38pm — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about how Rep. Anna Eshoo (whose district covers much of Silicon Valley) is apparently so incredibly out of touch on what PROTECT IP is about (despite it having a huge impact on the economy of her district) that she thought it was really about immigration. We were willing to chalk it up to a busy staffer sending out the wrong form letter, but there's growing evidence that our elected officials simply don't know what PROTECT IP is about at all.

David Segal from Demand Progress was kind enough to pass on that they've been watching the responses from elected officials to letters sent via their form about PROTECT IP and nearly 50% of them seem to be about things totally unrelated to PROTECT IP. Are Congressional staffers really that busy or are our elected officials just clueless?

As an example, they sent over this letter, sent in response to someone who wrote to Senator Kristen Gillibrand protesting PROTECT IP, which, you'll note, has nothing to do with PROTECT IP, but is instead about the "internet kill switch."

Thank you for writing to me with regard to legislation that would give the federal government the authority to turn off portions of the internet in the event of a major cybersecurity incident. I understand your concerns.

In the 21st Century, access to the internet has become an indispensible communication tool and a forum for vigorous public discourse. We have seen the power of the internet leveraged to promote democracy and topple repressive regimes in North Africa. While the internet has become a great tool for good, it has also provided new opportunities for criminals to exploit individuals, disrupt commerce and attack governments. For that reason, Congress and the Administration are working on various proposals to better protect the United States against cyberattacks and cybercrime. This is necessary if we are going to be vigilant against existing and emerging online threats and ensure a coordinated and coherent U.S. approach to cybersecurity. In addition, I have sponsored legislation to foster greater international cyber cooperation and ensure that the United States is working with other governments to address the threats emanating from overseas....

It goes on in that nature, but never once mentions anything having to do with PROTECT IP. It's pretty sad that our elected officials can't even be bothered to understand this bill that so many people are against.

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: anna eshoo, internet kill switch, kristen gillibrand, protect ip

55 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

E. Zachary Knight (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:42pm

What makes matters worse, is that this guy openly supports an internet kill switch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:47pm

Further proves what I have always known, the people deciding whether or not to make a bill a law have no idea what the bill is about. They probably haven't read it and until their party leader or a guy with a briefcase full of money tells them how to vote they just kind of wing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:50pm

I disagree with your conclusion
I don't think it means the elected officials are confused about what's in PROTECT IP. Maybe her lobbyists didn't provide a form letter for PROTECT IP, so the staff had to go with the closest topic available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KeithV, 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:51pm

No surprise here
Are you really surprised to find out that many of our elected officials are clueless.

Getting elected is a popularity contest in disguise, and it consumes immense portions of their time.

When they spend so much of their day on image, popularity, "the party line", and their biggest donors, how much time is left to understand the actual issues?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:52pm

Wrong name
The senator's name is Kirsten, not Kristin (at least according to Google).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon B. (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:56pm

"In the 21st Century, access to the internet has become an indispensible communication tool and a forum for vigorous public discourse. We have seen the power of the internet leveraged to promote democracy and topple repressive regimes in North Africa. While the internet has become a great tool for good..."

So, the Internet has been a tool for good and vigorous public discourse in places where governments do not have means of killing that communication. Therefore, we need to build the means of killing that communications.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:03pm

This is even worse than being confused or misinformed. That is a problem that could easily be remedied in a couple hours. This is our elected representatives not caring at all about the voice of their constituents, Leaving it up to staffers to send out the most fitting form letter as a response to the 'little people'.

Of course the real problem is the people. Us. These pompous windbags will keep on going just like they have for decades because we keep putting them back in office. The real solution would be to elect a new representative each voting term until things start to change. Clear them all out and start fresh. It would take about six year to get a whole new set, but that would probably be the best thing this country has had happen to it in decades.

Of course the chances of that happening are about a low as the chance of these politicians personally reading all the bills they vote on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:04pm

Re: No surprise here
As with so many "top jobs" the skill equired to GET the job and those required to DO the job are quite different.

It's very worrying!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:16pm

Kay Bailey Hutchison
I used the EFF form to contact my representatives about the PROTECT IP Act. This was my confirmation:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for urging your members of Congress to reject the PROTECT IP Act.

Your message has been sent to the following legislators.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Senator John Cornyn III
Representative John R. Carter
EFF is offering activists like yourself up to a third off our regular membership rates. See our activist membership page for details.

Thank you again for your help,

EFF Activism Team

And this was the good Senator's reply. Clearly she thinks anything associated with the EFF must be about net neutrality:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.

Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America�s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.

The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or �net neutrality,� has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.

Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.

In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay .

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:18pm

Or maybe some of Masnick's fellow pirate lobbyists have been emailing that the bill will "kill the internet", so they got confused.

Really Masnick, 3 posts in one day? Is it really so difficult for you to adapt and realize that it's not 2003 anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:32pm

Re:
2003? What does the war in darfur have to do with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:45pm

Re:
Really Masnick, 3 posts in one day? Is it really so difficult for you to adapt and realize that it's not 2003 anymore?

Hmm? What happened between 2003 and today that says it's okay to break the internet and cause collateral damage because you and your friends were unable to adapt while others ran laps around you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:48pm

Only thing I can say is
Facepalm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:17pm

Once again, Mike, I am shocked that you are surprised to be getting a canned response from an elected official. They aren't reading each of the letters sent to them personally and in great detail. Someone in the office looks at them, stickies them with which issue it's about, and the canned response is sent out.

I can only shake my head that you think these people have endless amount of time to address your issues, no matter how much they are just sucker bait to start with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:22pm

Re: Only thing I can say is
I shall contribute an alternative - my unbidden interjection:

OH, my FUCKING GOD...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:23pm

How sure are we that he isn't right?
What's to say that there aren't 2-3 words that will be 'adjusted' the night before the vote to make the bill do exactly what this congresscritter thinks it will? Perhaps he's been briefed by the industry who purchased him on the real intent of the bill?

Who are we mere citizens to question the word of a purchased politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:23pm

Re:
Oh, I dunno. Is it too much to ask of elected representatives that they actually REPRESENT the people they're supposed to be representing?

Maybe they weren't aware of that part of the goddamn job?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hothmonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:35pm

Re: Re:
I think 2003 was the year the government even stopped pretending it cared about the interests of the people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:45pm

Re:
I know our "elected" representatives are busy, so I expect canned responses. That doesn't bother me too much.

The problem is that even that process is broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:57pm

Re:
Once I heard something that may help in this case.
If you don't know what to say, say nothing.

If you don't read all the correspondence or don't have the staff to read it and summarize it, just don't send anything in response. You may be overwhelmed but the people sending those letters are not and they will scrutinize every last sentence of it.

This goes for everything in life and the higher you are the more important it becomes.

I'm shocked at people who try to apologize for others sloppy work. The response could be canned but at the very least it should be about the issue not about something else, it passes the impression that those people don't care.

People do understand that things can get to big and overwhelm someone, but they expect to be notified of it and it could even be by a canned version apologizing for not being able to read your message if by electronic means like all big companies do or receiving a proper response, so people can show that in public to the news or in blogs and pass around it.

Long gone are the days you could just send whatever and people wouldn't notice, today they can come together and share that ridiculous wrong response with everybody on the planet and that makes people in congress look very bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 5:03pm

Re: Kay Bailey Hutchison
I am so glad she's retiring next year. I sent in letters about Protect IP. Here is my response:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the protection of intellectual property rights. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

I believe copyright protection is a foundation for innovation. Intellectual property, which covers industrial property and copyright, is the creative core of the information age. Patent and intellectual property ownership gives inventors and thinkers security in their work. It has the ability to motivate creative minds and spur growth.

Protecting content in a high-technology age is a new and daunting problem, and copyright protection is an important challenge as the broadband revolution offers even more far-reaching possibilities and opportunities. With new speed and interactivity, the entire store of movies, music, books, television and raw knowledge can be made widely available.

Copyright law must protect the best interests of consumers. Originators of a work should be secure that they have rights to the work they fashioned.

Should legislation regarding the protection of intellectual property rights come for consideration before the full Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Here's what I sent through popvox:

I oppose S. 968: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act ... because...

I believe in every way S 968 along with the likes of S978 are misguided attempts at affecting economic change in the United States. The economic evidence as found in books such as "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" (Karaganis) or "Moral Panic and the Copyright Wars" (Patry) conclude that the only thing this bill will do is create ill will with our foreign neighbors.

Having the Attorney Generals involved in copyright infringement is a stretch. But also proceeding with the questionable domain seizures, taking away the due process of the judicial branch, and enforcing other criminal punishments on people that can barely defend themselves is beyond questionable for our government. I also stand opposed to extradition of foreign nationals for civil "crimes" such as copyright infringement, merely for posting links.

------------------------------------------

As it just so happens, I was just invited to Bill Flores' Town Hall meeting, occurring tomorrow night. I'll post an update later on, but this is beyond ridiculous when I've seen the notices given by our Senators for upholding legislation. The Patriot Act reply she gave really pisses me off...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 5:44pm

Re:
Well and let us not forget the popularity contests are always rigged to give you Windbag A or Windbag B.

There is to much noise and cover being afforded by the groups who each want to impose what they want on the other side, rather than focusing on real issues that affect everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 5:46pm

Re: Re:
Stopping foreign pirate sites from being accessed in the US is going to break the internet?

Do you have any clue as to how much of a zealous fringe lunatic buffoon you sound like for espousing such a silly belief?

It's not 2003 anymore, Masnick. The wild west days of piracy are over. You need to adapt your piracy apologist business model to something else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thedigitari, 18 Jul 2011 @ 6:57pm

>It's not 2003 anymore, Masnick. The wild west days of >piracy are over. You need to adapt your piracy apologist >business model to something else.

Sure we will change, when YOU change, sound fair?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 6:58pm

do not pick on kristen
she is a nice lady, she is just in a little bit over her head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 6:58pm

do not pick on kristen
she is a nice lady, she is just in a little bit over her head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
"foreign pirate sites"

Has anyone defined a foreign pirate site...
a foreign rogue site...
a foreign child porn site...
a foreign competitive site...
a foreign community site...
or a foreign site not controlled by trade interests?

Tell you what, tell me how Richard O Dwyer's extradition is proving that piracy is wrong when he's never set foot in the US, then we can have a decent conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:17pm

You know, getting a response from your letter you sent to your senator or congresscritter is required by law. It's supposed to show you are represented. That doesn't seem to be the case though does it. The actual representative doesn't read your letter and doesn't respond to it. In actuality you are taxed but not represented. The idea that some intern or page that doesn't get paid a dime sends you a form letter and not an actual response tells you just how important that representation is to them. Once in office they could care less.

If you are part of the monied corporations that buy their laws and access then you can get what ever you wish passed now-a-days it seems. Without that money that an individual has no access to, your chances are slim at best, closer to nil is more accurate. This is why folks are being to think about the government not having the consent to rule. (ain't that a bucket of worms).

Someone here mentioned that most of the time the politicians don't read the bills they are going to vote on. Crap they've admitted this. Remember Nancy Pelosi saying that in order to find out what was in the bill for Obamacare they would have to vote first and then find out later? This list of unread bills voted on is endless.

How in the world can you pass bills as laws of the land and be effective at it, without actually knowing what's in it and how to vote your consequence in the process? Now they depend on the corporations to write the bills, pay for lobbying, and then accept guidance from a lobbyist in how to vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:12pm

Re:
I'm starting to think that those in power here in the US hate the governments of those 3rd world nations, merely for envy of the power they hold over their citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Stopping foreign pirate sites from being accessed in the US is going to break the internet?"

Define "foreign" and define "pirate". Do so without any room for misinterpretation, and the actual "pirates" will simply route around the blocks. Do so with significant room for interpretation and the collateral damage will be disastrous for free speech and legitimate commerce.

In other words, yes. If it doesn't break the internet for US citizens, it will be as ineffective at every single other attempt to "fight piracy" except the one proven to work - offering a legal alternative that's not weighed down with stupid restrictions imposed by the content industry.

"It's not 2003 anymore, Masnick"

I'll ask again as I have before - what's this sudden obsession with 2003? Why that year? Why don't your corporate masters realise that it's not 1996 any more - where the business models they try to impose belong - for that matter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
Hang on - let me get this straight:

it's only okay for American pirate sites to exist?

...Wow, I don't want to get near in case I catch the Xenophobics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:18pm

Re: How sure are we that he isn't right?
Can we 'question' him at the end of a .50 DEagle?

Imagine if you question Congresscritters, and if they lied, you could shoot them dead. No repercussions.

The dialogue would become a million times better, and have more evidence-based reasoning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no more American pirate sites. The Limewire case ended that era.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's been repeated dozens of times that nerds, geeks and sociopaths will always try to find a way around blocks to get entertained.

So what?

At that point you're no longer a danger to the well-being of artists. Your pathology then becomes *your* problem; it's well understood that the jealous resentment of people more talented and popular than you will result in that kind of behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:15am

There is no copyright or trademark on understanding.

What are their incentives for understanding?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:30am

Re: Re: Re:
Stopping foreign pirate sites from being accessed in the US is going to break the internet?

Which "pirate" sites did you mean? Archive.org? Vimeo? Soundcloud? Vibe Magazine? The top hip hop blogs? 50 Cent's personal website?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/01370314750/universal-music-goes-to-war-agains t-popular-hip-hop-sites-blogs.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/16364214774/did-uni versal-music-declare-50-cents-own-website-is-pirate-site.shtml

Do you have any clue as to how much of a zealous fringe lunatic buffoon you sound like for espousing such a silly belief?

Only to you, thankfully. People who actually have bothered to read what I write -- as opposed to you who pretends I say stuff I do not -- can comprehend what I'm saying.

I'm still at a loss as to why you can't understand my basic statements. But it appears that you really don't want to learn. It's sad.

But, thankfully, I've been hearing from more and more people from DC asking for my views on these laws. It seems every time you claim that no one takes me seriously, someone else contacts me. Please, keep it up.

It's not 2003 anymore, Masnick. The wild west days of piracy are over. You need to adapt your piracy apologist business model to something else.

I'm not a piracy apologist, and never have been. What's odd to me is that this has been explained to you multiple times.

And how the hell is "piracy apologism" a business model?

I think we've discovered your problem, sparky. You don't even know what a business model is! No wonder you keep complaining about how you and your friends have to find day jobs. I can't imagine there's a lot of demand for people with no reading comprehension who don't understand what a business model is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no more American pirate sites. The Limewire case ended that era.

Other than archive.org, vimeo, 50 cent's website, vibe.com and other hiphop blogs, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's been repeated dozens of times that nerds, geeks and sociopaths will always try to find a way around blocks to get entertained."

You don't understand.

They aren't after "entertainment."

Bypassing any and all blocks is the entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
disfit (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:31am

Re: Re: Re:
Regardless of whether you think IP should be protected by the government or not, the fact remains that the measures proposed in this bill are ludicrous.

It is very much like trying to catch flying fish with sea-to-air missiles; the chances of being successful are close to or equal to zero. The chances of hitting something other than flying fish is a lot higher, and on top of that the social costs will (dare I say) sky-rocket.

Alas, stupidity creates it's own reasons for existence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:31am

Re: Re: Re:
It's not 2003 anymore, Masnick. The wild west days of piracy are over.

So there's obviously no need for any new laws, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drizzt, 19 Jul 2011 @ 5:17am

I'd say you would need a platform like abgeordnetenwatch.de (if you've issues with understanding German, click on the "English" link at the top of the page) and make them answer there. That would allow a far better highlighting of such ridiculousness and hopefully make a greater public aware of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 5:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy apologism is your business model.

You run, along with Ernesto at Torrent Freak, one of the biggest freetard blogs on the web.

You make your money on ads from this site.

If I'm wrong, I dare you to post proof I'm not.

But apparently you can't even afford to pay up to a music charity on a lost bet.

But really no surprise there. All your other baseless claims about your business? Please. After all, who would *pay* a talentless nerd for advice on art?

Your continuous statements that are the definition of willful blindness aren't doing anything other than giving us some laughs during dinner breaks.

Thanks for the free entertainment, freetardo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
btw, PROTECT IP has nothing to do with the sites you mentioned; it is only for foreign sites.

You lying slimeball.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 8:20am

Re:
That was my first concern! +1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes limewire was a site, your continued displays of your technological prowess have changed my mind. Obviously the people who designed the internet know less about it then you, this bill will have no adverse affects on the internet but it will stop all piracy, it is known.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah you dirty poohead, you got liars cooties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
did I miss the clause that says protect ip can't be used against American owned sites or are you just making more stuff up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"it's well understood that the jealous resentment of people more talented and popular than you will result in that kind of behavior."

is this what you are going through? with your jealousy of Nina and your hate for mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Monkey with Attitude (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and once again a theory is validated.

"IF you can not intelligently define or argue your position, you must resort to name calling"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Monkey with Attitude (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep it up your entertaining... the same as watching stupidity on TV but with the added benefit of knowing you actually think your right... Its down right hilarious...

Business model?
Interwebs? Huh.. must be nerd boy... bad

I picture a caveman with a computer, thinking its superior and finding out he's just T-Rex shit waiting to be processed...

Please continue your not worth arguing with, but sure worth laughing at...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's my question... Why the hell are nerds such as Bill Gates, geeks such as Larry Page, Steve Jobs or The Woz, in the same category as sociopaths such as Ted Bundy, Mitch Rosen, and Mitch Glazier?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we've moved on from Google, CDT, EFF and those other "piracy apologist" business organizations to attacking blogs that speak disfavorably on copyright maximalism...

Mike, you're doing something right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 10:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"PROTECT IP has nothing to do with the sites you mentioned; it is only for foreign sites."

And the DMCA hasn't been stretched and abused for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy apologism is your business model.

You keep saying that. I don't think you know what any of the words in that sentence actually mean.

You run, along with Ernesto at Torrent Freak, one of the biggest freetard blogs on the web.

Wait, when did Ernesto start helping me run Techdirt? Have you gone totally off the rails?

You make your money on ads from this site.

I do, in fact, make some money from ads on the site. But that makes (a part, but certainly not all) of my business model *ADVERTISING*. Not piracy apologism. Honestly, if you thought that writing about you and your friend stifling free speech is good for traffic, you're really more clueless than I thought. If I wanted traffic, I'd be writing about hollywood gossip or some crap that actually drives real traffic.

If I'm wrong, I dare you to post proof I'm not.

Huh? What? Post proof of what exactly?

But apparently you can't even afford to pay up to a music charity on a lost bet.

The bet was clear, that we would wait and see how the seizures played out in courts to the highest level. That process has just begun. Why are you pretending otherwise? Why would you lie? Are you really so insecure?

But really no surprise there. All your other baseless claims about your business? Please. After all, who would *pay* a talentless nerd for advice on art?

Um. Lots of folks pay me for advice on *business*. I don't claim to be able to help people with art.

Your continuous statements that are the definition of willful blindness aren't doing anything other than giving us some laughs during dinner breaks.

Well that's Just Ducky.

Thanks for the free entertainment, freetardo.

You really are a piece of work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:34am

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]