Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
from the speak-up dept
Lots of people have been speaking up about why PROTECT IP is a terrible, terrible idea that will have massive unintended consequences for innovation online. We've seen the biggest names in venture capital tell Congress that PROTECT IP would chill investment in new innovations. We've seen top technologists explain how PROTECT IP messes with fundamental infrastructure and security elements of the internet. And we've had a bunch of well respected law professors explain to Congress that the bill is almost certainly unconstitutional.One voice has been missing, however: the actual tech entrepreneurs and startup execs who will be impacted most directly, because PROTECT IP will put both the costs of compliance and the burdens of liability directly on their shoulders. Entrepreneurs are famous for staying out of policy debates like this. This isn't a surprise. Entrepreneurs are focused on building the next great innovation and the next great company -- creating lots of new jobs both directly in their companies and via the new innovations and platforms they create.
PROTECT IP is such a dreadful, job killing bill that it's finally sparked entrepreneurs to speak out. A large group of entrepreneurs, both well known and less well known, have teamed up to send a letter to Congress warning about the impact of PROTECT IP, and asking them to reject this bill which is nothing more than an attempt to give a handout to the entertainment industry. Over 135 entrepreneurs have already signed on (yes, including me). Collectively, these entrepreneurs have directly created over 50,000 new jobs in their companies, but more importantly have created hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs via their innovations, platforms and services.
It's great to see such a diverse group of startup entrepreneurs -- many of them serial entrepreneurs -- team up on such an issue. The list of participants includes folks like Evan Williams, the founder of Twitter and Blogger, Ian Rogers, the CEO of TopSpin, Mark Pincus, founder and CEO of Zynga, Dennis Crowley, founder & CEO of FourSquare, Joel Spolsky from StackExchange & Fog Creek Software and Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn. It includes people like Chris Shipley of Guidewire Group, who for years ran the DEMO conferences and Tim O'Reilly (who I'll just assume you know because you've read the books he's published). It includes entrepreneurs from great platforms like Kickstarter, IndieGoGo and GiltGroupe. And there may be some names on the list that you might not recognize today, but who are building the next generation of great startups to produce services that you will use in the future. It's really a who's who of entrepreneurs who helped build the key internet services you use today and will use in the future -- and they're all quite reasonably scared of what PROTECT IP means and how it will chill innovation in the startup community.
All of us who put together this letter want to make sure that the voice of entrepreneurs is heard loud and clear -- and as such, we're still accepting additional signatures from entrepreneurs. If you've been a founder or held a job-creating role at a startup, please sign the letter as well, following the instructions at the top of the document, and we can continue to make sure that the voice of the folks who really create new jobs and support the economy are actually heard from in DC.
Members of Congress and the President claim that they're focused on passing legislation that creates jobs. So why are so many pushing for PROTECT IP, when the companies who actually innovate and create the new jobs for the future are so against it?
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: entrepreneurs, innovation, jobs, portect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wow! The apologists are so desperate as to try to claim the jobs issue as part of their opposition? You're a little late to the party with this, but it will certainly inspire some guffaws on the Hill.
As a signatory company, could you explain how the Protect IP Act would dampen job creation at Techdirt?
This is simply the final chapter in death throes of the piracy apologists. First was due process which was killed off by Floyd Abrams nicely at the House IP subcommittee hearing.
Next was free speech which was the centerpiece of Google's initial objections, since undone by it's spokesman at Net Coalition.
Then there was the "break the internet" parade of horribles, ignoring that those for whom the internet may be broken are ones who are seeking to circumvent enforcement for their own nefarious purpose.
Then the payment processors were trotted out to claim that restrictions on them would be an unbearable burden. But Mastercard broke ranks and came out in favor of the bill, leaving the others exposed as the greedy liars that they are.
The US Chamber of Commerce (which actually represents real job creators) and the MPAA have all offered studies on the impact of piracy on job loss. Where are your studies Mike? What factual basis do you have to claim the tenets of Protect IP will kill job creation?
Even if each of the companies on that list added 10 jobs this year, it's still less direct employment than a single large motion picture. And a motion picture has enormous impacts in creating jobs in supporting businesses like catering, hotels, building supplies, truck and equipment rental, security, dry cleaning, etc.
After this letter is laughed out of town, about the only thing you will have left is to claim that the Protect IP Act somehow protects terrorists. I can hardly wait for that letter.
2. Due Process- nada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The first trolling in a long time that actually gave me an emotional response. Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Emotional Response to Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, add a bunch of jobs for six months to some podunk town in Iowa then split with the tax credits and a new car. Or ten permanent jobs in an industry that can improve our lives. (Pssst...the movie industry is entertainment...and provides no meaningful value to improving the public's lives)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And honestly, I view Techdirt as another form of entertainment. I fail to see how it is improving lives of the general public. It simply panders to, and is a forum for extremists, zealots and tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. Maybe it adds value to those lives. Hard to tell as most spend all of their time in front of computer screen in their mother's basement muttering to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Says the guy who does the exact same thing. In addition to doing the exact same thing, but mostly to complain about Mike. Yeah you're one to talk. You don't even refute points people bring up, but tend to gloss over them or ignore most of the points in order to focus on one that you have an argument for. (And calling it an argument is giving most of what you say too much credit.) You can't even speak without saying "freetards" or "tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists" or "extremists" in pretty much any given comment. I would think if someone has to resort to what is essentially name calling, they're grasping at straws and trying to easily discredit others because they can't refute anything with actual facts.
That's just my two cents though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for taking my point and supporting it. 300 people get a job for six months or 10x(signatory companies) people get a job forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That has to be one of the most funny comments I've read all week. As much as you would like to believe that Techdirt is read by only pimple faced kids in Mom's basement, you are incredibly wrong. (As I read this, eating my lunch at work and thinking of my grandkids - lol).
A quick look at Quantcast shows that most Techdirt readers are over the age of 34, make 60k+ (ie: professionals) and are college educated. Please try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, Floor 64 is such a big mover and shaker.
Masnick is doing nothing but tilting at windmills with this stuff.
The US economy is in the shitter and you honestly think this bill isn't going to fly through Congress? Most amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said that? Certainly not me. Point of this was that a lot of folks who actually are movers and shakers agreed to take part in putting together this letter.
I find it funny that none of the critics seem willing to respond to the points in the letter, nor recognize that many of the folks on the list are recognized as massively successful entrepreneurs. And more are signing up as we speak...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And why are you still pretending Floor 64 is some larger entity than this pro-piracy blog you run? And that in your desperation you are the one that put this meaningless letter together?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The points in the letter have been made and responded to on Techdirt and everywhere else on the planet where this issue is discussed. If you want a response, try bringing up something new or at least, worthwhile.
Once politicians learn that this letter is a Masnick-generated Chicken Little missive, it will join the file containing claims of UFO encounters, the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa's body and Elvis sitings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where is this one filmed? Toronto or Vancouver?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The people who support PROTECT IP are much more like "extremists, zealots and tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists" than the people who are against it. After all, they seem to believe all their problems are due to a global conspiracy driven by a small, shadowy minority of puppet masters - the "pirates." They're who really controls everyone: Techdirt, Google, YouTube, "social networking sites," the EFF, Creative Commons, Ron Wyden, legal scholars, the DMCA...
I'm surprised you haven't penned a missive called "Protocols of the Elders of BitTorrent."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Easy. If PIPA is passed, it will reduce job creation because more of a business's revenue would be spent on compliance, leaving less money to pay employees that actually generate profit for the company while doing little to nothing to stop what PIPA is intended for. Techdirt would have to spend money protecting IP by legal mandate and have less revenue to spend on staff. It demands labor from every employer that generates no revenue for them, but is required to avoid criminal charges or litigation. Are you that willfully ignorant that you can't see the obvious?
"The US Chamber of Commerce (which actually represents real job creators) and the MPAA have all offered studies on the impact of piracy on job loss."
They did their own study to determine the validity of counter-claims to a bill that they stand to gain more power from and you don't see the obvious bias in that? How could it be anything but favorable to their position? That's like asking the fox if the hole in the fence will allow him to steal chickens. Of course they're going to say there are no reasonable objections to the bill, it supports what they want! Why would they say it's bad when they're asking for it to pass?
The rest of your comment is unsupported hogwash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It should be obvious to you now that you have no credibility here and your attitude does you no service. If you want people to take you seriously, then I suggest you refrain from the personal attacks on people's character, cite studies from unbiased sources (hint: the MPAA/RIAA is a biased source), and stop making broad assumptions about people because they don't fit your ego-centrism.
Calling Mike and people who agree with him "apologists" is nothing but a weak-willed and petty tactic to kill the message by discrediting the messenger with "bloody shirt" appeals because you have no valid counter argument. I could turn your tactic back on you and call you a tyrannical free-speech oppressor who wants to censor the entire human race because you have the fool notion that once you control all communication, you'll get more money for the culture you stole from us. And yes, you're stealing (as opposed to people who infringe copyright, that's not stealing) it because when you lock it up in copyright and patent, you're taking away our ability to use those ideas and transferring that "right" to you exclusively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And even if Techdirt doesn't stand to lose anything directly because of the bill they can still contribute to the conversation. I don't own or run any business, nor do I make remixes or parodies, so I don't stand anything to lose either, but I can still see the massive unintended consequences of the bill. People are allowed to petition the government on the basis of preserving their rights before their rights are violated, and they should. Once your rights have been violated it is almost always too late, because the government never admits when it's wrong and pretty much never repeals anything it passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see. There's a Contact Us on the top right corner of this page. Next time try using it instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about from the Canadian governament, from the UK and another one saying piracy actually help sales.
Not to mention the Japanese study that found out the exact same thing.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9086/canadian_govt_study_p2p_increases_cd_sales/
http://www. zeropaid.com/news/92914/uk-study-p2p-helps-stimulate-creative-industries/
http://www.zeropaid.com/n ews/87267/study-artists-earn-more-in-ap2p-world/
"more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are ... uploaded without the copyright owner's permission but left up by the owner's choice."
Why? Because they make money from that piracy.
http://chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=642
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The undersigned are 108 professors from 31 states, the District of Columbia, andPuerto Rico who teach and write about intellectual property, Internet law, innovation,and the First Amendment. We strongly urge the members of Congress to reject thePROTECT-
IP Act (the “Act”)."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59241037/PROTECT-IP-Letter-Final
Will people laugh at a 108 law scholars, the DNS experts too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The undersigned are 108 professors from 31 states, the District of Columbia, andPuerto Rico who teach and write about intellectual property, Internet law, innovation,and the First Amendment. We strongly urge the members of Congress to reject thePROTECT-
IP Act (the “Act”)."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59241037/PROTECT-IP-Letter-Final
Will people laugh at a 108 law scholars, the DNS experts too?
I will. Particularly since the leading First Amendment expert in the nation, Floyd Abrams came to the exact opposite conclusion. How many of your "108 law scholars" have argued First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court? Not one of them is fit to carry Abrams briefcase. As for the so-called "DNS experts" their premise is that widespread evasion of copyright law will tempt people to use non-secure systems opening them up to all sorts of on-line misfortune like identity theft, etc. Hard to feel sorry for people who are themselves victimized while trying to break the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The idea that so much weight can be given to one person based on past achievements that he becomes infallible scares me.
Floyd Abrams himself said, "I really believe that a lawyer - no matter how good - if he or she is really worth their weight in salt, they will lose some cases because, after all, it is not really one of those secretive things that not everything is decided by who your lawyer is."
The man himself acknowledges he can't always right. If 108 law scholars say one thing and he says another, they're still the safer bet. Especially given that this is a democratic republic and the people who pass the bills are supposed to represent the people who voted for them, i.e. vote in a way compliant with the desires of the majority of the people they represent.
No matter how well worded or sensible one man's opinion is, it's till just one opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, Limewire cause 90 trillion dollars of damage in 5 years!
That's the same as every one in the world stopped working for 2 years.
Piracy is crazy! [sarcasm]
And you believe their reports?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 8th, 2011 @ 4:58am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online-related jobs are not actually productive, only re-distributive.
I'm still against the latest increment of gov't control, but this name-dropping and self-inflation doesn't help a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online-related jobs are not actually productive, only re-distributive.
Now i have to shut down my production department and tell them we are just grifters anyway, so no need to make products and/or offer service, magically the money will just fall in the ole' coffers... Or is that how this bill will work, i can shut down my factories and get money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online-related jobs are not actually productive, only re-distributive.
OR would that show us to be rubes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online-related jobs are not actually productive, only re-distributive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for PROTECT IP itself, I got laugh reading the whitepaper. The one item that keeps getting repeated over and over by opponents of PROTECT IP is "It will break DNSSEC". Yet, the very white paper that point to say, and I quote "Although DNSSEC-enabled applications are not yet in widespread use"
If something is not in widespread use, why not just come up with a modified standard that allows for the provisions of PROTECT IP to work?
It is a true head shaker here. If this is the best opposition to PROTECT IP, then I expect swift passage into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you agree that many of the most innovative new and small business (with plenty of evidence showing that's where the most jobs are created) will have to spend money on complying with old obsolete laws that only benefit legacy companies (who when they lay-off thousands of people, their stock prices go up). Glad you've seen the light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/94931/guide-how-to-defeat-us-dns-censorship-changing-your-dns- server/
The law threatens substancial damage to rights of citizens for little to no gains it is hard to explain that, that is why you people living in another world can't explain why other news are saying that PROTECT IP is pratically dead and have little chance of passing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2011/05/16/leahys-protect-ip-act-why-internet-cont ent-wars-will-never-end/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me: There are a few things in play here. First off, most people won't circumvent, because too many of them barely know how to get the internet connected, let alone playing with DNS settings. Commodity grade internet users aren't playing with the plumbing.
No law is perfect, and no law will stop all law breaking. However, laws guide the masses, and keep things generally good.
I tend to end up with the automotive example every time. Modern cars, even the generally crappy ones, can still run at nearly 100 MPH, and do so all day if you ask them to. The ability to do so is in contradiction to the laws, which generally limit speeds to somewhere around 60-75% of that at the most. Yes, some people drive faster, some of them get caught. Generally, the speed limits in place keep the speeds reasonable. The law isn't 100% perfect, it isn't 100% respected, but it does show the difference between "potential" and how things go in the real world with laws.
As a side note, quoting Larry Downes isn't very much better than quoting Mike Masnick. He makes his living off of pushing the idea of disruptive change, so why would he think anything that slows or blocks disruption would be good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Me: they can use an anonymous network, they can use a proxy, they can use a webproxy, they can use Baidu or any other search engine outside the US, they can use a VPN, they can change their DNS server to one outside the US all those things are easier than learning how to use a bittorrent client so all those people already pirating are not that dumb after all.
HideMyAss
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/95013/8-technical-methods-that-make-the-protect-ip-act -useless/
No law is perfect this one is useless, not only it does not protect or help to protect anything it endangers civil liberties and the internet and more importantly for you it endangers your control over it since people will migrate to a DNS system or equivalent that is not under US control.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/95663/zeropaid-speaks-to-executive-director-of-tor-project-ab out-protect-ip-act/
Do you want me to quote the network experts?
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110525_experts_urge_congress_to_reject_proposed_dns_filter ing_protect_ip/
Law scholars?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59241037/PROTECT-IP-Letter-Final
The EFF?
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/protect-ip-act-coica-redux
Google, Yahoo!, Ebay, American Express or Paypal?
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2011/05/senate-committee-passes-protect-ip-act-but-wyd en-issues-quick-halt/
I could go on, but I do suspect that nobody is good enough for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can change their DNS, they can use an anonymous network, blah blah blah. You miss the point: most end users can barely get their machines connected to their home network, let alone understand how to make complex changes to their system to allow for "secret" access to stuff.
Yes, some people can do it. Most people are just not that interested, inclined, or able.
Now, as for your links:
"Do you want me to quote the network experts?": I quoted them above, admitting that the one thing they keep pointing to DNSSEC is in fact not widely used, and yes, the standard could be changed to allow for PROTECT IP to work.
"Law scholars?": Those who can do, those who can't teach.
"The EFF?": The Lessig Express? Yeah, I am sure they are totally unbiased when it comes to copyright.
"Google, Yahoo!, Ebay, American Express or Paypal?": Reads like a Sen Wyden press release, light on details. Can you show actual full documents from these companies that show their full statement against, or are we going to use the quotes provided only by the obstructionist Senator?
I could go on, but I do suspect that you have nothing but one sided hatchet job links, and you most likely didn't fully read them or identify the actual sources and links to the anti-copyright movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Am I supposed to take away from this comment that the ones who will not be hurt are those who are tech savy and will be infringing anyway?
[ 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:
No matter which applies, the fact still remains that some feel entitled to do whatever they want, and the wishes of the content producers be "damned".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lets just drop the 'else' from that statement. It will hurt everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, as you have neither addressed the actual points the signatories here are making nor actually looked at the links that have been provided to you, your arguments hold no weight and are invalid. The most logical assumption is that you are paid to be here by those who would see this bill pass. However, because of your deep fear of change, you do not allow yourself to see the flaws in your own arguments and so you rely on personal attacks. They are, after all, the only thing you have, because the facts themselves do not support your view in any way.
As others have said, new content is always built upon old content. There is no other way. So again, your argument is incorrect. There are no works that have been made completely without drawing upon other works. What you seek, AC #61, is an impossibility. Without a source to draw from, creativity cannot happen. Yet people like you would rather let the well run dry than allow others to create. That is what copyright in its current form does—by reducing the ability of culture to be reused and built upon, it reduces the overall amount of culture available to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They will be your undoing. As far as PROTECT IP goes, the mere fact that so many have voiced so vocal an opposition to it logically brings its effectiveness and necessity into question.
And what, O Enlightened One leads you to believe that "so many voices so vocal an(sic) opposition" amount to a statistically significant number? I believe if you track the bill, there about three or four organizations that have publicly opposed the bill. They represent how many constituents? However many it is, the AFL-CIO represents millions of actual workers. Add to that the business community and other groups and by your own "logic" that level of support logically speaks to the effectiveness and necessity of the bill. You're a dope. Go back to your LARP league meeting and try to impress them with your logic and intellectual prowess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the same organization that makes up numbers about job losses, blindly follows the RIAA, and does everything to preserve the union while saying "screw you" to the workers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Careful your man crush has a labor background. This sort of talk could have you excommunicated from the Loyal Order of the Brown Nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Star Trek may have been inspired by Jules Verne, but it isn't a duplication, doesn't use the same characters, and certainly didn't just copy a movie version of it and superimpose "star trek" on the bottom of it.
The biggest mistake I see is people who confuse culture as a whole (the overall thing) with individual works. Copyright doesn't block culture any more than a single stone blocks a raging river. If you focus closely on that rock, you can claim that the water isn't flowing. But the truth is that the water of culture flows, it flows strongly and rapidly, and doesn't need some sampling doorknob to make it work out.
[ 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:
It is, of course, quite important, but that alone is not dispositive, as Mr. Abrams and a host of other "law scholars" have opined time and time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just not that interested, inclined, or able.
I think you underestimate the "users."
Just because you have to look far and wide to find someone with an ounce of technical savvy does not mean there are few of them. Also every year there is another generation of children who have never lived WITHOUT computers and technology. They don't have to learn technology, they're raised with it, it is part of their culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means people already found ways around the law even before it is in place.
It means that law for all intent and purposes is already irrelevant to combat piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://hidemyass.com/
You know what a magnet link is?
That is all you need to download something.
Further you got retroshare.
"RetroShare is a Open Source cross-platform, private and secure decentralised communication platform.
It lets you to securely chat and share files with your friends and family, using a web-of-trust to authenticate peers and OpenSSL to encrypt all communication.
RetroShare provides filesharing, chat, messages, forums and channels"
http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/
How hard it is to install a program?
You don't need to be tech inclined although for your eternal shame you apparently don't even understand the demographic that those things fall in and that is the children, that are among the most tech literate people in the world.
Educational campaign failed.
Suing your customers failed.
DMCA failed.
3 Strikes failed.
Protect IP not even passed yet and already failed.
This is not about piracy is it?
This is about trying to make the internet unusable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pass the bill and watch how fast they learn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And pass the bill and watch how fast the tools are created to make it real easy for the average user.
Then, of course, we will have law enforcement whining about how hard it is to track down real criminals with all the encryption and whatnot everyone is using and want laws against that. It's a vicious circle with our individual rights being the ultimate losers in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bu trrmr, abg guvf ntnva.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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 ]
Stop and pay attention.
This isn't just people that you can casually dismiss as some form of pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop and pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And how fast did Fox learn from this? How about HADOPI? The UK Digital Act? Sweden in general, where the Pirate Party is getting even more popular as the government was a proven lapdog of the US?n Brazil before its turn to the MPAA darkside? India and most judges' disbelief in copyright enforcement?
I mean, come on how many more examples in various countries are showing how copyright enforcement isn't doing anything to make people *buy* things on the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, but ... just wait until we make examples of people, make them do perpwalks, and put them in jail! Then people will buy our stuff.
Oh wait, the death penality didn't work in france for clothing copyright ... never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, which of those countries have cut off ad revenue, payment processing and are delisting from search engines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, how many more times are you going to move the goalposts instead of answer the question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how fast did Fox learn from this? How about HADOPI? The UK Digital Act? Sweden in general, where the Pirate Party is getting even more popular as the government was a proven lapdog of the US?n Brazil before its turn to the MPAA darkside? India and most judges' disbelief in copyright enforcement?
I mean, come on how many more examples in various countries are showing how copyright enforcement isn't doing anything to make people *buy* things on the internet?
I think you forgot to cite the experience in S. Korea after it cracked down on infringing. As I seem to recall, they went from one of the largest per capita infringing countries, to one of the more respectable ones. And...gasp... legitimate sales went up at the same time. I'm sure it was simply an innocent oversight on your part.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In South Korea, where the music business has long been blighted by piracy, digital music sales rose 14 percent in the first half of last year, after the new law went into effect in 2009, the federation said. The first account suspensions occurred in the autumn, and the group said the publicity surrounding the crackdown should help convert more consumers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/technology/24music.html?_r=1
There's more in-depth stuff from the Global IP Center and elsewhere. Waiting now for you to deny the cause and effect relationship. 3...2..1...
[ 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:
But don't tell our AC that. Reading things that run counter to his argument are taboo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is a joke. Thank you for showing your line of employment, but I'm not interested in a corporation that spends money on various forms of law that try to protect its core businesses through deception and misdirection, thank you.
That said, let's get into that article since you invited me so nicely. :)
What's written for S. Korean music is only a very small excerpt. Literally, this is the ONLY paragraph in the entire article regarding S. Korea.
So I had to look up the main source of Korean music today. Through this, I see that " the presence of Facebook fan pages, availability on iTunes, Twitter profiles, and music videos on YouTube, the ability of K-pop to reach a previously inaccessible audience via the Internet is driving a paradigm shift in the exposure and popularity of the genre." Source
In fact, while the IFPI is saying fighting piracy is causing this result, Time magazine says otherwise. Observe:
"Korean artists are bypassing traditional outlets like radio and television, "aggressively steering their efforts to go international via the Internet," says Bernie Cho, president of DFSB Kollective, a Seoul-based agency specializing in the international marketing of Korean pop acts. "Social-media-savvy K-pop stars are now tweeting, YouTubing and Facebooking their way up music charts across and beyond Asia."
So on the one hand, you say the piracy is being fought and won. On the other, we have the artists finding success through alternate channels such as their own Youtube channels.
Just to drive this point home, let's talk about the other countries and their copyright enforcement...
France - Hadopi shut down, Sarkozy decides to pass his own dictatorial laws for his lobbying masters
UK - Hargreaves report suggests an overhaul of archaic copyright laws.
Some reporters still don't get it, but at least they're acknowledging that piracy isn't causing the whole world calamities that you seem to be concluding.
Sweden - Government is a US stool pigeon, making Swedish Pirate Party stronger
Brazil - The MPAA is not interested in democratizing culture while demanding more copyright enforcement from Brazil. Meanwhile, with Brazil, CD copying is still enforced albeit very sparingly compared to the harsh sentencing on drug crimes. Hmmm...
So please, if you have some good articles that show how the correlation of IP enforcement causing more sales, I'd love to see them. That one wasn't even in the top 10 of "debunkonomics".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My simple friend. S. Korea implemented the most harsh and effective anti-piracy laws in the world. The response was a rapid development of LEGITIMATE new sources. The Korean artists are doing this by choice and are able to control and perhaps even profit from their intellectual property. The overall effect is a significant reduction in piracy and increase in sales. You can deny or explain away the causal relationship all you like. And you can reject the analysis of the Global IP Center because you don't care for the type of work they do. Hell, while you're at it, you can deny the Holocaust and global warming. But at the end of it all, the people who vote on such matters consider these solid examples and bonafide sources. You and the rest of your fellow cultists can continue bark at the moon and try to impeach examples that run counter to your piracy apologist religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The response was a rapid development of LEGITIMATE new sources."
You have the response backwards. The industry gave people legitimate sources, so people didn't need to find other illicit sources. They also found a larger audience through Youtube, Facebook, and other places. BoA, I have heard of from my own experience in Asia. The enforcement didn't matter one bit. I mean seriously, this is the same country where a video game is celebrated like a religion. *Something* should tell you that choices for broadband aren't as limited as they are here.
So there's at least three areas of contention that you've yet to really prove:
- Harsher enforcement have given legitimate sources more options. If this were so, then why do people mainly ignore the DMCA nowadays? The safe harbors are utilized but who in their right mind would try to sue over a takedown? We have three cases where this was tried. Jammie Thomas, Whitney Harper, and Joel Tenenbaum. We also have 2008 being the year of the DMCA sue em all strategy of the RIAA. Did that education program work? Why has the industry's own data shown that piracy increases their sales, and giving people more options for sources actually puts more money in their pockets? Of course, I'm talking about the Envisional data and the repressed report but I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out.
Second, you've yet to really prove your point. I know you like to weasel out of it, and prove nothing but for once show differently. Where has the kicking off Koreans resulted in greater numbers? There are other factors that you've ignored so that you can arrive at the sophistic conclusion that "enforcement = more sales"
Third, and this is real important, those companies changed their business models quicker than the RIAA. In other words, they used those legitimate sources while the politicians locked up the sources. You might want to check up on S. Korea and research a little more fully next time. It sounds as if you're still advocating the enforcement angle for your paycheck. It still doesn't work. Even after it passes (and is challenged), there's nothing that you're saying that will turn back the time to the 80s where digital distribution didn't exist. Hell, there's nothing that says locking up and limiting options will force people to buy more. I don't know who is living in the fairy tale world, but it sure isn't me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sigh... perhaps one day you'll master a basic Google search:
http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/reports/documents/15652_SK_Broadband .pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That pamphlet is on crack
It's a 4 page pamphlet on how not to advertise the Special 301 report it's based on!
Piece by piece:
Introduction
Most notably, the lack of intellectual property (IP) rights protection in Seoul’s broadband build-out early on hampered the growth of IP-intensive industries including the motion picture, recording, business and
entertainment software industries as Internet piracy skyrocketed.
False. The lack of motion picture, recording, business and entertainment software industries having affordable prices in the Korean market lead to increased piracy. IIRC, the price on video games in Korea was ~2x higher than the US because of the conversion rate. So in order to afford those "luxury items" it would cost a Korean more money. Enter high broadband penetration and renewed interest in J-pop (not K-pop) and the mp3. Enter renewed interest in hip hop and newer artists. Enter alternate streaming sources for movies that allowed more Koreans to watch movies from other countries than the smaller official channels.
Recent data indicates that from 2007 to 2008, music piracy increased 52%, movie piracy 312%, and printed material piracy 276%,
with this online theft estimated to cost those industries in excess of $1 billion annually.
I looked up the source of this comment:
. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) estimates $462m (£322m) was lost in 2007 alone on American-copyrighted computer games. In a recent report on Korea, the IIPA does not hazard a guess at the losses for movies and music, but quotes statistics from the government’s own Copyright Protection Center that recorded a 52% increase in pirated music last year and a 312% leap in pirated movies.
So basically, the CPC is trying to toot its own horn.
First, the IIPA's methodology has been called into question numerous times. It makes no sense that one American game can cultivate such high respect in the same place that's losing millions on paper from poor 1:1 methodologies.
Second, I can find no data into how Korea came about those piracy rates. No methodologies, no analysis of the market. However, if this is any indication, then a points system is pretty piss poor for trying to enforce these new laws. So these numbers seem to be dropped out of a hat. They were cited, but no one has checked up on them. That's the same as the citations of the costs of piracy by the MPAA. When someone checked up on them (The GAO) to provide a source, it turned out they were falsely attributed and indeed misdirected.
Public education campaigns have become a staple of Korea’s new IPR protection efforts.[sic]
It is now 2011. How effective have those "efforts" been?
Copyright industries provided more than 22% of the nation’s total real growth from 2006 to 2007, and in 2007 alone, these industries provided 5.6 million jobs to the U.S. economy
And by that same token, fair use accounted for 4.72 trillion dollars with the methodologies of Siwek's report.
But please take notice of this near the end, versus what was at the beginning:
As a whole, piracy and IP theft inhibit the development of new content and platforms that fuel the demand for broadband. Successful
broadband deployment in many ways hinges on our ability to combat IP theft online.
Right at the beginning, what do they say?
Over the last several years, South Korea has built a vibrant Internet and communications
“The challenges
technology. The country ranks fifth globally when it comes to broadband access, and the number of users on the peninsula continues to grow. The path Korea took to get there,
however, has not been without its bumps and turns...
Obviously, they built a road to broadband access. Someone's using it. They're using it for vast amounts of entertainment and newer business models are constantly being tried out with the bevy of internet options. There's been newer studies, but this one? This particular one is a joke. My thoughts about the Global IP stand. The Global IP should take its time and learn a few more techniques to be credible instead of relying so heavily on debunked stats from the industry it serves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That pamphlet is on crack
Yeah, the IFPI and Special 301 reports are regularly debunked on this site.
But did you notice this little inconsistency?
Recent data indicates that from 2007 to 2008, music piracy increased 52%
- from the Global IP Center whitepaper
The revival of music sales is not solely attributable to the new law, however. Sales rose more steeply between 2007 and 2008, before it came into effect.
- from the Economist article
So, two sources that the A.C. himself posted show a correlation between increased piracy and increased sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That pamphlet is on crack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That pamphlet is on crack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That pamphlet is on crack
You're welcome.
I've read a ton of studies, since I'd like to know the facts too. That one was particularly misleading. I could debate it with the A.C. but... well, what's the point? I'm pretty sure he's not interested in listening to anyone else.
By the way, in another comment, you wrote "undercut," when you probably meant "underscored." The two are opposites, so you probably shouldn't mess them up...
Love,
- the Grammar Nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That pamphlet is on crack
Thanks, and it's acknowledged.
Signed,
English 101 student.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From The Economist:
A rare victory against piracy
Repelling the attack
South Korea’s music industry succeeds in fending off pirates
Apr 22nd 2010 | SEOUL | from the print edition
CAN the battle against music piracy be won with sweeping new laws? In one country the answer appears to be yes. A year ago South Korea tightened copyright laws and allowed media firms to demand that warnings be sent to people who flout them. If they ignore three such warnings, their broadband connection can then be cut. This provided the model for “three strikes” laws subsequently passed in France and Britain. New figures from the South Korean branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) suggest the pioneering law has had an effect. Music sales rose by more than 10% in 2009, to $159m. In the music business any trend other than a decline is noteworthy.
It is a recovery from an extremely low base. South Korea is a leader in both broadband connections and piracy. In 2004 the American government put it on a watch list for failing to protect intellectual property. International media firms, which had been drawn to the country by the pan-Asian “K-pop” boom, wrote it off.
The revival of music sales is not solely attributable to the new law, however. Sales rose more steeply between 2007 and 2008, before it came into effect. And it is just part of a blizzard of anti-piracy activity. In 2007 the supreme court ruled that Soribada, a popular music-sharing website, had infringed copyrights. In the same year all “online service providers”—a category that includes peer-to-peer services—were required to take down pirated files. The government also launched an education campaign. It is hard to know which of these measures are working, but something is. The number of copyrighted music files found online by the government dropped by a remarkable 92% between 2008 and 2009.
Music piracy has certainly not disappeared. “It wasn’t as though the law came into effect and all illegal activity stopped,” says Mayseey Leong of the IFPI. Keen pirates simply pull music from Chinese sources instead of local ones. And an important factor in the revival of South Korea’s recorded-music business was the launch of legal music-subscription websites, including a cleaned-up Soribada. In contrast with music, the supply of pirated video files has not declined at all.
South Korea’s model will be tricky to emulate. Its music business is small, and much smaller than it used to be. In 2000 it was worth $202m. And, as Beom Joon Yang of Universal Music explains, South Koreans are unusually proud of their country’s exports of culture as well as things like televisions. Governments that try to enact three-strikes laws tend to emphasise their revivifying effect on local film and music industries. In France and Britain such arguments meet with shrugs, but in Korea they go down well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point was the industry in Korea launched legitimate sources of music, then reaped rewards as they satisfied consumer demand.
Yours is enforcement has satisfied consumer demand. The article itself has said the same thing, which you completely ignored:
And an important factor in the revival of South Korea’s recorded-music business was the launch of legal music-subscription websites, including a cleaned-up Soribada
I looked at Soribada. It's the Korean Napster. Guess what? It went from Napster to Spotify. People use it from the name recognition. You're not being entirely convincing with your articles because they're not showing the entire picture.
There are no indications on how successful the education campaign was (hint: close to 0% might suffice), nor how successful the "pirated files" verdict was on P2P. Finally, the question is, where did Koreans move their files?
From HADOPI, they moved to cyberlockers while P2P died out.
From the sounds, that went largely unnoticed by the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What are you talking about? The Protect IP Act is sponsored by 1/3 of the Senate. Te only Senator who has spoken against it is Ron Wyden (D,- Google). The House bill drops soon, but the only one there who has uttered a peep is congressional lightweight Zoe Lofgren. So you are totally talking out of your ass. Give me one single citation from "other news" that supports your absurd statement. Just one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LMAO! Good one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Europe there are three major classes of systems.
To the East there is Russian Law.
Historically although this is changing if arrested go directly to jail; we do not need no blank blank trial.
To the West on the continent there is Napoleon Law.
If arrested then it is your responsibility to prove that you did not do the crime you are charged with.
And then there is Anglo/Saxon law where the crown must prove that you did the crime you are charged with.
Today we feature one example of Napoleon criminal law and civil law.
Criminal
Murder of Meredith Kercher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
Under US and UK law Amanda Knox would not be guilty as there is insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.
Civil
Fashion's Galliano found guilty of making anti-Semitic comments
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/fashion-designer-galliano-found-guilty-of-making-anti -semitic-comments/
This trial and conviction would be a violation of the US Constitution's First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the interest of full disclosure, this is a Mike Masnick initiative. So Mike, a large group of group of entrepreneurs have "teamed up"? More accurately, you came up with this half-baked idea to laughably lay claim to the jobs issue. And simply sent out a mass solicitation to every crackpot, malcontent and/or business who relies on the content of others to rally to the cause. Note if you want to sign on you respond to: pipaletter@floor64.com.
Over 135 entrepreneurs have already signed on (yes, including me).
Including you? Big surprise: this whole thing was orchestrated by you. And once the people realize that the most shameless piracy apologist is behind this fraud of a letter, it will be remanded to the pile reserved for kooks. nutjobs, extremists and the mentally ill. Though Ron Wyden will probably quote from it on the Senate floor wearing Spock ears and a tinfoil hat. Unless of course Google gets a couple of the tweaks it wants in the House bill; in which case he'll sit quietly in his seat with his hands neatly folded in his lap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you looked at the list of people who have signed up on there? There are many many CEOs of tech companies who employ hundreds of people. Some on there employ thousands of people. These businesses are being threatened by this legislation and could end up shut down because someone in the music or movie industry doesn't like them.
This bill needs to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Should we protect the makers of IP, or should be protect the creators of business models predicated on ignoring the rights of IP creators? Should we encourage more and new content, or should we allow bottom feeders to suck the value and money out of the content creation process?
Can you imagine if all US content is outsourced to Elbonia because it is the only place that can produce a movie for $50?
What needs to fail are business models predicated on profiting from the work of others. A bunch of self-centers and self-justifying business people getting rich quick off of the backs of others doesn't impress me very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think we should protect businesses that provide content and services that people want and use. Every single one of these tech leaders are providing just such content and services.
The MPAA and RIAA are not interested in protecting businesses that provide services and content people want. They are only interested in preserving their dying business models. If they were really interested in creating jobs around their content, they would be actively working with these tech companies to expand the reach of their content. Yet, they have decided that anything that will not bend to their will is evil and needs to be destroyed. Thus we have the PROTECT IP act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The MPAA and RIAA are not interested in protecting businesses that provide services and content people want.
WTF? What do you think is being pirated? It's the product of MPAA and RIAA member companies. Apparently it IS "content people want."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what these tech companies provide that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to kill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you know that Google is spending $100 million dollars in a competition to attract content producers to revamp Youtube, they are also bidding on Hulu with some demands, although I can't see why they want to buy that crappy website since even if they buy that crap the studios will just screw them down the road, so instead of wasting 2 billion dollars in that buy, they should invest that on movie making and start a new studio and find people who want to start making movies and there are no shortage of talent for that specially if we are talking $2 B and more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, Hollywood would fail based on the fact that Harry Potter, any movies with Tom Clancy on it, and even the newer vampire series such as Twilight, were first books that sparked interest into motion picture!
How obstinate can you be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright owners should not be able to block other business from emerging, it is just ridiculous to see people trying to make an online video store and being discriminated, the content producers should be compelled to license their material by a third party arbitrator agreed by both parties, that is what cause job losses.
How can open source create multi million companies and have virtually no protections except the one where everybody can share, distribute and modify the works and the entertainment industry can't?
More how can the same people who give away their content for free in radios and Facebook have the courage to say it can't compete with free because free does harm them but when it is them doing the giving there is no problem?
Who needs to fail are labels and studios of old for the new to appear.
Netflix is starting to create their own content, Google is in the process of putting a $100 million in content creation that could see a launch in January and apparently Google is also trying to buy Hulu.
You see if studios fail and labels fail, Jamendo, Google, Yahoo, Bing, Baidu and a lot of other companies are actually there to pick up the pieces of the sorry excuse of an industry that the incumbents are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You have a lot of gall making that claim. Every artist, author, and studio out there builds their "IP" on all of the prior art in all of human history for the past 50,000 years. Disney would have no "Snow White" without the tales that the Grimm Brothers collected. Authors would have no inspiration without the collection of works by the likes of Shakespeare. The movie industry would have nothing to film if they didn't have every other medium out there to turn into a film (e.g. every book that has become a film like "The Firm" or "The Da Vinci Code"). So don't get up on your high horse and lecture people how "A bunch of self-centers and self-justifying business people" are getting rich from the hard work of others when the people you trot out as the hapless victims are doing the same thing. Hypocrite, you make me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I couldn't agree with you more! This is a perfect description of both the MPAA and the RIAA. They are middlemen who create nothing, their distribution channels are obsolete, and their business models are outdated and doomed to failure. I too am tired of them getting rich quick off the backs of the creators. It's nice to see that trolling this site for so long has forced some logic to seep in. Congrats on switching sides to the winning team!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I couldn't agree with you more! This is a perfect description of both the MPAA and the RIAA. They are middlemen who create nothing, their distribution channels are obsolete, and their business models are outdated and doomed to failure. I too am tired of them getting rich quick off the backs of the creators.
The MPAA is a trade association and lobbying group that represents the major studios. They don't distribute anything nor do they have a business model surrounding content. Those functions are autonomously controlled by member studios. The MPAA doesn't get rich off of the backs of creators, it is funded by the studio members.
A bit of advice. Unless you are deliberately trying to provoke laughter, scorn and ridicule at your own expense, it pays to have somewhat of a command of the basic facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes I have. Have you looked at the companies who have signed on to letters in favor of the bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One thing these companies have not shown is how the current laws are not sufficient. The only thing they can do is trot out the same arguments and lies they have been trotting out for the last 40 years. They cannot backup and prove any of the numbers they spout yet for some reason they continue to use them.
These tech industry leaders are showing with actual facts how the PROTECT IP act will do more harm than good. They are banding together to prevent the damage that will, not may, will be done if it passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain which "actual facts" the tech industry leaders can use to predict future events? And again what "actual facts" prove that damage "will, not may occur"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Walmart Model
$5 DVDS, $6 BluRays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Walmart Model
haven't you heard of redbull kiosks they have it for only $1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From what I can tell, Mike has no direct implication here, except as a "citizen journalist". Why would he lead something like this? Shouldn't it be the industry itself leading the charge, rather than some third party prophet of doom?
There is no bandwagon of support, just Mike holding a vaporware cartoon graphic of a bandwagon and hoping that people he knows in the copyright ignoring web 2.0 business will sign on without ever realizing that it is just vaporware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dear Entrepreneur,
If you’d still like to sign this document
Send an email to pipaletter@floor64.com
In the email include your name, the companies you've founded or have been an exec at & the approximate number of jobs you've created via those companies.
That's it. We'll take care of the rest
The "We'll take care of it from here" being the operative phrase. But don't take it from me. Next time you're over detailing his car or trimming his toenails; ask him yourself. Perhaps learning the truth will enable you to overcome your rote instinct for being his obsequious human shield.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps "robotic" in lieu of "obsequious" is a better term, having as one factor in its favor that it is easier to spell and likely more widely understood.
I like robotic as it captures the aura of a mesmerized, slavish devotee. However the coterie of yes men, ass kissers and supplicants who are here largely to echo Masnick in order to bask in the reflected glow of his (very minor) celebrity is nauseatingly obsequious. Perhaps "his obsequious, robotic human shield" would have been more thorough. Thanks for pointing it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems obvious to me and I'm sure you've picked up on it by now, but a lot of these ACs and Mike Defenders are just Mike himself. It's really that desperate around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love this line. I remember back a decade or so when fools accused Mike of writing every article, even the ones I wrote. They said he was "faking" extra persona.
It has never been difficult to find out that I'm a real person, but to actually do a few clicks of research is harder than spewing lies. I do smell desperation here, you are right about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Original statement: "a lot of these ACs and Mike Defenders are just Mike himself."
I don't know how you were able to interpret "a lot" as :every", but you should check in with your Special Ed. teacher for some remedial comprehension work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conspiracy theories run deep. I can assure you I *always* post under my own name. I have no fear of standing behind my words.
I will say that I'm pretty sure *you* have run through about three or four personas on the site. So, please don't attribute your own actions on me. I have never pretended to be someone else on this site. And why would I? It's my site. I can fend for myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. I know it and you know it. You're not nearly as clever or smart as you think you are.
I will say that I'm pretty sure *you* have run through about three or four personas on the site. So, please don't attribute your own actions on me. I have never pretended to be someone else on this site. And why would I? It's my site. I can fend for myself.
You and your army of sycophants (some real, some created by you) certainly do try. I'd say you and your pirate friends fail everyday, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put up or shut up. Point me to a post I wrote that doesn't have my name on it. I have never done so. I always post with my name on it, because unlike you, I'm not coward. If you're going to lie and defame me, put your name on it. Of course you won't, because you know you're a liar and you have nothing to back up your lies.
The level of desperation on your part is truly astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you won't even point out a single example?
I stand behind everything I say.
Why don't you share your IP logs with me, and then we'll talk.
Because you know damn well that would violate the privacy of people on this site. But if there were a way to show it to you without violating privacy, I would. But, of course, that would require you to reveal yourself, and expose yourself as a liar who can't back up your lies.
You know, the IP logs that you obviously look at all the time, even though in the past you said you didn't
I don't look at them all the time. Which is what I said. I did say I could, and at times will. But I don't do it regularly. I did for a few commenters on this post because I was curious, and noted that many of the critics came from inside the Beltway... which seemed like relevant and interesting information.
Anyway, it's pretty weak to accuse someone of something when you know absolutely nothing about the facts. But I guess that's why you're too chickenshit to name yourself. Come on and stand up for yourself, AC.
Otherwise, we'll know you're full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you use multiple IDs, Mike, because it's obvious to anyone reading this site. Unless you share the IP addresses with everyone, you can't prove that it's not so. Nor can I prove that it is so without the IPs. So no thanks to your little game of having me point it out. What's the point? You'll just deny it. Give me a break. If you think people don't know, you're delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Man. Your desperation is pretty silly. Note, I did not call out any individual and say they were from inside the beltway, though, even if I had, that would have made them one of approximately 8.6 million people in the DC metro area. That is not a violation of privacy and you know it.
Instead, I just said "take a wild guess how many." In that, I did not even name any specific commenter at all.
So, nice try.
They post here as ACs, and obviously they choose not to make their locations known.
So tell me, which commenter did I call out that way? Oh right, none.
You can say all the weasel words you want, but disclosing their location was absolutely wrong. Shame on you.
Who's location did I reveal?
The only one who should have shame here is you. For lying.
I know you use multiple IDs, Mike, because it's obvious to anyone reading this site.
That's pretty funny, because for something so "obvious" it's wrong. I don't. I always post under my own name. Why wouldn't I? And I asked you to point to a specific comment that you actually believed was mine. And you didn't. Because you're a fraud.
If you think people don't know, you're delusional
Take a hint, buddy: one of us is delusional here. And I'm the one with the actual data. I have no other personas here. I've never posted as anything by my own name (other than a couple times when I thought I was signed in and wasn't -- and I immediately noted the error).
I find it funny that you're so sure of something that is so wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why didn't you answer my question about your level of involvement in this letter from the entrepreneurs?
Since you didn't answer, I'll assume I was right that you're the mastermind and you wrote the letter. If that's the case, then you're entire article is intentionally misleading. You should have disclosed the fact that you are behind the whole thing.
The fact is, that AC called you out and that pissed you off. He called you out and you gave away his location.
It's not OK to tell people where an anonymous AC poster is posting from. To do so is a breach of trust and shame on you for doing it. Of course you're too much of a weasel to admit that it's wrong. That's exactly what is to be expected from a person like you.
And of course I'm not going to point to any particular post. You'll just deny it's true, while at the same time you'll be the only one with access to the proof. No thanks, I'm not playing that game.
Answer the question, Mike. NO WEASEL WORDS. What is your level of involvement in this letter? It's a simple question, and your readers deserve to know if you're manipulating them.
Saying it's a "group effort" doesn't negate the possibility that you're still the mastermind. Funny how you don't deny that you're the one behind this whole thing.
Here's the deal. No one cares that you're behind this whole thing. Good for you for being active in what you believe. The slimy part is that you wrote this article giving the impression that you just signed onto it. Signing onto it and masterminding the whole thing are two completely different things. It's intellectually dishonest (read: an outright manipulative lie) to do one but pretend you only did the other.
I expect no less from you at this point. You've proven yourself over and over again to be a manipulator and a liar. I imagine you won't answer this straightforward question with a straightforward answer because that would mean admitting that you misrepresented your involvement in this whole thing.
Of course you're lying. It's what you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Honestly? Because I didn't see it.
My level of involvement was that I was one of the group of folks who organized it, but I did not write it nor "mastermind" the plan, as you allege. I sent it to a few entrepreneurs I knew. I also setup the "signing" email address. Finally, I alerted the press to the letter, mainly because I know a lot of reporters already, so we figured it made the most sense for me to handle that part.
Since you didn't answer, I'll assume I was right that you're the mastermind and you wrote the letter. If that's the case, then you're entire article is intentionally misleading. You should have disclosed the fact that you are behind the whole thing.
Well, other than the fact that this is not true...
Dude, seriously, you have some serious problems with making bad assumptions.
The fact is, that AC called you out and that pissed you off. He called you out and you gave away his location.
Hilarious. How can someone call you out on something that is not true? Second, I did not reveal anyone's location. I already explained this. Point me to the person whose location I revealed and where I revealed it?
You can't. Because I didn't. So it's high time you apologized.
It's not OK to tell people where an anonymous AC poster is posting from. To do so is a breach of trust and shame on you for doing it. Of course you're too much of a weasel to admit that it's wrong. That's exactly what is to be expected from a person like you.
Again, I did no such thing, and I already explained this to you. At this point, you are WILLFULLY lying about me. Why?
Saying it's a "group effort" doesn't negate the possibility that you're still the mastermind. Funny how you don't deny that you're the one behind this whole thing.
I'm not. It was a group effort. For real.
Here's the deal. No one cares that you're behind this whole thing. Good for you for being active in what you believe. The slimy part is that you wrote this article giving the impression that you just signed onto it. Signing onto it and masterminding the whole thing are two completely different things. It's intellectually dishonest (read: an outright manipulative lie) to do one but pretend you only did the other.
The only one lying here is you.
Of course you're lying. It's what you do.
You have yet to catch me lying, because I am not a liar. I stand up for what I believe in. You're the one running around lying -- though it appears to be out of pure ignorance or stupidity. I'm not sure which is worse.
What's funny is that you're just so sure I'm a slimey weasel when I've been nothing but aboveboard the whole time. I'm thinking that perhaps you're projecting a lot about your own moral failings on me. Try looking in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha, wow. When I wrote the "Protocols of the Elders of BitTorrent" post, I was mostly joking.
But as I read your posts, I see that at least in one case, it's fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm really curious about your motivation to post here. Are you a genuinely aggrieved content creator? (Unlikely) Are you a record label or movie studio employee anonymously trying to support your bosses because you've been sucked in by their rhetoric? (Seems more likely) Or are you a just paid to come here and convince people everything Techdirt says is wrong? (I hope not for your boss's sakes because you suck at it)
I'm genuinely curious. Can you enlighten us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is shocking to me is that Mike cannot even bring himself to be honest and say "I started this petition". Instead, he tries to frame it in another manner, so that it isn't so obvious that he has gone from "blog writer" to politically active anti-copyright campaigner.
I bet more than a few of the sheeple on here would be shocked to find out the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This was a group effort. I offered up an email address to centralize things and to keep it organized. If it wasn't a floor64 email address, it easily could have been someone else's.
Love the conspiracy theories you guys are running.
For the folks playing along at home, take a wild guess how many of the ACs attacking me on this post have IP addresses in the greater DC area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting. Guess how many e-mails opposing Protect IP and petitioners submitted by astroturf groups came with foreign IP addresses?
[ 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:
IP addresses are meaningless! Anyone can fake them!
/tard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When has Masnick ever claimed to not look at IP addresses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation please.
What I've seen is Mike often commenting that HE knows the identity of some of the commenters, or HE knows where they are located (with IP-grade reliability), and he offer some anonymized relevant implications from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Inside "the greater DC area"?? LMAO! That could be anyone. Only a tinfoil-hatter would think that fact is remotely probative. This AC smoked you out and ate your lunch. Deal with it, Masnick, dba Pirate Mike, you got busted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you are agreeing with my comment a few above that Mike is respecting the anonymity of his commenters.
However, taken in aggregate, it IS relevant information that a high proportion of comments comes from the Beltway. Normally, we would expect a more normal distribution. So, this suggests a political agenda may be at play, not just some friendly Techdirt readers who disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brilliant deduction Holmes! Masnick and his fellow Techdirtbaggers push their anti-copyright apologist agenda, and the creative community pushes back against the digital looting of their copyrighted creative output. While as a Techdirt editor and business partner I assume that you are of like mind. Though I also note that you (through your company) take money from the content industry. I guess even principles have a price. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet you're on here to push a copyright maximalist agenda while barely staying coherent in your rant against the CDT, Google, and PK all the time.
Fancy that Mr Pot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when was "the creative community" located entirely in D.C.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If more people actually cared enough to make a change they would get involved. I, for one, applaud Mike's efforts. He is protecting his interests (freedom) as you are protecting yours (monopoly rents).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really have no idea as to what business Mike is in do you?
Here is a clue: Click on the link that says Floor64 at the bottom of this page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... except all you did was present your interpretation of what the post is about. Typically, "full disclosure" is an admission of RELEVANT facts, like your name, your work affiliations and whether or not you have a financial interest in the topic at hand. Since you provided none of the above, I wouldn't really call this comment a "full disclosure".
/bydhttmwfi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the future MAFFIA! YOUR NOT IN IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick the 'entrepreneur' !!!!!!!!! 370 employed by Masnick.
WOW, imagine over 135 WHOLE PEOPLE, of the same calibre as Masnick allready sighning on !!!!!!!!
So the average number of people who those 50 'entrepreneurs' have DIRECTLY created is approx. 370 new jobs each !!!
Masnick you do ALL that and still have time to waste your life trolling the net for the 'copyright' keyword.
Obviously the 'requirements' to be on this 'list' are not that high. But with only 136 people sighned you need all the dregs you can get ! (including Masnick).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick the 'entrepreneur' !!!!!!!!! 370 employed by Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick the 'entrepreneur' !!!!!!!!! 370 employed by Masnick.
Really? That's all you have left in the tank? Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Masnick the 'entrepreneur' !!!!!!!!! 370 employed by Masnick.
It boggles my mind that he's going that far off the deep end.
Collectively, these entrepreneurs have directly created over 50,000 new jobs in their companies, but more importantly have created hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs via their innovations, platforms and services.
Darryl says it's 370. Not only can he not count, but he's basically doing another TAM routine. You can barely take him seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick the 'entrepreneur' !!!!!!!!! 370 employed by Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick the 'entrepreneur' !!!!!!!!! 370 employed by Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An argument isn't less valid because of who makes it. Address the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Track the Bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROTECT IP will also take away access to affordable meds
RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is encouraging consumers to send letters to President Obama and Congress that state their opposition to the PROTECT IP Act and its threat to affordable medicine. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PROTECT IP will also take away access to affordable meds
It's stunning that you are so out of touch with the implications of this bill and your constituents that you'd advocate against it. It has nothing to do with "Americans' access to safe, affordable prescription medications from legitimate Canadian and other international pharmacies."
It has everything to do with rogue pharmacies who are selling bogus drugs, placebos (or worse) to unsuspecting Americans to the detriment of their health. Your beef is with the big pharma companies who oppose reimportation because they make less money.
You're out of step with potentially your largest constituent groups- seniors, whose advocacy groups are poised to support the legislation. I support the Protect IP Act and I also support Americans ability to obtain medications from any safe, bonafide source. The legitimate foreign pharmacies you represent must compete with purveyors of counterfeit and often dangerous drugs masquerading as the real thing. Running those soulless creeps out of business would only help the legitimate actors you represent. So I don't get it. Please explain the basis of your opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PROTECT IP will also take away access to affordable meds
If Mike's efforts were as impotent as you claim you wouldn't even be here. You'd have better things to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Desperation is an ugly thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since you seem to insist, on covering the same ground- I will go as far as cutting and pasting to give you something to snivel about for awhile:
Tech Execs Should Read the PROTECT IP Act Before Attacking It
By Alex Swartsel09/08/2011 14:24 (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
"There’s a theme in the series of letters that we’ve seen so far from collections of people opposed to the PROTECT IP Act, including today’s message from tech executives: they convey sweeping, generic concerns that, compared with the actual language of the bill, seem completely unfounded.
Today’s letter announces: “[W]e fear that if PIPA is allowed to become law in its present form, it will hurt economic growth and chill innovation in legitimate services that help people create, communicate, and make money online. … the bill will create uncertainty for many legitimate businesses and in turn undermine innovation and creativity on those services.”
Yet as we outline below, PROTECT IP “in its present form” is actually very carefully and narrowly written to make clear that the last thing it is intended to do, or will do, is harm legitimate businesses operating in good faith.
PROTECT IP’s Definition of Infringing Sites is Anything But “Vague”
Asserting, without proof, that the bill’s definition of infringing sites is “vague” doesn’t make it so. This letter gets it wrong right off the bat by beginning its argument with “Legitimate sites with legitimate uses can also in many cases be used for piracy” – while that’s unfortunately true, the PROTECT IP Act simply does not apply to legitimate sites.
In fact, the PROTECT IP Act is, intentionally, so narrowly focused that it covers only websites whose sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content. The bill’s definition of an “Internet site dedicated to infringing activities” states:
“the term `Internet site dedicated to infringing activities' means an Internet site that has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement … or is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating” infringement (see Section 2(7), emphasis ours).
It’s clear that this definition is meant to apply to the Pirate Bays of the world, not the Twitters or the LinkedIns or the FourSquares. And it’s difficult to see how such a definition will be “ripe for abuse” when any entity pursuing an action under this bill, whether it’s the Department of Justice or a private creator – will have to prove to a federal court that a given website meets that description before anything else happens.
“Burdens for Smaller Tech Companies” Are Largely Imaginary
The letter claims that PROTECT IP would require its signatories to make “costly changes to their infrastructure, including how we remain in compliance with blocking orders on an ever-changing Internet.” But this overlooks protections set out in the PROTECT IP Act precisely to mitigate such costs, including language requiring information location tools to take only “technically feasible and reasonable measures” to comply with the Act.
Further, a read through the text of the bill shows that fears of “possible liability” are almost surely baseless. The letter totally overlooks PROTECT IP’s very, very strong legal protections for service providers and other entities in the Internet ecosystem that are called upon to take action under this bill. There are three worth pointing out (all emphasis ours):
Internet entities and their employees who take steps “reasonably designed to comply with [the bill] or reasonably arising from [a court] order” are granted immunity from suit and from liability.
Entities cannot be held liable for “any actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this subsection.”
Entities cannot be held liable for “any act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith efforts to do so by such entity.”
The bill permits plaintiffs to ask the court for injunctive relief only if an entity “knowingly and willfully fails to comply” with a court order, not in instances of good faith efforts to comply. This is a high, high bar for plaintiffs to meet.
This sentence from the letter is telling: “Legitimate services already do their part by following the notice-and-takedown system of the DMCA.” One way to think of the PROTECT IP Act is as a badly-needed companion to the DMCA – because so many rogue sites are based overseas, and do not comply with DMCA. The two measures are in much the same spirit.
More of the Same Discredited Arguments on Internet Security
The letter also repeats arguments we’ve heard before suggesting that the bill would somehow undermine the architecture of the Internet – many of which have been debunked here and here, and to which we’ve responded here. It’s clear that this bill would have no negative impact on the Internet.
Clearly this letter got its facts badly wrong. But in the end, what’s even more troubling is its blithe assertion that “[t]here are certainly challenges to succeeding as a content creator online, but the opportunities are far greater than the challenges, and the best way to address the latter is to create more of the former.” Tell that to a filmmaker like Jason Stall or Ellen Seidler, who fight for every dollar they raise to finance their films and then have to fight again to try to stop content thieves from draining their earnings away.
Certainly the opportunities created by new platforms are immense – but those new platforms and services will never reach their full potential, nor serve creators as they should, if they are forced to compete with thieves. Legislation like PROTECT IP is the right approach to protect content online."
[ 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:
Also, what says that taking away American options, to allow foreign competition in other countries to grow, being taken away will actually force these so called great changes? I've heard the talking points for quite some time. It's the same thing over and over...
But ask a Maximalist how effective it will actually be and they go quiet and disappear. It's just sad because not one has yet to really say "ok, it's going to effectively curtail the internet." It's always about "It's going to pass and it's going to be awesome!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*crickets*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is just mind boggling.
How difficult it is to bypass the law?
As easy as finding a proxy to connect to it in another country.
http://proxall.info/
"Oh noes but that is just only one proxy, nobody will know about it"
http://www.google.com/search?q=web+proxies = 2 million entries.
"But...but people want use proxies they don't know about it"
They can also use ready made programs that already include everything one needs to bypass the law.
http://www.stealthnet.de/en_index.php
Take it from Japan, that only handles to get a hold of 1 or 2 people a year for filesharing and have no idea how much people share there since everybody use encrypted anonymous networks already.
Also it apparently goes against the US National security directives since DARPA keeps funding projects to make it difficult to stop anything.
http://nms.csail.mit.edu/ron/
Why the army keeps financing pirates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the conspiracy theories you guys are running.
For the folks playing along at home, take a wild guess how many of the ACs attacking me on this post have IP addresses in the greater DC area?
No weaseling. Let us know your level of involvement. I'm guessing you're the mastermind and the author of the letter. Am I right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]