PROTECT IP Renamed E-PARASITES Act; Would Create The Great Firewall Of America
from the censorship-galore dept
As was unfortunately expected, the House version of PROTECT IP has been released (embedded below) and it's ridiculously bad. Despite promises from Rep. Goodlatte, there has been no serious effort to fix the problems of the Senate bill, and it's clear that absolutely no attention was paid to the significant concerns of the tech industry, legal professionals, investors and entrepreneurs. There are no two ways around this simple fact: this is an attempt to build the Great Firewall of America. The bill would require service providers to block access to certain websites, very much contrary to US official positions on censorship and internet freedom, and almost certainly in violation of the First Amendment.Oh, and because PROTECT IP wasn't enough of a misleading and idiotic name, the House has upped the ante. The new bill is called: "the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act" or the E-PARASITE Act (though, they also say you can call it the "Stopping Online Piracy Act").
The bill is big, and has a bunch of problems. First off, it massively expands the sites that will be covered by the law. The Senate version at least tried to limit the targets of the law (but not the impact of the law) on sites that were "dedicated to infringing activities" with no other significant purposes (already ridiculously broad), the new one just targets "foreign infringing sites" and "has only limited purpose or use other than" infringement. They're also including an "inducement" claim not found elsewhere in US regulations -- and which greatly expands what is meant by inducement. The bill effectively takes what the entertainment industry wanted the Supreme Court to say in Grokster (which it did not say) and puts it into US law. In other words, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be "inducing" infringement, with a very broad definition of inducing, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. Hello, Great Firewall of America.
And while defenders of this bill will insist it's only designed to target truly infringing sites, let's just recall a small list of sites and technologies the industry has insisted were all about infringement in the past: the player piano, the radio, the television, the photocopier, the phonograph, cable tv, the vcr, the mp3 player, the DVR, online video hosting sites like YouTube and more. All of these things turned out to be huge boons for the industry. And yet, with a law like this in place, the old industry gets to kill off technologies they don't understand. Scary stuff.
And it's not just foreign sites impacted by this law (despite what supporters would have you believe). It appears to expand who would have to take on the entire burdens of enforcing this blacklist -- broadly naming "service providers" as defined in the DMCA. That's significant, because a big part of this bill is to undermine and strip away the safe harbors of the DMCA. The DMCA set up an important balance that gave online service providers freedom from liability if they pulled down content upon notification. This new bill provides a massive and ridiculous burden: allowing the Attorney General to create an internet blacklist that all service providers will need to block access to:
A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name�s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.On top of that, the bill says any attempt to get around such blocks can lead to liability. Would this put liability on things like MAFIAAfire? It sure sounds like it:
To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief....While the text of the bill insists that nothing in it takes away the DMCA's safe harbors, once again this is a claim without the facts to back it up. A large part of the bill is an effective attempt to strip away the DMCA's safe harbors.
against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.
The only extraordinarily minor change against the interests of the entertainment industry is that the bill ever so slightly changes the "private right to action," which allows individual copyright holders to take action under this bill. This was a big problem in the old bill, and the only requirement here is that prior to making use of this private right to action, copyright holders have to provide "notice" to payment processors and ad providers. But then those service providers are expected to take action anyway, or face liability. So all this really does is take the court out of the process, and make it even easier for copyright holders to effectively kill off sites they don't like.
Think about this for a second: think how many bogus DMCA takedown notices are sent by copyright holders to take down content they don't like. With this new bill, should it become law, those same copyright holders will be able to cut off advertising and payment processing to such sites. Without court review.
And... because this bill wasn't already ridiculously bad enough, it also lumps in a House version of the felony streaming bill that will make huge swaths of Americans felons for streaming content online.
This bill is an abomination and an insult to the Constitution. It's unfortunate that Rep. Lamar Smith thinks this is worth introducing in its current state, and anyone who signs on to co-sponsor is effectively supporting mass censorship of the internet in the US, as well as the criminalization of huge numbers of Americans -- while putting a huge burden on the one part of the economy that actually is creating jobs. All because a few legacy companies in the entertainment industry refuse to adapt.
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: bob goodlatte, censorship, copyright, e-parasites, great firewall of america, lamar smith, prior restraint, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if this would make it illegal to tell people what the IP address of the site is, as you can bypass the need for DNS resolution altogether by just using the IP address directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This bill is bad news. Looks like it is time for another letter to my 'representatives' in congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We thank you for your recent letter. It is always good to hear from a concerned constituent. Unfortunately you neglected to include the requisite check and/or money order needed to actually get the representative's attention. We are sure that this is a simple oversight and look forward to reading your letter once payment is made. For your convenience we now accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and Diner's Club.
Sincerely,
Congressional Flunky #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wrote my congressman and senators about Protect IP a while back and got a form letter back from one.
While not about Protect IP, here is an experience I had with my senator over the PATRIOT Act renewal:
http://ezknight.net/?p=98
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you lobby for them and pay most of them, they're paid to act in the interests of those willing to support their fundraising efforts. What a crock...
[ 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:
> a form letter response.
And more likely than not a form letter that talks about an entirely different issue than the one you raised.
I wrote to Feinstein expressing my opposition to PROTECT IP and got back a form letter talking about her stance on net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is definitely a Schadenfreude element to it where I feel this is what you deserve for electing them in the first place. I'm ashamed for this but still the feelings are there. Also the US seems hell-bent on creating opportunities for other countries to become the leading economy.
The other part is fear. The US is pivotal in the worldwide economy and if the US is doing badly it will have negative influences everywhere. Besides, what will replace it as the leading economy? Probably China. Doesn't sound like an improvement...
I feel that US voters need to wake up and start voting for candidates that will reform campaign financing. This is the only way that you will ever have politicians that look after your interests (assuming such a mythological creature exists). For me, looking from a distance, this is where it all starts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Believe me, I wish I could. But, aside from a couple of outliers, there are no such candidates. And there aren't likely to be any time soon. It costs a lot to run for office, and candidates can't afford (literally) to anger the deep pockets that have bought off our system by threatening actual reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What a concept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You folks are the ones that are talking about all sorts of imaginary ancillary BS that has nothing to do with what the bill spells out:
Stopping you from ripping people off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or to do none of the above, but just to allow the old guard a few more years to collect their rents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only ones ripping others off are those who steal from the public domain through retroactive copy protection extensions. The only ones ripping others off are the MPAA/RIAA - government established broadcasting and cableco cartel complex with their Hollywood accounting. The only ones ripping people off are collection societies who sue venues for money that want to host independent performers under the pretext that someone might infringe. They rip off both artists and the public. But freely copying from someone rips no one off, since no one is entitled to having a government established monopoly. If anything, the public is the one being ripped off because they are paying for a government that passes and enforces laws that go against the public interest solely because a few corporations want them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh god, you had me in tears at this point, I laughed so hard I almost hurt myself. Seriously, this sounds somewhere between angry 14 year old and incontinent OWS protestors. "Cartel complex"? Holy crap, that is classic!
Put down the kool aid and take a break, you can do yourself some serious harm if you keep going (and you will own me a new monitor when I spit coffee all over it laughing at your next post)
[ 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:
Of course you have to pay the politician to get him or her to work for you. It is only reasonable.
And if you dont like the prices, dont buy. It is a simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> politicians hard work for free.
Who said anything about expecting them to work for free? They get a salary which comes from the taxes I pay. If I can't expect them to represent me for that money, plus the oath they took to do so, why are we even bothering with them in the first place? Just shut the Capitol down and send them home to work for a living.
> Of course you have to pay the politician to
> get him or her to work for you. It is only
> reasonable.
> And if you dont like the prices, dont buy.
> It is a simple as that.
So you're basically dropping all pretense and not only admitting that politicians no longer represent the people despite the oaths they took to do so, but that you not only encourage bald-faced bribery, you demand it.
Well done.
[ 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:
It isn't Btr1701's fault, the download for that plug-in was on a "rogue" website whose access has been blocked already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody will pay you for life + 95 years let alone pay multiple times for the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, if an artist feels that s/he is being ripped off by not having a monopoly privilege, s/he can simply find another job. No one is forcing him or her to release content. There will be many others more than willing to take his or her place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under this bill, YOU YOURSELF are guilty. There is nothing you can do to prove your innocence.
You can act holier than thou as long as you want. Won't save you once you're accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Breaking the law is wrong, but those who sacrifice liberty for security end up getting neither - as you've surely heard before in various incarnations ;p.
In the end, the piracy problem takes care of itself, as consumers eventually learn that it is not safe to download warez and other illegal content - not because it is breaking the law, but because of the potential for malware infestion. Also, legitimate sources of content have shown to be appealing and adopted by consumers when they offer higher quality, safe content.
Throw in increasing worldwide recognition of intellectual property laws, and eventually we'll get to decent intellectual property enforcement without having to resort to drastic measures.
How drastic is this bill? You know, I'm not going to say for sure since I haven't read it all. I'm only taking Mike's word for it. I do know it sounds a lot like other bills that reduce liberty all in one noble effort or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop with the straw men already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Heck try to find season 6 of Stargate SG1 at a store.
Without buying used its damn near impossible to find online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
That's rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Record stores started closing en masse the year after Napster arrived.
Denying reality is still getting you nowhere fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
There is a lot of pedo artists so what?
Should we censor all of them for the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
People loved the convenience of buying digital files that could be stored in a MP3 player that was smaller than a pack of cigarettes rather than lugging around a cd wallet and a toaster sized cd player.
Napster may have started the trend, but iTunes finished it.
Now can you tell me why the music industry can't compete when millions of people have shown they love spending money on iTunes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Oh wait, no they didn't.
Stop being willfully ignorant. It isn't working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
You just makin' shit up now right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Stop being willfully ignorant. It isn't working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
I hope you get paid well for your soulless shilling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
I think what killed the record stores was ....ooh... ahh yes the arrival of the digital era SMASHING THEIR DOORS IN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
IP should not be about ensuring the profitability of 'record stores'. Besides, wasn't it about promoting artists and not just record stores and the middle men? It's not the governments job to ensure jobs. Sure, there maybe fewer record stores, but we also have fewer whip and buggies as a result of cars. That's hardly a reason t ban cars. Transportation exists regardless. Likewise, content creators have found a more efficient way of distributing their content which has enabled a wider array of content to be created (and content creation is the whole purpose of IP, not jobs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
People stopping using buggy whips. People haven't stopped watching movies or listening to recorded music.
Now go stand in the corner, junior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
You know places that have taken over from record shops?...
Sorry but you seem to have jumped from 1995 to today and missed about 15 odd years of economic history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
The movie industry continues to break revenue records year after year. iTunes is still the top grossing music delivery service in the world.
People spend billions each year on entertainment. So what is the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
and the fact that people haven't stopped listening to music is not the point. People haven't stopped traveling either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Interes ting read.
You won't tho... too easy to blame everyone else than look at yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
> buggy whips. People haven't
> stopped watching movies
> or listening to recorded
> music.
But they have stopped buying them on plastic discs from retail stores.
It's ironic that you called the buggy-whip analogy moronic, yet you apparently aren't bright enough to figure out that the buggy whip in the analogy isn't the recorded music, it's the plastic discs and stores they were sold out of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Keep reaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Denying reality is still getting you nowhere fast."
This has been debated end on end. Napster increased sales.
The RIAA limited supply to record stores, and made it expensive. The RIAA and affiliates killed the CD industry and weren't prepared for digital music sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
My friend owned a record store in a major university town for 30 years. The year napster came out, sales started to drop. Eventually he talked to some students and they all admitted that kids weren't buying anymore because they could rip it off for free on the net.
Denying reality so far has gotten this bill you appear to dislike. Do you really want to continue to be willfully ignorant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
If he had any business sense at all he would still be in business, most of the ones around here are. They adapted and changed. Some even still sell records.
Oh wait your breed is change resistant, hence the awful attitude and depressing outlook on life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll word of the week: Willfully ignorant
Wow, you have an anecdote, and I have proof, along with planespotter and The Incoherent One, that at the very LEAST says the data points at industry causing the downfall of the CD.
Are you going to be willfully ignorant in denying reality further?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Right, anecdotal evidence is getting you nowhere fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Really? 'Cause I have about a half-dozen friends who owned record stores, and they all said 2001/2002 was their most lucrative years in history.
In fact, the ones that I know that were shut down, had to do so not because of file sharing, but because the rent in Boston nearly doubled in one year, and they were forced to move out to the cheaper (read: poorer and less accessible) places. And/or shut down.
One of my record-selling friends decided to quit - and his storefront was bought up, immediately, by a record store who is expanding from Providence, and who is still operating as we speak.
Basically, you're talking out your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
The spread of iPods, and MP3 capable phones also sounded the death knell for the big chains as it made it inconvenient to lug large CD collections around anymore. Mobile internet and ever expanding broadband coverage made downloading albums from iTunes fast and easy. Their pricing was HALF of what Tower records charged. Open your eyes and look at all of what happened.
By your logic Blockbuster and Hollywood Video must be victims of piracy as well. Netflix, and again iTunes, Redbox, and legal streaming services had nothing to do with them failing now did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
When trying to make the comparison between Blockbuster and Netflix, and trying to put it next to Itunes, you miss a few key points: Even with Itunes sales, the amount of recorded music purchased has dropped significantly - yet the consumption is way up. In movies, you saw a shift in consumption from one type of legal service to another, but consumption didn't go down (in fact, with netflix, it is suggested that overall legal consumption has gone up). Itunes sales are still a drop in the bucket compared to what has been lost in the period since Napster came along. You can blame X or Y or Z, but in the end, the one common thread is piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
wanna know something funny? artists figured out that the myth you still believe, is in fact just that, a myth. They realized through traditional distribution systems and labels, they made about 3% per CD sold. Distribute yourself, and you can get almost all the money yourself.
Better yet, do what many in the electronic music scene, and more recently, Immortal Technique do, release the album online for free, let it spread and be shared, and see WAY more profits from tours and shows.
but you know, what people are really paying for is a hunk of plastic and some vultures to mark it up and sell it to you. not the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Nice try, but no dice.
Napster declared bankruptcy in 2002. The first wave of record store closings (e.g. Tower Records) didn't happen until two years later, in 2004.
It would be more accurate to say that record stores started closing en masse after Napster was shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Actually, it would probably be even more accurate to say that record stores started closing after iTunes was introduced... in 2003.
Did record stores compete with iTunes? Nope. Bye-bye, dinosaurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
Saying pirates killed record stores is like saying it wasnt e-mail that killed the post office, it was AOL. It wasnt trains that killed the horse and buggy, it was Union Pacific. Seriously?
times change. get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately
http://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Complete-Sixth-Season/dp/B000F8O2PG/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8& qid=1319728734&sr=8-13
That wasn't so hard! Unless by "store" you mean someplace I have to get in my car to visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But with added porn ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sony, on the other hand, still try to peddle their digital movies over the PSN for more than a physical copy! And for a lower quality "HD" rip. Where does that fit into your twister reality?
I'm all for "paying the starving artists," but I refuse to be ripped off in the process. Get back under your bridge, troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now pay me for the oxygen you breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wtf
Statements like yours are EXACTLY the problem with this country. "Who cares about freedoms and rights when you can...buy things?"
For your sake, for the sake of your country, and for the sake of freedom, please do some research and find that
1. "copyright infringers" are the ones paying the MOST for content
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
2. This bill has NOTHING to do with stemming copyright infringement, it is about the government taking an obscene amount of control over digital information.
3. Realize that this kind of bill puts the US on the EXACT SAME LEVEL as the "oppressive Chinese government". Enjoy your national firewall and a horrifically censored internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illustrating perfectly your imperfect understanding
Q.E.D. If I "pirate" a DVD or MP3, what have I "consumed"?
You don't know what you're talking about.... literally, you don't understand the meaning of the words you're typing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Like Firefox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recently, it was noted that file locker sites have started to clone themselves, registered versions of their sites with every possible TLD. One effect of this is making it harder to send copyright notifications, because you have so many URLs to report for a single infringement.
Hiding offshore may no longer mean you can continue to pander to American surfers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The internet doesn't work on the basis of "where you are" - a server in France can be accessed by someone in Alaska, via a network that includes a half a dozen other countries. Where exactly did that all happen?
If you market to the US, or make your product available to the US, and your product is not legal in the US, it should be possible for the US to block access to it.
As for the "my guilt hasn't been proven", are you suggesting we should allow all criminals to remain at large to continue their activities until they are proven guilty? Do you think holding someone without bail, example, is a horrible abuse of the legal system? Do you think bail with restrictions (like those imposed on wiki dude Assange) are a violation of civil rights?
Answer carefully!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
Sure seems like it to me.
What part of "INNOCENT until proven guilty" do you have a problem with?
You DO realize that's one of the reason's we f**king seceded from Britain, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
They are innocent until proven guilty, yet you allow them to be locked up. How odd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
A domain does not equal a person. Locking up a person also ensures they won't skip out on the trial, which is intended to show they are guilty, not that they are innocent. Note that this impacts just the one person, and they can post bond.
Locking down a domain prior to proving their guilt prevents all users from accessing the website, even if they are guilty. Note that this impacts all of their user base with no recourse, no way to "post bond".
Remember, physical things do not equate to virtual things. Or another way to spin it, "copying is not the same as stealing".
And as Mike often notes, I too am not advocating infringement or copyright violation. I just want to make sure we all understand that it's not the same thing.
So, to answer your question, yes. They are different. In fact, they are fundamentally different as virtual and physical are, definitionally and fundamentally, different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
Virtual things, physical things... in the end, if they are products that are sold, they are more similar than they are different. In the same manner, the law needs to be the same in both the physical and virtual worlds. You should not be able to do online what you clearly cannot do in the "real world". If you cannot legally sell counterfeit goods in the real world (and those goods can be seized before trial), the same things should be applied online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
And that's the crux of your fail - you are already assuming anyone running a site that would be blocked is guilty by labeling them criminals. Virtual/real differences aside for a moment, remember some people are released on their own recognizance... you are supporting a position that would lock up everyone, from the innocent to jay-walkers to murderers on the assumption they are guilty.
"in the end, if they are products that are sold, they are more similar than they are different"
That statement can't possibly be any more dumb. Your argument is if 2 things have something, anything, in common then they must be "more similar than they are different". A blue t-shirt and a blue sky - they must be almost the same thing since they're both blue, right? Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
As the US wanders back into the dark ages I bid thee farewell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you seriously suggesting that innocent people should be forced to stop their activities until such time as it can be proven that the activities don't violate the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Yes I'm suggesting exactly that. I mean it works for murderers so why not copyright infringes too?
"Do you think holding someone without bail, example, is a horrible abuse of the legal system? "
Holding someone without bail both requires an adversarial hearing and is very much not the norm in criminal cases.
"Do you think bail with restrictions (like those imposed on wiki dude Assange) are a violation of civil rights?"
I'm not familiar with Assange's bail restrictions.
"Answer carefully!"
It's so cute that you're willing to tacitly imply that shutting down these sites is tantamount to physical incarceration and overtly state that you're ok with shutting them down without due process. By your own logic and analogies you'd be ok with cops just showing up at your house and putting you in jail without a hearing indefinitely since that's what the terms of these site closures are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Should you do the government of Uganda a favor and block visitors coming from a Ugandan IP address from your site? What if you want both American and Ugandan customers? Should you still learn the ins and outs of every little suburb's Internet Content Approval Board in order to block visitors from every hamlet who's burgermeister doesn't like the product you are selling?
The simple fact is that government filtering is bad. Always. To repeat: Always.
An educated user base is far preferable, and easier to effect. It also has the benefit of not violating individual rights. The only serious issue with self-regulation is that self-regulation does not provide the profit motive that enacting legislation on the behalf of lobbyists does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> US, and your product is not legal in
> the US, it should be possible for
> the US to block access to it.
As repugnant as it is to the 1st Amendment, the US government isn't stopping with just blocking access to foreign sites. We've seen several cases just in the last few months where the US has pressed for extradition for *criminal charges*-- they want to arrest foreign nationals and lock them up in the US-- because they didn't obey US law while in their own country(s).
In other words, what they did was perfectly legal in their own country but Uncle Sam is trying to have them arrested and shipped back over here to serve prison time because they didn't obey US law, even though every principle of international law says they had no obligation to do so.
You people who advocate for this shit never seem to be able to answer a simple question: If every person on the planet is somehow obligated to obey US law, why aren't US citizens obligated to obey the laws of every other country as well?
Why aren't US citizens subject to arrest and deportation to Saudi Arabia for violating just about every tenet of Shari'a law?
Why aren't US citizens subject to arrest and deportation to France and Germany for violation of laws regarding the Holocaust and the display of Nazi imagery?
In short, why is the US the only country who gets to impose its laws worldwide?
I've asked this question at least a dozen times before, whenever this subject has come up, and all I ever get are crickets from you IP maximalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you listen, or you're fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> US has the economic/militarily/diplomatic
> power to attack anyone in the world.
I agree that the real answer is "Because we say so," and that's the reason the IP maximalists ignore me every time I ask the question-- it's an answer that has no basis or foundation in law and comes from a deap-seeded well of arrogance, and they'd rather avoid admitting it if they can. Hence the constant dodge.
However, the US does not have the economic or military power to attack anyone in the world.
China has suprassed us as the world's largest economy and India isn't far behind and they both basically hold the mortgage on the US. Our days of being able to run economic roughshod over the world are long gone.
As for military might, sure we could probably kick France's ass, but are we really going to go to war and start bombing Paris if they refuse to extradite one of their own citizens because he refuses to obey US copyright law-- a legal obligation he didn't even have in the first place?
Of course not. They know it, we know it, and they know we know it, so our big bad military is absolutely irrelevant in this regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, what they did was perfectly legal in their own country but Uncle Sam is trying to have them arrested and shipped back over here to serve prison time because they didn't obey US law, even though every principle of international law says they had no obligation to do so.
There are a number of narcotics-producing countries where conspiracy is not a crime. Yet drug lords from these countries are routinely charged with conspiracy to import drugs into the US, conspiracy to launder money etc. And yet they've never set foot in the US. This is the same legal theory. It's tested, it's proven and it meets all Constitutional challenges. Forward your address, I'll ship you a box of hankies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> countries where conspiracy is not a crime.
> Yet drug lords from these countries are
> routinely charged with conspiracy to import
> drugs into the US, conspiracy to launder
> money etc. And yet they've never set foot
> in the US. This is the same legal theory.
All you've done is provide a second example of hypocritical US arrogance as justification for the first.
Cite me any globally recognized principle of international law that says every citizen on the planet has a duty to obey US law (but not the other way around).
> It's tested, it's proven and it meets all
> Constitutional challenges.
The US Constitution is irrelevant here. All six billion people on the planet aren't obligated to obey US law merely because the US Supreme Court says the US Constitution is okay with it.
If I'm a citizen of Montenegro or Albania or the Ukraine, I don't give a flip what the US Congress says, I don't care if the US Supreme Court gives it the thumbs up, and I don't care if the US president signs off on it. I'm not a citizen of the US, I'm not physically in the US and I have no say in voting for or against any of the people who are passing these laws they supposedly claim I have to obey.
I am in no way beholden or obligated to not only follow my own country's laws but to also keep up with what some other country is doing on the other side of the world because in their height of arrogance they think I need to be following their laws, too. And the final cherry on that shit sundae is that this other country believes that when their laws conflict with the laws of my own country, that their law is *superior* to that of my own country.
> Forward your address, I'll ship you a box of hankies.
And once again, I notice that the issue of reciprocity is completely ignored in favor of general assholery on your part.
If this legal principle you're so fond of is as rock-solid as you claim, why does it only work one way? Why aren't US citizens obligated to keep up with and obey the laws of the other 190+ countries of the world? And when those laws conflict with US law, why isn't US law subordinate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like the bill, propose your own version that will properly address illegal behavior online.
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So give me all your money. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you think other people should pay and you should get it for free?
You're a parasitical freeloader.
And you are exactly why this bill exists.
If you don't like it, blame yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You think it is your right to charge, double charge and then triple charge people all the time?
Fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So yeah, fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: Pay �16.99 to buy it AGAIN!
B: Grab the NZB and download it for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/6/150152
It's in german so I'd use google translate, I mean as long as you'er ok with a company like Google parasitically stealing from sites like heise.de by copying their works that is.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, we tend not to take too much notice of our Government.
[ 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:
Most artists don't make most of their money through record sales, they make it through things like concerts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP should not be about ensuring that people pay, it should be about promoting the progress and serving the public interest. It's not about government ensuring things are fair, that's similar to communism and it doesn't work.
"You're a parasitical freeloader.
And you are exactly why this bill exists."
If we're the minority then our purchasing power shouldn't be influential enough to make a difference in sales. If we're the majority then a representative government shouldn't pass these laws.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to try again, Freetardo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here, have a �50 http://www.numan-family.co.uk/50note.jpg
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So give me all your money. Thanks."
A monopoly privilege on the ability to distribute copies doesn't rightfully belong to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you would like to make a copy of my money, if you have access to the necessary information, then I don't mind. Of course the government probably does, but that's mostly if you try to pass it off as money that they printed when it's not. I'm against forgery and fraud. I'm not against copying. You are free to copy my car if you like if you already have the necessary info, I don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're trying to disingenuously conflate taking something that belong to someone else, and depriving them of that which is taken, with making a copy of something. I'm against the former, I'm not against the later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nonsense. Assuming all the links point to the same server, removing the file associated with any one of those links will automatically disable all the other links. If the website is under US jurisdiction, this is exactly what they would do. If, on the other hand, the website is not under US jurisdiction then they don't have to respond to DMCA takedown requests in the first place and the point is therefore moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> to stop the old "hiding offshore" defence
> that many sites use.
Otherwise known as "it isn't illegal here, so why should I have to obey American law when I'm not an American or in America" defense.
When Congress passes a bill into law, it does not create an obligation on every person on earth to obey it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "hiding offshore"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And a million dollars too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our bombs are smarter but our laws are dumber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our bombs are smarter but our laws are dumber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our bombs are smarter but our laws are dumber
An apartment building is not on its list of suitable targets, and to try and use it as such would be a waste of time.
You must have it confused with another munition such as a laser guided bomb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Our bombs are smarter but our laws are dumber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fear for the day when it will actually pass and someday, it WILL pass. That will be a dark day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ex pre facto...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ex pre facto...
Which basically means you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ex pre facto...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ex pre facto...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ex pre facto...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks Like It's Federal Prison For Me
Now I'm a felon! At least I'll be able to catch up with the weed smoking friends I had in high school while we're all serving hard time. And somehow the Wall Street bankers and politicians who are fiddling while the Western economy burns are not being held accountable. And the Fox News and CNN twits can't figure out why my age group 18-30 is angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks Like It's Federal Prison For Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks Like It's Federal Prison For Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: um
IN other circumvention is illegal for the PROVIDER, but NOT for the USER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: um
http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/
Go dark with darknets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: um
Your one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet
Plus two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omemo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StealthNet
Light read for the people interested in the next generation of secure networks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_veto_network
Some people just won't let go of old habits.
http://www.ghacks.net/2007/06/06/anonymous-bittorrent-with-i2psnark/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: um
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fight Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's truth. We have adversarial hearings for good reason. Due process exists because without it, government tends to abuse its power more. Pretending otherwise goes against historical wisdom. This bill attempts to allow the government to do more without due process and the government has already been known to abuse its powers even without this bill.
The fact is that censorship is already a reality. Look at public airwaves and cableco infrastructure. The government wrongfully establishes monopoly power over these information distribution channels and, as a result, issues like the ridiculous nature of IP (ie: insanely long copy protection lengths) hardly ever get discussed over these communication channels. Instead, what ends up getting discussed is propaganda promoting such ridiculous laws. Criticisms would hardly ever be allowed and MM would never be allowed to use these communication channels to criticize our broken legal system. The government, and its laws, are responsible for this censorship because they have put up a gatekeeper cartel that wrongfully controls what information gets broadcasted. If anything, the government needs to fix our current IP laws instead of passing more restrictive laws. That it won't do that gives me no reason to trust it. Why should I? Just like with everything else, the purpose of this bill is simply to turn the Internet into what the government has turned everything outside of the Internet into, a highly censored communication medium where everything costs monopoly prices. Our government doesn't serve the public interest when it comes to many of the other laws it passes. Current IP laws aren't intended to serve the public interest (ie: Copy protection lengths). They are abusive. The government announces raids on websites from Disney. The government is passing these laws almost only because a few corporations want them. Why should we assume that these corporations are interested in the public good and not merely self interested? They are self interested and these laws are not intended to, and do not, serve the public interest. They are intended to serve the interests of those who are encouraging congress to pass them.
Why should I believe that this bill is any different and won't be abused by a government that intentionally passes abusive and oppressive laws with no intent on correcting them? Simply because they said so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about the mother who was thrown in jail for filming her daughter birthday party.
Oh there is a lot more people who are good people and did nothing wrong.
Piracy should be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. It shouldn't be called Piracy. It should be called File Sharing, and yes it should be legal. Its a tool, nothing more. Will some people misuse a tool? Of course, but just because some do doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So no, piracy should be called whatever you want but still should be legal no matter what others want to call it and the fact that a lot of people just don't care is just a good sign that people don't buy into the propaganda to the contrary that they are exposed to.
[ 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:
Sharing by any other name is just sharing and it should be legal.
Piracy, infringement, criminal activity or whatever, it should be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The mere fact that you've alluded to what it cannot do means one of two things:
1) You're a fucking liar
2) All possible interpretations have already been scrutinized and the inherent flexibility of the text thus ensures effective application on multiple facets of litigation benefiting your keepers directly.
Given the inherent short-sightedness of the industry that you represent I'm going with 1).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not pretending anything. I'm taking the bill at face value. And it's abominable.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they are (and are being actively and violently fought by the state).
occupywallstreet is, at heart, about the failure of governance and government in this country.
this is in fact a poster-child type example of this failure.
[ 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:
Then why don't you put on some patchouli oil and hit the streets with your "Down With PROTECT IP ACT" sign and catch a face full of mace for your trouble? Oh, that's right. It's easier to snivel here on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ive said it a million times it feels like. If you have to ask what occupy wants, when it is gonna be over, etc, you have no clue what is going on, and have no real desire for the status quo to change. You have been watching the news, not following the action on twitter or in person. You are a listener, not someone who forms their own ideas and takes action.
What are they protesting and why?
A)the answer could well be any of the hundreds, if not thousands of grievances people have against their government for choosing to no longer represent their interests.
B)This movement WILL change our world, and you will watch it happen with out you. It has already changed more than I could have imagined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More and more, they are looking like a homeless shelter for the hopelessly lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
a constructive and insightful contribution. your parents, grandparents and assorted relatives must be proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: OWS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny. I feel the same way about America ... and I'm an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Occupy Atlanta (relayed news): At about 1am this morning, reports of text message blocking in area of park.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if there are no technically feasible measures? How do you block a distributed website app for uTorrent? Are they going to block every single partial mirror of the Piratebay, or any other distributed torrent or DHT tracker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to give those in govt who don't represent us, a serious hiding, and take the corporations down a notch or 12.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least the new acronym is more appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To quote Star Wars
"So this is how democracy dies: With thunderous applause..."
Today, it is now:
So this is how the internet dies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robofog darknet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: robofog darknet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: robofog darknet
http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/
Go dark LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I AM PISSED !!!
Who gives these assholes the right to tell me and 1,000's of other musical acts where we can now share our music.
I am now ready for the revolution so when it happens I will be there with you.
I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A musical act can do whatever they like with their music.
You however, should not be allowed to do that for them without asking.
This is a simple issue that you people are trying to FUD up with a bunch of nonsense.
It isn't working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You parasite you think I will pay you for life + 95 years?
Go to hell.
[ 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:
"This is a simple issue that you people are trying to FUD up with a bunch of nonsense. "
It is not a simple issue. You are attempting to oversimplify a rather complex issue.
To just as soon shit on any random artist in such a way belies your "for the artist" rhetoric.
Many of the outlets for this type of artist that does take advantage of "can do whatever they like" will all too easily fit neatly into the definition of a block list. It will only take one "nay".
By its very nature this proposed set of laws is, by definition, fear, uncertainty and doubt ( FUD ). Courtesy of people that are afraid.
Embrace your customers with better services, regardless of their location, for on this planet, even if you were not aware, communications are near-real time (Welcome). Reassess release windows, dare to become something other than the proven (time and time again) fuck-twats that you are.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
IOW, little man, never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sad you are sad couch potato LoL
[ 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:
"Stop lying to everyone. It's pathetic."
When you can present even one quote or proof of evidence that Mike is pro-piracy (and no, the site in general DOES NOT count, because you'll say this site is pure pro-piracy, I'm talking about something more exact and specific, like the quote I gave above) we'll believe what you say. Otherwise, you're just a liar and acting quite pathetic. Like a dog with a bone on this one thing. Get over it. You've been proven wrong, quotes and evidence have been given as testament of this, and yet you refuse to acknowledge them.
Mike, if you see this, please just state whether or not you are pro-piracy. Make it SO CLEAR YOU'D HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN IDIOT TO NOT GET THIS. That way this guy can just shut up already. It was annoying, it's gotten beyond dumb to see this dude pop up with the same (already proven wrong) thing again and again. One quote from you and hopefully that'll be the end of it (as doubtful as that is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He refuses to. So he's either unwilling to back up his difficult-to-believe claims or he's lying. Despite the fact that he runs a rather obviously pro-piracy blog while maintaining he never pirates anything.
Well, almost anything, LOL:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12323416071/whats-most-expensive-wifi-youve-seen.s html#c334
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you stopped being a pedo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. As I've responded to you multiple times on this very point, why would I ever keep my music and movie purchases for tax purposes? I have not.
2. However, I have offered, if you'd like to show you screenshots of various purchases from online music sites. Just email me.
He refuses to.
False. I offered to do that. Just email me. You did not.
Well, almost anything, LOL:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12323416071/whats-most-expensive-wifi-youve-seen.s html#c334
Huh? How does that have anything to do with anything? If I can just use my phone wifi, which I pay for, I do that (as I'm doing this very second). If that option isn't there, then I'll pay for the hotel WiFi. What point do you falsely think you're making?
[ 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:
Forget about his, what about yours? Seriously douche, where are your receipts of the music and movies you've payed for?
Post them, or admit to stealing from artists right now and be done with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sites devoted to piracy will be taken off the web. Yeah, that's a "censorship regime." Not.
Your pro-piracy position couldn't be any more obvious. Why are you still lying to everyone, Mike? Why do you run away whenever I try to debate you? Why won't you ever let me nail you down on your position?
And when, oh when, will you explain all the reasons that "piracy is not OK"? It's hilarious how you won't answer that straightforward question with a straightforward answer. I've asked you several times, and never once have you just answered the question. You dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge, but you won't just answer the question. Classic!
I am LMAO at your squirming over these new laws. Watching you whine about this really makes my day.
Thanks for the laughs, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do I care that he believes this? No. I respect people's beliefs. What drives me nuts is that he lies about it. He intentionally lies about the FACT that he is pro-piracy. If he just admitted that he was pro-piracy, I'd respect him and leave him alone. But he will never admit it. He is too worried that his views will be marginalized even more than they already are. He cannot take that risk. So he continues with the lies.
I imagine he rationalizes it thus: "I hate copyright and I want it to be gone. It's not that I am pro-piracy, it's that I want copyright to disappear so that copying isn't actually piracy." Of course, that's a silly rationalization, and copyright does exist. The fact is, Mike won't explain why "piracy is not OK." Ask him. He will hem and haw and wiggle and squirm, but he will not, I repeat, he will not just answer the question.
Now why is this? Why won't Mike just tell us why "piracy is not OK"? I have a theory on that too. The only indications about why Mike thinks "piracy is not OK" is that: (1) it is technically illegal, and (2) some people who the victims of piracy do not like it. Now, Mike has made clear that (1) is dumb because he doesn't think it should be technically illegal, and (2) is dumb because people should recognize the positives of piracy. In other words, Mike just says those two things for show, and in his heart of hearts, he doesn't really think those things are bad.
And when Mike looks at the net, taking those two things he facetiously recognizes as negatives and adding all the things he sees as positives, it's clear that Mike thinks piracy is net-positive. Mike thinks piracy is net-positive, and therefore Mike thinks piracy is OK. This is my opinion, of course, and I guarantee that Mike will continue to pretend that he's not pro-piracy and that "piracy is not OK."
Anyone with a brain can see that Mike is lying. If he really thinks "piracy is not OK," then where are the articles about how piracy is not OK? They don't exist.
Stop lying, Mike. It's really, really, really, really pathetic.
[ 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:
"Mike is anti-copyright, anti-government, and anti-authority"
Is he all of that? Or is he anti-copyright in that 95+ years is a ridiculous amount of time for copyright to be considered reasonable? Is he anti-government in that enacting laws that benefit only one group of people while leaving things open to potential abuse and at the expense of the rights of a major majority of others a dumb idea? Is he anti-authority in that the authorities are stepping in to help an industry that refuses to change even remotely kind of ridiculous?
Because I'm anti-all that too then. I can't speak to what Mike things, but I seem to think along the same lines. I'm not anti-copyright/anti-government/anti-authority. But I'm anti-stupid things. If you do something that doesn't actually solve a problem, but instead produces the opportunity for more harm to come than good, I'm going to be anti-that and call you out on your stupidity and question your motives.
I'm a realist, I'd say Mike is too. Piracy/file sharing isn't going to go away, ever. Regardless of what laws are passed to curb it. Perhaps then, instead of focusing on just piracy, focus on the people who want to pay. How can you get people to not pirate? Hmm. The answer to that, as has been stated over and over again, is give them what they want in a reasonable manner, in reasonable methods, and at a reasonable price. People will always choose the easiest, less of a hassle method to get what they want.
Look at the Ultraviolet article. The DRM is ruining the "digital copy". Making it not worth paying for or the hassle. In that case, which is the better option? You want a digital copy of a movie. You can pay for a "legit" copy that WON'T work. Or you can get a "non-legit" copy that will, for free. People want to pay, but you're not giving them a reason to when the methods you provide aren't working or have insane restrictions. You're f*cking them over and yourself in the process.
That's not me being pro-piracy is it? That's me pointing out the realities. The realities being, the customers want something and you're pretty much making it so the best alternative to them is the illegal one. (And don't give me the "then do without" bs. If I can get something, legally or illegally, I will. If I want something, and you're not at least meeting me halfway, and I can get that same thing illegally elsewhere in a superior/more convenient form, I more than likely will. Pure and simple. That's reality.)
This site is Mike's. He's free to write whatever he wants or post what he wants. Can you show me one article where Mike shows that piracy is ok? Just one. Not one where it's had a positive effect on sales or anything like that. No. Just one article, where he clearly states "piracy is ok". I'm saying that, because you're saying he isn't saying "piracy is not ok". So show me one where he says the opposite. If you can't find one, it must be because you're wrong. Right? That's the reasoning you're using at the moment. I don't see it, so thus this. So back at you.
Mike isn't lying about anything. That is purely YOUR opinion. Which you're entitled to. But don't present your opinion as fact, when citations have been given showing otherwise (that your opinion is in fact, incorrect and false). Mike DOES NOT support or condone piracy. Saying otherwise, is really, really, really, really pathetic. (Given evidence to the contrary.) End of story/comment.
[ 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: Re:
Further, many of his business ideas (sell the scarce) are built on the idea of capitulating with piracy, giving into it as inevitable, and concentrating only on selling what cannot be easily pirated.
Some piracy is always inevitable. However, piracy at a level where it completely decimates business models just isn't tolerable. That is what laws like this end up being about, working to bring piracy down to levels that can be tolerated, and where most normal consumers have their needs and desires satisfied not by illegal actions, but by legal ones.
The problem for Mike, I think, is that this sort of thing brings us back to selling the content, and back to a relationship between content producers and content consumers that is more healthy for both sides. It would no longer be about scamming the mobs of people looking for the one idiot willing to over pay for some scarce commodity, and rather getting the majority of people to pay a little bit towards what they really wanted to start with: the content.
It isn't going to sit well with everyone, especially a younger generation that hasn't considered the concept of actually paying for content before. The slagging comments here about these laws only shows how upset they are to be losing their free lunch status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have found legitimate and convenient alternatives to the stuff that I want to get most: music. Amazon MP3 is making so much money on me per paycheck it's ridiculous. They give me no-DRM high-quality MP3s, a free cloud backup of all the music I buy (and anything I upload that I got from elsewhere [also legally]), and a really good selection.
I'm this younger generation you speak of. I don't pirate, at all. It's still an option for me, and I consider being legitimate and the "warm cushy feeling" of supporting the artist (I buy a good bit of indie) far more important.
And I find it a load of crap for you to say "back to a relationship between content producers and content consumers that is more healthy for both sides." The content producers have been upping the DRM ante on their LEGITIMATE and LEGAL customers who are PAYING MONEY for over a decade now. The pirates don't have to worry about such things, as has been hammered down time and time again. Why is a legitimate consumer of content treated like a criminal when the people actually breaking the law don't have to worry about it at all? That's Bass Ackwards logic at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a hint for you. Showing how content creators can turn "piracy" into self-interest is not being "pro-piracy." Objecting to the government's methods of fighting piracy is not being "pro-piracy." Pointing out how the "solution" to piracy is worse than piracy itself, is not being "pro-piracy." Pointing out that "pirates" are higher-paying customers is not being "pro-piracy." Pointing out how "anti-piracy" measures will hurt the economy, internet security, civil rights, and that they go against the will of the people, is not being "pro-piracy."
Or are you one of those morons who thinks that the ACLU is "pro-Nazi" because of the Skokie case?
On the other hand, you will never admit that copyright exists primarily to benefit the public, that the law says explicitly that copyright is not theft, or that its purpose is not to reward the labors of artists and publishers; so you are anti-copyright, anti-government, and anti-authority.
You are, in fact, a complete idiot.
Now why is this? Why won't you just tell us why "you're a fucking idiot"?
Anyone with a brain can see that you're a fucking idiot. If you really think "I'm not a fucking idiot," then where are the articles about how you're not a fucking idiot? They don't exist.
Do I care that you're a fucking idiot? No. I respect people's beliefs. What drives me nuts is that you lie about it. You intentionally lie about the FACT that you are a fucking idiot. If you just admitted that you're a fucking idiot, I'd respect you and leave you alone. But you will never admit it. You are too worried that your views will be marginalized even more than they already are. You cannot take that risk. So you continue with the lies.
Stop lying, anonymous person who is such a coward that he can't even register under a false name on a website. It's really, really, really, really pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike has stated over and over again the piracy is inevitable, and that business models based on selling content are pretty much "buggy whip" businesses. It would seem at that point while he isn't directly supporting piracy, he is telling anyone who is touched by piracy to get use to it, and that it is unavoidable in his mind.
Mike has also made any number of posts here supporting piracy groups "rights". He has cheered on groups such as TPB as they try to give the stiff middle finger to content producers, and has posted sad little notices when they lose legal battles. Even when faced with the obvious (Ninja video), he seems to want the law to be changed to allow this sort of thing.
Mike has also made it clear that while the internet "knows no borders", that he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws, rather than being responsible for what is on their sites, accessible from other countries.
Mike has also been in the forefront of the "a link isn't infringement" argument. That argument is that as long as you didn't actually commit the copyright violation yourself, you are fine to profit from it.
I could go on, but that is enough for you to chew on. No matter how many times Mike says "I don't support piracy", it is clear by his posts, his stands, and his comments that he certainly doesn't condone it either. Rather, he seeks to profit from it or it's existence. Do you honestly think his "sell the scarce" refrain would hold water if piracy wasn't rampant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right... Since Hollywood knows what's best for the rest of the world, let's call it what it really is. McCarthyism on steroids. Works for me.
He has cheered on groups such as TPB as they try to give the stiff middle finger to content producers, and has posted sad little notices when they lose legal battles.
Because they have nothing but links on their server from user generated content, or do you not understand what a magnet link is? Wait, don't answer that, I already know...
Mike has also made it clear that while the internet "knows no borders", that he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws, rather than being responsible for what is on their sites, accessible from other countries.
[citation needed] - But since you're trolling, we both know that won't happen will it?
Mike has also been in the forefront of the "a link isn't infringement" argument. That argument is that as long as you didn't actually commit the copyright violation yourself, you are fine to profit from it.
Excellent jump in logic. You should date Miko Miyazaki. You would do well until the inevitable showdown 10 minutes later. But I can't provide a link because it would be infringement. O NOES!
Do you honestly think his "sell the scarce" refrain would hold water if piracy wasn't rampant?
Ironic that you talk about water, when people still find a way to pay for bottled water. I guess those that collect rainwater are some kind of pirates for figuring out a way to buck the system. Those dang water collectors are killing the water industry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What "actions?" He posts his oppinion, and talks about things with people. His only "actions" are not being a pirate (voluntarily - unlike 99.9% of the general population), and working to help artists make money.
I'd say his "actions" are pretty noble.
Mike has stated over and over again the piracy is inevitable, and that business models based on selling content are pretty much "buggy whip" businesses.
When "piracy" includes fans sharing music for non-commercial reasons, I'd say yeah, piracy is inevitable. And he does not say that "business models based on selling content" are "buggy whip" industries. He says that being a gatekeeper for content is a "buggy whip" business. On the other hand, Netflix "sells content," and they've done really well - and helped reduce piracy in the process.
Mike has also made any number of posts here supporting piracy groups "rights".
In exactly the same way as the ACLU supported the Nazi's "rights." He's wise enough to know that if they lose their rights, we lose those rights too.
Mike has also made it clear that while the internet "knows no borders", that he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws, rather than being responsible for what is on their sites, accessible from other countries.
Mike has said no such thing. What he has said is that the U.S. has no business holding foreign companies liable for U.S. laws, when they're not guilty in their own countries. As indeed he should. How would you like it if Iran or China enforced its laws in the U.S.?
Mike has also been in the forefront of the "a link isn't infringement" argument. That argument is that as long as you didn't actually commit the copyright violation yourself, you are fine to profit from it.
He thinks a link isn't infringement, because A LINK ISN'T INFRINGEMENT. Only a total and complete moron would think it is. My Facebook wall is full of friends who link to music videos on YouTube. Many of them are probably links to infringing content (though of course I can't know for sure). Do you honestly think they should be considered guilty of copyright infringement?
And, luckily, the courts agree with common sense. You may hate the fact that "a link isn't infringement," but that is the law. And why shouldn't companies who don't break any law earn a profit?
Especially if those links are put there by third parties who have nothing to do with those companies?
The idea that "linking is infringement" is one of the most idiotic, chowder-headed, and repressive ideas to come down the pike. It is an idea held by people who hate the very idea of the internet, don't like communication, and don't respect free speech.
I could go on, but that is enough for you to chew on.
I'm finding it very hard to swallow. Tastes a lot like straw to me.
Rather, he seeks to profit from it or it's [sic] existence.
And now it just tastes like bullshit. Mike has never, in any way, shape, or form, profited from piracy, or from its existence. And his "sell the scarce" stance is nothing new - in fact, it's the very reason copyright exists in the first place: to create artificial scarcity, so that it can be sold.
He's just smart enough to realize that when something is no longer scarce, it's time to move on to selling something that is. This makes him a far better businessman than the Big Media lapdogs that criticize him.
Perhaps that's why the artists he advises actually make money - and the artists they advise, don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, I just realized how ironic this statement is, because that's exactly what the industries you support are doing.
Lose a court case against a video linking site located in Spain? Have ICE take them down from "the safety of local laws." Some kid is sharing music in England, without necessarily breaking English laws? Charge him with breaking U.S. laws, and have him extradicted. Have a useless patent? Sue in East Texas.
In fact, "forum shopping" is exactly what these bills hope to accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
..'only a Sith Lord thinks in absolutes'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike is anti-bullshit and anti shills (though he lets them post here). You and your ilk can claim the contrary forever, it won't make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't like Mike or his opinion, so I'll misrepresent everything he stands for in order to further my agenda/my paymaster's agenda/my own stupidity int he hopes that it'll catch on.* This will use as many logical fallacies as is poosible in order to deflect from my own shortcimings/my master's short-sightedness/a refusal to adapt to a changing marketplace (c.f. banks)*
* delete as appropriate.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was on a plane to DC, so I can spend the next few days explaining to politicians why this bill is a huge problem.
I have no problem debating you and have wiped the floor clean with you multiple times in the past. That's usually when you start picking up on some tangent and stomping your feet like a little child. Please don't do that again. I've answered your questions multiple times.
You keep insisting I haven't, merely because you don't like my answer. Let me let you in on one of life's important lessons: just because you don't understand complex subjects when they're explained to you, it does not mean the person answering your question is avoiding the question. It just means that you don't like the answer. Acting childish in response is no way to go through life. So please don't do that again.
And, with that, I'm off to sleep, because I have a busy day tomorrow and Friday actually talking to people who matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It can be considered entertainment to make it writhe and watch it careen about the stadium in mindless fury. All for free no less.
It is a mere distraction whilst the ongoing destruction of a free civilization is blocked in - brick by brick - yet again. Only this time the choices of the governed will be molded into an iron fist that will destroy the oppressors. To tempt the unknown is to fall victim to it. To attempt to change the known is to self-destruct.
Its obvious representation of the old-guard of culture is clear indication of the control this guard exerts across multiple facets of culture - they too shall fall.
Deep down it knows: We will not be controlled. We will not tolerate censorship under any guise. The revolution will be communicated. The revolution will be shared. "WE" will not stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You will be victim of your own stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will rip it and post it everywhere and we will see if it still looks good LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This comment is in accordance with most of the Techdirt crowd, and, if I understand correctly, with how Mike feels. Why are you so angry with someone you agree with?
There's no point in trying to eliminate all crime. The only way to do that is to eliminate all laws. A lot of people are stupid and greedy. A lot of people are also poor. Fining them more than they'll make in a lifetime/jailing them for downloading and listening to a song or downloading and watching a movie (or even being accused of either offense) is troubling. It causes a real disdain for the system, both the content providers and the government that protects them.
If there were a ~14 year limit on copyright, after which works entered the public domain, then perhaps it would be more reasonable to enforce high penalties for copyright infringement... because there would be a vast amount of these older, now freely available works for them, not just to view, but to expand upon, thus increasing the culture.
When you say "you guys would just "steal" the latest stuff"
it makes you sound petulant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "Mike Masnick": Not a "new censorship regime".
You're "laughing your ass off" about a new censorship regime in your own country? Dude, you really need help.
--------------------
Disclaimer: First, /I'm/ not laughing. There's intellectual pleasure in predicting correctly, but it's cold comfort, indeed.
Look, casting blocking or even seizing domains that link to or host infringing material as "censorship" just isn't going to pan out, because it's NOT.
Nor is this new, as such: it's an extension of existing /copyright/ (madness). You may not like yet more extension of copyright -- and I've not changed on opposing it, either.
But the way to fight /power/ is to take away money, not redistribute, just zero it out, doesn't actually exist anyway. -- There's 600+ trillion of "debt" /on paper/, or roughly 40 years of all US income, being propped up yet again. Oddly, for an economist, that doesn't concern you. -- You're SO focused on this copyright bit, which you're nearly certain to lose on, that you're letting all the larger problems of society just go from worse to worse.
I hope that /now/ after yet another defeat, Mike (and anyone), when you see that your present efforts are having NO effect at all, that you'll begin to come round to Populism. We've got to work on root causes not minor symptoms: greed and power-madness. I think you're WAY too fond of corporatism and too Ivy League to even consider that your ivory-tower "economics" just don't exist in the world. And you may even believe that you'll soon "come into your own" among The RIch. But I'm still going to take your idealism that shows now and then as reason for hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about this for a second: think how many infringing files are posted every day, think about how much counterfeit goods are made and sold, and think about the effects that has on the economy"
While I am not able to provide cause and effect, have you considered that the current worldwide economic crisis seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities?
Hmmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? The current economic crisis is caused by piracy? Are you that brain dead?
You really need to do some more research into what really caused the economic crisis. Hint: It's not piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm!
Rubbish. The economic crisis is caused by the catastrophic resolution of structural economic difference between the developed world and the 3rd world.
The part of the economy that is (allegedly) affected by piracy is tiny and even if it were to disappear completely it would have no noticeable effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HAHAHA Oh my, you are funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 26th, 2011 @ 2:05pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
infringement != counterfeiting, but you are drinking the **AA kool-aid, so we understand
The current economic crisis 'seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities'..... Seriously?
How about...
The current economic crisis seems to match up really well with the recent increases in the governments disregard it's citizens civil rights in preference of corporations profits, and the excessive law suits and lobbying actions taken by the **AA's that have sucked BILLIONS of dollars out of the useful economy and dumped it into the lawyers and corporate coffers...
Sounds more like reality to me, but then I'm not a Shiltroll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just the worst
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without Court Review? Nope!
Let's flip this around and look at it from the other direction. What if the copyright defenders started saying that "fair use" is bad because it allows people to infringe without court review. And they're right. You can post anything you want and take your chances that someone may sue you after the fact. But the court review isn't necessary before you actually post the material.
This is what is happening here. Mike and his looney friends would like you to believe that everyone should have a Lance Ito-grade trial before something bad happens to the infringers. But that's not what happens to murderers or all of the other criminals. Nope. The cops come and arrest people. Then they can rot in jail for months or occasionally as long as years before the courts get around to ruling. That's what happened to Tim McVey, Kevin Mitnick and hundreds of others.
I'm not saying this is fair, but the cops are usually free to step up and start the ball rolling without court review. Only a few things like search warrants require what looks like review prior to execution and even those have plenty of holes in them. The fourth amendment is like a moth-eaten quilt.
Is this good? I don't know. I just know that all of the other criminals get by without Lance Ito massages. Why can't the infringers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
To the extent this happens it's to deter the alleged murder from running off to another country before being detained and tried. But that doesn't apply here, it's not like a building of hard drives is suddenly going to run away. Seizing a domain doesn't prevent a building from running away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
and government tyranny does (allegedly) stop some crime. A lack of due process does (allegedly) stop some crime. That's no excuse to instate a police state.
"Or are you one of those full bore creator haters"
False Dilemma. I suppose when you have no good arguments the most you can use are bad ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
You want to skip from accused to sentenced and leave out all the stuff in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
You want harsher laws fine, where are the mechanism that would prevent abuse of the system?
There is none.
And you will fall victim to your own dumb laws eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
And there's plenty of ways that the system prevents abuse. Anyone who is hurt has the right to sue and those with a good story will sue. And they'll be able to collect damages too. The sleezy scumbags who just traffic in other people's hard work, though, will run back under the rock from whence they came.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
Just because you said so then it must be true. Forget the time, money, and resources wasted on such lawsuits, and the opportunity cost associated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
No one is forcing creators to police anything. They don't have to. They can either choose not to or they can choose to find another job if they don't want to create. IP holders are not entitled to the efforts and resources that others must contribute to police their privileges.
and you want everyone else to put up the resources to police other people's privileges. You want to force everyone else to take actions that are detrimental to their prosperity and economic efficiency for the sole benefit of someone else. Yet you want privilege holders to be as minimally inconvenienced as possible. Infringement fines are huge compared to the fines of falsely claiming infringement. Privilege holders don't even have to opt in to a centralized database of privileged content, everyone else is somehow magically expected to know what is and what isn't infringement, despite the fact that it is a much greater burden for others to determine if something is infringement than it is for the IP holder. IP holders have no obligation to publicly inform others of the copy protection status of 'their' content, everyone else is required to do the work of figuring that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
and, usually, a court order is issued before they are detained before a trial. There are exceptions, like if someone commits a crime and is actively fleeing from an officer, then they maybe restrained upon being caught. But that doesn't apply here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
In other words, they'll give you the chance to prove that you're innocent. If they feel like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
If you think about it, having a "trial" before hand is just as much a pain. An accusation forces you to hire a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
But, in the mean time, you don't have to shut down your potentially legitimate operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
They can't just arrest you; they have to put you on trial. This is more like them arresting you and you having to sue the government in order to prove your innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
But for some reason Mike keeps waving around a flag saying that the domains will be shut down without a trial. Wrong. If people feel hurt, they can have a trial after the fact. It's just like any other crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
We apologize for the inconvenience
Thank you, and have a nice day!
-Bob-bots industries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without Court Review? Nope!
If you are accused, they'll take your servers and drop them in the deepest part of the ocean. If they float, obviously you were criminally infringing and should be locked up for life.
If theys sink you were innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dns?
Who cares about DNS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't know what you're talking about. Fair use is a defense against infringement claims, and you don't have to defend yourself if you haven't been accused of anything. The claim that fair use "allows people to infringe without court review" is therefore bogus.
In any case, you don't need new laws to arrest people for criminal copyright infringement. This law is not about that. This law is all about shutting down allegedly infringing websites not as a preliminary step to a trial but as the end in itself. That's what makes this law so dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadian ISPs, even wireless ones that serve customers over the border in the USA, are not subject to United States laws. American law does not apply to Canadian ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares?
And making providing VPNs and other anoymizing services illegal will also affect even LEGAL strreaming services, as a lot of people use them from work to bypass the company firewall.
I know, becuase I run my own online radio station, and I do see a lot of traffic coming from servers in strange places around the world. When I see something from a IP address in, say, Iran, I know that it is someone using a proxy at work to bypass the company firewall.
Workplace listening makes up a lot of the audience of many online radio stations, including mine. If providing VPNs becomes illegal, and fewer people can tune in from work, this will be the death knell, even for legal stations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who cares?
only legal consumers and creators are going to have issues with these laws.
For us, its just an inconvenience like always. But we're used to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who cares?
Thes networks don't need providers - they are pure peer to peer. There is no-one to sue - other than the original provider of the s/w - and you can ask Phil Zimmerman how that type of scenario will pan out - because by the time you get around to suing the cat is already out of the bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least the new acronym is more appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We won't permit this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So we...
We have become one of the most hypocritical nations on earth; we claim to be a democracy, yet we are more a plutocracy. Seats in Congress can be bought for the right amount, decisions in all the courts can be influenced by money in the right pockets, Cops take bribes right and left. State legislatures kiss the ass of any big corporation that gives them enough money.
We castigate other countries for civil rights violations then turn around and do the same thing. People disappear under the guise of "terrorists" and are never heard from again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you get what you vote for
Either way, it's good enough for a good chuckle. Yet one more step away from freedom for the land of the free... Love the irony of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And of course, it makes me all warm and fuzzy to know that I rip off the industry every chance I get(they would do it to me if they could) and I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> MAFIAAfire? It sure sounds like it
Seems like the people who produce such software in the future need to make sure it's distributed from a foreign jurisdiction, where a US court's injunction means nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have bought bitcoins for investment purposes, I think you better cash your investment out now before they become illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bitcoins is a scam. A private fiat currency? It's almost as safe as investing in Zimbabwe. Isn't Bitcoin off about 90% from its high?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they might be able (and intending) to use that to shut down OpenDNS. (Or any DNS server that doesn't comply with their demands.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man up
The desire for a law the likes of PROTECT-IP is going to help your lot is sheer, utter madness. You would have to be completely delirious to the fact that the technological ground shifts at the speed of sound and light, quite literally.
The means to communicate is undergoing tremendous transformations, as I type no less. You will attempt to outlaw the proliferation of files that correspond to and challenge your guarded interpretation of dissemination. You will attempt to utterly cripple sound, secure and dependable communications platforms. You will fail. Do you know why? You will fail because the digital format is ones and zeros. Why is that a failure? It is a failure because if one can formulate a digital message than, clearly, one can formulate a digital file.
The *only* and I do mean fucking *only* way you are going to ensure that you survive, your business, remaining in charge of your business, is to provide. Provide your product. Provide your product on *modern* terms. That's it. It's that simple. It. Is. That. Simple.
Communication on this planet is now. Not Fed-Ex, not UPS, not G.O.D. Now, as in "click Submit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect America Children Puppies and Kittens Act!
Everyone that failed would forfeit all their assets, their citizenship and be sold to a North Korean forced labor camp!
Only un-American traitors would possibly vote against it!
Why do congressman hate America, children, puppies and kittens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh dear, how revealing of your position. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned it, you know, for your own sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
WHAT THE F*CK AM I SEEING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just the facts
Regardless of your opinion of them, the content industries produce something that is valuable and desirable to consumers. If this were not the case you wouldn't be so up in arms about the prospect of losing access to their content. content creators put in hard work and financial resources to develop this content under the premise that they will see a return on this investment. When they do, they have an incentive to produce more content and we all benefit as a result.
high-quality content is one of the primary drivers of the Internet. People dont pay the high cost of a broadband connection to watch dog on
skateboard videos.
All this bill says is that legitimate US companies that are part of the Internet ecosystem should have some obligation to stop organized criminal enterprises from exploiting the anonymous and borderless nature of the Internet to rob content creators of income they rightly deserve. It does not criminalize end users, it just attempts to make it more difficult for them to steal and encourages them to seek legitimate distribution platforms, of which there are currently numerous and that number is growing every day. Many of them in fact offer content for free. Sorry if you have to watch some ads.
If you believe that piracy should be legal then I can understand why you would object to this bill. But please be honest about it and stop trying to obfuscate your true motives by pretending that this is the first mile on the road toward US totalitarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just the facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Government Strikes Again
-DarkHaven
P.S.- ಠ_ಠ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My5cents
The gap between the ultra wealthy and rest has actually nEVER been this high because of the previously mentioned discrepancy.
The one good thing the majority have going for them is socialization of digital information due to the decentralized and completely accidental creation of the internet. Take this away and all of sudden the social imbalance will be painfully obvious.
This isn't really a terrible thing, it may unleash powerful political forces which we are in desperate need of, and as someone previously said, we can take the net away from the fortune 200 companies (or is it 100, or 500, whatever) and create our own darknets (this is basically just setting up large lans within your community and later joining with others).
So i say, either way I'm happy, i either get to keep my free access to 21st century art or i get to live through a revolution.
(on a side note, have you noticed that when people make "art" for the sake of making lots and lots of money it tends to suck)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How exactly do they think they are going to protect me from myself? If they have my ISP remove the offending website from their DNS server then I'll just use another DNS server in another country. If they have my ISP do some sort of packet inspection and then not forward along packets from the offening website then I simple use one of the many anonymizing service. I could even use TOR and select another country as my exit point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-US payment procesing provider?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popvox link
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3261
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what's wrong with Government
No wonder people can't find jobs in this country. Businesses can't prosper while governments continue wrapping more nooses around their necks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new acronym
EVIL-OPPRESS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like that idea.
You idiots ruining it for the connoisseurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0YbaYXLzpDo/TrD7DqLiYvI/AAAAAAAAAFc/JMkOEYaDF9w/s500/Cop y%252520of%252520EMPIAH.png
Honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sad...
Setting all these rules and restrictions do no one any good, it prevents growth.
What a sad sad world this is, where the world runs on money, where we are blocking everything and anything we can to protect ourselves and our money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]