Hardware Store That Doesn't Play Any Music Has To Fight Off Collection Society Demanding A License Fee

New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act

from the please-sign dept

Thu, Oct 27th 2011 3:59pm — Mike Masnick

The big entertainment industry gatekeepers have been pushing PROTECT IP and now the new E-PARASITE bill, pretending that it's got the support of content creators. That's why you see bogus grassroots operations pop up, whereby the big gatekeepers, who do everything they can to not pay content creators, pretend that the laws that make them more powerful are actually about protecting artists.

But real artists and content creators recognize that PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE is really about shutting down the innovations and new technologies that have given them more control over their own destiny, a greater ability to connect with fans and many new ways to make money. And that's why they oppose this attempt by the US government to give the gatekeepers more control to hold back artists. A new letter from actual content creators is making the rounds, pointing out that contrary to the claims of the legacy gatekeepers, they do not support censorship bills like PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE, but prefer to believe in the power of new innovation to provide them with more opportunities.

We, the undersigned artists, have all been empowered by the Internet. Today, artists can reach large audiences and make a living because the Internet and digital tools have democratized the means to create, distribute, and promote our work.

We write to you today because we are concerned with S.968, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). Copyright law exists to promote the arts, but the new penalties in PIPA could be used against the new social media channels we depend on to make a living, and endanger freedom of expression.

If you're an artist, please consider signing on.

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: artists, copyright, e-parasite, protect ip, sopa

80 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

anothermike, 27 Oct 2011 @ 4:09pm

am I doing it right?
Pirate Mike shilling for the so-called actual artists. Mike is just upset that real content creators like him and his ilk don't have the lobbying clout of the gatekeepers that rely on them. There's obviously no money in content creation, otherwise they'd be able to afford their own Congressional representatives to legislate against their competition, the content consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  close, you are supposed to ignore the fact that mike is a content creator. other than that, spot on
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pie-rateMike, 27 Oct 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  Arrgh matey. You are soo fucking stupid you dont even realize you made Mr. Masnick's points contained within this website. so-called actual artists - You mean the ppl that actually create something, then get fucked in the ass when it comes time to collect royalties because through fuzzy math, they claim no profits.
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-not -getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20 110903/00070515801/mpaas-bogus-piracy-numbers-mean-it-thinks-downloaders-would-buy-200-more-dvds-per -year.shtml
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110909/02541415865/mpaa-bad-math-bad-economics.sht ml
  
  Mike is just upset that real content creators like him and his ilk don't have the lobbying clout of the gatekeepers that rely on them. - Read that again fucktard. YOU LOSE.
  
  There's obviously no money in content creation - Mr Masnick looks like he does OK for himself, so your claim has no basis in reality... as with most AC's on here.
  
  they'd be able to afford their own Congressional representatives to legislate - The gatekeepers only have the cash from ripping off artists. So they steal from the content creators and lobby on their behalf so they can continue to rip off up and coming artists. Nice. Just kick them in the nuts and get it over with.
  
  There's obviously no money in content creation, otherwise they'd be able to afford their own Congressional representatives to legislate against their competition, the content consumers. - Put the crack pipe down, its rotting your brain.
  
  Troll harder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:50pm
    
    Re: Re: am I doing it right?
    Your sarcasm detector needs adjustment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  ... You're doing it right enough that some of your own fell for the bait, so, good job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:58pm
    
    Re: Re: am I doing it right?
    I think BOTH of them are satires.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - out_of_the_blue, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: am I doing it right?
      @ Jay (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:58pm
      
      I think BOTH of them are satires.
      
      ------------------
      
      Frankly, I can't decide, but suspect that you're right.
      
      I'd advise the pro-Mike faction to CEASE such imitation. You're making those whom you deem trolls unnecessary! Cluttering up the pages, putting out their views, arguing among yourselves rather than as a united front. -- And taking their jobs, you jackals! -- One day, though, you'll notice that all the actual opposition has left, while by repetition you've turned yourself /into/ them and no longer know your prior selves...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BeeAitch (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: am I doing it right?
        This is the /first/ time I've agreed with you, wholeheartedly.
        
        So I must ask: is this really you,ootb?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:26pm
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  I was thinking about making a blogsite that discussed parasailing too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:03pm
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  That's almost as funny as this silly astroturfing campaign of Lessig's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  > Pirate Mike shilling for the so-called
  > actual artists.
  
  As opposed to the 'real' artists who run record labels?
  
  LOL! You're a cartoon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- me, 30 Oct 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: am I doing it right?
  There is money in content creation but there are also people who will try to steal and rip work. They are everywhere in that they will steal music, etc. I think that content creation is not a good industry because of the corruption - look at how many artists are in the news for drugs.
  
  lobbying comes from things like monopolies. Which, are good for investors and politicians and bad for almost everyone else.
  
  But seriously, in all non-professional contexts when you add drugs+theft, you usually guess that the theives are stealing money to get drugs. Now, when you put hollywood(drugs)+copyright lawyers(theives) you should get a much clearer look to understand what has been goin on.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzPA-FrVu3I&ob=av3n
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 4:17pm

E-Parasite is probably the most appropriately named bills seen in Congress in several years. The traditional gatekeepers will become parasites on tech companies and ISP. They will install themselves as parasites on the one part of the economy that is growing and creating jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re:
  You bring up a good point.
  
  Parasites are creatures that latch onto host and suck their life force such as blood until the host gets sick and dies. At which point the parasite moves onto the next victim. This is the current legacy gatekeepers in the movie music and book industries.
  
  On the other hand, we have symbiotes. These are creatures that share a mutually beneficial relationship. This is the content creators and the internet facilitators.
  
  So yes, I think calling copyright maximalists and legacy gatekeepers 'e-parasites' is an apt description.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's the e-parasites bill, it was written for the electronic parasites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    These quotes seems appropriate:
    
    "What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds, a parasite asks 'Where's my share?' A man creates, a parasite says 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents, a parasite says 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...'"
    
    "Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban."
    
    "The parasite makes nothing for itself. Its only tools are taxes and tithes meant to trick you into offering what it has not earned."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Parasites are creatures that latch onto host and suck their life force such as blood until the host gets sick and dies. At which point the parasite moves onto the next victim."
    
    Zack, the same could be said for pirates. They take all they can for free, regardless of the harm it causes to the music industry, and unless checked, would do it until the host gets sick and dies.
    
    It's pretty clear who is sucking who dry, just check the recorded music sales numbers for your answer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cackling Cacophony, 30 Oct 2011 @ 12:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Bleeding the middle men until they get sick and die, who are indeed parasites by all definitions, is pretty much the point as it's likely the only way we'll ever be rid of them. The hope is that they'll be replaced with something far more beneficial to the whole of society, instead of just a privileged minority who have become rich on the backs of others. The vast majority of file sharers aren't getting rich, but they are getting enriched. Oh the humanity!
      
      Everyone knew a global network was coming decades ago, especially those in the copyright industry. Book and movies showed us the possibilities before it actually came to be. Instead of planning how to best utilize the internet, as it came to be known, they instead chose to do what they've done every time a new technology comes along. They fought it tooth and nail, despite the massive opportunity being presented to them on a silver platter. It was a repeat of the whole VCR incident, which they're still trying to nullify even though it has made them tons of money. How is that not the very definition of insanity?
      
      If anything, their behavior shows us that they are not only narrow minded, but completely blind as well. To this day I have never managed to wrap my head around why they are so incredibly obtuse. The best theory I can come up with is that when you're already rich, you're much less likely to feel the need to plan for the future. People say they care more about control than profit, but the motivation for tight control still ultimately comes down to profit. What other reason could there be for clinging so hard to an outdated business models built around a solid foundation of banality?
      
      The copyright apologists in the crowd always like to say that so-called pirates want everything for free, but we all know this isn't true. I'd argue it is more about convenience that anything else. Despite the fact that I do pay a fair amount for my HD cable service, I still prefer to download shows via bittorrent. It is nearly the pinnacle of convenience because I don't have to fuss over constantly setting timers, running out of hard drive space, or fret about missing an episode because I made a stupid mistake. The site I use keeps track of everything for me. I just log in and click a link. The consumption of ALL media should be this simple and worry free. The fact that copyright industry can't see this simple truth, and worse steadfastly refuse to monetize it, preferring to sue their customers instead, is enough to make me start yelling profanity.
      
      History will not treat them kindly, that much I know for certain. We've passed the point of no return already, and there is no going back. All we can do at this point is hope everyone on both sides of the fence, creators and consumers alike, wise up and ditch all the middle men that are seeking to hold the entire world back. Having a lot of money tends to make people drunk with power, and we all know what drunks are like. Looking at it like that, I suppose it's no wonder that the only thing their posturing and pettiness will have accomplished when they finally meet their end is animosity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:29pm

LMAO! You're so desperate today, Pirate Mike. It's awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:37am
  
  Re:
  So when artists write a letter to state their issues its desperate but when the RIAA/MPAA/etc. lobby congress to save their shitty business models it somehow isn't??
  
  Go figure..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:45pm

RE: Doing it write
I passed my roast beef out my nose... Fish in totally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:56pm

I love pirates! Go Captain Jack Sparrow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:10pm

"The big entertainment industry gatekeepers..."

If they want to erect gates akin to those at Fort Knox to try and protect their property, then so what? Maybe they are being shortsighted. Maybe they are frustrating the desires of their customers. Maybe (fill in the blank).

The simple fact of the matter is that it is their prerogative to do so, and the fact you may disagree with their business choice(s) should, if you do not infringe, affect you in any meaningful way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abcc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:23pm
  
  Re:
  "The simple fact of the matter is that it is their prerogative to do so, and the fact you may disagree with their business choice(s) should, if you do not infringe, affect you in any meaningful way."
  
  Your narrow-mindedness has blinded you to the fact that this will be used in nefarious ways. In fact, piracy is probably just a ruse in order to get this in place for its real purpose which is censorship.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I cannot think of a single law at any level of government that cannot be abused by those who may be inclined to do so. This alone, however, is not a sufficient reason to consign it to a trash heap (not to mention that here all that exists is a bill in the very early stages of the legislative process, not legislation passed by both Houses of Congress and sitting on the President's desk awaiting signature).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What the bill is intended to enable itself is an abuse. IP laws, as they are currently written (even without this bill) are abused and they are an abuse. 95+ year protection length, even when properly enforced and not 'abused' itself is an abuse. What this bill purposely enables is an abuse. Any expansion of IP and its enforcement is an abuse, the only acceptable course of action government should be taking now should be to substantially repeal our one sided IP laws. Not doing so, and even worse, expanding our one sided laws, is an abuse in and of itself.
      
      The bill needs to be trashed because IP laws themselves are an abuse, at least our current IP laws. and any efforts to expand the enforcement of abusive laws is an abuse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and in order for a bill to be passed, the burden should always be on those wishing to pass the bill to justify its passage. No one is entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly. No one is entitled to have a government enforce their copy protection wishes or to have a government even grant them such privileges to begin with. These things must be justified. This bill shouldn't pass because the burden to justify existing IP laws and the expansion of its enforcement has not been met. These laws are unjust and they themselves are abuse.
        
        Also see
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/00083116531/e-parasites-bill-end-internet-as-we-kno w-it.shtml
        
        A well written bill can minimize abuse by expressly limiting the scope of what is allowed. This bill does not. Just because any bill can potentially be abused doesn't give Congress permission to pass a bill that could easily be abused while making little effort to deter abuse. Our current laws are abused enough already, as they are written, passing more laws that easily enable more abuse is not acceptable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A law that forces service providers to undergo the costs of policing the private monopolies of some individuals and corporations (and those service providers will invariably pass those costs back down to consumers in one way or another) is a law that shouldn't exist. A law where taxpayer money is used to enforce the private monopoly privileges of a few corporations is a law that shouldn't exist.
      
      Abolish IP. You are not entitled to have others go through the time and effort to police your monopoly privilege and to go through the time and effort and cost necessary to ensure that they don't accidentally infringe upon something that you or someone publicly released. I want to be able to copy as I please without spending any of my effort, time, and resources worrying about what is and what isn't infringement. I want a government that doesn't spend a dime of my taxpayer money enforcing or addressing your privileges. If you don't like it then don't release content. Others will. and if you don't like their content, fund or create your own content. Don't force others to subsidize your content through the costs of enforcing various monopoly privileges. You are not entitled to have the police enforce your monopoly privileges just like you are not entitled to have your neighbor enforce such privileges. You are not entitled to have me or anyone else enforce your monopoly privileges. You are not entitled to have others enforce your privileges and you are not entitled to their efforts to do so. Those efforts are rightfully voluntary and they ought to stop.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that is, they are not mandatory. They are rightfully voluntary in that they are not mandatory, but they are wrongfully executed because those efforts shouldn't be made. You are not entitled to have others voluntarily enforce your privileges with their efforts. I guess rightfully wasn't the right word here :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:30pm
  
  Re:
  If they want to build gates and fences on their own property and with their own money, that's fine with me and probably with most of the people here. It only hurts themselves.
  
  Unfortunately with Protect-IP and the E-Parasite proposals they want to build the fence on other people's property and have other people pay for it. Plus, they know the fence won't be effective, so they want special laws for themselves that lets them shoot people that they thing might possibly want to come on their property with no consequences even if most of the people they shoot are innocent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:13pm
  
  Re:
  Sure, just keep those gates the hell of the public's internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:41pm
  
  Re:
  What prerogative?
  
  The one the real parasites are trying to pass, making them capable of shutting down anything they don't like, legal or otherwise?
  
  They don't have that right, it is not in their right to have life + 95 years, it is not their right to have control over what others do after they bought something, it is not their right to define what is legal or illegal and it is not their right to define who is criminal and who is not.
  
  That is for society and everyone spoke already with one voice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:39pm
  
  Re:
  the fact you may disagree with their business choice(s) should, if you do not infringe, affect you in any meaningful way.
  
  And yet, here we have these utterly bullshit bills, which will affect everyone (including you) in a meaningful and negative way, whether they infringe or not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    More moronic freetard FUD from Karl.
    
    Here, let me help you remedy your willful ignorance yet again:
    
    http://www.copyhype.com/2011/10/stop-online-piracy-act-walkthrough/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Here, let me help you remedy your willful ignorance yet again:
      
      A link to the blog of a non-practicing lawyer who has become a copyright apologist is not going to remedy anything.
      
      Here, let me remedy your willful ignorance yet again:
      http://volokh.com/2011/07/04/and-speaking-of-the-inalienable-right-to-the-pursuit-of-happine ss/
      
      One legal graduate who hasn't passed the bar, and who is radically pro-copyright, vs. 90 law professors who believe it's prior restraint and a bad idea... I wonder who I should believe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are such an insufferable idiot.
        
        He has passed the bar and you obviously can't refute a single thing he says.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rich, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How do your insults refute anything that he says?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uhh, from the LinkedIn page:
        
        "Illinois State Bar pending, having passed the Bar Exam"
        
        Passing the Bar Exam does not automagically waive any other prerequisites for an application to succeed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Terry Hart and Mike Masnick used to be roommates and best friends. One night, Mike was downloading so much pirated content that his computer overheated and set the apartment on fire. Terry would have died, but an artist broke down the door and risked his own life to save Terry. The artist wouldn't have had the strength to break down the door, but he had just recently made money on his artwork through copyright and was able to buy the food to give him strength. Now hideously deformed, Terry has vowed to stand up to artists everywhere and stop Mike Masnick once and for all.
        
        You can even find photographs of the two of them together before it all went sour: http://funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/david_coleman.jpg
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He has passed the bar
        
        Sorry, you're right. He passed the exam, but has not yet been accepted into the Illinois bar.
        
        And I will definitely refute what he says. Frankly, he hasn't even touched the meat of the bill (he himself admits he hasn't read it all), and even the two main points he talks about are not even remotely as narrowly focused as he seems to think.
        
        Subjects he got completely wrong:
        
        - the idea that "willful" or "criminal" infringement has any legal standard whatsoever, in wake of the ICE seizures.
        
        - the "red flag" infringement standard (which not part of even civil infringement law at the moment).
        
        - the "facilitation" standard (hint: Viacom v. YouTube).
        
        - he completely ignores the fact that "promoting" piracy makes you a "rogue site." According to many A.C.'s, here, that would include Techdirt.
        
        - Rights holders can make in personam or in rem actions against accused sites (foreign or domestic) even after the sites filed a counter-notification. This includes shutting down the domain name; freezing revenue; and shutting off advertisements.
        
        - If the accused sites (including those in foreign countries) don't respond to a court order within seven days, they are imposed a "monetary sanction." Hello, billion-dollar statutory damage awards!
        
        - Incidentally, the language in the bill refers to "any entity served with a court notice under subsection (c)". Since advertisers, payment processors, etc. are also served with court notices, they might also face "monetary sanctions." (This is not very clear, however.)
        
        - The above are all possible for a rights holder, a private entity, to do merely on a showing of probable cause. The accused sites cannot reply until after the injunctions &etc. are issued.
        
        - There is, once again, an encouragement for search engines, payment providers, and advertisers to take voluntary action against websites, without once being notified by any copyright holder. They are immune from any liability if they're wrong.
        
        - Once again, it contains a section that would encourage payment providers &etc. to blacklist sites that re-import medicines.
        
        And that's just in the first part. There's also Title II, which makes digital streaming a felony (though, interestingly enough, not analog streaming - anti-technology, much?).
        
        It only takes 10 viewers of your stream to make you a felon.
        
        It makes "1 downloaded copy = 1 lost sale" a matter of law, which is clearly, and utterly, ridiculous.
        
        Or, rights holders can simply make up their own figures: "the total economic value [...] that the copyright owner would have been entitled to receive had such reproductions, distributions, or public performances been offered lawfully."
        
        But perhaps the very worst part of the bill is in its final pages.
        
        It requires the The Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, and Register of Copyrights, to "aggressively support" any actions taken against alleged foreign infringers.
        
        It creates new appointments, by the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce, of "at least one intellectual property attache" per region. Hiring these attache's is the job of the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office. Their job is to help change other countries' laws solely to benefit U.S. rights holders.
        
        This bill is horrifying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:04am
  
  Re:
  If they want to erect gates akin to those at Fort Knox to try and protect their property, then so what?
  
  They want to erect them at the end of my street - not just around their own property. That IS a problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:20pm

"The simple fact of the matter is that it is their prerogative to do so, and the fact you may disagree with their business choice(s) should, if you do not infringe, affect you in any meaningful way."
true except for one minor little point... It will effect us... it will only effect the non-pirates...
besides, didn't "The big entertainment industry gatekeepers..." win over TPB solve the whole pirate problem anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:27pm

But real artists and content creators recognize that PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE is really about shutting down the innovations and new technologies that have given them more control over their own destiny, a greater ability to connect with fans and many new ways to make money.

You really believe that, don't you? How does this bill shut down innovations and new technologies? You make it sound like innovation can't happen unless the internet is a free for all for music, movies, software, etc. That's absurd. What's really bothering you, Pirate Mike? Could it be that your beloved pirate fold are about to get kicked squarely in the balls? Innovation and new technologies will be able to thrive better than before once property rights are respected on the internet. Your FUD is just ridiculous. So, so desperate. That's how I know this bill is good--Pirate Mike has steam coming out of his ears. Keep spreading the FUD, chubby. I'll be LOLing the whole time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beavis, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re:
  How does this bill shut down innovations and new technologies? Uh heh heh heh...dumbass. You really have your head up your ass if you have to ask.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Butt-Head, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:43pm
  
  Re:
  Um like kuz the US gov would never abuse a loosely written law. Trolls abound tonight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:47pm
  
  Re:
  The same way it make musicians playing in veneus jobless by giving to much power to an entity that will make sure no one wants to play music anywhere reducing the venues at the disposal of the real musicians.
  
  Creating a situation where the real parasites get to define what is legal or not and who is a criminal or not, so they will abuse the law to make every competitor a criminal, and with their new founded powers will start abusing it just like it is happening with the DMCA right now.
  
  We all know you parasites can't compete, that is why you want more absurd controls.
  
  Technology is already hampered in the internet the way it is, people are not innovating anymore because at every turn there is a stupid someone that believes others own him money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:01pm

But, Mike, you oppose the "actual content creators" at HuffPost,
and their concerns. I'd call Arianna Huffington one of "the big gatekeepers, who do everything they can to not pay content creators", seeing as how she strung along 8000 people to work for nothing, and after /she/ cashed in for $310M, still hasn't paid them a cent, and you say that's not going to change.

You just aren't consistent, MIke. If you were, you'd support the "free" writers at HuffPost against the "big gatekeeper". Instead, in two pieces, you go legalistic and explicitly discard fairness.

You're using this bunch of starry-eyed dreamers as excuse for a piece with more of your schtick, when you don't even believe what the letter says: "Copyright law exists to promote the arts"! Talk about inconsistent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:19pm
  
  Re: But, Mike, you oppose the "actual content creators" at HuffPost,
  Conflation troll trolls conflatefully.
  
  It's not about picking a side, that's the way a 2 year old thinks.
  
  Arianna said "write for me, for free, and I'll post your content", and people went for it. There was no agreement or indication that she would pay them out if she sold. On can make arguments about what she should do, but it's pretty clear she has no legal obligation.
  
  The article is about legacy distributors trying to fuck up the internet because they choose not to compete. How are these the same?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:42pm
    
    Re: Re: But, Mike, you oppose the "actual content creators" at HuffPost,
    My view is that Mike is an aspiring gatekeeper. He'd like more dewy-eyed saps to write for him here -- for free of course -- and to write well, to draw lots more eyeballs, so that he could then cash in as Arianna Huffington did, and leave without thanks.
    
    Has he promised any of you who write here that you'd share in the profits? I'll just substitute name in what "Trails" wrote above so you'll know what to expect:
    Mike said "write for me, for free, and I'll post your content", and people went for it. There was no agreement or indication that he would pay them out if he sold. On[e] can make arguments about what he should do, but it's pretty clear he has no legal obligation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But, Mike, you oppose the "actual content creators" at HuffPost,
      You're writing here. For free. Doesn't that hurt your ego?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But, Mike, you oppose the "actual content creators" at HuffPost,
      "My view is that Mike is an aspiring gatekeeper. He'd like more dewy-eyed saps to write for him here -- for free of course -- and to write well, to draw lots more eyeballs, so that he could then cash in as Arianna Huffington did, and leave without thanks."
      
      My view is that if Mike does that he's a smart business man, and I hope he enjoys his yacht.
      
      "Has he promised any of you who write here that you'd share in the profits? I'll just substitute name in what "Trails" wrote above so you'll know what to expect:
      Mike said "write for me, for free, and I'll post your content", and people went for it. There was no agreement or indication that he would pay them out if he sold. On[e] can make arguments about what he should do, but it's pretty clear he has no legal obligation."
      
      Mike hasn't promised me a single thing. I have no expectations. If he sold this blog to the MPAA and bought his own island, I would call him a sellout, but I wouldn't get involved in a class-action, or pitch a hissy fit in the press.
      
      Not sure what you're trying to prove here. If Mike sells his blog, he owes me nothing,and he owes Tim, Nina, Glyn, et. al. whatever their agreement lays out. If it lays out "nothing" then that's what he owes them.
      
      You see, how adults conduct business is as follows: first they lay out terms. Then they agree to terms. Then they abide by the terms. After the fact "but I helped" sentiments don't count.
      
      Anyways, not sure what this has to do with the article.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:04pm

I heard Masnick made a fool of himself at at least one meeting in DC so far. Looks like he's doubled down with this letter signed by wannabes, finger painters, crack pots and poseurs.

Mike while you're in DC, stop by the Capitol Hill South metro station. There's a pretty good street band banging on jugs and milk crates with a collection jar. You could grab you iPad and hold forth on CwF + RtB and maybe if they're not doubled over laughing at your goofy left-bang haircut, they'll sign your letter. Then you'd have at least one legitimate artist as a signatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re:
  If he's such a nobody with no effect why are the shills out trolling in such force?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PopeRatzo (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If he's such a nobody with no effect why are the shills out trolling in such force?
    
    Agreed. The folks at "New Media Strategies" are working overtime tonight.
    
    You know, I actually met one of these people. He's working for the modern, proactive equivalent of the old-fashioned clipping services. He's got a list of clients and he googles for mentions and then wades into whichever comments section and starts shilling. He's paid barely better than a phone bank worker. It's pretty interesting the group of clients he's paid to astroturf for. I'm trying to put him together with a real journalist to see if the story can get out. Most people who work at these places are too afraid to talk, but he's about had it with the business so he might be ready to do a little whistleblowing. While there's nothing illegal about lying in comments sections, the public might be interested in hearing about the way their forums are being corrupted by what has become a big business.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have no idea why idiots here respond to the shills in the first place. Just hit 'report' and be done with them. I sure as hell ain't going to waste my time to justify their tiny paychecks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ty, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I think it's important that we can see troll posts. It's the only way we can see that Mike is spot on in his thinking. If we continue to touch a nerve with these "trolls", we will eventually see support for these aging institutions diminish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BeeAitch (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Agreed. If said troll cannot give a cogent argument, but instead slings 'pirate mike', 'chubby, 'left-sided haircut' (really, wtf is that? Certainly not a proper insult, lol), etc., hit "report" and move on.
        
        DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't read the pinktext so I always click.
        
        I's so be the first to die in a slasher flick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I almost always click on it, too, but, at least I am warned ahead of time that the poster has no real argument.
        
        If I am short on time, irritated in the first place, or just genuinely want to follow an actual, reasoned argument, I at least know (based on the, IMO, good judgment and intelligence of most Techdirt readers) that I can in good faith skip the flagged comment.
        
        That's one of the things I respect most about this site: the comment is NOT deleted, but I feel safe skipping it if I want.
        
        OTOH, if I want to, I can read it.
        
        Where else do you get this option?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " 'left-sided haircut' (really, wtf is that? "
        
        I think it might be a hitler reference ... you know the trolls always make those.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have to give you credit, that is the most detailed and most overwhelming attempt to paint someone as an industry shill. It's really too bad that you are probably very, very wrong.
      
      It may seem a shock to you, but there are plenty of people who disagree with Mike and his ideas. Most of them don't have the desire to play the games that are played here, and stay away, instead writing their own blogs and such.
      
      Until you can accept the idea of an actual opposition, it is easy to dismiss those who do show up as trolls or shills. But they are not, they are just ordinary people who don't agree with you. Shocking, no?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, I can grok disagreement. I amuse myself by watching morons go "lolz Pirut Mike iz ate it agun" on every single post, regardless of who the author is. It's like they see TD as the Survivors in the Left4Dead franchise and these people are the zombies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice try shill, we'll see soon enough who you are. Curtest of people like Cory who have exposed them in the past.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Captian chaos, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:42pm
    
    Re: Re:the shills out trolling in such force
    No kidding. It appears that lately, they are all over the place, and not one of them posts other than AC. Most likely just a few. Mike has their ip addresses, and if it was me a reverse lookup would be in order. Cuz i bet, they ARE stupid enough to be posting from their office.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:the shills out trolling in such force
      Yes, but Mike claims never to do this, because he respects privacy. Well, at least until he wants to out someone, then he will drop all sorts of wide ranging hints about certain posters.
      
      Just remember, the rules apply until the going gets tough, and then he will do whatever he wants. Techdirt ran for years without the required privacy policy, and they still don't declare all of the companies tracking you as a result of your visits here (check your cookies to see how much stuff is getting put in there on each visit!)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:37am
  
  Re:
  I think the fact that you trolls are always here in force proves Mike is on the right track and those of like-minds are more than just "wannabes."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  Additionally, is the we've come to: creation of art only for the "elite"? Your so-called "wannabes" should be legally shutout? What a horrible world that would be, art only being created by the machine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:40pm

The letter says: "Copyright law exists to promote the arts"!
Repeated to highlight that's completely inconsistent with Mike's views. He's just grasping at a pitiable little bunch of letter-writers because they're all he can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captian Chaos, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re: The letter says: "Copyright law exists to promote the arts"!
  Its ok. They are helping Mike with page hits. And when the rest of the community gets to work tomorrow, they will cut these assholes off at the knees. I cant wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:50pm
  
  Re: The letter says: "Copyright law exists to promote the arts"!
  Funny he seems to have no problems finding those lately, maybe all he can get is a lot more than you believe it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:21pm

I read the list of "artists", and I don't recognize any of them off the top of my head. I don't see anyone on there at first glance that seems to be either from mainstream media, or from any major projects that I recognize.

What I did see is a bunch of "remix artists" and "sample editors". Telling, no?

Mike, I am sorry, but this sort of thing explains exactly why Protect IP and it's variants will likely pass. If this is the organized opposition, then the battle is already over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:34pm
  
  Re:
  What you didn't see is anyone that makes a living selling movies or music. Because none of those people produce a commodity that is worth purchasing.
  
  The most famous musician on there is the guy from OkGo, a band that couldn't get anyone to buy their mediocre music, so they switched to making novelty videos.
  
  He's got nothing to lose because nobody buys his music anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:10pm
  
  Re:
  "Mike, I am sorry, but this sort of thing explains exactly why Protect IP and it's variants will likely pass."
  
  What a weird conception of causality you have there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:07pm

"What you didn't see is anyone that makes a living selling movies or music. Because none of those people produce a commodity that is worth purchasing."

Given how very few people ever manage to make a living selling movies or music (except, of course, for the studios), it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that the letter is signed by people who don't make a living doing so. If you think about it, it's not much more surprising than the fact that Elvis didn't sign the letter, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:39am
  
  Re:
  "What you didn't see is anyone that makes a living selling movies or music. Because none of those people produce a commodity that is worth purchasing."
  
  Given how very few people ever manage to make a living selling movies or music (except, of course, for the studios), it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that the letter is signed by people who don't make a living doing so. If you think about it, it's not much more surprising than the fact that Elvis didn't sign the letter, either.
  
  The are hundreds of thousands of actors, directors and directorial team members, drivers, caterers, grips, electricians, sound techs, stylists, makeup artists, cameramen, editors and more who make a decent, middle-class living making movies in this country. There are many more in the lumber, hotel, restaurant and rental business who also owe their living in part to the motion picture industry. Please don't suggest that the film business is only rich people. Middle class earners out-number them by probably 500-1.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:40am
  
  Re:
  "What you didn't see is anyone that makes a living selling movies or music. Because none of those people produce a commodity that is worth purchasing."
  
  Given how very few people ever manage to make a living selling movies or music (except, of course, for the studios), it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that the letter is signed by people who don't make a living doing so. If you think about it, it's not much more surprising than the fact that Elvis didn't sign the letter, either.
  
  The are hundreds of thousands of actors, directors and directorial team members, drivers, caterers, grips, electricians, sound techs, stylists, makeup artists, cameramen, editors and more who make a decent, middle-class living making movies in this country. There are many more in the lumber, hotel, restaurant and rental business who also owe their living in part to the motion picture industry. Please don't suggest that the film business is only rich people. Middle class earners out-number them by probably 500-1.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:15am

Nice Acronyms
Coming back to one really relevant point at the top of this thread, it is kind of funny/ironic that they have named this thing E-PARASITE. I particularly like the way that the acronyms collapse together so well - the PROTECT THE-PARASITES act. Finally, some truth in labeling for horrid legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 10:18am

Protect IP Bill
Maybe I am crazy or could this be used by software companies claiming against open source for instance Microsoft getting all the linux distros shut down because it claims that they distribute infringing content ... and they have the paying licensees to prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: Protect IP Bill
  I was actually thinking something similar, apple using this act to shut down android ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Protect IP Bill
    Or Oracle ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]