New Video On How PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet
from the everything-is-a-remix... dept
The folks behind Fight For the Future have teamed up with Kirby Ferguson, who created the excellent everything is a remix series, have teamed up to put together a video about the problems with PROTECT IP/E-PARASITES. It's worth a watch... and passing it on to others: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: censorship, copyright, e-parasites, internet, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That can be found here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Entitled? check!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not if it is their legal right to censor. Just like it's the broadcasting and cableco cartel's legal right to censor that which they don't like from being distributed via broadcasting airwaves and cableco infrastructure, thanks to our broken legal system that allows them to. The result, we have outrageously indefensible IP and copy protection laws and criticisms are hardly ever distributed via these communication channels. Instead, what we see is pro-IP propaganda. We have practically indefensible anti-competitive taxi cab monopoly laws, along with many many other indefensible anti-competitive laws, and criticisms are censored from these communication channels (thanks to the government). Censorship is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, tell me again why they should have the 'right' to block websites with no oversight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it turns him/her on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dredd Corporation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh god ... laughing so hard I tore a muscle in my gut, thanks I needed that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They are confusing enforcing their rights with censorship."
What rights do they have which they did not grant themselves through previous lobbying.
Would you sit back and allow the President of the United States to modify law so they may do more than two terms?
This is precisely what the entertainment industry did. It extended copyright terms so it can empower itself.
The industry is corrupt, breaks many US laws themselves, yet somehow manages to get what it wants with these bills.
Something's wrong and it starts with the violation of our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a side note, this law is basically the answer to all your snickering "move it off shore" comments. All the stuff that tries to hide outside of the US and act like US law doesn't apply when dealing with US citizens... it all has come home to roost.
"ya do it to yourself, just you, you and no one else..." - thanks to Thom Yorke for providing perhaps the perfect sentiment for this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In response to other comments about attempting to get Congress to enact change, I will say this: the system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery and their power broken. That cannot be done from inside the system.
[ 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:
If by "system" you mean corporate-government, regulatory capture, and lobbying system, then yes you are correct and incorrect at the same time. The system is actually many smaller systems each fighting for its own turf. Pharma, energy, content, communications, manufacturing, transportation, etc, all have their own set of rules and turf to protect. The huge kink in the armor of the system as a whole is the profit motive. It can be used to pit one sector against another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Their rights are corrupt in the first place so trying to respect them will not lead to a good place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So in other words, it's perfectly acceptable to give large corporations who have a history of abusing existing laws to censor speech they don't like the unfettered legal power to break the greatest global communications tool ever invented and to censor *anyone* they want simply because nobody has invented the ability to make water not wet?
Fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking off on clever AC @ #4: No GIF version of the video either!
New contest: guess how long it'll be before Rapidshare is blocked in the US. Closest wins a stack of shiny new recordable DVDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E-PARASITE makes sense
They are the ultimate e-parasites, and the bill is aimed at helping these parasites suck more blood, so the bill is aptly named.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: E-PARASITE makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
....*brain breaks, howling about the images whilst babbling Cthulhoid phrases*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Former U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all know the real problem
Perhaps though censoring is what the United States wants to do. After all, as the video mentions, the internet has been used to over-through corrupt regimes, and as the evidence shows, the American government is the most corrupt regime on the planet. Perhaps they are trying to stop themselves from being over-thrown and out of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all know the real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one of the many potential avenues for abuse is fair use. I am legally allowed to take a song/music video and parody it, or use it in a "transformative way." Its part of the law. Big companies like to pretend that isn't the case and already use the law to try and censor as much fair use as they can find. Also, fair use is still a really grey area, meaning to figure out what constitues fair use usally requires a long court battle. Were this act to pass if I tried to start a website dedicated to parody songs (like Weird Al, say) any one of the music companies could shut my website down instantly. I would get no hits from google, couldnt tell people my URL since it would be blocked, and couldnt make any money off the site because payment processors would be bound to stop paying me, JUST because some company said so, and EVEN IF they are blatantly wrong. It would take a long and expensive court battle that I can't afford, but the music industry can.
And stuff like that WILL happen, because there's no negative conseqences for them to block me falsely. So, in reality they could just SAY any site infringes their rights, shut it down for ages while the court decides, and when it eventually comes out that they are dead wrong, it will cost them NOTHING!!! What there needs to be is a 1 strike rule. One false accusation, One infringement on the first amendment, and that company is no longer allowed to use ANY takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time IP creates a new mole, it gets whacked. Sure, they can slow it down, or cause it to re route, but when they do, the big rock is now many small ones and harder to find....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROTECT IP - best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PROTECT IP - best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content owners I think have a right to do with their content as they wish BUT by wanting to give legitimate customers the ability to watch or listen to their DRM'd content they have given everyone the ability to listen to this DRM'd content. So they can't use technology to protect their content without banning technologies...which is the equivalent of banning books and that connotation is bad.
So, Let's mess with DNS...bad idea.
Let's make the ISP's block certain URLs...switch to IP
Let's make the ISP's block IP addresses. Switch to proxy sites.
Let's not block anything and instead keep track of who visits certain IPs and make it a criminal action. You've now turned most of the country in some form into a criminal...not to mention how it it'd be to "frame" someone now.
Before long it'll turn into a horrible mess. There really isn't a solid answer. Has our entertainment industry here in the U.S. lost any real money? Have they laid off workers, hah?
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]