E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
from the this-gets-worse-and-worse dept
We already wrote about the ridiculously bad E-PARASITE bill (the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act), but having now had a chance go to through the full bill a few more times, there are even more bad things in there that I missed on the first read-through. Now I understand why Rep. Zoe Lofgren's first reaction to this bill was to say that "this would mean the end of the Internet as we know it."She's right. The more you look at the details, the more you realize how this bill is an astounding wishlist of everything that the legacy entertainment gatekeepers have wanted in the law for decades and were unable to get. It effectively dismantles the DMCA's safe harbors, what's left of the Sony Betamax decision, puts massive liability on tons of US-based websites, and will lead to widespread blocking of websites and services based solely on accusations of some infringement. It's hard to overstate just how bad this bill is.
And, while its mechanisms are similar to the way China's Great Firewall works (by putting liability on service providers if they fail to block sites), it's even worse than that. At least the Chinese Great Firewall is determined by government talking points. The E-PARASITE bill allows for a massive private right of action that effectively lets any copyright holder take action against sites they don't like. (Oh, and the bill is being called both the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and E-PARASITE (which covers the PROTECT IP-like parts of the bill, SOPA refers to the larger bill that also includes the felony streaming part).
Some of the key problems with the bill, beyond what we discussed yesterday:
- While supporters of the bill still continue to insist that this bill is only targeted at foreign infringers, that's false. Part of the bill focuses on foreign infringers -- the part that allows the Attorney General to kill websites. But the private right of action section has no such restriction. Instead, it allows copyright holders to effectively kill any site they'd like. You have to dig down into the details to see this, but let's pull out the key sections to see. The act, in section 104, defines sites that are "dedicated to the theft of US property" as including any "US-directed site" that:
is taking, or has taken deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code;
If that sounds massively confusing, you're right. But what it's saying, in the most twisted language possible, is that if it's probable that a site used in the US (note no restriction to just foreign sites here) can be used to infringe, and that site fails to take some sort of action against the "high probability" that the site can be used to infringe, then it can be declared dedicated to the theft of US property. This turns both the DMCA safe harbors and the Supreme Court's Sony Betamax ruling completely on their heads. In effect, it appears to be saying that if you choose not to self-police your site for infringement -- i.e., putting up filters, or proactively monitoring content for infringement -- you can be declared in violation of the law... at which point a court can order all ad networks and payment processors to automatically stop doing business with you.
Think of all the sites this could effect. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Tumblr, SoundCloud, Ebay, Flickr, Wikipedia, Craigslist, Wordpress -- basically any site that has any user-generated content. If they don't proactively filter or monitor their content, they could be at risk of a claim that they took "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that their sites could be used to infringe... and thus they could be subject to an action by a private party that strips them of both ad revenue and the ability to process any payments.
Remember how Monster Cable -- massive supporters of this bill -- declared both Craigslist and eBay as being dedicated to infringement? Under this bill, a company like Monster could take action against those sites, putting a tremendous burden on them. - The definitional problems don't stop there. Separate from the ridiculous definition above, this act would also declare a site "dedicated to theft of U.S. property," if it is "primarily designed" in a way that "engages in, enables, or facilitates" a violation of copyright law. Those last two points are ridiculously broad. "Enables" infringement? "Facilitates"? That's practically the entire internet. The primary design of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. all "enable" or "facilitate" infringement.
- While some reporters claimed that the "private right of action" was taken out of this bill, or even "softened," nothing could be further from the truth. The details show that the private right of action is significantly worse in this bill. What changed is that in PROTECT IP, private copyright holders could go to court to force payment processors and ad networks to stop dealing with sites they accuse. Under E-PARASITE, before they go to court, they first have to send a notification, very similar to a DMCA takedown notice. But, of course, as we've seen with the DMCA, while it's "voluntary" to comply, if you don't comply you lose safe harbors -- so nearly everyone complies. That means this private right of action almost certainly will lead to ad networks and payment processors cutting off any site they receive a notification on -- no matter how legitimate. And, while the bill does allow for a counternotification process, unlike the DMCA, there is no requirement that the payment processors and ad networks restore service to anyone who files a counternotice, after a given period of time (absent a lawsuit). In other words: a copyright holder could issue a bogus claim that a site is dedicated to infringement, and the payment processor and ad network could pull the plug on the site... and even if a counternotice is filed, those services have no obligation to bring back service.
Again, using our Monster Cable example, it could force all payment processors to no longer allow payments on Craigslist or eBay, and even if those sites filed counternotices, the service providers would be under no obligation to turn those things back on. And just think of the massive, irreparable harm if legitimate sites lose both the ability to accept payments and to have ads for just a few days? And while there is liability for those who file false notices, as we've seen with the DMCA, such provisions are rarely, if ever, enforced -- and generally are interpreted to only apply in cases of extreme misrepresentation. - As noted above, the private right of action establishes an astoundingly broad new standard for what's considered infringing. Beyond user-generated content sites, pretty much any cloud computing service can be deemed "dedicated to the theft of US property," if they choose not to filter and monitor the content being sent through the cloud. Any of the online locker services are in serious trouble if this bill becomes law. Amazon's and Google's music services would have to monitor your uploads and try to stop infringement to avoid liability. Box.net and Dropbox would likely have to monitor what files you're storing to avoid liability. It's honestly that insane.
- Supporters of the bill, beyond falsely claiming that it's just focused on foreign sites, are also claiming that this bill does not target such sites. An aide to the House Judiciary Committee, who supports the bill, claimed, "Sites that host user content -- like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- have nothing to be concerned about under this bill." But that's demonstrably false. Perhaps this aide is unaware that Viacom is still in the middle of a $1 billion lawsuit claiming that YouTube was dedicated to infringement. Under the definitions in this bill, YouTube would absolutely have been liable, and likely would have been shut down years ago. In fact, Viacom never would have had to sue. It would have just made use of the notification process, and kept any and all advertising and payment processing from the site... and voila, dead YouTube, without the benefit of a judge reviewing the case (and, need we remind the House Judiciary Committee, that so far the judge has sided with YouTube?).
- The bill would be red meat to any foreign government that censors its internet. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia are going to love this. The mechanisms for censorship are quite similar. Under E-PARASITE, service providers have to proactively block to prevent liability. China's Great Firewall works the exact same way: by threatening ISPs with liability if they don't block content harmful to Chinese citizens. Replace harmful to Chinese citizens with "a high probability" of being used for infringement... and you've got E-PARASITE.
- Another change between this bill and the Senate's PROTECT IP is that this bill calls out "search engines" more directly, rather than "information location tools," as in the Senate bill. While that may seem to be narrower, the definition of a search engine is ridiculously broad (of course).
The term ��Internet search engine�� means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection.
Under this definition, Techdirt could be declared a search engine under this law. After all, we take "questions" and queries from readers, and often return stories that link elsewhere on the internet. Yikes! - As highlighted above, there are all sorts of definitional problems with the bill. And you can tell how insane things get with definitions when the authors of this bill even go so far as to define the word "including." I'm not joking:
INCLUDING.--The term "including" means including, but not limited to.
This is the kind of mess we're dealing with.
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, dmca, e-parasites, internet, liability, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
While I am an optimist, I'm not usually satisfied by exclusionary evidence when it comes to politicians, and this bill is no exception.
"And that means that it can only help to continue to speak out and reach out to your representatives about how awful this bill is, and how much harm it would do."
I feel that some examples of reaching out as an individual should be given for those who don't know how:
1) Send a letter (which will be promptly scanned for terrorism via shredder)
2) Send an email (which will be promptly scanned for terrorism via delete button)
3) Stop by the office (where you will be promptly cavity searched for terrorism related reasons)
4) Have more than $1,000,000 (so you can be contacted for campaign funds)
5) Send MANY letters (and spend yourself into bankruptcy while some asshat peon laughs and shreds them)
6) Send MANY emails (and be blocked by spam filters, then arrested for terrorism)
7) Call the office (and be passed between minions for eternity or get an automated service message)
8) Feed their pets flatulence gag powder and tie a letter to their collar (THIS will get you some attention!)
9) Submit an FOIA request (and be illegally ignored... because... terrorism/children/education/freedom/DOJ)
So, aside from the possible flatulence related terrorism indictment (which at this point, I think America needs to see happen), you can see the clear and easy path to contact your elected representative today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
10) Join an occupy movement (and be ignored as a hippie or ignorant youngster)
11) Get elected to office (because power is awesome! And you can ignore people!)
12) Jam steak knives under your fingernails (like they did with bamboo in Vietnam. They respect Vietnam veterans, right?)
13) Get pissed off and write on a forum (I like this option, hasn't done much to pass the message though)
14) Find jebus and pray for dog to do something for you (it works, no really it does)
15) Have a nice day, if this list gets any sillier there's likely to be an investigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have the Power to change the system ! Vote Smarter !
OCCUPY is a good way to vent your anger for now I guess.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah. Great. Stand around getting ignored. Then get tear-gassed, flash-banged, and pepper-sprayed. Then have the media tell everyone it's your fault for trying to get attention.
Look. Mr Clinton killed street protest a decade ago: during the WTO in Seattle and the FTAA in Miami. Did you hear about protests during Mr Bush's administration? What did they accomplish. Did you even hear about them? A few more people maybe got radicalized, but not that many.
You want to make protest effective again? Then be Americans. Why did Braddock's army get wiped out during the French and Indian war? Why did the British complain the colonists �didn't fight fair� during the Revolution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
Yeah, I'm sure they'll listen to us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily a bad thing to drain the cesspool.
But the whole "slippery slope, they're gonna censor us" wail is a BIT late. Where have you people been the last 20 years? The US is conducting several illegal WARS, have murdered maybe a million people, at cost to taxpayers of about a million dollars each to the military-industrial complex, and you think that monstrously criminal gov't is going to respect /your/ "right" to have sources for illegal downloads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not necessarily a bad thing to drain the cesspool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not necessarily a bad thing to drain the cesspool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not necessarily a bad thing to drain the cesspool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not necessarily a bad thing to drain the cesspool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No worries, the illegal ones will always exist, they don't have to play by the rules. The ones that will get hit are the highly competitive ones that are perfectly legal. Competing companies will use this as a weapon to destroy each other, or the government will use this as a weapon to force the legal companies to censor their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the whole problem with this bill. With the kind of overreach the government is known for, soon there will be hardly any sites to see.
You heard the man. Surf the web like it was being legislated out of style!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glad you noticed that we're in DC and having a real impact.
It's a shitty, rainy day and I guess by now you've been to Lofgren's and Wyden's offices for a round of commiseration and have gotten the bum's rush from a couple of other offices.
Yes, that's right. A whole group of the industry's top VCs and entrepreneurs came from all over the country to go to the offices of folks who already agree with us. Keep believing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They can see piracy. They can see counterfeiting. They can see content coming from outside the US that they cannot "control", but that violates US law.
There is very little you can say that can change that basic reality. You guys wanted the full on free ride forever, but too many of your VC friends backed deals that pushed that limit too far, and made it too obvious. Protect IP is out there because people went too far.
Ask your group how many of them are backing file lockers or "shared cloud" systems. You might be surprised to find how many of them have business models that are predicated on piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean like iTunes, Amazon, or Google?
Yeah, let's kill those "pirates."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Companies that create "storage solutions" which are nothing more than another way to share your pirated files with your friends are the type of business targeted by this sort of legislation. They are as far from Amazon as you can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, "trust us, this law won't be abused".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Do you really think this is totalitarism embodied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Do you really think this is democracy embodied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Yeah, I'm picking nits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
I'm starving over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
oligarcy is rule by an elite class, but the class isnt strictly defined by its members and can include private money, military, royalty...pretty much anyone.
plutocracy is strictly referrring rule by those with money, but but makes no distinction on where the money comes from and no one really cares as long as your name ends with gottbucks...
and there is a nice huge bowl of nits that i have freshly picked for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Seriously, the public interest isn't always what the public wants. Many people like to drink themselves to stupidity, but do you honestly think it is in their interest? What the people demand on the surface is often against their interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Now about the public interest, lets see:
- Nobody should hold a monopoly on anything for life + 95 years that is just ridiculous, granted monopolies are not natural monopolies they don't respond to the market they are bad all around and we know that, even in ancient times it was bad, that is why the US proclaimed independence was it not? So WTF do you protect bums that want those terms? it harms everbody including the little people who can't use anything to make a living and loose venues to make a living like starting musicians that can't sing anything to anybody because some creepy Bono Vox can't afford a new yatch this year.
Now explain again why is in the public interest to have their rights of ownership trampled by an a-hole who believes he can tell other what to do with what they bought?
When Ford sells a car they can't tell nobody not to make money with that car or stop them from doing something with the car, why is that some people believe they can do that to others and it is fine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Nobody is getting a monopoly on anything, except their own narrow work. They aren't getting a monopoly on movies, music, or anything like it. A monopoly would suggest that you have no other choices, no other options. In the car world, a monopoly would say you can only get a Trabant, and nothing else. A monopoly in food would say that you can only get McNuggets and nothing else. There is no monopoly in copyright. So your claim here is pretty far off the mark, and your rant as a result sort of meaningless.
As for your can example, I suggest you look at a rental car. You pay a rate and you get certain rights, but you do not get outright ownership of the car, or of Ford as a company. When you come to understand that "buying" a DVD is the purchase of certain rights, and not an outright ownership of anything except the shiny piece of plastic, you will understand the legal implications better and be able to understand why your example just doesn't work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
They are not entitled to a monopoly on work they released. They are not entitled to forcing the public spend public resources enforcing their private monopoly. They are not entitled to forcing service providers to undergo the cost of policing their service for infringement (those costs invariably come back down to consumers in one way or another) and having consumers pay for those costs. If they don't like it, they can simply not release content. Others will. They can find another career instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Which is, of course, a monopoly. If I want to make a duplicate of a Trabant, but am not allowed to do so, that is a monopoly.
It is called a "monopoly" by congress and the Supreme Court. It is even called a "monopoly" by the people who created copyright law.
I mean, that fact isn't contested by anyone, even copyright supporters. Please do your research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
The public interest is far more likely to be what the public wants than what a few industry members want. The public is a far better authority over what's in its interests than some industry spokes people. Certainly, 95+ year copy protection lengths are not in the public interest. The public doesn't want this bill, just like they don't want 95+ year copy protection lengths. This bill exists solely because a few industry members want it and for no other reason, just like copy protection length. It does not serve the public interest any more than 95+ year copy protection lengths because it's not intended to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
None of the serious problems with this bill has anything to do with wanting stuff for free.
What's against the public interest is:
1) The ability for private entities to censor citizens without judicial oversight or review.
2) The further erosion of the parts of copyright law that was supposed to benefit the public. (Fair use, etc.)
3) The further erosion of public respect for, and trust in, the rule of law.
4) The further erosion of the main value of the internet (a means of people being able to connect and coordinate freely, rather than as a corporate controlled media distribution system).
5) The further ceding of regulatory power to corporations.
6) The further erosion of the commons.
I could go on. The problem isn't about getting stuff for free. This is about a blatant attack on one of the few real tools citizens have to hold back their subjugation from the evil pairing of corporate power and governmental power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
2) there is no erosion of fair use at play here
3) do you think piracy respects the rule of law?
4) if the value of the internet is only in what you can get for free instead of paying, then yeah, the internet will be eroded.
5) no such thing exists, sorry. You can, as an individual, make a movie or song, copyright it, and get them same rights. So people who create things get rights. Wow. Stunning news.
6) if people want to put things in the commons, they can and will. The commons is not eroded.
You could go on, but so far you are 6 for 6 in bringing rhetoric that doesn't even stand up to basic arguments. So I am not sure why you would want to go on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
2) When Youtube gets shut down because of that random soundbite that had nothing to do with the video but was copyrighted, that's fair use being eroded. And that doesn't include video reviews, game playthroughs, and the like that while containing copyrighted content are also fair use. The mistaken impression by Big Media is that if it it's copyrighted AT ALL and it's on display, it must have been done in an illegal manner because they're not the originators.
3) We're not talking about piracy. We're talking about the common citizen, most of which barely know how to check their email much less pirate movies and music. If suddenly their favorite site goes offline because of a mere accusation and they find that out, they'll immediately think "wow, that's retarded!" and seek ways to get around it.
But if you want to indulge the piracy angle, piracy is a direct and obvious way of saying "I do not respect the rule of law in regards to copyright." A lot of the reasons I have read/heard are well-founded in fact, and though copyright infringement is illegal I can see why it would be done. Civil disobedience by definition is not legal. Copyright infringement is just the latest on a long list of things that the citizenry refused to do because it did not match up with their moral values. Lemme know how Prohibition worked out for those folks in the Temperance Movement.
4) Two words: collateral damage. Even going in the MOST "taking their word for it" interpretation of this law, inevitably there will be false positives, or stuff taken down that happened to be too close to the one thing that WAS illegal. Our military no longer cluster-bombs because that's considered inhumane and likely to kill many innocent civilians. Instead it uses precision-guided munitions that nail a single house instead of a city block. This law and PROTECT IP are the internet equivalent of a cluster bomb. So it's okay when the "enemy" isn't seen, and it can't be reported with shocking images on the nightly news? No one will lose their lives over said collateral damage, but many may very well lose their livelihoods.
5) How is the ability of rightholders to essentially IGNORE the court of law not giving corporations more regulatory capability? When most of the process does not require the government to even get involved, that's corporations being able to regulate. And it's been stated in so many ways and in so many places that any good corporation is selfish (nothing wrong with this, it's capitalism). EVERYTHING is about the profits and the self-interest, so their version of regulation will immediately tip toward whatever increases the bottom line, screw citizen's rights.
6) Yes, and more and more people ARE putting them in the commons (Creative Commons, GPL, for example). Thing is, this is a very recent trend (last couple of decades). Copyright lengths currently cover unmolested the rest of the 20th century. Since creative works form the essence of culture itself, the vast majority of the 20th century's culture is still covered by copyright. And the vast majority of copyrights are held by very large corporations who again, are self-interested. Thing is, copyrights were established to enrich the PUBLIC with properly-compensated new culture in the form of books, and over time music and movies as well. Corporation's interest != public's interest. They won't cede control unless forced to by regulation (copyright term limits). Bummer for the public is that for the past several decades copyright has been continually extended until it's utterly ridiculous.
End result is that the commons, the Public Domain as it were, is being eroded by the fact that there's a massive void in the 20th century. The past century was one of the biggest producers of culture in all of history, but the Public Domain is no richer for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Considering the precedent it will set if upheld, and how it could be applied in other aspects of society, it's a helluva big step down that road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
Just watch the Ken Burns PROHIBITION documentary film, and you'll have a real insight into what will happen if such a law like this gets passed, and on the plus side we might get another Ken Burns documentary film out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Just turning off the tap failed.
There is no indication that there will be less content available, all you amateur artist types are more than open to keep making your movies and your silly cartoons, and nothing changes.
I am just not getting where everyone is going on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Get real friend, this bill is completely screwed up. The ones presenting and supporting this would be awesome politicians in China, Iran, Pakistan and the likes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
This condescension is rather telling. Whoever you are, you've already placed yourself above those who didn't get on board your particular platform, be it the RIAA, MPAA or whatever. No wonder you support legislation that lets private industries tell the public how they can use the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
I don't place myself above anyone, but I also don't place myself above the law. Perhaps you would like to climb down and join the real world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Here's a silly one you can purchase:
http://www.amazon.com/Maus-Survivors-Father-Bleeds-History/dp/0394747232
Again, sidebar. This isn't the most important statement of your mistruth, but this one's fairly dear to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
What's condescending about it?
"all you amateur artist types are more than open to keep making your movies and your silly cartoons, and nothing changes."
What's condescending about it?
"all you amateur artist types.. silly cartoons"
What's condescending about it?
Are you always this obtuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
...which is what E-PARASITES and PROTECT IP would do, if passed.
Most of the sites that allow artists to make money, have at one point been on someone's "rogue sites" list.
On the other hand, Big Media certainly doesn't need these bills to keep making money. They'll do exactly as well without these bills - and, given how easily the bills can be abused, they'll probably make less money if they pass. (It won't be long before one of their own - Vibe, say - is on the "rogue sites" list.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Just as Ninja indicates, the new law will be widely abused, to the detriment of all, except those with the most money (corporations) and power (corporations who "own" the most politicians). It removes way too many checks and balances in current law, and it will throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Next thing you know the President will sign an international treaty without ratification by Congress... oh, wait... that already happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Damn, I would love to have your powers of premonition. Can you tell me the price of oil and gold 2 years from now so I can get futures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
This bill is written to be abused if ever passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Yup, by almost every "service provider" hiding behind user submitted content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
You people spend your time here pretending there is no problem, that content owners have no rights, and that any activity on the internet is above the law simply because "it's the internet".
If you had gotten together and proposed your own remedy and worked with others rather than trying to screw them, then this bill never would have been necessary.
The responsibility for this bill coming to be is 100% on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
You mean like this whole blog dedicated to exploring new business models in the digital era? The one with a major focus on helping creators figure out how to make money? You know: the one you are on RIGHT NOW you DUMBASS.
You are so focused on bitching about piracy that you can't even see what's right in front of your own two eyes. Incredible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
I keep on proposing simpler laws, which you conveniently ignore, complete with damages limited to actual provable harm, including for false accusations. It's four steps:
1) ALL IP limited to a maximum of five years;
2) Damages limited to actual, provable harm;
3) Copyfraud to result in the revocation of all currently held copyrights for the fraudster;
4) option to put a work immediately in the Public Domain.
See? Not that hard to propose! Next, you'll tell me that's not good enough cause I don't have a billion dollars to take out of the economy to push this through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Epic fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
There is a problem, IP is the problem.
"that content owners have no rights"
I want their IP privileges abolished. IP is not a right, it's a privilege, regardless of what our broken legal system says. If you don't like it, then don't release content. Find another career. No one is forcing you to publicly release content. Others will without you. But don't expect the government and taxpayers to pay for and enforce your privileges just because you want them to. You are not entitled to have others (the government) grant you privileges and to enforce them. I want these privileges abolished. No government of mine should give you such privileges and waste my and everyone else's taxpayer money on enforcing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Seriously, all of the above is just blathering idiocy.
Please, get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No rebuttal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
I didn't "fuck up". I don't pay for their content because I do not consume their content.
You people spend your time here pretending there is no problem
There are already laws on the books - content providers are choosing to enforce/not enforce as they deem fit.
, that content owners have no rights, and that any activity on the internet is above the law simply because "it's the internet".
And when was this said by me?
If you had gotten together and proposed your own remedy
There was no need for additional remedy. Strong laws already exist.
It's not my content so I can't prosecute.
If the content providers opt to not use the laws that already exist, then why do they need new laws?
The responsibility for this bill coming to be is 100% on you.
I didn't write the bill, I do not own the content, and I don't consume the content. I can't enforce the present laws on content I do not control - so your claim of 100% on ME is bullshit.
Your reaction is typical of a sociopath - blame others and claim your actions are needed due to your own perception of suffering.
I so hope the thing passes however. Because I'm looking forward to the shutting down of all but the "too big to fail" websites like Facebook/Facebook charging a fee to cover the cost of having to monitor for infringement. I look forward to firms needing security compliance officers and smaller firms deciding they do not need internet access - forcing the employees to take on the burden at their homes. Just more fuel for the funeral pyre of the RIAA/MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
Why yes, yes I could. But since I have such powers, I can also see that you'd only use the earnings from such knowledge to to commit evil, and have decided to use my powers only for good of the people.
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
If it makes you feel better I didn't bought your crap before and I'm not buying it now or ever, no matter what laws get passed, but I will remember your BS today and I will ripp you off every single chance I get.
And I know you won't be able to do nothing LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
> on this one.
Yes, we know. That much has been obvious for a while now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
Laws, like taxes don't go away. And the more intrusive and abusive the law, the more likely people are to give in to it out of fear of the government.
Even your short sighted and greedy minds should be able to see where laws like this are going to lead to. More intrusive laws and arrests for "suspected" crimes.
Why you want an American government to be no better than Iran in its abusive powers, I will never understand.
Seriously, this is the best you can do to protect your industry is to make the worlds governments your personal police force?
Why can't you learn to adapt and make more money? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of you guys getting every single dime owed to you, but do you really have to kill democracy world wide in order to get a paycheck?
You'll understand why I cheer when one of your own gets the boot down the road from the very draconian laws you demanded for.
I used to think that the people running companies and governments were the best and the brightest our world had to offer. In reality, I am learning that it's the greediest and most selfish that are running things.
The world you are leaving our children is not a better place and the sad part is, you know it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I've been saying
What is a "freetard"?
Is it an Anonymous Coward who can't spell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious, by the terms of this bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curious, by the terms of this bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're a joke. And a liar. LMFAO @ you, Pirate Mike!
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to see someone who is pro-piracy, talk with ME! I will pay NOTHING to the MPAA, RIAA nor any company that uses DRM on games online.
Will I pirate their stuff? Hell yes, just to throw a big middle finger at these companies and tell them "Fine, you want to treat me like a criminal just for refusing to be taken advantage of by you?! I's gonna act like a criminal!"
[ 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:
No point explaining things to you, if you come here day after say and see the same posts that we do and can't see ways that TD suggests that "piracy" could be curtailed then what's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
You could take down every single website on the internet and I can still use the underlying infrastructure to share the latest film, album, tv series and video game. You and the rest harp on about Pirate Sites but they are a figment of your delusion, take down the Pirate Bay, Isohunt, Newsbin2 etc, it won't make a jot of difference, if I can connect to another computer using the technology of the internet I can still share files...
So what you gonna do after this fails? Turn of the web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the thought that all laws are abused to some extent is the exact problem everyone is worried about. in all laws, we already have plenty of examples of the 4th amendment being trampled all over left right and center. now if a solidly worded law such as the 4th amendment to the constitution that has a couple hundred years of jurisprudence on it already is trampled and ignored to this extent, how much more so will a poorly written BAD law riddled with mushy verbiage be abused? government exists to serve man, not to serve corporate interest.
the only thing you bring to the table is empty rhetoric about how you just believe that the law will magically wipe away priracy and yet you cannot cite anything other than "i belive" and follow it up with more insults and vapid conjecture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
dang lack of edit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I truly hope you keep that Gravatar of yours so I can identify your bitching when you see that piracy continues unabated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, here are some points, 1'st, 4'th, and 14'th amendment violations. Your counterargument please ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't just name a constitutional amendment. Give me an argument or an example of whatever it is you're thinking, and I'll give you counterargument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Mike and others.
You want to act like a child, be my guest. But there is nothing further in going on with your impetulant temper tantrums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pitiful lil' troll. But you get 10/10 for the effort you put on it =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The game played is similar to the legal tiddlywinks that torrent sites try to play, saying "we don't host the content", while everyone knows what the sites are being used for.
Mike's incredibly strong and repeated support for Roja (even through Roja products and services would be clearly illegal in the US) is a great example. He doesn't support piracy, but he will argue in support of them until the cows come home.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Mike takes it to the Nth degree.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Every time changes to the copyright monopoly are considered, the profits of major entertainment industry companies are at the center of the discussion. Even the people who fiercely defend the right to share information freely are going to extreme lengths to argue that this will not hurt the revenues of the copyright industry. But why are these profits even relevant? Why should we care about the profits of these companies?"
History will look disappointedly at your kind. They will know what it is like to have a culture that is unfettered and unlimited by the profit motives of the publishing industry. Our culture belongs to everyone and you have no right to try to sell it back to us piecemeal for your profit.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm ripping a DVD right now to stream it to a phone, please stop me.
[ 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:
Guess what...we're smarter than you. We (not myself personally) invented the internet. We understand how it works. We will create a new form of DNS, we will find a way to inexpensively (in the context of processor cycles) encrypt everything. If you want a war, you are going to get one against the architects of the very entity that you're trying to control.
You cannot win, the sharing of culture has been going on since about 5 minutes after culture became a thing. It is hard-coded into us to do so and no matter how you try to outlaw it to preserve your own obscene source of income/power you will never convince the layperson that it is morally wrong to pass the enjoyment of a work to another.
TL/DR: You're fighting an unwinnable war against human nature and geeks, neither of those forces can be overcome easily. So, Mr. Ahab, please keep chasing that white whale of piracy, it's as entertaining as the rest of your childish rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are REALLY successful, and everyone pirates, and nobody buys...there won't be anyone left to pay for the content. So you will be pirating air.
(oh, and for those who say there will be replacement content, I don't disagree. But when you remove the economic angle and everything is "free" there is no longer piracy, is there?)
So yeah, go win the fight, and then go try to find a doctor to help you with that massive wound in your right foot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then, you already know this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People "pirate" for many reasons, some Aussies do it so they don't have to wait 12 months to watch a tv series, some Chinese do it because they can't afford to pay the equivilant US pricing for Winddows 7 given their reduced income.
Really, get a grip man, if you honestly believe what you write then I don't believe anything anyone ever says will change your view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it's really as bad as you say then maybe that just means that nobody really thinks it's wrong, or at least not wrong enough to be illegal. So perhaps IP laws should be abolished, that is, if we are to have a representative government.
Or, if most people agree with these laws strongly enough, then piracy likely wouldn't be a huge problem, as people would naturally follow IP principles without ridiculous laws in place requiring them to.
[ 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:
Seems he forgot his medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
You can't possibly think that Pirate Mike is anti-piracy. There is no evidence that points to that conclusion, yet there's evidence in post after post after post that he thinks the opposite. Cracks me up you guys pretend like Pirate Mike isn't really pro-piracy. Laughing my ass off at you, bucko!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
Tell me this: Do you honestly believe that Mike Masnick is anti-piracy? Be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/00083116531/e-parasites-bill-end-internet-as-we-k now-it.shtml#c555
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
But tell me, do you honestly believe that Mike is anti-piracy? If so, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
Answering to your question he is not anti-piracy. But he's not pro-piracy as you say, what he has been doing since I started reading TD is to criticize the draconian measures and showing that other ways can be chosen. He even prized Netflix as a tool to tackle online piracy (and condemned the subsequent movements from the MAFIAA that would strangle the service). Your "Sith Lord" vision of the world that if some1 is not for anti-piracy it's automagically pro-piracy is entertaining. What Mike does here is discuss and talk about sane ways to deal with all this copyright issue (and others).
I'm waiting for a citation where Mike specifically endorces illegal downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
"Of course, you can't find one article where Mike explains why piracy is bad and should be stopped, because, well, Mike is pro-piracy."
So, by that logic, if Mike doesn't have at least one article where he explains why genocide is bad and should be stopped it's because, well, he's pro-genocide! Genocide-Mike has got some explaining to do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
> on the internet is important?
It sure as hell isn't as important as all the other rights you and your ilk are attempting to grind underfoot in order to lock everything down and turn the internet into a broadcast-only medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
- I'm quite sure that the MPAA and RIAA have issued numerous press releases and blog posts supporting all these types of Draconian measures that reduce one's civil liberties and right to privacy.
- I would highly doubt that there are many (if any) releases or posts from MPAA or RIAA that state that civil liberties and privacy issues are more important than profits.
- Therefore (using AC's (twisted) logic): The MPAA and RIAA are anti-Constitution and anti-American.
- To take it one step further: Since the the MPAA and RIAA are so obviously anti-American, they are probably against baseball, apple pie and Chevys also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
Actually, you don't even have to use the AC's misinformed logic.
These organizations are obviously anti-Constitution and anti-American, since they consistently act to harm both in the pursuit of profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
C'mon troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
You are demonstrating why you will fail: you just can't get past "piracy". You think that the only topic worth discussing is whether piracy is "right" or "wrong", and whether or not someone is "pro" or "anti" piracy.
If there is one clear core philosophy on piracy espoused by Techdirt, it's that it is both inevitable and not particularly important. Smart businesses care about success and profit and growth - not about "piracy". They certainly don't waste resources fighting something unstoppable. Mike presents a LOT of arguments and data to demonstrate why piracy is NOT directly linked to profits - and that by focusing on business model innovation, you can succeed without worrying about pirates! What a thought, hmm?
Opposition to this bill has nothing to do with supporting piracy. Because this bill will do NOTHING to stop piracy - or even slow it down for more than a few weeks. Anyone with even the vaguest understanding of technology history can tell you that - and if you really believe "this time is different", you are astonishingly naive. This bill will cause all sorts of collateral damage without even making a dent in its supposed target - and that's why people are opposed to it.
It's like if a mad scientist came up with a plan to stop earthquakes by filling the San Andreas Fault with industrial caulk. Opposing the plan doesn't mean you are pro-earthquake - it just means you are anti-dangerous-plan-that-won't-work.
But you're just going to go back to whining about piracy, because you can't get past it - just like some indignant employee who sends out a million angry emails to HR when they feel slighted, making themselves look stupider and more childish with every keystroke. And that's why you will, inevitably, fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
No wonder your side is always losing, and all your businesses are failing. It's run by narcissistic children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:27am
So you admit it won't stop piracy? About time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're a joke, and a liar. LMFAO @ you, Anonymous Misinformed Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-US payment processor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-US payment processor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's telling that you refer to the wild west as a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) How did you?
3) Why not include a link to full text in ALL posts where it's applicable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/HR%203261%20Introduced.html
PDF:
http://judiciary.house. gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can put any number of logical arguments on the table, but you are forgetting a very simple issue here: The pendulum is swinging in the other direction now, and it is pretty much unstoppable.
Basically, the last 15 years has been the "internet era", where we have gone from no commercial internet to a ubiquitous interconnection of computers, hand help devices, and such. During that time, the net has mostly be lawless. It has taken the FTC years to come even start to come to terms with online scammers, who can appear, hit, and run before the FTC even has it's proverbial morning coffee. We still face the 419 scams, phishing, and hundreds of other newfangled legal problems we have never considered before.
We are also facing a system where the laws of the land are usurped by the connectivity that allows companies and individuals to operate from foxholes and duck blinds hidden around the world. Our legal systems are woefully unequipped to deal with this sort of intra-jurisdictional activity. They are also doubly unprepared to handle things that happen at the "speed of the internet". In a five day a week working world, the internet allows scammers to work 24/7, and get it all done before anyone even gets to the office.
The internet is a "new world", and just like America was once the "new world", things go in phases. You have the pioneers, the wanderers, the dreamers. You have people who build the first towns, then cities, and industry and business develops around those areas. Crime happens as well, and in areas that don't have too much policing or just don't really have laws that apply to them, the lawlessness is often what rules the roost.
But just like the "new worlds" of the past, over time law comes to the land. Just like in the old west, where Sherrifs were often as ruthless as the criminals they chased, not everything worked well, but from the extreme lack of law (and the dangers and risks that came with it) we swung the pendulum back, and we have ended up today with a system that is relatively fairly balanced.
The internet has had it's wild stage, it's "wild west". But that situation is no more tolerable than having armed bandits randomly killing people in the streets in the old west or holding up stage coaches for money.
DMCA was a first attempt to try to address the internet issue, but it has backfired mightily, creating a legal black hole that permitted wholesale copyright violation as a business model, with the "we remove on notification" caveat that has allowed many a business model to flourish.
As things have tightened, many illegal websites and operators have attempted to insulate themselves from existing laws by playing games of semantics. Not hosting the offending video (but putting it on a file host) and claiming that there is no infringement because they only link to it is a nice dodge. Moving their websites "offshore" is another great dodge, attempting to play jurisdictional games, all the while still offering their service(s) into the US. There are any number of posts on Techdirt about a site being "legal over there", while it is being accessed over here.
All of this stuff has pulled the pendulum way up on one side, and well, gravity says that it can't stay there forever. When it swings back, it will (sadly for some) swing back hard in the other direction, and probably won't be good for anyone. But it's inevitable that this happens, either in this format or some other guise, because the current situation is intolerable in economic terms, and is intolerable in legal terms.
You can pick at the wording all you like, and try to FUD the discussion. But you really need to step back and bit and understand that the current internet circumstances just don't match up with the real world, and that this sort of law has been as inevitable as the tide coming in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Point 1. "Mike doesn't post anything anti-piracy" Without an encyclopedic knowledge of the site, I can't rebuke this with a "nuh-huh" argument. However, for the most part I will admit this is probably true. The important thing to remember here however, is that Tech-Dirt's stance is largely that theft is wrong, but that what is labeled as piracy isn't inherently the same as theft. You're ignoring the crux of the argument and implying something that is untrue. You imply that "Mike is pro theft" by saying he isn't Anti-Piracy. I liken this to two people arguing over the color of a car, one person saying it isn't red, the other saying it isn't blue. Those statements aren't at odds if the car is green, so why the hell are you arguing.
Point 2. "This is inevitable" That is easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Nothing is inevitable. History is a great teacher, yes, but it isn't the future. We're supposed to look at the mistakes we made in the past and try to do better, not just do it over again because "well, it didn't totally blow up in our faces". By the logic of inevitability, it would be "OK" if we found life on other planets and enslaved them to work on plutonium farms for hundreds of years because, well, we've done it before and things eventually worked out.
Point 3. "This law isn't about taking away internet freedom, you're over-reacting". I don't have the space or patience to go into a full argument on this. But I -will- say if I'm ever playing Jenga, I don't want you as my partner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Point 2: Mike has often refered to piracy and "infomation wants to be free" as inevitable. Are you suggesting he is wrong too? The inevitable nature of the current situation is that when the rights of one group have been abused, ignored, and run roughshod over for a long period of time, the corrective measures may be a little extreme and perhaps slightly too far reaching. Your logical off world example isn't actually very logical nor particularly inevitable.
Point 3: I didn't say that. Not sure where you got it from. However, I will say that attempting to cover over illegal acts with an "internet freedom" flag is pretty dishonest, and seems to suggest some support for those illegal acts, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are a dishonest bastard that is all you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are the real criminals, you are the people who take food from who needs most the little guys who loose venues and changes to make some money to protect bastards that don't care about anyone but themselves.
Mike may not pirate anything, but I have no interest in respecting you or your kind ever, no matter what the law says it is still wrong and I will rip you off every chance I get.
Unfortunately to you I can also teach others how to do it the right way, you know the way you never will see it coming LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Point 1, I don't exactly disagree with you. But that's only because I feel that things that should be covered under existing fair use precedent are unfairly lumped in with piracy. I also don't agree that downloading songs from the internet is theft. But that's a point that's been hashed about here a lot and I'm not up for going over it again.
Point 2, I chose my words poorly. Death is, as far as I know, inevitable. So you are correct that saying "nothing is inevitable" is wrong. However, my intended point is valid. Just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean we should just let it happen again. That having been said, I actually don't agree with Mike that information "wants" to be free. It may be true in some cases, but for years the knowledge science provided was largely ignored in favor of superstition and religious knowledge. People didn't want to know because it interfered with what they already knew. So no, information doesn't "want" to be free. If you wan't an example, read these forums and you'll see two polarized sides who won't acknowledge each others points whether they have merit or not. Also your response to my example doesn't make sense to me. Previously you used history as an example of why what has happened before is now inevitable to happen again. Repeatedly in history when new people's are encountered, the stronger of the two groups attempts to overcome and subjugate the other. Perhaps the plutonium farm was off, but I was trying to be whimsical. If you're going to argue over the semantics of life on another planet in an example, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you.
Point 3. This goes back to my earlier point about definitions of piracy. It was an "illegal act" for people of color to go into the wrong bathroom for years. Trying to start a discussion to change that law because you believe it wrong doesn't seem dishonest to me at all. Hiding behind the fact that the law exists and not questioning whether it is right or not just seems lazy to me. If Mike has out rightly encouraged people to break the law regardless of how he may feel about it, then that's in poor taste on his part. I don't think he's done that but again, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything ever said on techdirt though. Even if he did, I wouldn't agree with breaking the law, but I'd absolutely still agree with the conclusion that the basis of the laws that made the act illegal is flawed.
I agree with a lot of the conclusions discussed on Tech Dirt. Please remember that those conclusions and ideas, while spoken by Mike do not belong to him. He's not the only one allowed to think them. Mike is no God or all knowing oracle. He's just a dude I happen to agree with on a bunch of shit.
This continuing discussion of whether or not he condones piracy is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Point 2: Things like gravity are inevitable. You can't get away from them. The swing of a legal pendulum is the same, you cannot swing too far one way without having some come back at some point. You cannot have extreme lawlessness without there being some push somewhere along the line for the laws to be strengthened and enforced. This is a real issue in a tax paying industry that has employed many Americans in the past, and is currently on the skids. Doubly so when we are in economic tough times. It is inevitable that the government and industry are pushing to move black market activity back onto the books. Your slavery example is interesting, and perhaps possible. I don't think we have any history on meeting other races in the information age to work from though.
Point 3: I agree with you on the "people of color" issue, except that it is an example of a purely social issue, rather than an economic one. Pushing to right a social wrong is one thing, pushing to remove someone's commercial rights is another. It is like attempts by some to push strip clubs or adult book stores out of business. They use a moral angle, but in the end they are attempting to hurt someone's living, and enforce their social beliefs regardless of the harm done to others. For me it is on par with Vegetarians telling beef farmers to go out of business because they don't like meat. It's unfair to the farmers, and unfair to those of us who like a good steak. Morally, the vegans may be right for them, but overall, they don't have the right to tell someone not to operate a legal business.
"This continuing discussion of whether or not he condones piracy is irrelevant."
It's never irrelevant when it colors the discussions here so much. It's pretty basic, infinite distribution doesn't exist without piracy (because the movie companies wouldn't choose to give their products away, thus limiting supply in some manner and making it less than infinite), and the whole push to "sell the scarce" is lost when the business goes back to selling what people really want, the movies and music. You don't have to hawk t-shirts to stay in business if people are paying you for what they really wanted in the first place.
So why Mike is so against protect IP is that it would limit the possiblities for his business models, for his vision of a free content future. So a discussion of his support is always valid in my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People use the word "theft" for copyright infringement - they clearly feel that making an unauthorized copy is just as bad as taking property away from somebody.
I find it interesting that you say that "something for nothing" is "clearly an issue" - that's a pretty extreme position. I feel perfectly entitled to breath for free, for example, and I do feel that people who can't afford to pay for housing or food or water should receive some sort of help.
People have different ideas of the relative importance of freedom of speech and copyrights - to what extent is it ok to restrict people's freedom of speech if doing so helps people protect their copyrights ?
It's also worth pointing out that while we've had general agreement on tangible property rights for an awfully long time (at least in the west), exactly what bundle of rights comprise "copyright" has continually changed since the concept was first invented. This is, of course, partly because there are direct conflicts with freedom of speech and with tangible property rights - copyrights restrict how you can express yourself and what you can do with your property.
And you know what ? If somebody created a machine that produced bread from nothing, so that the cost to produce a loaf was zero, I personally would be celebrating the end of starvation rather than figuring out how we could keep the baking industry alive. Another value judgment, of course. I also suspect that in the long run the people who did decide to restrict the use of the new machine would lose out. So for me, "piracy will always be around" is just a specific instance of "once technology make something possible, there will always be people who use that technology, regardless of what morality or any restrictions you put in place", and that the cheaper the technology is, the more people will use it. I recognize that piracy is cheap and easy, and that it's a gray area morally. I don't do it myself, but I also don't expect any number of laws (or "education campaigns", for that matter) to eliminate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chris, I very much agree with you. But how would you feel if that machine turned out to be nothing more than a front for people "borrowing" bread trucks from the local factory, and dropping that "borrowed" bread from the machine and claiming no cost?
What is coming out of the magic music and movie machine is someone else's product. It isn't magically creating new, free, and exciting movies, it is taking someone else's very expense to product product, and giving it away for free, and claiming to be some sort of miracle.
If you are paying attention, you will understand that if you don't find ways to maintain and support the content creators that are out there now (and those to come in the future) that not only will the horrible paid expensive stuff disappear, but also your magic free music machine will be empty as well - or perhaps only have choices you are not interested in.
Technology makes things appear to be possible, but you have to pay attention to the full cycle to realize that distribution is only a small part of the puzzle. It is the tail of the dog, and no, it cannot wag the dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds an awful lot like the people who wrote this bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> cover over illegal acts with an "internet
> freedom" flag is pretty dishonest
Almost as dishonest as pretending that people who aren't breaking any laws where they live are committing illegal acts merely because a country on the other side of the world from them doesn't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you tolerate child porn being sold into the US from a country that permits girls at 14 to pose nude and engage in sex acts on video? I doubt you would, and I am sure you would be up in arms asking your "gubbermint" to do something.
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> world insist on doing business and offering
> services in the US
They're not doing either, for the most part.
All they're doing is putting a web site online. Rojadirecta wasn't targeting the US or doing business there. It was just a web site on the internet. It didn't have a big banner that said, "Hey, Americans! Come use our site!"
Hell, it wasn't even in English.
And a site like The Pirate Bay certainly isn't doing business or offering services to the US any more than they're offering it to anyone else merely by being online.
If you're going to define every web site that is merely accessible to an American as "doing business and offering services in the US" in order to bootstap US jurisdiction over foriegn nationals, then that's even more dishonest than what I originally noted above, because such a definition would, necessarily, encompass the entire internet worldwide.
> Would you tolerate child porn being sold
> into the US from a country that permits girls
> at 14 to pose nude and engage in sex acts
> on video?
If I were a US official charged with dealing with such things, and it was against the law in the US, then I'd go after those in the US who are trafficking in it on the receiving end and string them up. Then I'd work with the authorities in the other country to see if there's anything that could be done from their end. If the end result was them telling me, "Sorry, but we don't view sex the same way you do, and for us, 14 is plenty old enough to make personal decisions about such things," then I'd have to accept that it's their right to make those decisions based on their own culture and customs and national sovereignty.
What I wouldn't do is claim that US law is superior to any other law in any other country worldwide and not only attempt to shut down foreign sites, even if they're operating legally within their own jurisdictions, but to have the site operators arrested and extradited to the US for prosecution for no other reason than...
Well, what is the reason, exactly? Because we're the US and what we say goes? 'Cause I can't find any other commonly accepted principle of international law that says every person in the world is obligated to obey US law if they use the internet (but not the other way around, heavens no!).
> I doubt you would, and I am sure you would
> be up in arms asking your "gubbermint"
> to do something.
Why don't you confine yourself to pontificating about your own actions and desires and let me be the arbiter of what I would and would not do in a given situation? How's that sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your comparison, however, is sickening. You would twist an actual suffering into comparative with copying a file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Last night, at Oscar Grant Park in Oakland, CA, a number of people �a thousand, maybe a few more� called for a general strike in that city, on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011.
At least four thousand more people watched the GA live. That number was just for the feed that I caught the live stream on: I know there were other feeds and other streams from that General Assembly. But most of the people watching on the 'net were not in Oakland, or even in California last night. Not physically. Nor will most of us be there physically on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011.
Do you think this general strike will succeed?
How many people will even hear about the strike call? Read about it the newspaper? Watch it on T.V. at 5pm or 6pm or 11pm?
There are almost four-hundred thousand people in Oakland. How many of them will stay home from work, from school, join the strike on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never forget, the tide will go out too. By that time every sandcastle (government/corporation) will have fallen and letters written in the sand (laws) will be erased, and the children (people) will start all over again.
Nothing is immutable. Many rulers and governments have learned that lesson too late, often the hard way, in the past and the present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FUD and BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow what a clueless f-tard you are. You DO realize that those clauses were put in at the BEHEST of your beloved Big Media Corps, right? They insisted it be CHANGED TO this system, this was not what everyone else wanted, or what the original proposal/bill outlined.
It never ceases to amaze me that people like you breathe air and procreate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suppose you'd rather have a business model that calls for removing content you don't even know is infringing? Or is it more a matter of conducting a legal review of every single item ever posted in order to determine whether or not a particular video/post/link is infringing?
There's a number of people living in oppressive countries accessing websites that to them are only "legal over there", where "there" is the United States or some other democratic country. Do you have a problem with that, too?
Does that mean the pendulum will swing back yet again, and the "wild west" scenario you speak of will once again be the rule?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> about a site being "legal over there",
> while it is being accessed over here.
And there are any number of dodges by people like you who fail to explain why "what's legal here but illegal over there" shouldn't be treated the same way.
How can the US DOJ demand extradition of British citizens to face criminal charges for violating US law when there's no violation of British law, but, for example, a request for extradition of a US citizen to Germany for denying the Holocaust online is met with the equivalent of a "Pshaw... don't be silly!"
> it will (sadly for some) swing back hard in the
> other direction, and probably won't be good for
> anyone
So you admit this law won't be good for anyone but... what? We should pass it anyway just to get the mythical pendulum swing over with? You think it's as inevitable as a hurricane and we should just weather the storm rather than, oh, I don't know... oppose it with every means at our disposal as citizens?
I'm glad someone like you wasn't in charge in 1776. "Come on, guys, just hunker down and wait it out. I'm sure the king's pendulum will swing back eventually."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: follow the money
There is one way - stop spending money on them. They use the money they get as the way to buy the Government so they can compete by laws.
With no money - how could they buy the lawmakers?
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All just a huge moot point
Yes, I'm European (NL). We're on the track to get fucked over in much the same way, but we're not there yet. When that happens the irony of the situation will not escape me, but until then I'll just keep enjoying these :popcorn: moments.
Then I'd be more than slightly annoyed at the fact that apparently these same politicians think they can guarantee that a law will never be interpreted in any way other than what they claim to envisage.
I mean, wow, aren't you supposed to remember that laws continue to exist after the people who wrote them are long dead and gone?
EVEN IF this administration or the next manages to avoid abusing the canyon-sized problems of this law, can anyone in all honesty say they're sure that will never happen?
But at last, I'd just relax after realising that the cat is out of the bag, and no amount of knee-jerk legislation will get it back in.
Maybe I should clarify this for the deliberately obtuse AC's whom I know troll this website:
The cat being out of the bag is a metaphor for people following human nature; the internet gives us the tools to consume what we want when we want it. Attempts to curtail this aspect of human nature can only backfire in the long run.
You can call people freetards if that makes you feel better, but it will not change the fact that the massive community will always use technology in innovative ways to circumvent censorship faster than such solutions can be counteracted.
(Unless of course the plug is literally pulled, and we go back to fax machines and pagers - not a chance in hell)
The short-sightedness of Big Content and their lapdog politicians never ceases to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's going to be interesting...
Either there's a huge backlash against this kind of thing, the law gets changed, the Internet goes back to being the most amazing communication and free speech tool and the content companies are forced to adapt to it;
Or the media companies continue their slow decline, but the tech companies, led by the Internet-centric ones, gradually move elsewhere to avoid the US laws. Not sure how the US economy copes with that, but it's probably not pretty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's going to be interesting...
Moving out of the economy to keep doing what is illegal in the US will no longer work, as they will be cut off from their largest market.
I think you miss the third choice, which is that companies will fall in line and find better ways to operate, operating more transparently and being more willing to identify the end user contributors who could be liable for illegal material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
If it comes down to leaving the United States in order to be able to operate legally, there's lots countries they could legally serve that aren't the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
How many times are you guys going to try this shit? How long do you think it will take to defeat the blocks? Some pimple faced teenager is going to make his "digital mark" on the world by defeating the governments censorship in the amount of time it takes you to brush your teeth in the morning. Then where will we be? Same fucking place we are now... no?
I've got a novel idea....How about we fix the problem? Instead of throwing stupid after dumb ass, lets get right down to the nuts and bolts...... why are millions of people sharing data? Well, because they can! Why did people stop buying records, tapes, 8 tracks, VHS, etc etc? Progress! Fucking hurts your monopolistic brain doesn't it!? To know there is something out there that you can't control, even if you do create it!? You guys sound like a sour old woman "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out!!"
Catch up with the rest of us you dinosaurs! You should be making billions on the digital revolution, instead your trying to toss out the anchor because your stuck in the 70's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
No. One of the parts of the law is against this sort of defeating of the measures. Helping people break the law will in fact become an offence itself, making the pimply faced kids a lot less likely to even try it, for fear of getting slammed. A few certainly will at the start to try to tweak noses, and they will end up being Bubba's bitch in prison for a while, and that will end that.
There are no dinosaurs here. I would say more like "wake up you hippies, someone else has been paying your electric bill for the last 15 years and we aren't going to do it anymore".
The digital revolution will live on - but without viable business models, that digital revolution will be about nothing you care about or are interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
Who said anything about trying to defeat these measures. People will only be creating new technologies to share their own stuff. If other people use it for file sharing it's not the developers problem ...
... or are we going to amend the law to say "software having any potential for IP infringement"? At which point the entire internet becomes unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
OMG! against the law to defeat the measures! ARE YOU THAT STUPID? How did that shit work out for your DVD locks? That crap was cracked before it was even released, how did your laws work for there? How about you innovate instead of legislate before we leave your sorry old ass in the dust!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
Sort of like copyright infringement being illegal keeps pimply faced kids from engaging in copyright infringement, for fear of getting slammed?
Why, then, do you support a bill that makes viable and legitimate business models that much less viable? The health of the Internet depends on much more than the particular business models this bill is intended to protect at the expense of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
You don't understand human nature much, do you?
Not only will this not deter any pimply-faced kids at all, but it will inspire many older, mature, and highly skilled software engineers to take up the task as well.
This is an assault on freedom itself (not meaning the freedom to violate copyright) and you will see an increasing number of experts taking up the call to become freedom fighters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
Ah! That's why there's no tool around to break copy protection on Blu-Rays. The bill worked even before it got introduced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
It won't stop anybody from leaving stupid.
And it won't even stop people from accessing foreign websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
What happened?
It was supposed to bring the laws to the internet age it failed instead is used by business to harm other business LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
"The companies can't move out of the US and serve the US with illegal materials..."
I think it's telling that you see the internet as only a content distribution system. It's not exactly the "new" TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
I'm basically saying that if the US passes laws to effectively cut itself off from the Internet, no doubt the companies that make their money from the Internet will move elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why?
Unfortunately, I know we are at a time when the government is no longer by the people or for the people, rather by corporations for corporations. So, aside from voting all these career politicians out of office, and banning political contributions, we are left hoping that we get helped out by some other corporations who choose to fight this bill for their own benefit. Writing or calling 'our' representatives is a waste of time. They've already been bought.
Sad. It makes me feel helpless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why?
Can someone tell me why key strategic targets for every coup and revolution in the 20th century were the telegraph offices, the telephone exchanges, the radio stations, the TV stations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why?
Google has a couple of dozen lobbying firms, not lobbyists working this issue in DC. The problem Google and others have is that there is a real bias against freeloading and those whose business models facilitate it. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at it if you are perceived as being wrong. Also consider whether this is an existential threat to Google et al. Why would these companies burn the city down over this issue? The people they're appealing to will also have something to say in the furture about anti-trust, mergers, spectrum and bandwidth and a host of other issues that are far more important than your ability to download shit for free. Compounding Google's problem is that the credit card companies and ISP's are now saying that they accept the additional responsibility and so should the search engines. Google's not stupid. Everyone is against them and they know it. They're now just looking to water down their responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why?
Except that Google does not condone freeloading and in fact takes significant measures to suppress it. It's just that the people at Google are smart enough to understand how this law could hurt legitimate businesses, including their own. You may inject loaded language such as "freeloading" in order to draw attention away from this fact, but it nevertheless remains a fact. I'm sure the senators responsible for this bill may rest easy knowing their aversion to "freeloading" agrees with their fondness for lobbyists' money, but so may numerous other people who manage to convince themselves that doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is actually doing the right thing.
Such bold, unqualified and obviously false assertions are generally uttered by those who are trying to convince themselves of the very claim they are making. I suppose I should give you credit for at least trying to appear as if you're really that confident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why?
Bullshit.
http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102411adwords#6YxitLX4zUEaSBW-o_NwXw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
Really at least he could have pulled a Masnick and made an assertion then cite an article written by Masnick as the irrefutable source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
"Looks to be a collection of legal sites and programs with some vague relation to the idea that they *could* be used to pirate, although several of them only supply information on how to use P2P programs and don't host any files themselves.
At least 2 of the links don't work despite the article having been posted less than 72 hours ago. At least 2 are collating information about other sites, while another (p2p.com) spends more time discussing p2p lending than anything remotely pirate related (though admittedly it does look like an ad farm).
Two links are file lockers that states explicitly in their T&Cs that they shouldn't be used to share copyrighted files. One site (uploadmusic.org) looks to be an ad wrapped skin for Google itself (i.e. all it does is search Google). One is a beginner's guide on how to torrent that states explicitly to be careful about copyrights.
So, yeah, the usual idiocy. This is really the best they've got?"
Aww. Poor little troll can't even check before he presents evidence to make sure it proves his point. Sorry pal, not doing yourself much help there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why?
Such bold, unqualified and obviously false assertions are generally uttered by those who are trying to convince themselves of the very claim they are making. I suppose I should give you credit for at least trying to appear as if you're really that confident.
Think what you like but there was a stakeholder's meeting the other day that included a pretty heated exchange between Net Coalition (Google) and Visa. The rug is being totally pulled out from under Google. Google has few, if any allies left. The good news (for you anyway) is that they're bright enough to see the writing on the wall and will cut a deal in return for their silence. So there will be some modification- though not much. I suspect a number of Google lobbyists will be putting the 2012 Lexus brochure back in the drawer for awhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
Good one Pollyanna!!! How many years do you think it takes to get a case to the Supreme Court.... if they agree to hear it at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
Ah, mindless name-calling. Looks like another one of the intellectual leading-lights of TechDirt has decided to chime in.
> How many years do you think it takes to get a
> case to the Supreme Court.... if they agree to
> hear it at all?
It doesn't matter how long it takes to get to the high court, genius. Enforcement and implementation of the law will be suspended by the district court until all the constitutional challenges are resolved.
Remember the Communications Decency Act? It was passed in 1996 and before the ink was even dry on Bill Clinton's signature, the ACLU had filed a challenge to it and the district court enjoined (suspended) enforcement of it until the court challenge was resolved, which it eventually was when the Supreme Court struck it down in 1997.
Remember the Child Online Protection Act? It was passed in 1998 and before the ink was even dry on Bill Clinton's signature, the ACLU had filed a challenge to it and the district court enjoined enforcement of it until the court challenge was resolved. In 2009 the Supreme Court made the injunction permanent.
The same will happen with E-PARASITES. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU are already preparing lawsuits to challenge this law if it passes, and they'll be filed within hours of Obama signing it into law. Once that happens, the district court will have to enjoin implementation of the law until the (vast, in this case) constitutional issues are resolved.
Even in the highly unlikely event that it's eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, as you so sarcastically noted above, it will be years before the Court rules and lifts the injunction and the law can actually take effect.
Got anymore fun names to throw around, chuckles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
Ah, mindless name-calling. Looks like another one of the intellectual leading-lights of TechDirt has decided to chime in.
> How many years do you think it takes to get a
> case to the Supreme Court.... if they agree to
> hear it at all?
It doesn't matter how long it takes to get to the high court, genius. Enforcement and implementation of the law will be suspended by the district court until all the constitutional challenges are resolved.
Remember the Communications Decency Act? It was passed in 1996 and before the ink was even dry on Bill Clinton's signature, the ACLU had filed a challenge to it and the district court enjoined (suspended) enforcement of it until the court challenge was resolved, which it eventually was when the Supreme Court struck it down in 1997.
Remember the Child Online Protection Act? It was passed in 1998 and before the ink was even dry on Bill Clinton's signature, the ACLU had filed a challenge to it and the district court enjoined enforcement of it until the court challenge was resolved. In 2009 the Supreme Court made the injunction permanent.
The same will happen with E-PARASITES. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU are already preparing lawsuits to challenge this law if it passes, and they'll be filed within hours of Obama signing it into law. Once that happens, the district court will have to enjoin implementation of the law until the (vast, in this case) constitutional issues are resolved.
Even in the highly unlikely event that it's eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, as you so sarcastically noted above, it will be years before the Court rules and lifts the injunction and the law can actually take effect.
Got anymore fun names to throw around, chuckles?"
Ummmm.... any idea of what jurisdiction is? A District court's rulings are conclusive only in its district. A Circuit court's jurisdiction is its region (compromised of district court's districts) The Supreme Court is national and final. The law will be implemented. And before it ever gets to the Supreme Court, it will gut many a rogue site. Why not beat the rush and start paying for entertainment now, douchebag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
> only in its district.
You apparently have no idea how the system works, but that doesn't seem to stop you from mouthing off and making yourself look like an idiot.
When a statute like this is challeneged, the district issues an injunction against the Executive Branch which suspends the law and orders the Executive Branch not to enforce it until the consitutional issues are resolved. It binds the *entire* federal government, not just the part of the Executive Branch in the court's district.
That's what happened with the CDA, that's what happened with COPA and it's what's happening with Obamacare even as we speak.
> And before it ever gets to the Supreme Court,
> it will gut many a rogue site.
That's exactly why enforcement of such laws are enjoined pending court review. If a law's constitutionality is challenged (making it potentially unconstitutional), the court doesn't want the government running around out there possibly violating people's rights only to find out years down the road after a final decision is rendered that it was wrong, and then have to try and redress all the harm that was caused in the meantime, potentially putting the taxpayers on the hook for millions in damages as well as causing some harm that's simply irreparable.
So no, there will be no "gutting of many a rogue site" while the law is being challenged because the Executive Branch (the DOJ, FBI, ICE, etc.) will be prohibited from enforcing the law while the challenges are ongoing.
I'm sure that's like an arrow through your maximalist heart-- and here you were sporting a woody over the notion that all those evil pirates are just a cunt hair away from gettin' their just deserts-- but I guess you'll just have to suck it up and deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
I actually know people at those organizations and can tell you that you're dead wrong. Check their websites. ACLU doesn't really even mention it. And it's a minor footnote on the EFF site. Keep dreaming though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
> and can tell you that you're dead wrong.
> Check their websites. ACLU doesn't really
> even mention it. And it's a minor footnote
> on the EFF site. Keep dreaming though.
LOL! I checked the EFF web site and it's one of the top stories right at the top of the main page.
Given that you couldn't even get that much right, the rest of your claim about being 'in the know' doesn't hold much water.
But hey, even if the EFF and the ACLU pass, this proposed legislation has enough people pissed off that *someone*, some group or individual, will challenge its constitutionality. And from there, it will proceed just as I described.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
Good one Pollyanna!!! How many years do you think it takes to get a case to the Supreme Court.... if they agree to hear it at all?
And how long do you think it will take to strangle an infringing site? I plucked this gem from Wikileaks:
"As a result of exposing U.S. embassies from around the world, five major US financial institutions, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Western Union and the Bank of America, have tried to economically strangle WikiLeaks The attack has blocked over 95% of our donations, costing tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue."
So Wikileak's revenue is down 95% just from action by payment processors. Now think about cutting off ad revenue and de-listing it from search engines and ISP's. Now what? And that's Wikileaks, who is know worldwide and brings in lots of money from a variety of well-heeled sources. How is some pissant pirate website in Buttfuckistan going to make out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
If you're gonna argue that free distribution of films means no one can make a profit, you're going to have to follow that logic through and realise that your own argument means there's no money in piracy anyway.
In other words, you're boasting about a bill that will do bugger all even by your own argument. Not that trolls like you are fond of logical consistency but if that's what cures your boredom keep going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
It's the industry syndrome. They imagine that they have a right to a huge sum of money. When they don't get it, it stands to (their) reason that someone else must have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I demand!
While were at it lets kill Memorex.com, and Kodak.com for making the media used in infringement.
We can block Casio.com for making tools to infringe on music.
Block getfirefox.com it provides tools to access sites dedicated to infringement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I demand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're a dope, pudgy. Watt is on as a co-sponsor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not according to Thomas.
H.R.3261
Latest Title: To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] (introduced 10/26/2011) Cosponsors (12)
Latest Major Action: 10/26/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
COSPONSORS(12), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 10/26/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 10/26/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 10/26/2011
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 10/26/2011
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 10/26/2011
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19] - 10/26/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 10/26/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 10/26/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 10/26/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 10/26/2011
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 10/26/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 10/26/2011
It's entirely possible he co-sponsors later, but you know quite well the failure to get him at launch looks bad for you.
[ 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:
Figures you're into buggery. Must be British or something. And don't you find it creepy that your little icon thingy is a silhouette of Masnick with the left bang haircut? I sure do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep up the good work Mike
I can always tell that you are doing a good job on reporting just how bad this bill would be for America (and the world) based on how many AC trolls come here to say how wrong you and the other commenters are without offering a single shred of proof other than 'trust us' and without actually replying to anything anyone says. All they do is come and hurl insults and dodge questions. This shows me that they feel threatened by the light as they would rather do their dark lit back room deals.
Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. Well, maybe not by the insult throwing trolls who have nothing to say, but again, that just helps prove that you are right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So eventually, once this bill is passed and
Made into a law, the next thing Hollywood will do is make it illegal to talk negatively about a move.
But the reality is, for me anyway, is that Hollywood movies aren't fun to watch. They make my eyes bleed. So I don't watch Hollywood movies anymore.
Have you seen "In The Loop", a British comedy? Hillarious stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cats out of the bag
I'll be calling my CONgressman tomorrow morning to give him a piece of my mind. I suggest the rest of you do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama and his thought police
The US is closer to Iran, China, and other police states than you think. All this because of King Obama. After the internet, Obama is going to want your guns and ammo. He will create a false flag incident to justify his actions.
Obama is a modern Stalin in brown skin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama and his thought police
VS the advancements by the last guy, or the guy before him, or the guy before him or .... you get the idea?
The road of the police state is a long and winding one - and arguments can be made it's been a path travelled for some time.
All this because of King Obama
So then you reject the idea that the guys before him have ANY responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
including?
But what does the word including in the definition mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya know what - let 'em.
Create more regulations.
Then point to the big 'entertainment' firms as the cause and get more people to turn off "TV", stop buying Sony gear, and in others ways turn their backs on the 'professional entertainment'. Spend your money with entertainment that is not tied to RIAA/MPAA and their ilk.
Starve the beast of the RIAA/MPAA by not spending money with whom they serve.
Perhaps take things one step further - stop spending money with the firms/people who support the politicians who vote for the bill. Use technology (on say the smartphone) to remind you before you buy something that the sellers of the item are on the list. We have a list of who gives to the "elected leaders". Databases exist to let you know who works where. Marry them together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there is a Silver Lining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney signed with this bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]