Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
from the do-they-even-know-what-they're-doing? dept
This one is really quite incredible. Among the sponsors of the absolutely dreadful E-PARASITE Act, which imposes massive regulations across the entire internet sector, is Rep. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee. What's odd is that Rep. Blackburn, just a few months ago, went onto YouTube to emphatically explain why regulating the internet was a terrible idea:You're probably watching me on a high speed internet -- the same internet that has given us our competitive advantage. You know it took years for innovators and investors to create the online experience that you enjoy today. It really is the highway for all the goods and services and jobs that we need for the creative economy. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. They're right there at your fingertips because of the internet that we enjoy. But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene. But yet this policy, called Net Neutrality is the Obama administrations hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open free and prosperous.First of all (and I say this as someone who agrees that the administration stretched its mandate with its net neutrality move), what she describes as net neutrality is not what net neutrality is. That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.
Amusingly, this very video is on YouTube, via Rep. Blackburn's official account. If this bill that Blackburn is co-sponsoring was in place as law just a few years ago, it's extremely unlikely we would have YouTube still in existence today. That's because a company -- let's just say "Viacom" -- could decide that YouTube was "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" (under this law -- which includes enabling or facilitating infringement) and could then issue a notice to all payment processors and ad providers, barring YouTube from ever being able to make money. That would have killed YouTube dead. A few years ago. And Blackburn would be stuck.
Instead, Viacom has tried suing, under existing copyright law... and to date the US courts have found that YouTube obeyed the law. And because of that, people like Rep. Blackburn can reach out to her constituents and explain why regulating the internet is bad. But what we can't figure out is, why is she co-sponsoring a bill that actually does massively regulate that same internet?
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: copyright, e-parasite, marsha blackburn, net neutrality, regulating the internet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
illiteracy is a problem
Because, just like the Patriot Act, these people aren't reading what they're signing. She has no idea what the aptly named E-PARASITE bill will do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: illiteracy is a problem
See... it's all about creating jobs. Think of all the new positions this will create for the RIAA and MPAA what with the VP's, assistants, general lackeys, etc needed to run whole divisions just to reject new business ideas. It's a goldmine I tell ya!!!
/now where'd I put my sarc mark...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: illiteracy is a problem
to bad no papers are covering this story.no one but us techies seem to know what is about to happen.all done behind the eyes of the common american.This story needs to be covered by the ny times and other major news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are fully aware that YouTube's original business model depended on infringement.
You are fully aware that their own emails prove it.
You are fully aware that this bill will not shut down YouTube.
Yet day after day, week after week, you pretend you are not aware of these things.
You are a slimy liar, and I'm writing every co-sponsor of this bill to demonstrate to them exactly why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Show them some people, unlike you, have the balls to stand up to bullies!
Start keyboarding, son!
[ 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: Re:
Libertarian does not mean 'aversion to government regulation.' It's about individual liberty. Property rights are ancillary. In a real libertarian society the amount of property you have would not affect how well your rights, property rights or otherwise, would be enforced. So I don't know which so-called 'libertarians' you've been talking to but they're not really meeting the definition of the word if they value property rights over individual liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazing how a simple acronym can be misunderstood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The libertarian belief of labor is one example. Labor is an action. You have to question if the products of that action such as music, movies, etc., require protection as if they're property.
Link I think Kinsella's discussion has it best at the 18 - 20 minute mark. Creation is not sufficient to new property rights. You can work to own a scarcity, but common goods are agreed upon to be given through voluntary contracts for one's self.
I fail to see how libertarians recognize IP laws when they create bureacracies that go against their principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You fail to understand libertarianism - it's mostly about small government with fewer regulations such that a free market can decide who wins and who loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't consider myself a full-on libertarian, but I certainly share many viewpoints with them.
Yet, despite all the differing views, anyone who can say with a straight face that a government handout disguised as a law specifically designed to protect a few legacy corporations against innovative start-ups is libertarian is clearly delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Certainly the free market has winners and losers. A society should make some effort to help the losers. No one succeeds without the labor of others. So when a company gets sold and a couple people at the top make millions and everyone else loses their job are we just suppose to say oh well they are losers?
We need to provide support to those who lose because one person winning is the result of many people losing. Its anarchy to leave the losers to die and not provide public service to help those less fortunate.
A corporation is suppose to make money no matter what. Even with restrictions these corporations do horrible things that benefit themselves and hurt society. Look at Nestle and the fiasco they caused pushing milk formula in 3rd world countries and then pushing still even after they learned of the effects, look at oil companies constantly ignoring regulation and harming their own workers and the world, (not just the recent oil spill, you can look into the pipeline leak in Alaska caused by a faulty valve that wasn't inspected because the phased out the safety inspector position). If you leave companies to do what they want they will make money by fucking people over, and now those fucked over people just get to die by the roadside because you remove any safety net.
/off-topic rant
sorry excuse me
[ 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:
No one succeeds in a bubble they shouldn't be able to act like they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guy creates a new kind of widget and starts a small factory making these widgets. They are hugely successful and he expands his factory. Now without government regulation he is able to be even more successful by paying his workers low wages and allowing them to work in miserable conditions. Soon he dominates the entire widget market and is personally worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Now even though he is paying his workers a pittance and the factory is an OSHA nightmare he finds that he can make even more money by moving the factory overseas. So he closes up shop and puts hundreds of workers out of the job. Hundreds of workers who were not making enough money to have any real long term savings. These people lose their houses and health and die penniless in the street. Because Guy made millions off of their work and fucked them over in the end, and he wasn't required to give any of his "winnings" back to society to help the people whose backs he broke to "win".
This is all ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At any time, the people making the widgets could go on to form their own widgets or making a watchit for a price that the market would bear. By all means, the widgit maker could try to stop them, but if he sabotages the company, he's using violence, not exactly a libertarian ideal. The main things you're ignoring is that libertarians advocate a voluntary contract. When the contract is over, so is the deal. This does not stop other competitors, nor does it stop other competitors from offering better conditions, higher wages, or lower priced products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure you say if conditions are bad and he isn't offering good wages, go work elsewhere. But we have 14 million unemployed currently. With no social safety net can those people be choosy or will they take the job thats offered. Once they get layed off can they hunt around for a good job? No they have to take the next thing thats in front of them, so someone else can profit massively off their work and then leave them high and dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With what investment capital?
"This does not stop other competitors, nor does it stop other competitors from offering better conditions, higher wages, or lower priced products."
It also doesn't stop other competitors from colluding to fix prices within their oligopoly or to use their collective power to keep other competitors out of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're correct that they could use pricing to keep others out of the market, but it would hurt them, possibly causing lower profit margins for themselves. Also, there are companies that could work under a different business structure. I recall a bread making company where the 15-20 employees also own stock in the company, so whatever happens to the employees, it also affects the company. I don't believe the old ways of doing business would greatly affect the marketplace without government competition, I just think the AC is confusing some concepts to try to "dirty" the ideals of libertarianism.
I can't answer every question professed, because if you look at the rules of patent law and copyright law themselves, they greatly limit how people could work. It's costing us jobs and research into new genes, technology, and even new ways to use music and movies, to adapt to what the trade industries want. As I've heard, property rights should only apply to scarce resources. Well, what happens when what was once scarce is no longer so?
So if we think of libertarianism as less governance, it would work that more people would advocate for less copyright as Kinsella does above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not competition. GRRR...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You talk about fair competition among corporations but that isn't what I am discussing. I am more concerned about removing social saftey nets and privatising education. I don't think its possible for one person to be a millionaire with out hundreds of people breaking their back for them and ending up poor. For the haves to just be able to say, thanks I am done with you and throw the people whose work made them what they are to the wolves is not a society I want to live in.
Look at what major american corporations do to make their millions. Nike's child labor; Apple's shameful Korean labor( http://equalmoney.org/2011/05/chinese-ipad-factory-workers-have-to-promise-not-to-commit-suicide/ ); Nestle ( http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/585395/nestles_aggressive_marketing_kills.html ); Coke ( http://killercoke.org/ ). I just don't see how easing regulation is going to make these companies better citizens. These companies are successful, at least in part, because they treat other people horribly.
I know the people all these companies are mistreating, in my examples, are not American's, but if you remove the regulations that don't allow them to treat American's they could be. Even still its an example of how success is built on the "failure" of others. I could dig harder for examples of companies fucking over American's but frankly these examples all come easier. I don't think its that hard for you to figure out a couple on your own.
To say that the winners don't need to give something back to the people who the step on to climb to the top is just Darwinian. Survival of the richest and most conniving.
To say that when you succeed you owe nothing to the society that helped you succeed is ridiculous to me. No man amasses a fortune with out using others. To say that society can use you up and a bad break, a bad boss, or a bad decision can leave destitute is ridiculous to me.
::Anyway thank you everyone who responded. There are a lot of people in life and even some on this board who I respect that say they support libertarnism. I do truly want to see how they can believe that the world would be better off by removing the protections we have put in place for the working poor and people who fall on hard times. I don't think it would take many generations for a libertarian society to turn in to serfs and nobles. If someone can point me in the direction so I can learn how libertarism prevents an extremely powerful abusive ruling wealthy class I would love to read it.::
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cheers and have a good weekend all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LONG reply...
The biggest thing on this is how we have defined them as people in the US. Odds are, if we had businesses as money making services that couldn't run to our government for grievances against people, it would allow them to establish safer principles of work or a ton of innovation by always offering new ways of doing business. In other places, this makes no sense.
Further I would express caution. Saying that corporations would be "evil" under our current cronyist government might not work under a libertarian way of business.
" I don't think its possible for one person to be a millionaire with out hundreds of people breaking their back for them and ending up poor."
It actually is. Have you heard of the CEO of Costco?. He treats his employees well and makes a comfortable living.
Even Andrew Carnegie made his money by treating others around him quite well. I don't necessarily agree with all of his practices, but naming a railway after a supervisor made sure to keep his employees happy. The point is, you can be a millionaire without breaking everyone under you. I would argue that the richest people usually bring a lot of people up in their ride to the top. Hell, look at Warren Buffett. I'm sure that he has a close knit number of friends that he continues to enjoy time with.
For the haves to just be able to say, thanks I am done with you and throw the people whose work made them what they are to the wolves is not a society I want to live in.
Again, I would state that's not a society without its problems as the OWS movement seems to make us aware. No one is against income growth unless it was gained through illicit or scrupulous means. If the financial meltdown showed anything, it's the fact that the US has to restructure how businesses work as well as the relationship of the government to its people and businesses. It can't pick the winners and losers. That's what the market is supposed to decide.
I just don't see how easing regulation is going to make these companies better citizens. These companies are successful, at least in part, because they treat other people horribly.
But what happens if the regulation is usurped by those that are supposed to be regulated? Hence, my belief that there has to be something other than regulation to curb unethical behavior. Hell, look up Tim Geithner and how he orchestrated the economic meltdown and the bailouts. Why do both political parties in power love him? Because he gave tons of money to all banks with no strings attached. By no means would a Libertarian want that type of deal to occur.
Even still its an example of how success is built on the "failure" of others. I could dig harder for examples of companies fucking over American's but frankly these examples all come easier. I don't think its that hard for you to figure out a couple on your own.
No question. Some of the largest companies live to screw over others in the pursuit of profit. But that's because the playing field is beyond uneven. Think about copyright and how it favors large corporations. They can bring about large suits against others and through statutory damages, destroy a single person's life. If copyright weren't there to regulate the market, the market would route around the damage. Judging how people don't like the copyright laws now, that's exactly what's happening. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to control the internet, but there WILL be a lot of opposition to this act. It tries to felonize Justin Bieber and you know his fans are some of the most rabid. It destroys platforms of expression just because they exist.
To say that society can use you up and a bad break, a bad boss, or a bad decision can leave destitute is ridiculous to me.
But I think this ignores all of the actors that make it without screwing over people such as Jim Senegal (CEO of Costco). I wouldn't look at just the financial district or even Walmart without factoring in the people that keep a low profile, treat their employees well and make a conscious effort to maintain a good relationship with the people that work for them. It's like saying Gabe Newell is evil for figuring out how to make money with Steam. Yes, he's successful and he gives back in a number of ways. He does this without needing a government to regulate it.
I do truly want to see how they can believe that the world would be better off by removing the protections we have put in place for the working poor and people who fall on hard times
I would say take away the barriers to growth. Patent law, drug law, copyright law are just a few. Allow those laws that create a societal benefit. And end the idea of corporate welfare, which is what is currently keeping zombified large businesses in the hands of stockholders instead of people.
I just don't see it being a wise move to remove the governments ability to support the people who lose when their loss is what allows others to win.
Okay, but when the regulation is run by those that are regulated, that's where the problems increase ten fold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't. That is why Libertarians also believe in personal responsibility and family obligation.
You have a personal responsibility to save for retirement. You should not be able to retire on the backs of the working class.
You have a personal responsibility to ensure you are healthy and medical bills are covered. If you can't you have family and friends who can help. If that is not sufficient you have charities.
You have a personal responsibility to ensure that you have skills that employers need in order to get a job. No one is responsible for your employment but you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but the working class often doesn't make enough money to retire. So you are saying work till you die? There are tons of low wage employees that companies profit from who will never make enough money to retire on without social security and medicare.
"You have a personal responsibility to ensure you are healthy and medical bills are covered."
Sure but accidents are not something you can ensure against. Some people can't get a full-time job so work two part time jobs that don't offer insurance. If they are struck by a drunk driver they are just fucked. Even people with insurance can have illness that will bankrupt them.
"You have a personal responsibility to ensure that you have skills that employers need in order to get a job. No one is responsible for your employment but you"
Sure but we have 14 million unemployed currently. I doubt all of those people are just unskilled and lazy. For a system to have winners it must have losers. The animal kingdom eats the losers is humanity any better than that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There should be severe consequences for your choices in life.
If you choose to create a society where all people contribute to a common health system made by citizens, administered by citizens and watched by the government I don't see why there should be a problem, only if you choose not to work or contribute to that end and so you should not rip any and I mean let the guy die without assistance, it is harsh, but without the bad there is no incentives to do something about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some people are born poor some people are unlucky. We shouldn't cast them out to the wolves because of this. It's not just a lack personal responsibly that can get you in a bad place in life. Life is tough and I think part of what being human is about is helping others through the tough parts, not condemning them to a life of misery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The safety nets should be build by the people to their own problems and not given to them.
Unions didn't appear from nothing it was a need, now they become parasites but that is another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, but by this very same token, I would think it means you believe in corporate welfare.
This comes in the form of bailouts for businesses, the bank wanting people to grow cheese or corn for biofuels and a number of other methods to help businesses gain sustenance.
[ 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:
From wiki.
From my understanding libertarians want little to no regulation on businesses and the market. Are you saying that the companies that abuse and circumvent current regulation would act better if there were no regulations? Sure some regulations are twisted to give companies an unfair advantage but if you allowed them to do whatever they want to the environment and their workers do you think that would turn out better for the lower classes and the planet or better for the owners at the detriment of the first two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An Open Market (the one the U.S. is supposed to have) requires that some people loose money drastically every once in a while because some one else think of a better way. Extending copyright/trademarks/patents only does damage to those who wish break into the market as almost everything is just a rehash of something else with some tweaks to make it a better/worse user experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not true. Separating out trademarks (which are very different than copyrights & patents in scope and purpose), it damages society at large by eliminating the very concept of a common culture. It also represents fraud, as copyrights and patents were a two-way deal: a temporary artificial monopoly in exchange for the public at large gaining ownership when it ends. If it never ends, or if the term is unconscionable (my opinion is that any term that extends beyond the life of the creator qualifies), then the deal has been broken and it becomes fraud. Or, in the inaccurate parlance of our times, theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A true Constitutional Copyright is one that expires while the artist still has time to create more. The idea behind an expiration on a copyright is that the creator has a time when they can expect to lose their residual income and must create more in order to keep that income.
In exchange for the window of opportunity, the public gets complete control of the work after the expiration.
Under our current copyright, that whole system is thrown out the window.
On the patent front, a Libertarian version would probably not change much, but there would be regular reviews to determine if progress is being promoted in the sciences, which it clearly is not. So changes would be made.
That is my take anyway.
[ 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:
Whatever, I'm pirate partisan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Dear Representative,
The following list is a list of reasons why Mike Masnick sucks:"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
+1 funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amusing and ironic isn't it?
Youtube's original business depended on what the MAFIAA THINKS that it is infringement. The MAFIAA doesn't even consider fair use so a fairly lot of so called infringements are fair use.
Check http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=134990 and search for Lady Gaga. It's a takedown notice for a music video. Very infringing. The creator of the video must be one of these filthy criminals that rape little children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have emails that say they are aware infringement exists on the system and there is really nothing they can do about. That is not really the same thing as needing it to exist to be successful is it? They just realized it was inevitable and there is no way for them to monitor and check the ridiculous amount of uploaded footage that gets submitted every hour.
"You are fully aware that this bill will not shut down YouTube."
I could very well be used to shut down other up and coming websites. The Viacom lawsuit proved that these companies are not above uploading their own content and then reporting the website for having their content. This act will give huge companies another way to legally stifle competition. If a business that does not really on infringement gets accused of infringement and they don't have money and/or time to defend themselves and get their domain back they are just done.
"You are a slimy liar"
funny since you lie about the youtube thing. Well i guess you only greatly misconstue and exaggerate it. My question is are you blind do the damage this bill can cause or do you not care because you will benefit so fuck everyone but you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So why are *you* lying?
Are all of Masnick's crotch-sniffers liars?
Educated guess: most certainly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You said youtube "depended on infringement." While the emails simply say they are aware infringement exists and don't know how to stop it. There is a difference between depending on something and being aware of something. You know you are misconstruing the nature of the emails, which is tantamount to lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There, fixed that for you to reflect the real issue and a college education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Passing a law that will have minimal effects on piracy for a short period of time while granting all kinds of new power to the government and those that have the largest piles of money for ever is not an equal or worthy trade-off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
J.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder when certain ACs will actually have information to back up the claims that piracy is causing damage to the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I sure as hell wouldn't pay $800 for Rosetta Stone. So why should someone else pay for overpriced software, music, or games?
[ 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:
> amount of money the product the pirated was
> worth
Actually, that would help the economy, because by taking those dollars out of circulation, it would make everyone else's dollars more valuable, if only by a tiny bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, for the sake of argument, lets say that you are correct. Are you honestly saying that society would be better off without a Youtube? You would prefer that it doesn't exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think they what really want is for YouTube to be subjected to MPAA/RIAA style accounting and have to pay them at a rate of 234% of total YouTube/Google profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT.... will this bill shut down the next 'YouTube' before it can even be started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything a corporation does that harms an individual is fine - the free market will fix that.
But anything an individual does that harms a corporation must be made illegal.
She's not protecting the internet. She's protecting the corporations that provide access to the internet.
I see many high paying corporate jobs for her after her political career is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, if you're talking about Youtube (because it's owned by Big Search) then it's the people that upload the videos, which may or may not be infringing - Youtube can't tell, only the copyright owner can tell. And Youtube never promised the uploader that it would share revenue (well it didn't used to) unlike the record label contract.
The question isn't whether there's infringing content on Youtube (obviously there is) but whether it's worth the effort to fight it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Big Search can tell. They've got fingerprinting algorithms that could easily block infringing content that's uploaded repeatedly. But they won't use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think there is some magic bullet to stop infringement and the evil google is just refusing to use it? If so you are more delusional then i thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> fingerprinting algorithms that could
> easily block infringing content
One would think that if that technology actually exists and is as foolproof as you claim it is, that it would be employed by the countless court cases where parties spend years fighting over what's infringing and what isn't. All the court would have to do is run the algorithm and rule according to whatever it spits out. No?
Otherwise, you're left in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why YouTube is supposed to be able to tell infringement at a glance, when it takes actual litigants, teams of experts and the entire federal judiciary years to come up the answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bob, quit being an idiot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what happens when the copyright holder uploads their own content? Does it block that too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> only shows people where stuff is on the
> internet. They don't have the stuff themselves.
> It's the websites with the stuff that is the
> problem, not the search engine.
Exactly. This idea that search engines are responsible for the content of the internet is idiotic.
It's like holding Rand McNally responsible for illegal drug sales in L.A. because they made a map that shows people how to get to Inglewood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought it was Big Business & Big Government against everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Big Oil
Big Content
Big Pharma
Big Government
Big Mac
I guess I can see where Google's dominance could earn them the monniker, but then again, the title is starting to lose it's meaning to me. The fact that any goof can add Big to the front of something to try and worry me is the kind of FUD that caused me to lose respect for FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net neutrality doesn't mean a freedom from legal implications of your actions. It's a pipe dream to think that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody here is asking for freedom from legal implications. All they want is for the law not to become a burden on legitimate businesses and to not put those businesses at risk of being shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court System
Sadly, your friendly local oligarchy police/nanny state WILL violently enforce aforementioned silly semantics upon you.
Thus, it becomes important to your healthy life & limb to be concerned over silly semantics.
(See how easy that was? Reasoning, it work!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think that is regulating the internet - I just think that is applying the laws as they should have been a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Leeches like NBC Universal, who consistently try and claim copyright on facts?
Leeches like the RIAA, whose sole method of profit is cooking the books by a different name?
Suuuure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
reg·u·late
verb /ˈregyəˌlāt/
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations
- the organization that regulates fishing in the region
How is it possible to stop criminal acts (even if one assumes it will which is very much in doubt) without "control or supervision?" How is it possible to make it harder for any entity to profit from the US market or violate copyright as part of their business plan while operating in or market to the US surfer without "control or supervision?"
Apply laws is regulation. That's what the word means. And if this were just about applying laws that current exist in ways they had not been before it would be a simple mater to change the enforcement policy, no new law would be required. This is about a change in the law, this is about taking things as they are now and not only changing what they are but changing the way we change them. It's absolutely not applying existing law to a new situation, that's already been done. We wouldn't need a new law for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
[* Hedge on Net Neutrality: That's as I more or less see it from press coverage the FCC did right there, or might have. But it's certainly as R-style politicians view any attempt to regulate.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
If we had more competition in broadband instead of AT&T versus TWC for their duopoly, they wouldn't NEED to be regulated. If someone doesn't like them, there would be other competitors. The market would regulate itself.
That won't happen because the FCC is confused on how to regulate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Just curious, when has this ever happened? I hear this sentiment a lot, but have never seen an example of it working.
What I have seen is that every time a market is deregulated, whether there's a lot of competition or not, two things happen: the market consolidates to a few big players, those players engage in terrible abuses of the public.
I'm not trolling here, I honestly would love to see examples of deregulation resulting in something better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Deregulation is not the same thing as a free-market. The word, by its very nature, implies moving from regulation to not regulation. This is not a free market movement since in a free market it would never happen. Furthermore the common political usage of 'deregulation' is actually for scenarios of regulatory capture more often than not. Rarely does it actually mean a movement toward actually freer markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Let's take the context of broadband. With the FCC regulating, they're enforcing laws that support a duopoly. If the market were actually competitive, most people would be using the lines as a common resource, offering broadband at cheaper prices because they can compete with AT&T's pricing and national influence. This keeps regulation in check because if AT&T started trying to spy on people, they could, but people would move to smaller channels or other national channels that wouldn't want those type of deals.
If you notice, the deregulation is a misnomer which allows for strict rules on newcomers while the ones near the top gain added benefits. Whether that's tax loopholes, choice of competitors or what have you, it's not actual "deregulation" where the government stops trying to enforce laws. They just pick who to stop regulating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
You think that Big Search, Big Hardware, and Big Piracy are just a bunch of down-on-their-luck tent dwellers? Nope. They're multi-billion dollar companies filled with 1%ers and they desperately want to keep the revenue flowing to their pockets. They have no intention of sharing anything but a few crumbs with the 99%ers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Given Big Media's track record (suing grandmothers for downloading rap songs, suing printers for sharing music, putting promotional websites for artists on "rogue website" lists, etc), I'd say that Mike is right.
Copyright used to be between companies, but in the last decade or so, RIAA MPAA and the likes have brought that fight to the public's doorstep. Essentially saying: "all our customers are potential infringers, we must squash that by criminalizing 100% of the population" and the politicians have bought that fucking crap. Hook, line and sinker.
BTW, you anonymous cowards are really flailing your arms lately. What is it? Haven't met your troll-quota for the month yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Did you have to radio in to HQ for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh...
Perhaps we should consider a way for long-standing users to temp-ban AC's from posting or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh...
You need to address them directly to resolve the issue. It won't go away otherwise. The regular AC crowd isn't off the charts, just the collection of turkeys trying to play "troll the people I disagree with".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone else noticed lately...
Nah, probably just a coincidence, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
If these guys didn't do their job properly, they'd be out of a job ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
If you can attack the argument, feel free. But spouting off about the problems of this bill, where the elements such as the Congress' past thoughts on this bill, the bill itself, and the economic effects are indeed relevant to the conversation. Shooting the messenger because he points out these problems is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
What I don't get is that you wrote that, ignoring completely that this post about Rep. Blackburn is nothing more than a hit piece, designed to try to attack the Representative on a personal level. It doesn't address the content of the bill, it attacks her record.
Isn't that the ultimate in shooting the messenger, rather than addressing the issues?
"Trolling, as used in this case, is to show an action. This makes the context "to troll", a verb. It means you can go elsewhere for the ad hom attacks that add nothing to the conversation. Further, you have used a baseless attack merely to launch into a derogatory statement on others (namely Mike). So while I have not called you a troll, your actions speak otherwise."
All this to name call me. Do you write this stuff with a straight face? It's clear that you are unable to even follow your own guidelines.
As for Mike's actions, I will let his posts speak for him. This is the second hit piece on a bill sponsor, and that pretty much shows that he is no longer debating issues, and rather has sunk down to the muck slinging level of politics that he purports to dislike.
I am amazed that you can't seem to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
When you attack someone's voting record or public statements on related or even unrelated issues, you are not longer discussing the bill at hand. You are trying to discredit the person sponsoring the bill, rather than debating it's content.
That is a personal attack.
Now, it may be "par for the course" in American politics, but it is still sort of silly. It stops the debate about the issue at hand, and shifts the debate to the person proposing the law. That makes it personal, and that is never very good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
They can't innovate, so they legislate. And the fact that you don't see that as a problem is...saddening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
... Where she advocates from injunctive relief by using Youtube for her message. And yet her platform (in this case, Youtube) would be taken away based on the bill she's sponsoring. I guess the hypocrisy of her stance is lost on you in your attack on Mike. Funny, I don't see Mike going to the lengths of political pundits in saying she's a "hippie, no good dirty Republican, who likes her guitar from the South." I see he wrote explicitly she doesn't understand what she's co-sponsoring:
That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.
All this to name call me. Do you write this stuff with a straight face? It's clear that you are unable to even follow your own guidelines.
Obviously, actions speak louder than words. It seems you've denigrated yourself to trying for attacks on others. Try harder to keep up with the argument.
This is the second hit piece on a bill sponsor, and that pretty much shows that he is no longer debating issues, and rather has sunk down to the muck slinging level of politics that he purports to dislike.
I'd probably say it's more muckraking since you've yet to answer why you use personal attacks. How she can argue for one regulatory process over another is quite unclear. That reeks of hypocrisy. How or why you fail to see that is entirely up to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
> nothing more than a hit piece,
> designed to try to attack the
> Representative on a personal level
How in the hell is criticizing a politician for taking two diametrically opposed positions on a legislative issue up for public debate, a personal attack?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
> it attacks her record.
You apparently have a different definition of "personal attack" than the rest of the English-speaking world.
Exmining, commenting on, and criticizing a politician's public voting record is not only NOT a personal attack, it's an expected and necessary part of the democratic process. The Founders even enshrined it in the Bill of Rights as one of the basic guaranteed rights of the people vis a vis their government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Criticizing an elected official by pointing out that their policies and voting records are hypocritical is not a personal attack.
You're the one trying to do spin, but anyone with a few brain cells can easily see through it. You seriously suck at your job.
See, that last line was a personal attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
It is. Mike is attacking the person's credibility, and attempting to sling mud on them. He did the same for another Bill sponsor yesterday. It's not about debating the merits of the act, but rather to try to drown out the discussion with non-productive muck.
Mike's comments add nothing to the debate about the content of the bill, but do clearly go to attack the bill sponsor. If you cannot see that this is an attack, well, I feel sorry for you.
With all of these hit pieces, don't you think Mike is trying very hard to spin this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
But it is. She's supporting a bill that enacts something she was clearly, previously, outspoken against. It absolutely brings the credibility bill into question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
So yeah, you, Masnick and any other fool that tries to say so are demonstrably wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
If a politician's record indicates a lack of credibility, that's a perfectly valid criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Umm. Pointing out how a politician's rhetoric changes depending on which way the greenbacks are currently blowing isn't a personal level attack.
On the other hand, calling someone "pudgy", "slimy", "pasty-faced", "Chubby" or "a liar" are prime examples of personal level attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Yup, and you can take that up with whoever is doing it. I am not.
I will say that suggesting a politician is bought off, or is flip flopping, or is somehow lying seems somewhat like a personal attack - an attack on their crediblity and their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
1. Government loans money to banks at 0% interest.
2. Banks loan money back to government at low interest.
3. ???? WTF? WTFF-F??!! What the fucking fuck-fuck!!?!!!
4. Profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
We have a democratically elected government, of the people, by the people, for the people.
Our beacon of goodness shines as an example for the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Yes, suggesting pay-offs and accusing of lying are personal attacks.
The part about flip-flopping, however, is not. It is simply pointing out their hypocrisy on different issues and is only an attack on their job performance as an elected representative of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
> bought off, or is flip flopping, or is
> somehow lying seems somewhat like a
> personal attack - an attack on their
> crediblity and their actions.
Jesus Christ, are you seriously suggesting that it's inappropriate to point out when elected officials say one thing and do another? Or make a campaign promise and then break it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
You seriously don't think that calling out an elected "Representative" for doing a complete about face on an issue is something more than a personal attack?
That kind of insight and understanding is why people consider the post to be trolling, it is hard to believe someone could be that dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Masnick is frightened that the free lunch is about to stop, and he can't seem to control himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Maybe some of us think this proposed law is truly an abomination.
Of course, ACs can slag off anything or anyone without damage to their reputations. Classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a)keep him quiet
b)make sure he paid the bill
c)needed some more campaign funds
d)had forgotten about the youtube video
e)hoped everyone else had forgotten about it/hadn't seen it
f)been threatened with copyright infringement for that video unless she backed the Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
But on topic: Mike writes: "Amusingly, this very video is on YouTube, via Rep. Blackburn's official account. If this bill that Blackburn is co-sponsoring was in place as law just a few years ago, it's extremely unlikely we would have YouTube still in existence today."
Mike tacitly admits that Youtube primarily relies on ripping off copyrighted content, not original works, else how would they be affected? As for a comment above that Youtube couldn't possibly check all the content pouring in: that's a basic flaw with Youtube's premise, NOT with copyright as such. If a "business model" relies on hosting infringing content, then that business should NOT be allowed. Shouldn't need a "safe harbor" when the most casual glance shows that it's a pirate boat, Jolly Roger flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
Perhaps you should actually try taking a casual glance sometime. The majority of videos on youtube has little to nothing to do with copyrighted content from the media corps. Hell, I'd call most of it mindless dribble that isn't even worth the server space, but yet that doesn't stop people from posting their stupidity for the world to see. It's a still a free country, so I don't see why people like you shouldn't be free to dribble whatever they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
http://www.youtube.com/user/shevinho111
Do you think this guy has all the copyright clearance required to post this stuff?
http://www.youtube.com/user/RakyMaky
Do you think he pays MPAA fees for this stuff?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfcNoMnKjrY&feature=aso
Do you think this guy licensed the music?
I could go on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
But what about the other 10 million YouTube users who are not? Why should their speech be blotted out from the internet because of a few people in the minority are infringing?
That was the crux of the Betamax case in the 70s. While the technology can be used for infringement, the fact that it can also be used for noninfringing uses makes it unfathomable to outlaw it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
Infringement is no doubt one of the problems a service such as YouTube must deal with, but the problem of having to "check all the content pouring in" is not a flaw in "YouTube's premise" any more than it's a flaw in the premise of a free society for some of its members to abuse those freedoms. Are you the sort of person who would destroy free society as a means of preventing abuse?
YouTube's business model does not rely on hosting infringing content. YouTube should be allowed.
Safe harbors were never meant for pirates in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".
He admits no such thing, tacitly or otherwise. YouTube would be affected because the bill allows for private action against it (and everyone else) based on nothing more than the say-so of the complainer. Do you really thing that corporations and people will only act on that power in good faith?
Without a safe harbor, it becomes effectively impossible to allow any user-generated content unless your service has very few people using it. It kills an enormous part of what makes the internet useful, not just for entertainment but for serious uses.
If copyright and user-generated content really can't coexist (and I think they can), then I vote to get rid of copyright. Copyright does not embody any natural right that I can see, and they way it is being used these days it is actively working against things which are of enormous value.
The problem with this bill has nothing to do with infringement. It has everything to do with freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In perspective...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason
> co-sponsoring a bill that actually does
> massively regulate that same internet?
Easy. The envelope full of cash hadn't arrived yet when she made the first video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only after politicians get elected or after they are in a position to support that which they were previously against will they support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and they don't want IP, or its enforcement, expanded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:20pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:20pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marsha Hates Freedom?
BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marsha Hates Freedom?
She voted for that bloatware? Holy fuck! Get rid of her ASAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hero of the stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S.978
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Writing to Rep Blackburn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep gov out of the web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]