US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
from the not-the-case,-steve-o dept
Steve Tepp is the US Chamber of Commerce's (the world's largest lobbying group) point man on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. His latest move is to try attacking anyone who points out the problems of E-PARASITE/SOPA. First up? Demand Progress, who dared to call it a "blacklist bill." According to Tepp, it's not a blacklist bill, because the lobbyists who wrote the bill (potentially including Tepp himself) were smart enough not to write "list" in the text of the bill.Of course the bill doesn't actually say that there's a list. Just as the Chinese Great Firewall doesn't actually involve the government "listing" sites, but merely threatens ISPs with liability if they let bad sites through, E-PARASITE massively broadens the definitions of what's "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" such that it now includes, more or less, the entire internet, and threatens sites with the equivalent of internet death: blocking from search engines, blocking from DNS (and more!), cutting off any funding sources. No, there's no "blacklist," there's just the threat of cutting off just about any internet site. On top of that, there's an awkwardly worded attempt to force every site to proactively monitor any infringement. Is that why the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't allow comments on its site? Or is it because it knows that no one actually believes the crap it shovels?
But Tepp's intellectual dishonesty is worse than just pretending that without the word "list" there's no actual blacklist. No, the really cheap move is to imply that only the "anti-IP crowd" is against this bill. This is the latest strategy of those who wish to massively regulate the internet so that it looks more like TV -- a broadcast medium, rather than a communications medium. They refer to anyone who points out the massive negative consequences of their legislative nastiness as being "anti-IP." You've seen it in Techdirt's comments for the past few weeks, with certain anonymous commenters throwing hissy fits about how I'm actually "pro-piracy," when I'm anything but. If you don't think this is part of the coordinated marketing campaign by the largest lobbying organization in the world, you're not paying attention.
So, Steve, let's be clear: being against this bill is not about being "anti-IP." It's about being pro-innovation, pro-internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits of an open internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits to the American (and world) economy that were created from an open internet that didn't involve misplaced third party liability.
The concerns of those about this bill have nothing to do with intellectual property and whether it's good or bad. It's about the collateral damage that such a vast change to the legal and technical framework that the internet has been based on for years will cause.
To brush those concerns away as being "the anti-IP crowd," is to show ignorance of what's at stake.
What we don't understand, Steve, is why you would seek to shut down the open internet, killing off more jobs than ever existed in the entertainment industry. We thought the US Chamber of Commerce was supposed to support small businesses. Instead, you're seeking to make any internet business nearly impossible, unless they've already hired a dozen lawyers. I guess if your goal is for full employment for trial lawyers, you're making headway. But, seriously, if you can't debate this subject honestly, don't be surprised when the next generation of businesses dumps the US CoC. Pro tip: pissing off every company of the next generation that might support your bloated organization is no way to build for the future. And don't think jobs "in the industry" will be waiting for you. Without the next generation of great startups that you're trying to kill off, the big content companies who pay your salary these days, won't have the new platforms they need to succeed.
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: anti-ip, attacks, blacklist, e-parasite, sopa, steve tepp
Companies: demand progress, us chamber of commerce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ 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 ]
Over reach much there Mike?
Halloween was yesterday, you can stop with the artificial scare tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not artificial scare, many of us are genuinely worried with the developments of the politics in the US because they STILL weight far too much on the rest of the world (and many are also Americans worried about their future). Whether or not I'll miss them when they fall is a topic for another round of flaming in TD comments.
The fact that the AC above, US CoC and the MAFIAA can't (or doesn't want to) see how bad this bill is and keep bashing the ones voicing their worries cannot be dismissed as easily.
As for the reasoning behind my joke (which goes beyond this AC and reaches the absurdity of the law itself), well, read a bit, check the bill itself and you MAY find reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, I've noticed something with the recent influx of ACs twirling around these here parts. Going through the threads from yesterday and last week about this bill, I note a complete lack of cohesive arguments and citations. What I've seen in their stead is a steady stream of insults (chubby? On the internet? WTF???!), blanket statements of un-cited contradiction (like here), and hints of some kind of connection to either Washington or industry (I heard you were a flop, mike, blah blah blah).
So, here's the thing. I want a real debate. I want the other side to show me where Mike, myself, and others might be wrong. But you're not doing it. All you're doing is walking up to a group of people discussing something, pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around, and then telling THEM that they're stupid. Stop that.
Give me something I can read. Something to cling to on the other side. Something to make me think.
Give me something NEW, for Christ's sake. This same "no, mike", "you're overreaching mike", "everyone but me is a freetard raporist communistic-fascist" makes me want to entrench my position on this side of the fence, because the other side appears to be filled with heavily retarded orangutans too busy playing with themselves to do the work required to have an actual discussion. It's like you've left remedial physical education to interrupt my AP class. I want you to be better.
Can you be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
I'm sorry, but I don't believe this. Not globally at least. There is room to have a debate here. I tend to trust Techdirt's analysis, but that doesn't mean there aren't well-intentioned folks on the other side of the debate that truly have their non-nefarious reasons for promoting this bill. I would hope to speak with a few of them, so I can understand their point of view. Not everyone is a troll or a shill, just like not every fan of this site is a piratey raporist.
Honestly, if I was only interested in one side winning the debate, I'd just let these people continue on their course, because they're actually hurting their own cause, at least in a populist sense. But I'm not interested in winning. I'm interested in learning, particularly as an author.
That's why I posted what I did. I find the discourse, or lack of it, at Techdirt lately to be a sad thing, in need of a jumpstart, preferably something organic from within the community. Maybe I'm just getting older, and lord knows I like to joke around a lot, but I kind of want everyone to grow up a little and actually talk about this stuff....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now there probably are people who see this bill and what the sponsors say and think the bill is a good thing. There might be hope in reaching those people but there is no hope of reaching the sponsors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what I meant. I couldn't care less about the sponsors of the bill, because I don't consider them anything more than the sock-puppets they are. I'm more concerned on where the real power lies: the citizenry. Congress can pass all the bullshit they want, but reach the people and you'll have power. That's why I want the debate with the PEOPLE supporting this bill, not sponsoring it. I want to understand what they're thinking and see if I/we can explain our point of view as well, preferably in a reasoned manner w/o all the name-calling nonsense.
Plus, you never know, my side could be wrong and I might learn something new....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am with you on that. I stand by my beliefs but I am always open to debate and will change my mind if I am convinced to do so.
[ 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:
1) they somehow benefit financially from it (or believe they do) or
2) they voted for someone who supports this bill and blindly follow them to the end of the earth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has to start from the top. Look at the trend on Techdirt in the last 10 days. So many stories trying to fear monger about PROTECT IP and SOPA legislation. Personal attacks against the sponsors and supporters of the bills. Political mud slinging, Mike Masnick playing lobbyist in Washington, and so on. The crap starts at the top and rolls downhill.
You have to understand too that, while the debate here is nice and all, it mostly involves people who are just not really involved on a business level with the content, one side or the other. We don't have pirate site owners posting, we don't have anyone from the record labels posting (they all got chanced away years ago), and we don't have very many artists hanging around. This is a technical debate where a bunch of geeks like yourself (and myself for that matter) get together to push bits around.
If you want the level of discourse to go up, attract a better crowd. It doesn't happen by insulting people, it doesn't happen by flaming people you don't agree with just because they don't toe the company line. Anyone who disagrees should be engaged and the discussion should follow, with a flow of ideas, not a closing of doors.
We can all learn something, but recently all we are learning is how to slam those doors hard - and it comes from the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep coming back to this. I'm wondering why? I asked for a debate, which is happening elsewhere in the thread, but you simply seem to want to heap blame on Techdirt at every pass. I don't care about the past in this thread. Let's have the debate NOW.
"You have to understand too that, while the debate here is nice and all, it mostly involves people who are just not really involved on a business level with the content, one side or the other."
That's simply not true. We're all consumers of content and many of us, myself included, are or have in the past been CUSTOMERS of content. That's puts us squarely involved in the business side of things, arguably as the most important faction of the debate. The customers ultimately will have the say in, well, everything.
"We don't have pirate site owners posting, we don't have anyone from the record labels posting (they all got chanced away years ago), and we don't have very many artists hanging around."
That may or may not be true as a matter of degree. If it's true, it's truly unfortunate. I'd love to have industry folks posting here. Actually, interviews with industry folks would be REALLY cool. Maybe both sides should reach out to each other. It's actually a fantastic suggestion, so thanks.
"If you want the level of discourse to go up, attract a better crowd. It doesn't happen by insulting people, it doesn't happen by flaming people you don't agree with just because they don't toe the company line. Anyone who disagrees should be engaged and the discussion should follow, with a flow of ideas, not a closing of doors."
Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Some folks are rude here, on both sides of the debate obviously. Plenty of folks like me, in fact I'd say the majority of the community here, appreciate divergent viewpoints. All are welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We're all consumers of content and many of us, myself included, are or have in the past been CUSTOMERS of content. That's puts us squarely involved in the business side of things, arguably as the most important faction of the debate. The customers ultimately will have the say in, well, everything."
To an extent. Consumers have the ultimate choice to buy or not buy, but they have limited direct powers to dictate if a company should operate at a loss. The companies have the ultimate choice to invest in content or not, and to be in a market place or not. Consumers cannot dictate past the bottom line. They have a say, directly or indirectly, but without bottom line justification, the consumer has nothing to say on.
"hat may or may not be true as a matter of degree. If it's true, it's truly unfortunate. I'd love to have industry folks posting here. Actually, interviews with industry folks would be REALLY cool. Maybe both sides should reach out to each other. It's actually a fantastic suggestion, so thanks."
That starts with not trying to shout down the opposition. We don't agree, but we can be civil, and perhaps learn something from each other. Sad to say, the tone of many posts here that pretty much tag the existing industry players backwards and out of touch often come with a tone that makes it less desirable for them.
Nobody has all the right answers, not even Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I think we can all agree on that. And hopefully threads like this become more common, because I think it was a pretty good, honest, and productive discussion, even if everyone kind of stuck to their guns and came out where they began. At least everyone appeared to want to deal with substance rather than personal jabs.
Other than ootb, of course, but I didn't really expect any better....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> supporters of the bills.
Pointing out when a politician says one thing and does another in their official capacity on a matter pulic policy is not a 'personal attack' under the commonly accepted definition of the term in the English language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Essentially, we have people going on about what the bill *MIGHT* do, but only what it might do for people who make their livings off of running content without knowing the source.
I mean, how do you counter the "this will break the internet"? It is an argument that is far reaching, but as exact and precise as mush in a blender. It isn't an argument, it's just a scary phrase that seems to get trotted out every time someone even suggests that site operators might actually be responsible for the content they profit from.
It's particular hard to argue when people consider all the misuse of IP going on as normal. There is no way in the past we would have tolerated magazines with nothing but stolen images in it, yet we are suppose to look at something like Youtube and consider it to be somehow immune to responsiblity for the very content it seeks to profit from.
It's hard to argue when people are willing to tolerate the "legal head of a pin" arguments, where sites that support, promote, talk about, link to, and even review pirated material get a pass because they don't happen to be hosting the content on their own domain, and rather upload it to a "file host" which itself ends up being legally immune for the content, all the while charging people to access it. Understanding that an entire generation seems to think this is a perfectly legal and sane way to operate means that any argument made is going to go against that basic thought process.
Further, it's not hard to understand Mike's incredible hype and over reaching comments here. His business models, his ideal, the very things he pushes for (and for that matter that define his online persona) are under attack. Lose the infinite marketplace, make piracy a bit player instead of a primary around, make it so people actually (eek!) pay for the content they want, and his entire raison d'etre are lost.
That Mike is apparently in Washington banging doors doesn't help, because it has clearly moved this blog from being one of opinion, to one of a barely disguised PAC or lobbyist firm. Just as it is hard to argue some of the crap that comes from the MPAA side of the discussion, it is equally hard to argue the crap that has come out here in the last 7 days or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First off, this point is quite easy to refute. Copyright law already provides for notice and take down which Google/YouTube and most any other site honors as the risk is to great not to. Copyright holders are the only ones who know what content infringes, websites do not. Look at EMI who sent a bunch of take downs on their own content so even content holders apparently don't always know.
You can see from many of the news stories posted here that the major labels, studios and publishers do not see any use as fair use yet copyright law clearly provides for fair use. With private right to action, any site could be blocked for little reason at all. Just look at the video of the baby dancing to a Prince song in the background being taken down. Due to public outcry they allowed the video to be put back up. This should clearly be fair use. Would you really want an entire website blocked by just one person making a questionable complaint?
Third party liability is a dangerous path to go down. Forcing website operators to be the private police force for content creators is going to fail badly. It is highly questionable if YouTube could even exist as the liability placed on them would be astounding. Something like 48 hrs of video is uploaded every minute. Do you really see any kind of content filter being able to stop even 50% of infringing videos? YouTube would be sued and or blocked in short order and that would be a detriment to society. Yes, there are a lot of trivial videos on there nobody would miss, but there is a lot of excellent content that would be lost. Also, if we allow 3rd party liability to start here, where will it go next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what about foreign websites that ignore notice and takedown. Ever think The Pirate Bay got one? Then what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy to refute. TPB is just like Google. They host no content themselves. You should really look into what a Magnet link does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy to refute. TPB is just like Google. They host no content themselves. You should really look into what a Magnet link does.
Right. Like a Google that specializes in copyrighted content. Nice dodge, though. So how do you stop a foreign infringing site that ignores notice and takedown Jay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even simpler.
Learn to base your business around what consumers demand instead of looking at everything as a lost sale. Make products and services that people want or try to sell an authorized version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jay, this is why this bill is going to be passed overwhelmingly. You dipshits continue to condone illegal behavior by foreign actors and then blame the US victims. This is the core problem with the professional apologists groups like CDT and EFF (which receive millions from Google) they pose no meaningful alternatives. A smart way to have opposed this bill would have been to pose alternatives. Saying "do nothing" and cobbling up weak due process and specious free speech arguments to provide air cover for your position reduce your side to laughingstocks. Better luck next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To quote an A/C above (I notice you did not bother to respond to their very valid point.):The United Stated DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have jurisdiction over the whole of the internet, learn to compete or don't, but that kind of reasoning gets you nowhere.
Also, FYI the term "rogue sites" means absolutely nothing as there is no consensus on what one is and just using the term detracts from your credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
So, let's take this global, shall we? Has copyright enforcement helped out in Brazil? No, it has not. You can buy quickly copied games for $100 USD. Also, as is part of the testimony from a Brazilian on an American show, you find out that how they play games is to share them amongst friends. Meaning the industry doesn't make more money, it loses to piracy because it's not serving customers.
Now, as I've told you countless times, you should look into the Media Piracy book. And yet you continue on your rant about how piracy is killing the economy. With nothing more than faith based economics. That continue not to work.
There's plenty of anecdotal and provable research to show you that piracy does a lot more than enforcement.
Michael D Smith - Channels & Conflict: Response to Digital Media Distribution, Impact on Sales and Internet Piracy
Summary - Piracy is the industry's fault for taking away legal alternatives.
Fox Piracy
Summary - Piracy is the industry's fault for taking away legal alternatives.
Envisional report
Summary - Piracy is the industry's own fault for not providing legal alternatives
Valve Software
Summary - Provide legal alternatives, continue to adapt, find out what customers want and they'll spend money on your successful experiments.
Open Rights Group
Summary - Lack of availability leads to infringement
CCIA and their Fair Use Report
Summary - Fair Use trumps copyright enforcement and leads to more money circulating.
And I could go on and on and on and on and on but you get the point. You have NOTHING to back you up. You've done no research but expect people to believe you because "herp a derp, I don't know how digital works" The alternative is that the MPAA and RIAA put their nose to the grindstone, stop suing people and making alternatives to piracy. Make alternatives to what is free. Make new services that rival what a pirate can do. Make new services and products that don't rely on copyright law to take away someone's civil rights. Make stuff that entice people to buy. That's always been the central theme. And from the looks of it, artists of all types have been doing just that. The MPAA and RIAA are about to become irrelevant if they don't change course. They can lock up a few spots of culture now, but it won't last.
So laugh all you want. You have the information in this post that says that you're woefully inaccurate in believing that enforcement will save the day. It will not. What will is offering something better, which is again something you don't understand how to do. That's not my problem.
Now if you'll excuse me, Valve has another sale on games that has me spending $5 for 5 games this week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's really remarkable that he is told how to do something to prevent infringement (serve customers through legitimate channels), reads that as "do nothing to prevent infringement" and thinks he's getting it. I agree with DH about the desire for a good debate, but how do you get through to these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect. If you don't have a license for it, and the material is copyright, you are infringing. A 6 year old can figure that out. The "notice and take down" was never intended to free site operators from the regular obligations of copyright law, it was only intended as a method to get quick redress without having to engage the entire legal system to do it. Instead, it has been taken as a free pass, an open license to use anything, any time, in any method, and then just respond to the take down notice if and when it comes.
"Third party liability is a dangerous path to go down. Forcing website operators to be the private police force for content creators is going to fail badly."
Sadly, because so many websites try to hide out as "third party providers" rather than 1st party publishing firms, they have put themselves in this situation. The perfect tried of non-responsiblity has created the need to regulate. Websites don't host the content, they let "file hosts" do it for them, meaning the website has no apparently liablity for the content because it isn't "on their site" even if it is integrated into editorial material, blogs, etc. The file host is "third party" so not liable for what is stored on their site, and the source of the material (the uploader) isn't tracked or identified, so they have no liablity - and third party sites are often very aggressive about blocking access to their logs.
The result? Everyone claiming third party standing, while running the content for profit, selling access to it for profit, and so on. For rights holders, well, they are told to pound sand and write up DMCA notices for the exact URL of the offending material, which is replaced within seconds ont he same service under a new URL turning it into a game of whack a mole. Meanwhile, the infringing sites hide behind their third party status and act like nothing is wrong, or at least it isn't anything they can control.
They can control it, but it requires them to get better business models. That is what really hurts for them, their very business models are based on skirting liability and using DMCA as an escape hatch when the pressure builds up. Remove that, and most of these business models explode.
It is always simple: If you don't have a license, if you don't have a reasonable fair use claim, or the person providing you the content can show one or the other, then you shouldn't run it on your site.
Yup, it takes longer, and yup, it "breaks the internet", but since the internet has broken everything else, it's about time things went the other way for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute? Do you think content filters would catch anywhere close to 100% of the infringement? Do you think a baby dancing to 20 seconds of a Prince song is infringing or fair use? How do you explain EMI and other labels issuing take downs on their own content? Copyright law is not clear cut and even the courts issue seemingly contradictory rulings. So would you prefer YouTube not even exist or does it just maybe provide society more good than harm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"John Doe": "So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"John Doe": "So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"John Doe": "So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute?"
Exactly, which is why this bill is beyond bad.
there are NOT many people producing original content.
Entirely untrue. Search on anything and you will get videos. I bought a new pair of hiking boots this weekend and just now did a search on YouTube for them and found 24 results with many of them being personal reviews of the boots. Do this for any hobby or product you are interested in and it is out there. So your claim is so false as to make me wonder about your motives.
That's a flaw with the Youtube premise, so it fundamentally isn't practical.
So you would take out a wide, wide swath of the web for what so far has not been proven to truly be damaging to content creators?
One legal way to operate would be to require every uploader to indemnify Youtube;
The DMCA already does this so why do we need a new law again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"John Doe": "So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute?"
I would say the same about copyrights, too. Only one of the two are telling me what I can and can't do with my culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"John Doe": "So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no way to tell if material *is* copyrighted. That's the whole problem. Moreover, the user needs the license, not YouTube. Plus, the notice & takedown *was* intended to help folks get quick redress (regularly victimizing the public more than the content holder) from sites WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for their users. Why should the site be responsible? If a car purposely causes an accident to hurt me, can I sue the owner of the infrastructure where the crime took place? So I can sue the government then? If you say yes, then at least you're consistent. If you say no, then explain why it's different, because i don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Patently false. Fair uses exist and the line between fair use and infringing work is so difficult a line to draw it takes a court to actually decide. It's hilarious that you would actually type 'without having to engage the entire legal system to do it' too. It's like you don't even recognize that 'the entire legal system' is synonymous with 'due process' and that due process exists for a reason that should not be superseded by the petty interests of big content.
"They can control it, but it requires them to get better business models. That is what really hurts for them, their very business models are based on skirting liability and using DMCA as an escape hatch when the pressure builds up. Remove that, and most of these business models explode."
So in a roundabout way we completely agree that holding innocent third parties liable would destroy "most" of the innovative services available on the internet including sites like YouTube, which deftly fits the narrative you authored above. The only difference is that you see this is a very good thing which really belies you're true motives: you want these competitors out of business even though what they're doing is technically, figuratively, and morally fine and you're going to do it by making it infeasible for them to continue even while their behavior remains technically, figuratively, and morally fine by pushing through new legislation that doesn't target them directly (how could it when they're not legally culpable) and instead hides behind proxies to get the job done. The best part is that now when someone dies before it ever gets off the ground there's no giant headlines that read 'Incumbent Industry Sues Innovative Service Provider into the Dust' every time it happens.
"if you don't have a reasonable fair use claim"
You say 'reasonable fair use claim' as if this was an easy thing to discern. You're lying. You know it's not easy. That's why you're acting like it's easy, so the only things that will make it through are the absolutely safe stuff. Meanwhile wide swaths of legal content are shut down by the chilling effects of pretending thus.
"Yup, it takes longer, and yup, it "breaks the internet", but since the internet has broken everything else, it's about time things went the other way for a while."
Cars broke everything else so it's about time the buggy whip industry struck back! Your business model has absolutely no right to continue to exist a priori. It must prove itself and if it can't adapt to changing times it deserves to fail, not get a giant bloated piece of government bailout in the form of a destructive and repressive law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to t congratulate you on taking my comments and managing to completely and totally mangle both the context and the message.
Fair use is a wonderful thing - but it is still fairly narrow. We are very, very rarely talking about true fair use here, and most often about outright infringement or use without license.
Further, fair use is the claim of the publisher, not a third party. Youtube (and others) should follow the basic rule: If it is copyright, and you don't have a license, or you don't have a claim of fair use and information on the person or group claiming the fair use, you don't have the rights to it.
Sorry that I have to expand that for you. Does it make more sense to you now?
What percentage of infringing videos currently on YouTube do you think are fair use? I mean, real fair use, not "trying to pass off as fair use"?
"You say 'reasonable fair use claim' as if this was an easy thing to discern. You're lying. You know it's not easy."
Nope, it isn't easy. But a reasonable fair use claim for a third party (like YouTube) would be to have the information of the original poster, and perhaps their claim of fair use documented. Remember: If they cannot find the original poster to start with, a claim of fair use is meaningless because YouTube itself isn't going to make that sort of claim.
"Cars broke everything else so it's about time the buggy whip industry struck back!"
Sorry, but I claim bullshit on this horrible attempt to redirect the discussion. We aren't talking about improved business models, we are talking about business models that ignore the law. If it was illegal to burn oil as fuel, and the car industry sold products that did so anyway, you can bet that the buggy makers would no only be up in arms but they would be right too. Youtube isn't a "better business model" (it still apparently is not profitable), which cars were compared to buggies. So you can go out back and use your buggy whip on yourself, because your argument isn't even on track.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So would a checkbox on the upload page signifying this be enough? Ater all, that is all it takes to comply with a sites TOS and you can be charged for circumventing a site for just violating the TOS. Heck, YouTube probably has this in their TOS. Or should they require a signed, notarized document for each and every video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I addressed this point already and it does make any more sense the second time. It uts a huge burden on third party sites and will, with absolute certainty, shut down many fair uses when third party content hosts decide they'd rather avoid even the potential for liability than host something even close to the line. Content hosts are not equipped to decide fair use, only the courts are, so it makes little sense to ask them to evaluate if uses are fair.
"We aren't talking about improved business models, we are talking about business models that ignore the law."
No, we're talking about YouTube. YouTube follows the letter of the law you just don't like the letter of the law. So you want the law to be changed so that the current practices of YouTube would be illegal. We're absolutely not talking about business models that ignore the law, YouTube has been tested many times on that front and always come away clean. You don't seem to be following your own line of logic very well and just because I can and you cannot doesn't mean my argument 'isn't even on track.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So ridiculously stupid laws can destroy otherwise legitimate businesses. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only thing that counts is what a judge (or jury) says about each individual case...nobody else legally gets to decide what is and is not "fair use" of copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you admit that YouTube isn't 'profiting from infringement?'. Next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you admit that YouTube isn't 'profiting from infringement?'. Next.
It certainly makes money for it self on infringing content. Next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong, proven wrong, decided as wrong in a court of law, and even wrong against the definition of fair use as described in the law.You are either out and out lying, or a complete moron.
Care to tell us which?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suggest the death penalty for copyright infringement.
Of course administered draconically by representatives of the copyright industry, with no judical oversight or due process. If you are accused, you are guilty. Otherwise you wouldn't be accused, now would you?
Now, some chubby pirate apologists may say that a lot of innocent people will be killed by such a law. But really... thats just greedy people who want to keep stealing. Take off your pirate hat and think for a while.
It's so simple: if you don't have a licence, then don't copy, distribute or perform anything that is copyrighted. I mean can anything be more simple? Just. Dont. Do. It.
If you want to ruin artist's lives by stealing their hard work, go ahead, but expect a bullet in the back of your head.
Honest people will have nothing to fear.
Sure, this may break things, like singing, talking and writing. And drawing. And photographing. And some other stuff.
But the pirates, so it's about time things went the other way for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is obtaining a license as easy as having a six year old figure it out? Maybe that's what the government should do; make it easy to obtain licenses to content. Oh wait, that's socialism which leads to communism which leads to cannibalism. I guess they'll just have to make the internet more like television in order to succeed. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no reason for anyone to continue reading your comment after this line. You have demonstrated that you don't know ANYTHING about how copyright law works. Please leave this debate now, as you are nowhere near qualified to be involved in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are numerous non-infringing uses for copyrighted items. Fair use is a pretty broad concept, even if the boarders of it are fuzzy.
They can control it, but it requires them to get better business models. That is what really hurts for them, their very business models are based on skirting liability and using DMCA as an escape hatch when the pressure builds up. Remove that, and most of these business models explode.
The problem with 3rd party liability is it is impossible to be 100% sure something is infringing. Infringement is solely an issue between 2 parties, and forcing a 3rd party with extremely limited knowledge of the circumstances make a definitive judgement correctly all the time is impossible and impractical. It is quite likely that a majority of items could be infringing, but there is no way of knowing definitively. Even in the Viacom vs. Youtube case, there were instances of Viacom taking down things their own marketers had put up. If they don't know, how could the 3rd party?
You can't make someone legally responsible if they can't be sure of what is occuring is illegal.
If the 3rd party happens to be legally responsible (for some reason), their only option is to block 100% of uploads that there is any doubt of. This would mean the end of user generated content pages because of that uncertainty.
Content filters are often suggested but they do not have a means to determine fair use, so they stifle free speech. This makes them largely impractical as a true technical measure. They can help stem infringement, but they're prone to error so they're not a silver bullet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup, that is true. However, those non-infringing uses clearly don't include posting a movie or a song verbatim, or putting up one of those "music with lyrics" videos that are all over youtube. There may be some grey in the middle, but honestly, the black and white stuff is pretty clear and nobody should be able to ignore it. When in doubt, ASK the poster to explain their stand. Heck, if the third party companies knew who was posting, and were equally willing to provide that information in the case of a lawsuit or DMCA notification, it would be less of an issue. That they accept stuff from persons unknown with absolutely no proof of rights is a real issue.
"You can't make someone legally responsible if they can't be sure of what is occuring is illegal. "
Should have known better is one of those things many guilty people say. Ignorance is not bliss.
"If the 3rd party happens to be legally responsible (for some reason), their only option is to block 100% of uploads that there is any doubt of. This would mean the end of user generated content pages because of that uncertainty."
Not at all - it would just end anonymous, non-trackable user content. It would end people being able to use file lockers and video sharing sites as their personal piracy tools.
If the third party is able to show the user and pass the liability on to them, there should be no issue. Letting anyone upload stuff without checking it is negligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those videos are only on the site because the content owners allow them. You see, youtube has a content filter system that is very accurate when it comes to exact (or very similar) matches of audio and video; however, they allow content owners to set a variety of options. Most of the major record labels allow their content to be shown on youtube (vevo anyone?) but with the option to "monetize" the content. That means that youtube shares a portion of the ad revenue with the content owner.
That said, most companies don't have the resources to create the type of filtering system which youtube has put into place. Often, a start-up company is simply exploring what is possible and trying to determine if a business model is viable. How could anyone experiment with new ways of delivering audio/video if they didn't allow some amount of user generated content?
More importantly than all of this, you are talking about a law that has the potential to suck billions of dollars out of our economy by making a large number of business illegal. I'm sorry, but the role of government is to act in the best interest of its citizens, not in the best interest of its corporations. For all of the complaining I hear from the music and movie industry, they continue to grow, so why should we jeopardize hundreds, thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of jobs so that two industries can see a couple percentage points of additional growth?
[ 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:
He/She (Purple Star Gravitar) is probably a lawyer and the fact that he/she needs to use this inconvenient thing called "due process" to find out where to send his/her e̶x̶t̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶/"Settlement" letters is what bothers him/her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the pirates are making money from it, why can't the creators?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, tough to counter when the argument is supported by The Internet Systems Consortium. Let's let the ISC speak on the matter (http://t.co/Z4ElYHiA), I wonder if systems engineers really have blender mush for brains:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So to stop productive legislation because one unused potential future feature of the internet may or may not work is sort of silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what I see:
I want these accomplished professionals to continue their work in support of end-user security (that's me :) and my connection), without a guillotine above their necks that, if passed and signed, renders their work moot.
The entertainment industry doesn't care about my security nor about the ISC's advanced work on my behalf and would prefer they stop and pour their talent into protecting those who benefit from commercial copyright law.
Fair or unfair assessment? Though I suspect we'd agree to disagree at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As someone who has been personally affected by the entertainment industry's lack of care about my security, I heartily agree. First Sony threw malicious software on my legally obtained media which made me vulnerable to third party attack, and then they allowed their game network to be subverted and all my personal information compromised (twice.)
I won't go near Sony ever again (although its hard to tell as I just found out another company I was using was part of the Sony conglomerate, and I have now cancelled my account with them and added them to the blacklist.)
I just wish someone would publish a list of all the different companies Sony (or any other entertainment company) owned or was a part of so that I could add them to my blacklist too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WE teach our children to "share and share alike" from a very young age. Then, as soon as it comes to content, you try and tell them they can't share things they like with others. It's fucking asinine and insane. And yet still the fuckwits who "lobby" for these pieces of shit have the temerity to claim that we're in the wrong?
Pull the other one, it's got economies on.
[ 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:
See, this is where I begin to have a problem. If you want to go after people who are actually infringing, I'm with you. I think it's too hard to be feasible, but whatever. If content folks want to do it, more power to them. What this bill is talking about is third-party liability, which is a fundementally flawed proposition in contrast with how our legal system functions as a rule. That said, my problems philisophically aside, if it were something website operators could reasonably do (meaning somehow block the links to infringing material on their site), I might be able to think about a compromise, but I'm unaware of a system for how websites can do this, so I just don't see it.
"I mean, how do you counter the "this will break the internet"? It is an argument that is far reaching, but as exact and precise as mush in a blender. It isn't an argument, it's just a scary phrase that seems to get trotted out every time someone even suggests that site operators might actually be responsible for the content they profit from."
I disagree, and here's why. If the history of the internet has taught us anything, it's that most legislation enacted around it seeks to curtail behavior on the internet. True, most of that curtailing is aimed at illegal behavior. No argument. The problem is that we've seen many examples of non-illegal behavior that gets caught in the crossfire. So, we seem to have a fundemental question on our hands. Which do we value more, the ending of illegal or borderline illegal behavior, or the continuing of non-illegal behavior. My position is that I'd rather a thousand guilty go free than the imprisonment of one innocent person. Anyone sharing that sentiment would likely conclude that this legislation is what is overreaching, not the fear that it will be misapplied.
"It's particular hard to argue when people consider all the misuse of IP going on as normal. There is no way in the past we would have tolerated magazines with nothing but stolen images in it, yet we are suppose to look at something like Youtube and consider it to be somehow immune to responsiblity for the very content it seeks to profit from."
It's a question of function, not philosophy. Everything on the internet scales bigger, so how is YouTube supposed to accurately block the infringing content that it itself didn't put on their site? They have their ID system, so they're trying. But the flaw in your analogy is that, with magazine publishers, you have one entity to tackle for infringement, and that would be the magazine itself, which would have put those infringing (stolen? C'mon, let's not have this silly debate again) images in their publication. That simply isn't the case with YouTube. Again, they're TRYING, but you're still calling them out. That seems problematic.
"It's hard to argue when people are willing to tolerate the "legal head of a pin" arguments, where sites that support, promote, talk about, link to, and even review pirated material get a pass because they don't happen to be hosting the content on their own domain, and rather upload it to a "file host" which itself ends up being legally immune for the content, all the while charging people to access it."
Forgive me, but you'll have to give me an example of this, because I'm unaware of this type of thing. As for sites that discuss, review, or otherwise have speech about or revolving around infringing content...I mean, are you REALLY going to shut down sites that talk about drugs, their use or misuse, etc.? That's speech. It's never been illegal to discuss something illegal. That would be totally new. And dangerous, in my opinion.
"Further, it's not hard to understand Mike's incredible hype and over reaching comments here. His business models, his ideal, the very things he pushes for (and for that matter that define his online persona) are under attack. Lose the infinite marketplace, make piracy a bit player instead of a primary around, make it so people actually (eek!) pay for the content they want, and his entire raison d'etre are lost."
This is what I was discussing earlier. For all the well-spoken/written words here, the flowery language, this is just a nonsense attack. Everything at Techdirt focuses on getting customers to pay in some way. This is the hyperbolic bullshit that needs to go away, not to be confused with the rest of your comment, which appears to be a reasoned bit of thought. That part I appreciate. Pretending Mike is somehow reeling because piracy is how he makes a living is just disingenous. I suggest you stop doing it.
"That Mike is apparently in Washington banging doors doesn't help, because it has clearly moved this blog from being one of opinion, to one of a barely disguised PAC or lobbyist firm. Just as it is hard to argue some of the crap that comes from the MPAA side of the discussion, it is equally hard to argue the crap that has come out here in the last 7 days or so."
If you're saying Techdirt has a slant to its opinions, well...no kidding. I get that. Hell, I WRITE for this site occasionally and I don't agree with everything that's written here by others. So what? It's not even close to a lobby. And putting it on the same level as the MPAA is kind of weird. You want to say the site and its main operator is advocating in Washington? Fine. I agree. I'm wondering what your problem with that is? Certainly Techdirt is not contributing to politicians to get legislation passed. At least, I would HOPE that isn't the point you're making, because that would just be dumb....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"See, this is where I begin to have a problem. If you want to go after people who are actually infringing, I'm with you. I think it's too hard to be feasible, but whatever. If content folks want to do it, more power to them. What this bill is talking about is third-party liability"
Third party liablity comes around for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, because many of these third parties are unwilling or unable to identify the first parties, or are actively working to avoid any knowledge. YouTube could take actions to know who their actual contributors to the site are, but they mostly choose not to. Set up an anonymous email account, sign up for a you tube account, and suddenly you are a legit content provider. If I ran any other offline business in this manner, I would be locked up.
Third party liability also comes around because so many of the current internet business models are predicated on being the third party, or at least appearing to be the third party. File locker sites that force uploaders to split larger files into .RAR file chunks, and then delay or deny access to all of the parts unless a downloader pays for access are certainly at the forefront right now. They play the third party game, but their business models are set up based on the idea of DVD sized files (gee, I wonder what is in them), and charging for access to them.
"It's a question of function, not philosophy. Everything on the internet scales bigger, so how is YouTube supposed to accurately block the infringing content that it itself didn't put on their site? "
That really is a business model issue, a question of choice and not of function. Youtube could process every video and look at it, but they choose not to. I know, too much volume. But legally, saying that they cannot conform to the law because there is too much stuff isn't something that would work in the real world. What would you think of a pawn shop that, rather than specifically taking stuff for pawn, just allows people to drop things off on their desk with a price and an anonymous email to contact them when it sells? Would you consider it weird if the pawn shop didn't wonder where the stuff came from? What happens if tens of thousands of people a day were dropping them off with them? Would you excuse it because the volume is too big? Nope, legally they would be liable and would need to change their business model accordingly.
We might not like it (because everyone has gotten use to everything being on the net all the time), but a flawed business model isn't an excuse to break the law. They tried, and now laws like this will come along to block up that option.
"Forgive me, but you'll have to give me an example of this, because I'm unaware of this type of thing."
Legal head of the pin arguments as an example apply to some of these so called "hip hop blogs" that have had their domain names only seized by ICE. Their sites were packed with unauthorized remixes, dubs, and "sample music songs", but they want to claim no liability because they don't personally host the content. Yet, the reason people were going to their site (and using their forums, and reading their blogs) was to obtain this content.
P2P / torrent sites play the same game. "we don't host it, we aren't liable for it" is hard to swallow as their top 100 list (the list they maintain) is nothing but DVD rips, pre-sale DVDs, software with key-gens, and the like. It is pretty easy to tell, even at a glance, that their business models absolutely depend on the content, even if they don't specifically host it.
You can look at Roja as well. The judge in the case has already told them that arguing that they are not some sort of pirate site would be pretty much a failure. While the laws may not have caught up to this activity yet, it is clear to the naked eye what their intent is. They can claim to be third parties, they can claim free speech, and so on, but they cannot escape what is clear to the naked eye. It is "head of a pin" stuff, because it is so obvious - yet the laws aren't so up to date as to handle the situation clearly.
"You want to say the site and its main operator is advocating in Washington? Fine. I agree. I'm wondering what your problem with that is? Certainly Techdirt is not contributing to politicians to get legislation passed. At least, I would HOPE that isn't the point you're making, because that would just be dumb...."
Actually, my concern would be (a) that the site or site operators are contributing to legislators against the law (there are a few, but not too many), and (b) that this site bocomes (or has already become) a sort of popular front for a PAC or lobbying group or groups. It would be both disappointing and stunning amusing, actually, if Mike started to do the very things he claims to hate the most of the other side. That would be "dumb", don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the more accurate analogy would be a thrift store not knowing if the Gucci branded shirt someone just sold them was authentic or not. Are they required to authenticate it before reselling it? No, they are not. Your entire argument falls flat when an apples to apples comparison to the 'real world' is drawn.
Calling heavy throughput a 'flaw in the business model' is ludicrous. Why should a third party have to change their business model to make it easier for someone else to police their own copyrights? Answer: they should not. Patently absurd argument that. Although not nearly as absurd as your next argument:
"While the laws may not have caught up to this activity yet, it is clear to the naked eye what their intent is."
You've got to be fucking kidding with this one. These sites should be shutdown because it's clear that their intent is to break laws that don't even exist yet?!!? Fantastic logic that. It's not actually illegal but it's obvious to the naked eye that it should be illegal and will be at some point in the future. Absurd. Reprobate and absurd. Although you then up the ante (which I didn't think was possible) with:
"that this site bocomes (or has already become) a sort of popular front for a PAC or lobbying group or groups."
So now we're talking ad homs but it's not even a real ad hom it's an ad hom based on a hypothetical future. Wow... I just... There really aren't words for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, if your point is that some folks are bending the rules for personal gain, I get it. I agree. But we're back to my point about letting the thousand guilty go free rather than imprisoning a single innocent person. The ends do not justify the means here. Holding third parties liable as a blanket rule of law clashes with our founding principles. It's a bad fix. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. We have to find a different solution.
"What would you think of a pawn shop that, rather than specifically taking stuff for pawn, just allows people to drop things off on their desk with a price and an anonymous email to contact them when it sells?"
This doesn't track for me, because we're discussing a law here (copyright) that was only put in place to spread culture. YouTube SPREADS CULTURE, infringing or otherwise. The pawn shop is dealing in stolen physical items. They're not the same thing.
That said, I certainly understand that anyone believing content is more created because of the lure of profit from copyright would see infringing YouTube videos as a problem, since there's a chance that it could remove some profitability. I'm not sure that's the case, but I can certainly see the argument. The problem with carpet bombing legislation that kills YouTube's model is that we're talking about a TON of collateral damage in there, which I'm unwilling to kill off, valuable or not. I just value mine and other people's ability to create and distribute too much to do that.
"You can look at Roja as well. The judge in the case has already told them that arguing that they are not some sort of pirate site would be pretty much a failure. While the laws may not have caught up to this activity yet, it is clear to the naked eye what their intent is. They can claim to be third parties, they can claim free speech, and so on, but they cannot escape what is clear to the naked eye. It is "head of a pin" stuff, because it is so obvious - yet the laws aren't so up to date as to handle the situation clearly."
Roja, and bit torrent sites for that matter, are a list. Some, perhaps even most, of that list include places/sites that are illegal. It's still JUST A LIST. Why are we spending so much damned time aiming at the wrong targets here? You said something earlier about how YouTube claiming that it's too hard to go through all their videos isn't a valid reason to undermine the law. Fine, but that cuts both ways. Just because it's really, REALLY hard to go after the infringing party, that isn't reason to bring abotu new legislation going after THIRD parties. It's hard. Got it. Do it anyway.
"Actually, my concern would be (a) that the site or site operators are contributing to legislators against the law (there are a few, but not too many), and (b) that this site bocomes (or has already become) a sort of popular front for a PAC or lobbying group or groups. It would be both disappointing and stunning amusing, actually, if Mike started to do the very things he claims to hate the most of the other side. That would be "dumb", don't you think?"
Very dumb, in my opinion. If Techdirt actually became a funnel for money for specific politicians advocating for specific laws, I'd have some problem with that, enough such that it would tint everything I read here. I already understand the slant this opinion blog has on these issues. This would push things a little further. However, being as how none of this has occurred yet, an no one has done more than hint it might kinda be happening perhaps somewhere in some unverifiable way...what do you expect me to do with your unfounded postulation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There has to be some acceptance that the current businesses, using the current business rules, aren't fair for both sides. The sites get to use the content, and the content owners are forced to constantly chase around the huge internet to find the violators, notify them, and get nothing in return except the content taken down after they got caught. Does that really seem fair?
"YouTube SPREADS CULTURE" - True, but what if the culture doesn't want to be spread? Why can you force a content creater / owner to be part of YouTube, even if they don't want to be?
"Roja, and bit torrent sites for that matter, are a list. Some, perhaps even most, of that list include places/sites that are illegal. It's still JUST A LIST. Why are we spending so much damned time aiming at the wrong targets here?"
They aren't the wrong target. Without them, the files are just bits in the universe that nobody can find. They would just be random files. Google? Well, without listing sites, Google wouldn't find the files either, so that argument doesn't hold. Basically, these sites facilitate and encourage the behavior, and many of them profit grandly from it (see Ninja Video). It seems silly to try to deny their involvement in the process, and equally silly to ignore it.
"However, being as how none of this has occurred yet, an no one has done more than hint it might kinda be happening perhaps somewhere in some unverifiable way...what do you expect me to do with your unfounded postulation?"
Mike wasn't exactly forthcoming about his visit to DC to push this, even as he piled on the posts here. At this point, I am at the "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" stage, but I really would not be surprised to find out that Floor64/ Techdirt may in fact be contributing to the groups against the law. Clearly, Mike is already donating his time, and that should already be enough to get your fur up a bit. Mike may not have completely crossed the line yet, but I think he is standing very, very close to it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google, or any other search engine, doesn't require a "listing site" to find anything. If it's out there, Google can find it. If it's told specifically not to by a robot file (in the case of a webpage), it will ignore it but it is not magically hidden.
Many of the true facilitators of infringement are currently liable under the law. The (case) laws are already in place to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something has to tell it where to find it. If nobody tells Google where to find something, it won't find it. That's the trick, without the torrent sites providing that service, Google wouldn't have very many illegal torrent files, because most honest website owners won't link to them, and even the pirates are loath to link to them in public without some sort of "third party" to take the heat.
"Many of the true facilitators of infringement are currently liable under the law. The (case) laws are already in place to deal with it."
Ahh, and you will tell me when the last time was the TPB was in court in the US. See, that is part of the deal, blocking those overseas websites who break the US law, offer their sites to US consumers, but are hiding out trying not to have US law apply to them. There really isn't many other ways to stop it, like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no idea what you're talking about. That's good to know.
and even the pirates are loath to link to them in public without some sort of "third party" to take the heat.
So, we agree that the third party isn't "pirates", yes? Also good to know.
See, that is part of the deal, blocking those overseas websites who break the US law, offer their sites to US consumers, but are hiding out trying not to have US law apply to them.
Does this legal view flow both ways? Are US sites expected to obey the laws in other countries, because you can access them? Think hard on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So, we agree that the third party isn't "pirates", yes? Also good to know."
Nope, I didn't say that, please don't play games. The third party tend to be the ones hiding behind the safe harbour rules, which realistically profiting from the infringement. They play a game along with the "pirate" to make it so that there is no one person or company specifically liable. The third party uses their "protection" to act innocent, and then they say "well, it was uploaded anonymously, so we don't know who to go after - oh yeah, we don't keep logs".
In the end, the third party should be as guilty as everyone else, but current laws give them too large of an out, and everyone is working in that zone. It's why it can't be tolerated and laws are being changed to address it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the burden they have to bear in bringing about legislation that could bring about enormous consequences if convicted. However, doing all this for an accusation, when even the owners on numerous occasions, have been unable to figure out the difference between a pirated copy, an authorized copy, a remix, a cover, or anything else relating to their "property" is beyond the terms of the agreement that the holders have with the public. It's no longer about progressing the arts, it's about restricting the arts. That's where the rubber hits the road.
They aren't the wrong target. Without them, the files are just bits in the universe that nobody can find. They would just be random files. Google? Well, without listing sites, Google wouldn't find the files either, so that argument doesn't hold. Basically, these sites facilitate and encourage the behavior, and many of them profit grandly from it (see Ninja Video). It seems silly to try to deny their involvement in the process, and equally silly to ignore it
Ignore what? Google got its start by saying "I don't know the answer to this question, but here's a number of sites that do, pointing you to that direction. Youtube does the same thing and has HELPED in creating new content by giving artists a new platform. Anyone can make content, but you need somewhere to house it that people enjoy. Is it too much to ask that people have a platform like Google, like Break.com, like Cracked, like Soundcloud, TPB, or any other site to find an audience for their content without the platform being the culprit? Is it too much to ask for Warner Bros, Universal and the regular suspects realize that people want legal platforms for THEIR stuff so that they can push out more content without arbitrarily restricting what consumers do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We know that Viacom wanted to shut down YouTube, but they could not because the DMCA process was notice from Viacom, takedown by Google, counter-notice from video poster, restore by Google, lawsuit by Viacom. E-PARASITE will give Viacom a different path: notice by Viacom and if no takedown by Google, then shut down payment processing and ads for YouTube, after which Google can sue to get these back if they choose.
Do you see that with E-PARASITE there is no viable option for a site to restore content because the notice was in error? Sure, the content can be restored, but then the site immediately stops making any money unless they win their lawsuit.
Yes, Google can afford these sorts of lawsuits, and might even win most of them, but what about smaller sites?
And then, because there is no way to restore content without major risk of liability, notices will be given for content that is merely "offensive" or "defamatory" by incorrectly claiming copyright violations. This already happens far too much, but since DMCA allows the non-infringing content to go back up, at least speech isn't stifled forever.
Last, if you still keep the content up despite losing payment processing and ads, E-PARASITE allows the site to be shut down through DNS re-direction, again without any adversarial hearing. So, even if you want to make a stand on principles and try to get the law overturned through the courts, until that happens, your perfectly legal, protected-by-the-First-Amendment speech is no longer allowed to be heard (at least not on the Internet).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> seems to think this is a perfectly legal
> and sane way to operate means that any
> argument made is going to go against
> that basic thought process.
If an entire generation believes that, then that's what will come to pass, because that's how they'll vote. They *are* the people, are they not? If that's how they want the government to run, then that's how it should run.
And if Big Media is right and it drives them out of business and we have no more movies and music because of it, then they'll only have themselves to blame.
In the meantime, however, the will of the people should be respected over the will of a few big companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
If you want real debate, you'll have to SAY something, sonny. Your whole post is off topic, rambling vulgarity. I've suggested that /you/ stop it, and you haven't. You're unable to post here without the vulgarity that you mistake for wit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
That's you missing the point by using a microscope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
"If you want real debate, you'll have to SAY something, sonny."
I believe he did, by saying he wants citation and clear concise arguments, which, by his own admission MAY change his opinion.
Unfortunately for you, this is an open forum so your suggestion for less vulgarity is more than likely going to fall on deaf ears.
Unfortunately for this DH fella, this is an open forum so your repeated critism of his writing style is looking like the closest thing he's going to get to a valid argument.
However 'vulger' you find his analogy, it probably demonstrates the frustration he is feeling and also, to me at least, made his point clearer than no analogy at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
But please stay. You're a part of this community as well, whether people like your comments or not, and you're welcome here. But please try to stay focused on the debate, rather than personal attacks on me.
This is me trying to ask nicely....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
Blue, this is why people have a problem with your posts. Using pejoratives like "sonny" and following up with some kind of insane childish distaste for words you apparently don't like is just silly. We're adults here. Grow up.
---------------------------
You're the one who's "pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around", while primly urging actions in complete contradiction to /your/ past behavior. -- Your record is still available online, oddly enough. At least you've quit writing of bizarre sexuality, and since I scolded you seldom use "penis" or "man-sausage".
A) I'm not a part of the community. Worst insult yet. I came here believing as Mike says he does, but I'm now convinced that he's just another Ivy League frat-boy without practical experience, that his notions simply won't work.
B) I guess you've noted the drop-off in comments of late and hope this little pond in which you're a big frog doesn't dry up, and so want to keep even ME around. I've said I'm about to bail from how DULL Mike's posts are AND how childish posters are -- YOU the worst, congrats.
C) Asking nicely, eh? Why, do they begin to sting? They're just words on a web-site, and you've written that you pay them no attention. Of course, mine are based on visible facts of what you post.
Frankly, I don't trust you, Timothy, so no deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
Ah, well, whatever. I had to ask nicely, at least. Carry on with whatever it is you think you're doing then....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
B) said on an article with almost 100 posts.
C) He's attempting to be nice, much nicer then I would be, can't fault him for that. Plus, without debate this site would be boring.
"Frankly, I don't trust you, Timothy, so no deal."
So I take it you're leaving?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
A couple of questions and points:
Why do you insist on naming 'Dark Helmet' by his 'real' name if you, yourself, choose to post anonymously?
Has he offended you directly in some way, or have you singled him out of the many community members who sometimes use profanity in their posts?
You are part of the community, you make yourself so by the continued commenting and interaction with other community members. Just because you don't hold the same views as many of the article authors (or comment authors for that matter), and insist on personal jibes, does not make you any less a member of the community. It's human nature that leads us to having different opinions and I, for one, am glad that I've found a place that lets anyone express any view that they have without censorship.
You may not have signed up to the site, but you are a member of it's community.
I think your last line is well founded but should not be exclusive for Dark Helmet, personally, I find it very difficult to trust complete strangers, though this doesn't stop me from debating with them and commenting when I see fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
You won't get a response...that is why most of us ignore him. He is here for the lulz, and once he says his piece he moves on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ " pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tim,
I like you a lot. I enjoy your comments. I see that many times you do want a discussion. The issue here is that many other times you are very glib with your comments and replies. Some people have a hard time getting past that and assume that you'll just come back with a quip that has little substance.
Another problem is that I have been trolling a bit more lately. I think it has spawned several other trolls on both sides. I will calm it down and see if that helps a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
:)
Yeah, I'm a real riddle trapped in an enimga inside a beef sandwich and all that. Truth is, topics that I think require serious debate, I act seriously. Topics that I think are funny, I make jokes. I wish I could promise to be one way or the other all the time, but I can't.
I guess you'll just have to pick and choose when to engage me regarding one or the other. Such is life, I suppose....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would give you my extra Halloween candy for this if I could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And then we must use our skills to do some serious rebel moves against the system that would do this to its citizens.
Sickening is the word I use to describe this PROTECT-IP KRAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not clueless
But this is an useless discussion, the fact that the collateral damage might even crack their own foundations will be promptly ignored or diminished. We can only hope that with all the jobs a broken internet will generate in the MAFIAA conglomerate they'll be able to give a job for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are not clueless
Yup. It will make companies who's entire business model is "and then content magically appears for free on your site" and make them actually have to take responsiblity for what they are making their living off of.
So if by "break the internet" you mean "stop the flood of pirated content", then yes... I know what it is EXACTLY about, without any of the fear mongering going on otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are not clueless
No my friend. Copyright should exist to protect the ARTISTS (not the middlemen) from commercial exploitation. But even if it does exist for that and it should, it must not break other businesses because they could contain infringing or counterfeit material generated by its users as long as it takes down said material. And oh wow, it should include fair use. And the music videos, samples and PERSONAL sharing should be fair use.
Now come on, be the troll I'm expecting you to be and tell me that I'm a filthy pirate that is anti-ip. Prove your own ignorance and inability to actually read and be reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
Perfectly fine hip hop blogs would be wise not to set up shop in the middle of a piracy cesspool, no?
"it must not break other businesses because they could contain infringing or counterfeit material generated by its users as long as it takes down said material."
See, this is the problem. What you are saying is basically "it's okay to break the law, and when you get caught, you should just stop and everything is okay". The basic premise is backwards. The sites should be required to know who they are dealing with, and should be able to prove the rights they have to use it. This isn't just the "music in the back of the baby dancing video" sort of crap, this is remixes, videos, and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu4wvvoA9-s
Do you honestly think this is licensed?
http://www.youtube.com/user/lostsoulparty#p/a/u/2/8lpWyp0ywCQ
Do you think this guy licenses the music in his videos?
It's not complicated stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
Would you really want someone to be a criminal for something like this? I mean you can already be forced to pay $72,000 per song so you can ruin them financially but now we want to put them in jail at taxpayers expense. Even if they don't go to jail, they will have a criminal record making it hard to get a good job. Maybe they have to go on welfare or public assistance. Is that really the solution you want to see? Is that really reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
That system is a little to generous to those who infringe, and puts too much burden on rights holders. SOPA and PROTECT-IP are laws intended to try to re-level the playing field, at least a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
All of the burden for enforcement should be on the rights holders. Your plea that this is an unequal burden is absurd because it's not supposed to be equal. The unevenness was intentionally written into copyright and trademark law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
Thanks for the awesome insight ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
That is why it would break. It makes user-generated content impossible. You fail to see that because... well, honestly, I'm not sure why. I would like to see how you expect an internet service to review millions of hours of video a day. or a blog to be able to review thousands of posts an hour. large-scale services will not exist if that's required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
But you're wrong.
And people wonder why nobody takes this place seriously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
You've obviously bought into the PROVEN lies of the big media industry and the FUD that their paid shills and bought off lawmakers spew, but they are wrong and so are you.
We have proven our side of the argument with peer reviewed research and expert opinions, your side uses ADMITTEDLY manufactured evidence and bogus studies that have been proven false, but you continue to tout them as if they were fact.
And you people wonder why nobody takes your opinions seriously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
Is there enough irony in the universe for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
He is not really answering any of the questions or addressing the scenarios presented. I am starting to wonder if he is a politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
This is artful the the point of disingenuous. In many many cases it is unclear who owns the rights to any given bit of content or the component parts thereof, or even whether the component parts you may think it is made up of are the ones it is made up of since almost all content is already derivative of earlier works that may, or may not be in the public domain. Together with a ton other ways to muddy the waters, even the supposed rights holders sometimes seem not to know, or claim rights where none exist.
So are you suggesting that it is the responsibility of a service provider like Youtube to legally check the provenance of every single one of the 35 or so hours of content being uploaded to it every minute? Or are you rather suggesting that each Youtube uploader should come armed with affidavits and perhaps a court ruling before being allowed to upload content?
Either way, this flailing around and railing against "those evil raporist piraty websites" strikes me as kind of like the catholic church deciding that sex is immoral and then tackling it by banning condoms and birth control.
Yes, sadly thanks to the ludicrous current situation with wildly overreaching IP law it really really is. If IP law were clear and fair and reasonable instead of the horribly tangled, massively overinflated and biased mess it is, you'd have a lot less infringement and a much better chance of actually doing something a decent portion of the rest. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's not what you want though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
Because RIAA is wise enough to distinguish promotional material from a piracy cesspool, right? Because copyright is so clear that every1 knows that humming their favorite song is infringing so nobody ever sings their favorite songs aloud? Because MAFIAA knows and allows fair use in a very clear, transparent and FAIR manner? You fail yet again. And I fail because I'm replying to your fail trolling.
Do you honestly think this is licensed?
Do you honestly think this is not either fair use or not taken down by a proper DMCA notice?
It's not complicated stuff.
Obviously. No case of copyright has ever ended in the courts because of the complexity of this issue. Ppl know by instinct, since they were born, how to distinguish fair use from copyright right? After all it's so simple that it's been around since the first ape started using tools, right? Before I got really deep into this copyright mess I thought I could copy a DVD for my own personal use. I didn't understand why I couldn't copy it (before I learned how to circumvent DRM). I didn't understand why I couldn't play my own game without using the original media on my PC. I still don't understand but after all, it isn't that complex so I must be some sort of retard that can't understand why I can't rip a damn DVD I own to keep a copy on my own computer so I don't have to deal with the disc every time I want to watch it. Yeah, that must be it, I'm a retard with an oyster IQ. /sarcasm
If you don't see any complication here then it's understandable why you are so clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
You really don't understand what this whole copyright thing is for, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are not clueless
Like Go Daddy and eBay and wikihow and p2p.com and thousands of other sites that for some reason people think are based off of other people's work, but aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are not clueless
Breaking the internet is not a euphemism for stopping the flood of pirated content, it means unsurprisingly, damaging the structure and functioning of the internet, lowering the common standard of security right across the board, all the while having no effect whatsoever on piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are not clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will they really do this?
So, sooner or later, one of these loony bills is gonna pass. Maybe its the "Draw And Quarter File Sharers Act" or "Kill Everybody We Don't Like" act, whatever. Meanwhile, the movie guys and the music guys are squirming 'cause if business takes a downturn all the phony-baloney jobs vanish. Somebody once said "the last act of a failing business is the kamikaze attack" and dive bombing the whole internet seems like just that. Well, when we all stop using it the postal service at least will be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will they really do this?
Ha. All it did was provide loopholes for parasites to make money off of infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
Because I agree with you in that statement so far you go.
Where we diverge is on infringing, whether linking to or hosting: separating those is just a legal loophole, as obviously any site that both links AND hosts is infringing. That it's a symbiotic system of infringement doesn't make it any more legal or moral. That symbiosis resulting in actual infringement ought to be and almost certainly will be stopped.
You're simply arguing for piracy as the basis for money-making on the internet. As I've always said, it's mostly grifters using the work-products of other people to leverage their own income from page views. It's not a productive area of society, it's a re-distribution scheme that goes to people who don't deserve it because had /nothing/ to do with producing the material. -- And that's ALWAYS been possible: faster duplication with computers and wires to distribute digital products don't change the fundamental good of copyright: protecting work-products so that /only/ its creators gain income from it, while grifters of all kinds are prohibited from doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
>>> "that's not the fundamental good of copyright. it's supposed to just encourage the creation of art."
Disagree about "art".
>>> "it was never meant that /only/ its creators gain income from it."
Sure it was. Constitution says "secure" to inventors and authors, right? "For a limited" time, THEN society gets it for free. I'm with ya that The Rich changed the terms so now it's effectively forever, but it was most certainly /only/ its creators for that limited time.
>>> "i don't even know why that's a bad thing. if someone else finds a way to make money off of it by doing something the original creator did not, why is that bad? don't say "it's morals." give me an objective reason, 'cause the government doesn't pass "morals" as law."
Objective reason: those who put money and time into projects deserve ALL of the benefits from it. (Note that I don't support those who put /merely/ money in as Mike does: I'd automoatically vest ALL employees of a start-up. But back to topic.) Conversely, those who put nothing into the pot DESERVE NOTHING. That's not merely a moral argument, besides which you're not going to get me to just dismiss the moral basis. -- Let's take Bill Gates and Microsoft. You probably contributed nothing to his wretched excess, I mean success. Do you believe that you can take Microsoft products and re-sell them as your own? (I'm for that, by the way, should be broken up, not even nationalized, just ended.) I don't mean just the "illegal" part of it that you can dismiss as a "moral" claim cloaked in legalities, I mean do you WANT to live off the labor of others? Without laboring the point, you're variously a slave-master or worthless grifter, then, a second-hander, and while you may actually enjoy that because it's all you're capable of, as a practical matter, too many of those who only TAKE will eat out the vital heart of the country. -- The Rich ARE doing so, and we need to reduce their numbers through 90+ percent tax rates.
SHORT VERSION: not everyone CAN live off the work of others, so we MUST limit the numbers of those who DO.
It's sheerly practical on the macro scale: we can't ALL be rich and lie around ordering servants. Someone has to labor. And labor is the SOLE means of creating wealth. When you take someone's work-product, you're stealing their labor. Yes, I know they're theoretically out nothing, but that simply CANNOT be let go without limit.
I suspect you're pro-copyright, prodding me in hopes of eliciting an argument that you can use later. Feel free to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
Actually what the constitution actually says:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Is quite different from what you're attempting to imply. The actual purpose, the end to which our means are undertaken, is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Your construction is one that takes the mechanism 'by' which this end is achieved and turns it on its head so the mechanism itself is the purpose. This is false and it's obvious from the full text that it is false.
"those who put money and time into projects deserve ALL of the benefits from it."
This ignores the cultural influence on all art. All art, even more so than goods in general although this axiom applies to them as well, is not created in a vacuum. Therefor some benefits are due the culture which spawned the creation i.e. the public. There are literally no people who contribute nothing to art and therefor no one 'DESERVE[S] NOTHING.'
There is no moral basis for your argument at all but I encourage you to actually argue that their is one instead of just pretending one exists and insisting that 'it's obvious' as if it's true a priori (as you do above and always do). Prove it. It's easy to do with property, not so with ideas or expression. Ownership of physical items is prevalent in nature, ownership of ideas or expression is not found anywhere but in modern human society. It's a construct we invented to promote the progress. We certainly did not sit down and think 'well obviously all ideas and artistic expression is owned so we should codify that into law' and it's obvious we did not do this because that's now how it was originally written.
Labor is emphatically not the 'SOLE means of creating wealth.' While there's no substitute for a proper education I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you macroeconomics 101 so we're going to have to stick with metaphor on this one:
You sell shacks that you build out of wood and nails. You don't have any tools but thankfully your supplier provides you with pre-cut wood from which to fashion shacks out of so you make do. One day I visit you at work and watch as you pound nails into wood with whatever happens to by lying around, usually rocks. I decide to buy you a hammer. Your work goes more quickly now and customers are even willing to pay a little extra because the pieces of the final product are better constructed. Now you're doing exactly the same amount of work as before, you're just getting more done with the same amount of time and effort, so on what basis can you claim that your labor is the SOLE means of creating wealth if my addition of zero labor in the form of a hammer suddenly earns your business more wealth? On what basis can you claim that I am not due any of that increase in wealth given that it's only been realized because of my investment?
"Yes, I know they're theoretically out nothing, but that simply CANNOT be let go without limit."
Why not? If they're theoretically out nothing what difference does it make? If they're actually, tangibly out something every time that doesn't automatically imply that the situation is no longer tenable long-term either. If you actually want to argue that without these sorts of limits no 'work-product' would be create then actually argue that, don't just say 'it CANNOT be let go.' Say why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
Disclaimer: I wholely understand and agree that hosting infringing content is illegal now and would continue to be, but I do want to pose a question...
Is it your belief that creating a distribution system is not a contribution?
Let me make the question a little more leading. Is it your belief that Netflix puts "nothing into the pot"?
I aknowledge that Netflix legally licenses their content where as an infringing host does not, but the point I am making is that infringing sites survive, or even thrive, because they do offer something (read: put something into the pot) that the entertainment industry does not. And to the point that Mike continues to attempt to hammer home, the industry would be better served to use their resources to reach an underserved market rather than draft legislation with potential for such far reaching consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
So would those who rent out Ford vehicles owe Ford money beyond the price of that vehicle? After all, Ford deserves ALL of the benefits, right?
What IP law is attempting to do is remove the right of first sale that physical property has. It has so far overstepped the bounds of physical property that it is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
"protecting work-products so that /only/ its creators gain income from it"
I must have missread that section of the constitution then. When I read 'to promote the progress of the useful arts' it must have really said 'to ensure that only creators benefit from their creations.' You could not be more wrong and it is this fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright was for and is for that causes you to falter. Were it actually as you describe then copyright would work exactly like physical property but it obviously does not (nor should it!), the rights it grants are not unlimited in duration and they don't cover all potential monetary uses of a work. It was never the intent of copyright to lock 'work-products' behind a wall so that only the creator could benefit. This is patently false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
I'm for nearly absolute copyright for a LIMITED time.
I don't see any conflict between us there.
But it's society as a WHOLE that's to be the beneficiary, NOT individual pirates and grifters here and there who steal the work-product of others. You DO benefit from the works being created, I suppose, as a general proposition, but YOU DO NOT BENEFIT WHEN THEY'RE PIRATED! -- Or DO you? Are you one of those grifters who want to leverage of someone else's work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One site that both links AND hosts infringes, as do TWO separate.
Second, if I (as a proxy for society as a whole) benefit from works being created then to what benefit of mine is it to shutdown the creation of works due to overzealous enforcement of copyright? Society benefits rather clearly from even the most obviously derivative works, at worst there's no benefit and never a loss. So the copyrights of the creator are always going to be at odds with and must be carefully balanced against the societal interest in the creation of works. These two forces do not work in tandem toward the same goal, they are opposed to one another.
"or DO you? Are you one of those grifters who want to leverage of someone else's work?"
Pathetic ad hom. How typical. Call me a freetard next, it's really driving your point home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's even worse is that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strategic Overreaching
#SOPA is horrendously and frighteningly overreaching on purpose:
Should both #SOPA and #PROTECTIP pass in each respective chamber, the bills will come together in reconciliation so a unified bill can be presented to the president for signing.
Said reconciliation will devolve down to the less overreaching, but still noxious and desirable to @MPAA #PROTECTIP provisions.
Bingo!! Internet security broken, innocent until proven guilty flipped upside-down, Constitutional rights devalued. Euphoria of @MPAA and @SenatorLeahy plainly visible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if E-PARASITE 1 thing that will cease to exist is anything GNU/LINUX Related since US CoC says its infringing already!
2nd thing that will cease to exist is any form of protest on youtube/google/any other site that allows comments.
3rd thing that will happen is that the real pirates, namely ALL the malware authors will start eroding what little security we have any more on the internet.
sounds fun right? where will I and many others be able to make MY VOICE, MY VIDEOS, MY COMMENTS heard? this is the true scenario that mike and others are talking about! and yes it will make "pirating" possibly disappear however it will come at a cost that would make all of us sit up and cry NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2nd, Viacom
3rd, I don't doubt it since they already use fake DMCAs and cease and desists.
I don't agree that pirating might disappear. Since the laws target the third parties and not the pirates, it will just be out of sight. The cost will still be there but the benefit (removing piracy) will not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aha!
Yup. Anti-IP (as in Internet Protocol.) It's a push by Lucent to bring back ATM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plan B
The shear audacity of it boggles the mind: to try and get the people with the guns and the tanks to agree that your interests are the most important consideration in the face of massive technological progress and that this amazing new machine that can replicate information perfectly, transport it instantly, and both for almost no cost must be crippled because it interferes with the multi-layer middle-man edifice you've carefully crafted for decades.
My question is, why do they seem to have so much influence in Washington? Comparatively they're not that large of an industry nor are they creating products or services that are really critical to human survival.
Is it simply because they are the media and politicians need the media to help them get elected and therefore the favors flow?
Or is it because their entire business is built upon the artificial government-created construct that deems that information and ideas are something that can be owned and, knowing that, they take special care to be as cozy as possible with those who create and maintain that construct?
Incredibly, they seem to have been pretty successful at it. I'm afraid that eventually, one of these "Internet Killer" bills will pass and this world-changing, government-toppling, people-empowering vehicle will exist only in the memories of those who lived to see it blossom and those who visit it's inanimate corpse in the Smithsonian. I hope I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA v. China & Iran
In China & Iran, the government censors the internet to protect its own interests.
In the US, the government censors the internet to protect the interests of (media) corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My summary of the conversation to this point
And this is just for one site, YouTube. What about all the other "dedicated to infringing" sites like Craigslist, eBay, Sears, etc? I can guarantee that if the masses really knew what this bill was about, there wouldn't be more than 2 people for it. That is why the bill is being written so broadly and they make claims that it won't be abused. Well if it won't be abused, why isn't it written in a way that it can't be abused? Nothing wrong with that right?
I am glad to see this thread went on as long as it did and that many people chimed in with good points as anyone who comes across this at a later date will see that AC and OOTB cannot back up their claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My summary of the conversation to this point
Weird.
And if youtube went away tmrw, somebody else would come up with a site for people to show videos of their dog skateboarding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My summary of the conversation to this point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is actually half right. The simple truth is that as they crank out more bills like this, more and more people will start to become increasingly against IP in any form. It isn't that anti-IP people are against this bill, but that this bill will make people anti-IP. He's too blinded by his own dogma to see that, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was I selling the art? No I was not in any way, shape or form. I simply created it because I wanted to. Because I liked the series. If I was selling the art, I would have been infringing on copyrights. For people that do this, I believe they should be taken to task. But what's going to happen are a few things, both of which have been mentioned, but that I can personally confirm, being in the business.
1) Some budding artists will not be able to flower. Fanart is a tricky thing - it's something many artists use as a starting-off point when they're teens or younger. It makes them want to draw, to create, to be something. We'll be killing off natural talent, because it's already been happening before this proposal. If it passes, it will be another nail in the coffin.
2) The "little" people will be attacked. Rich people aren't the ones that make profits from drawing a Ninja Turtle and selling it on eBay. They're poor from the recession and forced to do what they can to make ends meet. This will target the wrong people, as has been mentioned before. Someone making a $1 off some walnut turtle in a craftshow could be just as liable as the real pirate that streams videos illegally.
Whoever's arguing for this to pass, do you have problems making your mortgage payments? Do you live in a tiny house and have absolutely no health insurance? Art, music and the like are the only things left we have. How dare you try and steal them from us in order to protect those that will never understand "not being able to go to the doctor".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is, unless Congress actually goes so far as implementing a true Great Firewall of the US and blocks offshore DNS and tries to prevent users from accessing given IP addresses - but there's something called the Constitution in the way of that.
Congress will have destroyed a great American company - Google - and likely a good part of the Internet industry in the US - in exchange for "protecting" the real "e-parasites" - copyright trolls looking to make monopoly rents off of fair use of content and the innovators of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impressive! RT @creativeamerica: Creative America supporters have sent over 100,000 letters to #Congress for stronger content theft laws.
But if you follow the link in the original @creativeamerica twit, you'll find a page that says "4,173 Letters Sent So Far".
These guys are desperate....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its simple.
The scary thing is I live here and I still tend to agree with this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see....the US Chamber of Commerce, a club for thieves, is against something.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]