Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'

from the conflict-of-interests dept

Thu, Nov 3rd 2011 8:28am — Mike Masnick

This following story would be pretty funny if it didn't have such a wide impact. It's pretty much assured that VP Joe Biden is in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. Since the start of this administration, President Obama has delegated most copyright issues to Biden, and Biden's general view on copyright seems to be "whatever makes Hollywood happier must be fantastic." How else do you describe his continued support of ever more draconian copyright law, contrary to the evidence suggesting that it only makes things worse? How else do you explain his claim that he got "all the stakeholders" concerning copyright into a summit meeting, when it only involved government officials and the big labels and studios (no consumer advocates, no artists, no technologists, no entrepreneurs, etc.)?

At the same time, issues of "internet freedom" have been handed off to the State Department, where Hillary Clinton and her team have actually been doing a pretty good job. The Wikilkeaks response was a bit of a hiccup, but on the whole... they've taken a really strong position on the importance of internet freedom, and they deserve kudos for that. Of course, as we've noted, these two issues appear to come into conflict over copyright policy, and bills like PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE. Those kinds of bills make Biden happy, clearly, but seriously upset people in the State Department, who recognize that it completely undermines their message on internet freedom, being against censorship and allowing the free flow of information online.

So, at the very least, keep an eye out for the growing conflict between Biden and Clinton on this particular issue. What it'll come down to is whether or not Obama recognizes that PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE isn't just a copyright issue, but one of regulating the internet.

Either way, use that as background to understand the awkwardness of what follows. Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak earlier this week at the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC), in which she was expected to give a speech on the importance of freedom in cyberspace. At the last minute, however, she had to pull out due to her mother falling ill. So, Joe Biden stepped in instead, and gave what looks like a variation on what Clinton's speech was supposed to be... talking up the importance of freedom on the internet and not regulating the internet: You could take a lot of what he says as a clear argument against PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE:

We know that it will take many years and patient and persistent engagement with people around the world to build a consensus around cyberspace, but there are no shortcuts because what citizens do online should not, as some have suggested, be decreed solely by groups of governments making decisions for them somewhere on high. No citizen of any country should be subject to a repressive global code when they send an email or post a comment to a news article. They should not be prevented from sharing their innovations with global consumers simply because they live across a national frontier. That's not how the Internet should ever work in our view -- not if we want it to remain the space where economic, political and social exchanges can flourish.

Indeed. So can we chalk up Biden's support for getting rid of the Great Firewall of America approach found in SOPA? Can we chalk up Biden's support for not doing DNS (and more!) blocking so that people in the US cannot reach certain websites that the rest of the world can reach, based solely on a repressive government code? And, under SOPA, innovators would clearly be hindered from sharing their innovations with global consumers, due to massive liabilities put on them under the law.

Now, there are some who have a different view, as you all know. They seek an international legal instrument that would lead to exclusive government control over Internet resources, institutions and content and national barriers on the free flow of information online. But this, in our view, would lead to a fragmented Internet, one that does not connect people but divides them; a stagnant cyberspace, not an innovative one, and ultimately a less secure cyberspace with less trust among nations.

Again, can we now assume that Biden is coming out against DNS/IP blocking, as found in SOPA? After all, it has been widely established that that, too, would "lead to a fragmented Internet, one that does not connect people but divides them; a stagnant cyberspace, not an innovative one, and ultimately a less secure cyberspace with less trust." Nice to see him say that, though I wonder if he'll ignore all of that when the same arguments are put forth over SOPA.

We have an expression in our country: If it ain�t broke, don't fix it. It would be misguided, in our view, to break with the system that has worked so well for so long.

Indeed. And yet, SOPA clearly tries to break a regulatory and technical framework for the internet that has been in existence for quite some time, and which is likely responsible for the amazing growth and success of the internet industry within the US.

Those countries that try to have it both ways by making the Internet closed to free expression but open for business will find that this is no easy task. They may try to build walls between these different activities, but there isn�t a separate economic Internet, political Internet and social Internet. They are all one. It�s simply the Internet.

The same search engines that help customers find local businesses also point them to websites of bloggers and civil society groups. Social networking sites allow friends to share not only home videos, but also views about the political and social issues within their country.

Trying to build and maintain barriers in cyberspace entails a variety of cost, not just the cost of paying thousands of censors and Internet police to work around the clock, but also the opportunity costs to a nation�s future. And I believe all nations will ultimately determine this. The digital marketplace of ideas that welcomes every blog and tweet is the same one that inspires the next generation of innovators to fuel our economies. And when businesses consider investing in a country with a poor record on Internet freedom, and they know that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed, they�ll look for opportunities elsewhere.

Yes, yes and yes again. These are wonderful statements, and every one of them -- direct from Biden's mouth -- are clear arguments against SOPA. Last week, when we met with folks in DC about this issue, the fear of many of the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in our group was that if we put up the Great Firewall of America, as designated in SOPA, leading companies to recognize "that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed," that they will most certainly "look for opportunities elsewhere." Or, worse yet, they wouldn't start at all.

Honestly, Biden's speech really was an excellent one, and I applaud it. I am just wondering if everything he claimed in that speech will be ignored when it comes to SOPA, which seems to go against nearly every point he made in that speech. And to come out in favor of supporting the Great Firewall of America soon after making a speech like that one... well, that's going to certainly undermine a tremendous amount of credibility on the part of the vice president, while equally making life hard on Secretary Clinton in actually going out to these other countries and pressuring them to keep their internet open, while we lock it up at home.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, hillary clinton, internet freedom, joe biden

186 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

xenomancer (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:54am

It's Like He's Running for President Already
You can tell he doesn't actually process the words he is speaking. If he did, he'd start foaming at the mouth as he attempted to speak contradictions out both sides of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: It's Like He's Running for President Already
  When has Biden's compulsion to do Hollywood's bidding bettered Biden's blindness?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - martyburns (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re: It's Like He's Running for President Already
    +1 for the consonance :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re: It's Like He's Running for President Already
    Might want to research what goes on lobbying-wise:
    
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/googles-spreading-tentacles-of-influence-1027 2011.html
    
    There are two tracks involved with people that want to stop this bill. One are the pirates, who don't want to lose their free lunch, and then there are the aggregators, like Google, who don't want to lose the profits they make from piracy.
    
    Bottom line: Both tracks are about one thing, and one thing only- pure greed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Edward Teach, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:44pm
      
      Not responsive.
      Wow, I wise your comment, nominally made in reply to Jay's reply to xenomancer's comment, had some relation to Jay's reply. It does not. It is not responsive.
      
      What were you thinking? Was this just an attempt to get your crapaganda into the comments on an otherwise totally damaging post? Or do you just not have anything relevant to write?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Not responsive.
        Awesome rebuttal to the facts raised, bro.
        
        Also love the irony of calling what I wrote crapaganda considering the posts that are above it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Not responsive.
        If you want a rebuttal, you should post actual facts, not your own opinions.
        
        Also, you should look up the definition of the word irony. Apparently that word doesn't mean what you think it does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - xenomancer (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's Like He's Running for President Already
      So, since I am against SOPA/ACTA/TPP(/YADDAYADDA?), the two narrow stereotypes I am likely to be shoehorned into are aggregator and pirate? What about simple patriotic self interest? You're damn right I'm being greedy! I want to keep all those privileges (ex. freedom of speech) people like you seem to think can be stripped from others just to shore up the bottom line of a bunch of collusive hypocritical thieves (MPAA/RIAA/BSA/etc.) who seem to think its everyone else's fault that they haven't dominated the world yet. They're still making near record profit during a recession while fucking over the artists and consumers and I'm supposed to feel sorry that their monopoly via format is crumbling out from beneath them? And, I say privileges because its people with such incredibly narrow motives such as yourself (shills) that ruin this great experiment (a constitutional federal democratic republic) for the rest of us by getting them taken(/legislated) away, and they aren't rights anymore if they can just be taken away.
      
      I normally joke around about most things (or at least try), but when it comes to selfish unenlightened excretions promoting the incremental decline of civilization I get quite serious (sometimes). Please go find a proctologist and kindly have your two tracks extracted. I believe they may be interfering with your ability to create any original thoughts of your own. While your at it, see about finding some real facts and creating some original opinions of your own. I know it would be disingenuous of you to take that job away from some prick working for the MAFIAA, but branch out and try forming your own thoughts on for size. You may even find it liberating.
      
      tl;dr - please kindly pull over and change the air in your head, it seems to be under vacuum.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:32am

Mike, would you care to comment on:

http://www.ce.org/AboutCEA/CEAInitiatives/227_230.asp

http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/ press_release_detail.asp?id=12191

Can you explain why you claim to be operating for yourself, but appeared in Washington as part of a lobbying group's activities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  "The list of venture capitalists set to meet with members of Congress and their staff tomorrow includes Brad Burnham and Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures; Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital; Mike Masnick, Floor64; Derek Dukes, Dipity; David Ulevitch, OpenDNS; Slava Rubin, IndieGoGo; Zack Rosen, Chapter Three LLC; and Derek Parham, independent angel investor. Many of these venture capitalists sent a letter to Congress in June outlining their objections to the legislation."
  
  From your link, no less. The CEA brought in independent venture capitalists to represent the organizations they work for, NOT to represent the CEA. Hence their affiliation after their name.
  
  Care to try again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    DH, my only point is that Mike would not have access to the politicians in Washington without CEA opening the doors and dragging him in with them. For all intents and purposes, he was part of a dog and pony show put on by a lobbying group. Yet, asked earlier in the week to disclose any relationship, he denied any.
    
    Basically, Mike was working with (but not necessarily for) a lobbying firm. His Washington "access" depended on it. Why deny it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fine. Your point is that Mike lied somewhere. Apparently you think he said something at some point which would mean that this trip he took as an independent but at the behest of the CEA makes what he said a lie. I'd appreciate an opportunity to examine this thing he said, so can you link to it?
      
      I know it's kind of a pain, given how much content and comments appear on Techdirt, but if you're this sure, I assume you know where this text is?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/10154016584/white-house-petition-against-e-parasitesopa.sh tml#c1230
        
        It was his answer to my direct question about his visit to Washington.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That sure looks like a denial and a lie...if you are illiterate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Question:
        
        "However, I do think this is a chance for you to come clean. Considering your work the last week or so has bordered on sounding like a lobbyist, would you perhaps like to declare your working relationships with the various groups involved here? Are you a member of any of the groups, are any of them paying for your time, your hotel, your airfare, your meals, or otherwise supporting your efforts, and are you getting paid in any way to do this work?
        
        Your visits in Washington, are they as Mike Masnick, concerned citizen, or Mike Masnick, representing (insert group name here)?"
        
        Answer:
        
        "I would imagine it would be Mike Masnick, representing Floor64, the company he founded.
        
        Bingo. Though I am sincerely concerned about many other startups as well and the impact it will have on them."
        
        Now, at now time did Mike mention that (a) his visit was as part of a group lead by a lobbying firm, nor did he indicate that his access in Washington was because of this group.
        
        If it isn't a lie, it is certainly a very significant omission.
        
        Considering the number of anti PROTECT-IP pieces run in the last 10 days, it makes you wonder what all is going on. Has Techdirt become a PAC? ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Now, at now time did Mike mention that (a) his visit was as part of a group lead by a lobbying firm, nor did he indicate that his access in Washington was because of this group."
        
        This is just getting silly. The CEA may be a lobby and they obviously organized this trip, but that doesn't make Mike a lobbyist. And I wouldn't really even care if he was. The point is that there's no lie here. If you think there is, you apparently don't understand what lobbying actually is. Or, if your point is that anything remotely connected to lobbying is bad, then lets go nuke the entire music/film/content industry....
        
        "Considering the number of anti PROTECT-IP pieces run in the last 10 days, it makes you wonder what all is going on. Has Techdirt become a PAC? ;)"
        
        Wonder what's going on? Are you kidding me? How is this past week a deviation from the Techdirt SOP? There hasn't been a single article that came out where I read it and said, "holy shit! Mike's doing something abnormal! There must be some external reason for all this!!?!? ZOMG!>!?> GARGLE GARGLE!!@:<>.
        
        Seriously, what is your point here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DH, the point is Mike went to Washington as part of a lobbying effort, at the behest of a PAC, and completely denied it when asked, and was not forthcoming about it in any manner. This while running hit pieces about the bill's sponsors. How odd!
        
        Now this morning, he runs an opinion piece from a group, and just happens to fail to mention that the group is partners in his (seemingly failing) step2 thing.
        
        Mike appears to be doing a very good job of disguising and leaving out things that might make things a little questionable.
        
        As for the anti PROTECT-IP pieces (and as a result of running a partner's words without pointing out the relationship), one has to wonder if some or any of them are paid posts, "in kind" trades, or some form of exchange for Washington access. I am not accusing Mike of anything, just pointing out that there is a whole lot of grey going on here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the point is Mike"
        
        No, the point is that you have no point. You're grasping at straws. Mike is representing Floor64 along with a group of other people who are representing whatever businesses they happen to be representing. What, people can't collectively represent individual businesses as a group?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        gaining access to washington as part of a PAC's lobbying efforts.
        
        Thanks for playing denial, Techdirt edition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't care, even if he was the worst liar, cheating motherfucker in the world, he would be mine lying, cheating, motherfucker and not the industry.
        
        Maybe at some point we diverge but for now we are all on the same page on copyright issues.
        
        You see when you go against the grain those things matter, but when you don't nobody cares, what you do you get their trust because you didn't screw it up.
        
        Unlike the MPAA, the RIAA and Biden that are screw ups.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll leave the others to rip apart your first point, I'll focus on the last paragraph.
        
        If this is the case, at least the anti-SOPA articles provide links and proof and logic to back them up. You have not, you just spend all your time trying to tare apart his reputation with half truths and outright lies.
        
        This is an open port, you can post proof of your pro-SOPA position. Hell, you would be thanked if you did. Just make it logical and have actual truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "DH, the point is Mike went to Washington as part of a lobbying effort, at the behest of a PAC, and completely denied it when asked, and was not forthcoming about it in any manner."
        
        Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did Mike deny that his trip had any remote affiliation with any lobbying group anywhere? The link you provided doesn't say that, it says he represented Floor64 in Washington, which is what he did and is what the CEA apparently requested he do to begin with. Again, what's your point here?
        
        "Now this morning, he runs an opinion piece from a group, and just happens to fail to mention that the group is partners in his (seemingly failing) step2 thing."
        
        And? So what? The article doesn't relate to Step2, so why would he mention it?
        
        "Mike appears to be doing a very good job of disguising and leaving out things that might make things a little questionable."
        
        You should join the Olympic team if you can make leaps like that. What about any of this is questionable?
        
        "As for the anti PROTECT-IP pieces (and as a result of running a partner's words without pointing out the relationship), one has to wonder if some or any of them are paid posts, "in kind" trades, or some form of exchange for Washington access. I am not accusing Mike of anything, just pointing out that there is a whole lot of grey going on here."
        
        No, what you're doing is providing an excellent example definition of FUD, and you should probably stop because it's transparent as hell....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DH, I asked Mike very directly if his visit had anything to do with lobbying groups, if he was working for them, with them, or representing them in any way. He said no. Like a good politician, he didn't volunteer the information that he went as part of a group guided by a lobbying group, or that he was highlighted by the group for his participation in their efforts.
        
        He didn't mention that his only access to politicians in Washington was as a result of this group. In some ways, a lobbying group spent time and effort (and therefore money... people don't work for free!) to get Mike acecss. Don't you think that is worth mentioning?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "DH, I asked Mike very directly if his visit had anything to do with lobbying groups, if he was working for them, with them, or representing them in any way. He said no."
        
        Where, oh where, did such an exchange take place? I've yet to see it....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Atkray (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm pretty sure it was one of those "Mike I think you are a lobbyist, I'll take your silence as a yes" posts.
        
        This person has an unhealthy obsession with Mike at the personal level. It is creepy and possibly dangerous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't take his silence as a yes. I take his unwillingness to address the issues head on the same way he takes industry people in the same position: he thinks they have something to hide, or would be embarrasses by the truth.
        
        Nothing more.
        
        I have no obsession with Mike as a person. I don't give a crap about him on a personal level. I only give a crap about how he plays loose with the truth on his side, and holds his opponents to a much higher standard. I truly don't care about Mike one way or another past his Techdirt persona and postings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quite frankly, I don't think anyone around here gives a crap about you either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I hope I'm not the only one that gets annoyed when the text gets all scrunched up on the right side of the page from all the replies.......
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yes it is really annoying, you have to use small words or the whole system would crash and die.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        His point is to take something Mike said completely out of context and to twist it to mean something entirely different as a basis of forming a crazy conspiracy theory involving ponies and dogs doing tricks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Incoherent One (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So he's the lobbyist?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, I think I understand your point clearly.
        
        This isn't whether Mike is a lobbyist or not. I mean, I don't know if he is or not, and trying to prove that he is / isn't seems silly to me.
        
        You keep trying to bring out all those "smoking gun" posts that prove beyond doubt that something is being done by someone, and that lobbying is wrong, m'kay? Except you don't think lobbying is wrong, you think lobbying is awesome, as long as what is being lobbied is something you (or your employers, if you have any) want.
        
        It's like trying to prove that those on the opposite side are politicians. Or saying "well, you know, judge, the defense can't be trusted, because he's a L-A-W-Y-E-R! you can't trust lawyers!". But what you want to attack is not the concept of being a lobbyist, or a politician, or a lawyer. You just want to damn those with the opposite opinion of you, and you try to turn it into an epithet war, except that those "epithets" definitely apply to your side too.
        
        Basically, what you're saying is that the only good lobbyist is a RIAA/MIAA lobbyist arguing in favor of draconian copyright measures.
        
        And that there should be a law declaring that only Big Content lobbyists are allowed into Washington, or something. Because lobbyists are bad, as long as they're not mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, what I am saying is that Mike is doing the very things that he pisses all over the other side for doing.
        
        The only good lobbyist is one that has the balls to admit he is one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, let me get this straight. A coordinated group that goes to DC are according to you, by definition, lobbyists. But the only ones who should be doing that are those pushing for a draconian anti consumer agenda. And those who are speaking against that abuse of power, should stay honest by remaining powerless to change things? Because they criticize how the powerful lobby, they should not lobby? And therefore, have their voices unheard (very convenient).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean his answer to Karl's comment about Mike representing Floor 64, the company he created? The one where he said he only speaks for Floor 64, but he's concerned for everyone?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh...we already covered this. CEA asked a bunch of people to go to Washington to REPRESENT THEMSELVES, which is what the CEA link you gave us AND Mike said happened.
        
        Try again....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "CEA asked a bunch of people to go to Washington to REPRESENT THEMSELVES"
        
        Exactly! and that's what Mike did, he went and represented himself. All of a sudden IP maximists have to turn it into a crazy conspiracy theory where Mike is a pony doing tricks or some other nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... and CEA worked to get them access to people they otherwise would not have access to. Don't you think that, at minimum, Mike should have mentioned that? He denied it end to end, like he just went to Washington by himself and wandered office to office. We know that just isn't true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He denied it end to end"
        
        He didn't deny it. You're demanding an answer to a question not asked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's a sad state of affairs in this country when you "would not have access to the politicians in Washington" without a lobbying group...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is one of those times when I think we need a sad but true button.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      DH, my only point is that Mike would not have access to the politicians in Washington without CEA opening the doors and dragging him in with them. For all intents and purposes, he was part of a dog and pony show put on by a lobbying group. Yet, asked earlier in the week to disclose any relationship, he denied any.
      
      Basically, Mike was working with (but not necessarily for) a lobbying firm. His Washington "access" depended on it. Why deny it?
      
      So you're admitting that the only way to be recognized by Washington politicians is to be part of a lobbying group, trade organization, or some group with deep pockets full of money?
      
      Thank you for confirming how screwed up this country is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why assume that access to discussions with politicians must depend on/require a lobby group?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    He's just desperate to attack Mike and disregard the fact that all these years of work in TD and in the tech world have given him reputation that actually allows him to access Washington.
    
    Give him a cookie, don't be mean ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ninja, you bring up a good point. How many doors would "Mike Masnick, Floor64" really open? It's clear now that the only way he got access in Washington in the last little while has been with the help of CEA. He didn't go by himself, he went as past of a group chaperoned by CEA.
      
      Are you denying this as well?
      
      It's not a question of "attack Mike", rather it's asking Mike to hold himself to the same standards that he would hold others to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So only PACs, lobbyists, and insiders should have access to Congress instead of the public that they serve?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jay, way to try to twist the question. I didn't say any of that, please don't try so hard to derail things.
        
        I am saying that I don't think Mike, wandering around Washington alone, would get much access. As part of a dog and pony show by CEA, he likely got into a lot of offices.
        
        I don't suggest to draw any conclusions about who should or should not have access. I am only observing on what appears to be a huge issue for Mike and Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't suggest to draw any conclusions about who should or should not have access. I am only observing on what appears to be a huge issue for Mike and Techdirt."
        
        I asked you to highlight this issue, which hinges upon Mike lying about this in an earlier comment. I await a quote/link with baited breath....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See above.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Turn around.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I await a quote/link with baited breath....
        
        Dude, when jousting with trolls, use bass bait, not catfish.
        
        Here, TicTac(tm).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even better: wait with bated breath. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He didn't go by himself, he went as past of a group chaperoned by CEA.
        
        A lot of like minded individuals went to Congress to redress the problem of SOPA. Also, the government has talked to Silicon Valley before. Silicon Valley, for the most part, chose to stay out of DC politics.
        
        It's very unclear what you're trying to say. Basically, the entire problem seems to be that because the CEA opens doors for most of Silicon Valley, this is misleading on Mike's part. Yes, CEA is very concerned about these issues. So are most of the new competitors in Silicon Valley. Why is it a bad thing for companies to get together to redress their government?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's only that Mike should probably have mentioned that this was a CEA field trip, and not something he was randomly doing of his own accord. Without the lobbying efforts of CEA, he would not have gotten access to anyone except maybe the lunch truck driver three blocks down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And here we go full circle...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Without the lobbying efforts of CEA, he would not have gotten access to anyone except maybe the lunch truck driver three blocks down.
        
        So... your ultimate concern is that Mike had access to politicians?
        
        Your "lunch truck driver" slam undermines the entirety of your argument. Loosely translated, "I don't like Masnick. He is a nobody and as such, should only be granted the same access that other nobodies have, i.e. none. If for some reason he has had access to politicians, it's obviously part of some hypocritical scam."
        
        When you're trying to come across as a "concerned commenter" who's just trying to pull the wool back from the faithful's eyes, it helps if you don't wear your bile on your sleeve.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The lunch truck drive thing isn't a slam. It's just a statement of fact. Mike Masnick, alone, by himself, showing up on Capital Hill and demanding meetings with various politicians would get either brushed off or ignored entirely. At best, he MIGHT get 30 seconds to 1 minute with the junior senator for his state or perhaps a junior house member for his area. He certainly wouldn't get to wander the halls of power pounding doors.
        
        He would get to meet, realistically, the lunch truck guy... and perhaps a few security guards and politicians aides telling him they they can schedule 30 seconds in 8 months, if he wants to make an appointment, or to tell him to visit the local political office in his district at home.
        
        It isn't that Mike is nobody, he just isn't any more important than thousands of others people all clambering for the same access and getting none. Without the lobby group to bundle them together and drag them around as a dog an pony show, he wouldn't have the access.
        
        A little honesty in the matter from Mike would go a very, veyr long way here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He would get to meet, realistically, the lunch truck guy... and perhaps a few security guards and politicians aides telling him they they can schedule 30 seconds in 8 months, if he wants to make an appointment, or to tell him to visit the local political office in his district at home.
        
        It isn't that Mike is nobody, he just isn't any more important than thousands of others people all clambering for the same access and getting none. Without the lobby group to bundle them together and drag them around as a dog an pony show, he wouldn't have the access."
        
        Ok, so to be clear, you think that for example Hollywood representatives should meet, realistically, the lunch truck guy... and perhaps a few security guards and politicians aides telling them that they can schedule 30 seconds in 8 months, if they want to make an appointment? I mean, it's not that they're nobodies, but they aren't any more important than thousands of other people all clambering for the same access and getting none.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ok, so to be clear, you think that for example Hollywood representatives should meet, realistically, the lunch truck guy... and perhaps a few security guards and politicians aides telling them that they can schedule 30 seconds in 8 months, if they want to make an appointment? "
        
        It's the miracle of PACs and lobbyists... the reason they are seeing the politicians is because they support them with contributions and other perks. It is the same for CEA, which funds lobbying efforts, etc. That is why Mike saw more than the lunch truck driver, because he went as part of a lobby group.
        
        How hard is this stuff to understand? Am I not using English or something?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, so you ARE saying that only lobbyists should be allowed to contact the government directly, while those who are not lobbyists should only meet the lunch truck guy.
        
        Of course, you also imply that's ok as long as it's the agenda YOU are pushing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A little honesty in the matter from Mike would go a very, veyr long way here."
        
        That's a little rich from an AC. How about you reveal your vested interests here. Why are you supporting this bill so strongly? Why are you trying so hard to discredit Mike? How about you demonstrate the same level of honesty you're demanding from him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        JMT, I have done it before, and I will do it again.
        
        I do not work for the movie or music industries.
        
        I am not a musician, nor do I make movies.
        
        I do not work for any political groups, PACs, lobbying firms, or other. I am on techdirt as an individual, nothing more. I have no associations, paid or unpaid, to Hollywood or to the music industry (except that my Brother in Law plays guitar... for fun.).
        
        So do you think Mike can do the same?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - A Monkey with Atitude, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me help you with a little
        
        Continue to keep doing the same routine over and over and expecting different results = Insanity...
        
        Your the proof of concept...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Call me Al, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:51am
  
  Re:
  Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Mike isn't allowed to attend meetings to discuss opposition to legislation he disagrees with?
  
  Also you can still "operate for yourself" while being part of a group of like-minded individuals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Mike isn't allowed to attend meetings to discuss opposition to legislation he disagrees with?"
    
    No, how the heck did you get to that? I am not suggesting that Mike loses his rights to assembly. I don't suggest he lose any of his rights.
    
    All I am saying is that he should be more forthcoming about his efforts. All of those SOPA / PROTECT IP posts came at the same time he was wandering around Washington pushing the issue. Was Techdirt being used as part of the lobbying porcess, example? Don't you think you would want to know?
    
    Mike talks often about his presentations, about different groups he talks to, meetings, boards, panels, and the like. Yet he goes to Washington, doesn't talk about it at all, doesn't talk at all about CEA, none of it. Why? Why avoid such an obvious situation where Mike could have shown his readers that not only is he talking a good game, but he is actually out there in the trenches fighting?
    
    The silence is deafening.
    
    "Also you can still "operate for yourself" while being part of a group of like-minded individuals."
    
    Nobody says you can't. However, if Mike went to Washington operating for himself alone, it is doubtful he would have gotten the level of access he got working with the CEA lobbying firm group. There is nothing more to it than that. It doesn't suggest he can't be both.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The silence is deafening.
      
      ... he writes 15 hours *after* I responded to his silly attempt to whip up a conspiracy where none exists. Not only that, but we know he saw it, because he responded to multiple posts in that same thread well after I responded.
      
      Mike talks often about his presentations, about different groups he talks to, meetings, boards, panels, and the like. Yet he goes to Washington, doesn't talk about it at all, doesn't talk at all about CEA, none of it. Why? Why avoid such an obvious situation where Mike could have shown his readers that not only is he talking a good game, but he is actually out there in the trenches fighting?
      
      I did talk about it. I did a post on Monday about it.
      
      And, FYI, I don't talk about all of my events/travel/presentations. Probably less than 30% of them are ever mentioned here. I mean, a few weeks ago I was in LA doing a presentation for folks in the movie industry. I didn't mention it because there was nothing to talk about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, in threaded view, your answer is WAY DOWN THERE, about 20 posts down. I could only spot your response way down there if I was using flat board to get the timing right.
        
        I know you understand the technology at work.
        
        Perhaps you should talk more about your lobbying work. I find it interesting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're an idiot. Lose the tinfoil hat you fucking moron.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  Because lobbying appears to be a million times more effective at getting results than sending letters to an intern and getting a canned message in reply?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    So, you agree that Mike was working with a lobbying group?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Where did Mike say otherwise? That doesn't negate the fact that Mike is representing himself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and he's probably not only working with a single 'lobbying group' I imagine. He's probably working with many various 'lobbying groups'. I don't see this as a problem and I'm not being misled to believe otherwise. He's still representing himself. Heck, companies hire lobbying groups to represent them, those companies that hire lobbying groups aren't representing the lobbying group. They're representing themselves. It's prudent business practice to attend various business meetings with differing organizations. Business representatives that do so don't do it to represent those organizations, they do it represent their own organization and to ensure that their interests are also represented within the organizational meetings that they attend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Incoherent One (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aren't you full yet? This argument has been asked and answered a few times now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:03am
  
  Re:
  That is not lobbying because it doesn't involve giving politician money in hopes they will legislation the flavors the CEA, the CEA's members or Mike Masnick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    There is lobbying and there is lobbying(wink, wink). One is legal...the other fuzzy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    You people are idiots. Look up the definition of "lobbying.". What Mike was doing is clearly lobbying. What Mike was not doing however, or at least I hope not, was paying off politicians with "campaign contributions.". There is clearly a difference in expressing a difference of opinion on an issue that concerns someone in an attempt to sway their opinion versus buying a politician with cold hard cash. I share A lot of Mike's opinions on this issue and I thank him for being a voice of reason for people like me that are not afforded an opportunity to sit face-to-face with politicians. But the moment I hear that he or Floor64 are buying politicians to stick in their back pocket, he becomes one of them and I would no longer trust his agenda. Keep up the good fight Masnick but be weary of that line!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry, but that's a fail.
      
      The tech industry contributes just as much cash to politicians as the entertainment industry does.
      
      Look it up: opensecrets.org
      
      Campaign contributions have zero to do with this bill.
      
      It's a simple matter of right and wrong, and enforcing the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        TVs/Movies/Music
        
        Computers & Internet
        
        Now correct my math here, but $600M <> $150M
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I clicked those links and I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers. Maybe I'm missing your point but it seems, from your link, that tech as a whole actually contributes slightly more. It also seems like there are more tech companies on those lists (which makes sense since tech is a larger aspect of our economy) and that, at least among the top contributors, TV/Movies/Music contributes considerably more per capita.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (sorry, not per capita, per corporate entity).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        2011 numbers from your links:
        
        "Total for Computers/Internet: $91,712,448"
        
        With Google being numero uno.
        
        "Total for TV/Movies/Music: $91,687,558"
        
        With Comcast being numero uno.
        
        So yeah, consider yourself corrected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You corrected him, point.
        
        Here's the problem: take a look at what is essentially equal numbers in lobbying efforts, and then take a look at the total number of dollars represented by each industry, and think about what that means....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DH, you meant each industry division or each business within the industry, not each industry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  I love these attempts to discredit the author rather than discredit the argument. Are you saying Mike's a hypocrite? Are you saying he's now a professional lobbyist because he talked to a politician?
  
  It's not a problem for politicians to listen lobbyists. I want them to listen to lobbyists - from every industry and public interest group imaginable. I also want them to listen to their constituents and stay tuned to public discourse. To make informed decisions, they have to listen to lots and lots of different voices. You can't decide in a vacuum.
  
  The problem is when they only listen to one voice. The problem is when that one voice is co-related to campaign contributions. That's the problem!
  
  Now if you don't think Biden is being a hypocrite in this speech, then explain why, because it looks to Mike and myself that Biden is just talking out of his ass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    The point is that Masnick is now a lobbyist. His personal motivations for signing on with CEA might be because he loves piracy and doesn't want to lose the ability to pirate; but while they might differ from the CEA's, who profit from piracy in a different way, all that matters is that he is hooked up with a lobbying group.
    
    This is yet another example of him being hypocritical. He thinks it's wrong for artists and the entertainment industry to be able to lobby for the government to enforce the law, but perfectly fine for the tech industry to lobby for the continuation of lawbreaking.
    
    That's an epic fail on his part.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That entire comment is an epic fail on your part. One, Mike was asked to come to Washington to represent himself, not a lobby. You don't have to make yourself a member of a lobby just to speak in Washington or to be asked to speak.
      
      And the rest of your comment is so wrong, I would say it would qualify as defamation. You're strait up lying with the express intent of doing harm.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hahahahahaha, bring it on!
        
        The process of evidence discovery for my side would be very revealing.
        
        Fucking idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lucidrenegade (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All it would reveal is that you're a moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mike was asked to come to Washington to represent himself, not a lobby. "
        
        Mike went to Washington as party of a lobby group, under his name, to represent himself, his companies, and also to show his support for the very good that was bringing him along. After all, do you think he went into each meeting and said "I am Mike Masnick, and I have nothing to do with CEA and do not support their lobbying efforts in any way"? Nope. He went with a lobby group to lobby politicians. Seems like, umm, LOBBYING to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Atitude, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I swear could you at least try for some logic next time
      
      -10 interwebs and a head slap is being sent via parcel post...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  Holy moly! Good one exposing this, Anonymous.
  
  Is Techdirt working for the man?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackwagon (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Lobbying isn't inherently bad. It's just trying to influence the government. I for one and glad someone is looking out for the public. I'm confident Mike didn't take any politicians out for hooker and cocaine parties and didn't offer them CFO jobs at Techdirt once their political careers are over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  I don't see what your point is. So a group of (like minded) individuals invited people to speak on various subjects and Mike attended and spoke.
  
  Why is that such a big deal? If members form a group of businesses, like the chamber of commerce, and the chamber of commerce speaks to congress representing those businesses, when members of the chamber of commerce who are also members of various businesses represented by the chamber of commerce speak to congressmen and to other chamber of commerce members, are they suddenly not representing their own business (ok, this almost looks like collusion, right)? Various groups of businesses form organizations that allow them to discuss issues. Various members from each business, representing their specific business, come to speak at (COC and other) group meetings. They're still representing their specific business.
  
  Groups of like minded businesses can come together to form a group of company representatives from each business so that they can arrange to have politicians talk to them about certain subjects that many of the members agree on. Each member can still represent his own business in the discussions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re:
  Ah, look like I picked a fun day to be in meetings all day and miss all the conspiracy theory fun. Remember the other day, when I warned you that the more you focused on conspiracy theories, the more foolish you would look?
  
  Yes.
  
  Anyway. I was in Washington DC for three days last week: Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Thursday was spent with a group of entrepreneurs, VCs, artists and innovators, who had signed onto the various protest letters against PIPA. Because we don't have anyone directly in DC, we asked CEA to help in setting up the meetings for that one day.
  
  At no point was anyone asked, told or pressured in any way shape or form to represent anyone but themselves. At no point were we even told what CEA's position was on these issues. Honestly, I can't even recall CEA's name coming up in the discussions. We were all there to represent ourselves and our own businesses. We had CEA coordinate, because they are good at that.
  
  As for my ability to meet with anyone but the lunch truck guy, well, I had many more meetings on Wednesday and Friday which were done entirely on my own and were not as a part of that group. And, um, they were not with the lunch truck guy. To be honest, I was able to score higher level meetings on my own than what CEA set up on Thursday.
  
  My trip was solely to represent myself and Floor64. The fact that we used some folks in DC to help *coordinate* the logistics was entirely unrelated to the message. And, frankly, CEA was *amazing* at the scheduling aspect of a bunch of meetings, since things change so rapidly on Capital Hill. Handling my own meetings the other days wasn't nearly as deft, because a bunch of my meetings went long, so I had to keep emailing everyone later in the day to reschedule. Thursday, with CEA handling the scheduling, went much smoother.
  
  Anyway, I know you feel the need to attack me on every single post, but, you're really stretching here. And, contrary to your assertions I never lied or misled you in any way. I went representing Floor64 and Floor64 alone. I didn't mention CEA in the same way I don't mention the person who schedules my regular business meetings for me -- because the person doing the coordinating is entirely unrelated to the message.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    C'mon Mike, fess up. Did you go to DC in a bus? In a plane? I bet you hired a travel agency for that. That means you traveled to DC on behalf of that agency. I think that makes you a travel agent now... or even worse, a driver or pilot! How many airplanes do you plan to pilot from now on? I don't think I can trust you anymore when you post about things related to transportation, air travel, the TSA, or the breaking of Gibson guitars.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Funny, CEA didn't ask me or any other musicians/music entrepreneurs to join them.
    
    The only people that were asked were those with the same agenda.
    
    Coordinated lobbying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny, CEA didn't ask me or any other musicians/music entrepreneurs to join them.
      
      You're surprised that the Consumer Electronics Association didn't single out musicians or music entrepreneurs?
      
      And, why should they? Musicians and music entrepreneurs have exactly the same stake in copyright laws as everyone else.
      
      The only people that were asked were those with the same agenda.
      
      Please read Mike's account. Nobody was "asked." A bunch of VC's and entrepreneurs were independently planning on going to Washington, decided to coordinate things, and asked the CEA to set up the details. The CEA didn't tell anyone to promote any agenda.
      
      Do you wear a hat when you go out in public? You probably should, nothing hides the tin foil like a nice fedora.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny, CEA didn't ask me or any other musicians/music entrepreneurs to join them.
      
      Actually, that's not true. We had both artists and "music entrepreneurs" on the trip. ANd, of course, we had VCs who had funded a bunch of music entrepreneurs as well.
      
      Well, I mean you're right that CEA didn't ask them to go. We asked CEA to help us organize, so it was the other way around. But your wrong that there were no musicians or music entrepreneurs on the trip. We also had authors and a movie producer, by the way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, while I appreciate your post, I would say that your words seem to go against the CEA press release. and I quote:
    
    The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)® is bringing 15 venture capitalists specializing in Internet innovation to Washington on October 27, to tell members of Congress first-hand how the PROTECT IP Act would undermine the vital web economy.
    The list of venture capitalists set to meet with members of Congress and their staff tomorrow includes Brad Burnham and Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures; Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital; Mike Masnick, Floor64; Derek Dukes, Dipity; David Ulevitch, OpenDNS; Slava Rubin, IndieGoGo; Zack Rosen, Chapter Three LLC; and Derek Parham, independent angel investor. Many of these venture capitalists sent a letter to Congress in June outlining their objections to the legislation.
    
    Their side of the story is that they brought you guys together to tell the politicians "first hand" about your objections to PROTECT IP.
    
    So how do you square your story with their story? Are they lying?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fail. CEA is bringing them but they didn't say they are representing or in a partnership. What Mike explained stands and is confirmed by this paragraph. Reading between the lines much?
      
      You are making a fool of yourself...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Their side of the story is that they brought you guys together to tell the politicians "first hand" about your objections to PROTECT IP.
      
      So how do you square your story with their story? Are they lying?
      
      I'm trying to figure out where you think the two stories conflict, because I don't see it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You said:
        
        " was in Washington DC for three days last week: Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Thursday was spent with a group of entrepreneurs, VCs, artists and innovators, who had signed onto the various protest letters against PIPA. Because we don't have anyone directly in DC, we asked CEA to help in setting up the meetings for that one day."
        
        They said:
        
        "The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)® is bringing 15 venture capitalists specializing in Internet innovation to Washington on October 27, to tell members of Congress first-hand how the PROTECT IP Act would undermine the vital web economy."
        
        So which was it. Did you go of your own accord and ask CEA for help, or did CEA bring you guys to Washington?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We planned to go. We asked CEA to help. There's no conflict in the statements. I think you're misinterpreting "bring" in the statement. They "brought" us around capital hill on Thursday, as per our request.
        
        The thing that's factually inaccurate in CEA's statement is calling us all venture capitalists -- but, if anything, that should reinforce the idea that they didn't exactly know who we were.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The way CEA phrases it, it appears that they were the ones who asked for you to be there. If they were only helping you out, they wouldn't really be bringing you, they might be helping you, aiding you, etc... plus using "Washington" instead of "to meet house members" also allows it to easily be read that they sent a bus or air tickets or whatever to get you and bring you to the City.
        
        They certainly make it read like they were leading the charge. Would you say that they overstated their involvement, perhaps to look better?
        
        Oh, do you know who the past president of CEA is?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Semantics aside, how does this matter?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2011 @ 9:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The CEA version suggests that they invited these people to be sort of their "front", or perhaps what might be called a "dog and pony show" for the politicians, done at the behest of CEA.
        
        Mike's version suggests that a group of people got together independently, and went to Washington, and got the CEA to help them to arrange meetings.
        
        One has CEA as the leader, the other has independent people doing what they feel is right. One is working for a lobbying firm (paid or unpaid), the other is using a firm for contacts.
        
        It really goes to intent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brendan (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 11:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you dissect the activities of RIAA/MPAA/xxAA submarine lobbyist effort this closely, too?
        
        Because some of them (*ahem* Glazier) lied and cheated for real, rather than just in Fairyland in your head.
        
        I hope you are equally enraged (or, more so) about that "small" issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JaDe, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:46am

He's first rate!
The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: He's first rate!
  "Holding two opposed ideas in the mind" is Fitzgerald's test of intelligence.
  
  "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them" is Orwell's definition of doublethink.
  
  Espousing two contradictory positions on different days of the week is just what people like Biden do; it doesn't really say anything about what beliefs, if any, they hold.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JaDe, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: He's first rate!
    "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them" is Orwell's definition of doublethink.
    
    This was my first thought. Despite being somewhat boring in the middle, I love 1984.
    
    Espousing two contradictory positions on different days of the week is just what people like Biden do; it doesn't really say anything about what beliefs, if any, they hold.
    
    Very true. Typical of most if not all politicians. I was really going for sarcastic and maybe even a hint of trolling with the quote.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:48am

'I am just wondering if everything he claimed in that speech will be ignored when it comes to SOPA'
why? what is there to wonder about? everyone knows the answer. he will be the first to vote SOPA into law, because he is nothing less than 2 faced, an entertainment industry backer in the extreme. he isn't in the least bit interested in how hard it makes Clinton's job. it doesn't matter that he wants to lock down the US internet whilst expecting the rest of the world to leave their internet open. i say 'bring it on'! once the net has been broken, it's gonna be a real bitch to repair. what i wonder is, how is he gonna cope with the backlash that is bound to come from US businesses when they cant operate, from US citizens when they cant access particular web sites, with the US economy when it cant trade as normal with the rest of the world? what excuses will he dish out? what action will be taken against him and those others that support SOPA? Karma is a bastard, but i cant wait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  All FUD.
  
  Every time new legislation is proposed, you people behave as if the end is nigh.
  
  Copyhype has a excellent summation of this hilarious chicken little behavior over the years:
  
  http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/dispatches-from-the-sopacolypse/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Monkey with Atitude, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    The funny part is, your tone and writing style is very easy to differentiate from others, so i don't even have to read your stupidity any more, i just get to ignore and move on...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron Rezendes (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's the Return of the FUD Duck!
    
    "Every time new legislation is proposed, you people behave as if the end is nigh."
    
    Oh this is rich! Let me FTFY, accordingly to the reactions of the content industries and technology advancements:
    
    Every time new technology (phonograph, player piano, radio, television, VCR, DVR, MP3, streaming over the web, etc.) is discovered, you people behave as if the end is nigh.
    
    The funny part is mine is true and yours is FUD!
    Score one FUD for the FUD Duck!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Except no one is trying ban any invention here.
      
      Care to try again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Atkray (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually they are not only trying to ban inventions they are succeeding.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111031/04020316568/mpaa-kills-more-innovation-zedi va-shut-down-permanently.shtml
        
        You care to try again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL. That's not an invention, pal.
        
        Care to try again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The phonograph isn't an invention! Someone just glued together a crank, a box, a loudspeaker and a needle, there's nothing inventive about those!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ron Rezendes (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Epic fail in reading comprehension AC, they are trying to break what's already in place!
        
        "We have an expression in our country: If it ain�t broke, don't fix it. It would be misguided, in our view, to break with the system that has worked so well for so long."
        
        "Indeed. And yet, SOPA clearly tries to break a regulatory and technical framework for the internet that has been in existence for quite some time, and which is likely responsible for the amazing growth and success of the internet industry within the US."
        
        Care to try Reading Comprehension 101?
        
        Me: I'll take "Trolling" for $500, Alex!
        
        Alex: The clue is: Myopic & obtuse
        
        Me: What is an AC on TD?
        
        Alex: Correct! Your pick again...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act was passed in 1997, expanding the definition of �financial gain� in criminal copyright infringement and increasing criminal penalties. Among the opponents of the bill was the Association for Computing, which raised concerns that it would restrict dissemination of science, criminalize the transfer of information protected by fair use, and chill free speech in research institutions. Others warned it would greatly expand the scope of criminal infringement; �aggressive prosecutors would abuse their discretion to win convictions� or �bring weak felony cases to get quick misdemeanor plea bargains.�1
    
    None of these concerns materialized.
    
    False. Ninjavideo, Jammie Thomas' convictions are a direct result of the higher statutory damages clause.
    
    The Artists� Rights and Theft Prevention (ART) Act of 2005 added provisions to criminal copyright law that expressly targeted �camming� and distribution of pre-release commercial works. Critics called it draconian, foresaw an uptick in prison sentences, and decried a lack of fair use in the Act. The provisions have instead been used judiciously; prisons have not been filled with cammers and leakers.
    
    Link
    
    Samantha Tumpach last week filed a lawsuit against the movie theater, claiming the manager pushed for her arrest despite the fact that the local police and MPAA recommended she be released.
    
    And the fact remains, the problem of people being locked up for no reason is a problem. If you can be jailed for any minor offense, then something is wrong with the system. And somehow, the idea of more movie theaters using infrared for all theaters across the country is beyond ridiculous.
    
    2008 brought the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act, a broad bill that amended civil and criminal provisions of the Copyright Act and created the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator position, currently held by Victoria Espinel.
    
    Funny, he says nothing about how Espinel answers to Hollywood. Also, he says NOTHING about how Espinel has been critical in the domain seizure. Also, she talks to lobbyists far more than anyone representing the public. Funny how her position has turned into one of supporting the old crowd instead of actually helping progress the arts.
    
    In the long term, the public benefits the most when both creators and innovators succeed.
    
    It sure does. Too bad legislation never does anything but restrict.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyhype
    
    Why is it that when you can't actually debate the ideas, you post links to the one (not yet) lawyer that supports you?
    
    As opposed to, say, the near-100 copyright professors who don't?
    
    I guess support is really hard to come by these days.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:49am

Reminds me of a clip on the Daily Show years ago where they had Governor George W. Bush disagreeing with President George W. Bush. A politician is a politician is a politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:50am

Sock puppet much?
Just goes to show how much of a puppet our government leaders are. They parrot whatever their lobbyists pay them to parrot with no understanding of what they are saying. If he truly understood those proposed laws, he would not have made this speech contradicting those very laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BigKeithO (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:55am

SOPA Good for Canada
Hey, at least us Canadians might benefit from all the tech start ups moving north get away from this craziness. See it's not all bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: SOPA Good for Canada
  Yeah, except that nazi child molestor, Stephen Harper, will ensure his vision for Canada will come true. And Canada will be the newest state in the union, and those innovators suffer from the same-yet-different set of rules.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:56am

The Wikilkeaks response was a bit of a hiccup...

Talk about euphemism.

The speech contradicting everything doesn't surprise me at all. Do as I say but not as I do. And besides, he was replacing Clinton right? So it's her opinion anyway, no problem here, right? It's not about the Government work but Clinton, right?

And why the fuck does she still use the name Clinton? Freeloading on her ex fame? Oh my, Hilary is a freetard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  Because seeing as she's been married to Bill Clinton for 35 years, she has that name as her own.
  
  Lay off her asshat, her mother just passed away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lay off her asshat, her mother just passed away.
    
    Pretty sure it wasn't Clinton he was satirizing.
    
    Still, I agree, leave the Hillary-bashing for the tea party sites. I don't like her much either, but let's not let it go any lower than it already is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, I was just making fun with the freetard part. But our friend AC missed the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:04am

"when businesses consider investing in a country with a poor record on Internet freedom, and they know that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed, they�ll look for opportunities elsewhere."

Explain to us why you think that piracy sites, counterfeit sites, and similar are businesses we really want to start with - or that they are businesses at all.

Desperation to twist the words... it's telling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  Point missed. By a light year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't miss the point. Mike is working along the 7 stages of grief on this one like a textbook case. He has done shock and denial, then pain and guilt, and now is up to anger and bargaining, heading quickly for depression and and reflection.
    
    Taking the words of a politician, and using them to try to prop up your desired context isn't exactly rocket science. Mike knows that Biden is talking about legal websites, not illegal ones, and yet let's it play out like Biden supports all websites, even if they are illegal. It's part of his anger and bargaining process to try to get over the grief that many of his beloved business beliefs and ideas are getting shot down in flames.
    
    What do you think of his lobbyist work?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike knows that Biden is talking about legal websites, not illegal ones, and yet let's it play out like Biden supports all websites, even if they are illegal.
      
      You continue to miss the point. SOPA will drastically constrict the definition of what a "legal website" is - that's kind of the whole problem.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really. SOPA only addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law, and provides clarity in dealing with sites that attempt to avoid liability by claiming third party status, while profiting from the illegal acts.
        
        Outside of that, I don't see a bunch of legal sites suddenly becoming illegal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        SOPA only addresses websites that use offshore locations
        
        Umm... no it doesn't. It addresses domestic websites too. You should probably read up on the bill if that's how flimsy your understanding of it is...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus... you need to learn to read...
        
        Let me break it into two sentences rather than using AND which apparently confuses you:
        
        SOPA only addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law
        
        SOPA only provides clarity in dealing with sites that attempt to avoid liability by claiming third party status, while profiting from the illegal acts.
        
        Sorry if the word "and" confuses your feeble mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me break it down for ya!
        
        You are a liar.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        +1 funny.
        
        Even despite all of the reading of the law that says otherwise, you continue to use the corporate talking point of "provides clarity in dealing with sites to avoid liability" or "addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law".
        
        Awesome job.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So which one is true? It only does the first thing and only does the second thing. One of those statements are false or both are.
        
        Oh, and it's pretty clear the second thing is targeting domestic sites.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Umm... what? The "and" doesn't change anything. You said:
        
        SOPA only addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law
        
        That's flat out not true... If you were trying to say otherwise, you need to learn to communicate more clearly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, once again... PLEASE READ.
        
        If you can't do it... it just shows that you have another area where you are talentless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anonymous Coward... PLEASE EXPLAIN.
        
        If you can't do it... it just shows that you have another area where you are talentless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I already explained. Too bad you can't read either. Join Marcus on the short bus to his next "concert".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Considering I do lots of work as a professional writer and editor, whereas you appear to do absolutely nothing at all except troll techdirt, I don't think you have much credibility on this issue. When there's a dispute over how to be a disingenuous asshole, I will defer to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Considering I do lots of work as a professional copyright profteer, whereas I have no idea about you, what you do, or anything else for that matter"
        
        FTFY.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How would I know what you do? You refuse to identify yourself. Thus I am left to draw conclusions based on the only thing I know about you: that you expend a hell of a lot of energy and time making circular arguments on Techdirt in an attempt to disrupt conversation. I have no reason to assume you do anything other than that, unless you give me one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By the way, I addressed your ridiculous notion that I rely on copyright yesterday - and, as usual, when faced with proof that you are wrong, you ran away and didn't reply.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You keep trying to deny it, yet in the end, every story in every newspaper is copyright. Amazing, isn't it? Get back to work... and remember, it's © in html.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Everything everyone creates is automatically copyrighted, dumbass. Anyway, give it up - you don't know what you are talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When nobody understands what the hell you are on about, it's not because we lal can't read. It's because either a) you can't communicate nearly as well as you think you can or b) the point you are trying to make is bullshit
        
        Take your pick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        SOPA only addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law
        
        No, it doesn't. The "private right of action" applies to any website. Sec. 103(a)(1).
        
        Also, if anyone provides "a product or service" that allows U.S. users to find those sites - such as the MAFIAA Fire plugin - the Attorney General can target them, too. This applies to "any entity," including U.S. entities.
        
        And, of course, the A.G. can target those U.S. entities that don't comply with the ban. Which, I'm guessing, will be a lot of them.
        
        By the way, this has nothing to do with "websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law." It applies to any website, around the world, including those who are obeying the law in the countries they reside in.
        
        SOPA only provides clarity in dealing with sites that attempt to avoid liability by claiming third party status, while profiting from the illegal acts.
        
        I have no idea how you're getting this from the bill. It does not say a single word about "sites that attempt to avoid liability by claiming third party status."
        
        What it does do, however, is disembowel the DMCA Safe Harbors, by changing "actual knowledge" (which is currently black-letter law) to "avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement (which is currently not unlawful in any way, shape, or form).
        
        So, for example, a cloud storage service (e.g. Dropbox) that does not actively filter its users files, could be considered a "rogue site," because it has "avoided confirming" a "high probability" that its services were used to infringe.
        
        This, despite the claim (in the bill itself) that it would absolutely not alter the DMCA Safe Harbors in any way, shape, or form. (Perhaps you missed this disclaimer, because gutting the DMCA Safe Harbors seems to be exactly what you want to achieve.)
        
        And that's not even considering Title II of the bill, which criminalizes digital (but not analog) streaming.
        
        Here's what that does:
        
        - Requires a "good faith belief" that the content was authorized (again, rather than "actual knowledge" that the content was not). An example of this is someone who is actively in talks to authorize the content. This is far, far worse than the law is now, and would easily have applied to YouTube five years ago, and probably today.
        
        - Uses the full retail value of every single stream or download as a basis for damage awards. Or, rights holders can simply make up an amount, and say that's what they "were entitled to receive" for authorizing the content.
        
        - Creates a swarm of "attaches," hired by the Patent and Trademark Office (but who work in the State and Commerce Departments), whose job is to convince foreign countries to change their laws solely to benefit U.S. rights holders. The Secretary and State, and the Secretary of Commerce, would be legally required to make IP a "significant component" of their foreign policies.
        
        There's more, of course. A lot more. In fact, every single thing that "freetards" have been paranoid about, is in this bill.
        
        But I'm sure you've already knew all this, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ohhh if you can't see them becoming illegal it must be guarantied to be true. How about we add an amendment to the bill that would explicitly state that youtube, google, facebook, ebay, and a few others, would never become illegal because of this bill...
        
        Now that does nothing to protect future innovative start ups, but this bill is already about protecting some existing business, so that wouldn't change its character too much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really. SOPA only addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law, and provides clarity in dealing with sites that attempt to avoid liability by claiming third party status, while profiting from the illegal acts.
        
        You appear to keep claiming that, despite the fact this is not true. SOPA applies to domestic sites as well as foreign.
        
        It's kind of funny that you then mock others for not reading, when it's obvious you have not read the bill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So by creating a law that allows people to mislabel something it is ok and should be tolerated independent of the consequences for due process and free speech right?
      
      Would you buy something from a pharma company that told you that mislabelling things was no big deal?
      
      Of course not, but you want the American people to accept such a BS law anyhow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  The issue is not "piracy sites, counterfeit sites, and similar" - it is any and all user-generated content sites.
  
  Even if a start-up plans to make a serious pro-active effort to prevent infringing uses of their platform, why would they want to operate in the US if they had any other options? Why face all that additional liability? Why start your business in a country that is going to force you to hire more lawyers than engineers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Marcus, that is your issue, and a red herring. User generated content is like any other content. Either they have the rights to it or they don't. There is no magic "a user did it, so let's ignore the law" rule on the books that I am aware of, except perhaps DMCA.
    
    It isn't anything that drives a need for lawyers, just for some shifts in business models away from "accept anything and pray" toward "know your contributors". It's pretty much working to bring the internet in line with the real world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I doubt it, if that was true labels and studios would be directly responsible for what their musicians and actors do are they responsible for the drug habits of their artists?
      
      Are studios responsible for what Lindsay Lohan did?
      She is a thief, should the studios be liable and have to pay the store that she stole from?
      
      Are the studios forced to cancel business with actors? do actors have their financial transactions, residuals suspended because they are criminals?
      
      What real world are you talking about you prick?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In what world people get life + 95 years of a monopoly?
      In what world people get a say on how others use, something after it is sold?
      
      In the imaginary property world only, not the rest of it that have very different rules.
      
      IP law should be brought back to conform to reality not reality to conform to copyright, you ain't gonna win this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's pretty much working to bring the internet in line with the real world.
      
      Yeah, the world of 1984...
      
      Must be great not to understand how people use and remix culture. Must be awesome in just closing your eyes to how people make new music and remixes or practice songs on guitars for a global audience.
      
      Obviously, the fact that people can make new stories out of old ones is something you can't come to terms with. But all that is lost on someone not paid to understand that for their own self interest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      User generated content is like any other content.
      
      Exactly - it's just like all content: the person who generated it is the one liable for it. Neutral tools that they used should not be held liable. The DMCA is not about "ignoring the law" it's about properly applying liability.
      
      Does the manufacturer of the getaway car get charged in a bank robbery? Does a telephone company get charged for people planning a crime over the phone? Does the gun manufacturer get charged if I use their gun to murder someone?
      
      No, no and no. Get over it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And a grocery gets busted if they sell weed next to bread and cheerios.
        
        Care to try again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What if it's medical marijuana? You know, like a pharmacy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And a grocery gets busted if they sell weed next to bread and cheerios.
        
        But a grocery does not get busted if someone uses their parking lot to sell weed. Or if someone buys ziploc bags for weed from them. Nice try, but you're still way off the mark, sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So faced with logic, you resort to completely non-applicable analogies?
        
        Nice job.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow. That is way off the mark.
        
        Here is the correct analogy:
        
        A user of YouTube uploads a copy of Ironman. The user is liable for copyright infringement, YouTube is not.
        
        A grocery customer sells weed in the parking lot. The seller of weed is liable for drug trafficking, the grocery is not.
        
        Your analogy of the grocery selling weed does not mesh with the reality of YouTube and other user contributed content sites.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why?
        
        You're talking about something being done outside the grocery store.
        
        The illegal movie is inside youtube.
        
        The grocery parking lot is the isp.
        
        The grocery store itself is youtube.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And that's really what you called logic a few posts above? That explains a lot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cookoo, 4 Nov 2011 @ 5:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Youtube didn't upload the video, a user did. In your anology the store itself was dealing drugs. How about if the people were dealing drugs inside the store without the store knowing? Would that be a better analogy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's fail in so many ways I can't even begin to tell.
        
        Youtube user uploads Ironman movie. Youtube receives a DMCA notice and/or identifies the fingerprint and removes it. Proper court order issues a subpoena and finds user and properly sues him.
        
        Grocery customer sells weed inside the shop. Security staff warns owner, owner calls the cops. Dealer is arrested and prosecuted according to the law.
        
        Neither Youtube nor the grocery guy is liable because they are not omniscient. If you compared Youtube to something, youtube would be a Galaxy sized grocery and they'd be taking measures against the weed sellers as soon as it comes to their attention.
        
        Seriously, you fail damn hard. You CAN'T add 3rd-party liability in the law because of this. NOBODY is omniscient. There could be a guy selling marijuana in front of my house during the hours I'm working. I don't know about it so I'm not taking any action but if police discovers then I'm liable for letting him sell in front of my house? Because that's what you suggest.
        
        Troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brendan (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 11:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jesus Christ you are retarded.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:36am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 9:04am
  The difference between a "pirate" or "rogue" site and a legitimate site is determined by a "license," which of course is merely protection money that is saying "please don't shut us down.". There is no reason a "rogue" site can't become a legitimate site. Spotify was "rogue" until they started paying protection money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  You've gone over your limit of retarded posts for the day. Please try again tomorrow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:07am

Doublethink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:08am

hmm...
I can't imagine anything that would please Clinton more than making her enemy deliver her speech, in direct contradiction to his own position.

What was her mother sick with, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:43am
  
  Re: hmm...
  Don't know but whatever it was, it was fatal since her mother passed away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: hmm...
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8862672/Hillary-Clintons-mother-dies.html
  
  S ee.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:08am

Believe /opposite/ of what politicians /say/, Mike.
Praising Hillary Clinton. You're not that gullible. At best you're trying to align with her public statements so as to oppose SOPA. But you can't line up with ANY politician, because they're ALL liars. -- I'd be with you in some of the fighting, Mike, if you didn't embrace parts of the Establishment. You doom us to not only fail, but to look utter fools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: Believe /opposite/ of what politicians /say/, Mike.
  Sanity from you?
  
  /Oh/ /my/ /God/ /!/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: Believe /opposite/ of what politicians /say/, Mike.
  I think Mike is quite happy not having your support.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:38am

They are just taking order from the corporate puppet masters. Much of the same as usual; just this is harder to hide I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:58am

EU and US hold anti-Wikileaks cyber games
Interesting contrast with Joe Biden: �[W]hat citizens do online should not, as some have suggested, be decreed solely by groups of governments making decisions for them somewhere on high.�

�

A short news blurb, today, �EU and US hold anti-Wikileaks cyber games�

Sixteen EU countries, the US and the European Commission's Crete-based Enisa agency are on Thursday simulating how they would in future stop a Wikileaks-type hack...[more]...

�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:10pm

Politicians are 100% interchangeable. None of them have any actual opinions on any issues whatsoever, it's all an act; all to delude the public into thinking different laws will get written depending on whether they vote Republican or Democrat. The parties select actors, the actors get handed scripts, and they play out the roles of heroes and villains accordingly.
So, what happens when someone hands Doctor DRM one of Internet Freedom Woman's scripts? Apparently, he breaks character. Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 1:26pm

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that
Just commenting on the use of quotiations in this line:

Since the start of this administration, President Obama has delegated most copyright issues to Biden, and Biden's general view on copyright seems to be "whatever makes Hollywood happier must be fantastic."

Please correct me if I'm wrong (a link would be nice), but I don't think those words were actually said. Losing the quotes doesn't lose any of the meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re: I'm pretty sure he didn't say that
  The use of quotes is to set that phrase apart as a full thought. So the use of quotes is correct, although there probably should have been a comma before it began. but this isn't a narrative so we can let it slide.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 5:43am

To sum it up, it's another example of the 'rights' of a corporation trumping the rights of the citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CHARLIE,MONTOYA, 5 Nov 2011 @ 11:24am

FOR REAL
JOE BIDEN IS THE ONE PERSON NOT TO BLOW SMOKE UP YOUR BUTT> BUT WILL TELL YOU LIKE IT IS SOFT VOIVE & A EXTRA BIG STICK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]