Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
from the priorities,-people dept
As pointed out by Harold Feld, it seems pretty messed up that our news media is going absolutely nuts over the story of the potential "Bieber baby," but has all but ignored the story of how the lack of clarity in the proposed SOPA law might mean Justin Bieber would go to jail for his performances of other people's works on YouTube -- something Bieber himself has spoken out against. Let's take a look. A basic Google News search on "bieber baby" turns up... 3,770 news stories:
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: e-parasite, journalism, justin bieber, priorities, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your worst-case-scenario-parade-of-horribles was actually likely to happen, people would care more. But since it's a bunch of baseless FUD, people aren't paying attention. Even with all your screaming you couldn't get more than 15 hits. Sounds about exactly right to me, Mike. You lose again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And she supports SOPA:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111104clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got a logical argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CONSPIRICY!!
But for reals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it interesting, however, that you position yourself as the final arbiter of interpretations of the bill, and then mock others -- including many who have been in this field much longer than you.
Separately, the fact that you keep harping on the concerns people had about previous copyright laws, ignoring that many of those concerns contributed to the softening of those bills (and that other concerns turned out to be wholly prescient), makes me wonder when you switched over from your claim of objective analysis to one in which you simply parrot the dying legacy industry's talking points, come hell or high water.
Separately, voting for your own comments is considered pretty crass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have to admit, that you're my favorite commenter on this site. You come here day after day, insulting me, always in the most pedantic way possible, and then you always pretend to get offended when I take someone to task.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can trust me that if I ever had an intent to "insult" you I would simply resort to using your dictionary of terms you regularly use to put down those who may disagree with your legal analysis.
I have said it before, but it bears repeating. People can hold differing opinions on a subject, and yet carry on thoughtful and respectful conversations/discussions/debates. I am mindful of this when I submit a comment, and reciprocity would be very much appreciated.
BTW, your comment was a nice segue in a direction wholly removed from my comment. The issue here is specifically your treatment of Mr. Hart by a series of not so subtle put downs that were purely gratuitous,irrelevant, and professional slights taking "mocking" to new heights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Saying "I know a bunch of lawyers" isn't an answer.
Bieber won't face felony charges.
I'll be happy to debate you or your secret lawyer friends on that issue.
I find it interesting, however, that you position yourself as the final arbiter of interpretations of the bill, and then mock others -- including many who have been in this field much longer than you.
I didn't mock anyone. I didn't position myself as final arbiter. I offered my opinion, and I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
Separately, the fact that you keep harping on the concerns people had about previous copyright laws, ignoring that many of those concerns contributed to the softening of those bills (and that other concerns turned out to be wholly prescient), makes me wonder when you switched over from your claim of objective analysis to one in which you simply parrot the dying legacy industry's talking points, come hell or high water.
I know, freedom of speech and constitutional rights, who needs them, right? Sorry, I think these are important. I'll keep hammering on them, come hell or high water.
Separately, voting for your own comments is considered pretty crass.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don't see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought 'crassness' was something the crowd would take care of.
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
If you don't want people voting for their own comments then block it, otherwise you sound like Emily Post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you comment how Bieber won't face felony charges and yet ignore how SOPA will condemn the next generation of Biebers.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don't see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought 'crassness' was something the crowd would take care of.
How disappointing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nor is it what I said. Misrepresenting people who disagree with you is a pretty weak cop out.
Bieber won't face felony charges.
Right. Because you say so. Others disagree. Well, no one disagrees that Bieber himself won't -- because he's too big. But, as others have pointed out, some of us worry about the next Bieber.
I didn't mock anyone. I didn't position myself as final arbiter. I offered my opinion, and I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
An opinion is "based on these reasons, I don't believe SOPA will impact Bieber." Positioning yourself as the final arbiter is making a statement of fact, as you did with: "Mike, Justin Bieber isn't going to jail."
And, trust me, my feelings are not hurt by that. I just think you look foolish.
I know, freedom of speech and constitutional rights, who needs them, right? Sorry, I think these are important. I'll keep hammering on them, come hell or high water.
WTF, Terry? Who said anything about free speech or constitutional rights? My point was that you do so in the most misleading of manners, and yet you act as if you are presenting objective information. Your willingness to strip context from the quotes, ignore that many of the predictions were actually accurate is really quite ridiculous to many of us who have watched how the expansion of copyright has done so much harm.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don't see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought 'crassness' was something the crowd would take care of.
Just letting you know how people feel. Thought you might want to know.
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
Again, Terry, nothing you could do would ever hurt my feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike, who repeatedly goes out of his way to be polite and courteous, especially to those who disagree with and/or insult him was just pointing out to you some common sense.
Your reference to Emily Post indicates that you have at least an awareness of etiquette. Perhaps with the Thanksgiving holiday coming up you can return home and get your mother to teach you some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is clearly insightful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The whole "beiber in jail" thing was pretty much bull from the word go. Even if SOPA was enacted today, his past postings wouldn't be subject to it, and at best could be DMCA'ed down.
So Beiber ain't going to jail, and so the story pretty much disappears as soon as enough of the media figures out that it's just a bullshit attempt to trick them into paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, here's what we're saying. Let's pretend Justin Bieber is not at this moment in time a mega-star in the world of pop music. Let's pretend that at this moment in time, he's just your average teenager, no-one's heard of him and that SOPA has passed and it's now an official law, enforced by the police.
Bieber then takes it into his head, to record himself singing songs by Usher. He records using a video camera and posts the videos to Youtube. However, SOPA says he has now committed a felony. Some over-zealous lawyer working for Usher and/or his label sees the video and, frothing at the mouth, charges him with a crime. This teen, who has done nothing wrong (just posted a video of him singing a song to Youtube) is in court, and sentenced to up to five years in prison.
We also have concerns that SOPA will stop the next "Bieber". The next big sensation in music, who started out violating copyright (yes, that's what Bieber did, by covering Usher's songs) but instead of locking him away, someone clever will decide to use him to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ummmm..... that's not how the US criminal justice system works. A private attorney can't charge anyone with a crime. That's the prerogative of the government. Thanks for the FUD though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except... That's exactly how our government seems to work. At the behest of corporations.
If your name is Peter Adekeye or Aaron Swartz, then you're a criminal before facts are known. But I guess you forgot about the private right to action that opens up a can of worms, allowing someone like the UFC to bully the internet.
But I guess that's all ignored when even the Feds can't follow the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except... That's exactly how our government seems to work. At the behest of corporations.
If your name is Peter Adekeye or Aaron Swartz, then you're a criminal before facts are known. But I guess you forgot about the private right to action that opens up a can of worms, allowing someone like the UFC to bully the internet.
But I guess that's all ignored when even the Feds can't follow the rules.
Jay, I know it's a weekend but isn't it a bit early in the morning to be hitting a blunt? The douche said private attorneys can bring criminal charges. And like an idiot, you rush in to defend him. A private right of action isn't a criminal action either. How is that relevant?
I don't think either you or I are privy to the full story on Adekeye or Swartz. Though it's somewhat telling Swartz sought to disguise his identity by looking out of the holes in his bike helmet. That at least speaks to state of mind.
The bigger question is what are you and the other Techdirtbags going to do after these bills pass? Will your lives still have purpose? Lest you contemplate surrendering to the despair after getting your ass kicked on PROTECT IP, there's one glimmer of hope. If the Republicans win, I believe you'll see a number of national security type bills that will reallytighten the screws. Industrial espionage is a very hot topic and there is a lot of talk about far greater control over the internet in the interest of economic security. Naturally, that will make freeloading even more difficult. In the meantime, buy some popcorn and watch the 11/16 hearing for the STOP Act on C-SPAN. I think you'll find it educational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why?
Look outside your window creepy person, OWS is all over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why?
Look outside your window creepy person, OWS is all over it.
Hahahahahahahaha.... first whiff of tear gas and you pussies scatter like cockroaches. Make sure to wear a Techdirt or EFF hoodie so the cops know you're in particular need of a corrective measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058020/How-Guy-Fawkes-masks-symbol-anti-greed-prote sts-globe.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Surrender you will be assimilated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that relevant?
In terms of having the government falsely accusing people of seizures and takedowns, that's already been occurring. It's suggested reading to see how Cysco really went after Adekeye since you're at a disadvantage now. But I like how you make one small detail of Rikuo's post and make it the example, not understanding that the corporations (hint: Universal, MPAA, UFC, etc) would use government resources to restrict competition by criminalizing linking.
If the Republicans win, I believe you'll see a number of national security type bills that will reallytighten [sic] the screws.
Judging by the fact that no one has faith in Congress right now, I'm sure that piracy has been the only thing they agree on. (Hint: The blue text? That's a link)
Paying attention to politics, I know that we're gearing up for war with Iran. But this won't really cut down on piracy. But keep dreaming. I'm sure you'll have plenty of people that agree with you. You'll just have to stop looking at that mirror for five seconds.
Industrial espionage is a very hot topic and there is a lot of talk about far greater control over the internet in the interest of economic security.
Going to be quite difficult when those in power have to worry about getting reelected but we'll see...
Naturally, that will make freeloading even more difficult.
*sigh*
All the evidence that shows this won't even put a dent in piracy and you still have faith based evidence that this will work. The bonus for passing this law must be pretty high. So sad that you never bring evidence to the fore.
Oh well, better luck next time Bucko. Maybe your disingenuous arguments will work next time.
In the meantime, buy some popcorn and watch the 11/16 hearing for the STOP Act on C-SPAN
Intriguing. Nothing on that right now on the C-SPAN site. 10 days left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
since YouTube in your example is subject to the law as well, they require any new video posting to be checked, and require that the poster provide proper ID or documentation for the music. As Beiber is unable to do this, he just can't get it done.
Alternately, the music industry reaches a global agreement with Youtube for this sort of video, with YouTube agreeing to pay an amount X for every play. As a result, the Beiber video is classed as "using copyright content" and youtube pays to run it. If there is a DMCA notice on it, they will still take it down, but they would not be specifically liable under SOPA because of their master agreement.
Those are two examples.
The next Beiber? Maybe he will sing his own songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because people putting up videos of what came before is really a criminal act
Why does everyone think that singing a song is a criminal act when one person sang it first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This just proves that even very bad laws can bring good things.
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, Beiber going to jail would be absurd, but the point is that our laws are absurd. Look how long copy protection lengths are. Corporations write the laws and the government passes them. Corporations have no regard for how ridiculous their written laws are, so long as they serve corporate interests. So it's not that hard to imagine that our broken government would pass such bad laws or that our corporate lawmakers would write them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you point us to their written analysis so we can see their arguments for ourselves. Just saying other lawyers disagree doesn't advance the conversation. Terry's offered his opinion and reasoning. Let's look at theirs.
Separately, voting for your own comments is considered pretty crass.
Voting on your own comments is one thing. I don't think I've done it, but I'm going to do it right after I post this just to see if it works. But Terry's right. Shame on you for abusing your role as site admin and betraying your commentators' privacy like that. If you don't want people voting on their own posts, just disable the feature. But calling out a user for doing it? Shame on you. We all know that you only betray users when they are your critics, though. Nothing sleazy or desperate or un-classy about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most lawyers would take a much more "wait and see" approach on something like this. We don't have the finished markup on any of these bills. We don't have the post legislation posting that explains the actually implementation of them (normally published in the gazette before the actually in service date of new laws), and we don't know what the interactions will be between existing copyright law, DMCA, and the new laws, as well as how they touch the 1at amendment rights, etc.
Rushing off (as EFF has done) to yell "Beiber in jail!" is pretty much chicken little, and shows them off as a group more interested in scare mongering than dealing with the issues are they come. Their staff laywers appear more than willing to issue all sorts of dire warnings, without even waiting to see the final law.
Mike, there will always be some lawyers that will substantially agree with your point of view. That doesn't make your point of view right, it just makes it a point of view. Give Terry the respect for also having a point of view that is backed up by logic that is at least as sound as your own. It is much more useful than your clear efforts to shout him down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a law has the potential of causing serious harm, we should just take a 'wait and see' approach?
Mike is pointing out that the law could potentially put people in jail for trivial reasons. A 'wait and see' approach is not the correct approach, a, 'lets fix this potential problem ahead of time' approach is. We should word the bill to make clear that people aren't to go to jail for trivial reasons before the bill passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please...
The EFF isn't scare mongering by showing how this bill gives way too much power to a small group of people or are you forgetting that there are no consequence for a copyright holder getting it wrong on their end? The brunt of the problem is felt by the accuser before they have a chance to defend themselves.
Lose time from defending themselves in court.
Lose money by pay advertisers having to pull back their services.
Lost time and money with a court case to fix their reputation.
Unless you have something that says a defendent can do the EXACT SAME thing to someone else, they pretty much have it spot on.
Give Terry the respect for also having a point of view that is backed up by logic that is at least as sound as your own.
From where I'm standing and judging by the replies here, Terry seems the more immature person. Why should I believe someone who has no respect for other's opinion and believes himself to be the final say in constitutional matters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Might I suggest you move from the location where you presently standing to another location that affords you a broader view of the issues associated with the Senate and House of Representatives bills. It may not change your mind, but at least it would give you a different perspective.
The only individual who has criticized Mr. Hart here in the manner noted in your quote above is Mr. Masnick, and in doing so Mr. Masnick cast aside civil discourse with numerous professional slights that were wholly unwarranted and inappropriate by any yardstick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By stating how multiple lawyers disagree with his position?
By stating how Mr. Hart's comments seem to have a finality to them, be it intended or otherwise?
By showing how his position has changed from one of analyzing copyright for the benefit of all into one that seems to support whatever the MPAA or RIAA want him to say?
Perhaps voting for your own comments shows what kind of person they're dealing with?
I saw Mr. Masnick criticize Mr. Hart for those points. The response to that post was lacking. Civil discourse seems to have been the better part of Mr. Masnick's day, not Mr. Hart's.
My view stands, good sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anybody remember him defending Righthaven?
I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The IP shills are quick to complain how the "Techdirt choir" votes for their own posts... so why can't we do the same about the Techdirt antichoir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait...
PROTECT IP shows even less with a grand total of 13 results.
And E-PARASITE shows, drum roll please ...
Three, yes that's right, three results.
Of course there is no reason that a pop star whose career started on youtube would know anything about a law that couldn't possibly be interpreted as disruptive to the internet. Yes, that was sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to...
Welcome.
Now pay up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, only one of these will have far-reaching impact well into the future. And it won't be Bieber's alleged love child.
"Bieber +s.978" = 34 hits. Sure, there's 41 million hits overall, but "a single story in the New York Times has far more impact than a dozen musings on Justin Bieber fan blogs."
If I follow your logic, certain news agencies are far more important than dozens of blogs but they're just repeating the same press releases, so it doesn't count because it skews the numbers. Is that about right? No matter how the search is presented, it's wrong because "SOPA legitimately has nothing to do with Justin Bieber." ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It shows the level of interest of people in a certain subject.
Any porn search will yeld millions of results, if you look up your name you probably get a few thousand hits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thats a hard one to answer, hmmmmmm im going to say it a tie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Bieber Baby's Dad (Justin Bieber) Opposes SOPA."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it 1984 already?
So how did it happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it 1984 already?
The Ministry of Truth was too obvious and had to be replaced with 'Corporate Media' which has been doing a fine job of filling the task of keeping the sheeple occupied with 'entertainment' stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which story is actually more important?
Justin has thousands and thousands of female fans who want to have his baby.
It takes a jump of understanding to link SOPA to Bieber, as evidenced by some of the comments here.
Ergo; baby fantasy wins importance stake as judged through the glasses of Google and the next Bieber may end up entertaining Baba.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A redirect search for "bieber stop online piracy"(which is the full name of the thing and not the acronym) results in Bing showing 2,100,000 entries.
Or maybe Google is censoring the searches, or Google screwed up the alghorithm.
PS: Most of the entries on the first page of Bing are about how bad the legislation is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Google falling behind Microsoft?
That would be a sad day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
http://www.google.com/search?q=bieber+sopa
Why I get 3,340,000 hits?
It is a geolocation thing?
Where are you people searching from? I will get a proxy and see if the number differs.
Even Baidu offers more entries than that.
http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=bieber+sopa (althought the quality of the search is lacking)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The normal search shows more results than that on the first page?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The vastly differing amount of results for the differing bieber searches implies bias in the media (surely not) on this topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This may be a prank.
- Google may have messed up its algorithm or for some reason it shows different results in certain areas and not others.
- Google may have censored the results(ordered or otherwise).
- Google may have been censored by another party in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin Bieber's love Child is more important!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justin Bieber's love Child is more important!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Justin Bieber's love Child is more important!
But now I realise that Justin is secretly a boy. Well, that's a great hidden secret. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AHAHAHA
Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
(from the priorities,-people dept)
Good Content Doesn't Get Buried By Bad Content
(from the make-more-good-content dept)
While I actually agree with a lot of what Mike says, I think these two headlines are simply hilarious in sequence, because it shows that the burial or non-burial of "good content" is irrelevant if it's never created in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
funny
Rape anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really an accurate comparison
The comparison is: a pop star's opinion about the government making massive regulatory changes to the internet that will create felons out of ordinary people? Or the story about a baby that a pop star may or may not have fathered?
Both would register somewhere around "who cares" for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
"Justin Bieber to face felony charges under new law"
or
"5 reasons why Justin Bieber will go to prison next year"
or
"Do you want Bieber out of jail? You are not alone! 3 ways to stop the madness TODAY"
etc.
As for the article itself, it should be written in a language targeted to non-TD readers and should be the right mix of FUD, credibility and call-to-action so that it gets shared around.
Do it for the greater good, Mike!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
"Justin Bieber to face felony charges under new law"
or
"5 reasons why Justin Bieber will go to prison next year"
or
"Do you want Bieber out of jail? You are not alone! 3 ways to stop the madness TODAY"
etc.
As for the article itself, it should be written in a language targeted to non-TD readers and should be the right mix of FUD, credibility and call-to-action so that it gets shared around.
Do it for the greater good, Mike!!!"
He already does this. In just about every article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
"Justin Bieber to face felony charges under new law"
or
"5 reasons why Justin Bieber will go to prison next year"
or
"Do you want Bieber out of jail? You are not alone! 3 ways to stop the madness TODAY"
etc.
As for the article itself, it should be written in a language targeted to non-TD readers and should be the right mix of FUD, credibility and call-to-action so that it gets shared around.
Do it for the greater good, Mike!!!"
He already does this. In just about every article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bieber embeds
If Bieber uploads to YouTube *and* embeds on his own personal site... under your interpretation of the law, does he now face felony charges?
Inquiring minds want to know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bieber embeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bieber embeds
If Bieber uploads to YouTube *and* embeds on his own personal site... under your interpretation of the law, does he now face felony charges?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around all of this. I know YouTube has licenses with the PROs. Would these licenses not cover the next Bieber's cover songs? Or put another way, how are these performances not licensed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Meanwhile, three new holes show up in their story and the rest of the world wonders WTF they're doing by punishing kids for singing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
But if YouTube has a blanket license with a PRO that allows YouTube to publicly perform the catalog, how would Bieber's cover version not be protected by that licensing that YouTube has in place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
YouTube's "blanket through-to-the-listener license" with ASCAP has been the subject of litigation. The court explains that the public performance of ASCAP music on YouTube includes "user-uploaded videos showing amateur music groups and performers." United States v. Am. Soc'y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 616 F. Supp. 2d 447, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). So videos like Bieber's of people singing cover songs are protected by the blanket license. And if that's the case, nobody's going to jail for covering songs on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Now what are you talking about that happened in 2009? Got a link? Is is anything that would make us think that YouTube somehow later changed its mind and decided not to pay for licensing for cover songs? If not, this FUD about Bieber really seems baseless and manufactured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Seems like Mike could easily contact YouTube to find out if covers by the likes of Bieber are covered by the blanket licensing that YouTube has. In fact, I don't understand how they couldn't be given what can be gleaned about their licensing from the ASCAP case I quoted.
But of course Mike will not actually get to the truth behind this "story." It's all about FUD with Mike. If Bieber actually wouldn't go to jail because YouTube has licenses, Mike won't "report" on that. Good God, Mike could never admit that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Just on any other web site, but who cares about them, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Result are biased
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TBH, half of the comedy is that Congress wants to be seen doing something, they don't actually care what. I have yet to meet more than a handful of Senators or Representatives that have actually read any proposed laws outside of ones they sponsor, and half of those are written by lobbyists during a drinking binge weekend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]