Canadian Actor Claims Mashups Are Morally Wrong And Should Be Illegal

The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

from the sort-it-out-later dept

Mon, Nov 7th 2011 9:43am — Mike Masnick

I'm beginning to notice a disturbing pattern in those who defend SOPA (formerly the E-PARASITE Act, until someone realized just how bad that looked). The text of the law makes massive changes to the regulatory framework of the internet, to the point that it raises some serious constitutional questions (should it ever actually pass). However, wherever that happens, they put in a little note insisting that the law doesn't do what the plain language says it does. Take, for example these little bits right at the opening:

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

Of course, you can claim that all you want, but if the actual text of the bill does both of those things... well, then that's a problem isn't it? It's the same thing with the streaming portions of the bill, where it's unclear if the authors of the bill even recognize how their bill will be interpreted. Or, sometimes, it comes in the form of defenders of the bill just outright misstating what's in the bill; such as the repeated claims by people involved with drafting the bill that it solely focuses on foreign "rogue sites," when the bill actually has sections that focus on domestic sites as well -- including ones that clearly are not "rogue."

But, one of the more bizarre situations comes in the growing conflict between the State Department and the rest of the Obama administration on SOPA/PIPA. We've heard from multiple people within the State Department that they're horrified by SOPA, explaining that it will undercut a significant amount of their Internet Freedom efforts around the globe, and completely wipe out any moral high ground (already tenuous) that the US had on the claims of keeping a free and open internet. In fact, we found it odd to see VP Joe Biden (who undoubtedly fully supports SOPA) reading a speech that was probably intended for Hillary Clinton to read, in which he stated a bunch of arguments in favor of not regulating the internet, to avoid stifling innovation and not breaking what works today. Large sections of his speech could be used -- verbatim -- as arguments against SOPA.

Realizing that they were going to run into all sorts of trouble for this, Rep. Howard Berman tried to cut this obvious conflict off at the pass, by asking Hillary Clinton to put forth a statement that the State Department supports enforcement of intellectual property rights, and doesn't see a conflict between internet freedom and enforcing intellectual property. We've already seen some in the pro-SOPA camp use this to claim there's no conflict with SOPA at all. First of all, this isn't true. The text of Clinton's statement makes no direct reference to the overreaching and overly broad nature of SOPA. It just talks in generalities. So, when Clinton says something like:

There is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet.

It's kind of a meaningless statement, because everything depends on the specifics. Can you enforce IP rights without compromising freedom of expression online? Most (though not all) would argue yes. But can you also enforce IP rights in a way that everyone agrees restricts freedom of expression? The answer is clearly yes. For example, if the policy to protect IP rights was to simply "shut down all .com sites," I think everyone would agree that's going too far. Point being: whether or not a particular enforcement scheme violates free speech rights is dependent on the details. And, it's worth noting that Clinton's statement was penned prior to SOPA being released.

But, in the end, we're left with the same situation I described at the beginning of this post. Just because Clinton says there's no conflict, that doesn't mean the actual text of the bill agrees with that. You can't just insist that what the plain text of the bill says isn't in the bill. That's no way to regulate.

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

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

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

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, hillary clinton, sopa

150 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:57am

This post reads like step 3 on the grief scale... bargaining. You are past the anger, and now you are trying to come up with ways to negotiate with it.

Warning Mike; the next step is depression. Try not to be too sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  I'm curious as to what you think would be going 'too far' in efforts to stop copyright infringement. What would have to happen for you to say, "Sure, it's morally wrong and illegal, but this is too much?" Where does it end for you?
  
  Here, I'll get you started. Which of the following (if any) would you consider to be inappropriate for enforcing copyrights:
  
  Make it illegal to link to infringing content
  Make it illegal to communicate the location of infringing content in any way
  Outlawing of onion routers
  Making copyright infringement a criminal as opposed to a civil offense
  Make circumventing a government Internet block an offense similar to the DCMA's anti-circumvention clause
  Deep packet inspection of all Internet traffic
  Mandatory server registration / P2P ban (IE No computer can accept incoming connections unless properly licensed and registered)
  Mandatory government identification code for accessing the Internet
  Government mandated operating system backdoors
  Government monitoring of software / activity on personal computers
  Deem computers without a TCM chip illegal computing devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing)
  Noncommercial open-source software ban
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    An amusing list. You forgot "government hand up your ass" and "mind reading robots sitting next to your desk".
    
    Paranoid much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Way to avoid answering the question.
      
      Are their any of those items you feel go too far to enforce copyrights?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - rubberpants, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I shouldn't be surprised by this, but the AC here doesn't seem to be interested in seriously discussing these issues but rather simply wants to show up, figuratively take a dump in the comments section, then leave.
        
        I can only assume that, since you failed to address any of my questions you don't have a problem with any of those measures and that when copyright infringement continues unabated you would consider them appropriate for legislation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's saying they are all fine but that you missed a couple of extra ones that he wants.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Clueless much? Iran banned vpns and encrypted connections. Tor is blocked if known nodes on China. Paranoid or realistic?
      
      And the denial of our favorite troll continues.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ninja, I don't deny anything. But there is a point where the question of personal freedoms will butt up against the laws, and decisions will be made.
        
        Consider speed limits driving your car, and the side of the road you have to drive on. I consider both to be limitations of my freedom of expression (I should be able to express myself in my car as fast as I want, where I want... without the government getting in the way of my free speech).
        
        I am smart enough to understand that my unlimited rights to free expression are balanced against the rights of others. There are limits to almost everything.
        
        I feel that many who openly (or quietly) support illegal or illicit activities online are forgetting the rights of others. They wouldn't do in real life what they do online, and that a clear indication that the laws just have not caught up to the online world.
        
        So rubberpant list is sort of moot, because it isn't really very relevant. It's not just a question of limiting anyone's particular rights, but looking at the balance between all players.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Great analogy there. Clap clap clap. Clap.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, great analogy because copyright infringement is much worse than vehicular homicide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright infringement is much worse than rape, genocide and child abuse all in one!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is simple: You pirates are the ones that have caused the most harm to the internet.
        
        If the internet becomes more restrictive, and things like TOR and VPNs are regulated, it will be YOUR fault; Because you were selfish and greedy, took advantage of your internet access and ignored the rights of others, things had to change.
        
        In a society, people police themselves or the government does it for them.
        
        You couldn't police yourself, so these new regulations are nobody's fault but your own.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps the government can offer an easy way to license digital content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Next thing you know, you'll want a government upholding a piece of paper spelling out your human rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dont worry here is a bit of what is about to come thanks to the mpaa and the riaa
        http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/11/the-darknet-plan-netroots-activists-dream-of-globa l-mesh-network.ars
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dont worry here is a bit of what is about to come thanks to the mpaa and the riaa
        http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/11/the-darknet-plan-netroots-activists-dream-of-globa l-mesh-network.ars
        
        What are you reading? The article said they couldn't even agree on an agenda and it's unlikely to move past the conceptual stage. Hardly "what is about to come". At least for the lucid reader..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        of course is in planing they are trying to make a whole new world wide web on top of the existing one, but the dark net proyects are up and working freenet is one of them
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But it's not so people can pirate.
        
        LOL
        
        You people are so transparent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Holy Samoli
        Pirates!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You pirates are the ones that have caused the most harm to the internet.
        
        Bullshit. It's the greedy corporations that want to turn it from a communications medium into yet another broadcast medium under there control. Ain't gonna happen, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        there = their
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        freetard = freetard
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, I missed this before excoriating you for running away. My bad.
        
        I think the list couldn't be more relevant than it is. We're talking about how far society is willing to go to enforce copyright law.
        
        My point is that it's going to be impossible to stop copyright infringement without doing some or all of those things, because each measure is easily bypassed without also implementing the next measure and that doing so would change the Internet so dramatically that it would cease to be what it is.
        
        So, if SOPA or something like ever becomes law and copyright infringement continues unabated, how far are you willing to go? Would you ever throw your hands up and say, "We've done all we can or should do?"
        
        Where is the line for you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes because the ability to speed is protected by the first amendment.
        
        I have a better question than that posed above and that reflects on comments you have just made.
        
        You said:
        
        I am smart enough to understand that my unlimited rights to free expression are balanced against the rights of others. There are limits to almost everything.
        
        If that is the case, is it right to silence 1000 people's legitimate free speech in order to stop 1 pirate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If that is the case, is it right to silence 1000 people's legitimate free speech in order to stop 1 pirate?"
        
        Yes. They must be stopped at all costs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course not.
        
        And thankfully SOPA doesn't do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If that is the case, is it right to silence 1000 people's legitimate free speech in order to stop 1 pirate?"
        
        Since it rarely happens, it's sort of a non-issue.
        
        Now, if you have 1000 people in a pirates boat, and the boat gets stopped, did I stop their free speech rights, or did they just make a horribly bad choice of where to express them?
        
        What you are proposing is that the law should somehow allow people free speech to be used as a sort of human shield for illegal activities. That wouldn't be very good, would it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is exactly what the Betamax ruling and the DMCA currently allows. Youtube cannot be blocked censored or banned because some users infringes on someone else's copyright. Why? Because there is a large ammount of free speech and other legal content on the site as well.
        
        SOPA will allow for future YouTubes to be blocked for acting exactly as Youtube does currently. That is unacceptable to me and all the people whose speech would be censored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Zack, in fairness, what YouTube is doing only works because of what was considered a pretty tame little back door for "service providers" back at the time it was created.
        
        Pre-DMCA, what Youtube does today would have been highly illegal, and they would have been sued into obscurity in minutes. The notification and take down provisions, which were intended only to keep the most innocent of hosts from liablity, has instead become a business model.
        
        What the DMCA giveth, the new laws will somewhat take away, limit, or obstruct. It's a result of too many companies, too many websites, and too many projects trying to hide themselves under the service provider tent. Once the government figured out (with the help of the media companies) what was going on, it was only a matter of time before corrective action was taken.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you are saying that Youtube should be illegal and anyone who uses it legally to spread their protected speech or legal copyrighted content should be censored all because a few bad apples post infringing content? Gotcha.
        
        In reality land, Youtube was protected prior to the DMCA because of the Betamax ruling. In that ruling Sony's Betmax player and other VCRs could not be blocked from the market because a few of the uses were infringing. The Supreme Court's ruling clearly stated that banning the Betamax because of the infringing uses would have cause irreparable harm to those who rely on it for legal uses.
        
        That is what SOPA intends to do. Those who support SOPA do not care about the legal content and the free speech that will, not maybe, be censored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stop being a willfully blind idiot, ok?
        
        YouTube was founded on infringement, and everyone knows it. It drove their traffic, which helped the founders become wealthy. They were greedy. Just like you.
        
        If youtube wants to run a site that shows skateboarding dogs, then no one is going to stop them, are they? If youtube wants to be reckless and be a cesspool of infringement, then they'll be stopped.
        
        But Viacom did that already by suing them. Funny how the law has a way of making people behave...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except Viacom lost. Big time at that.
        
        To say that YouTube was founded on infringement is a baseless accusation. YouTube was founded on the same principles as Facebook, MySpace, GeoCities, Twitter and many many other user controlled sites. Those principals are the ability for the users of the internet to express themselves and share content with one another.
        
        That is noble and should be encouraged. SOPA will discourage such innovation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Viacom lost round one in a decision by a judge that didn't understand the case.
        
        The appeal is without question going to go to Viacom.
        
        Even youtube knows they're guilty. The emails prove it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay...what about the videos Viacom put up themselves, by people who made accounts to deliberately look like they're your average Youtuber (i.e. to look like there's no official connection with Viacom), and then suing over? At the very least, it made Viacom look like a fool, at the very worst, they're guilty of bait and entrapment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! Keep dreaming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why are you legacy content delivery dinosaurs so pissed at youtube? I don't think I've ever watched anything on there that infringes copyright. I have, however spent countless hours laughing my ass off at peoples stupid videos of their crazy antics.
        Come to think about it, that's probably it isn't it? You don't want me getting free entertainment from my peers. You'd much rather I was paying for a new boat for you, by paying for your big label content, wouldn't you?
        That must be the point, because piracy won't decrease noticeably from SOPA, you want a weapon that you can use to attack your legitimate competition. And the really shocking thing is that you have managed to buy/trick the government into swallowing your lies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Zack, I don't know who the other AC is...but I will try to keep this on a more level piece of ground.
        
        First, the betamax ruling, while making VCRs legal, didn't suddenly make it legal to knock off bootleg tapes. It certainly didn't make it legal for stores that sell the VCRs to also sell bootleg tapes.
        
        Youtube as a technology is absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely legal. There is nothing in the new law that makes their machine illegal. However, the new law DOES address the way in which they use their machine to make money. YouTube will (like many others) have to choose ways of doing business that do not put it at significant risk of legal liability.
        
        Youtube (and it's technology) can stay online forever. There is no risk to the technology. The risk is in how it is used. Since Youtube itself is the user, they are liable not from a technology standpoint (it's all legal) but in a usage. Since they directly profit from the usage, in the same manner that a bootleg tape seller would, they are liable only on the content side, not the technology side.
        
        It wouldn't blog any legit uses of YouTube, provided that Youtube doesn't allow it's site to be used for piracy and infringement. The same applies for P2P sites, file hosts, and all those other business out there. Provided they work to keep illegal content off their sites, they will be around for your enjoyment for years to come.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and way does youtube has to change and no the mpaa and teh riaa, i mean hte technollogy is enabling a lot of things that in the past where only dreams and the was that should change are the ones that are using them to the fullest?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am not claiming that bootleg tapes or other forms of offline and online infringement should be made legal.
        
        The DMCA addressed the issue of online infringement in a manner that was actually fair to all parties involved. The owner of the copyright is the only entity or person responsible for policing their copyrights. That responsibility should not be thrust onto a third party.
        
        Under SOPA, it will no longer be the copyright owner who is responsible for policing, it will now be the service provider. Under SOPA, YouTube will be responsible for reviewing 48 hours of video uploaded ever hour. They will be responsible for ensuring that all proper licenses and releases are in place. That is an undue burden for a single provider. They will not be able to do this job without an army of lawyers. If they were to go this route, the service would be unusable by the public that currently uses it. And it will fail.
        
        So yes it SOPA would end up censoring legal speech and other legit content. If the regulatory burdens don't kill the services, the false accusations of copyright infringement will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nothing but FUD.
        
        Seriously, that's all you have, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        FUD /off
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, so you admit we're rescinding parts of the DMCA then? Bout time you fessed up....
        
        "What the DMCA giveth, the new laws will somewhat take away, limit, or obstruct."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's about time.
        
        The DMCA is a joke.
        
        If flagrant, unpunished lawbreaking is occurring, then it's pretty obvious your DMCA law didn't accomplish it's original intent.
        
        By the way, people also tried to claim the DMCA would "break the internet" when it was introduced, LOL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And this supposed lawbreaking is breaking the world, how?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DH, no, I am not suggesting that they are rescinding parts of the DMCA, only that they are effectively narrowing the definitions so that not everyone can hide out as a "service provider". That is one of DMCA's major weaknesses, and one that has spawned almost every web2.0 business model around.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Narrowing the definitions of the DMCA requires cutting a path through the forest of content with a flamethrower? That's narrow?!
        
        I embed a Youtube video to my channel and someone says it's illegal and suddenly the mere accusation of it means I have to fight against my service provider, financial services, and the government on a mere accusation? Hello?
        
        That makes no sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is just FUD.
        
        If you upload a video of your skateboarding dog to YouTube, no one is going to care, much less say it's illegal, make you fight your service provider, financial services, and the government.
        
        Just pure FUD.
        
        If this is all you have, you're done. Give it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love how you go on and on about FUD about a dog to disguise how embedding a video on a personal website can still make a website liable for damages. But by all means, instead of saying FUD, explain.
        
        Otherwise, you're using FUD, not me.
        
        If I put up streaming content of me watching a movie with friends, which gets embedded from Youtube, why should Viacom, Sony, or any other corporation care? Bear in mind, a theater had someone jailed for videotaping a few minutes of footage of Twilight. Viacom tried to sue Youtube even though they put up their content on Youtube themselves.
        
        If you're going to chant FUD, be able to back it up with something yourself. You're making it harder to take you seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jay, you obviously were raised very poorly, and not taught to respect the rights of others.
        
        We're sorry about that, but you need to stop acting out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet again, ad homs that don't equate to a valid response. Seek help for your debate tactics please. You're doing poorly in this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 3:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DH, no, I am not suggesting that they are rescinding parts of the DMCA, only that they are effectively narrowing the definitions so that not every "service provider" will still be protected. That is one of DMCA's major strengths, and one that has spawned almost every web2.0 business model around, from were the old gatekeepers can not suck all the profit allowing to bypass them and limiting the profits they obtain as gatekeepers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but looking at the balance between all players.
        
        So let's have a real discussion on balance, then.
        
        Many of us freetards have stated what we think is balanced, and despite despite your claims that we all blindly follow Mike, there's some noticeable differences among many of our ideas.
        
        So, please list out specifics on your ideas of what a reasonable balance between corporations in control of copyrights, artists (both independent and those employed by the corporations), non-copyright based industries with an obvious stake (such as Google/Youtube and other tech), and the public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Josh, any time your version of balance starts with "I want to take your product and use it by my rules, not yours", you will always find yourself losing. It is a pretty hard place to start a discussion.
        
        You have to remember that while tech moves forward very quickly, media companies, content distribution, and such are always behind the game. They are always invested in the previous technology, and they are always one step behind those of us on the cutting edge.
        
        When music was on vinyl, the cutting edge wanted it on laser disc.
        
        When music was on CD, the cutting edge wanted it as MP3s.
        
        When music was on MP3s, the cutting edge wanted it lossless and in 20 different formats...
        
        and so on.
        
        So before anything, you have to remember that, no matter what is "possible", in the real world not everyone adopts right on day one. In the case of the movie and music industries, that means that not everything that is possible is actively supported on the supply side. Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction, giving the purchaser of license plenty of options, and what is effectively a backup copy.
        
        I think the true balance doesn't come just in laws, it comes in respect. If a content creator doesn't want to be part of the "new media universe", then that choice should be respected. If that happened, the rest of it would be easy as pie. The "new universe" artists could use youtube, P2P, Google, and whatever else they want to do what they want, when they want, and everyone who wants to enjoy it that way could.
        
        Remember, a Hollywood movie company saying "we don't want our movie pirated" doesn't stop you from making a movie of your own and putting it on P2P. Not putting their movie on P2P for them is an element of respect.
        
        My feeling is that if there wasn't so much blatent piracy, so many aggressive misuses of content, that things would probably work out better in the long run for people who just make accidental use of something. I would also think that, without piracy, it would be much easier for media companies to accept the idea of transferring product from one media to another, say from your DVD to your smart phone, or your CD to your mp3, etc.
        
        It should be noted as well that the CD is on it's very last legs, the music industry is looking to phase out all physical delivery, and to move to a fully digital universe. People will be easily able to move their digital files around, so the whole "pirate because I can't circumvent" argument will be history.
        
        Specifics? There really aren't any. Until piracy stops being the driving force of every discussion, there will be little balance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course in a world where no one breaks the law and everyone respects everyone else's rights, everything would be fine and dandy.
        
        Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world .We live in a world where that doesn't happen. So we need a balance between respect of individual rights and prosecution of law breakers.
        
        SOPA does not provide that. It puts the prosecution of law breakers over the rights of individuals. It does not allow for a distinction of legal content and free speech on sites content companies deem "dedicated to infringing activities"
        
        We have shown numerous times just what sort of sites the content industry deems infringing. Many of which are completely legal. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, eBay etc all would have been blocked from the web had they come under this law.
        
        That is extremely sad and scary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You have to remember that while tech moves forward very quickly, media companies, content distribution, and such are always behind the game. They are always invested in the previous technology, and they are always one step behind those of us on the cutting edge."
        
        We know this, and quite frankly we don't care. If you're in a business that is so affected by and dependant on technology, you need to keep up with the pace of change. Incompetence is no excuse.
        
        "Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction, giving the purchaser of license plenty of options, and what is effectively a backup copy."
        
        Great example! Low-res DVD, Blu-ray chock full of unskippable crap and a DRM-riddled digital copy. That certainly demonstrates your earlier point about them being behind the times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, and it's our content that makes any of that tech worth having.
        
        So I don't care what you think either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bjupton (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So I don't care what you think either."
        
        Yes, yes, the MPAA/RIAA motto. We're all clear on that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and the vcr was nothing without content.
        
        Just so happens that what was good for vcr makers was also incredibly good for the movie business, despite being a vector for infringement.
        
        Someone please put up some convincing evidence that infringement harms any business at all, because it seems that it is actually either neutral or there is a slight possibility that it is actually generally beneficial to sales (we already have evidence that in particular instances it has driven sales).
        
        Because every other part of this argument depends on whether infringement harms sales. If it doesn't we don't need the debate and we certainly don't need the massive overreach of legislation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So I don't care what you think either.
        
        LOL. Let's see how much money you'll make with that attitude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You consistently say shit that my 2 year old would laugh at.
        
        It's amazing.
        
        Let me speak for your freetard buddies here and say, shut up.
        
        You contribute nothing but the most vanilla, stale inanities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remember, a Hollywood movie company saying "we don't want our movie pirated" doesn't stop you from making a movie of your own and putting it on P2P.
        
        It does when said company goes around getting every usenet and p2p index shut down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL at pirate networks being the only place to distribute something on the internet.
        
        what an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brendan (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't you stooges have any actual work to do during the day? Maybe you'd be more profitable if you stopped paying so many lobbyists and spammers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's your fault.
        
        You couldn't keep your hand out the cookie jar.
        
        You reap what you sow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        as far as i know they were given the oportunity to be the first to implement a itunes like store with the napster but guess what they sued and make it disapear instead of making use of it and what you said about using technology of the past is not true they use video formats of the apst but they make movies with the latest technology is one of the reasons it cost millons like avatar, they dont want to adapt and use the technoloy and the distribution their customer wants so that only leaves other person to come ant steal their momentum, but again i dont think the mpaa and the riaa knows about economics 101
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction
        
        Like the Transformers 3 Blu-Ray that as a digital copy has the SD version? Your right direction is way off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So before anything, you have to remember that, no matter what is "possible", in the real world not everyone adopts right on day one.
        
        No argument there. The point is that not only didn't the industry adopt close to day one, they tried to prevent anyone else to adopt. E.g. they tried to claim it illegal when I ripped a CD I bought myself for my mp3 player. Such bullshit just ain't gonna fly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 3:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        any time your version of balance starts with "I want you to buy our product and use it by the rules that we write for ourself and you were never invited to discuss", you will always find yourself losing. It is a pretty hard place to start a discussion of balance when you began with a rules that the bigger stateholder (the Public) was never allowed to participate in its development.
        
        Because when the technology makes the rules written by the gatekeeper for the gatekeeper became the only thing that keep them as gatekeepers does not means that those rules are balanced or that those rules must be more important that the civil rights of the public.
        
        If I have to choose between a industry not having as high a profit as they will like, and a increase difficulty in expressing myself that industry can began to loose money for all I care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously suggesting that people would not SHARE things in real life?
        
        People would not watch content for FREE in real life (over the cable/internet connection that they PAID for)?
        
        How many people in real life get paid for work they did 95 years ago? Of these, how many of these people's families are still receiving checks for the work their parents did 95+ years ago?
        
        What defines who gets perpetual payment for discrete work? Why does this only apply to 'art' and not to 'useful' works such as the internet (when was the last time the author of the internet received a royalty check?)...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What do you care about 95 years? The stuff you rip off is usually less than a couple years old.
        
        You're just rationalizing and trying to change the subject again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The concentrated self-referential irony here is so caustic I should really be typing this reply with gloves and protective eyewear. It's like you don't even recognize that saying 'all infringement is on new works' as a response to multiple generations of copyright protection is a rationalization or that accusing someone of infringement is an attempt to change the subject from copyright to the activities of the poster you responded to...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Digitari, 7 Nov 2011 @ 3:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what did I "rip" hey I have no problem with IP owners, ut let's be real. what ever happened to "art for art's sake" what ever happened to the "starving artist" this was a badge of honor. What "Honor" comes from Hollywood or the Music recording industry today? You want "US" to quit "ripping you off" so you can buy blow and Hookers??? ( see we can use ad hominem attacks too) when the biggest Movies and records in history are losing Money (according to the content providers) WHY THE HELL DO YOU CONTINUE???????
        
        I could give a rats ass about the newest song or latest movie. I read BOOKS, My imagination is a LOT bigger then any crappy movie you could ever make.
        
        When Lohans, Kardashian, and their ilk are what content providers produce why would we NOT rip you assholes off??
        
        You want the Moral high Ground, you have to be Moral first
        
        (But I'm not any of those people, why blame me? No shit, and I don't copy Movies or music yet YOU blame ME)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course they would share things in real life, in a small manner, with a friend or two from time to time. They wouldn't put it online and share it with 1 million of their closest friends... they wouldn't broadcast it to the world... they might knock off a copy for their buddy at work.
        
        The issue of piracy isn't ABSOLUTELY stopping every possible and potential way for something to be shared on a personal level, rather to address the large scale, widespread, and unlimited sharing of files between millions of people who don't know each other at all. The scale right now is so out of whack, that it is beyond understanding.
        
        The answers aren't black and white...they are grey. Once you get to that point, you will be better able to understand how the world works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not with these laws that also punish much more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "government hand up your ass"
      
      Considering that your mouth moves because a corporation has their hand up your ass, this doesn't see that unrealistic...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        MrWilson, with due respect, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. You are so wrong, it beyond understanding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, he has no idea what hes talking about. Good thing you explained it for all of us to see.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It was funny, Mr Sock Puppet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you don't work for a corporation or in some other way gain financial benefit from the current, corrupt system of IP laws, you really should find a different hobby because you do appear to work so hard and spend enough time for it to constitute at least a part time job just to attack anyone who questions or disagrees with IP maximalist policies and practices.
        
        If you're not motivated to shill so hard for a financial benefit, then you must have issues with self-righteous zealotry or you're secretly an IP pirate with severe self-loathing issues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Trolling down the river . . .
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Avoid answering questions much?
      
      Paranoid much? Well yes. What about it?
      
      Sometimes paranoia's just having all the facts.
      - William S. Burroughs
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    You forgot the best parts of it, give no mechanism for which abuse can be tracked or punished thus giving no incentive for not being abused.
    
    The DMCA is just classic, instead of requiring that you send in triplicate the same notice, to not only the service provider but to some central database so the use of it could be tracked to see what was being used for they require nothing, not even disclosure is like the people who made the DMCA wanted it to be abused, further there is no penalties for sending bogus DMCA's to anyone unless the AG gets involved which almost guarantees that nobody funding his campaign will get in hot water for doing so, that is just brilliant and now they want to expand that crap giving more chances for abuse like never before and even less oversight of what happens.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  And you're still so deep in the denial stage that you can't see how much you're projecting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  Warning Mike; the next step is depression. Try not to be too sad.
  
  Mike's desperation is palpable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    And the fact that most SOPA supporters are clueless hits like a truck, not only palpable...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike's desperation is palpable.
    
    I'm sorry if wanting to encourage innovation to make life better for you and for content creators is "desperation." I think it's just a good idea.
    
    Some of us try to keep idiots from shooting themselves in their own feet... and then we get attacked for it. Weird.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You don't get it... your version of "innovation" isn't exactly desirable. Short term, it might be amusing. Long term, it appears to be a negative.
      
      So don't stop me from shooting, because it sure as heck ain't my foot down there, maybe just your business ideas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So don't stop me from shooting, because it sure as heck ain't my foot down there, maybe just your business ideas.
        
        That's right. If your business model relies on violating other people's property rights, then you are not really innovating and you need to adapt your business model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's right. If your business model relies on violating other people's property rights, then you are not really innovating and you need to adapt your business model.
        
        Just change property to Privacy and Speech and you've just summed up the argument against this drivel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Free speech doesn't excuse you from illegal acts.
        
        If it did, then bank robbers would wave protest signs around while committing their crimes.
        
        Stop being such a greedy child. You've been ripping people off for over 10 years now. What a psychopath...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just 10 years? The entertainment industry has been ripping people off for nearly 100 years!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        100 years of random malfeasance by entertainment companies doesn't even hold a candle to the amount of stuff that got ripped off in the past month alone.
        
        You're on the wrong side of this issue and you're going to lose.
        
        Face reality and give it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 8 Nov 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        100 years of intentional greedy exploitation of artists and consumers by rich people doesn't hold a candle to a bunch of consumers who would rather pay for food and shelter than over-priced entertainment because said rich people have fucked the economy in the ass so good paying jobs are hard to come by?
        
        Well, by all means, continue to shill for the 1% if that's whose table scraps you're getting to pay your mortgage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree wholeheartedly. If your business model relies on violating the property rights of the public by lobbying for a corrupt legislative system to extend copyright duration beyond any reasonable limit and thus keep the legitimate property of the public out of the public domain, then you need to adapt your business model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Freetard debate technique number one:
        
        When faced with simple logic that reduces all your pirating rationalizations to a laughable pile of ash,
        
        change the subject.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright Maximalist debate technique number one:
        
        When faced with simple logic that reduces your maximalist rationalizations to a laughable pile of ash,
        
        resort to ad hominem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This would make a great Mimi and Eunice comic:
        
        IP shill: "You're stealing from us!"
        
        Public: "You're stealing from us!"
        
        IP shill: "Stop changing the subject!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When faced with simple logic that reduces all your pirating rationalizations to a laughable pile of ash
        
        LOL, except it didn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        appears? I love that word. I use it frequently when I have no idea what a user's problem is. It appears to be(insert some bullshit line that sounds good, but has no basis in reality.) Our id10t's behind the keyboard buy it every time. Only because they dont know any better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "appears" in this case because, unlike Mike, I won't claim to know what the future holds with absolute certainty. Based on what I can see, the decline of original content, and the upswing of "remixed" content seems mostly to continue to create a feedback loop that gets smaller and smaller until it becomes meaningless.
        
        If you think the Hollywood retread movie thing is bad, imagine if everyone could do it without restriction. It would be craptastic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Culture changes, regardless of what you may want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm sorry if wanting to encourage innovation to make life better for you and for content creators is "desperation." I think it's just a good idea.
      
      Some of us try to keep idiots from shooting themselves in their own feet... and then we get attacked for it. Weird.
      
      It seems obvious to me that you are simply advancing your pro-piracy, anti-copyright point of view. The whole "encourage innovation" thing is just a vapid catchphrase. Innovation will proceed nicely with property laws being enforced. If you really want to be a part of the solution, instead of just a whiny zealot, then why aren't you writing about how you'd improve SOPA? For example, how would you define rogue sites?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There aren't any rogue "sites," just people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Content can take care of themselves. Thanks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re:
  Apparently the top post was too close to the truth for comfort so Masnick censored it.
  
  Here's what it said:
  
  "This post reads like step 3 on the grief scale... bargaining. You are past the anger, and now you are trying to come up with ways to negotiate with it.
  
  Warning Mike; the next step is depression. Try not to be too sad."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike censored nothing. The post is still there to be viewed and read. Because you are incapable of clicking the text that reads "Click to show comment" does not mean it is not available to be read.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ICE seized nothing, the website is still there.
      
      Idiot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whuuuu? You are fucking bat-shit crazy dude. Get some help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  This post reads like step 3 on the grief scale... bargaining. You are past the anger, and now you are trying to come up with ways to negotiate with it.
  
  Warning Mike; the next step is depression. Try not to be too sad.
  
  And make sure you don't get your Celexa at a rogue pharma site or otherwise you may end up with some unknown medication that could aggravate your gynecomastia.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 8:37pm
  
  Re:
  This post reads like step 3 on the grief scale... bargaining. You are past the anger, and now you are trying to come up with ways to negotiate with it.
  
  Warning Mike; the next step is depression. Try not to be too sad.
  
  We'll see about that, sparky. The Google Abolition Act - the assault on safe harbor - is going to be dropped. Wyden's hold is still in place and other congresscritters are defecting. The Internet has been roused from its' slumber, and social media is crawling with news of this.
  
  The mobilization is beginning, and we have not yet begun to fight. I look forward to the day the e-parasites in the movie and recording industry are as bankrupt as the buggy whip manufacturers before them and paid MAFIAA/Chamber of Commerce shills have to get real jobs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:07am

"Just because Clinton says there's no conflict, that doesn't mean the actual text of the bill agrees with that. You can't just insist that what the plain text of the bill says isn't in the bill. That's no way to regulate."

And just because mike says there is conflict does not mean there is. Read the bill yourself, look at the interpretations, and decide for yourself is all I'm advocating.

Nice article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  Indeed a nice article. But Mike doesn't have to say a word if you read the damned thing. There is conflict, there is plenty of conflict. This bill is so bad that even some artists coalitions have already spoken against it (in a soft way not to look like they support piracy lol). Mike wrote about this a few days back.
  
  I've read a few parts of this horrible monster and it's the next worst thing that happened to the US after Patriot Act. And it isn't even a law yet. But the fact that some1 even supports that in the US is very disturbing. And the Founding Fathers surely are revolving in their graves with that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, you've just been conned by Masnick's lies.
    
    None of the horrible stuff you guys have made up is in the bill. You twist stuff around because that's your agenda, as you love to rip off entertainment and don't want your illegal behavior policed.
    
    And everybody knows it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "No, you've just been conned by Masnick's lies."
      
      Or, we've read similar opinions from lots of people and happen to agree with them. You falsely assume we're all relying on one source of info, which would be a foolish assumption.
      
      "None of the horrible stuff you guys have made up is in the bill. You twist stuff around because that's your agenda, as you love to rip off entertainment and don't want your illegal behavior policed."
      
      Thank you for confirming the entire point of the post. Deny, deny, deny!
      
      "And everybody knows it."
      
      Jeez, that's the kind of thing schoolkids say to each other...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "And everybody knows it."
      
      If everybody knows it, then why do you bother to say it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  What they intend is never what they actually mean. ACs and trolls alike say that Mike and those of us who happen to agree with his opinion are the ones who are drinking the kool-aid. I say it must be the other way around. You actually swallow what the government does without question, and believe that both the government and the SOPA supporters are doing this for the betterment of the American public?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  I read it, and it is awful.
  
  When it says all the powers AG's will get I see this happening.
  
  Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
  
  There is no accountability to be read in that bill, there is no way of tracking abuse or the use of it and truly should die on the floor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    See, this is why no one takes you fools seriously.
    
    Some mentally ill judge hurts his daughter, and that is somehow SOPA's fault?
    
    You're as mentally ill as the judge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Never attribute to mental illness what is probably the mere evil actions of a judge corrupted by the legacy content delivery dinosaurs"
      
      Confucius 3200 BC
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How long has this mentally ill judge been passing down sentences?
      
      Why has it taken so long for someone in that position to be determined mentally ill?
      
      When will we find out the authors of this bill are mentally ill?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      See, this is why no one takes you fools seriously.
      
      Which why you come here and post on a regular basis. Convincing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:34am

Whether or not an application of the law would constitute a chilling effect on the First Amendment would be up to the courts. This is just a statutory interpretation issue. If the court finds a use of SOPA does create a chilling effect, then SOPA cannot be applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  And the courts will weigh in in advance, or ex post, once hundreds of sites have been shutdown through enforcement or through no longer being able to operate given the burden placed on them by this legislation?
  
  Will the courts order all those sites back into business too?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Lies and fear mongering.
    
    Hundreds of legal sites won't be "shutdown".
    
    But hundreds of websites whose main activity is copyright infringement will be blocked.
    
    And that's the way it should be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's you who lies.
      You're desperate to get a weapon that will allow you to crush all alternate legitimate content simply with dubious copyright allegations, so that you can herd the public, bereft of alternatives towards you crap.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mooo.com anyone?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that's the way it should be.
      
      And also what is not gonna stop piracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:41am

there's law and then there's law
Has there been a test of the legal theory involved? If a law contains a contradiction like "(1) This Act shall not be construed to ban X, (2) X is hereby banned", what will the courts do? Will a judge go with the part that's longer? Clearer? Less restrictive of individual rights? Better for society? More similar to other laws? Do such restrictions work?

Can we be really, really sure that we can violate the ban and not be convicted under the law, or should we obey the ban just to be on the safe side?

And even if it's a sure thing that we won't be convicted, does that mean the authorities won't arrest us, seize our equipment, commandeer our web sites and/or ruin our businesses before even setting a court date? Is there a realistic way to sue the government for doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:57am

So...
How do we go about proposing the Civilian and Criminal Penalties for Unconstitutional, Misleading, and Irresponsible Lawmakers Act?

You know the one that for each "point" they build up in a bill/act that turns out to be unconstitutional they are held liable, sometimes on a criminal scale, for their transgressions against their people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 10:59am

The text of Clinton's statement makes no direct reference to the overreaching and overly broad nature of SOPA.

As you may know Masnick, State is unable to comment directly on the bill at this time. Wish away the implications of Secretary Clinton's letter all you like, she reads the newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  State is unable to comment directly on the bill at this time.
  
  Unable does not mean the same thing as unwilling.
  
  State may be unwilling to publicly go against White House policy, but that does not mean they're unable to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    no, there are procedural rules that prohibit this
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm pretty sure there's no part of the Constitution or any law that prevents the Secretary of State (4th in the line of succession BTW) from expressing an opinion on pending legislation.
      
      If I'm mistaken, please direct me to it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:01am

Seriously, I give up on these hand puppets. If they are willing to live with giving up liberties and freedoms in the US to ensure that no one does anything with their content, then I will wait for the dust to clear and vote for the least corrupt politician next election. These guys have proven repeatedly that preservation of their industry is far more important than innovation and liberties.
I for one believe them and will remind everyone who in the House and Senate voted for this crap. In the meantime, my VPN works just fine, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:12am

SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

As you stated in your article I will be affected and so will 1,000's of other smaller DIY bands who love to share their music and just people to hear them.I personally have never been into music for money.I am an original punk rocker from 1976 and have jammed in bands since the summer of 1972.I currently play in two bands, "Big Meat Hammer" and "The Lynn Rebels" and I share 6 full physical albums which have been released of various acts I have put together.I share freely with the world via my website,facebook,myspace, and P2P.I have even seen my music posted by folks on youtube and just wrote to a guy in Argentina who asked me nicely if I could write down my lyrics to a song I did with The Transplants (1976-79) Boston,Mass.
I will fight this piece of toilet paper bill in any way I can.I will not be shut up by the big money assholes of the RIAA & MPAA.Both of them can come over to my place and suck my Welsh Corgie Dog's dick.He might enjoy that !!! I have refused to support Corporate Rock since the mid-70's and the RIAA Artists got shit from me.I became a punk because of your attitude in the 70's when you stopped taking chances on cool music and became the bland pieces of shit that you are today.
YOU WILL NOT RESTRAIN THE FREE SPEECH OF 1,000's OF US BANDS !!!
And all of should remember who in Government have voted YES to take away our rights.We need to do an investigation on each and every one of these traitors to see what donations they have gotten and where they came from.
YOU IN GOVERNMENT ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
  Who cares, you're not a real musician. If you were, you would be from a label.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
    you're not a real musician unless you are a label slave
    
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
      Who cares, he's not a real musician, because a real musician would know that this bill won't have the slightest effect on him if he wishes to be an independent and promote his music.
      
      More lies, more FUD.
      
      It's all you have left.
      
      Pathetic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
        And if he wants to promote it using a tool that you don't approve of, like youtube, usenet, or TPB?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
        Maybe ask the Pirate Bay to stop breaking the law, Einstein.
        
        God, you people are fucking idiot children.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
        Why are you even here? What do you hope to achieve?
        Most readers here are enlightened to your lies and propaganda. Those who haven't already realized how hopelessly deluded you are are going to read these comments, see you posting like a deranged lunatic with quips like:
        
        "God, you people are fucking idiot children."
        
        and what side do you think they are going to come down on? Are you completely retarded or are you just trying your best to get there?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 7:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
        TPB isn't breaking the law. If they were, the Swedes would have shut them down by now. Of course, that's Sweden's law, and you want everyone to follow America's law. Sorry, it's a global marketplace, not a US marketplace, no matter how much you wish it to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 2:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
        Is that you Gene, off the meds again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
  gorehound, please.
  
  Nobody is stopping your rights to distribute your content in any manner you choose. The only issue is that those artists, labels, or rights holders who don't want the content shared in the manners you choose to use should not be FORCED to use your methods. If your method is truly innovative, if it is truly the way of the future, they will come to you.
  
  Stop trying to make everyone else do it your way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
    That other AC needs to learn from you I think dude. He seems to be almost self destructing with rage. A bit of subtlety goes a long way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:58pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists
    Stop trying to make everyone else do it your way.
    
    How about the artists and labels learn how to do it like the rest of society has already done?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:16am

I'm from the government, and I am here to help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:24am

Perhaps they should rewrite it then so it says what they mean it to say.

Why again do corporations get to write all the laws and bills for America? And why do those same American corporations then go to other countries to try to right the laws for others too? Something is wrong there. "We the people" was not in reference to Corporations, and Corporations were never meant to be considered people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lcloria2, 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:01pm

If artists or anyone not wishing to "copyright" thier material could label it as "open source" under a GPL that would be great. Then, anyone wishing to make a dollar could take thier chances with copyrights and the legal requirements associated with them. Let them fight thier own battles, through whichever label they wish.

There are of course "rogue" sites which flaunt thier content and make it available to anyone. Royalties should be enforced and websites sued/tried in international courts.

Afterall, the implication seems to be that we are tired of China and others recieving goods free of charge. We are also especially fearfull of the malicious intent of rogue and "friendly" States. This bill is the permission slip to cut these people off. Will this power be abused, probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]