OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America
from the speak-up dept
When I went to Washington DC a few weeks ago with other entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, one of those whom I had the pleasure of meeting and walking the halls of Congress with was David Ulevitch, the CEO of OpenDNS, the world's largest DNS and internet security service. His service protects over 30 million people every day, and is currently used to protect people in approximately one-third of every public K-12 school. Hearing his story and his concerns about PROTECT IP and SOPA was really eye-opening. He's someone who clearly understands DNS and DNS/IP blocking better than probably anyone. And he told me that if SOPA were in place when he was first creating OpenDNS, he wouldn't have bothered. The liability would be just too great.David has now penned an open letter to Congress, which we've embedded below, asking Congress to reject SOPA and PROTECT IP as being extremely bad bills that will have massive unintended consequences, hurting jobs and internet security at the same time. Here are just a few excerpts:
It’s likely that if SOPA and PIPA existed when I started my company, we would have incorporated outside of the United States and all of the jobs and investment that I have put into the economy would have been taken elsewhere. I expect many businesses will make the decision to incorporate elsewhere should this legislation pass and it’s possible that existing corporations will relocate to more entrepreneur-friendly countries.It's difficult to argue that Ulevitch doesn't know what he talks about. He runs the largest DNS provider in the world. How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?
My company invented many of the specific techniques that SOPA and PIPA would require all domestic Internet Service Providers and companies like mine to employ. Needless to say, we understand the censorship technology being proposed in this legislation and we are deeply concerned. While the aims of protecting IP and reducing piracy are noble, there are many reasons why SOPA and PIPA are dangerous as currently written. Here are the three that impact my business most:
- It will, by definition, be overbroad, as there is no way to censor only illegal content without harming legitimate uses on sites as well. This is particularly true in light of the broad notion of “sites dedicated to infringing activity.”
- Through their requirements to block websites, these bills will create a domestic Internet firewall designed to censor websites equivalent to the “Great Firewall of China” that is used to suppress information. If we implemented such a solution we would be setting a terrible example for the rest of the world, including countries we criticize for the same behavior like Iran, Syria, and China.
- They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. What the bills propose would be akin to requiring the phone company to be responsible for the legality of every phone call that takes place. With that kind of regulation, companies will spend more on lawyers and litigation than they will on hiring and innovating. Existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already provide a satisfactory legal framework to remove copyright infringement and enforce intellectual property rights.
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: congress, david ulevitch, dns, great firewall, protect ip, sopa
Companies: opendns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That about covers it, Can we now have a discussion about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You missed the nonsequitur and insult of Mike, please try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
* Not use non-sequiturs
* Not randomly insult Mike
* Not use random strawmen
* Not use random lame misdirection
Anywho, he doesn't have any power to "block free speech" (apparently, mocking ACs is now a form of censorship) and you have no obligation to follow his suggestions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But maybe we should give them an example of an opposing view that doesn't involve ad hominem's.
For example:
"Hi Mike. I disagree with your viewpoint. I think inalienable intellectual property rights are so thoroughly abused by masses of poor people who prefer to pay for food, shelter, clothing, and to send their children to college instead of paying monopoly rents to large entertainment companies. I think SOPA is necessarily for the entertainment industry to have its way with anyone it suspects of violating its rights. I think (good) art wouldn't exist without well-compensated middle men, specifically the legacy companies already in existence. I don't believe these companies should have to adapt to technological paradigm shifts in our society, but that the technology should be adapted to maximizing profits for the shareholders in the top one percentile of wealthy people in the United States. Furthermore, I suspect that you are opposed to such legislation because you probably download copyright infringing material yourself, even though I have no solid evidence to support this assertion."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um...I was trying not to be rude - that was the point. Thank you for confirming my success and for that lovely ad hominem. It really adds depth to the level of conversation and, I must concede, has persuaded me to completely change my mind regarding my positions on the matter. You have won me over, sir. Bully for you. Pip pip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you ADMIT...
Thank you for being so honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So then you admit that you were planning to use a (or a combination of a) "Random non sequitur" , or a "Random insult of mike" or a "random strawman" or a "random lame misdirection." as your opposition.
Is it because this is the only 'opposition' you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the evolution of the FRIST!!11one!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Preemptive troll posts are often creative and amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His point 3 is actually the most telling here. "They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. ". It's true only if the companies (a) accept user generated content without considering what the content is, (b) accepting user content without knowing who the user is.
I suspect that the solution to much of the problems here will be sites having more documentation on the sources of content, and being willing to help rights holders to take action against those that publish illegal materials. Right now, their operations will put almost all of the liability on them, but that is a mistake in their business models that needs to be corrected. I am feeling that a site's willingness to deal with user generated content in a responsible manner will find themselves with few issues.
"igital Millennium Copyright Act already provide a satisfactory legal framework to remove copyright infringement and enforce intellectual property rights."
This is also very misleading. While it does provide a frame work for removal on individual case bases, it does not in any way make users or those websites have to modify their behaviours to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Rather than being a "oops" method that allowed for websites to have an out for an occassional issue, it has become the basis of their business models, which appear to be to infringe on everyone, all the time, and take down only what is specifically complained about. It goes against the basics of the copyright law, and only happens because of the very mechanism he points to as being successful for the content owners. While is isn't lying, he certainly is leaving out a whole bunch of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarity
I find your statements disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i wait with bated breath for your bullshit excuses for supporting the proposed bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's start with the basics: My business, what I do, has no bearing on my opinions. NEXT!
"tell us why every other company should do the 'policing' on the internet for the entertainment industries" - This statement is wrong in so many ways, that it is beyond understand. Nobody is asking anyone to "police" anything, they are only asking them to obey the laws of the land in the same manner that any other publisher might have to do. If you accept user content, you also accept the risks that come with it. Website (magazines, newspapers, TV channels, anyone) should not be able to just say "Hey, I didn't know that this file containing all of the Star Wars movies was infringing". They answer should be "I didn't know if it was or not, so we didn't use it without checking".
All anyone asks is that online companies be held to the same standards as every other content medium out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happens is Bugmenot comes back to provide the right answers for those fields to people who want to upload infringing content. Of course, with YouTube alone receiving 48 hours of new footage every minute, Bugmenot will never be able to keep up with this rapidly expanding market. Innovative new services will spring up to compete...
Wait a minute, this will create new jobs and be a boon to the economy! They're freaking geniuses! Pass SOPA immediately!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the ISP is to been seen as the publisher, do you then also want to apply liability to printing press companies and newspaper boys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You could check with Viacom. Might not get you any closer to a correct answer though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Further it is not of your business what I do with what I bought, if I want to upload the entire Star Wars Saga to a locker room to get easy access to it, it is not your or anybody business but mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you're a lawyer or a shill. These aren't your opinions they are just the ones you've been payed to promote and lie about. Enjoy your eternity in hell :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Difficult maybe, but clearly not impossible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course this says nothing about the quality (or lack there of) of the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would like to hear you outline a feasible system that you have vaguely outlined and waved your hand around. Currently, the internet is a robust ecosystem for creative expression and speech. Sometimes, bad actors do bad things with IP. But that is an acceptable price for the benefits the internet gives the public. Under your proposed system, control of the internet would effectively be given to the moneyed corporate content creators at the expense of the public's ability to freely express themselves.
If you dispute this, outline a system where your view and freedom of expression could feasibly be implemented.
For instance, what documentation would you require for me to : A) verify that I own the copyright on what I have just posted; and B) the documentation necessary to prove to you I am who I say I am?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would say that most of them know that for practical purposes, there is a step where a law is taken from the written law and actually published in the gazette with information from the DoJ about how the law will actually be enforced, what is expected, what is acceptable, etc. I have little doubt that comment posting (and general forum discussions for that matter) will not be in the scope of any enforcement or policing. As a result, your freedom of expression is not lost, because there are no issues to deal with.
However, a forum filled with pirated movie links, information, reviews, and so on might find itself a target. Their permitting free and anonymous posting of the materials, and as an example having a "DVD RIPS" forum would certainly show intent, and make it a slam dunk.
"For instance, what documentation would you require for me to : A) verify that I own the copyright on what I have just posted; and B) the documentation necessary to prove to you I am who I say I am?"
This is where you have to learn the definition of "good faith". There is no "copyright license" issued by the state for our publishing. There is no documentation you can produce directly. But your good faith claims are very important. It's why the idea of "know your user", because knowing who is posting can shift the liablity to the provider, if the website can show that they operated in good faith, got a statement that the poster owns all copyrights, and that they made sure they know who is posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why not? Is the written word less worthy of IP protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
After that, Bugmenot comes back to provide the right answers for those fields to people who want to upload infringing content. Of course, with YouTube alone receiving 48 hours of new footage every minute, Bugmenot will never be able to keep up with this rapidly expanding market. Innovative new services will spring up to compete...
Wait a minute, this will create new jobs and be a boon to the economy! They're freaking geniuses! Pass SOPA immediately!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes it is! If I posted the entire Twilight novel in a comment here, under the proposed changes to copyright law, Techdirt would be liable for my infringement.
Unless you're saying only some copyrights will be enforced. Music and movies get the censorship powers China can only dream of but books are just dead trees not worth protecting? You got yours and leave the publishers out to dry, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it is! If I posted the entire Twilight novel in a comment here, under the proposed changes to copyright law, Techdirt would be liable for my infringement.
How does a single posting of "Twilight" among the rest of the drivel here rise to the level where Techdirt could be considered a site "dedicated to infringing activity" with no other legitimate purpose?
More Chicken Little bullshit. You seem as dumb as the the other Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some reinforcement for you
https://www.schneier.com/essay-308.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Acceptable to who? The guy who doesn't own the rights? Fuck that. What authority do you have as to what is acceptable to the rightful owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Think of what would happen to Youtube and expand that to the entire Internet. What's he's hoping for is making the Internet one way, a content delivery system only. What he's going to get is the complete destruction of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think he's ignoring this at all. The internet has done a great job of destroying the gatekeeper role; by restricting content generation to a small "known" list of content generators you in effect put the gates and walls back up. Now a band CAN'T just give their music away for exposure; they once again have to go through one of the approved content generators and sell themselves into slavery to get any exposure at all.
I think this bill is more aimed at putting the walls and gates back up (and worse putting them back up and having them funded by taxpayers) than it is at piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is, in a nutshell, exactly why the content industry is failing to adapt. They have always controlled the flow of their own content and the reality is the world doesn't operate that way anymore. No amount of legislation will put this genie back in the bottle. Techdirt, at it's heart and soul, is all about how to operate a business in this new reality because it is so obvious that the old methods simply don't apply. Not because everything must be free or we'll just copy at our own discretion (or lack thereof) but, because the content customer base is not being given the content they want, in the format(s) they choose, with the freedom to do as they wish with it, for an honest and reasonable price. The internet gives people the option to seek content elsewhere, at different prices, in almost any format and sometimes this content is free. Sometimes, it is the exact same content the gatekeeper could have sold if they knew how to deal with the new business methods and distribution models to service the customers that are waiting and willing to pay for their content.
"What he's going to get is the complete destruction of the Internet."
What he wants is complete complete control of the internet as a one way content delivery system. The problem is he doesn't understand how that whole internet system thingy works and that their is no magical bottleneck where he can set up his gate and collect the tolls he feels he is entitled to, just because he said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Come on... if you want to have a discussion, at least stop being a prick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> It's true only if the companies (a) accept user
> generated content without considering what the
> content is, (b) accepting user content without
> knowing who the user is.
>
> I suspect that the solution to much of the
> problems here will be sites having more
> documentation on the sources of content, and
> being willing to help rights holders to take
> action against those that publish illegal materials.
That documentation on sources of the content sounds like a pre approved list. YouTube says "hey, are you pre-authorized to upload content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it was never intended to. If the content owner can identify who is infringing their rights then there are existing legal remedies for that individual. What you seem to want is to play a shell game where, since individual liability is not large enough on a case by case basis and purusing it is unpopular, instead the laws should be rewritten so they can hold third parties liable in aggregate. That's asinine. Holding a third party liable if they don't meet certain conditions is what goes against the basics of copyright law, indeed laws in general. The reality is the notice and take-down system is abused far more often by the content recording industry than it is the service providers. The service providers are using it exactly as it was intended to be used while Big Content is using on things they don't even own the rights to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except, of course, that it works in exactly the same way. The only difference is that in these bills, you're imposing the "great firewall" around copyright infringement.
It certainly is not FUD. (And it has zero to do with communism.)
It's true only if the companies (a) accept user generated content without considering what the content is, (b) accepting user content without knowing who the user is.
Thanks for making the point for us, since every single site with user-generated content does one, or both, of the above. Including this one - something you should know, since you're talking advantage of (b) right now.
How the hell would any site with millions of user uploads "consider" what the content is? There is literally no way to do it.
This is also very misleading. While it does provide a frame work for removal on individual case bases, it does not in any way make users or those websites have to modify their behaviours to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
Other than, you know, taking down the content, and deleting the accounts of repeat offenders. And let's not forget that the notice-and-takedown system already favors rights holders over everyone else. To be fair, it should be changed to a "notice-counternotice-takedown" system.
The reality is that the DMCA was intended to work exactly as it is working right now. Pretending otherwise is just bullshit.
So, there was absolutely nothing whatsoever misleading about the statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
So you are saying that you think that people who run websites or online service that allow people to publish their own content SHOULD screen all content and verify the identity of the user before allowing them to publish. Having to do that is EXACTLY what is meant by an "onerous level of liability". Those 2 things are extremely difficult and complicated to do and are and should be the responsibility of the publisher not of the provider of the service. Do you expect every ISP that offers web hosting services to vet every single piece of content uploaded and verify the identity of every account holder and determine whether the content violates somebodies IP. If it worked like that then there would be no web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've long thought that this is a value proposition issue. The consumer value proposition (as opposed to overall economic value) for record labels, movie studios, etc. was the mass production and distribution angle. Now that any bozo with a computer can copy and paste a file, that value proposition is gone for the consumer, so piracy occurs. Consumers just don't get any direct benefit anymore. The content producers need to give people a value proposition again instead of just pointing to morality issues, which clearly haven't resonated.
BTW, thanks for your post. It's nice to see the opposing viewpoint make actual arguments instead of the usual name-calling and other crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
"He's someone who clearly understands DNS and DNS/IP blocking better than probably anyone." -- You constantly attempt to build up the "authority" of those whom you quote. It's just a lame attempt to add to your case. But as with anyone, the merits of the argument matter, not WHO is saying it. -- After all, the dinosaurs in Big Media surely know more about that than you do, Mike, yet you constantly tell them they're doing it all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
Would it have been better for the US if the company had been funded overseas, and the US school money that currently stays in the US instead went to another country? Schools would need the service, but if it wasn't legal in then they would have to look elsewhere.
If your point is that schools are a waste of time and public schools are a theft of money from wealthy taxpayers to pay for education for the poor, then similar examples exist across all levels of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
Do you dispute that?
Another personal attack because you have nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
It's mostly to prevent other unwanted access. In the case of school systems (which are mentioned), it's more porn, games, and other content that would not (directly) be effected by SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
If you think the merits of the argument are what matters and not who is saying it then why aren't you addressing the merits of the argument anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
As for the merits of the argument...you're wrong there partially. It does matter to some degree about WHO is saying it. The reason I don't trust the RIAA? It's because Mitch Glazier subverted the democratic process by rewriting a key bill in the middle of the night, then later getting a high paying job in the RIAA as a reward. Mitch could come out tomorrow and spew forth rainbows and sunshine, and I still wouldn't trust him. Same thing goes for VP Biden, he recently gave a speech that can be interpreted as being against SOPA...which is actually where his sympathies lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
wtf is gonna be enough for these thieves?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I knew we had gone completely off the deep end when we got to the point where a company thought it was a good business model to link individual DVD players up to the net and were STILL sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about the phone companies?
Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I think it's more than "akin". These rules would almost certainly be interpreted to apply to Skype, for example, and even mainstream VOIP providers like Comcast.
On the other hand, "Ulevitch" is clearly not an Anglo-Saxon name, so who really cares what he thinks, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The funny thing is, these guys are not mutually dependent. The AA's need DNS, DNS could care less about the AA's. So in true legacy-protect the middle man fashion, they are using politicians to force DNS to their will instead of adapting... As usual, this is going to backfire, and in a big way! When people starting routing around the damage, instead of having one big mole to whack, your going to have millions. They better start buying hammers! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And of course we will not allow them to succeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOREVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long, it was nice knowing you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is very different from a third party blocking the stations, *even if the stations want to allow you*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That to me says that the "stations themselves" did not make the decision. However, it may have been a pre-existing contractual obligation which is still not the same as a third-party block. Whatever it was, I think it traces back to the content industries and their concepts of gatekeeping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they care?
Do they (Congress) care? They dance to the tune their biggest contributors (lobbyists) call. The RIAA, MPAA, and their ilk are ponying up $$million$$ to our representatives for their re-election campaigns, and the "Corporation is a Person" ruling by SOTUS means there isn't anything we, as normal people, can do about it. Fortunately, corporations cannot (yet) vote, so the best we can do is to throw the bums out and elect representatives that might actually deign to represent us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't invite Don Corleone to weigh in on a Congressional Committee considering law enforcement responses to organized crime, and Congress seems to be treating everyone but RIAA/MPAA along those lines in this.
If the good people are already being sought out for their input, then you don't need to hear from the bad people. And if your definition for criminality is "disagrees with the RIAA", then suddenly everything makes sense. Sucky sense, but nonetheless, sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's an example: A local street in my area, going through an industrial park in development, features a long boulevard section, two lanes on either side, and about 4 intersections in a mile. But those intersections don't link to anything yet, because the site streets haven't been built. Effectively, you have a 1 mile long perfectly straight road, smooth as silk, with almost no normal traffic.
You can guess that the local street racers figured this out pretty quickly.
The city saw this, and came down and installed those bolt down speed bumps that you see all over the place. They are very effective. The racers? They just sent out their own crews to take them back out, restoring their racing track.
The city's final solution was much simpler. They closed one side of the boulevard at each segement, and made the traffic 1 lane each direct, and at each intersection, they have to change sides. So now the longest section is 1/4 mile with a solid concrete barrier at each point, and they put the speed bumps back in at each intersection.
The street racers are gone.
Does the new configuration make it harder for normal traffic? It sure does. It's a trade off between some inconvenience compared to people perhaps getting hurt or killed. Seems worth it, right?
Think of DMCA as a speed bump. It didn't work, and so the next step is to take more serious action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, see what we are saying? Your example is the way it should be. The entity with the issue should police the issue, not some third party.
I'm betting they didn't even get the police involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any concept of how absurd that idea is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Answer me this, if all it takes for someone to take-down a video or site is to file a take-down notice, why bother having a court of law at all? If all it takes for you to be executed for crimes you might have committed or were thinking of committing, then why have a court of law at all? Honestly, lets stop pretend we're democracies and fly the flag of the fascist plutocracies we all know we are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not really. Sounds like your city has more money than they know what to do with. I hate it when people use car analogies for the internet. Street racing and copyright infringement are not even remotely similar.
For the street racers, I'd have sent a squad car down there a few times a night for a few weeks until all the street racers were gone.
For copyright infringement, I'd use the DMCA. You see, every time someone gets a bug up their ass to stop some activity that they see as bad (street racing, copyright infringement, whatever) we all lose. Now drivers in your town have some convoluted, bumfudge road to deal with, and we'll all end up with a convoluted, bumfudge internet to deal with.
Thanks a lot, A-holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps that's the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Perhaps" nothing. That is the goal. The goal is to make it so that you have to directly deal with traditional content industries, or you spend thousands or millions of dollars on lawyers. It's to make it economically unfeasible to do anything but pay content industries off.
This bill has absolutely zero to do with "rogue sites." It is all about the content industries having another legal sledgehammer to use against sites like YouTube. They want to gain more power, to force more internet companies into "compliance" with "laws" that only they get to determine are valid.
It is a bill to block competition and free markets, pure and simple. "Piracy" has nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People would quit using it as much as they do now. They may become fearful of downloading media, so they'll take it offline and rip CD's instead. Then it's back to sneaker-net instead of torrent - which is totally untraceable for all practical purposes.
People will end up at the library ripping movies and music, getting it from friends, or altogether just finding other avenues of entertainment.
If you outlawed libraries - book sales would not go up, yet they offer almost as much free printed media as you can consume, they also offer large selections of music as well.
And heck - you can copy 100 times the data on a LAN if a friend brings over a laptop as opposed to the internet. It may even result in people having MORE music for free.
See; people are hesitant knowing it's illegal to use torrent, but back them into a corner - and well.. if John Doe is going to bother to go over Jane's house to get music - why not get it ALL while he's there?
Heck, people might start to even have media sharing LAN parties... then it could REALLY swell in size.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You think the racers stopped racing? Maybe it's not as visible now, but I can pretty safely say - they haven't stopped racing....
They just went elsewhere.
People have been 'copying' media since the days of scribes, luckily for humanity that happened. I suspect a GREAT many ideas have spawned from that - like... the Gutenberg press for instance.
Hell - the music industry would NOT exist, if it was not for a device that could copy music - the phonograph. Right?
What 'music industry' existed before the phonograph? Sheet music? People copied that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Who is the more foolish—the fool or the fool who follows him?"
It should not need explaining that the question refers to the maximalists and the organizations they support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh, this again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not about protecting the content - it's about protecting an old business model.
The content - would be just fine even if it was given out totally for free. Even 'pirated' stuff typically doesn't change who the author is or even copyrights on the media - it's all still there.
The media is just fine - how would it protect the media itself?
It simply is the government policing the world to insure profits for corporations.
Why? Because corporations pay GOOD money to put politicians in office and then expect a ROI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a well-established matter of law that a small amount of protected speech does not inoculate against enforcement action. I don't find the qualifer "dedicated" to infringing activity at all broad. "containing" infringing material, yes. But not dedicated. Suggest he buy a dictionary.
Through their requirements to block websites, these bills will create a domestic Internet firewall designed to censor websites equivalent to the “Great Firewall of China” that is used to suppress information. If we implemented such a solution we would be setting a terrible example for the rest of the world, including countries we criticize for the same behavior like Iran, Syria, and China.
Doesn't seem to fathom (or want to fathom) the difference between political type speech and infringing content. Masnick, you should forward him Secretary Clinton's letter. He seems a bit slow. When have we criticized any country from cracking down on infringing?
They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. What the bills propose would be akin to requiring the phone company to be responsible for the legality of every phone call that takes place. With that kind of regulation, companies will spend more on lawyers and litigation than they will on hiring and innovating. Existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already provide a satisfactory legal framework to remove copyright infringement and enforce intellectual property rights.
More FUD. Youtube manages it on a massive scale. And before the first halfwit cites the lawsuit, know that the lawsuit is about Youtube's behavior prior to it implemented its monitoring program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The digital Millennium Copyright Act isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Operators of foreign rogue sites laugh at takedown notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]