Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game

Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship

from the mainstream-press dept

Thu, Nov 10th 2011 7:02am — Mike Masnick

It appears that more people in the mainstream press are beginning to recognize just how horrible the SOPA/E-PARASITE bill is when you look at the details. Over at Time Magazine's Techland blog, there's a post by Jerry Brito, saying that it's a "cure" that is "worse than the disease." The post notes that it won't do much to actually stop infringement, beyond at the margin, but the costs of doing so are quite a lot -- especially as the State Department is trying to convince others around the globe not to regulate the internet:

At a moment when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is urging world governments to keep their hands off the Internet, creating a blacklist would send the wrong message. And not just to China or Iran, which already engage in DNS filtering, but to liberal democracies that might want to block information they find naughty. Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech? We forget, but those countries don't have a First Amendment.

It's good to see the mainstream press recognizing that this isn't just a fight about "foreign rogue sites" as the entertainment industry would have you believe -- but about massive regulation of the internet and free speech.

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: blacklist, due process, journalism, press, sopa

94 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

AJ (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:13am

Doesn't Time Warner own Time Magazine? Isn't Time Warner one of the largest media companies in the world?

If the people this bill is designed to protect, think the bill is worse than the problem, I think it's safe to say it's not a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: Doesn't Time Warner own Time Magazine?
  While I agree with you comment, I'm afraid this is probably an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Doesn't Time Warner own Time Magazine?
    It's the freetard that writes on their tech blog.
    
    Masnick pretending that it's the stance of the actual magazine demonstrates how pathetic and desperate he is.
    
    Man, Masnick must pirate a lot of movies and music...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Doesn't Time Warner own Time Magazine?
      Again: don't be a fucking dumbass.
      
      You compared it to Blogger. That is retarded.
      
      You can prove me wrong though: go get a Time Magazine blog and come back with the link. It takes about ninety seconds to do that with Blogger - but I'll be generous and give you 24 hours. If this guy is just some idiot that the editorial board doesn't care about, a genius like you should be able to get on there in no time, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  Doesn't Time Warner own Time Magazine? Isn't Time Warner one of the largest media companies in the world?
  
  If the people this bill is designed to protect, think the bill is worse than the problem, I think it's safe to say it's not a good idea...
  
  Ignore Masnick's FUDline. This guy is a blogger and doesn't speak for Time's editorial board. What a joke!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Funny your FUDline is just BS.
    
    Times have an editorial management and they are agressive about it, nothing gets posted there that they don't like it, they even censor their forum comments.
    
    So please go sodomize yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Typical. When you ppl from MAFIAA are interested these ppl speak for you, when you aren't you disregard and discredit their opinions. Interesting.
    
    I wonder if Time Magazine would let him publish a pro-Nazi article. After all he doesn't speak for the company anyway, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      See, this is why you guys tend to misunderstand so many things, because you can't see any grey areas. Everything is black and white in your world, which makes it hard to relate to the real world.
      
      Time gave this guy op-ed space. He submits the op-ed, and generally a publication like this would check it for a few things:
      
      Is the speech legal (ie, does it appear on the surface to be hate speech, racist, or insulting enough to any group that it might raise a lawsuit or legal issues), spell check it, perhaps even re-verify the quotes used in it, etc. Provided the piece passes those bars, most publications are pretty much hands off on op-ed pieces.
      
      It's a grey area. They don't agree with the op-ed (and in fact the editorial board likely disagrees with many op-ed pieces they run), but they see the value in offering both sides of the story, opinions from all sides, as opposed to just piping in their own pre-set views.
      
      So to answer you question, Time wouldn't let him run a pro-nazi op-ed because it wouldn't get past the legal aspects, and likely would not be able to be run without threat of lawsuit or legal action. It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with the content, rather it is purely a choice of avoiding unwanted legal hassles.
      
      As for "you ppl from the MAFIAA", I suggest that you put your slurs away and move on. I don't work for the MPAA, I don't think that AJ does either. Can you not accept that perhaps reasonable people can have reasonable opinions that don't agree with yours? Can you be so mature as to understand and accept that concept?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        i think ninja sees mroe of teh grey area than most ac here will see
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "See, this is why you guys tend to misunderstand so many things, because you can't see any grey areas."
        Uh-huh. K. You realize the hipocracy in this sentence coming from an AC.
        
        and this one "I suggest that you put your slurs away and move on."
        
        A N D ... this one
        "Can you not accept that perhaps reasonable people can have reasonable opinions that don't agree with yours?"
        
        So it's ok when it suits you to ignore your own advice.
        Where have we seen that before?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why? Techdirt is full of people dismissing this law or that law, this idea or that idea because it won't be 100% perfect all the time. They appear to be unable to see the grey in anything.
        
        Nothing is 100% perfect, there are almost no perfect solutions.
        
        Time magazine doesn't approve (on an editorial board or ownership board level) of every op-ed piece run. This isn't Fox news... ;)
        
        Grey area... where something can happen without everyone having to say "I approve".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're against freedom?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because you are a moron that can't see that the law is not only flawed it is useless doesn't mean others don't see it.
        
        Everybody everywhere except on your rainbow coloured world agrees is bad, it will do nothing to stop piracy but will put tremendous burdens on business and as cherry on the top it gives unlimited powers to known corrupt people to go after other business and shut them down or extort better deals.
        
        Fuck you shill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        weneedhelp (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Time magazine doesn't approve (on an editorial board or ownership board level) of every op-ed piece run. This isn't Fox news... ;)"
        
        If that is what you need to tell yourself to get through the day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is an "op-ed"
        
        op-ed in journalism is a reader submitted article, usually in response to an editorial or other article.
        
        This is an article submitted by a Time contributor, not a reader.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you ignorant tool, op-ed is exactly what it says it is: an editorial based on opinion.
        
        Which is exactly what Time's freetard blogger was doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. op-ed stands for "opposite editorial" for those days when people actually read newspapers and the op-eds were printed on the opposite page of the editorials.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AJ (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't think that AJ does either. "
        
        I certainly do not!
        
        I think perhaps I have made an assumption that has spawned some confusion, my apologies if this is the case.
        
        I assumed that because Time has published around 50 of his articles, they were aligned with his views. This prompted me to point out that a major media company, whom this bill was designed to protect, was concerned that it was more damaging than helpful. This is an assumption any reasonable person would make no? Or do I need to stand in the corner?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        So to answer you question, Time wouldn't let him run a pro-nazi op-ed because it wouldn't get past the legal aspects, and likely would not be able to be
        run without threat of lawsuit or legal action.
        
        You are full of bs. Nazi speech is protected by the First Amendment, and no there is no hate speech exception to free speech under US law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure the editorial board had no idea what this 'blogger' (read: a law professor who contributes to several magazines including Time on a regular basis) was going to post until it went live on the page...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:13am

let's be clear here Mike, this isn't Time Magazine making a declaration, or it's parent company. It's a blogger getting to have an op-ed piece in the magazine.

Not quite the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  You left out the 'pirate' in front of Mike and the 'Time Magazine is just a populist rag anyway' to close. I'm afraid I can't give you full points for this work as a result.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Where the hell do you get that from? I don't call Mike "Pirate" anything... sometimes I reference him as "TorrentMike", although he has learned to stop using Torrent freak as a "news" source, so that hasn't come up recently.
    
    I am just point out a fact: This isn't a Time Magazine staff editorial declaring their position, it's an op ed style piece, nothing more and nothing less. It's not a Time Magazine position.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:31am
      
      What's in a name?
      So if he runs a lot more from Time Magazine, you'll call him "Time Mike?"
      
      How about the Washington Post? Washington is more a first name instead of an insult.
      
      Oooh, Oooh, We should call him "Geeky Mike" because he's a self professed geek!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: What's in a name?
        How about Douchebag Jay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: What's in a name?
        Nah, no ring to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: What's in a name?
        Jerky Jay?
        
        Say Nay Jay?
        
        Silent Jay (because you ain't bob)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What's in a name?
        Considering how this is all text, Silent Jay sounds pretty good. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: What's in a name?
        Nah, no ring to it.
        
        Other than the ring of truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What's in a name?
        Are your name Jay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: What's in a name?
        How about Anonymous Coward? Oh it's in the name already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: What's in a name?
        I like Don't Be A Prick Coward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not a Time Magazine position.
      But Time IS giving the opinion the oxygen of publicity - and that is significant.
      
      One could also conclude that the opinion is at least not anathema to Time's offical position> It is something they're happy to propagate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's their online dork blog. I doubt the editorial board even knows such a thing exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And I am just pointing out a fact: There really isn't anything of significance or substance in your comments so you might as well go full-out with the hyperbolic verbiage. I mean it's not like there was ever any confusion over the fact that it's an op-ed piece or that it's not a declaration on behalf of the parent company or even the Magazine as a whole.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think it is clear:
        
        "Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease';"
        
        The title indicates that this is Time Magazine saying this, which technically is true only because it is in their magazine. But it would be like saying "Blogger.com says 'Hitler was a Jew!'" because someone put that in a blog on their site.
        
        It's amazing to watch Mike go. He argues that individual items on a site are not collective (for purposes of bad mouthing SOPA), yet is more than willing to glob everything together and use it to imply the ownership has an opinion, which they have no expressed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you are saying they can't be responsible for it right, explain why any other service provider then should be responsible or is only opinion selective and blows with the wind?
        
        Accusing others of infringement makes everyone responsible but when it is a big news outlet attacking your ridiculous position then suddenly it is one guy without the help of the news?
        
        I see you are full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, are you dense. You almost got the point, and then failed massively.
        
        Mike is the one claiming that individual pages on a website are not the site... and yet as soon as he sees an individual page on Time's website, suddenly it's Time itself making some sort of massive declaration.
        
        I suggest you take your snide remarks, and aim them at Mike - he is the one playing both sides of the same argument, picking whichever side suits him on a given day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL don't be a dumbass. Time is not an open blogging platform that anyone can sign up for - it is an editorial organization that makes editorial decisions about who it will give a platform to, and who it will allow to express opinions under its banner. Trying to compare it to Blogger is ridiculous. Do you honestly think anyone is going to take you seriously when you attempt such obvious bullshit?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Butcherer79 (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But you are saying the opposite, if you agree with SOPA then everything in Time magazine is under the responsibilty of Time Warner, and they should be held accountable - except in this case when you wrongly believe it's the sole responsibility of the author and nothing to do with Time Magazine or, indeed, Time Warner.
        Can you not see that you are doing exactly what you claim Mike is doing, just from the other side of the fence?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Says that guy that does exactly that and worst. LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:22am
  
  Re:
  Yet its Time magazine who's name its running under. FASCINATING.
  
  Not yours, not his own, not Mikes, not mine. Time magazine.
  
  So, op-ed or not, they still published it. There's a hell of a lot of eyeballs going to that website. More than this one, more than yours, and more than mine. I bet more than any MAFIAA website could get, too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    See AJ's comment (#1 at the top) as to the type of confusion Mike is trying to create. Op-eds are just that, they aren't opinion of the company, they are just different voices that the company allows to have space to say their piece.
    
    Oh and you can stick the stupif MAFIAA thing back in your bag... no need for pointless attacks. It's really takes away from your message.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Planespotter (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Someone on the pay of Time Magazine sanctioned it's publication. Splitting hairs is fun...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Every time I read your idiotic posts I think of some dumb-ass selling Air Supply CD's at a Pearl Jam concert. Nobody is buying your crap here either. The only reason I can think of you ACs posting here is because you get paid to do it. Or you are morons? Which is it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - el_segfaulto (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        C'mon, Ron. Be reasonable. It's entirely possible that the AC's are both paid and morons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have just been schooled!! My bad. +1 to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, in the past Mike has noticed that some of their IP addresses originate from law firms that benefit from IP law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        noted *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (and this is no joke).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        weneedhelp (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You guys are lucky its not my blog, I would be reverse DNS'ing all your asses to see where you are coming from and publishing my results. I bet a lot of the shills are using proxies which is funny because the laws they defend will surely do away with those kind of services. So they are going to put themselves out of work.
        
        WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE SHILLS!!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paid morons in a hurry.
        
        That make those now? That explains a lot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Every time I read your idiotic attempts to put down posters you don't agree with, it makes me think of an 18 year old sent to adult jail for the first time trying to explain to Bubba "no, I don't want to be your bitch", and not realizing that some things are inevitable.
        
        Not everyone agrees with you. Rather than trying to portray them all as shills or idiots, why not take the time to consider the other side of the argument?
        
        Your post makes me think that you are paid by Mike to protect his site. Or are you just a moron?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sorry man, your comments about our childish behavior or post aren't going to work. Everybody has already lost any respect they might have had for you and people like you. Commenters like you are consistently much worse about doing the things that you accuse us of doing. In fact, the only people paying attention to you are the ones that like to comment anyway. Everybody else just skips past your comments to see who made fun of it. With that said, why do you bother to comment at all unless you are a paid shill/moron?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You took my post and changed some stuff, can you not come up with anything on your own? Nice to see YOU copy other peoples works. Is that not illegal?
        
        Mike does not pay me, I just get tired of you AC Greedtards always trying to beat him down. So I do it to you.
        
        I am not a moron... well maybe at times. At least I know who I am. I don't sell out my views for a pay cheque to go and abuse people on their sites to try and gain support for something that is not supported by most of the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Atkray (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "why not take the time to consider the other side of the argument?"
        
        ok, practice what you preach
        *waits*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AJ (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "See AJ's comment (#1 at the top) as to the type of confusion Mike is trying to create."
      
      I'm not confused. Since Time has published around 50 of his articles, I assumed they were aligned with his views. Would not any reasonable person make that assumption, or am I way off base here?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brendan (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You try to argue this, yet simultaneously suggest that YouTube makes editorial decisions about the videos available on its website?
      
      Are you deliberatrly being a double-standard ass, or are you merely too stupid to recognize the problem?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  Not quite the same thing.
  
  Right. It's completely impossible to imagine that a news magazine just might find a law expressly designed to trample the First Amendment as a bad thing. It's not like news organizations depend on a freedom contained in it, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  Ok. I am going to pose this question here as well:
  
  Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is an "op-ed"
  
  op-ed in journalism is a reader submitted article, usually in response to an editorial or other article.
  
  This is an article submitted by a Time contributor, not a reader.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re:
  It's not even in the magazine.
  
  Time would never actually publish garbage like that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ctrl c + v, 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:30am

Speech is when you express your own opinions.

Copying someone else's creation is not an act of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  bob's not in this thread... Yet...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  Plenty of "speech" going on at torrent indexing sites and forums, but lets ignore all that, historically laws created for once purpose tend to end being used for other things. So given the broadest definitions in the law maybe it's better to axe it now and save all the agro.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    "historically laws created for once purpose tend to end being used for other things."
    
    Look at broadcasting monopolies and cableco monopolies? Originally, the FCC proclaimed that its government established broadcasting monopolies won't be used to stifle speech because the FCC will ensure a minimal amount of competition. Beyond the fact that this didn't really seem to ensure free speech, over the years the government started wrongfully requiring more and more licenses to communicate over public airwaves and they started wrongfully granting exclusive privileges to private corporations. Now we live in an era where private corporations wrongfully control most broadcasting spectra and the public can not use broadcasting spectra to communicate (beyond a very few designated frequencies with strict limitations, such as wifi) without going through a government established monopolist gatekeeper. Not only does the government wrongfully establish monopoly power over the communication channels (cableco infrastructure and broadcasting spectra), they even wrongfully establish monopoly power over the content distributed over those spectra (via copy protection laws). The government wrongfully establishes monopolies on both the communication channels and the content.
    
    Despite how absurd and one sided our IP laws have gotten (ie: copy protection lengths, ridiculous patents, etc...) and despite the fact that the government wrongfully grants monopoly privileges over almost everything (ie: taxi cab monopolies among many many others) and despite how many of our rights have been wrongfully taken away from us solely to benefit private interests at public expense, the government established mainstream media abuses their monopoly privileges to censor IP and other such criticisms. Mike would likely never get the opportunity to criticize patents or copy protection laws on national television, yet the mainstream press is more than happy to broadcast and sponsor pro-IP propaganda. They know that, in the face of criticism, their position falls apart completely (yet Mike is more than happy to allow commenters on his blog, IP maximists simply can not defend their position).
    
    The end result? Censorship. Even though this may not have been the alleged intent of these wrongful monopoly privileges, the laws are wrongfully being used to censor various positions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The fact is, outside of the Internet, censorship is already a reality and bad laws are responsible. and if it weren't for the Internet to keep the mainstream press in check (ie: by pressuring them to discuss certain topics and not to make factual 'mistakes' just to support their bias), the mainstream press would likely be even far more one sided and deceitful than it is today (as I remember it being before the Internet was as popular as it is now).
      
      and the censorship is to the benefit of IP maximists. So IP maximists have no merit when they say, "this isn't about censorship". It is. It's about the government turning the Internet into what it wrongfully turned everything outside the Internet into, a censored platform where everything is sold at monopoly/cartel prices. The government did it to just about everything else, why should I believe that's not what it wants to do to the Internet as well?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clap clap clap clap. Just when you think you know AC's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  But a copy of someone else's work can be used to support your own individual speech. For example you could make a video expressing a political opinion that is made much more powerful by using some music that could come from elsewhere. Cutting out the music reduces the power of the speech - effectively neutering it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Free speech doesn't mean "right to add music to make it more dramatic". The speech isn't neutered by a lack of music, it is perhaps more that it is exposed as being somewhat less than signficant when stripped of the distractions.
    
    The right to free speech just doesn't include that sort of thing, sorry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - xebikr (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't think you really understand 'speech'. Your narrow definition doesn't fit in the mold created by our laws and courts.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The speech isn't neutered by a lack of music"
      
      Being someone that has done over 800 political YT videos, over three accounts, having 5k followers at one point, having most of them removed, and more muted, I will advise you, you are 100% incorrect in your assumption.
      
      By your logic, watching a movie without any soundtrack will have the same impact?
      
      All of what I did was fair use, and if I had unlimited funds, would have fought tooth and nail to have them reinstated. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKdnnLNCpic
      
      Bells, hells bells, no music just the bells got this muted. I guess they think they own bells ringing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It did at one time, to bad you are to dumb or to young to remember it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  Speech is when you express your own opinions.
  
  Copying someone else's creation is not an act of speech.
  
  Not necessarily. Speech need not be an expression of your own opinions at all, particularly not overtly. Distributing statistics or facts is speech, even in the absence of opinion.
  
  Also, it is completely possible to express your own opinion using someone else's creation. You can compile a list of famous quotations that collectively express a unified opinion. You can duplicate what someone else has done in a context that turns it into commentary without you adding a word, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:31am

The last paragraph says

... "The alternative is to leave the DNS alone and focus (as the bills also do) on going after the cash flow of rogue websites." ...

Does Jerry Brito not understand that this is also a tool for censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:36am
  
  Re:
  Doesn't look like it.... we'll give him a C+.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:09am

Where are all those muppets saying that if you publish something you are just as guilty of what others did?

Now that it is Time magazine saying something they don't agree suddenly those idiots learn how to separate persons from companies?

The shills here are completely just full of it, they keep throwing everything in the wall to see what sticks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:12am
  
  Re:
  You on the other hand keep hitting your head against the wall, and don't even bother to stop to see if it feels better.
  
  knock yourself out... PLEASE?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, when the wall is trying to kill you, you don't have much of a choice other then to keep beating on it.
    
    For the purposes of this metaphor, "Wall" references SOPA and the assholes who support it and "Kill" references removal of rights (in some ways worse then death).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Said the pot to the kettle!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't need legislation to punish my customers that is not me LoL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:27am

CNN, Time and others are realizing that SOPA is really just a blacklist in disguise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  [citation needed]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:50am

Why? Techdirt is full of people dismissing this law or that law, this idea or that idea because it won't be 100% perfect all the time. They appear to be unable to see the grey in anything.

There's a gap between even close to 100% perfect and 0.0001% perfect.

But the entertainment industry should be careful at what they are asking for - they might just get it.

News to the media companies - we can live without your media. DRM or no DRM, Paywalls or no Paywalls..

A bad deal, is a bad deal; even if it's the only one. Luckily for us the RIAA and MPAA doesn't regulate food, otherwise they would try to ban people from growing food.

Where does the entertainment industry think their new talent will come from? In the 'perfect' RIAA world, no one could EVER replay ANYTHING without a license. Then so many 'would-be' artists may well never foster an interest in music by playing other people's tunes to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 10:33am

I doubt this guy is even paid by Time Magazine much less speaking for its editorial board. You are such a desperate loser Masnick.

Here's this guy's resume:

Jerry Brito

By day Jerry Brito researches tech policy and teaches law at George Mason University, and by night he develops web and iOS apps. In between he finds time to write for blogs and host a weekly tech and society podcast, Surprisingly Free.

Read more: http://techland.time.com/author/jerrybrito/#ixzz1dKRXwgYf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  You doubt? That means you have no clue!!
  
  Sounds like he is a lot more productive to society than you are. Why don't you go find a website where there is plenty of stupid people so you can post there and fit in? Your asinine posts here are just annoying and takes up room on the server.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, he's a typical freetard, and the editorial board doesn't have the slightest clue who he is or who agreed to let him write online.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 2:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you read the post right below this one? The Greedtard AC says he is on your side. Maybe you should have read that first before posting. Your parents should put a child lock on Techdirt so we don't have to see your stupidity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 10:39am

Hey Masnick, in your haste to distort the truth, you forgot to mention that this blogger (and law professor) supports limiting payment processors and ad networks and acknowledges that DNS blocking would prevent people from accessing infringing content. Don't know how you managed to miss that FUDboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron, 10 Nov 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re:
  *cricket sounds*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  Wait a minute....
  
  The author AGREES with the shill's positions, yet still wrote an article claiming that the 'cure is worse than the disease'.
  
  I'm glad that one of the shills was kind enough to point this out (thinking it somehow discredits the point of the article, while actually enforcing it and making it stronger.... shill reading comprehension fail)
  
  Got any more facts you think might help support your position shill?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Butcherer79 (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:59am
  
  Re:
  Just because he's said it's a solution doesn't means he said he wholeheartedly supports that solution.
  
  To stop burglars, I'll plate my entire house with 50mm titanium.
  It's a solution, but because I want to go into and use my house, it's not the solution I'm going to go for.
  
  Of course blocking entire domains that host sites that link to infringing material will stop that infringing material from being available, but I think there must be a less overkill way of doing that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 10:45am

So, do I have this right?

"YouTube allows people to post content! They should be just as responsible as the uploader if it infringes!"

and

"Time allows people to post content! They have nothing to do with what it says if it disagrees with the corporate stance!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]