House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
from the this-is-not-democracy dept
Ever since SOPA was introduced, we'd heard that the eventual House Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill would be an unfairly stacked deck. Despite such wide opposition to the bill, and the fact that this represents a massive change to the regulatory and technological framework of the internet, we'd been told, repeatedly, that the hearings would be set up with three representatives in favor of the bill, and just one against. Apparently, the supporters of the bill are simply too afraid to actually listen to that many concerns and have to surround themselves with "yes men" to think they're doing the right thing.Turns out that the decks are being even further stacked.
Today, we're hearing that the head of NetCoalition, who many people expected to represent the wider tech and internet industry's significant concerns about SOPA has been denied a seat at the hearings. This is the same group that has been requesting a seat at the negotiating table all along, and has been denied by the MPAA and its supporters. Basically, the decks are being stacked so far in favor of SOPA, that next week's hearing will be a total joke. We're even hearing rumors that it will now be 4 representatives in favor of SOPA, and no one who will represent the wider concerns of the internet industry that's about to be regulated. Instead, the committee is looking for someone who will only raise some specific narrow concerns about the bill.
I guess I have a simple question: just what are Reps. Lamar Smith, John Conyers and Bob Goodlatte afraid of? Are they really so fragile that they can't handle the idea that the wider internet industry is seriously worried about this bill? Must they only hear from those who helped write the bill in the first place? What kind of democracy is that?
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, hearings, netcoalition, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hope they pay dearly for their arrogance and greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of MAFIAA
You ain't going to make it with anyone of us
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
Sad thing is, this time it isn't gonna be all right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TechDirt's days are over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could run it through Ticketmaster or the nearest government equivalent to ensure the proper amount of added charges like Service Fees, Handling Fees, Convenience Fees, The Skim, etc. are collected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They just know the deck is so stacked in their favor, and no one can do anything to stop this. They have become openly arrogant, and stepped into the light. This is a huge mistake. They are flaunting that they do not care what the population at large has to say, or what they think about this. It shows they have no respect for the people who voted for them. In the end, the internet never forgets and this will come back to haunt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
.brazenpoliticalstatement {
truethat: Despite the inchoate-ness of youth, #OWS is calling out the regulatory capture of our governing institutions (both private and public governance). Support these kids and vote with them.
}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, the internet does not pay them. After various violent vicarious incidents :) around the world, it was suggested that everyone be notified about what their politicians are doing. What their politicians are costing them financially. What rights are removing. What constitutional amendments they are violating. Who is funding their election campaigns. Who is working for them and their associations.
So now you have something far worse than Wikileaks in the works. Several groups aiming to bring everything that is in the public record to people in one place. The constitutionality of laws, voting records, the laws voted for and by whom, and everything politicians have done, as apps for Facebook and Google+.
My they live in interesting times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good thing this is the land of Liberty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what Mike means when he says that this bill will break the internet. The only reason websites are so easy to find currently is because we've tied IP addresses to nice strings of text.
The minute they start banning sites, everything will go underground. The internet will fragment, but it will still be there. Just not nearly as useful as it should be. It will be back to the early days of it's creation when it was really nothing more than a wide area local network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or how about they've heard both side of the argument, heard from their constituents and made a decision you disagree with? Do you really think more than 10% of the population is even aware this bill is coming to the floor? So before you go off to live in a tent and get maced protesting this latest injustice, consider that you simply may just be in the minority. Your opinion is being heard. There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others. Then don't forget freelance lobbyists like Masnick and his clown posse. Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The question remains, what is the harm in hearing publicly about why this bill is bad?
You're the one shoveling bullshit that no one but bought off congressmen can swallow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does not becomes part of the government record for all time. So it can't be used against these people in the future.
... "I told you so!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
10% of the population are aware of this bill AND your side is small slice of that 10%.
The question remains, what is the harm in hearing publicly about why this bill is bad?
None, but it will only be a rehash of what everyone has already heard. BTW, the witness list hasn't been published and Masnick doesn't have a clue who will be testifying.
You're the one shoveling bullshit that no one but bought off congressmen can swallow.
I know it must be upsetting to see your precious freeloading reined in. But at least try to be a good loser. Like on many political issues, one side wins the other loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
64,8% of statistics are made on spot out of plain sorcery and/or mental diseases.
The opposing side is so small that most senators are avoiding open support to the bill. Wonder why?
Keep fooling yourself and satisfying your alcoholic addiction to trolling if it suits you. Doesn't make you right in one bit ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, and that is why they will get away with passing this law.
"There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others."
With regulatory capture, unless Mike is going to hire a senator or intern nothing Mike says has any weight behind it on the hill.
"Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit."
Actually, my voice is just being ignored, I am not going to hire someone that, knowingly passes a law, that violates the US constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, and that is why they will get away with passing this law.
Finally. We agree on something. Though I don't know if 100% of the population knew that the result would be different. The fact is this is about the level of awareness on just about every piece of legislation. Don't blame me for your side's apathy and inaction.
"There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others."
With regulatory capture, unless Mike is going to hire a senator or intern nothing Mike says has any weight behind it on the hill.
Nothing Mike says has any weight because he's a zealot. Everyone hates zealots even if they fundamental favor their issue. Mike could pour a lot of money into EFF, PK or CDT and get his message across without embarrassing himself or hurting his own cause.
"Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit."
Actually, my voice is just being ignored, I am not going to hire someone that, knowingly passes a law, that violates the US constitution.
The leading constitutional scholar in the US differs with you on that, Your Honor. Time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we do agree, it will pass, and that is a good thing. The problem is their is no "abuse of the law clause". With the law as it stands, a good lawyer could argue based on SOPA and the just legal arguments the RIAA and MPAA have made and won, that a station playing an unauthorized cell phone video is liable for each broadcast by their affiliates and their websites. With the maximum penality being $150,000 USD per incident that has some potential. You should realize that some debt ridden lawyer is going to run with this when the law gets passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we do agree, it will pass, and that is a good thing. The problem is their is no "abuse of the law clause". With the law as it stands, a good lawyer could argue based on SOPA and the just legal arguments the RIAA and MPAA have made and won, that a station playing an unauthorized cell phone video is liable for each broadcast by their affiliates and their websites. With the maximum penality being $150,000 USD per incident that has some potential. You should realize that some debt ridden lawyer is going to run with this when the law gets passed.
Please point out the section of SOPA you are relying on for the recovery of monetary damages. I'm unable to locate it. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do not have to look at SOPA. You have to look at Tenenbaum with a $150,000 USD mixed with SOPA. Take a Videos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial, broadcast by the news media, with out permission, and through its affiliates, then posted on their websites, with the legal agreements of the news organizations, a single video will be ripe for a class action lawsuit. Now imagine the lawsuits after someone sends a video done by someone else.
Yeah, you should have known it was infringing .... ROFLMAO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now to the rest of your stupidity... Riddle me this batman, when the internet breaks, and the people are pissed, and all the technologist point to the Labels/Paid-for-Congressman/and shilltards like you as the reason little Timmy cant do a book report (and we wont fix it until your gone) what do you do then? Remember sparky "the people" you trample today will eventual get tired of the treatment, I would tell you to ask Qaddafi about it, but i doubt you have a hot line to hell to ask the question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean breaks? DNS blocking and filtering have been going on for years. My internet is broken, it works just fine. In fact, I'm using it right now to point out what a imbecile you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They're at the table. They are called members of congress and senators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're at the table. They are called members of congress and senators."
Great. Then those groups supporting it also don't need a seat at the table, as they're equally represented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or how about they've heard both side of the argument, heard from their constituents and made a decision you disagree with? Do you really think more than 10% of the population is even aware this bill is coming to the floor? So before you go off to live in a tent and get maced protesting this latest injustice, consider that you simply may just be in the minority. Your opinion is being heard. There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others. Then don't forget freelance lobbyists like Masnick and his clown posse. Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, because the only ones that are a 'somebody' are those who agree with you. Everyone else is just a 'nobody'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thing they are broadcasting is, not their motives, it is their belief they can do anything they want.
"Perhaps the powers-that-be are intentionally testing our limits with the hope that things will devolve into an outbreak of violence and civil unrest, thereby giving them justification to declare martial law."
Its arrogance plain and simple. They think they are now above the law. What they are doing will not devolve into violence in the street. In the US, every riot has been about, cracking down on the poor making money, the local ignorant just having fun and relieving stress, or people driven by an external group. It has been the rioters that have gotten the worst of it.
Take the OWS (occupy wall street) movement, it is funded by progressive-socialist organizations, and unions wishing to push their agendas. The people participating are a local poverty problem, the organization funding it are astro-turfing. It's worthless to push for marshal law.
How is this going to look ..."hey did you hear? five blocks on Manhattan, six blocks in Boston, three in Chicago, had people rioting. They declared martial law in the US!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, their motives are clear as day. When was the last time they actually did something beneficial for the American people instead of pacifying the top corporations and special interest groups?
"Take the OWS (occupy wall street) movement, it is funded by progressive-socialist organizations, and unions wishing to push their agendas. The people participating are a local poverty problem, the organization funding it are astro-turfing. It's worthless to push for marshal law."
I wouldn't be surprised if socialist groups are taking advantage of the situation to pander their world views. Nevertheless, that in no way lets off the reckless conduct of law enforcement. Penning people in like farm animals, spraying them with mace, punching and hitting, hurling flash grenades, firing rubber bullets, etc. Are they attempting to incite a riot?
BTW, what is the problem with unions?
"How is this going to look ..."hey did you hear? five blocks on Manhattan, six blocks in Boston, three in Chicago, had people rioting. They declared martial law in the US!"."
Don't rule it out just because it seems improbable. Ten years ago, I would've thought it improbable that we'd allow the corporates to run roughshod over the internet, yet it's becoming a reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's a tactic that worked in the UK. If you make people fight, you can vilify them. And you can say that the police are justified. They are already militarized enough. Especially looking at the Berkeley demonstrations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Jake Sully
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no problem with collective bargaining. There is how ever a problem with the monopoly of collective bargaining. If you had the ability to have multiple unions in the same work space, there would be no problem. But the ability for a single group to shut down a corporation or economy is ridiculous. No one should have that power it leads to abuse and the state the US is in now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right. 25+ co-sponsors in the House. 42 co-sponsors in the Senate and Lofgren, Issa and Wyden against.
And please talk start on the "popular" opposition to that bill, Masnick. Just because you and the other losers from your LARP league oppose it, that doesn't mean jack shit. The Chamber is behind it and can call on its corporate members to ask employees to support the bill. The AFL-CIO is behind it and they know how to rally support and turn out voters.... in the millions. Fomenting nerd rage is very different than demonstrating widespread opposition. A pity you didn't learn anything in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This bill is only intended to serve corporate interests (at public expense). At least you seem to indirectly admit this.
It's not for the government to serve corporate interests. They should serve the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thousands of self employed people will benefit.
Bravo to DC for doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And why would I want to work as a lobbyist? Obviously, throwing smoke and mirrors to a legitimate question, which you do all the time isn't helping anyone. If it's so easy for a business to prosper with SOPA, with a dagger hanging to your back and a guillotine looking to cut off your head, I'd like to know how exactly a business does so. If there's benefits to this legislation, there is obviously a lot lacking here if the entire US is up in arms about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This bill is only intended to serve corporate interests (at public expense). At least you seem to indirectly admit this.
It's not for the government to serve corporate interests. They should serve the public interest.
What I said was, "can call on its corporate members to ask employees to support the bill." So you cut out the part about corporations asking employees to support the bill, and then accuse me of admitting that this bill is intended to serve corporate interests at the the expense of the public? WTF? Are you now getting personal coaching from Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AFL-CIO represents about 13 million members of the public. Now what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re:
Fact is, that communications are communications. They all get weighed and considered along with the point of view of the parade of representatives of various business, groups and associations that parade through congressional offices. Creative America has generated more than 100,000 and counting. Perception is often what you make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That number was fabricated and you're still parroting it. Wow, some people never learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it was. Even IP maximists were fooled, believing that the 100K number was the number of people in support of the bill, and they even defended that number until after the MPAA admit that this wasn't the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take a deep breath. Now let it out.
They've sent a copy of a letter to 3 people in Congress. Only ~4200 people have signed the CA letter.
Demand Progress has had over 8,000 people sign their petition IIRC. Now, if we're to say the same thing, Demand Progress has more letters sent out than CA. So it's up to you. You can use the fake number. But no matter how you slice it, more people are against SOPA than what CA is harping about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The ideology this shady bunch follows has a direct conflict what most of us believe this country should be i.e. Life liberty The Pursuit of happiness, Freedom, privacy. They are a cancer on society to which we have no cure. The industries that fund them have no clue. Sadly they are well funded and through years of erosion have established a strong foothold on those who make the decisions like parasites consuming its host. Unfortunately, like all creatures infected with parasites, unless properly treated, they die.
This bullshit bill will pass, sadly. More draconian bills will be introduced, and passed. And if you think this is all just about some people downloading music; don’t kid yourself. This is just a catalyst to further an Orwellian agenda. America as we knew it is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're taking my work without asking, asshole.
Stop pretending it's about anything other than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
YOU make the erroneous assumption that we take your work. We don't even know who you are, anonymous coward.
YOU make the erroneous assumption that a single download is a single lost sale.
(hint: most so-called "pirates" (or assholes in your view) are also the biggest group that pay for their media consumption. A lot of downloads either resulted because of a sale (ie, stuff that doesn't work because of DRM, where the pirated stuff offered a better product) or will result in a sale (ooh I really like this, I'll go out and buy the dvd to support the artist.))
YOU are shooting yourself in the foot with this bill, because it'll take away your wide variety of self-promotion options. After this bill, you will only have the gatekeepers' approved distribution method, and that won't come cheap.
YOU make yourself look like a complete buffoon.
YOU are the asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What happens if it doesn't? What law will you ask to be passed next? $15 dollars a month "IP Tax" on everyones internet bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 10th, 2011 @ 5:10pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Yes, SOPA upsets the grifters who try to leverage "content" without paying for it. That's as it should be.
So there's really no need to hear the views of grifters. I'm not against it as a matter of form, but it's true that those views are known. And it's not going to change minds: any hearings are just for show. -- I'd like the owners of Hotfile and Rapidshare and other file lockers to show up expecting to testify, and be arrested, though.
"What kind of democracy is that?" -- One run by capitalists who own the cartels, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Representative democracy stands in contrast to the direct form in that the represented can only act indirectly with decisive authority vested in a subset of people.
The USA is a Republic which is similar to representative democracy; ie. A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
The important difference is that you do not make any decisions but your 'elected representative' does so on 'your' behalf.
They look after your interests real good, don't they?
So it is a lot more than the difference between various types of apples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Of course, the USA is not a democracy and never has been but a republic
---------------
Of course, "capitalism" has never been a free or fair market, but most generally a plutocracy that rewards ruthless exploitation. The USA was fairly open for a while solely because we lacked an entrenched ruling class of inherited parasites. Financial manipulation nearly destroyed the country in 1929, but Roosevelt saved it. Over the last fifty years, the plutocrats have taken over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
I really don't get you. It's like you have multiple personality disorder or something.
---------------
I`m just wild about Harry and Harry's wild about me;
I`m just wild about Harry and he's just wild about,
he can't do without, he's just wild about me!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
According to Canadian usage, there is no conflict between being a republic (elected titular head of state) and a democracy (elected assembly with actual power). I guess they mean something else but what is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sopa
The land of privilege -A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
The home of laughing-stock -An object of jokes or ridicule.
Have you never wondered why your Government changes between Conservative and Liberal but your countries policies remain the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sopa
It's greed and egoism and a psychotic disregard for the welfare of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two half-wrongs don't make a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two half-wrongs don't make a right.
Irobot much?
This is notice that you have infringed on multiple Copyrights and Trademarks in your comment, on the post:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111110/13455416712/house-judiciary-committee-refuses-to- hear-wider-tech-industry-concerns-about-sopa.shtml?threaded=true#c1035
You are hereby informed that our legal team will be abusing the court system to obtain your IP address and force the site TECHDIRT.COM to provide any and all information about you, and your ISP to provide all internet activity for the past year, and shut down your connection FOREVER. We will then send one of our representatives with local police to raid your home and confiscate your possessions, then throw you in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two half-wrongs don't make a right.
Frog blast the vent core.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's pretty much a smart move to avoid spending a long time bogged down in philosophical discussions about "internet freedom" and instead focusing on making a law that makes sense.
Sorry, but if you can only bring hand waving and "you will break the internet" to the table, why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I made the point early today: the recorded music industry worldwide (including digital online sales like Itunes and others) are down net 58% since 2000. Yet, today we have more digital devices, the average person has a bigger library of songs, and so on.
Piracy, it seems, does hurt.
Now, that loss of revenue means a loss of tax revenue for the governments. It means the loss of jobs up and down the line as the industry tries to keep it's bottom line intact.
It's not just talking points, it's a huge amount of money (more than 15 billion worldwide) of music sales that are gone - even as music consumption reaches an all time high.
They don't just bring talking points, they bring a serious concern, one that has economic implications for the US, and they are only one area in a host of players who are victims of piracy, counterfeiting, and so on.
What is on the other side? What woudl the Net coalition bring to the table? "you are going to break the internet"?
Sorry, not buying it. I know why they aren't at the table, because they wouldn't be coming to be constructive, and they wouldn't be coming with anything to put on the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
yeah, and gallon of gas in 2000 was $1.51 too. Nice way to throw arbitrary numbers around like facts. The money didnt just dissappear, it went elsewhere. To blame it all on piracy is intellectual dishonesty.
Piracy, it seems, does hurt. - Just weak.
And the rest of your arguement just falls apart there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't blame it all on piracy, rather I am just pointing out that there is a big situation, and certainly piracy would appear to be part of the game. Piracy does appear to hurt. It isn't the only reason, but it certainly appears to hurt. It would be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.
Arbitrary numbers? What the fuck? I bring actual numbers to the game, and you dismiss them as not real? Nice troll!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me give you a list of things which are incredibly ignorant:
1. Thinking this bill will have any meaningful impact on music sharing.
2. Ignoring EVERY independent study of the recording industry which has consistently shown that "piracy" is the result of the industries failure to embrace digital.
3. Believing that it is the governments job to step in and ensure the profits of a specific industry. If making music is such a losing proposition monetarily THEN STOP MAKING MUSIC. I don't care if the recording industries profits are down 10,000%, the government, the people, NO ONE OWES YOU MONEY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One exception to my music purchases: I bought some songs from Trent Reznor directly from his website. Also, Radiohead. See, I guess I do buy music from those that provide a reason to buy. I bet my purchasing directly from the artist are part of your "lost sales" calculation. They aren't lost sales; they are just not being filtered by the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually we brought "You will break the internet" and a 17 page abstract (Notice not even a full description, just an abstract really) of why It would ACTUALLY Break the internet.
Your defense, name calling and placing undue burden on the tech industry to solve the content industries' problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What kind of democracy is that?
The best kind that money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple, one bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bought and paid for
It would make them accountable for the bill if they were asked the hard questions by people who know more about the bill and its' implications than they do.
I'm not saying the Congressmen are dumb, but they're certainly not brave to not hear from anyone but their sponsors.
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
first quarter 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dying industries are desperate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vé máy bay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xe mien nam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alono
ahead of that loan closing are those that connect with document preparation or business plan development tickets calgary kijiji
they all operate in the uk and they are licenced from
the office of fair trading to advance money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cơ hội đầu tư với Sunshine City
[ link to this | view in chronology ]