Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the another-week-another-set-of-comments dept
Taking the gold this week in the "insightful" category by a wide, wide margin, was a short comment by Marcus Carab, which was actually a reply in a thread a few Re's deep (which is odd -- since most comments that win for "insightful" are thread starters, not replies). Since it was a thread, it requires a bit of an explanation. On our post about the hubris of a Viacom exec suggesting that there are no First Amendment issues with SOPA because it's "pretty easy" to tell what's an infringing site, we noted that this seemed kinda laughable, seeing as Viacom itself failed that very test in its lawsuit again YouTube, and had included hundreds of videos that it had uploaded itself, claiming they were "infringing." One of our usual critics retorted that this didn't excuse any infringement, and that was the comment that Marcus responded to:No, but it sort of shatters every single argument about how SOPA will only target illegal content, doesn't it?Short, sweet, and to the point. This is the problem. Supporters of SOPA think that they don't make mistakes on this. Everyone else has seen them regularly make mistakes.
Coming in second is another short comment, this one from an Anonymous Coward, pointing out one of the ridiculous outcomes of the SOPA debate:
It is an absolute travesty that we've reached a point where the DCMA is pointed to as a reasonable piece of legislation.I actually had this discussion with a few people this week, and it's worth pointing out a few caveats. It's only one specific piece of the DMCA that people are now pointing out is reasonable: the safe harbors. Most of us still agree the rest of the DMCA is horrible. And the safe harbors were something that the tech industry fought really, really hard to get into the bill, because they were not there at all in the beginning. It's unfortunate that we now shorthand the good of the safe harbors as suggesting that the wider DMCA was "a reasonable piece of legislation." But, seeing as SOPA seeks to basically decimate those safe harbors, it's how the debate goes these days.
For editor's choice this week, I just couldn't narrow it down to two, so we're going with three. First up, is DannyB, explaining the economics of regional restrictions and why they work in monopolized markets:
The regions and territories is a mechanism dreamed up to maximize profits at a time when there was monopoly control of the distribution channel.Next is an excellent breakdown from el_segfaulto, about his experiences in the software industry as it relates to the question of dealing with the "problem" of piracy:
You point out the obviousness of how consumers don't care about regions and territories and the internet breaks these down.
But what doesn't seem so obvious is that regions and territories actually work! -- if you have and maintain a monopoly. You point out that if you don't like Lowes, then you'll go to Home Depot. What is not pointed out is that with music, you don't have a Home Depot alternative. You can buy from Lowes, under their terms, or not buy. Take it or leave it.
If a Home Depot competitor emerges, then a bogyman must be invented to control it. I will expand upon your example of the unlicensed hammers from Home Depot. Lowes will complain bitterly and get new laws on the books. After all, we can't have just anyone buying unlicensed hammers. Hammers are a destructive and dangerous weapon. You could kill someone with a hammer. A child could drop it on their foot or otherwise hurt themselves. Think of the children! People wanting to buy a hammer must undergo a background check and RIAA approved invasive patdown. The manufacture and distribution of hammers must be licensed, in a way that makes it burdensome or simply infeasible for smaller competitors to enter the market.
I will agree that movies are big capital intensive creations, I write software for a living and although it isn't nearly on the same level, it does give me some insight. Years ago we stopped seeing pirates as people and more as a force of nature. You will never eliminate piracy just like you will never eliminate any crime. You can simply reduce it by using a bit of human psychology. In the software world this has been tried with varying degrees of success using intrusive DRM all the way to simple guilt.The world, she sure is changing. And, along those lines, our final editor's choice comes from an Anonymous Coward, responding to the news of Viacom's CEO getting $50 million in stock option compensation this year, raising a rather obvious question:
For some of my consulting gigs, there is a direct correspondence to how often our software gets downloaded on TPB (for instance) and how many sales we experience.
Admittedly it's a little different for your industry (I'm assuming you work in the movie business). The difference is cultural, we have been sharing culture in the form of art, music, and performance for as long as culture has existed. To suddenly try and call it a moral and ethical crime is not going to work, you simply cannot fight hundreds of thousands of years of human nature.
My honest advice to you and others in your field is:
Understand that copyright is NOT a natural right, it is a contract between yourselves and society. We give you a TEMPORARY monopoly on distribution and you give back to the public domain. You have not been fulfilling your end of the bargain so please don't act surprised when society begins to lose respect for copyright.
Give the public what they want and stop trying to stifle the future. You had been living in a golden age for the last 80 years, you may have to do with less profits. Don't think of the present as a time of austerity, think of the past as a time of prosperity. Work with Netflix and give the public a low-cost alternative to piracy. Understand that you used to be able to charge an arm and a leg for entertainment, you cannot realistically expect that to continue in the light of technological advances.
$50 million would create a thousand $50K jobs. Is piracy really killing jobs or are executive bonuses?Just a bit sobering. So, with that, let's jump over to the laughs. Leading the pack was the Anonymous Coward who put the end of EMI into a little ditty (you know the tune...):
Four major labels, complaining about free,Coming in second, was Jason Still, responding to someone defending a lack of due process in SOPA to the fact that police lock up those charged with murder before they're tried. Jason broke out the sarcasm:
One defaults on debt, and then there were three.
You're right, copyright infringement and murder are INCREDIBLY SIMILAR! And since the solution to stop infringement seems to be "skip the legal system, I say they infringed so they automatically lose their hosting, domain names, etc" the same solution will clearly work with murder. We're going to save millions in court costs! What method of execution would you prefer when I notify the authorities that you may have murdered 77 people?As for editor's choice, we've got an Anonymous Coward helpfully explaining SOPA to me in one sentence:
Copyright infringement is bad because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's bad, therefore the internet must be more like television.Makes about as much sense as anything I've heard from anyone officially supporting the bill. At the very least, it seems more honest.
And, finally this week, we've got Atkray showing that he's caught on as to how crony capitalism works these days by passing laws to stop competition:
I can't help but think that if or when marijuana is legalized, we will have to contend with "Home gardeners are killing the marijuana industry"And, on that note, don't do anything at home this weekend. You might just be killing some important industry. But, when you're done doing that, come on back and join us this week for some more spirited discussions...
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
(subtle hint: attention isn't necessarily paid, it is bought by the purveyors of the content we enjoy with said content)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
I must be stopped!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
please stop an think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
Unlike you, I bet you don't make anything except shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
Say goodbye to affiliate fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
Oh yeah! Gigity gigity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
I must be stopped!
Great. Next weekend make your own movie and watch it. Let us know how it turns out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
I'm not a big TV/movie guy, but I'm big on food. I may try making my own movie (probably a bad zombie movie) because that does sound like fun. Thanks for the suggestion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awwww, I did it, its all my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "astroturfing"
-Fezzik
"Astroturfing" is when a company or group of companies arrange a fake "grassroots" campaign about a subject.
When a company arranges a campaign about a subject without trying to make it seem like a grassroots campaign, it's just called a "campaign."
That said, if the common folk get behind a company arranged campaign, it can become a grassroots campaign... UNLESS the company pretends it is grassroots from the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
pfft, you n00bs always need help. Here:
http://games.adultswim.com/robot-unicorn-attack-twitchy-online-game.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
Frankly, if not for the dissidents (not trolls, but truly dissenting voices), all that would be going on around here would be masturbatory choir-preaching. Dissenting opinions, when voiced as more than insult, give us a chance to examine and state, not just our beliefs, but why we believe them, and why you should, too.
And even if not a single one of you self-hating Techdirt supporters ever change your mind, someone out there is wondering why this stuff matters. And all your insults just make them more likely to shy from your side, and ignore any real points you make.
Well, any points you would make, if you ever made any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "astroturfing"
The American Censorship Day crap is a perfect example. It's the same crew pretty much that was over "hiring" CEA to talk to the house members in Washington. The overlap on each of these is incredible. Not only that, it's pretty amazing to see that the domain used is registered "private", so that it is impossible to see who is heading up the campaign. Want to bet that one of the gang is the real owner?
It's not a grassroots campaign, it's one small group of activists trying to act like the represent something bigger, but do not.
After all, if the artistic community was in tune with Mike, his step2 thing would be a success. It's not, in fact it's a pretty significant failure to this point, worse than the previous insight community thing (you know, the one he quietly took out behind the barn and shot 2 years ago).
So yeah... astroturfing. You tell me who really owns the American Censorship Day domain (and who is running it) and then try to tell me it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
Of course it's astroturfing, just done very slightly more upfront. But what is key is that Mike (and a very few others) attempt to act like they speak for an entire generation of musicians, movie, makers, writers, and website owners, when the reality is very different.
Can you point to any instance where I have ever suggested we speak for musicians, movie makers, writers and website owners? Thanks.
The American Censorship Day crap is a perfect example. It's the same crew pretty much that was over "hiring" CEA to talk to the house members in Washington. The overlap on each of these is incredible.
Oh my goodness. Some of the same people who don't like SOPA and went to DC to protest SOPA are now going to take the same protest to the web! Conspiracy theory! Or, um, consistency.
Not only that, it's pretty amazing to see that the domain used is registered "private", so that it is impossible to see who is heading up the campaign. Want to bet that one of the gang is the real owner?
Or, you know, you can scroll down to the bottom of the page and see who organized it.
It's not a grassroots campaign, it's one small group of activists trying to act like the represent something bigger, but do not.
No one in the group is pretending to represent anyone other those who agree to take part.
After all, if the artistic community was in tune with Mike, his step2 thing would be a success.
You may have your metrics for success, but under ours, step2 is doing just great. What's funny is to see how little you actually understand what we're doing, and why Step2 is doing exactly what it was intended to do.
It's not, in fact it's a pretty significant failure to this point, worse than the previous insight community thing (you know, the one he quietly took out behind the barn and shot 2 years ago).
Insight Community continues to earn us more revenue each year than I would guess you've made in your life time. Making dumb assumptions is dumb.
Hint: not everything done via Insight Community is public.
So yeah... astroturfing. You tell me who really owns the American Censorship Day domain (and who is running it) and then try to tell me it isn't.
No. Astroturfing is if we pretended we were a grassroots effort representing every day people, when it was really set up by a big company. That's not happening at all. And, again, look at the names at the bottom of the website and you'll know who set up the campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
You never say it directly, you just act like it. You act like you know better, that you have a better solution, and your methods are those of the new artist.
Your arguments against SOPA are how they will hurt the little guy, the "user content", and the up and coming artists.
You praise, coddle, and support those who "get it", and angrily call out "the industry" at every turn.
So no, I can't point to specific words, but as you have suggested before, it's not the words but the actions that count.
" Some of the same people who don't like SOPA and went to DC to protest SOPA are now going to take the same protest to the web! Conspiracy theory! "
No conspiracy theory - only to show that it's the same few talking heads (such as yourself) attempting to push something that nobody else seems to be working on. It gets to the heart of the astroturfing argument, because there doesn't appear to be much in the way of actual grassroots support for this thing, just the same few people and few groups over and over again.
"You may have your metrics for success, but under ours, step2 is doing just great. What's funny is to see how little you actually understand what we're doing, and why Step2 is doing exactly what it was intended to do."
I can only go by what is seen - that you are the leading poster by far, that most of the threads have been started by staff, and that few of them are active at all. Newest thread hasn't had a reply since Friday. Most of the less than 30 threads are entirely inactive, and most of them were propped up by staff such as yourself backfilling. So yeah, I guess it's a success, if successful means "ignored by most".
"Insight Community continues to earn us more revenue each year than I would guess you've made in your life time. Making dumb assumptions is dumb."
I doubt it, unless it's making 7 to 8 figures a year - which I also doubt. From what is visible, there is no activity since 2009. Now, if you are doing other work that isn't really insight community and tagging it as such in your books, well, then you are about as honest about it as the record labels are in account. Congrats!
"Astroturfing is if we pretended we were a grassroots effort representing every day people, when it was really set up by a big company. "
Seeing that you make 10 million a year plus on the insight community alone, I would say you aren't exactly a "small business".
I looked at the list of "organizers", but many of them seem like astroturf themselves, especially the last couple which are pretty empty. Generally it's the usual suspects, which doesn't seem to suggest any grassroots support at all. Seems mostly astroturf to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
and you rob banks and kill innocent women and children. You never say it directly, you just act like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
The sound of your humor failing. I am not accusing Mike of a crime, I am only stating what his words and actions suggest. If you can't tell the difference, well, it sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
I don't think that the Insight community makes the type of money he speaks about. It has only 2 public posts since 2009, and anything done in private would certainly not be an insight community, just a bunch of overpaid consultants, racking up billable hours just like the lawyers they hate. But that wouldn't be "community", would it?
I am trying to imagine what happened between 2009 and today that made millions on a part of the site that is entirely dead. It's a miracle, I tell you, a miracle!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
Considering these groups are making a statement and a challenge, don't you think they should openly identify themselves? It seems like a lot of talking heads trying to talk website owners into doing something they wouldn't do by themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
I am Joe Citizen. What about you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "astroturfing"
Sorry, nobody is falling for that. Not these days Joe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that what you big time lawyers drink these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come now, don't be shy. Let the verbal orgy of insults commence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY xD
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least be consistent with factual assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least be consistent with factual assertions.
My understanding was that over the course of a few separate "removals," Viacom eventually ended up removing over 200 videos that had been uploaded by its own employees. Over 200 strikes me as "hundreds."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for "slamming" VIACOM, obviously a mistake was made, but then in any company with so many employees you will find some who are generally ignorant of what they are permitted to do under company policies (even after they have been repeatedly briefed on what they are permitted to do and what they are not). I rather doubt that the majority who uploaded did so with the approval of VIACOM executive management and in contradiction of established and published policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually the evidence suggests otherwise -- that it was done quite clearly with permission from higher ups who knew that it was good promotions. But even so, I'm not sure what point you think this makes.
Either way, your argument makes no sense. Let's take the same argument in reverse. So can we say that even though Google allowed infringing videos on YouTube it was done so without the approval of YouTube executive management and in contradiction with established and published policies? Seems like it.
Kinda surprised you'd be a Viacom apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Company policy may be anti-youtube, but some people who are under pressure to "get exposure" may have ignore it and uploaded videos anyway. In a large company (you know, one where you can't see everyone from your desk or the coffee machine) there is potential that not everyone is on the same page.
As Google and Youtube, if it was only a small percentage of their activity, you might have something. That YouTube was essentially founded on infringing, it's pretty hard to hold them up as paragons of good behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a lie and shows how dishonest IP maximists are willing to be to spread FUD and get bills passed. If you got your way, Youtube and Google would never exist, for no good reason, and consumers and artists will both suffer.
Youtube wasn't 'founded' on infringement. It's just that they weren't able to police all the infringement that happened on their network when they started. and no one is still able to police all infringement. That's not to say that they ever encouraged or intentionally facilitated infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mistakes happen, so I am not inclined to tar a company as being untruthful when the persons who make statements are unaware of what was done elsewhere by someone they have very likely never even met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I swear I'm going to hotwire the Diebold machines again....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/12/0410256/warner-brothers-automated-takedown-notices-h it-files-that-werent-ours
It's the high court vs the low court treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
These days it�s all just passive-aggressive ad-hominem attacks�nothing you can really sink your teeth into. Their postings are nothing but noise, not worth the effort of reading, let alone a response.
Where are all the good trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
Don't be so quick to assume that those 3 are gone. Actually, don't be so quick to assume that any of them are gone. Hell, don't be so quick to assume that some of the people you're talking about now are not, say, one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
Roflmao.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
NICE! A truly classy guy.
(and no, I don't call you tubby... )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trolls Aren�t What They Used To Be
Where are all the good trolls?"
That's inbreeding for you, the troll gene pool being flushed down the toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be so meta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Link
... Yeah, I'm a nerd that way. I remember that week because that was too funny NOT to mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]