Facebook, Twitter, eBay & Other Big Internet Companies Come Out Against SOPA

from the good-for-them dept

Tue, Nov 15th 2011 10:44am — Mike Masnick

While Google has been pretty vocal about its complaints concerning PROTECT IP and SOPA, and Yahoo, LinkedIn and Zynga have expressed concerns elsewhere, the silence of large companies like Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Mozilla and AOL had been unfortunate. That appears to be changing. As a group, they have now all sent a letter to the key sponsors of both bills, arguing that the approach here is the exact wrong approach, and will do significant damage to the parts of the economy that are innovating and creating jobs today:

We are very concerned that the bills as written would seriously undermine the effective mechanism Congress enacted in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to provide a safe harbor for Internet companies that act in good faith to remove infringing content from their sites. Since their enactment in 1998, the DMCA's safe harbor provisions for online service providers have been a cornerstone of the U.S. Internet and technology industry's growth and success. While we work together to find additional ways to target foreign "rogue" sites, we should not jeopardize a foundational structure that has worked for content owners and Internet companies alike and provides certainty to innovators with new ideas for how people create, find, discuss, and share information lawfully online.

We are proud to be a part of an industry that has been crucial to U.S. economic growth and job creation. A recent McKinsey Global Institute report found that the Internet accounts for 3.4% of GDP in the 13 countries that McKinsey studied, and, in the U.S., the Internet's contribution to GDP is even larger. If Internet consumption and expenditure were a sector, its contribution to GDP would be greater than energy, agriculture, communication, mining, or utilities. In addition, the Internet industry has increased productivity for small and medium-sized businesses by 10%. We urge you not to risk either this success or the tremendous benefits the Internet has brought to hundreds of millions of Americans and people around the world.

Can't wait to see the usual commenters stop by to insist that basically every big company on the internet is only saying this because they're dedicated to infringement. But the real question is: at what point does Congress realize that there's real opposition to this bill from one of the few industries out there that's actually doing well these days?

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: censorship, copyright, innovation, internet, sopa, tech
Companies: ebay, facebook, google, linkedin, mozilla, twitter, yahoo, zynga

79 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:46am

In, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  lol, right on time.
  
  Caution: Comments by lawyers and copyright shill bellow this line. Other commentators please watch your step, the traps have been set and are armed.
  ---------------
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:47am

Umm, those companies who depend on not checking user submitted content, who profit on sales of potentially pirated goods, and don't want to be seen as liable for any of it come out against a law that would do just that: Make them actually have to gbe responsible for what is on their websites.

Gawwwwwlee Gee, I am shocked.

Oh yeah, the sky is blue.

As for their "internet is 3.4%", it's a pretty dishonest attempt to color themselves as "the industry", when they are just one part of it. Sorry for them, their attempts to play the numbers like that is just a little too obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  Wish granted, Mike! Pretty quickly as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Duh! Just like in real life, where we don't arrest the fellow who rented a guy a motel room just 'cause the guy got a hooker. Nor do we arrest the absentee landlord when his tenants are discovered to be running a meth-lab. Nor do we arrest the makers nor distributors of concrete when a random stranger assaults another random stranger upon said concrete.
  
  Seriously, anybody who thinks the world should work on the principle of secondary & tertiary liability ad infinitum exhibits an apparent complete inability to reason.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Careful Lobo. You know how logic gets the trolls all riled up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Just like in real life, where we don't arrest the fellow who rented a guy a motel room just 'cause the guy got a hooker.
    
    But we do get to sue the motel for third-party liability for failing to protect us from getting beaten/slashed after we a.)interrupt an impromptu porno shoot and b.) "order off the menu" when presented with a list of sexual services that present porn star/hooker might be willing to provide.
    
    http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2011/09/gabriel-bonilla.php
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - torm, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Reading more about that particular case, it sounds like while perhaps a little liberal (in the traditional sense) reading of the law, the plaintiff's status as an innkeeper is what caused them to lose the case, not just their third-party status:
      
      http://boards.medscape.com/forums?128@352.1e01ajrnCNE@.2a0ef977!comment=1
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We do arrest him if he told the guy where to get the hooker, made the phone call for him, collected the money, and paid the hooker.
    
    Sorry, you fail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope, you still don't. That's the Police's job. Not some jobsworth who gets paid based on how many sites he takes down under SOPA.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Atitude, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      nope y'all failed long ago, that's why you need idiotic laws to prop up the failure that is the recording industry for a bit longer...
      
      Now let me help clue you in, the internet and the web-walkers that understand it will be disrupted for about 10 minutes by what you purpose, then the internet (as is its nature) will route around the problem (IE stupidity caused by Ass-hats)... that's the nature of the beast, how it was made, you don't blame the lion for killing the zebra. So what will happen is the recording industry will keep pushing and pushing because the last law didn't go far enough, and will keep passing step after step of lock down on the internet, in America (home of the free, irony anyone), till the average users that grew up with the internet in its present very happy configuration consider broken, then they will look for who kill golden goose, and there lo and behold will sit big content with feathers still in its mouth and the the legislators that they bought to do it... then the wheels come off as they say and a extreme reaction to it will happen, I figure it will be total kill off of IP / Copyright, and then you will truly be done... you will have bought maybe 2 - 3 years of further survival before extinction.
      
      There is one other path that does not lead to total destruction of IP (Copyright and all the rest) but we will have to see if you ever even try (and thus will be judged).... Or acknowledge a different way besides name calling/labeling/lying/bribing
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Irony Police, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:36am
  
  Irony
  I love the irony of calling out numbers when the RIAA and MPAA (among others) have ALWAYS used bogus, made up, or inflated numbers. No one can take your comment seriously when fake numbers are the content owners best friend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  Great PreTroll you had me up until ...
  
  'it's a pretty dishonest attempt to color themselves as "the industry", when they are just one part of it.'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jamie (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  So you would advocate manual review of all user-posted content on all websites, worldwide? Do you have any idea of how financially crippling that will be to web sites?
  
  Let's take YouTube, one of the biggest sites. They have (on average) roughly 48 hours (172800 seconds) of video uploaded to them every second of every day. Let's assume that they have to review between 1/2 and 2/3 of that in order to pick out infringing content; that's 100000 seconds worth of video to be reviewed, every second.
  
  In order to review all of that content with minimal delays, they would need 100000 reviewers working at any one time. If those reviewers were being paid a mere $1 per hour, it would still cost YouTube $876 million a year in review costs ($100000/hr x 24 hrs/day x 365 days/year).
  
  The real costs to YouTube would be a lot more than this. For starters, competent reviewers would most likely cost a lot more that $1 per hour. There would be small delays between watching each video, meaning that more reviewers would be needed. There are also management costs, the costs of implementing the review system, etc. The true costs are more likely to be upwards of $5 billion a year.
  
  And that's just YouTube. I'm not even thinking about sites like Facebook, MySpace, Vimeo, web forums, etc. The total cost to the tech industry would be hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and that's just to keep the legitimate sites running. Piracy might drop slightly, but illegitimate sites would still continue to run in dark corners of the web, and would still drive the vast majority of the world's piracy.
  
  SOPA is not going to stop piracy. It's barely going to make a dent. And yet it will cost legitimate web sites billions of dollars a year, just so they can avoid being blocked or having their revenue streams cut off. This is why SOPA should be stopped dead in its tracks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    YouTube already monitors their content, you fucking dolt.
    
    After Viacom sued them, they had to.
    
    The tech to do so has been available for years.
    
    You idiots act like technology stopped evolving the day you were able to start ripping off music...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeff (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 5:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      lol - handwavium is in short supply these days... If the content producers can't positively identify their own content as neither infringing or not, how do you expect outsiders to do that job for them?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The tech to do so has been available for years."
      
      Yes it has. It's also completely imperfect despite being able to do the volume of work that would be almost impossible for human being to do. YouTube also has vital protections in the DMCA to stop you idiots from shutting down a service that's extremely useful to you because it can't catch everything, something that you apparently want to see stopped.
      
      "You idiots act like technology stopped evolving the day you were able to start ripping off music..."
      
      Again, one day you'll realise that many of us don't do that. One day, an adult discussion will ensue...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 4:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And one other thing, while you are tilting at windmills with the SOPA FUD, it is only a matter of time before virtually all music piracy is removed from the interwebz due to closed-end systems and the unstoppable march towards all electronics being wireless.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And one other thing, while you are tilting at windmills with the SOPA FUD, it is only a matter of time before virtually all music piracy is removed from the interwebz due to closed-end systems and the unstoppable march towards all electronics being wireless
      
      That is absolutely the FUNNIEST comment that is denying reality of all time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David Evans (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Um... IANAL, but isn't this kind of content review technically impossible? From what I understand, Copyright isn't verifiable at all, outside of a courtroom. It's always just somebody's say-so. You're talking about hiring 100,000 psychics.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:50am

"the silence of large companies like Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Mozilla and AOL had been unfortunate"

I can see the others, but AOL is still a large company? They should start sending out disks/cd's again so that the congress people can get online to learn about this internet thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  First: Google; AOL financial Reports
  Second: Read
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:58am

There should be an Internet General Strike against SOPA. Google and all the other Internet companies against this bill shut down their services in protest for a day to educate their customers about it, replace normal service access with landing pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  >There should be an Internet General Strike against SOPA.
  
  In the words of so many Internet forums and imageboards: THIS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  I like the general idea, but the financial fallout would be very detrimental to the cause.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Miff (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    What they should do is, not shut down, but redesign their landing pages for a day- do things like put censor bars on the logos and have information about SOPA.
    
    Right now Amazon's homepage has an ad for the Kindle, eBay's pushing their daily deals, and AOL's full of news stories. Heck, even Google uses the space below their famous search box from time to time to spread awareness about things such as cancer research.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean like http://americancensorship.org/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Losing revenue for a day would be a lot cheaper in the long run than losing entire revenue streams due to the loss of safe harbor.
    
    Plus, if one gives into this legislation, what will be next? You're basically allowing a gang of government-granted monopolists - looters to the core - to have a legislative veto over your business model.
    
    If you pay ransom to hostage takers, you only encourage hostage taking in the future. If you pay Danesgeld, you never will be rid of the Dane.
    
    Google should account for it as a one time charge and explain to shareholders that it was necessary so as to stay in business.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Losing revenue for a day would be a lot cheaper in the long run than losing entire revenue streams due to the loss of safe harbor.
      
      If a tech company's business model is based around illegal infringement, they need to adapt and find a better business model.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ron, 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your a douche, but that was LOL. +1 for you!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  There should be an Internet General Strike against SOPA. Google and all the other Internet companies against this bill shut down their services in protest for a day to educate their customers about it, replace normal service access with landing pages.
  
  That's a laugh. This is all about money. You act like Google has principles. They are soulless bloodsuckers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's a laugh. This is all about money. You act like Google has principles. They are soulless bloodsuckers.
    
    As opposed to the record labels, who are paragons of virtue and honest accounting, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      On techdirt, it's ok to rip off musicians and ok for google to make gobs of money off that piracy, but it's the record labels that are the evil ones.
      
      uh huh. gotcha.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yep, that's right. They are evil. We've got articles of record labels not paying artists, charging for tracks they don't have the rights to (and when called out on that fact, try and get the insurance company to pay out their damages), subverting the democratic process...the list goes on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you ignorant asshat, they're not evil. They provide the content you're addicted to.
        
        And the outlier examples of malfeasance you like to focus on, even if they were all added up together for decades, don't match the ripping off that was done by you pirates in the last month alone.
        
        So just shut your greedy, whining, lying, entitlement-mentality piehole already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So...because they make content...they're somehow excused for the crimes I've listed above?
        And I say, good sir (and I use that term lightly), the vitriol in your response is what I've come to expect from those who support the labels. Especially when you tell me to shut up. I don't tell the labels to shut up. I think that what they and you are saying is ridiculous, but at no point, will I ever advocate for your speech to be silenced.
        After all, the last sentence...all those adjectives can be easily applied to the labels themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        God, what a psychopathic little twit you are. Do Hollywood a favor and kill yourself, faggot. They'll do better without your pathetic little defense posts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        athe, 15 Nov 2011 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bingo! I've got all those "troll-words" on my bingo card, so I win!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No, you ignorant asshat, they're not evil. They provide the content you're addicted to."
        
        No, content creators provide the content we like ("addicted to" is a ridiculous overstatement). Record labels provide me absolutely nothing of value these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wig, 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they don't provide me with content! That's the entire point!
        
        They contract artists to provide them with content and then try every way NOT to pay them.
        
        They don't provide me with anything except DRM and a lot of hassle even when I do fork over the (outrageous amount of) money.
        
        I'd much rather buy (not license) directly from the artist. That way I'm sure the artist gets payed and I'm not conned.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 Nov 2011 @ 2:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "they provide the content you're addicted to."
        
        I love the way you pretend to know the tastes and consumption habits of others. Just another one of your tactics to avoid dealing with the real opinions of those you're address, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't care whether they have a soul or they don't. "Soul" is immaterial to capitalism and is equally immaterial to me. Google exists to make money, so does the RIAA/MPAA. Google's products and services matter to me a lot more than the RIAA/MPAA's products and services do. Their interests coincide with mine.
    
    The RIAA/MPAA has had to descend into parasitical seeking of legislation to protect their monopolies and failed business models, while Google simply requires that government leave them alone.
    
    As such, I would prefer Google to exist and make their profit rather than the RIAA/MPAA.
    
    In fact, I hope the RIAA/MPAA goes out of business and they have to get real jobs. They are parasites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  "There should be an Internet General Strike against SOPA. Google and all the other Internet companies against this bill shut down their services in protest for a day to educate their customers about it, replace normal service access with landing pages."
  
  Better than that, just turn off and stop using the internet for a month. You can stop watching all that copyrighted content too, all those movies and music and TV shows that you hate so much that you insist on downloading them all.
  
  Live without it for a month. See how it really feels.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't watch TV, movies, or listen to music beyond what is on the radio (which doesn't have to pay royalties). I want to have nothing to do with the RIAA/MPAA or their members. I have boycotted their products for years.
    
    I only ask that they leave the Internet alone. The Internet isn't their property. They should stop treating it like it is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Bullshit.
      
      You dorks wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you had to actually leave the house, instead of being glued to the screen all day.
      
      All of you here are hopelessly addicted to content. And you resent the creators because of that. And also because they're more talented and popular than you, have a cooler job, and get laid, whereas you don't...
      
      The reason you're panicking is because your easy free lunch is about to get taken away and you're worried about not getting your fix.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cory, 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nobody gives a shit what you think docuhebag. You're a nobody, an anonymous coward on the Internet posting on someone else website. Now go crawl back to the hole you climb out of every time someone post about Hollywood. You slimy little bitch
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do leave the house, all the time. I obviously go out and go on homicidal rampages because of Die Hard and its ilk, followed by a romcom romp in There's Something About Mary, then sail On Stranger Tides just to get to work. Each and every day.
        
        Shut the fuck up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You dorks wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you had to actually leave the house, instead of being glued to the screen all day.
        
        Heh. See, this is the problem: you status-quo types claim to embrace change and new technology, but in your heart of hearts, you still think you live in a world that hasn't existed in more than a decade. For example, a world where consuming media means staying at home, glued to a screen, as an antisocial dork. I mean really now. Ever heard of an iPhone old man? They can do pretty crazy stuff! And they fit in your pocket! You should play with one some time - but try not to let your head explode. Actually what am I saying - the head wants what it wants - go for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2011 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've had an iphone for years, Freetardo...
        
        Change the subject much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're saying I watch TV, listen to things other than the radio, and watch movies? Gee, you know more about me than I do. I'm sorry to tell you this but I don't. (Admittedly, I play games, but I pay for those, as a general rule.)
        
        I don't resent the RIAA/MPAA. I have no use for them. They're obsolete buggy whip manufacturers. If they leave me and what I value alone, I hope they die a natural death through obsolescence. They tamper with the Internet, I hope the Internet tampers with them through a boycott and they go out of business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2011 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps some of us 'dorks' physically cannot leave the house due to illness? Shut your fucking pie hole about shit you know nothing about, and stop blaming your failures on your customers. Seriously, your broken record act isn't just aggravating, it's obnoxious, and most just tune it out, these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It feels good, I just learned how to measure the brains of fossils using open source tools, if you have some CT scans of your skull we could measure your brain size LoL
    
    http://openpaleo.blogspot.com/2008/12/3d-slicer-tutorial.html
    
    3D-Slicer doesn't even need installation just download it and click on the binary and it just starts its just magical.
    
    http://slicer.org/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:14am

What the heck is a rogue website?
And why are we promoting the adoption of entertainment industry's made-up, meaningless phrases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:22am
  
  Re: What the heck is a rogue website?
  Cause they paid a lot of people to repeat it enough times, that some people actually think that it is true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:22am

No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
I've covered this already: copied from another thread.
out_of_the_blue, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 7:30am

Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth, DO NOT create it. Yes, they make "jobs", but those jobs are similar to stealing the copper sword off Lincoln's tomb, are "monetizing" what they can snatch into a quick buck now.

Recently Google has become MORE embedded into many file-sharing sites, requires allowing javascript to run Google captcha. While you try to inoculate it here by a mention, it's still in practice /directly/ profiting from file-sharing.

(Add: Mozilla thrives on Google's money, coding it in as the preferred search engine.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth, DO NOT create it.
  
  You're right! In a perfect world we would go online without a stupid worthless web browser, and we'd only bother with content that we already knew the location of - not waste our time with pointless indexes that help us find it. And if we want to tell anyone about it, we'd just call them, or better yet walk over to their house because telephones are bullshit too. And eBay? What a leech. If I want to sell something I own, I will put up posters all over town thank you very much. And I'll do it myself - I'm not paying some damn postering service to do it; those parasites are just redistributing wealth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Being that money is a fluid item, The only thing that actually generates money is the Federal Reserve, and the US mints. Banks, Grocery Stores, Internet Companies, and gas stations all re-distribute wealth to other places. Your analogy is flawed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth, DO NOT create it.
  
  Exactly the same can be said of every other company on this planet. Creation of wealth is, of course, quite impossible -- not that this stops inferior people like you from claiming otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
    Creation of wealth is not impossible. It happens when an exchange occurs between people, each with items the other person values more then what they have. For example, if I have a shirt I don't really need (value ~$0), and you have $5, but value the shirt I have at $10 (you would have payed $10 for it) If we exchange your $5 for my shirt, we each created $5 or wealth. I value your $5 at $5 you value my shirt at $10, but lost $5.
    
    Or lets say you have some time to look at websites, and I know how to get to the sites you are interested in. We could exchange my knowledge of where those websites are for your viewing of an ad. (ala Google)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Yeah, that damn Facebook and their stealing from the legacy "I wonder what my friend Jane is doing these days" industry! That damn Mozilla and their stealing from the oh so successful paid web browser industry! That damn Twitter and their stealing from the "I wonder what some random celebrity is thinking" industry!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Blue, I've called bullshit on this comment before. I'll just repost what I said before
  
  "Fail. Complete fail.
  Javascript is developed by Netscape Communications Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation. Netscape is a subsidiary of AOL. Neither Netscape, Mozilla or AOL are a part of Google in any way shape or form. They may do business with Google, I don't know if they do or do not, but they are completely separate entities.
  Plus, your last paragraph is laughable. It only proves Mike's point about second and third party liability. Now you want Google to be held liable for the actions of others simply for putting up a captcha? (which is false by the way, as I said above) Real world analogy: a storage shed business is investigated and the guy who built the locks for the sheds is also held liable...wait what?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wig, 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:56am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth, DO NOT create it.
  
  Neither do the media corporations create content. The artists create the content, the media corps only RE-distribute it after encapsulating it in 3000 layers of DRM, EULA and proprietary formats...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2011 @ 9:31pm
    
    Re: Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
    The media companies are venture capitalists- they provide the funding for creation.
    
    VC is yet another idea that the dorks in silicon valley ripped off.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trerro, 15 Nov 2011 @ 11:56am

Way more than videos and music here...
One thing far too many forget is that "user-created content" isn't just videos and such. It's ANYTHING you post to a website - social network updates, email, yes, even posts on this very forum. If this law were to pass, here's how to shut down almost any site on net in 5 minutes:

1. Register an account.
2. Throw a link to a random pirated torrent in your forum sig or profile. If the site in question has neither sigs nor profiles, throw the link up in a long-dead discussion that no one will see instead.
3. Report the site for infringement.

The site now has 5 days to hire a lawyer and respond, and the censors have no penalty for choosing to err on the side of shutting the site down.

It is impossible to get the services of a lawyer in 5 days, so only huge sites with an on-staff lawyers have ANY chance of responding. It is likewise impossible for >90% of websites to AFFORD to hire a lawyer, even if they had months to respond. For the few sites that actually can submit a valid response, again, the censors risk massive penalties if they guess wrong that you're sufficiently responding, but none at all if they just ban you. What this means is that unless you're an enormous, famous site, you're shut down with no trial.

If you can't see how this would not only shatter the entire net industry, but also have an insanely huge negative impact on free speech, then you're probably one of the Hollywood shills currently posting here.

This bill would not only be the final push into a new Depression, but would pretty much be the end of democracy as we know it... and to do what, stop a handful of pirates who will just register a new site the next day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: Way more than videos and music here...
  Except that if the site in question had taken the time to know who you are as a user, they could easily turn around and sue the living shit out of you for framing them, and you would likely also face criminal charges.
  
  Sounds like a really smooth move, start doing it now so we can stop listening to your shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
    Except that if the site in question had taken the time to know who you are as a user
    
    Aww, that's so sweet. I agree: websites should invite all their users over for a nice cup of tea and a chit-chat before allowing them to post anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
      See, this is why I know you are the anonymous prick... same tone, same bullshit.
      
      Enjoy your copyright fed job, prick.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
        Did someone's wittle feelings get hurwt that they have to respond to calling people "pricks"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
        Did someone's wittle feelings get hurwt that they have to respond to calling people "pricks"?
        
        He gets all his insults from A Young Man's Compendium Of Bilious Jibes And Witty Retorts, 1922 Edition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
        Do you have a CT scan of your skull fossil creature?
        
        I want to stimate your brain capacity measuring the void space in your skull, it shouldn't take long since it appears to be the size of a pea.
        
        http://openpaleo.blogspot.com/2008/12/3d-slicer-tutorial.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
        See, this is why I know you are the anonymous prick...
        
        Look, we all know how much you love anonymous prick, but I'm afraid you're wrong: I don't know who was in the stall next to you, but it wasn't me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
        Sorry, that was me with a Guy Fawkes mask. My bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
    Yeah right, like your morons like to know every customer you have right?
    
    Why are you guys doing business with drug addicts, pedophiles, murderers and thieves?
    
    Roman Polanski is a pedophile, yet studios do business with him.
    
    Lindsay Lohan is a thief yet studios are still doing business with her.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
    Except that if the site in question had taken the time to know who you are as a user,
    
    So I assume you have given Mike your name, address, personal bio, last 3 employers, credit card info, and notarized letter from your 3rd grade teacher that you're a good little boy and don't tell lies or post infringing material?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 16 Nov 2011 @ 2:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
      I think Mike let him off without getting that information to be honest. Given the knowledge and maturity usually on display here, I doubt he's reached 3rd grade yet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 3:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Way more than videos and music here...
    Let's do this to Viacom's forums, and see what happens. Flood the little scrote's sites with links to other companies' content and report it. Every day on any forum they have.
    
    Imagine the hilarity that would ensue once their accounts are frozen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planespotter (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:02pm

OOTB.... another pointless post where you won't respond to any of the people who put you straight or point out why your attempt at logic is flawed.

Wanking with words, you must be surrounded by crusty tissues as you obviously get your rocks off spouting this rubbish.

I'd recommend a session at Pornhub or Redtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Hoeschen (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:50pm

Do a simple internet search for SOPA and you can find all kinds of different companies against it. Does Congress really live in a bubble where the only people they hear are the ones that are allowed to testify? One would think that our own reps would research a bill outside of DC before voting ya or na. But then again that would involve common sense, something I think is removed before an official is sworn into office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David Evans (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re:
  Not required. Common sense is that little voice that tells you running for office is a silly idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]