Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
from the not-an-easy-task dept
While most of the attention over the past few weeks was given to SOPA and the House side of Congress in this debate on censoring the internet, the Senate side is becoming increasingly important. One of the ridiculous side effects of SOPA being so ridiculously bad is that PROTECT IP (the Senate version, also called PIPA) being just slightly less bad, means that some think that it can be seen as a "compromise." That's ridiculous, but it's part of the angle that supporters are using to try to rush that bill through the Senate in the near future. That's why the three Senators who stood up last week and spoke out against PIPA for the first time, Senators Rand Paul, Maria Cantwell and Jerry Moran deserve extra kudos. There's been massive lobbying support in favor of PIPA, and lots going on behind the scenes while the public was focused on SOPA on the House side. Having three Senators willing to stand up on principle, recognizing that the broad definitions and consequences of PIPA would hurt jobs, the economy and innovation, is something we don't see enough of these days. If one of these is your Senator, you should reach out and thank them for standing up for the benefit of society, rather than the benefit of big time corporate lobbyists.
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, jerry moran, maria cantwell, pipa, principles, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's be honest, you just hate it because you hate copyright. You'll be against the next copyright law no matter what it actually states.
Instead of being the biggest SOPA whiner on the internet, why don't you actually suggest how to change the text to get rid of the problems you perceive?
Seriously, Mike, why aren't you suggesting ways to make it better?
You don't want to be a part of the solution, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Remember, copyright is not a natural right. If you show a kid a drawing, they don't automatically think it's wrong to copy it. Copyright wasn't really even conceived of until about 300 years ago, and EVEN THEN it was to benefit everyone by giving creators LIMITED rights. Not automatic and in perpetuity as we effectively have now. Copyright is a tax on society, one that we're not getting any returns for. It seemingly only exists to centralize money into the hands of management organizations, because there are a lot of people that still create things without copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To Masnick, the problem with PIPA is that it punishes those engaged in trafficking illegal goods.
He's just too much of a little man to admit it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As Bob Ohlsson put so succinctly:
"What amazes me is how many people fail to comprehend that when you weaken copyright, you empower others to completely misuse your words.
Copyright is probably the single most important tool available to the individual for defending the meaning of what one says.
Calling protecting the integrity of personal expression "censorship" is a specious charge that is right out of Orwell's 1984. Be VERY afraid of anybody trying to sell you that notion!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm interested in killing this bill so dead and making such a political example of its' sponsors come election time next year that 100 years from now those who try to censor or otherwise mess with the Internet remember the fate of the sponsors of SOPA and cry.
I'm interested in turning the the Global IP Center at the Chamber of Commerce and the RIAA/MPAA into the biggest lobbyist laughingstock that Washington has ever seen.
That is what I propose, boot. Sound like a plan?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
With reference to 1984, I would think that a law that allows for easy censorship *without due process* is much more Orwellian than being misquoted or taken out of context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone truly against this legislation should have come out against it well before the public outcry began.
One could always counter-argue some of these politicians are just now becoming aware of the ramifications of these bills, but I don't really accept that argument either. That is their job. It is why they were elected and why they earn their salary. To be aware of, and deal with, such issues so the general population doesn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not.
Exceptions to copyright lead to more growth than copyright does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Monopoly
Just because someone titles themselves an author, or a musician they have rights to control copying technology? WHY? Before there was copying technology there were scribes who hand wrote copies of all documents. Musicians had to perform each song over and over again. Now that there is coping technology that they didn't invent, they want to legally monopolize that so they don't have to work?
What would they do if copying technology was never invented? Still hand writing their own books and singing their own songs, and people would pay for that value, because it would be paying for someone's time. Personal time and continuous effort equates to value, not monopolizing someone else's technologies.
You got to understand that copying (easy reproduction) makes things less expensive, that is why Henry Ford used the assembly line, with the objective of $100.00 car. Get real and live in today's world, and not last century. You are brainwashed into believing their scam, that in today's world of easy reproduction that copies have any perceived or real value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is when the government keeps people from having the right to speak freely. This bill's stated purpose is not censorship, but it's side-effects most certainly are. It allows mass shutdowns of legal content at the private insinuation that there might be protected content (which I contend shouldn't be protected to the degree it is, but that's a separate discussion). If you can't see that, there's no amount of anyone saying anything that will change your mind because you've obviously closed it to facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thing is, the Senate already have their own bill, PIPA, which has over 40 co-sponsors. All it takes is 60 of the 100 Senators to vote for it and it destroys any filibuster or hold, and goes to the President to sign. SOPA becomes irrelevant; unless parts of it are merged with PIPA.
Either way, a new law is coming soon and I'd suggest you cope with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure PIPA punishes those engaging in trafficking illegal goods. That's not the question. The question is whether it unduly punishes those engaging in trafficking LEGAL goods and content, and it certainly will.
When did America forget that "innocent until proven guilty" used to be a cornerstone of our justice system, a differentiation from the rest of the world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The current landscape is a mockery of copyright law, and therefore a mockery of all of society's laws.
If you want to repeal copyright, then there would be no issue.
But copyright isn't going to be repealed, so there will be new laws to protect it.
Once again, I suggest you cope with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't defend the meaning of what one says by prohibiting anyone from copying his text. There are better ways, and perhaps better laws that can be used, to do so, ones that more specifically target intentional and directed misrepresentation (perhaps like defamation laws). Your 'solution' to preventing misrepresentation is akin to banning swimming pools in order to prevent anyone from drowning (though I'm sure someone else can think of a better analogy), only your solution doesn't even target the problem and probably contributes towards causing confusion over the positions of others than preventing it (since an exact copy of someone's words will likely better represent their position than someone else's summary or than what someone else will paraphrase). So your solution actually does the opposite of what it claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for your second assertion, that the current landscape is a "mockery" of copyright law, that's BLATANTLY false. Bordering on maliciously so, so that you could add on that rider about a mockery of all of society's laws to make it seem like more than it is. It almost sounds like you're a lobbyist, and even worse, you believe your own bullshit.
Copyright law has been religiously extended since 1976, with nary a push back from Congress... how can you, with a straight face, claim that in it's current form it still "promote[s] the progress of the sciences and useful arts"? Current copyright law is it's own mockery. It needs no external influences to add to that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as length, you're changing the subject. But I agree with you, it is too long. But if it was half that, people would still try to come up with some other excuse to rationalize ripping off that which they do not have permission to rip off.
Either copyright is repealed, or it is enforced. Period. Anything else is a mockery of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Kansas City, KS Wins Google's 1 Gig Network
Internet giant Google has selected Kansas City, KS as the location for which it will build a fiber-optic network that will provide Internet access speeds as fast as 1 gigabit of data per second, more than 100 times faster than the U.S. average.
Google officials joined KC Mayor Joe Reardon at Wyandotte High School today to announce the selection. Kansas City, KS vied with more than a 1,000 other locations across the nation in a yearlong competition that saw another city in Kansas—Topeka—briefly change its name to “Google, Kansas” in order to get a leg up in the contest (read BF blog post).
Google announced early last year that it wanted to build a fiber-optic, high-speed Internet network for a community of up to 500,000 residents that would provide as much as 1 gigabit of data per second, far exceeding the 10 megabit-per-second speeds available on the best cable modem or DSL lines. Nearly 1,100 communities throughout the country—including Kansas City, MO, Topeka and Overland Park, KS—responded to the announcement.
Google issued the following statement in making the announcement:
“As part of our overall goal to make the web better for users, last year we announced a new project: to provide a community with Internet access more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have today. The response was overwhelming—nearly 1,100 cities felt the need for speed—and we were thrilled by the enthusiasm we saw across the country for better and faster web connections. Thank you to every community and individual that submitted a response, joined a rally, starred in a YouTube video or otherwise participated.
After a careful review, today we’re very happy to announce that we will build our ultra high-speed network in Kansas City, Kansas. We’ve signed a development agreement with the city, and we’ll be working closely with local organizations, businesses and universities to bring a next-generation web experience to the community.
Later this morning we’ll join Mayor Reardon at Wyandotte High School in Kansas City, Kansas. In selecting a city, our goal was to find a location where we could build efficiently, make an impact on the community and develop relationships with local government and community organizations. We’ve found this in Kansas City. We’ll be working closely with local organizations including the Kauffman Foundation, KCNext and the University of Kansas Medical to help develop the gigabit applications of the future.
Pending approval from the city’s Board of Commissioners, we plan to offer service beginning in 2012. We’ll also be looking closely at ways to bring ultra high-speed Internet to other cities across the country.
Over the past decade, the jump from dial-up to broadband has led to streaming online video, digital music sales, video conferencing over the web and countless other innovations that have transformed communication and commerce. We can’t wait to see what new products ands services will emerge as Kansas City moves from traditional broadband to ultra high-speed fiber optic connections.”
Kansas City, KS officials said the investment ultimately could put the region on the map with tech meccas such as California’s Silicon Valley and North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is bullshit.
Social mores and direct evidence of what someone says protect against that. In other words, the way to combat false speech is with more speech (and evidence).
I will concede your point IF you can give some kind of rational explanation in why shutting down a peer2peer site has even the slightest link to protecting the "integrity" of something you said/wrote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Criminal justice system, dope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Too bad for your argument that trafficking in illegal goods is already against the law and there are quite hefty punishments for it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
US Code, Title 18, Section 2320:
(1) In general.— Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm interested in killing this bill so dead and making such a political example of its' sponsors come election time next year that 100 years from now those who try to censor or otherwise mess with the Internet remember the fate of the sponsors of SOPA and cry.
I'm interested in turning the the Global IP Center at the Chamber of Commerce and the RIAA/MPAA into the biggest lobbyist laughingstock that Washington has ever seen.
That is what I propose, boot. Sound like a plan?
Sounds great. Then you can wake up and have breakfast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The DMCA, PIPA, SOPA, those are all WAY above and beyond copyright, and they're effectively shutting off huge swaths of legitimate technology because an industry is seeing their stranglehold of being broken. If I LICENSE a movie (as I've been told I do), I want the ability to use my licensed content for private consumption as I see fit. The problem is that shit like the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA take away that right. It's currently illegal for me to take my movies and copy them to my hard drive to watch, thereby keeping the discs out of my kid's hands and making the media much easier to access. Tell me... how is that promoting the progress of sciences or useful arts? If anything, it's just holding them back.
Go ahead and sue someone who misrepresents themselves as the author of your work. Or someone who makes copies of your work and sells them. Or even gives them away for free. None of that takes SOPA, PIPA or the DMCA. If that's too hard for you to do, well... that's your problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Too bad for your argument that trafficking in illegal goods is already against the law and there are quite hefty punishments for it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
US Code, Title 18, Section 2320:
(1) In general.— Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000.
Thank you Professor Numbnuts. Now tell us how you will enforce that on a website hosted in Belieze.
If nothing else, your abject stupidity makes me happy to be on the opposite side of the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Story Time
You are not currently subscribed to the category /gemstones/.
The cursor silently blinked at him, awaiting his input should he decide to answer the telecom customer service agent.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
His mouse hovered over the options. Should he even bother clicking? Did it even matter? It would not stop them from penalizing him for going to websites outside his subscription plan.
Finally, in frustration, he clicked yes.
Thank you for your support. Please feel free to review your subscription sites at the customer portal.
It was all so frustrating. He only wanted to visit a site for engagement rings, but since he had not bought that package, the company would not allow him to go to sites selling them.
Well, it appeared he had no choice left. He would need to add the /gemstones/ category to his current subscription plan.
Please enter the new subscription details.
Gemstones.
Processing.
The new subscription category /gemstones/ has been added to your plan.
Thank you for using our service.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
Good afternoon. It appears, according to our records, you have attempted to access sites outside your current service subscription.
You are not currently subscribed to the category /precious metals/.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
He clicked yes, and, unwilling to be defeated, subscribed to the /precious metals/ category.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
The rings rolled across his screen, searching for the perfect one for his soon to be fiancé.
Finally, the perfect one was found...
Disheartened, the young man rose from his terminal and walked away, no longer having the money now to buy the ring anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I love all the anti-corporatism on this blog when Google is plainly a giant corporate vampire squid. LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your post reads like pure FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure:
http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2011/11/should-we-move-from-copyright-to.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I want to argue that unauthorized publication amounts to forcing another to speak. Unauthorized publication is wrongful because it is compelled speech."
When it comes to a p2p site, this doesn't apply. You've already put your speech out in (at least) one form. You wrote a book, recorded a video or music. Someone else is repeating something you have already said. And that is not "compelled speech."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I understand why you need to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, if you're talking about the small country in Central America, its Belize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize
Second, that's obvious. You check to see if the person is breaking any laws in Belize. If they have broken a law there, take it up with the authorities there. If they are not breaking a law there, then again, it is obvious that you need to adjust your distribution model to account for the competition from another country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, did you, the individual, get permission from the studio to copy those DVDs you own?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not how law works, pal.
It's the law in Saudi Arabia that women have to wear veils.
So are we supposed respect their law here in the US?
No.
Belize can do whatever it wants. In Belize. Not here.
The idiocy on this blog never ceases to astound me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the entire idea behind the law is wrong, and provably wrong, opposition is the only rational choice.
I've given my suggestions many times on how to fix copyright law. I've admitted that my view is not mainstream, but where I can compromise to find common ground.
For instance, I start at zero year for copyright length, and you start at 100 years. I offer a compromise to 5 years. If your next offer would be 120 years, plus shutting down competing distribution methods and throwing people behind them in jail - then you're not compromising.
Start rolling the completely unsupportable position back, and we can find options.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bring down the system, if IP is to be either enforced or abolished, your side should have the chance to bring on the final endgame.
Total victory or total defeat.
What's your next "plan" after all the warez sites shift to encrypted tunnels like I2P?
Are you going to outlaw unlicensed encryption?
Bring it on, no police state has ever last forever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After all, it's China's right to enforce its own law within its own borders, right.
No difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're out of your fucking mind. What percentage of the content that is being looted is 5 years old? I don't disagree that the interval before content passes to the public domain is too long, but if you think people will wait five years to see "Twilight" for free you're nuts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're admitting that even a 5 year copyright term is too long to make any difference in the bottom line for content companies?
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't live in China.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Making a copy for your own use is not illegal.
Making copies for distribution is illegal, and rightfully so.
You do not have the right to distribute what is someone else's, unless they give you permission.
That's the law. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try to keep up with the language if you want to discuss it.
Making a copy for your own use, as stated in that "Warning", is illegal.
It does not say "Reproduce and distribute", it says, quite clearly, OR, which could also include multiple items, such as reproducing and distributing.
It's the language. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Kansas City, KS Wins Google's 1 Gig Network
Internet giant Google has selected Kansas City, KS as the location for which it will build a fiber-optic network that will provide Internet access speeds as fast as 1 gigabit of data per second, more than 100 times faster than the U.S. average.
Date of the report above: March 30, 2011
Date that PROTECT IP was released: May 10, 2011
Date Jerry Moran dropped his sponsorship of PROTECT IP: June 27, 2011
To argue that he was a co-sponsor "until" an event that happened before the bill even existed is pretty underhanded even for someone like you.
Why must you lie?
Separately, why is it always the folks pushing for stronger copyright law who post full articles in our comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Nope. Check the timeline.
I love all the anti-corporatism on this blog when Google is plainly a giant corporate vampire squid. LOL
If there were evidence of such, we'd note it. There is not, as noted in my previous comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False.
That's the law. Deal with it.
Why is it defenders of the law seem to know so little about the actual law. There are a few very narrow exceptions where a personal copy is not breaking copyright law, but for the most part, it is still very much a violation of the reproduction rights under copyright law, which makes no distinction on the civil side for commercial and non-commercial use.
If you're such a big defender of the law, it helps to actually know the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#United_States
There are some exceptions in section 1201, but they are limited to interoperability and educational or law enforcement use, and since ripping and transcoding movies to a hard drive isn't for interoperability but a derivative use, it's still illegal under the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's really sad yet enlightening to learn that you can't tell the difference between the two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wait, this isn't about my long post. Nevermind.
Carry on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Trying to set you up for a SOPAn'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, if it suited your temporary propaganda needs, of course I'd believe it.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1008
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
C'mon Masnick, do it.
You've been hiding from debate in the comments section of your blog recently, so let's see you start anew and explain that for everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately you may be right about the law coming in in some shape or form, doesn't make it right in it's current form though, does it?
Just because something would work, doesn't mean something else couldn't work < \/>better.
Throwing all criminals into the middle of the ocean with concrete boots on would certainly stop them reoffending, does that mean it's right, or is it better that the crimes are judged as to how serious they are in a court of law and set punishments/rehabilitation orders put in place?
As far as I'm aware, SOPA proposes to bypass courts and will basically have the right to take down entire domains at the allegation of a single site within that domain linking to infringing material.
There is no measure as to how much content has to be infringing, whether money is being made/lost from the infringing content, nothing in place to protect the 'clean' sites within that domain or the 'clean' content within the sites.
It seems like an incredibly oppresive, over zealous and all powerful (with no consequences) bill. What compensation is available after they get it wrong, and they will? After months of appeals, what can the domain that's been exonorated expect? What's to stop that same domain being shut down again a day after reemerging?
In other words, who polices the police?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Post it right here:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So actually, if you don't make money directly from copying and distributing, you're dandy-o to copy and distribute all you want? It doesn't say 'only for personal use' in there.
You could interpret this to mean that if Mike wanted to, he could set up a page on TD with no advertising on it, full of copied audio files and no-one could do anything about it.
Then, surely, if SOPA wanted to block the entire TechDirt domain, they'd be in for a hefty compensation claim as the page with the content cannot be making money from it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perfect ruling by Patel. Of course trafficking should be illegal.
But it is fair use "for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual's computer".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And you bet I'll vote against every single one of them that voted for this unforgiving mess.
Also, I'll make sure that all of my friends and family and even my Ex's families know why they should vote against any politician that supported PIPA/SOPA, etc.
So, lets name names! Let those that vote for this mess stand tall and face not only the American public but the opinion of the world too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Lets just keep score of who voted for what. Every, single, one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Every one of these bozos should be thrown out of office as they are walking a traitorous path.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. As soon as you cope with piracy continuing unabated. But I guess you'll just come here and whine again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You won't. Not now and not after SOPA. No matter how hard you dream about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Grow a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and all of this ip protectionism bs is just a tool for the gov to completely control the internet. they (the u.s. gov) are using big content to get all of the power it wants (not the other way around). the u.s. along with almost every other gov on earth is realizing that if you don't control the information you don't control shit. the entertainment industry is happy to comply 'cause they get more out of this than they ever dreamed possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. You just want to keep digging.
You are wrong.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1008
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
Heh. A small, often misunderstood part of the AHRA which doesn't actually say what you think it says? That statement is device dependent. It does not say that anyone can make a copy for personal use. It says that it's okay to use *certain* (limited) devices for making such a copy in certain circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
understand that it starts with ip enforcement, but it won't end there. next is dpi, site blacklists and registration of vpn to business only. tor and other dark/grey nets will be next. with the eventual disappearance of "paper" money all monetary transactions will be tracked. there will always be ways to circumvent but thats not the point. it will require more time and effort than most people would be willing to put in to learn and implement. and that's the point. with our lives so entangled in the electronic mesh there will be absolutely nothing that they won't be able to track and log. that's the end game for the govs. THEY will know and control ALL information.
the end game for entertainment is to turn the internet into their distribution channel. like cable tv. read tim wu's "the master switch" and you'll see how this has happened to ALL communication tech in the past.
the u.s. is in the formative stages of a fascist oligarchy and there is absolutely nothing short of absolute monetary revolt that will change this path. so just shut up and be good consumers or stop buying everything and let the whole malignant system implode upon itself. it'll be the end of the world as we know it but i for one think that is the lesser evil of the two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is the encryption that they insist on putting on the media. Between the encryption and these new anti-circumvention laws, the industry has created a legal gate completely around personal backups without explicitly outlawing them. Talk about loopholes...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really... do you have any idea what you're talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Those who do not support the pending bills are lauded as principled individuals who are not under the spell of corporate interests.
I must ask the question why it is that no one here has ever questioned the subjective motives of those who do not support the bills. This does not mean that they are wrong, but only that perhaps they are being influenced by other corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Important to recognize SOPA's implications for public health
SOPA inappropriately groups together real pharmacies—licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor’s prescription and sell brand-name medications—with the rogues who sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.
Americans, especially those without insurance and seniors living on fixed incomes, should not have to choose between filling their prescriptions or buying groceries for the week. Everyone, including those in the tech community with whom we agree on the overall negative impact of SOPA, should bear in mind the severe health implications of this bill, which would affect the well-being of patients across the U.S.
RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is asking consumers to take action now by sending letters to Capitol Hill and the White House encouraging them to oppose this legislation in its current form. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Important to recognize SOPA's implications for public health
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Masnick is a greedy slobbering leech just like all of his idiot followers here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Instead of being the biggest I don't recognize opportunity when i see it whiner on the internet, why don't you actually suggest how to change the text to get rid of the stupid laws which destroy innovation you perceive?
Seriously, you whoever you are (i.e. industry shill), why aren't you suggesting ways to make it better?
You don't want to be a part of the solution, I suppose.
Economics and capitalizm rulz! When you try to introduce inefficiency into a market, the market corrects itself around you (I seriously don't know what the hell crap they are teaching in business school).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"I must ask the question why it is that no one here has ever questioned the subjective motives of those who do not support the bills."
What the hell are you talking about. From what I've seen, the techdirt community is mostly interested in what benefits the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Important to recognize SOPA's implications for public health
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/gao_finds_extraordinary_price.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but that's the dumbest conspiracy theory I've heard yet. There was a HUGE public announcement back in March, after months of looking for the right community. They can't back out. You originally falsely claimed that he backed out when they announced this. You were totally wrong.
Seriously: can't your employers hire someone competent? I mean, hell if *I* can so easily debunk your conspiracy theories, someone's not getting their money's worth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously, talk about conspiracy theories...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not a conspiracy theory at all. That commenter has admitted to being involved in the writing of the bill, and has suggested that he's here to attack us because of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can't back out? Bullshit. What do you think? That Kansas can sue them for damages if they decide to pick their number 2 location instead?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Not a conspiracy theory at all. That commenter has admitted to being involved in the writing of the bill, and has suggested that he's here to attack us because of that.
That is a lie Masnick. As it appears you're stalking me, why don't you cut and paste the comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you the same person who made this mistake earlire or a different one? If a bill starts in the Senate, if they pass it it then goes to the House, not to the President. Regardless of where a bill starts, it must pass both chambers before going to the President. I thought this was 7th grade stuff...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm not Mike, but here's my suggested text:
[ link to this | view in thread ]