A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving

from the pass-the-cranberry-sauce dept

Wed, Nov 23rd 2011 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

As we head off to take a short break for Thanksgiving, I thought we'd pass along a Thanksgiving greeting card that was sent to me this morning. Unfortunately, the reports making the rounds today suggest that some are looking to pass a lot more than just the cranberry sauce, and may even be trying to make a big push to do so next week. One hopes that a continued public outcry against passing the first internet censorship plan in America will make them think twice before going down that path.

Enjoy your holidays (if you're here in the US). For the rest of the world... um... enjoy a few days without Techdirt.

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: congress, protect ip, sopa, thanksgiving

198 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:05pm

SOPA and PROTECT-IP are a carpet bombing of the ISP's, software companies, telecom companies, search engines, mobile providers, the first amendment, the forth amendment, news organizations, blogs, social media, open source software, the creative commons, fair use, online shopping, online sales, and self publishing of any sort.

I truly hope they pass this into law ... think about one simple consequence. The bottom line of every technology and internet company on earth will be affected. It will end up costing the tech companies more than the media companies are worth every year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:22pm
  
  Re:
  A bit over the top don't you think?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 9:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "A bit over the top don't you think?"
    
    Not at all, SOPA affects everything digital. This will affects the profit margins of every website, and communications company on the planet. It also affects how people communicate and it puts fear onto the table. Fear of being monitored, and a fear of having your voice and opinion squashed.
    
    Why else do you think that people responded in such great numbers?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can you give point-by-point refutations why that is over the top in your view?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 11:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The fact you ask is worrisome indeed because it tells me you have not read in any degree of detail the provisions in the two bills.
      
      You all make it sound as if the world will cease to exist if anything is ever enacted into US law that embraces any of the concepts contained in the current iterations of the bills.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The world probably will cease to exist! The government is useless, all laws are useless, lawyers are useless, and the free market will fix everything.
        
        Example: if we had just gotten rid of all those banking regulations, we wouldn't be in this mess! If we just got rid of the government, everything would be awesome!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, just see how wonderful things are in Somalia for an example of how an unregulated, ungoverned society functions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 8:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is one example, another is Hong Kong, there are virtually no regulations there, you can open a business in 15 min. without having to pay triple digits to do so.
        
        Another example of social structures exist in nature, bees and ants don't work in a centralized fashion and they manage to create their own homes and live together somehow having only a small set of rules that they all know by instinctively.
        
        To have order you don't actually need a central government, you only need a small set of universal rules that all the players fallow.
        
        I see houses not being something that only serves as a shelter but it becomes a living organism producing something that can be used elsewhere(i.e. food, medicine, parts, metals and so forth).
        
        I wonder why people pay insurance? it wouldn't be more reasonable to try and produce all the medicine locally to be given to a community clinic that would take care of the people who live there and instead of paying people or companies that don't care about them and have every incentive to fleece everybody why not create a scheme where doctors are paid by the community directly, not necessarily with money it could be resources and contribute the little money they have to the clinic instead of insurance.
        
        Money is also something that is deceitful, it masks real wealth which is what people own and has access to it, right now things get expensive and that excludes a large part of the population from having and access, that is not ok, while in developing countries people who didn't have anything start to have and get access to new things.
        
        What is preferable a system that makes something cost $100 million dollars that only a few will ever have access or something that is equally good and costs $100 dollars and everybody can afford it? Money is in a very real sense debt, it is the thing that make someone work, but if people found a way to do the work without money it would still work, and yes it is possible to live in a world without money ants and bees proved that already.
        
        In a larger scale the world functions without a central government, there is no earth presidency position is there and somehow people manage to live together.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 10:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In a larger scale the world functions without a central government, there is no earth presidency position is there and somehow people manage to live together.
        
        So, I'm guessing you're not a history major.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Machin Shin, 25 Nov 2011 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I will not argue that your theory does sound wonderful. Everyone works to make things better and if we all chip in our part then no one will be hungry and we will have world peace. Everyone will have what they need and be happy.
        
        While this sounds great, the sad truth is that human nature does not work that way. Some people are not happy unless they have more than their neighbor. Others figure hey why should I get up and work hard each day if I can get what I need anyways.
        
        The only way to live without government in a society like you suggest is for there to be no greed or corruption. Sadly this is not something I ever see happening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only way to live without government in a society like you suggest is for there to be no greed or corruption.
        I'll just leave this here:
        
        "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dammit, I wanted the 69 comment. Fuck...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Machin Shin, 25 Nov 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed I am not saying that governments are perfect, very far from it. I am sickened looking at what our country has turned into. The truth still remains that anarchy will not lead to paradise.
        
        It is not that mankind as a whole tends towards evil. It is more that those men with evil intentions tend to exert great deals of energy to accomplish their goals. If anarchy was really so wonderful and perfect then why do we have governments at all? NO form of government has any power except the power given by the people.
        
        Even Kings and Dictators are responsible to the people. They can do nothing without the support of those under them. Of course this does not mean they have to get that support through honest means. Often it is gotten by fear or force. In the US it has mostly been held by deception. How often do the elected officials really stick to what they promised in elections?
        
        My point is that greed and corruption are always problems. It is a problem with our current government, it is a problem in communist governments, even in socialist governments, and is still a problem during anarchy. It is not that the human race as a whole is so bad. It is that those few who are bad can make such a mess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact you ask is worrisome indeed because it tells me you have not read in any degree of detail the provisions in the two bills.
        
        Marvelous troll tactic! "The fact that you disagree with me is proof that you're wrong." Good job!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It helps to follow threads to put comments into context.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What context?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The fact you ask is worrisome indeed because it tells me you have not read in any degree of detail the provisions in the two bills."
        
        I have to say, Epic Fail. Your response is a total misdirection. I have read both bills, and they violate the 1st, and 4th amendments. Probably the 14th also. Protectionism of nations or businesses never works, the great depression showed that. This bill is nothing more than the government supporting an industry that hasn't changed or adapted since the early 1900's.
        
        Pity the children, pity the poor artist, pity the content industry because the sky is falling (again), everyone has heard it before. People have woken up to this naming bills "The stop Child sex slavery bill" bullshit when it is meant to support the oil, gas, coal, content, telecom, industries.
        
        In the future you should expect more of the same push back. You should also expect it to expand to other bills over time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is the hazard of an online and connected world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IIRC, my comment was not directed to you.
        
        BTW, what part of the 14th Amendment in your opinion fits into a discussion of these bills?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 6:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It seems to violate it in two ways, "depriving persons of life, liberty, or property". And to a weird extent the "Equal Protection Clause" which requires each state to provide equal protection under law to every (each) person within its jurisdiction. Since corporations are "people" now under the law ... well, the rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 6:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please respond to this post, clicked submit not preview ....
        
        The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is what come to mind.
        
        It seems to also violate the 14th in multiple ways, "depriving persons of life, liberty, or property". Which kicks in for domain seizures. In a weird the "Equal Protection Clause" which requires each state to provide equal protection under law to every (each) person within its jurisdiction. With corporations being "persons" now, the average person can also use these laws in an abusive manner with no consequences.
        
        The second one is a stretch ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have taken the time to respond, so the very least I can do is step up to the line and tell you that mine was a trick question.
        
        The 14th Amendment covers several distinct matters, but to the extent it appears to pertain to the points you have proffered, you are relying on the wrong amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment provisions you note are directed to state action, and not federal action. The latter is governed by the 5th Amendment.
        
        You mention the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech, though it is worth noting that it also ensures the right of a free press. These are two entirely separate provisions that are continuously, and erroneously, treated as being one in the same.
        
        No matter which pertains, and while it may seem a bit disingenuous, SOPA does start out with a declarative statement that nothing in the proposed bill is intended to alter any contours of the 1st Amendment and should not be interpeted to do so. The same is true with respect to Title 17 of the US Code, the location where US copyright law is codified. Then, of course, there is a savings clause declaring that if any provision is declared unconstitutional, the remained of the bill is to remain in full force and effect.
        
        No matter how appealling it may seem, the 1st Amendment is not a absolute, and in the case of any tension between it and Title 17, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that Title 17 incorporates a constitutional balance between the two by the provision dealing with fair use. Importantly, while the fair use provision lists 4 matters that must be considered by trial courts, the provision also provides that other matters may be considered as the trial judge deems just under the case at bar. Though these other matters do not usually enter into a court's analysis, a significant number of cases of the years have extended their analysis to more than just the 4 matters. It is likely additional matters would become the rule if only alleged infringers would quit trying to throw everything but the "kitchen sink" into these additional matters, and instead confine them to matters closely and compelling allied to the facts before the court. The Tenenbaum case is a case that illustrates the "kitchen sink" approach, which virtually doomed the consideration of some addition matters that may have had some measure, no matter how small, of merit. Of course, I ascribe this to counsel conversant in the academic environment, but basically a novice with respect to federal litigation.
        
        The due process provision are likewise poorly understood. It does not mean that there must always be a trial because the provision is far, far broader concerning due process. It also embraces fair notice of federal statutes, as well as the extent to which the statute cabins statutory relief. Of course those opposed, for example, to the language of the statutory damages are pressing forward by arguing that a case know as Gore should be deemed controlling. What makes this a difficult argument is that the Gore standard was articulated in the context of a specific situation that is far removed from the federal statute. I dare not prognosticate of what would be the outcome were the issue to make it to the Supreme Court, but must note that it would be an uphill battle under existing Supreme Court precedent.
        
        The deprivation of "propety" is also an interesting issue. While dicta in many, many cases reaching back to the 19th century appear to associate copyrights and property, I am personally unaware of this association having been squarely decided by the Supreme Court, including rights under patent law. While I believe precedent counsels in favor of them being equated, one can never be sure that this would be a slam dunk.
        
        The bottom line, I guess, is that despite many declarations here by article writers and commenters to such articles, these issues are far more complex and much more nuanced that the writers and commenters would have others believe.
        
        Again, my apologies for my "trick", but it was made to try and point out that constitutional provisions and law do not admit to easy answers in any but the most egregious of cases, as well as trying to point out that one must always be cognizant of the fact that the constitutional provisions differentiate between state actors and federal actors. The 5th Amendment addresses federal actors, whereas the relevant provision of the 14th Amendment addresses state actors.
        
        I hope this comment provides some measure of clarification concerning constitutional law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The due process provision are likewise poorly understood."
        
        It's not that they are poorly understood, it's that people understand them differently than you do. Just because people understand them differently than you do doesn't mean they are poorly understood.
        
        and regardless, the point is that websites should not be taken down until a court deems them to be infringing. Allowing for the (temporary) cease of service beforehand is bad for legitimate services that aren't breaking the law and the harm it causes them is unacceptable. That's more reason why this bill shouldn't pass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My understanding is based upon Supreme Court jurisprudence, which venue has been since Marbury v. Madison the final arbiter of the US Constitution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 10:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, your understanding is just based on your (broad) interpretation of supreme court rulings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As a lawyer who regularly deals with constitutional law questions, I daresay I have a very good understanding of how to read and apply Supreme Court decisions, including the ability to distinguish between dicta and holdings. The former provide interesting background information, but are not precedential in nature. It is the actual holdings, and the analysis underlying such holdings, that is controlling.
        
        Reading the Syllabus for each case is always a good starting point for homing in on the relevant portion(s) of the court's opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmmm... the no substance "expert" troll
        
        1/10
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your comment strongly suggests that you have no experience associated with how US courts work. If you did you would quickly understand that my comments are substantive in nature.
        
        Are they "detailed", like a brief or a published article? Of course not because they are general in nature. Detailed comments by necessity require a well defined issue, and even then many different legal doctrines can come into play. "Due Process" is but one example, and some insight into its many forms and permutations can be found in "top level" articles such as:
        
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
        
        If a top level discussion is so long, one can only begin to imagine what happens when specific facts are presented to a tribunal. "Substantive Due Process" alone can make one's head spin. It was strongly affirmed in Lochner. It was later essentially secunded to the "round file" during the FDR era, only to later be resurrected to a limited degree in Roe v. Wade.
        
        If you want to engage in a discussion about due process, be prepared for a very, very long discussion.
        
        Am I a Con Law "expert" on all matters associated with the constitution? No, but there are some areas where the appellation fits.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Your comment strongly suggests that you have no experience associated with how US courts work. If you did you would quickly understand that my comments are substantive in nature."
        
        So you give unsubstantive comments and then, when called out on it, you assert that people who disagree with you have are clueless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        who disagree with you are clueless *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Arm waving and hyperbole are hardly calling someone out. They do no more than suggest that the individual is clueless.
        
        I guess even links to sites in order to illustrate that the law is multi-faceted is insufficient to give pause to anyone here who has already made up their mind, and the facts be d***ed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The law is multi-faceted" and "the 5th and 14th amendments are different" are not an arguments for or against SOPA. Hence they are not substantive comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe if you follow the thread you will find that my response was directed to a comment about the 14th Amendment applying to SOPA because the amendment mentions "due process". Importantly, due process under the 14th Amendment (state action) is not necessarily the same as due process under the 5th Amendment (federal action).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have been following your comments. You seem to wrap yourself in minutia that is not clearly related to the real objections to the bill. You then do a little hand waving and say minutia+hand waving=the bill is right.
        
        We have a word for that. It's FUD. So far, I cannot see any substantive argument for the bill and I have seen lots of FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I guess even links to sites in order to illustrate that the law is multi-faceted"
        
        Your argument is that, 'well, the law could be interpreted my way. Therefore, everyone who interprets it differently has a poor understanding of the law'
        
        Who's the one who doesn't seem to understand that the law can be 'multi-faceted'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In response to your question, I believe the correct answer is "you". People here seem to believe that due process really only pertains to trials, when, in fact, trials are but a subset of the term.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm going to keep responding with "not substantive" until you actually relate your arguments back to the bill in some way instead of responding with sweeping generalities that are obviously true to anyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe, I believe the AC above me over your attempts to wrap your argument in details unnecessary to your points (which are seemingly nonexistent currently).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 3:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was a long post that said very little. One first amendment argument is that restraint of speech is unconstitutional without due process. Due process does not include company A going to company B and saying "I don't like what is being said here, you are required by law to stop doing business with them or face onerous penalties immediately."
        
        Restraint generally requires a hearing in front of a judge, who can issue a TRO. There are exceptions of course, however all I have heard of include some sort of custodial situation like a prisoner, a suspect in custody, or a student. Even in these cases, the penalties are levied on the restrainer, not the ones being restrained.
        
        I don't think you'll find many people that will argue Tenenbaum's case was handled well. Nesson tried to argue broad public policy instead of arguing the case. IANAL and even I know that's a bad idea.
        
        I'm sure there are others that will have different and possibly better constitutional arguments, possible from the over 100 lawyers and practitioners whom signed the petition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The 14th Amendment provisions you note are directed to state action, and not federal action. "
        
        They are mostly directed to state action, because it was mostly the states that passed laws to violate its principles (not the federal government), but to allow the federal government to then pass laws that violate its principles would defeat the purpose. It was directed to state action because it was assumed that the federal government would not pass laws in violation of these principles, the implication being that these principles should also apply to the federal government just as well.
        
        It's purpose is to protect citizens from certain acts of government, it would practically defeat the purpose if the federal government could abridge us of these rights that the state governments couldn't because then the end result is the same, we are still being abridged of very important rights that government shouldn't abridge us of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go fuck yourself AC.
        "You all make it sound as if the world will cease to exist if anything is ever enacted into US law"
        No asswipe, in it's present form, it will have catastrophic unintended, and IMHO, intended consequences that go far beyond stopping the God awful pie-rates. More than enough examples have been given here and I will not waste my time on you.
        
        Please return to the bridge from where you crawled out from.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one says the world will cease to exist, just that everyone, except IP maximist middlemen that contribute nothing, will be worse off.
        
        This bill will do the same thing that IP law has done to restaurants that want to host independent performers. IP law has hurt venues that want to host independent performers, which hurts those independent performers making it more difficult for them to gain recognition, and it hurts consumers alike. By placing more liability on service providers those service providers will be less likely to host independent content which will hurt independent content creators, it will hurt service providers, and it will hurt consumers. These consequences aren't unintended, they are intended, outside of the Internet the consequences of these laws already exist. and when overly restrictive IP laws were passed, just like when broadcasting licenses/monopolies were passed, it was argued (just like it is argued now) that there will be no unintended negative consequences and that the laws will not hurt free speech, consumers, restaurants and other hosts of independent performers, independent performers, and the public. Those arguments were wrong. IP law has gotten out of control (95+ year copy protection lengths) and the free speech necessary to criticize that does not exist outside the Internet because of some government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies. Independent performers have a hard time finding venues to perform because of the liability that these venues face from collection societies that want to collect money from them under the pretext that someone might infringe. Your arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now. These monopolistic laws exist for the same reason that taxi cab monopolies and all of the very many other government established monopolies exist, to censor free speech, to create cartels that charge consumers monopoly prices for almost everything, and because they create centralized benefits at widespread costs and those centralized beneficiaries can use their benefits to fund campaigns and manipulate politicians. The last thing we need now is an expansion of IP law, these laws need to be shot down because the only acceptable course of action Congress needs to take right now is to substantially repeal IP laws. We do not need Congress to further expand our already outrageous IP laws (or the enforcement of those laws).
        
        This bill shouldn't pass because it's not in the public interest. Our current IP laws are not in the public interest. The only reason Congress is considering this bill is because a hand full of legacy businesses want them. The public does not want these laws, just like they do not want 95+ year copy protection lengths. Congress should not represent industry interests against the public interest. Congress should represent the will and interests of the public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 3:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're ok with Google and their ilk becoming the "IP maximist middlemen"?
        
        I'm not.
        
        If any of those dorks actually had ability in music or cinema, then they would been in the business already.
        
        No thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah. Just like those freeloading bastards at EMI and JP Morgan Chase.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nobody says they would be ok with Google being the "IP maximist middlemen". Mike and all the commentators here regularly criticize them when they behave thusly (which is rare by comparison).
        And you would be able to see that, if your head wasn't stuck so far up Hollywood's ass. You pathetic shiilltard loser.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When I upload content to Youtube, do they demand exclusive privileges to distribute that content? The day that they do is the day I will criticize them for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (IOW, they're not IP maximist unless they're asking for government intervention that grants them IP privileges, since IP is a result of government).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:42am
  
  Re:
  And equally important is that this is a direct assault on each and every one of us Americans who were brought up in a Free Society and this is the end game to me.Censorship of some web sites will only be the beginning.First we got the Patriot Act and now they nail down the Net as the true goal of these arses is to have full control of everything.We could be living in a China-like or Russia-like Country soon.
  Do not think that it is a bunch of people whining over Pirate Sites........................SOPA & PROTECT-IP ACT are so much more.
  Each and every one of you who are Americans should be fighting this back.Call your Reps a few times a week and sign every petition and tell all of your friends.Post stories and news on your social network page or pages.
  This could turn out to be one of the if not the worst ever conceived laws and we will rue the day they pass !!!
  I WILL FIGHT FOR FREEDOM & THE AMERICAN WAY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Big D..., 27 Nov 2011 @ 12:01am
  
  Damn...
  I despise the fact, that this government, continues to try to invoke censorship, and alienate our rights, in the name, of "National Security." I laugh at this, because what started all this, was 911. The same 911, that was planned, and carried out, by Osama Bin Laden, which, if you didn't know, was trained, by this country's intelligent service. So now, we're suffering, because the guys that trained, and paid Bin Laden, the millions, were too incompetent, to foresee, what was to come. But since they were too stupid to foresee all this, it's the populous of this country, that has to pay the consequences. Alright US! You screw up worse, every time. Congratulations!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Damn...
    "The same 911 that was planned, and carried out, by Osama Bin Laden...". You don't really want to open that can of worms, do you? That's a subject for a whole different debate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freetardo, 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:16pm

Dear Congress-

Please don't mess with my pirate sites.

Thanks,

Freetardo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:20pm
  
  Re:
  I understand the sentiment, but I think we need to rephrase the argument a little.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Freetardo, 24 Nov 2011 @ 6:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kevin H (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      .5 stars, just because its Thanksgiving.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re:
  Some other trolls have set the bar quite high.
  
  Please try harder so we may all enjoy it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 9:26pm
  
  Re:
  go back to the register douchebag
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 2:22am
  
  Re:
  It's because of freeloaders like you that we have to put up with stuff like DRM and SOPA.
  
  Get a life, loser. And send some cash to the artists you enjoy ripping off so much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sycotic074 (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    not sure if you mean me or not. My and my family's medical is taken care of.....but that's about all we get....we still have co-pays and such....then the rest of life creeps in....food(which is over inflated), rent (since you need almost perfect credit to buy a home anymore) insurance, gas, medical , dental, etc. etc. how can 38-40K a year afford a dream?? this is the question I want congress and the president to answer. Why cant they give up any of their salary? Why is the sacrifice always left up to the working folk??? D.C. needs to answer this one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you are waiting for Washington you are doing it wrong, you don't need permission to find better ways to live even if that means "infringing" on the rights of IP holders.
      
      You can and deserve better, but you need to make it happen.
      A lot of people are planting their own food, a lot of people are going back to basics, when people didn't need others to produce things for them, they only needed the knowledge of how to do things.
      
      - Grow your own food.
      http://frugalgranola.com/2011/10/why-its-worth-it-to-grow-your-own-food/
      There is one infamous family that although got it wrong in the copyright side of things manage to survive on a 20K a year.
      http://urbanhomestead.org/
      
      - Build your own clinics.
      http://www.patchadams.org/
      
      - Make your own medicine.
      http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/9/1/31
      ps: Insulin is not the only drug that can be produced in large scale at your own kitchen, Alcohol, penicillin and others can all be made by almost anyone the thing is that it needs to be supervised since it is something new for people and we don't have the experience to deal with all the problems that can occur yet, that is why maybe it is wise to have a central place inside the community where people go to take what they produce and it gets checked there too, like the clinic you guys will build for yourselves, instead of paying insurance pay the clinic directly and they will take care of you guys for free.
      
      - Be mobile, make a motor home or buy one and have the world as your backyard.
      
      There is a lot one can do to reduce the cost of living and if you reduce it enough, it will not matter how much you make in a year, what will mater is how much you can produce.
      
      Everybody keeps talking about money, but money is not that important, what is important is the level of things produced and that people have access to it, what can you produce and share with your community? what can others do or learn to do to make life easier to everyone?
      
      http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Open_Source_Ecology
      
      Education can also be open sourced, the little money you make can be better used if directed to things you will benefit from it directly, but for that you need others, you need a community, you need your neighbors and most importantly you need to start learning to do something.
      
      Don't wait for others to give you answers that they probably don't have, you are own your own, make something out of it.
      
      When money is scarce you still have your hands and your brains, you can make something and you can improve your quality of life without having to earn a lot of money.
      
      Crazy I know but these are desperate times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sycotic074 (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 3:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    I know what you mean, my brother-in-law is on of those freeloaders. If I knew a process that was not so time consuming,, I would turn him in without even blinking, he screwed me over more than words can describe....I tried to be the bigger person....he lost his wife in 2007, my wife and I tried to move in and help him out, but he was hell bent on keeping his lifestyle as is, while our life style suffered (I was working around the clock) Finally we just moved and dumped it all in his lap since he could not be reasoned with, but this is much how congress is today....no one will give an inch and those of us that actually work are expected to pay for everyone else. How is this fair? When I get an answer to this question I may be more approachable....I gave up alot to move here...and I have not gotten anything back but problems and bullshit. I am further in-debt than when I moved here. Those that can afford to pay more need to do so, because someday they may need some help...hell we will all need some help some day. STOP THE CLASS WARFARE...LEAST U BECOME A ACCIDENTAL CAUSALITY. This is your only warning....if things don't change and I catch u dumb asses on the streets....lets just say my life insurance is current.....cause as long as my life sucks...your is in jeopardy...i didn't do anything to deserve this....but believe me you did....fix this shit..before you all suffer the same fate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sounds like your personal problems should be everyone else's concern, eh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Troll FAIL!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Butcherer79 (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 12:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is this a sarcastic response to an originally sarcastic comment, if so, it's brilliant, if not; fail I'm afraid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 1:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "And send some cash to the artists you enjoy ripping off so much."
    
    I agree. Go see some shows. That way you know they will actually get paid.
    
    "It's because of freeloaders like you that we have to put up with stuff like DRM and SOPA."
    Actually fucktardo, it is an inability to adapt to a changing market that brings us the likes of DRM, SOPA, etc. Does someone need a clue for Christmas?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:05am
  
  Re:
  Troll FAIL!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:23pm

Happy thanksgiving to all (yep even the trolls) at Techdirt.

As I am part of the "rest of the world" to me Thanksgiving is actually one US holiday/cultural event I wish was exported everywhere, it should be universal.

May your Food be bountiful, your family be joyful, and your day be quiet ;)

And lets all "Think of the Turkey" ... mmmmm turkey.. Nom nom nom nom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:52pm
  
  Re:
  And let the wife not interrupt the game. A'men
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 10:56pm
  
  Re:
  Nice. Right back atcha!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 3:45pm
  
  Re:
  Thank you G.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Butcherer79 (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 1:00am
  
  Re:
  As I am part of the "rest of the world" to me Thanksgiving is actually one US holiday/cultural event I wish was exported everywhere, it should be universal.
  
  My sentiments exactly. Nice post.
  
  on comment though:
  TURKEYS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Guy (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 5:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course Turkeys have rights. They have the right to troll techdirt and fling names like "freetard" and "pirate Mike".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 11:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The only rights turkey has in my house is the right to be delicious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin, 25 Nov 2011 @ 11:54am
  
  Re:
  So my question is this. Are we supposed to feed the trolls on thanksgiving? I mean it would be mean to have them go hungry when everyone is feasting wouldn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 9:25pm

I believe there is a "," missing after "SOPA".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:13am
  
  Re:
  "Pass the cranberry sauce, not SOPA, & Protect IP."?
  That does not compute.
  
  "Pass the cranberry sauce, not SOPA & Protect IP." is the correct sentence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    You are correct, sir!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 8:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The commenter is making a bad joke and pretending he's clever. If there's a comma after "SOPA," one could see it as a poorly worded sentence that says Congress SHOULD pass Protect IP (and cranberry sauce), but not SOPA.
    
    With the comma, it's more "please pass the cranberry sauce (not SOPA) and PROTECT IP."
    
    The commenter is a fan of the bill and thinks he's being clever. He's not being clever and it's a pretty stupid joke.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 9:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Finally, the first one to actually read the sentence as modified. Since no one but you appears to have appreciated what a simple comma can do, I would hardly call it a stupid joke. If anything, it suggests to me that most persons do not take the time to engage in any kind of analysis.
      
      I do not recall stating that I am in favor of SOPA. The only opinion to my best recollection I have ever expressed is that "buzz words" proliferate that make it easy for one to form an opinion without having actually read the current version of the bill.
      
      Over the top hyperbole does nothing to promote informed discourse. Frankly, I am troubled that here and at other sites (and this includes even sites such as the EFF) that literally froth at the mouth when SOPA is even mentioned. Instead, resort is had to arm waving and broad generalizations that do not attempt in the least to identify by number the individual sections in the current bill that raise concerns and then analyze why they are viewed as concerns. This is intellectual laziness at its worst.
      
      I am never locked into personal opinions. Specific, cogent arguments can be quite compelling and persuasive. Righteous indignation and generalizations make nice sound bites, but are otherwise unpersuasive. If one says "it is blatant censorship" and another says "it is not", nothing useful has been exchanged.
      
      One of the advantages of our legal system is that it forces opposing parties to elaborate in detail about the positions they are presenting to a court. While one certainly does not need to go into such detail to make his/her point, the absence of detail, and especially failing to relate the point to the SOPA bill as a whole, leaves me wondering just what the heck the proponent is actually saying. Do they have a valid point, or are they just arguing for the sake of arguing?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you fell apart at the point where you assumed TD was a court of law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Finally, the first one to actually read the sentence as modified.
        
        I got it, I'm sure others did too. We just didn't think it was worth commenting on.
        
        Over the top hyperbole does nothing to promote informed discourse.
        
        This is particularly ironic, since the supporters of PROTECT IP and SOPA have spouted nothing but over-the-top hyperbole.
        
        On the other hand, the opponents of the bill have gone into a huge amount of detail about how, and why, the bills are terrible. (Probably too much, in fact.) Those objections have been met with nothing but ad homs about "pirate Mike" or idiotic conspiracy theories about "Big Search and Big Piracy."
        
        Hell, on this very thread, one A.C. called everyone who opposed the bills "freetardo."
        
        If you'd actually like to debate specific issues about the bills, here's a good place to start.
        
        Or, I personally would be happy to do it here. I'm only too glad to avoid studying Computer Science for an hour or two.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those who study/work in the hard sciences have a way of thinking that makes it difficult to comprehend the details associated with law. I know this because before embarking on a legal career all of my prior studies and work were in engineering.
        
        In engineering you design a circuit, throw a switch, and the light either glows or it does not. In law there is no switch. You can craft what you believe is the best contract that has ever been crafted, but there is no switch you can throw to tell you if the contract works or does not. That only comes much later if a problem arises between the parties to the contract. This is one of the first lessons one learns when engaging in legal studies. There is oftentimes no right answer, which is why the mantra of lawyers in response to questions by clients is "it depends", "maybe, maybe not", and other non-definitive phrases.
        
        Interestingly, I have found that those who transition from science to law actually do quite well in their legal studies. This is not because they possess greater legal insight than one who has studied something in the liberal arts, but because they tend to be detail oriented and work that much harder to master the details associated with law.
        
        BTW, the linked article is in my opinion not a good place to start. Assertions are made throughout the article, but nowhere are those assertions backed up by reference to specific sections of the pending bills and an analysis of those sections. It is simply not possible to present a thoughtful response to an assertion without having at hand the details that underlie the assertion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 3:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is not that hard to understand the law. It's also not hard to see that you have not raised a single substantive point as it relates to the bill. You have however, managed to imply that we could not possibly understand the law as long as we disagree with you.
        
        I believe the word for that is FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe the word for that is FUD.
        
        No, it is not FUD. In order to spread FUD, you need to actually assert something that invokes "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt." The only thing he's asserting is "you womenfolk are hysterical."
        
        Now, it is many other things. Ad hominem circumstantial? Certainly. Appeal to motive? Possibly. Red herring? Absolutely. But FUD it is not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I disagree.
        
        While he doesn't seem to be trying to invoke fear, he does want to invoke uncertainty and doubt. Maybe it's just UD. He wants us to be uncertain of our own legal arguments without promoting any opposing view. He wants us to doubt our own knowledge of the law and those who agree with us.
        
        "You womenfolk are hysterical," actually seems like text book FUD, or UD as it were.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 5:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I have in no way been trying to raise uncertainty in what you may believe. What I have been trying to point out is that a conclusion falls short of the mark as a legal argument when the facts underlying the conclusion are unknown. In this case the facts would be specific sections of the bills.
        
        For example, Section 103(a)(1) defines a site "Dedicated to Theft of US Property", which definition in turn depends upon the definition of "U.S.-DIRECTED SITE" set forth in Section 101(23).
        
        I have read Section 103 numerous times trying to figure out what it is about the section that gives rise to all the comments that most, if not all, social media sites would be put at risk if SOPA was enacted into law. This does not mean that my reading is correct and everyone else is wrong. It simply means that the facts underlying the assertions being made are not readily apparent to me in light of the language used in Section 103.
        
        Importantly, this does not mean I believe Section 103 is just fine as written and need not be amended. I am truly interested in learning about alternate interpretations of the language that could give rise to the assertions being made here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The private right of action will force payment processors to cut off funding to a site or face liability. If the tool is always used in good faith, there won't be a lot of problems.
        
        However, we already know that tools like these are often not used in good faith. All a competitor would have to do is upload a copyrighted work onto the site and then claim file a notice to cut off all funding.
        
        We already know that competitors and corporate enemies have used similar tactics in the past with DMCA notices. (Viacom v Youtube)
        
        It seem inevitable that bad actors will abuse this language to hamper their competitors until they can no longer compete.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I should note that this isn't a huge problem for established companies who can afford lawyers, but this would be the death of any slightly interesting start up that might compete with facebook, google, or youtube because most will not be able to afford the lawyers to defend themselves.
        
        This will also freeze most venture capital that would otherwise run into the industry because the second you become interesting, your competitors can use this pretense to kill your business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am not sure I agree that VCs will necessarily move their money elsewhere. I do believe that a law along the lines of SOPA would result in a more thorough vetting of the potential investment during due diligence. Of course, this is something that VCs do every day when an opportunity presents itself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least some VCs and a Harvard Business Professor seem to think the additional uncertainty could make a huge difference.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110623/11401714827/top-vcs-tell-congress-protect-i p-will-harm-innovation.shtml
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/12192016669/study-shows-ho w-sopapipa-will-harm-investment-key-innovations.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, it might. Some VCs are risk averse to the point that they give new meaning to the word "anal". Of course, even under current law they would quite likely pass on the same opportunity to which SOPA might likewise relate. What VC is its right mind would seriously consider investing in a startup that would almost certainly run afoul of the current Title 17? Only a fool, and VCs are for the most part not foolish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, it might. Some VCs are risk averse to the point that they give new meaning to the word "anal". Of course, even under current law they would quite likely pass on the same opportunity to which SOPA might likewise relate. What VC is its right mind would seriously consider investing in a startup that would almost certainly run afoul of the current Title 17? Only a fool, and VCs are for the most part not foolish.
        
        Um. The recent Booz study showed that passing PIPA/SOPA would lead to a massive decline in investment.
        
        Furthemore, Lehrner's recent study on the investment impact of something like the Cablevision ruling shows how this is not a hypothetical. The impact of changes in the law -- or changes in interpretation of the law has a massive impact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try to keep Viacom in perspective. In any large corporation there will always be instances where the left and right hand are not aware of what the other is doing. In cases such as this attorneys are pressed into service by executive management, and only later is it discovered that someone in the corporation, and to the chagrin of its lawyers, sent something out without letting executing management know what they had done. Sometimes such releases are authorized by lower levels of management, but it is not at all unusual that a release was made without authority to do so having been given. Hence, it is entirely possible to send out entirely in good faith a DMCA notice without realizing that some of the materials listed in the notice are erroneously included (which only becomes known later in time).
        
        Note that the private right of action in Section 103 is not against the payment and ad providers. It is against the websites that are a "US Directed Site Dedicated to Theft of US Property". Even then, trying to take such a site down requires involvement of a federal court. Given the definition of a "US Directed Site" it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where sites like YouTube would fall within the definition. Obviously, some rights holders may try and stretch the definition, but that in and of itself does not mean that the definition is deficient or that such holders stand any realistic chance of prevailing.
        
        Admittedly, the DOJ has more legal ammunition under Section 102 than private parties under 103, but even then the DOJ had neither the resources nor inclination to pursue every site that may be playing fast and loose with the law. It saves its ammunition for egregious violators.
        
        The sites, new and old, that may be at risk are those whose business model is built around exploiting in some fashion the works of rights holders without their permission.
        
        In all candor, I do believe the stated 5 day period in Section 103 (likely calendar, and not business, days) is too short. Heck, sometimes it takes me 5 days just to play out telephone tag.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try to keep Viacom in perspective. In any large corporation there will always be instances where the left and right hand are not aware of what the other is doing.
        
        That's not... quite... what happened:
        
        For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko�s to upload clips from computers that couldn�t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt �very strongly� that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
        
        Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
        
        - Google-Viacom Court Documents Out; Google Says Viacom �Secretly� Uploaded Videos
        
        To date, Google has won every court case against Viacom.
        
        And if SOPA was around when the lawsuit started, Viacom would have been able to "blacklist" YouTube, without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom, and it's extremely unlikely that YouTube would even exist today.
        
        That doesn't strike you as a bit scary?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 12:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you may give Viacom too much credit.
        
        "Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube."
        
        It's not solid evidence that those top executives were directly behind it, but it does make me wonder.
        
        The question becomes how is a service supposed to know what is authorized and what isn't?
        
        In this case the legitimate copyright holders uploaded clips to a site, took steps to hide their origin, and later sued to accuse that site of being dedicated to copyright infringement. (If you need a source on that, I'm sure someone can provide it.)
        
        Viacom lost because the safe harbors remained intact and they were caught. What happens when the next guy learns from Viacom's mistake and doesn't get caught? What happens if the company isn't big enough to fight in the first place?
        
        These are the questions that will scare investment in start ups and small businesses out of the United States, and into other countries. Microsoft and Google both seem to believe the bill goes too far, and they don't have to worry about affording lawyers.
        
        If ad and financial services can no longer do business with sites that are legal in their country of origin, won't that just open up a market to those that will? If the cost of business becomes too high in the US, don't you think that companies will just move or invest their money in other countries where regulatory risk is lower?
        
        Maybe it will be a new company called Google Taiwan that is a subsidiary of Google whom will be expand to serve ads to these websites that are legal in their home country. Maybe another company will come along and eat Google's lunch. I bet a payment processor in China or Europe would be more than happy to do business with sites that are legal in their country of origin but blacklisted here.
        
        I think the bill as written will drive jobs and investment out of the United States, reduce taxable income in the United States, and do little to enrich the copyright holders.
        
        I'm sure their are a lot of constitutional challenges that can and will be made, but the real problem is that it replaces an easy rule (DMCA takedowns) with uncertainty, trials, and lawyer fees for the foreseeable future.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 1:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let's not forget the circumvention provisions. Projects like TOR and FreeNet were created and distributed specifically to allow free speech in despotic regimes. They do that by hiding the entrance and exit nodes of traffic generated by the user. Under SOPA, these programs would be illegal as "circumvention services" because you don't know if the exit node would connect you to blacklisted sites.
        
        Think about that. These were literally designed by the US government for free speech. Under SOPA, they would be illegal. The same can be said for proxy and vpn services. These services are used to ensure privacy, communicate and publish anonymously, and avoid censorship.
        
        I think that provision in particular would have a hard time passing constitutional scrutiny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, how the hell is the guy out in left field supposed to know what either of them is doing?
        
        Seriously, if the company can't keep straight what they have released and what is 'infringing' compared to what is 'authorized' then NOBODY else has any chance in hell of ever making an ACCURATE determination.
        
        Of course an accurate determination of infringement is not needed or desired, they don't want actual evidence, only to be able to point, make bogus claims, and eliminate the competition.
        
        1. Pass E-PARASITES (SOPA, Protect IP, etc).
        2. Accuse competitors of 'infringement' getting them kicked off of the internet and denying them all payments.
        3. PROFIT.... ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK BABY (GOOD THING WE BAILED THEM OUT, OR WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO TAKE OUR STOLEN PROFITS)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, OK, now we're getting to the meat of the matter.
        
        By the way, it would help if you mention which bill you're talking about (SOPA or PROTECT IP). I happen to know this is SOPA, so we're good to go in this instance.
        
        For example, Section 103(a)(1) defines a site "Dedicated to Theft of US Property", which definition in turn depends upon the definition of "U.S.-DIRECTED SITE" set forth in Section 101(23).
        
        You'll notice that nowhere in 101(23) is the word "foreign" ever mentioned:
        
        (23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE. � The term "U.S.-directed site" means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether �
        (A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
        (B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide�
        (i) such goods and services,
        (ii) access to such goods and services, or
        (iii) delivery of such goods and services,
        to users located in the United States;
        (C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
        (D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
        
        So, yes, the entirety of Section 103 applies to foreign and domestic web sites. Including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Wordpress, etc.
        
        Any other issues? Glad to help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what it is about the section that gives rise to all the comments that most, if not all, social media sites would be put at risk
        
        Oh, by the way: That's only half of the concern. The other half is Sec. 201, the "streaming" part of the bill. It is not directly connected to the "rogue sites" part of the bill, so it applies to everyone who streams content, including YouTube, Vimeo, etc.
        
        There's a whole lot of terrible in that section, too. The new 506(g), "Evidence of Total Retail Value," is especially noxious in my opinion, but it's all bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now that you have recited the definition of a "US Directed Site", you next need to apply it in combination with the definition of a site "Dedicated to Theft of US Property". It is the collective definition that applies to Section 103.
        
        A tremendous frustration in statutory analysis is that sections of law continually refer to other sections of law, all of which have to be considered as a whole. Try wending your way through the Internal Revenue Code, and after a while you will long for a drill to place against your temple just to relieve the pain of trying to comprehend the almost incomprehensible. If a drill is unavailable, an ice pick will work quite nicely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hilarious. I did discuss actual language in that piece, but if you must. Let's dig into the definition of dedicated to theft as found in Section 103. You bringing up the definition of US Directed Site is kinda meaningless, since that definition is not part of the problem, and nothing in that definition changes our concerns.
        
        The problem is as follows... I'll use the language straight from Section 103, but pull it together in a single sentence, leaving out the extraneous parts to highlight the issue:
        
        DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An �Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property� if... it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and... is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code... a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or... the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code;
        
        We'll stop there for now. The next section is problematic too. But here, the law clearly states that you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if "a portion" of your site "is primarily designed... for use in... enabling or facilitating" infringement under the laws mentioned.
        
        This is very problematic. YouTube is primarily designed in a way that enables or facilitates infringement.
        
        Twitter is primarily designed in a way that enables or facilitates infringement.
        
        Facebook (or a portion of Facebook) is primarily designed in a way that enables or facilitates infringement.
        
        eBay is primarily designed in a way that enables or facilitates infringement.
        
        All of these sites, under the law, could be designated as dedicated to theft of US property. That troubles me. Does it not trouble you?
        
        The definition continues:
        
        "... or the operator of the U.S.-directed site-- is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code..."
        
        And yes, I know that this comes from the recent Supreme Court ruling, but there is no way to read this as a tech entrepreneur (and trust me, I've spoken to hundreds at this point about this bill) to interpret that in any way other than "you need to proactively monitor." The problem here is the sheer ridiculousness of the idea that you can get in trouble for "taking deliberate actions" to "avoid" taking action. How do you know if you took deliberate action to avoid taking action? The only way most normal people can interpret that is you have to take action.
        
        As mentioned, I've spoken to hundreds (yes, multiple) of entrepreneurs about SOPA, and nearly every one reads that and says "to avoid liability, I have to shut down any user generated content, or I have to spend upwards of a million dollars on a special filtering or monitoring system." Otherwise, the RISK is that you get hit by the private right of action, and someone accuses you of "deliberately" avoiding actions.
        
        I find it amazing that some lawyers and politicians, who have never spoken to startups can pretend that the entrepreneurs running these things aren't freaked the hell out about this section of the bill. They're scared shitless. The bill basically makes it a HUGE liability to have any user generated content as an aspect of your business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It helps not to "..." through a detailed definiton replete with multiple occurences of "and" and "or".
        
        BTW, I have likewise spoken to many startups and VCs, but almost always in the context of forming the startup and securing VC support. I well know what runs through the minds of the latter since participation in their due diligence has always been a necessity.
        
        Your preoccupation with deliberate avoidance in my view misapprehends what is meant by the term. It may seem overly simplistic to you, but it is really nothing more than a "head in the sand" situation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 12:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your preoccupation with deliberate avoidance in my view misapprehends what is meant by the term.
        
        It doesn't really matter what is "meant" by the term.
        
        It only matters what content holders believe is "meant" by the term.
        
        Once they decide you are a site "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property," they can send off "global DMCA" requests to advertisers and payment processors, who are required to immediately blacklist you or face lawsuits themselves. And the content owners do not need to involve any part of the legal system to do so: no warrants, no TRO's, nothing.
        
        Now, you can possibly get your site back, provided that you shoulder the burden of proving that your site is not "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." Of course, if you do, you're unlikely to get any damages. You must prove that the rights holders who blacklisted you "knowingly materially misrepresent[ed]" [103(6)] the fact that you were a rogue site. That is a fairly high burden of proof.
        
        It is certainly far, far higher than a mere "taking [...] deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of third-party infringement.
        
        Think if the language in 103(6) stated that rights holders could be liable for the entire financial burden of their blacklists, merely by "taking deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that the sites they blacklisted were not actually "sites dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." Rights holders would scream bloody murder, because even the vague suspicion that they were not rogue sites is enough to trigger liability.
        
        And, as I stated, merely by issuing a counter-notification to payment processors or advertisers, all foreign sites are required to provide "a statement that the owner or operator, or registrant, consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States" [103(b)(5)(A)(ii)]. This uncertain, and highly questionable, definition is to be exported to the entire globe; and if you even try to fight it, you open yourself open to a lawsuit in the U.S., without much of a chance of gaining anything even if you win.
        
        it is really nothing more than a "head in the sand" situation.
        
        A situation which is, at present, does not make you liable for any form of copyright infringement whatsoever, even at the civil level:
        
        The tenor of the foregoing provisions is that the phrases "actual knowledge that the material or an activity" is infringing, and "facts or circumstances" indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items. Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough.
        - Viacom v. Google
        
        Since SOPA also applies to counterfeit goods, I'd also like to point out that the "head in the sand" situation doesn't make you liable for trademark infringement, either:
        
        For contributory trademark infringement liability to lie, a service provider must have more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods. Some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary.
        - Tiffany v. eBay
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It helps not to "..." through a detailed definiton replete with multiple occurences of "and" and "or".
        
        You're so full of shit it's not even funny any more.
        
        I did not remove ANY meaningful words. I put it together including the complete phrases necessary for discussion.
        
        BTW, I have likewise spoken to many startups and VCs, but almost always in the context of forming the startup and securing VC support. I well know what runs through the minds of the latter since participation in their due diligence has always been a necessity.
        
        I have spoken to over 200 startups and 50 VCs about THIS LAW specifically.
        
        And I note you don't respond to a single point I raised.
        
        Your preoccupation with deliberate avoidance in my view misapprehends what is meant by the term. It may seem overly simplistic to you, but it is really nothing more than a "head in the sand" situation.
        
        Again, you are full of shit.
        
        I'm sorry to call you out like this, but it's high time you're called out. You've been on Techdirt for a few years, and your MO is well established. You comment in a totally pedantic manner, implying that everyone else is a complete moron for not understanding things to the level that you do. But then when ANYONE calls you out on specifics, you deflect and ignore.
        
        Note that nowhere do you actually respond to a single point raised.
        
        And that's because you're full of shit.
        
        The only one "deliberately avoiding" anything here is you.
        
        I do not have my head in the sand. I've been spending a ton of time on this issue, and frankly, I'm going to say it again: you're full of shit.
        
        If you believe our analysis is in error, put up or shut up. Otherwise, you are full of shit and I shall call out the fact that you are full of shit again and again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those who study/work in the hard sciences have a way of thinking that makes it difficult to comprehend the details associated with law. I know this because before embarking on a legal career all of my prior studies and work were in engineering.
        
        Before I returned to college to get a degree in computer science, I majored in music and philosophy (yes, including rhetoric and logic). So I think I have a grasp of things, thanks.
        
        Also, please try not to make "don't worry your pretty little head" arguments again. It's very unbecoming of a gentleman.
        
        BTW, the linked article is in my opinion not a good place to start. Assertions are made throughout the article, but nowhere are those assertions backed up by reference to specific sections of the pending bills and an analysis of those sections.
        
        He does actually quote sections of both bills. I have read both bills myself, multiple times, and in my opinion, Mike's analysis is too tame; the bills are far worse than he says.
        
        So, I'll tell you what: if you want to know what sections the article refers to, ask, and I'll give you the sections, and quote them here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those who study/work in the hard sciences have a way of thinking that makes it difficult to comprehend the details associated with law. I know this because before embarking on a legal career all of my prior studies and work were in engineering.
        
        False. Analysis skills that are employed by engineers and scientists do not equate to a misunderstanding of law and the implications thereof.
        
        In engineering you design a circuit, throw a switch, and the light either glows or it does not. In law there is no switch.
        
        Yes, but Ohm's Law allows us to equate both sides of a circuit board and find the details of why a circuit is not functioning properly. In terms of law, the laws passed could be heavily one sided (in this case the DMCA), where the implications won't be felt until quite some time later (almost immediate takedowns, court challenges, and threats to innovative startups). Unless the people take efforts to balance the law, it can be passed based on who has the most money (as evidenced by the MPAA spending $94M so far this year).
        
        This is not because they possess greater legal insight than one who has studied something in the liberal arts, but because they tend to be detail oriented and work that much harder to master the details associated with law.
        
        That's good to know, but it's quite worrying. Why would I want an engineer as a lawyer instead of an engineer building new servers, technology, or figuring out new techniques in business that are more efficient?
        
        Assertions are made throughout the article, but nowhere are those assertions backed up by reference to specific sections of the pending bills and an analysis of those sections.
        
        I'm calling to question your "assertions". Please identify the parts that need to reference the bill as well as the supposed inaccuracies. From what I saw, the post is fairly accurate with respect to each section of the bill, culminating from posts from the last 2 weeks of stories.
        
        The only issue that I have is with the post that the definitive post didn't tackle the end of the bill, where the US government attempts to export their copyright law to other countries.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        US copyright law is not, and can not, be exported to foreign countries since US courts can only entertain actions where personal or in rem jurisdiction can be rightly established. This is a constitutional limitation on the powers of our courts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        US copyright law is not, and can not, be exported to foreign countries since US courts can only entertain actions where personal or in rem jurisdiction can be rightly established.
        
        Try to explain that to the drafters of SOPA. From 103(c):
        
        (1) IN PERSONAM. � If an effective counter notification is made under subsection (b)(5), or if a payment network provider fails to comply with subsection (b)(1), or an Internet advertising service fails to comply with subsection (b)(2), pursuant to a notification under subsection (b)(4) in the absence of such a counter notification, a qualifying plaintiff may commence an in personam action against �
        [...] (B) an owner or operator of the Internet site or portion thereof.
        
        In other words: Responding to a "global DMCA" takedown request will automatically open you up to a lawsuit in the United States, regardless of where you live, and regardless of whether the U.S. has jurisdiction (personal or otherwise). In fact, that happens even if third party payment networks or advertisers fail to comply with the "global DMCA" request.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the DMCA operates completely independently of SOPA. What the notice provisions in 103 are directed to is a detailed notice given by a rights holder that the site is believed to be a "US Directed Site Dedicated to Theft of US Property", and a counter notice given by a site.
        
        The DMCA and SOPA are separate and distinct, and notices associated with each serve fundamentally different purposes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 12:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the DMCA operates completely independently of SOPA.
        
        You're quite correct. That's why I put it in quotes. But it's fairly obvious that the "notice and blacklist" provisions of SOPA are modeled after the "notice and takedown" provisions of the DMCA. They use almost identical language.
        
        In fact, I'm not the one who came up with the phrase. Bloggers started using it almost immediately. And it's fairly accurate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 3:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        US copyright law is not, and can not, be exported to foreign countries since US courts can only entertain actions where personal or in rem jurisdiction can be rightly established. This is a constitutional limitation on the powers of our courts.
        
        Are you sure about that? Ok, then why is the MPAA using copyright issues in New Zealand, the UK, Sweden, and Brazil to change their laws into something that makes those countries worse off?
        
        Why was the ACTA created over the TRIPS agreements with NO input from the public that should be benefitting?
        
        Finally, why was Hew Raymond Griffiths prosecuted from Australia, having never visited the US? Better yet, why does the US use the Extradition Act for UK resident Richard O Dwyer in order to prosecute him for criminal copyright infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- barrywolk (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 6:59am
  
  Re:
  I believe there is a ',', not a ",", missing after "SOPA".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Whether or not " or ', a comma does appear to be missing, thus diluting the message.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA Leaked Email, 23 Nov 2011 @ 9:44pm

Leaked SOPA Email Shows Strong Arm Tactics
There is an amazing reference to Techdirt on Tumbler regarding a Leaked SOPA Email today http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/13239213504/nbc-universal-sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swedish Turnip (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 12:16am

I hate thanksgiving. It deprives me of Techdirt, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 7:58am
  
  Re:
  "I hate thanksgiving. It deprives me of Techdirt, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report :("
  
  Go listen to ABBA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sycotic074 (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 1:18am

Wake-up Congress!
The more you screw the people the more we will call for revolt. Think for a few here, you want to raise taxes, censor the internet.....what will you the government allow us the working simple folks to have...the states want to close the loopholes on RYO cigarettes, throttle our bandwidth...etc. But oh no....we cant tax those that have enough money to afford the $10.00 a pack price on manufactured cigarettes or Automobiles they dont need, BMW's, Lexus's, Etc. I for one work as one of the people that make sure the trash is picked up, the kids get to school, the ambulance gets to those in need but no I cant afford to buy a pack of Marlboro's each day...you better all stop and check yourselves before someone like me comes to help you and decides to jack your wallet instead. THINK PEOPLE! AT THIS RATE IT WILL GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER! THINK BEFORE YOU ARE LEFT ALONG-SIDE THE ROAD TO STINK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sycotic074 (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 2:36am
  
  Re: Wake-up Congress!
  in retrospect: When my father and a lot of people started smoking the price was approximately $0.25/ a pack. That was in 1963 or so. I understand inflation and all of that but you cant justify $10/A PACK and gasoline is less than $5/gallon....you as a people and a government cant tell me that tobacco (a plant that can be grown) is worth more than a element like oil that has to be processes and refined....SOMEONE IS FULL OF SHIT HERE and it must be exposed....Tobacco can be replenished alot easier than oil...so why pay more for one than the other? This is what leads one like to me to say....SCREW WASHINGTON....WHAT MAKES CADILLAC A BETTER AUTOMOBILE THAN FORD? THEY ARE BOTH MADE IN USA, BUT SOME DICKHEAD IN D.C. SAYS ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER...DID THIS DICKHEAD HAVE ANY....AND I MEAN ANY FIELD EXPERIENCE WITH FORD OR GM? OR DID HE JUST LIKE ONE BODY STYLE OVER ANOTHER? Oh AND BEFORE ITS ASKED WHAT QUALIFICATIONS DO I HAVE?? How ABOUT OVER 20 YEARS IN AUTOMOTIVE/LIGHT-truck/MEDIUM-turck/HEAVY TRUCK???? Not enough?? most presidents dont have that much driving experience.....but I'm just a layman....STOP FUCKING THE PEOPLE OR THE PEOPLE WILL KILL YOU...its that simple....make this country a better place or we will destroy you....what more incentive do you need????????????????????????????????????????????
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:11am
    
    Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
    You apparently have some serious mental health issues, and should seek help immediately, so that we can all give thanks that you are getting the treatment you obviously need, instead of making dire threats against your government. I suggest that, in the interim, you take about twenty xanax, and wash them down with a half liter of cheap vodka. Cap that with a similar amount of ambien and another vodka chaser. Or did you try that already?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 1:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
      Because we should just put up with this bullshit rich assholes have gotten away with for far too long? That's considered normal? Man, I wish I were a "normal" like you: not able to handle reality and instead living in fantasy land where we aren't being constantly screwed over by old men.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 12:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
      "You apparently have some serious mental health issues"
      Duh. Did you not notice sycotic074? Shoulda been a clue.
      
      "instead of making dire threats against your government"
      MY government died long ago. What we have now no longer represents the rupblic this counrty was supposed to be. So he has it 100% correct.
      
      "STOP FUCKING THE PEOPLE OR THE PEOPLE WILL KILL YOU"
      Put a little nicer:
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iorb8D6Eqwg
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLLpBk 1aXU
      
      Welcome to the New America.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TJ, 25 Nov 2011 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
        Let me elaborate:
        "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manner." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:09am
  
  Re: Wake-up Congress!
  Revolt you say? OCCUPY HOLLYWOOD! :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sycotic074 (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 1:43am

Wake-up Congress!
How many of you government "i'm better than you" types know how to change a tire? or preform any type of repairs on your cars or homes? I bet not many, tho these are the types of people you intend to screw over in one way or another(BECAUSE YOU CANT BE ASKED TO GIVE UP ANY OF YOUR $$$$$)....so in the end where does that leave you? THINK BEFORE YOU ACT!!!!!
The tax payers bailed out the banks, AIG, GM, ETC....but what thanks are the taxpayers that bailed them out get?(How many different stupid fees can we make up to post profits??) I FOR ONE WELCOME ANARCHY IF THIS IS WHAT WE GET FOR OUR BAIL-OUT EFFORTS.....BURN IT ALL!!!!.....RAPE, PILLAGE, PLUNDER, We the people are not appreciated so why even bother....sell some crack...some kids.....who cares....we got to get paid...one way or the other, because we are the ones "putting in work" not these busters in government, they don't even know what a "honest days work" is..I think I'll go puke now and look at what I need to do to get out of this so called superpower of bullshit. I'm ashamed to admit I am american.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an occuwhiner, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:34am
  
  Re: Wake-up Congress!
  If you can do all of that quit complaining and go to work, nobody owes you squat. I suppose you feel entitled to all the health benefits and self satisfaction that all the folks doing their drumstick dash's today, even though you are too lazy to get up and run yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:12am
  
  Re: Wake-up Congress!
  We're ashamed to admit you're an American, too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Butcherer79 (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 1:04am
    
    Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
    Fantastic, I nearly cried laughing! Bravo, sir.
    
    Does anyone else think somebody's hit the sauce a little early for the thanksgiving celebrations?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: Wake-up Congress!
  Typical Techdirtbag. Sounds like Gorehound's cousin from Camden, NJ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
    Is that:
    Techdirtbag
    Tech-dirtbag or
    techdirt-bag (cuz I would really like one of those.)
    Being a self-proclaimed dirtbag, I take offence to you lumping everyone in my catagory. I have worked very hard to become a dirtbag and do not think others here have that kind of commitment to truly be one. In fact, we know from the daily ritual of coming to TD, that we have for the most part a varied level of contributors most of which are not dirtbags. So your generalazition of this community, although right on par with the rest of the fucktard AC's, is incorrect. (Surprise there... NOT)
    
    So in the spirit of the upcoming holidays Merry suck my d*ck, and Happy F*ck you. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
      I hate typos.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re: Wake-up Congress!
  The tax payers bailed out the banks, AIG, GM, ETC....but what thanks are the taxpayers that bailed them out get?
  
  You think the tax payers bailed out the banks !!! HAHAHAHAHA..
  
  Tax payers dont have any money either, just as your government has not money.
  
  CHINA bailed out the US, is bailing out the US, and will (probably) continue to bail out the US.
  
  Until they say "now give it all back,,, yanks"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:56am
    
    Re: Re: Wake-up Congress!
    Sad but true.
    
    The taxpayer will eventually need to bail out the US government though. Everyone knows that the current system cannot continue forever and the US taxpayer will eventually feel the pain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 2:10am

Study of photorealistic rendering of medical images(i.e. CT scans, microCT scans, MRI, etc).
WARNING!
Before you click on the link below, know that the first image is a realistic rendering of a human being without his skin from a CT Scan of a cadaver, so if you don't like to see graphic images of dead people don't go there.

T. Kroes, F. H. Post, and C. P. Botha, Interactive direct volume rendering with physically-based lighting, Preprint 2011-11, Delft University of Technology, 2011.

Now who owns those images? the dead person, the family of the dead person, the university, the guy who rendered the image.

CT scans are just images in black and white but they are copyrighted according to the law, so what are the repercussions to medical imaging, what could go wrong in that space?

That is why I'm posting the link to the software and images, SOPA and other laws are not going to affect only useless arts but the useful ones too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:11am
  
  Re:
  There was a person pressing a button that started the medical scans, I imagine. So that person would be the copyright owners of those images, unless the hospital decides to add a clause in that person's contract that says that the hospital is to own the copyright over those images.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Now imagine what that guy can do to a hospital if he owns the images, he can claim copyright infringement and have all assets from the hospital seized :)
    
    Some people like to say there is no law guaranteeing theft right?
    
    Hospitals and universities better be prepared for those things happening to them too, since anyone can claim theft of imaginary property and the financial services they use to stop doing business with them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 6:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    What about the publicity rights of the cadaver?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dead people don't have rights...unless they create a work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 2:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    No creative content so no copyright. Anyone who claims copyright on these images is committing fraud.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re:
  Facts are not copyrightable. That medical scan would be considered a fact in the eyes of the law. Although, as far as I know there hasn't been a legal ruling on the subject. Granted though, the copying and distribution of such images could be considered a violation of privacy laws if it contains any personally identifiable information.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:03am

Honestly if they wont work for our collective interest they just need to choke and die. It don't get more simple than that. They all make way more than most. Why do they get to live the dream with the citizens starve and suffer. Fuck them....REVOLT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 5:12am
  
  Re:
  Troll FAIL!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MichaelG, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:04am

how about this?
To be slightly more serious, the card should read "Pass a budget, not SOPA." You know, something Congress is required to do in the constitution, and hasn't done in a couple of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Butcherer79 (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 1:15am
  
  Re: how about this?
  I think they've got about a year and a half now to repeal the automatic cuts, in my opinion this lack of a budget is just the two sides flexing their muscles and letting the others know they won't roll over; ultimately both sides will concede a little and meet in the middle, neither side want the afore mentioned mandatory cuts.
  Unfortunately, like many of the governments around the world, other peoples finances and lives are just a game. It's never going to hurt the people in the higher tax brackets, it's all about not losing face and coming in at the last minute with an 'acceptable to all parties' deal that makes it look as if both sides are heroes to their respective constituants.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Guy (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 4:15pm
    
    Re: Re: how about this?
    I think it's pretty obvious that military spending is out of control. We have the largest navy in the world. It is bigger than the next 13 largest navies combined. Most of these navies belong to allies. Defense spending is just stimulus spending that is acceptable to the republicans.
    
    Medicare and Medicaid are also out of control of course. That is largely because we don't negotiate for drug prices and services with providers.
    
    We won't get substantive cuts until we kick out the drug lobby, the defense lobby, and whoever the lobby is that convinces hospitals to buy 2 dollar switches for 250 dollars.
    
    Don't hold your breath.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
elitedefinition (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 10:09am

Didnt the White House just do this?
I thought the white house just closed sites randomly, under the guise of Gambling AND file sharing?

So apparently this rule is already in place! Congress doesn't need to be involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 24 Nov 2011 @ 3:13pm

Dear Congress,
Please have a happy Thanksgiving.

Afterwards, please do not pass a law that was transparently designed to target lawful sites that "hide behind safe harbors" - like YouTube, Facebook, and pretty much every other website - and has not much to do with piracy.

Love,
The entire public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:20pm

RULE #1: You don't talk about those Traci Lords movies you downloaded.

RULE #2: You don't talk about those Traci Lords movies you downloaded.

RULE #3: Traci who? Never heard of her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2011 @ 4:50pm

"Cranberry sauce"? And here all this time I thought it was "I buried Paul"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
barrywolk (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 8:57am

Agreed, AC, however, I wanted you to know the correct 'form'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 9:05am
  
  Re:
  I hope you realize that by the insertion of a comma, the statement is change significantly, with the passage of cranberries and Protect-IP being OK, and SOPA not. Funny how what seems like a trivial change is actually a cardinal change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

NewCharlesEntertainment (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 10:49am

HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
New hip-hop release by NewCharles Entertainment recording artist Johnnie Newkirk Jr @ http://www.newcharlesentertainment.com Will be released on
Itunes on Dec 16, 2011. This track is receiving rave reviews
from fans and industry insiders!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 3:29pm
  
  Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
  HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
  
  NewCharlesEntertainment (profile), Nov 25th, 2011 @ 10:49am
  New hip-hop release by NewCharles Entertainment recording artist Johnnie Newkirk Jr @ http://www.newcharlesentertainment.com Will be released on
  Itunes on Dec 16, 2011. This track is receiving rave reviews
  from fans and industry insiders!
  
  Why did this get flagged? He's just CwF RtB.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Reality Check, 25 Nov 2011 @ 4:00pm
    
    Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
    Why did this get flagged? He's just CwF RtB.
    Connecting with fans? It would be one thing if we ever saw him/her before, or spent a little time here gradually letting us know about NCE, but joining to spam the comments is targeting the wrong audience. A spammer gives no one a RtB. Troll fail yet again. Don't you guys get tired of FAIL?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
      What's wrong with reaching out to fans here? This is CwF RtB Central. Do you expect him to knock on your door or something? His moniker is AC, how do you know he's not a contributor?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        If he's posting as AC, then he's not really Cwf. You need to build a relationship to do that and AC doesn't build a relationship with anyone but Mike, who can see the IP address. The rest of us just see a spammer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        darryl, 25 Nov 2011 @ 8:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        If he's posting as AC, so are you !!!
        
        So what your saying is you cannot connect with fans unless you allready know those fans and have 'connected' with them before hand !!!
        
        So what you are saying was only directed to Mike ?
        
        Next time, send him an email...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        Purposefully misreading...
        
        That troll wasn't as good. 1/10
        
        You can do better than that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        Decent troll though. I give it a 3/5
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        What's wrong with reaching out to fans here? - They have no fans here. Its like showing up at a random party and expecting everyone to be your best friend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 7:36pm
    
    Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
    Why did this get flagged? He's just CwF RtB.
    
    "Connecting with Fans" does not mean "spamming." In fact, the very fact that this was flagged shows that he did not "connect" with anyone.
    
    If you're from a traditional label, however, that's an easy mistake to make. Especially since they think "connecting with fans" is only "mailing out our promo pack to everyone in the media, whether they want it or not."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2011 @ 8:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
      So it's 'connecting with fans' but not in a way that you specifically like, so you are against it..
      
      So it's "your way" or the highway !!!!
      
      I thought he should have been showcased as using INNOVATION and TECHNOLOGY to further his cause. To gain fans and give a reason to buy....
      
      He is using available technology, that is "FREE FOR USE", and using that free, available technology to connect with fans and to provide a reason to buy.
      
      It does show the total hypocracy that invades this site.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 25 Nov 2011 @ 11:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        So it's 'connecting with fans' but not in a way that you specifically like, so you are against it..
        
        First of all, annoying people is not "connecting" with them. Obviously. So, no, he's not "connecting with fans." And I'd like to see how spamming comments gives anyone a "reason to buy."
        
        Second of all, I'm not specifically "against" it. I didn't flag the guy. But I'm not going to pretend he's acting any differently than a pop-up ad or a spam email for Viagra.
        
        I'll tell you who is against it, though: the people who flagged him, who are the very people he's trying to "connect" with. Pretty big fail, I'd say.
        
        Hell, if I did that with any of my albums, I'd expect to get flagged too.
        
        Third of all... you forgot to sign your name, Darryl. The UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION and EXCLAMATION POINTS give you away !!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        darryl, 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        So how are you supposed to connect with fans if you are not allowed to make contact with them ?
        
        He might of annoyed you, but most things annoy you, most people (me included) dont care if we annoy you or not.
        
        Some people (me included) might even take some pride and delight in annoying you !!
        
        Or do we all have and talk to Karl to find out if his judgement means you are allowed to proceed.
        
        It is not CwF unless "Karl" says so !!!
        
        You state you are not specifically against it, except you are willing to come out in defense of those who are, so are you are arnt you ?
        
        Or are you 'on the fence', not willing to take a firm stand either way, or are you waiting for advice from "the masnick" on how to act ?
        
        What is the difference between his comment and an add that mike allows on this web site.
        
        What is the difference from his post and the posts from Masnick PROMOTING indie artists ?
        
        Is it because Masnick is not in the "money chain" if someone else profits from his site? I thought Masnick did not have an issue with people using his site for profit !
        
        If it is ok for Masnick why is it NOT ok for you..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        darryl, get some psychiatric help fast. You seriously need it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        No, randomly posting shit on the Internet is not "Connecting with Fans". Posting relevant shit on the Internet is "connecting with Fans".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        Seriously, Darryl? This is what you want to get your panties in a bunch about?
        
        Well, OK, if you insist... last time, though.
        
        So how are you supposed to connect with fans if you are not allowed to make contact with them ?
        
        You make announcements like this in a forum where it's acceptable to post these sorts of things. (I mean "forum" in a general sense, not specifically an Internet forum.) There are millions of sites that are specifically music-oriented, and dozens of social network sites where announcements like this are de rigueur.
        
        The one thing you do not do is post announcements like this in forums where people neither expect nor want them. That's called "spamming." Not only will it fail to help you connect with anyone, it severely undermines the connections you might already have.
        
        It shows that you have no regard for the community. Disregarding their desires is hardly a way to "connect" with anyone.
        
        He might of annoyed you, but most things annoy you, most people (me included) dont care if we annoy you or not.
        
        He annoyed everyone - which is perfectly obvious, since the post was flagged by the community, and comments aren't hidden until a few people actually report the post. (I don't know how many, it depends on how Mike set up the flagging software.)
        
        Notice that even though you annoy me, your comments haven't been flagged, and in fact I'm responding to them.
        
        You state you are not specifically against it, except you are willing to come out in defense of those who are, so are you are arnt you ?
        
        Just because I'm not specifically against it, does not mean I'm specifically for it, either. I don't care about it enough to flag it, and I don't care about it enough to object when other people flag it. If I were forced at gunpoint to make that choice, I would choose to flag it, but luckily I'm not.
        
        So why am I even responding? Because I do have some sympathy for the guy. I've been a musician for many years, and know what it's like to want to get the word out. And there are tons and tons of sites out there that advise you to participate in exactly this sort of spamming. It doesn't work, and never did, but if you're new to the game (or even just an incompetent marketer), then it's understandable that you'd try it.
        
        Hell, I used to write record reviews, and even though I stopped years ago, I still get this sort of crap in my inbox. It comes from the same mentality as sending unsolicited demos to every label in existence, even if they don't put out your type of music. It's usually lower-level, third-party marketing "firms" who do this, and it annoys everyone. It failed then, and it fails now, but unfortunately some artists get sucked into it. Some even pay for this "marketing." It's truly a scam, it fundamentally preys on desperate artists, and it needs to stop.
        
        So, if "NewCharles Entertainment" ever comes back to this site at all, I'm giving them some advice. Stop spamming everyone. You're hurting yourself, and you're hurting your artists.
        
        Or are you 'on the fence', not willing to take a firm stand either way, or are you waiting for advice from "the masnick" on how to act ?
        
        This is rich, considering that Mike wrote a post on this very subject on Wednesday.
        
        What is the difference between his comment and an add that mike allows on this web site.
        
        Since I block Flash ads, basically none.
        
        What is the difference from his post and the posts from Masnick PROMOTING indie artists ?
        
        The artists Mike talks about are relevant to the other things he talks about here: different promotional ideas, selling scarcities, effectively connecting with fans, etc.
        
        This makes those articles informative, and not advertisements. In fact, he's not really "promoting" the band itself, but their business ideas. He's written a few times about bands (e.g. Pomplamoose) that I think are just terrible, but that doesn't mean I don't read the articles.
        
        Is it because Masnick is not in the "money chain" if someone else profits from his site?
        
        Really? You honestly think that I'd be offended if anyone else made money from Techdirt, even if Mike didn't get a cut?
        
        Well, I wouldn't. In fact, I hope that the artist does make money, even if it involves Techdirt. But he's never going to do that if he spams random comment threads and pisses on the community here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 9:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        There are millions of sites that are specifically music-oriented, and dozens of social network sites where announcements like this are de rigueur.
        
        Oh ok, so Techdirt is not a site that is intended to allow or to promote "connect with fans"
        
        The one thing you do not do is post announcements like this in forums where people neither expect nor want them.
        
        Oh, but Masnick posts about new and upcoming 'indie' artists all the time !!! ON THIS VERY SITE !!!!
        
        So we DO expect them, and Masnick will give up what he wants too.. regardless of what "we" want !!..
        
        That's called "spamming."
        
        No, IT IS NOT... !!!!! do you actually know what spamming is ?
        
        How can a single post, (and a follow up question) be considered spamming ?
        
        If you do not understand what spamming IS, and what CERSORSHIP is (what happened to him by being tagged).
        Then you need to learn a few more facts before you shoot off !!!
        
        You first mission is to understand what "spamming" is !!!!
        
        So why am I even responding?
        
        Goog question !!!, why are you ? Someone is actually trying to do something, and to provide a service SOME might want to consider, and you whine about it... Because it's not from Masnick,, but by someone INDEPENDENT !!!
        
        I might be able to understand you being upset if Sony or a big media company posted a message (NOT even spammed a message).
        
        But you whine like a baby about an 'indie' artist trying to follow Masnicks mantra !!!
        
        He annoyed everyone - which is perfectly obvious, since the post was flagged by the community
        
        Says YOU !!!!, are you now the official judge of who is or is not 'annoyed' and does that give you the right to make a decision for all those people.
        
        I was not annoyed, and im sure many others were not either.
        
        So you saying "he annoyed everyone" is just a blantant lie right !
        
        The artists Mike talks about are relevant to the other things he talks about here:
        
        So Masnick just uses them for his own advantage, and not for the benifit of the artists.
        
        Masnick will only "support" artists if he can "get something out of it".. oh ok,, now I understand...
        
        Really? You honestly think that I'd be offended if anyone else made money from Techdirt, even if Mike didn't get a cut?
        
        Obviously you are ! you are offended enough to go into a massive tirade about it. Mike gets a cut because he got another person to visit his site. and from you (and me) making these comments !!..
        
        So are you really upset that Mike DID get a cut from it ?
        
        It's funny when the attack dogs of Masnick try to defend him, and attack others for doing the very think Masnick spends his pointless life trying to do himself.
        
        At least this guy was trying to create something, and to actually gain an connect with fans (just like Mike says).
        
        What does Masnick do to 'connect with fans' or the promote a reason to buy ?
        
        But when someone else does it, you get your panties in a knot and go crying and whining who ever will listen (not very many)...
        
        But he's never going to do that if he spams random comment threads and pisses on the community here.
        
        What community is that ? everyone you agree with ?
        
        There is no single community here, there is a group here that believe every word that masnick preaches, and will defend his statements regardless of truth to the death.
        
        There is another community here that enjoys attacking the attack dogs of masnick (likes of you), mainly because it is SO easy to do and secondly because of your 'interpretation' of the word of Masnick.
        
        There is another group here that attacks the issues and points that Masnick himself makes and calls out bullshit when they see it.
        
        There is another group and come here for the fun and sport of watching all the other groups fight it out.
        
        Just like in the real world there is not "one community" there are differing opinions and idea's and not everyone can believe any if not all of what Masnick rattle on about.
        
        But most people come here to see a group of losers who have never created anything decent in their life whine about people who are successful and who are routinely able to create things of value.
        
        And because they cannot create or do anything, they come here and whine and cry about those who can and do..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HAD TO DO WHAT I HAD TO DO
        Yeah, I'm a sucker. So what?
        
        Oh, but Masnick posts about new and upcoming 'indie' artists all the time !!! ON THIS VERY SITE !!!!
        
        So we DO expect them, and Masnick will give up what he wants too.. regardless of what "we" want !!..
        
        Well, y'know, it is HIS site, not ours. If it was truly offensive to anyone, we could all leave... and he would be much worse off because of it.
        
        Of course, he doesn't do that (and never did), which is why us unpaid-but-opinionated wordsmiths call the site our home. Seems to me like he's "connnecting with fans" better than anything you've ever done. (Or the original poster, who, I notice, has never come back.)
        
        What community is that ? everyone you agree with ?
        
        Well, quite obviously, the community that FLAGGED HIS POST AS SPAM. Which, I want to re-iterate, does not include me; though I find nothing wrong with flagging his post as such, because that's what it is.
        
        Just like in the real world there is not "one community" there are differing opinions and idea's and not everyone can believe any if not all of what Masnick rattle on about.
        
        Luckily for you, then, that the flagged posts are not "censored," but merely hidden, and can be revealed again with a simple click of the mouse. Unlike, say, anyone who is a "rogue website" under the bills we're talking about - who would have their entire site "flagged," so nobody in the entire world would be able to see anything on their site (legally, at least). And by the way, we are talking about those bills, not the decision by a single website to sorta kinda hide stuff the community doesn't like.
        
        But most people come here to see a group of losers who have never created anything decent in their life
        
        This forum has more artists, per capita, than any other website I've seen. Including the RIAA's. Pretty much EVERYONE who disagrees with you is an artist. Most of us make money because of it; some of us do it exclusively as a living.
        
        But let's pretend that's not the case. Well, so what? Copyright was intended primarily to benefit those who "never created anything decent in their life." That is, the general public. So, even if your stupid insult is correct (which it is not), it would be irrelevant.
        
        Oh, and if anyone is looking for a loser, they need not look farther than you. I've got multiple albums published by multiple labels. You? You're an idiotic half-musician who has no talent, your music sucks, and you're just resentful because you couldn't make it big. In fact, if you were actually allowed into Jamendo, you'd change your tune in a heartbeat.
        
        Right?
        
        (Before you answer, consider that every single criticism about artists on this site has been nothing more than this.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:21am

Hmmm... reading this thread makes me think that techdirt has become the new adequacy.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Not in the quality of the articles, just the quantity of trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't know, there's a couple of other places where the troll: bot ratio is higher....I mean, at least on here, everyone's my sock.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 7:14am

I am drinking my morning "caffein jolt", so perhaps I will comment later. Let me say though that it is indeed a pleasure to read comments that are tied directly to specific provisions of the pending bills, and in this case SOPA. The comments are becoming substantive in nature, and from this a much more meaningful conversation can ensue.

If only those organizations prone to buzz word statements took the time to do what is starting to happen here. This is precisely what is needed when dealing with Congress on any bill to have it sit up and take notice. Arm waiving is easily dismissed. Detailed analysis is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re:
  Let me say though that it is indeed a pleasure to read comments that are tied directly to specific provisions of the pending bills, and in this case SOPA.
  
  You are full of shit. I have been quoting specific provisions and language from the bill since the day it was released.
  
  So, seriously, if you disagree, put up or shut up. Or we will say it again: you are full of shit.
  
  If only those organizations prone to buzz word statements took the time to do what is starting to happen here. This is precisely what is needed when dealing with Congress on any bill to have it sit up and take notice. Arm waiving is easily dismissed. Detailed analysis is not.
  
  And... look, the full of shit lawyer again refuses to make any statement on the merits. Nor does he back up his early pedantic comments claiming some of us do not understand the bill. That's because he's full of shit.
  
  Put up or shut up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 4:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It appears as if the conviviality of the Thanksgiving holiday has receded into the background.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It appears as if the conviviality of the Thanksgiving holiday has receded into the background.
      
      Right, then. You're admitting you're full of shit.
      
      You could have just said so up front.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your series of comments is quite surprising as I never have thought of you as one prone to vituperation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 12:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Due to persistence, I hereby raise your troll rating to 4/5.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 6:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Using dictionary.com for your verbal jousts is a sign of artificial intelligence. You might want to answer the questions plainly asked of you rather than persist in this charade.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whatever I may use in my comments are merely a part of my normal lexicon, though I do admit using paper and online dictionaries on occasion to check my spelling since I do not have a spell checker to look over my comments.
        
        Importantly, I am not inclined to engage in tit for tat exchanges of words I deem unworthy of respectful discourse.
        
        I am also not inclined, except on very limited occasions, to respond to comments/questions when they are presented in a manner that would require a treatise to formulate what I believe to be a thoughtful response.
        
        In the case of the bills before both the House and the Senate, I have little doubt that they will undergo markups to address certain provisions that upon reflection may be unartfully presented. Even knowing this will result, I still believe it is important that persons making broad generalizations/assertions concerning the bills as they are currently structured should at the very least identify the relevant portions of the bills and what it is about the present text that underlies one's objections.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Butcherer79 (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can anyone else smell something?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 7:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On this site anyone having the temerity to express an opinion that is believed to support "monopolies" in some fashion is challenged to "show me your analytical evidence", because without it your opinion is of no moment.
        
        It seems to me that a reciprocal obligation should apply with equal force. If someone happens to say any of the bills "will gut the DMCA safe harbors", it does not seem unreasonable to ask them to likewise "show me your analytical evidence."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Butcherer79 (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no obligation to post, reply or answer any questions on this site. You only do so if you wish.
        Opinions can rarely be backed up with citation as they're part of an internal thought process, however, if you're quoting facts, a relevant link would undoubtably aid your argument, whether for or against.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On this site anyone having the temerity to express an opinion that is believed to support "monopolies" in some fashion is challenged to "show me your analytical evidence", because without it your opinion is of no moment.
        
        It seems to me that a reciprocal obligation should apply with equal force. If someone happens to say any of the bills "will gut the DMCA safe harbors", it does not seem unreasonable to ask them to likewise "show me your analytical evidence."
        
        Again, you're full of shit. We and others have explained in great detail -- with specific language -- how it will gut the DMCA safe harbors.
        
        You have not responded. Because you're full of shit.
        
        Again: it's time to call you out on it. Until you actually have something substantive to say, you will remain, full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the case of the bills before both the House and the Senate, I have little doubt that they will undergo markups to address certain provisions that upon reflection may be unartfully presented. Even knowing this will result, I still believe it is important that persons making broad generalizations/assertions concerning the bills as they are currently structured should at the very least identify the relevant portions of the bills and what it is about the present text that underlies one's objections.
        
        To which Karl as well as Mike have done in their postings. It seems others have commented and found your rebuttals lacking in substance. I can only inquire why you continue to obfuscate the issue rather than engage in debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps it is because merely copying text without attempting to analyze its metes and bounds falls short of the mark.
        
        For example, is it really reasonable to conclude from Section 103 that the mentioned social media sites are "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" facilitating/encouraging/etc. violations of Title 17? I think not. While all would agree that they can be used for such purposes, it seems to be quite a stretch to say that they were designed or are operated for the purpose of encouraging such violations.
        
        Moreover, it should not be overlooked that nothing in the bill takes away any of the provisions of the DMCA. Safe Harbors remain in full force and effect without modification.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Safe harbors allow businesses to operate despite its users illegal acts. They provide a clear cut test to determine if the website is complicit, or if their legal service is just being used by others for illegal actions.
        
        If a private entity can cut off all funding to that site without any judicial oversite, the safe harbor is effectively gutted. That business can no longer function.
        
        If the only way to restore funding is to take responsibility for its users actions, the risk becomes too great for investment. The safe harbor is gutted.
        
        The concern is over the word facilitating. Any medium that allows users to freely exchange ideas could be caught up in a long, costly lawsuit deciding whether or not it is primarily designed for infringement, or if that is a secondary function.
        
        Is code for sharing music/video/text primarily designed for infringement? Is it agnostic to the copyright status of the media? Is the primary use of the code to exchange media within the scope of its license, or public domain material? What test will decide these factors?
        
        I believe these questions need clear answers before the bill is made law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        is it really reasonable to conclude from Section 103 that the mentioned social media sites are "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" facilitating/encouraging/etc. violations of Title 17? I think not.
        
        And I've explained, at great length, why it only matters whether content owners believe it's "reasonable to conclude" whether specific Internet industries are "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" enabling infringement (a word which, I notice, you deliberately left out of your reply, despite the fact that it's plainly in the bill).
        
        You did not respond to this point. Just like you have not responded to any point that was raised.
        
        Sorry, but I'm with Mike on this one. I have no idea who you are or how long you've been on this site. But in this thread, at least, you have proven yourself to be, in Mike's words, "full of shit."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mea culpa. All other words were intended to be subsumed by "etc." Your assuming that my omission of "enable" was intentional is incorrect.
        
        My placing "primarily" in bold was simply to note at least one substantive limitation that I believe cuts in a direction opposite the assertions expressed by so many concerning Section 103.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Addendum:
        
        Perhaps it is because merely copying text without attempting to analyze its metes and bounds falls short of the mark.
        
        And don't think I, or anyone else, did not notice this stupid little trick of moving the goalposts.
        
        This site (and others that criticize SOPA/PROTECT IP) have done nothing but "analyze its metes and bounds," and you criticize them because they "do not attempt in the least to identify by number the individual sections in the current bill that raise concerns."
        
        Yet when they do quote individual sections of the bill, you accuse them of "merely copying text."
        
        Yep. Full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they have not analyzed metes and bounds. They have made broad assertions directed to concepts with which they have concerns. It is, however, quite another matter to support those assertions by analyzing specific portions of the text in order to present a persuasive argument that might strike a responsive chord with those who are about to mark-up the bill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am also not inclined, except on very limited occasions, to respond to comments/questions when they are presented in a manner that would require a treatise to formulate what I believe to be a thoughtful response.
        
        Well, then, you shouldn't be talking about copyright law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is why I have been asking for certain information so that the subject can be scaled down to bite sized chunks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your series of comments is quite surprising as I never have thought of you as one prone to vituperation.
        
        I'm not. But sometimes you just have to call out someone who is full of shit for being full of shit.
        
        Actually taking the time to discuss issues with you has proven fruitless, as you just come back with more non-answers and pedantic assholishness about how no one could possibly be as smart as you.
        
        But you refuse to address a single point. And then you have the full of shit response to pretend that we never brought up the language in the bill?
        
        I'm sick of you being full of shit and everyone pretending to be nice about it. It was time to call you out for what you are: full of shit.
        
        You've had years on the site to stop being full of shit. You've refused. So now I'll call you out as such. Sorry if your sensitive eyes can't take it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Butcherer79 (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously, you're better than 'Word of the Day' toilet paper for my vocabulary, unfortuately though, you're not quite as useful in other areas, i.e. coherent, relevant commenting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 4:37pm

The MPAA has "branches" all over the world, so it is not at all unusual to see its name associated with something happening in another country and involving that country's laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  The very close relationship of government officials with lobbyists sure doesn't help, but I believe you're avoiding the question asked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 6:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am not informed about what may be happening in those countries, but your comment does raise in my mind the question why is amending their laws (I presume any amendments are associated with copyright law) something that will make them worse off?
    
    I am also not informed about the circumstances associated with the two names you mention, but the fact extradition is involved strongly suggests that there is much more to each of the stories than simply the US trying to enforce its laws through questionable means.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 7:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Richard O Dwyer ran a tv episode linking website that is probably legal in the UK (based on precedent). The UK signed a really bad treaty that could let the US extradite UK nationals even if they haven't broken UK laws without an evidentiary hearing. The US claimed that because the website was accessible in the US, O'Dwyer was subject to the treaty.
      
      It's a big controversy over there because it made people aware of the horrible and probably illegal treaty that was signed and how the US intended to use it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 7:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I am not informed about what may be happening in those countries, but your comment does raise in my mind the question why is amending their laws (I presume any amendments are associated with copyright law) something that will make them worse off?
      
      As I've studied copyright law, the fact is the USTR uses its 301 report to criminalize countries that don't use copyright law akin to what industry specialists in the US would want. This becomes a large problem when copyright law runs counter to what people in that country want. Brazil's copyright law has been "reinforced" for two decades now. However, it has not been taken off the 301 list and the copyright enforcement has had a very negative affect. There is now a large black market for entertainment, where movies that were once $10 USD are now $100 as an example. What copyright does is enforce monopolistic pricing, considering the price of the seller only, instead of the free market and what people would pay for a product.
      
      As I've noted elsewhere, piracy seems to find the right price for goods and natural scarcities, whereas copyright brings an artificial scarcity into the market. By allowing the market to decide the prices for goods and services, we would be a lot better off with more goods and products to fit various people on different levels.
      
      I am also not informed about the circumstances associated with the two names you mention, but the fact extradition is involved strongly suggests that there is much more to each of the stories than simply the US trying to enforce its laws through questionable means
      
      The best place to look at Griffith's story. This is before the CFAA and it's rather ironic that he's charged with a crime and locked up in the US for 4 years without ever having been in the US to commit a crime.
      
      Richard O' Dwyer was the head admin for TVShack.net. Basically he linked to copyrighted material on his site, and ICE is using Operation In Our Sites to extradite him. In a nutshell, the US is trying to use US copyright law to apply in the UK, similar to what SOPA and PIPA are supposed to do. If you need more info, Mike has a write up here. The UK discusses it here. And finally his mother writes about it here
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]