Colbert Takes On SOPA
from the can-we-get-some-internet-policement dept
Want to see just how mainstream the issues of SOPA and PROTECT IP are becoming? Last night they made it on to The Colbert Report, where he had a bit of a debate about SOPA, between record label owner Danny Goldberg and Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain. It kicked off with a short segment, where Colbert explained the issue.
As a content provider, I am wholeheartedly against the infringement of copyright... so much so that I had that phrase trademarked and then I had it emblazoned on a Mickey Mouse dollWhich, of course, he then shows to the audience.
But the awesomest part? He quotes the famous $200 to $250 billion in losses claim that always gets thrown around... but then immediately says:
That is a shocking number. Especially when you realize the FBI admits it has "no record of source data or methodology for generating the estimates and that it cannot be corroborated." Now folks, that's what happens when the FBI buys bootleg reports off a card table in Chinatown.Honestly, this might be the first time I've seen mainstream media -- and a Viacom-owned property, no less -- call out the bogus numbers for being bogus. He finishes by pointing out that YouTube, Twitter and Facebook could be in trouble under the law, and that people uploading infringing videos may face problems as well.
From there, he went into the debate. In his typical satirical way, he introduces Zittrain by claiming he was here to "defend thieves & pirates," and asks him "why do you want artists to starve?" Zittrain did a great job:
"I want artists to thrive. The internet allows artists to find their audiences. When Justin Bieber started singing his favorite songs on YouTube, he got discovered because of the internet. And the odd thing is, under this law, SOPA, the behavior of Justin Bieber, singing his favorite songs, without authorization, over the internet, could make him a felon, in jail for three years."It's actually five, but close enough. Goldberg, of course, says this is all an exaggeration, and then claims (incorrectly) that the bill only targets foreign sites. Zittrain did note that there were different parts of the bill (but leaves out that many of them target US companies), but then makes the second key point, about how this law uses the same mechanism that China & Iran use to censor the internet there. To which Colbert replies: "I don't know about Iran, but China is kicking our ass in business right now. Wouldn't it be good for American business? Because if we shut down parts of the internet, won't people at work actually do the work they were hired for?"
Goldberg continues to play the "but something must be done" line, leading Colbert to make his alternative proposal: "What if the artist gets something from the company stealing from them? An eye for an iPod?" to which Goldberg says "it's a good line, but..." and Colbert points out, "it's an excellent line, not a good line" and then threatens to sue anyone who "steals" it.
Wasn't expecting much for an under 5 minute interview, but overall Zittrain did a great job, and got in a few key points. The Bieber point is a little exaggerated, because Bieber would have to do a few more things (such as embedding the videos on his own site), but the overall point he's getting at is clear: the bill is overreaching and will harm legitimate activities which artists rely on today.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, danny goldberg, jonathan zittrain, justin bieber, pipa, protect ip, sopa, stephen colbert
Companies: viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/11/30/grand-theft-auto-mated-online-ad-e conomics-fuel-piracy-sopa-opposition/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought "piracy" was about legacy business models that were not being adapted to current market conditions, and as a result, consumers were finding their own ways to fill their demands...... and this whole time it's actually been about a handful of add dollars being generated by sites that don't actually host any copyright material...
Soooo glad you cleared that up for me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It must be why Cleland, alone it seems among tech obsevers and companies, (last time I checked all privately owned and therefore of a capitalistic nature as tech is a capital intensive business) in supporting these bills.
It was an amusing read/rant, though. Pity some take that nonsense seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It won't make it as a news item, because Scott Cleland is literally paid to attack Google at every opportunity, and does so dishonestly. We've spent enough time debunking Cleland's crap. No one takes him seriously anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And only a clueless idiot would think that there's a lot of money in piracy. Google only makes money when people click on ads. People using pirate sites aren't clicking on ads.
I don't know why you people still don't get this simple fact. Despite your claims to the contrary, there's almost no money in piracy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's no money in piracy because of those pesky infringers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is this your latest intellectually dishonest meme, Masnick?
That there's no money in piracy? That's a real hoot.
Let's talk to the Pirate Bay, Hotfile, Megaupload, Mediafire, etc. about that.
Let's see Google's ad revenue numbers too.
And nice try at spin on the Colbert segment. Everyone already knows that the "Bieber is going to jail" bs is a sorry bit of fear-mongering.
If that dork had to start his defense of piracy with a lie, it becomes pretty clear who won that debate.
Your piracy apologism grows more desperate by the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Every illegal download equals a missed sale.
2) If you are against SOPA, you are pro-piracy
3) SOPA will magically revive the golden age of the recording industry.
As soon as everyone involved in this debate acknowledges that these three statements are MYTHS, then we can collectively work on curbing piracy.
Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah Google... Because a search engine makes more money with free products than record labels everyone is jealous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US laws don't cover the globe, as much as you might like to see otherwise. And they didn't host just pirated material, artists also uploaded their own albums on there, independent moviemakers used it to host their movies, linux distributions used it to host their ISO files, writers used it to promote their own wares.
And the same goes for hotfile, megaupload and mediafire, they do not just host pirated material, but also genuine files, and they are offering a legal service, storage space in the cloud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was not "legal" in that country, but it did not break any local (country laws).
A site is not 'legal' or 'illega' based on what it does, it is illegal IF it does something that is in breach of a law.
TPB was not acting illegally when they make ISO's of linux available, or non-copyrighted files or to allow users to share or distribute "LEGAL" files.
If you live in America, you have to live under the laws of that country. If you access TPB from America, it does not matter what country TPB is in, YOU are the one committing the crime, and YOU are in America !!!
Sure, the server you may be logged into might be in another country, but YOU ARE NOT, and it is YOU who is breaking the law.
TPB makes it possible for you to break the law, and because you are in America you are required to live by the laws of the country YOU LIVE IN, not the country to talk too !!.
IF you run an international company, each branch of that company lives and works within the laws of THAT country.
If you do not like the laws of your country, you have a right to leave your country, but not a right to decide to live by the laws of another country.
IF TPB is legal in Sweden, go to Sweden, but if TPB breaks US laws, and operates in the US, and you as a US citizen living in the US use that service you are bound by the laws of the country you live in.
You expect that when people from other countries come to your country they will live by the laws of the country they are IN, not the laws of where they are FROM !
Techdirt might be hosted in the US and it "might" be legal now, and therefore allowed to operate, but if TD decided to host illegal data, then that act is illegal, then the site is therefore illegal.
Just because you "start out" legal, the first time you break the law you are no longer acting in a legal manner.
SO if TPB decided to stick to legal content, ISO's and legal files, there would have never been a problem.
TPB USED to be a great source of public domain files, and information, but by conducting illegal acts and abusing their own system they have destroyed that value for the HONEST users of that service.
IF TPB is closed down you will not only NOT be able to access the illegal content, but also the LEGAL content.
Therefore a reduction of services and value. The a large user and internet loss.
Also, TPB if they use Google add revinue, they are PAID with US Dollars and US money....
Money that is not going to the citizens of the US, or to the creators of the illegal content that generates that revinue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then if you want to go that way, all the user's are "hosting" the content, which is WORSE !!!!.
Especially for users in the US or countries that consider the act illegal.
It's a failed loophole, that if accepted makes the users the guilty party...
It's still a crime, whether it is called theft, stealing, misappropriation or whatever, murder is a crime, speeding in a car is a crime, selling faulty goods is a crime.
Breaking a law is a crime, copyright is a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for copyright I don't care if it is a crime or not, the one thing I am certain is that I will never respect it and I'm not going to fallow it, no matter what you muppets think, say or do.
I want to see you idiots enforce copyright, unfortunately I probably die of old age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shall we shut down all porn sites, because they are illegal in Iran?
Shall we shut down ebay, because they are helping selling bootlegged versions of Gucci bags?
Shall we shut down Google, for linking to sites that could possibly contain illegal material?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are From the US, and are under 21 but over 18 you are welcome to come here, and under our laws go to a pub and buy a beer. You are in this country, you have the rights under the laws of this country.
But if I own a pub, that is Australian based (say mail order beer), even though I can sell beer to people under 21 in Australia, if I sent some beer to someone in the US under 21 I would be commiting a crime in YOUR country.
Yes, it's legal in my country, but illegal in yours.
In that case if I was caught, the ATF would arrest me, and close down my entire operation, I would also be charged under Australian law for selling alachol to a minor, even though in this country it would have been legal.
But because I have to operate by the laws of the country I operate in I cannot use that as an excuse for not upholding US law.
Same with TPB
They operate in the US, therefore they are bound by US law.
And yes, in that case they could and should be shut down.
They would probably be charged under international law, or by sweden for breaching US law.
Thats right I can be in Australia, and break laws in America and be charged and convicted under those laws.
What a disaster if everyone decided to operate under the laws of the country they are from ANYWHERE, and in any other country !!!!
That means I could come to the US, from Australia as an 18 year old, and go to clubs and pubs and drink all i liked, when all the US people under 21 cannot drink !!!!!..
So when you tried to get into the club you would have to not only show you ID and age, but your nationality, then the doorman would have to look up the minimum age drinking limit for that country, then allow you or not allow you to enter.
Marcel !!! this is pretty basic stuff !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shall we shut down ebay, because they are helping selling bootlegged versions of Gucci bags?
Yes, and yes..
Iran has every right to shut down sites that are operating in that country, if that site is in breach of the law.
Any form of commerce or transaction for profit (including porn sites) are operating in any country they are accessible from, yes, again, if you operate in a country you are bound by the laws of that country.
If ebay was only selling fake items, and was breaking the law that aspect, or the entire site should be closed, because it is a crime to support crime. (aiding in a crime).
Again, If I come to the US and open a pub called "Aussie bar", and advertise that under Australian law you can drink in my bar when you are over 18.
I would be shut down.
IF TPB sets up shot in the US (they do, and have) and operate in contravention of US law, the US has a right and obligation to uphold it's laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is the US government not sending Edgar Bronfman Jr. to France to be jailed, he is a convicted criminal in that country?
Have France the right to seize every asset of Warner Bros Record now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/17/netflix-largest-internet-traffic/).
To paraphrase out-of-the-blue, People who refuse to make up facts are always at a disadvantage, particularly when their opponents' wealth is at stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2009 15%
2010 19%
2011 21%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Nonetheless, piracy is real, and the more "maintream" casual attitudes towards stealing content become, the more justification there is for some sort of crackdown on /obvious/ links and hosts site, that symbiosis which you defend with a legal dodge of "safe harbor", even though actual infringement results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Too often these arguements suffer from a "false dichotomy" issue. IMO, it's pretty interesting b/c you can predict it coming as soon as a policy issue comes up. People who are for them always state that something must be done, and therefor THIS must be passed. Almost zero thought is given as to whether "this" is the best course of action and the best that can be done. Obviously, there are many shades of grey between SOPA/PIPA and doing nothing.
I think most people would argue that the optimal solution is somewhere in the grey area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Anything less than abolition is negotiable but is still not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I see your stance as the other side of the same coin of copyright extremism. The legacy industry represent the maximalist extremity, whereas you represent the other end, the abolitionist extremity.
Don't think you are any less extreme than Jack Valenti was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I see your stance as the other side of the same coin of copyright extremism. The legacy industry represent the maximalist extremity, whereas you represent
the other end, the abolitionist extremity.
Don't think you are any less extreme than Jack Valenti was.
Nonsense, you are just a shill, and I can assure you that most here are closer to the abolitionist camp if the alternative is keeping copyright as it is.
Copyright makes no sense when widely available encryption makes tracing noncommercial infringement impossible.
And even tracking commercial infringement is going to be very difficult when an anonymous currency comes along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I still believe that copyright is a socio-economic barrier to knowledge and learning, but I believe the AC is trying to get to the root of the problem by abolishing copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasonable copyright?
Any modest or reasonable copyright reform must as minimum include a blanket exemption for any noncommercial use, abolition of service provider liability, getting rid of DMCA style circumvention provisions, and abolition of all moral "intellectual property" rights and shortening of copyright to 10 years.
What's commercial vs. noncommercial infringement?
Most copyright maximalists and even many copyright reformists aren't willing to grant a blanket exemption for
noncommercial use -- copying without direct financial gain.
But if all noncommercial use were exempted from copyright law, it would to a large extend ameliorate the privacy, freedom of information and due process concerns.
The only part of copyright I find acceptable is prohibition on direct commercial gain without the creator's permission. And after 10 years, even commercial use without creator's consent should be completely legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Over time, it has seemed that way, what with the perpetual copyright extensions and ASCAP/BMI raids on venues. Still, some good comes from it. For instance, I want to enforce that nobody else can make money on my own songs. I don't care about people remixing or sharing my own work. Without copyright, I'd be left with nothing (I mean sites like CD Baby and Discmakers could sell my music without my permission).
Will I put my music (and all my other works) in the public domain as part of my will? Yes, definitely. I see no reason not to. This doesn't mean that copyright doesn't have a use for when you live, because even Woody Guthrie copyrighted his works. Also, Jonathan Coulton's songs and Cory Doctorow's books are copyrighted. If you honestly would not like to see them earn a living by destroying copyright, be careful what you wish for...
TL;DR. Copyright should be more balanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Welcome to the world where there are no copyrights like restaurants where every and each one of them can copy with impunity each other, where WalMart can copy the latest fashion in NY or Tokyo and get away with it and still the big names of the Fashion industry prosper, McDonald's is one of the biggest companies on earth so why again copyright exists?
You don't need copyright for nothing, is a monopoly and it is bad, bad because it gives people exactly what you think is so good about it the ability to censor others to stop others from working and creating a market that would benefit not only them but you, it takes away the market ability to experiment and thus to learn what would work or not, you can't say what works and with copyrights anything that goes against your believes you can stop it and that is bad, and it is bad because like most humans you will be mostly wrong and so you will mostly do the stupid thing even if you believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Everybody can copy McDonalds and get away with it, in fact many stores did just that and still there they are being one of the biggests restaurants in the world.
The fashion industry has zero protections and still Channel and others make millions how do you explain that?
Copyright only serves to weaken the acumen of business that start relying on it instead of paying attention to the market.
I doubt you can explain why others that have no protections still manage to produce something and not only that become incredibly wealthy by doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Not really, if that was true Channel wouldn't be able to make millions even though WalMart can copy everything he does without having a problem, McDonalds wouldn't be able to be one of the biggests companies in the world.
The only thing copyright does is "exclude" others and that is more harmful than including everybody, most people shouldn't have the ability to exclude anyone and the simple reason is that most people are wrong most of the time and will do more harm to others than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I think the problem here is that the extremism of maximalism is begetting the extremism of abolitionism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I would beg to differ. Musicians get promotion from CD Baby and Discmakers. You have a chance to gain an audience from places like that. In my view, the technology is now there that you have an abundance of material to negotiate terms with people, but copyright won't do that for you.
Let's take a moment and ask what exactly copyright can do. We have a Copyright Board who always increases fees. We have ASCAP and BMI who enforce copyright for the top 20% of artists. We have consumers being thrown in jail for a civil offense. Further, copyright is so problematic, that it is encroaching on the lives of regular consumers.
For businesses, they have to pay the fees for licensing as determined by a copyright board that always hears complaints from trade industries for control. But we should instead ask, is that control over copying really needed?
From all that I've seen, I'm not convinced. There's too many variables that can make piracy less attractive in all markets. Movies and Music - build cyberlockers and streaming sites with minimal ads.
Gaming - less DRM, extra free content, and consumer oriented products and sales.
Writing - As the late Anne McCaffrey has stated, keep writing until soeone pays you.
I know that people have an abject fear of their work proliferating and they aren't paid as a result. But all evidence shows that even if someone pays only .01 cent to you, they will pay if you make it enticing enough. I argue that technology is the greatest anti-copyright that we have.
The VCR created more sales than ever before.
The MP3 player created new digital markets.
The DVD spawned TiVo and the DVR.
And as the internet slowly takes over for the analog era, I would say that copyright will be less and less needed other than a footnote of who made what.
The law can't take away what people feel is alright to them. Judging from the reaction of SOPA, copyright goes against what people actually want. Let's remember, copyright has almost always been a censorship tool. It's a footnote of the 1st Amendment. If it doesn't meet the requirements in Article 1 Section 8, it is not meeting the circumstances to which is was created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
But you could easily sell my music at CD baby and print it with Discmakers if I, say, waived my copyrights (or used a CC license without the non-commercial clause). Also, I wouldn't get any royalties if my works were in the public domain. Even Jonathan Coulton, Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow understand this.
I'm not so familiar with the "copyright board", so I won't respond to that. I do have many, MANY problems with ASCAP and BMI raiding venues in small towns for whatever cash they could cough up, thereby striking fears into their hearts. That being said, if they support the top 20% of artists, that's probably because that's whose music is being played. And it's not always them. Take a look at this CD Baby Podcast. At about the 28:30 mark, a caller from Ohio talks about how he had a song called "Ice Cream", it got used in a TV morning show, and he got $700 from it. I'm sure this is an anecdote, but there are probably many other stories like that.
People were paying Jonathan Coulton in spite of him not really giving a "reason to buy" other than his own authenticity. But even so, Jonathan Coulton is licensed with BMI. That should tell you something.
But that's no reason to scrap copyright completely. You have the same logic as the MPAA and the RIAA in wishing to destroy the internet as you wishing to destroy copyright.
Also, you see copyright as a censorship tool, but it honestly hasn't always been widely used as such. It only covered 1-5% of works at the founding of the United States (Now it covers everything). If it censored people, it only did it a tiny bit. Now it does it too much.
In any event, your grievances with copyright law as it stands is no reason at all to get rid of it completely. Would I like to see less or more sane copyright law? Yes. Would I like to abolish it completely and remove any sort of income to creators as you wish to do? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
For Lessig, the ONLY reason that he created CC licensing is because copyright is so long in the tooth. Change or remove copyright as a barrier and the need for alternatives disappears.
Finally, if you can point to where copyright law has helped out artists, it may alleviate confusion. I haven't seen many assists make money unless they were already established by their labels. I have seen stories about copyright hindering artists not helping. All copyright does is prop up labels over their artist's concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Are you in favor abolition of all civil and criminal penalties for noncommercial use and copying?
This is in no way an extremist position.
BTW, why are comments not approved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Most civil liberties implications in the current copyright regime could be solved if the law was expressly limited to commercial exploitation.
Most draconian copyright enforcement measures aren't targeting commercial exploitation but private sharing.
If the scope of copyright law is substantially limited to commercial exploitation most the problems with the DMCA and SOPA goe away.
But I can't see any middle ground in any legal regime permitting enforcement of civil or criminal penalties or remedies against noncommercial use or sharing.
Nor would most actors benefitting from the current copyright regime find such a solution acceptable.
So if the choice is between keeping any penalties on the books for
private noncommercial copying, or getting rid of copyright altogether I must admit I rather opt for abolition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
IMHO, this is what copyright should be about: utilitarian, where all sides benefit; rather than punitive, which is more of a parasitic relationship.
Also, there are some good ideas on that you can legalize file-sharing whilst still paying artists, authors, and other copyright holders, such as the suggestion floating around to legalize file-sharing but requiring watermarks, and each time that file is traded will result in a small royalty payment by the government, ISP, or whomever. My point is that there are great solutions out there that don't require abolishing copyright (though I am in complete agreement that we need to restructure the terms; 95 years is WAY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Any copyright law intruding on noncommercial activities is categorically unacceptable.
And even for commercial use, there should be a system in place for blanket licensing.
The rule for commercial copyright should be very simple: Use it and pay an annual tax or loose it.
If someone else wants to use a work for commercial purposes, there should be a blanket license paid to the copyright holder, and all parties being indemnified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Artists don't need protection, they don't need to collect anything from others doing the real work, they should be paid for the direct work they do, not have the right to extract money from the hard work of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
As seen in this very forum artists believe that they own earnings from the hard work of others, that can't be right.
A DJ playing music outside of a store to attract customers should not give others who don't stand outside that store or business doing the work any money, do artists have to pay the manufacturers of their instruments for commercial use of those?
Nope so why is that they get that kind of benefit from copyright? They shouldn't it is ridiculous, at best the DJ should have a copy of the original work an in that work all the rights to use should already be given, just like any other product on the market, Ford can go collecting royalties for the cars they sell no matter what they are used for, artists should benefit from their direct work not from tertiary work that is done by others for which they do no work at all.
Copyright is also to long life + 95 years is not an incentive to produce more is a disincentive to stop working, not to mention the tremendous harm that any monopoly does to any market, the US fought a war because of those things(i.e. Independence War) and suddenly is all back again?
Collection agencies and levies should all be abolished or merged into one single easy way to acquire all of that stuff they call "licenses" the "licenses" should be incorporated into the embodiment of the work, once that is acquired the owner of that object just need to show it to show it does have the rights to perform it for commercial purposes or not, the function of "music writer" should go extinct since writing music is not the whole process, I doubt people would be happy with people who don't do the whole work but have the power to extract money from them, like some guy that manufacturer wheels and can ask from everyone else that they pay him for installing or removing those wheels from a car that is just absurd.
Further I don't see how copyright even needs to exist, it doesn't for a lot of industries and they are just fine, in this day and age where you don't need that much to publish anything the barriers to entry and be part of the market are gone, once powerful institutions tremble in fear against kids in their dorm rooms, that should be a clear sign that there is no need for "protections" anymore that market is mature and any participant can fend for himself already, we should reward excellence not mediocrity and if somebody can't make a living on a market that is ripe where he is in equals terms no matter if he is big or small that person probably won't be able to make a living anywhere with anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Please support this statement. Done to achieve what? This is one of those logicless "But, the children!" statements.
"I think most people would argue that the optimal solution is somewhere in the grey area."
I think you're wrong. Firstly, most people have no idea what the problem is. Most people understand that copying is not theft, unless they've fallen for the absurd logic of rights holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Let me guess: it's only a legal dodge if poor people support it. If wealthy media companies buy out enough congressmen to make new laws in their favor, it's justice at work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Actually, it benefits the "content controllers" who swindled the actual creators out of control of their material.
Look up "Hollywood Accounting"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
The proposed solution is completely out of proportion to the problem. Too many innocent parties would be harmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
And we can call the new legislation "A Modest Proposal". Then while we're at it, add a footnote that the proposed legislation also plans to eliminate starvation by providing people with children (of the poor) to eat.
(I'm playing, just thought I'd mention that cause I know there's quite a few people in here who might be described as "not the sharpest knives in the drawer" and take me completely seriously.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
And the mainstream users of the net, notice I didn't use quotation marks, attitude to file sharing isn't casual it's quite planned and deliberate even if the intent is not to rip off the artists who made the content. It is to remove the gatekeepers who are between the marketplace/fans and the artists.
A safe harbour allows for, at minimum, some level of proof which can be taken to court should an accusation come in that the use doesn't fall under fair use/fair dealing provisions of all copyright acts. If they do there's no "theft" or infringement under law.
It's called due process under the law which COPA/IP Protect attempt to short circuit by nominating the gatekeepers as vigilantes who can get away with anything, both in the virtual and real worlds without recourse or appeal which is a serious violation of people's civil and constitutional rights (see unreasonable search and seizure for one) in the name of protecting a failing industry.
As you insist you don't like the current copyright regime and you have even less use for the gatekeepers I'm left with the conclusion that what you're saying amounts to the "respect for the law" rubric which misses the point entirely.
Bad civil law deserves no respect, nor should it get any. In a free, democratic and open society that's a citizen's duty. Blind obedience is not our duty as citizens, in fact it's a renunciation of our duty as citizens.
It's even worse when the law comes into place to protect phantom losses of said failing industries in a desperate act of protectionism and hinders free commercial and political speech to boot. (The second point more to what the writers of the US Bill of Rights were trying to ensure was protected, the former point a sometimes unpleasant unintended consequence.)
You don't engender "respect for the law" by making bad laws worse. All you engender is "disrespect for the law" and the general and oft repeated statement that "the Law is an Ass."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
First of all, stealing doesn't mean what you think it means blah blah blah, said it a thousand times but you never listen so why even bother.
Second, in a democracy the more casual attitudes towards any activity becomes the less justification there is for some sort of crackdown. I think you have democracy mixed up with totalitarianism if your feeling is that mainstream acceptance of an activity justifies crackdowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
People will continue to find and share things with or without ads on it.
Rogue websites is a fabrication from the imagination of demented minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Goldberg, of course, says this is all an exaggeration"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin Bieber
That said, it's a valid point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justin Bieber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Justin Bieber
As it would take a matter of less than 90 seconds to load up, watch and unload the software I'm sure you can see one of the many reasons I don't do "piracy". It's annoying. Then again, I don't buy from the big media gatekeepers either so I suppose I'm no better than the pirates. Next bill up "An Act To Spread Culture" which will ensure that I have to buy at least 3 CDs or equivalent and 3 feature films or equivalent annually or face fines and imprisonment.
I just hope the equivalent is porn. Most of that's better made and scripted than Hollywood movies these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Justin Bieber
So your the expert on porn !!!!
So what is the source of your movies and porn for comparison, you 'claim' you do not 'pirate', AND you do not buy of big name outlets.
Therefore you must not have access to the 'big' movies, I guess that is why what you watch is mainly PORN...
I don't do "piracy". It's annoying. Then again, I don't buy from the big media gatekeepers either so I suppose I'm no better than the pirates.
Do you notice the logical inconsistency of this argument ???
Either you do or do not pirate, or you do or do not purchase big movies.
But if you dont do both (lie in there somewhere) then how can you say you are capable of performing a comparison of the quality of the movies you admit you have not seen ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Justin Bieber
Someone stopped people from lending to others movies?
Hulu disappeared? is free you know that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This surprises you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT STEALING!
Yes, it's illegal, but you don't have to be disingenuous about it and call it something it's not in an attempt to make it even more illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"stealing" is not a specific law anyway, theft is, robbery is
But it is generally agreed that when you acquire, and use and possibly profit from someone elses 'thing' that is called 'theft'.
You old argument, that I know you will fall back onto is "you dont take anything away from the person you stole from" therefore you did not steal..
Ok, so then it is not theft, but fraud !! or profiting from crime. (if you profit from a crime but believe you have not committed any 'crime').
BTW: copyright infringement is stealing, FILESHARING is fraud.
Copyright infringement means you are taking the rights of someone else and ignoring those rights, you are STEALING HIS RIGHTS..
Sure, you are not stealing the physical data, you are stealing the COPYRIGHT of that physical data, if you do not have the COPYRIGHT to that content, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COPY IT.
The crime you are committing is the theft of the right to copy that work.. not stealing that work.
You can shoplift a CD from a music shop, and that is theft, you are taking a physical object.
If you then copy that CD and make many copies, you are guilty of THEFT of the COPYRIGHT owner of the content.
It is still theft, but much worse then just shoplifting one CD from a music shop. (which is also theft).
If you stole that content, you would do so because you wanted that content, ie, if you did not want it you would not steal it.
If you want it, it is of VALUE to you !! that value is the value that you are not paying for that product, and it is that value which is the physical hard cash that the rights owner of the work will not receive.
That is theft, theft is a crime, therefore copyright infringement is theft and is a CRIME..
You keep trying to use "weasel" words, and trying to convince everyone (here) that theft is not theft, and theft is not a crime.
call it what you like, it is what it is, and you should well know that fact.. if you do not either you are stupid or willfully dishonest..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not generally agreed upon. Did they offer it to me? Did I borrow it with permission? Did I rent it? Theft is a small subset of what you describe.
"copyright infringement is stealing, FILESHARING is fraud."
Copyright infringement is making an unauthorized copy, not stealing. File sharing is the sharing of files, irrespective of its copyright status.
"Sure, you are not stealing the physical data, you are stealing the COPYRIGHT of that physical data"
Really? If I download any file the copyright is transferred to me? So I can start filing takedown requests and licensing the work? Also, data isn't physical. Data is an interpretation of a pattern.
"if you do not have the COPYRIGHT to that content, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COPY IT."
That's a very broad statement, and mostly false. Most "content" is not even copyrightable
"call it what you like, it is what it is, and you should well know that fact.. if you do not either you are stupid or willfully dishonest.."
On this point, we completely agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
auto play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: auto play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: auto play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin Bieber sings a song and gets discovered, and now sings eveywhere.
Or
Justin Bieber sings a song, flagged as a felon, and jailed.
I must say it's a hard call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To those folks, I think the argument needs to change, if only slightly. The value of Bieber's early video was in letting a talented kid gain exposure by covering his favorite songs. Now that he is ubiquitous, wouldn't it be great if someone _else_ could gain the public focus and edge him out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not enough time
Does SOPA actually provide a way to compensate these poor, starving artists? Or would it still be up to the good will of the RIAA/MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relative penalties
So it's a bigger crime to sing one of Michael Jackson's songs than it is to kill him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relative penalties
Damnit, it probably is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relative penalties
Well, considering that MJ was such a unique singer, it is pretty hard to hear covers, wait that's not what you're talking about at all!
Arbitrary sentencing is a common problem when penalties are written in a vacuum of common sense, or under the influence of moral panics and lobbyist dollars. The 18 to 1 sentencing ratio for crack cocaine related offences readily comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cultofmac.com currently has a Colbert clip impeded that doesn't have auto play. Check them out to see how to do it. It would be great to see his rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny Goldberg, please stop talking on the 'artist' behalf.
Danny, let me remind you that technological advancement is NOT a pendulum, and the only reason why YOUR generation managed to make billions off of recorded music was BECAUSE of technology. So you had a few easy decades exploiting other people's art. Now that technology has moved on, and thus making your 'golden era' a piece of history, you may want to look for other industries to more effectively use your skills, rather than whining about progress.
As for us artists; we'll be just fine. We were artists before technology enabled our music to be recorded, and we will be artists long after music has completely become share ware. It's who we are and what we do. Please stop talking on our behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forever alone T_T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sliding down the slippery slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sliding down the slippery slope
Nowadays, you just put your friend's CD in the car player, push a button and **TADA!**, it automagically violates copyright law for you.
But, wait. It gets even more ironic when you have American Idol, Kris Allen and Ford Motor Company advertising this factoid via this commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knZ9lCZdy60
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean they can actually do good without copy protection laws? Really?
Maybe part of the problem is that America is so focused on protecting its government established cartels and their monopoly power that it diverts attention away from actually serving the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe having more lenient copy protection laws is partly why China is (allegedly) doing so much better than us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://jt2747.x10.mx/random/unavailable.jpg
I'm in the UK but why does that mean I shouldnt be able to view this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its when Mike gets desperate enough to quote comedians out of context, just to prove a point.
Time for a new job? Maybe something creative this time around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it's not a black and white world, you can be against piracy AND be against SOPA, as many of us here are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like your trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
I heard Colbert make a similar mistake by saying that his saying was "copywritten", the correct term is "copyrighted".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
It could be part of his "idiot" character. Or it could be a mistake. With Stephen Colbert, it's a bit hard to tell. But I love him just the same (especially because of when his show covers stuff like this).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streaming video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: streaming video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Err, Viacom ... People Outside Of The US Might Want To See This Too You Know
Click through onto the web from the Techdirect daily email and I get ...
"Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location"
Shame I can't actually see the video clips on this post as Viacom obviously thinks it's not something that people outside of the US would actually want to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Err, Viacom ... People Outside Of The US Might Want To See This Too You Know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restructuring copyright
First, as soon as a file is released to the public, someone somewhere down the chain is going to remove or tamper with the watermark.
Second, the nature of file sharing and the internet makes it impossible to calculate how many times a file has been copied.
The only system under which controlling copies is going to be effective is one destroying privacy and anonymity.
This is practically no better for privacy and anonymity than copyright maximalism, since any communication outside the controlled system must logically be made illegal for the model to work.
The problem with copyright law is precisely that the state must give the copyright holder tools to count and enforce the number of copies on the assumption that an unauthorized copy constitutes a lost sale.
On the balance I don't like your model, because it will necessarily destroy privacy and anonymity in exchange for a very limited right to copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it ironic that Colbert's presumably scathing indictment of copyright laws gone crazy should be unavailable to me as a UK citizen due to copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]