As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
from the of-course-they-do dept
Last week, we wrote about an interesting proposal from a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to deal with the supposed problem of "rogue sites" without the censorship and technical problems of SOPA/PIPA, by recognizing that this is an international trade issue. It still allows copyright and trademark holders to go after the worst of the worst -- which is exactly what the supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim they want. However, not surprisingly, the truth is coming out and they hate the new proposal.Of course, this really proves the key point that many have been making. SOPA/PIPA have never been about taking down truly rogue sites. If so, supporters of those bills would embrace a proposal that really does focus on such sites. Instead, they're about very broad internet regulation that allows the entertainment industry to try to regain control over a market that they no longer control. The entertainment industry wants SOPA/PIPA because they don't know how -- or don't want to learn -- to innovate based on the internet today. So, instead, they're seeking regulations that basically let them attack anything they don't understand or don't control. When legislation comes along that narrowly focuses on the specific issue, it doesn't serve that purpose, so of course they hate it.
Still, it pretty much reveals their true views, to react so negatively to a plan that does what they claimed they wanted. It proves that's not what they wanted at all.
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, donald issa, itc, pipa, protect ip, ron wyden, sopa, trade
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's opinion, not a fact. Piracy and counterfeit products are not "trade".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Attention to detail is important if you want to keep up around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is not quite right. Piracy is probably not trade, but counterfits are (albiet perhaps illegitimate trade.) More broadly though, there are plenty of things taken for free which are trade. Sometimes the other party is looking precisely to have the item hauled away as its part of what it receives (see Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. for a discussion of this in case law). Sometimes it is being given away as a form of promotion (Venom energy drinks were given away on my campus as a way to promote them. It worked at least in getting me to buy them occassionally after the promotion was over). Sometimes it is taken for free because the other party is hoping to sell services or accessories (Red Hat Linux).
Free can be a real part of trade. Piracy probably isn't technically trade, but it is probably effectively dealt with as such, and counterfitting definitely is trade even if illigetimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trade-the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries: domestic trade; foreign trade
If you believe media is a commodity, this is clearly trade.
If you believe attention is a commodity that can be exploited through advertisement, this is clearly trade.
Saying that exchanging money for counterfeit goods isn't trade is laughable on its face. If it's done for imported or exported goods, then it is international trade.
Maybe you should look these things up before you respond, lest you look foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry but since the WTO ruled that Antigua could violate US IP as a punishment for illegal US restraint of trade - thus becoming the officially sanctioned "pirates of the caribbean" it seems to me that you don't get to choose what is and isn't an international trade issue - the rest of the world does that. That's why it's called "international".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0229248284.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/article s/20100430/1218009261.shtml#c1194
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
h ttp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0317058431.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201006 24/1640199954.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/02295314206/portuguese-politicians- want-to-make-creative-commons-illegal.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0152565837. shtml
These people don't even want to allow for a reasonable penalty to occur against a plaintiff who files a bogus takedown, despite the fact that infringement penalties can be outrageous.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/04463116971/internal-fight-within-aba-over- position-sopa.shtml
But if IP extremists were really so sure that only 'rogue' and infringing content would be targeted by these bills then, surely, they should have little problem accepting some responsibility for filing bogus takedowns, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
And you have the chutzpah to maintain that content owners wanting to stop the /evident/ piracy are unreasonable. Phooey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
My position is that you're a lying, hypocritical, brainless twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
Pirate P - is infringing, but harder to whack a mole with.
Host H & Site L (why not Site S, sorry that would require consistency) - are not infringing, but are big honking targets that a blind man could hit with a shotgun.
Your use of chutzpah reminds me of that classic definition of the word. Chutzpah is when a man who has murdered his parents asks for leniency because he is an orphan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
Where in all of the entire history of the internet has Mike *ever* said anything even remotely close to this?
His position in your hypothetical situation has always been blatantly obvious:
H is not infringing.
L is not infringing.
P is infringing, but good luck whacking that mole. You might be better served using your money and resources figuring out a better way to connect with your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whacking that mole.
That if they would provide product X to H and L (via a source and price they are willing and able to accept), then P would be "out of business".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whacking that mole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.
Actually, copyright was originally intended to regulate and control the output of printing presses and so control freedom of speech by requiring a license to print copy... obviously licenses were not often granted for dissident publications.
Any concept of monopoly in exchange for public domain came much later, copyright was originally a law to prevent free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.
http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabeCom/%22uk_1643%22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
It is also true that if a Gopher G is next to an Orangutan O using a Fork F under an Umbrella U, along with Corkscrew C and Knife K to attack a Yurt Y without consent of the Orangutan O who takes the Umbrella U one should deliver a Soliloquy S on the Evils E of Larceny L of Foreign sites F.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
For my part, I suggest we be supportive of out_of_the_blue. After all, he's finally getting HLP to make an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
BETTER YET IF MY BROTHER WANTS TO BORROW A MOVIE IS IT ILLEGAL TO LET HIM SEE IT WITHOUT HIM TRADEING ME FOR SOMETHING OF EQUAL VALUE. WHAT IF THE ONLY COPY I HAVE IS A LIMITED EDITION CASE. CAN I BURN A COPY FOR A FRIEND. IF I SEE A MOVIE IN THEATRES AND THEN GO HOME TO DOWNLOAD IT. DOES MY TICKET COVER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CRAPPY VERSION OF THE FILM.(CAM). EXPLAIN "TRADE" IF NOT WE CAN USE BORROW. IF SOMEONE BOUGHT IT THEN ITS NOT STOLEN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
TO ADD TO THAT LAST PART. IF A PERSON BUYS A MOVIE AND SHARES WITH A FRIEND. ITS OK. IF I A PERSON WANTS TO SHARE SOMETHING THAY BOUGHT WITH A TOATAL STARNGER, ITS STILL NOT STOLEN. NOW IF A PERSON CLAIMED THEY MADE IT AND SOLD IT. THEN YES IT WOULD BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. BUT OTHERWISE WHAT WRONG WITH SHARING. IF IT PASSES YOU ALL KNOW MOVIE TICKETS WILL JUMP UP ANOTHER $10. REMEMBER THE OLD MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK SCHEME. NOW IT WILL BE SORRY MRS. BLAH MY INTERNET WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO ACCESS GOOGLE. BECAUSE SOPA BLOCKED MY PAGE FROM LOADING ON GLOBAL ECONOMY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement
1. If Pirate P uses some Preparation H, will you shrivel up and go away?
2. You may be too young to remember Pirate P, the short-lived program on Nickelodeon. They were cancelled after they used, um, other liquids instead of green slime.
3. Yeah, I saw Pirate P back in the old days, when they opened up for Piss Poor and the Bad Attitudes, with Diarrhea Handshake as guest stars. That was before they totally sold out. Nowadays, those Pirates are all about money. It used to be about the music, man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would imagine they agree, since they wrote the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I expect a major tantrum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I expect a major tantrum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/1640199954.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticles/20110509/02295314206/portuguese-politicians-want-to-make-creative-commons-illegal.shtml
Th e list goes on but I don't have time right now.
What these people want is to use the legal system to eliminate competition. Period.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0152565837.shtml
They're not interested in merely stopping piracy, that's just the poster child for their true intents, to ban competition altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they don't like the process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think they don't like the process
Like "pirate" instead of "infringer."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To turn over matters of the type SOPA and Protect-IP are directed to would require the employment on many additional investigators (attorneys) and administrative law judges. Moreover, the timeframe for an ITC investigation is measured over years, which is hardly suited for the subject matter associated with the pending bills.
If those who are inclined to present an alternate approach are serious, then they should forego the ITC and look elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry lawbreakers, this one isn't gonna cut it. DOA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Compared to SOPA, sure - because it allows all parties to respond before cutting off a company's funding. Having some semblance of due process is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tought. Shit. If you want the protection of laws at all, you take it at the pace the proper process offers. You don't get ExpressLaw customized just to your liking. That's not the way this works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is only true below a certain level of "campaign contributions". Once you get to the right level you get the ExpressLaw(tm) service membership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One set of rules for the rich, famous, powerful, etc
A different set of rules for everyone else.
And then there are the secret interpretations, but we can not talk about them - that can get you locked up indefinitely without due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, your synopsis completely ignores the source stories and as always you are pointing your finger at the entertainment industry. Please try to keep your prejudices less transparent, a modicum of impartiality would certainly benefit you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Has this aide worked closely with the entertainment industry in creating SOPA? Does this aide have a bright future as an entertainment industry lobbyist after he leaves his current employment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of which are outside the jurisdiction of the US Justice Department.
The people pushing SOPA claim that it will not impact on people within the US at all, others say different, but if we take their word for it, the Justice department has absolutely no business being involved at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not split the bill into two, have the ITC deal with counterfeiting and try to pass a separate bill without being able to make claims about how it will save people from fake drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The whole point of SOPA/PIPA is that existing laws don't reach foreign companies. ITC may be more appropriate here. I'm not sure either way, yet. I'm waiting for the bill text before I decide how I feel about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy Will Cease to be About the Internet, and Become About Schoolyards.
2. these smartphones, etc., are increasingly fitted for WiFi, for more or less compelling reasons, to use cheap WiFi access when it is available, instead of expensive cellphone frequencies. The smartphones will have GPS as well.
3. These smartphones can be "jailbroken," and fitted with software which causes them to automatically function as nodes in an acephalous mesh wireless network, together with whatever other similarly jailbroken smartphones may be in the vicinity. On top of the network software, there is file sharing software. The smartphones are not globally routeable, not do they possess permanently assigned registry names. The network is assembled on the fly, as people carrying individual phones come and go. For a locally unique identifier, the smartphones might use GPS coordinates plus the time at which those coordinates were recorded. Networks of this kind are not properly part of the internet, though they may become so by virtue of a gateway node.
4. As I have previously noted,
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/17422712805/obama-nominates-former-top-riaa-lawy er-to-be-solicitor-general.shtml#c1069
a schoolyard is likely to contain someone possessing a copy of almost any song or movie which the RIAA/MPAA is seriously attempting to defend against piracy. It is also likely to provide a critical density of jailbroken smartphones, where the average transmission range between nodes might be as little as ten feet, and the net data rate correspondingly high. Think of this as the "Craigslist" version of file sharing.
What it comes down to is that piracy will no longer take place over the internet, but in schoolyards, and in similar "congregation points." Attempts to interdict piracy will no longer mean filing lawsuits against ISP's or trying to seize domains, or anything like that-- they will mean physically attacking people on the street. To be still more specific, it will mean strange men, often criminally posing as policemen, attacking little girls on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The throes of change
The US will no longer be able to export that arrogant crap to the rest of the world especially to Asia and Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The throes of change
As long as the US has a $50 trillion dollar armed forces, it will be able to export policy.
US dollars are backed up by trust in the fact the US still exists. That trust exists because we have the biggest, best military in the world. Therefore, US dollars and the policy that comes with it will continue to be a good investment for the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The throes of change
Sure, the US could maybe and only maybe demolish all Russian and Chinese cities, but how would that leave the American market?
IP economy can't in the long run exist in a state of civil or international unrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The throes of change
It is not that the US will, or wants to attack that makes it a good investment. It's that it can.
No one wants a war. However, if you want a safe place to park your investment, the extremely high likelyhood that should anything go wrong, the US will still be standing at the end of it makes it a safe investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP SOPA
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]