MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?

from the wow dept

Fri, Dec 9th 2011 7:46am — Mike Masnick

The MPAA is getting pretty desperate, it seems. MPAA boss Chris Dodd was out trying to defend censoring the internet this week by using China as an example of why censorship isn't a problem. It's kind of shocking, really.

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

Is that really what Chris Dodd wants the US government to aspire to? To setting up its own Great Firewall?

His other comments were almost as ridiculous:

"How do you justify a search engine providing for someone to go and steal something?" he asked rhetorically in a recent interview at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conference. "A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."

But that completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation. Google isn't the driver. Google is the car manufacturer. Do we sue Ford as an accessory?

It's this sort of ridiculousness that makes it so difficult to take Dodd and the MPAA seriously in these discussions.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, china, chris dodd, us
Companies: mpaa

176 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:53am

It's only ridiculous because you are trying to stretch it way out of context.

The point anti-SOPA people are trying to make it that it is impossible to block stuff on the internet. All he is saying is that many countries do it (specifically China) and it does work.

Implying context beyond that your words, not his. I notice the last few posts you are getting all riled up and raising the spectre of the "great firewall of china" at every turn. More care tactics? It only makes me think you realize that your side has already lost the battle, and most of your business models get flushed down the toilet at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:01am
  
  Re:
  You want some differences?
  
  In the US, DNS systems are controlled by neutral parties.
  
  In China, DNS systems are controlled by the government.
  
  In the US, all outbound pipes (internet connections to other nations) are controlled by neutral parties.
  
  In China, all outbound pipes are controlled by the government.
  
  Now, to say that because China can do it is a farce. China can do it because the government controls all aspects of the internet.
  
  Why would you want a government controlled internet in the US?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    China can do it because the government controls all aspects of their citizen lives.
    
    Corrected for you. And as expected our friend AC replied with a sound silence. Because he can't argue with your reply. And if or when he tries he'll just make more of a fool of himself than he already did with his original clueless reply.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pips, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      China can do it because the government controls all aspects of their citizen lives.
      
      Don't forget their companies as well. I am sure Mr. Dodd would love to see the government say "Hey, Google, lock down those web sites. Hey, MPAA, we're going to be taking over your oversight for you. We will take our share of profits as we see fit. We got this all under control, you can step down now. Bye!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "And as expected our friend AC replied with a sound silence. Because he can't argue with your reply."
      
      What the heck? Because I didn't answer in 10 seconds, I am avoiding the question? Holy crap, you need to get a life!
      
      All of Zachs points are nice, but sort of meaningless. who actually "controls" the internet in the US is immaterial, because those companies are bound by the law. China enforces it through it's command and control structure, the US would do the same via legal action and legislation.
      
      So sorry, Zach's points don't really change reality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I really have to question your mental stability if you honestly believe that the US has the same control over the Internet and people's lives that China does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Aidan, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > I really have to question your mental stability if you honestly believe that the US has the same control over the Internet and people's lives that China does.
        The US has a far greater control over the internet. In it's current form, the name and number allocation systems are rooted in the US. And when the US passes stupid commerce and internet regulations, other countries are effected. It's so routine that the US is now passing laws to explicitly invade the sovereign jurisdiction of other countries.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jackn, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        other countries are effected
        
        should be
        
        other countries are affected
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They're explicitly invading in a way that everyone here has called illegal. I fail to see your point. The US is already breaking the law on the internet, so what's a few more laws broken? Is that really your argument??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They do. China doesn't follow any law to censor, they censor and control what opposes the Government. And they use dubious accusations and ignore due process if they see fit.
        
        And laws already exist in the US for online crimes and it works just fine. Provide numbers, clear numbers, not masked ones and include your damned online sales and show me that your industry is doing that bad. Please do include live performances, indie artists and labels and content produced outside of the big players too.
        
        Meanwhile the producers of products for wagons such as harness, whips and so on are still brainstorming on how to deal with the post-automobile sharp decrease in their sales and lobbying the congress for tougher laws to protect their business models. Not.
        
        And if or when he tries he'll just make more of a fool of himself than he already did with his original clueless reply.
        
        I must be some sort of oracle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dang, I mixed MPAA and RIAA there. But nvm, here's some numbers for you concerning the content industry (blatantly copied from https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/311/why-i-pirate-an-open-letter-to-content-creators):
        
        The number of movies released is up 23% - [1]
        The number of books published is up 47% - [2]
        The number of albums released is up 25% - [3]
        The video games industry is up 23% - [4]
        
        When I look at those numbers, I have a hard time believing what Chris Dodd, Hilary Rosen and Stanislas Mettra have to say. Didn't Warner Bros. just set a company record for quarterly profits? I'm confused. My guess is that these industries really aren't losing money, but they are losing control. And maybe to them, control is more valuable than profits? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
        
        References:
        
        [1] - http://bit.ly/rj5mRT
        MPAA industry report page 13.
        454 movies released in 2001.
        560 movies released in 2010.
        
        [2] - http://bit.ly/uRb4KC
        R.R Bowker output report, 2002 thru 2010.
        215,138 books published in 2002.
        316,480 books published in 2010.
        
        [3] - http://bit.ly/tneVtC
        90,324 music items for 2001.
        113,080 music items for 2010.
        Unfortunately, I could not find any release statistics on the RIAA website. Instead, I used Discogs browse by year feature and noted the number of items listed at the bottom of the page. This wasn't ideal so I'm hoping someone out there can dig up a relevant report.
        
        [4] - http://bit.ly/kLHJ2Q
        ESA industry report page 10.
        208.7 million units sold 2001.
        257.2 million units sold 2010.
        
        I was unable to find any information regarding the number of releases per year. I used the number of units sold per year instead. Admittedly, the last two years have shown decreases of 7% and 8% but it should be noted that the chart in question is for "sales of new physical content at retail exclusively." So if you didn't buy at a retail chain or if you legally downloaded your purchase, it's not included in this chart. Page 11 of the same report states 24% of content was digital in 2010. I know it's not a perfect methodology but if we increase 2010's units sold by 24% we would get 318.9 million units which would be a 52% increase over 2001. I believe the 23% increase stated above is lower than the actual number, but I also thought it was important to use the numbers supplied by the industry.
        
        Thanks for riding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        China enforces it through it's command and control structure, the US would do the same via legal action and legislation.
        
        You ignore the most important point. China's control creates enormous collateral damage. If the US does the same then even greater collateral damage will occur because of the US's central position in the internet infrastructure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 12:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Because I didn't answer in 10 seconds, I am avoiding the question?"
        
        I notice that you didn't respond to my comment nor many other people calling you out on your bullshit. I wonder why.
        
        "China enforces it through it's command and control structure"
        
        You might do well to ponder what the fundamental differences are between China's command structure and that of the US, and what you'd lose by adopting the Chinese model. Spouting random bullshit anonymously online might be one of the first casualties.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    The point is that the contention that it is technically impossible and will break the internet is utter bullshit
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Adam j, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It will eventually hurt the internet. When is the last time you opened an internet browser and typed in 74.125.113.104 so that you could access Google.com? Oh, never? Well guess what all the IP to domain associations in the world rely on. DNS.Grats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know...maybe that is just what they want. They want the Internets to advertise their IP addresses on TV and Radio, instead of this free DNS stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        john p (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        free DNS? Most registrars charge. It would be free to use the IP, but would start getting ridiculous, considering IPV6 etc..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2011 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you pay every time you put a new URL in a browser? I don't. I pay for the connection, and some of that goes to the ISP paying a registrar, but like television, the advertising is paid for by...someone else, and the programing is free to me (at least in a sense). So DNS "Freely" advertises those octet numbers that truly represent the website by "translating" them into those oh so much more readable "words".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes it breaks the internet. Because it breaks the free flow of information. Any1 can censor anything on the grounds of copyright without due process under SOPA. The network itself still exists but the way it works will change drastically. It breaks and it shouldn't be allowed (censorship).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, that's incorrect. China *does* break the internet. They block a bunch of sites that just contain words that are actually innocent, but share the same words as those that are blocked. Your lack of knowledge about the internet is astounding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Internet Engineer, 9 Dec 2011 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Prove you know what you're talking about and I'll believe you. Otherwise STFHU, your opinion is unnecessary and shill-like.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 12:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wait aren't you the person who not only demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're technically clueless, but openly admitted it as well? Why should we take your word on this?
      
      Or was that some other asshole who can't be bothered to identify himself?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 1:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Another UPA (pronounced oopa)
        
        Unidentified Posting Asshole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MichaelWH, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    >You want some differences?
    >In the US, DNS systems are controlled by neutral parties.
    >In China, DNS systems are controlled by the government.
    
    Not mine.
    
    >In the US, all outbound pipes (internet connections to
    >other nations) are controlled by neutral parties.
    >In China, all outbound pipes are controlled by the
    >government.
    
    Not mine.
    
    >Now, to say that because China can do it is a farce. China
    >can do it because the government controls all aspects of
    >the internet.
    
    Except mine.
    
    >Why would you want a government controlled internet in the
    >US?
    
    Because, just as it is in the case of China, the government-controlled internet would be so badly controlled that a slightly motivated 12-year old could poke holes in it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - john p (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The RIAA and MPAA don't care, as long as they remain in control of the government, it can censor whatever they want it to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Konraden, 10 Dec 2011 @ 6:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Our government already controls a number of infrastructures, and heavily regulates many that are held in private hands. I'd much rather have a "government controlled" internet in that sense, because it means the corporations who otherwise control them, can't control them. I'd rather have my internet "controlled" by an accountable government, than the whim of a profiteering corporate mogul. The importance of regulations of something that underpins our speech cannot be understated.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 8:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I'd rather have my internet "controlled" by an accountable government..."
      
      Unless you know where you can get one, this should get laughs of the week.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stansko, 11 Dec 2011 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In the US, all outbound pipes are controlled by (tentatively) neutral parties (for now). Some ISPs have stakes in media companies and at some point may expand to control parts of the Internet backbone, at that poin't we'll all be hosed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  If even people in China are pointing at SOPA and are between laughing at it and being concerned about it, it's a sign something is wrong. There are the Chinese who are laughing because they can get around the blocks; blocks are not invulnerable or impregnable. Then there are the Chinese who are concerned because they know that the government freely cracks down on and shuts down anything that might be seen as dissenting opinion (they've been at it more fiercely since they were scared crapless that the Middle Eastern riots might help the locals realise that they were, y'know, a little unhappy about things).
  
  SOPA won't solve the problems it's purported to, and it will inconvenience everyone but the individuals its meant to inconvenience. Everyone is making the connection except for those who choose to be wilfully ignorant and bury their noses up the posteriors of the legacy industries.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re:
  "The point anti-SOPA people are trying to make it that it is impossible to block stuff on the internet"
  
  No, it's not, stop misrepresenting issues just because you can't handle intelligent criticism.
  
  The point people are ACTUALLY making is that it's impossible to do so without serious levels of collateral damage and the removal of rights such as the rights to free speech and the right to due process.
  
  Strangely, the Chinese have no problem with this. It's a shame that you don't see the problem either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think all pro-SOPA people be shipped off to China to get an idea of what it's like, Dodd included, to get a clue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I think all pro-SOPA people be shipped off to China to get an idea of what it's like"
      
      Dude, please do not even suggest that! How many more remakes of the monkey king do you think the world can handle.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  More care tactics?
  
  Great typo.
  
  And yes, I would agree that these are "care tactics" because we do care.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:13am
  
  he didn't stretch it
  That's not even a stretch of logic from what MPAA is saying, to imply that they want censorship. They do, and they don't realize what it would do and break and screw up.
  
  At it's core, MPAA is saying you can't fight copyright infringement without censorship. So guess what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  "All he is saying is that many countries do it (specifically China) and it does work."
  
  As my mother used to say: "Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  Your a fucking idiot, and yet WE are the ones trying to defend your right to be a fucking idiot. Can't you see that we are doing this for YOU!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your a fucking idiot, sic
    
    Priceless.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      oh noes, a grammar error on a comment to a post...time to get over yourself
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kevin H (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We can treat it like an IM..
      
      *err
      
      You're.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your a fucking idiot, sic
    
    Priceless.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lucidrenegade (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Double post.
      
      Moron...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Kevin H (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        favorite person for the day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- adam j, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:30am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:53am
  And what are the majority of the sites that are blocked in China? Free speech websites, which is the point the anti-sopa side is making on this issue. Reporters/bloggers get arrested over there for expressing their opinions or voicing any anti government comments. Should we do that too?
  Should we limit the number of kids Americans can have? China can do it, so why can't we?
  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should it. To quote Chris Rock, "you can drive with damn feet if you want to, but that don't make it a good idea."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:31am
  
  Re:
  The point anti-SOPA people are trying to make it that it is impossible to block stuff on the internet. All he is saying is that many countries do it (specifically China) and it does work.
  
  It "works" because (as has been pointed out by others):
  
  1)The governments themselves control most/all of the internet.
  
  2)The governments serious control free-speech, civil liberties and due process.
  
  I, for one, do not wish to live in a country where the internet is run by people who think it is a series of "tubes", have no idea what DNS even means, and don't know how to keep from tweeting their penis to half the planet.
  
  I especially don't want to live in a country where these very same people can just pick me up, throw me in prison for whatever reason they want, and forget about me.
  
  If the pro-SOPA people think these countries have it so good, maybe THEY should move there and let the rest of us live in peace.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- adamj, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:34am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:53am
  Also, China is one of the largest sources of counterfitting that there is. Remember the fake Apple store that was selling counterfit Apple products?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dviant, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  The ends NEVER justify the means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aidan, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  > All he is saying is that many countries do it (specifically China) and it does work.
  Absolutely wrong. Not only does it not work, but it only serves to suppress their citizens.
  
  What's next? Executions for downloading movies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Athox, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  You do realize if the great firewall of america comes up, then it's also only a matter of time before you can no longer post as Anonymous Coward?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  All he is saying is that many countries do it (specifically China) and it does work.
  
  Right. That's why there's no copyright infringement going on in China!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  That is not at all the point anti-SOPA advocates are making.
  
  Censorship is wrong, violates the constitution, limits business, and allows for Nazi-like governing.
  
  You really should brush up on both sides of an issue if you want to toss around "clarifications".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  Moreover, China is *not* worried about the wrong stuff getting blocked. They're doing blocks on blanket statements. That's easy. Anyone can do that. That's basically what parental control tools do. The problem is those have extremely high rates of incorrect positives. They block a whole ton of things that shouldn't be. That's a problem. People are like the MPAA boss are ok with that. Those that care about freedom of expression aren't. You apparently don't care either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ih8cowards, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re:
  In fact, yes it is another 'care tactic'. Some of us 'care enough to preserve the freedoms that uniquely make this country what it is, for good or bad. Also, this is the best thing Dodd could have said.
  
  And check your typos, douche.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Noah Callaway, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: (#1)
  "The point anti-SOPA people are trying to make it that it is impossible to block stuff on the internet. All he is saying is that many countries do it (specifically China) and it does work."
  
  The only problem with this point is that it's incorrect. The Great Firewall of China blocks *some* people from getting to the information they want. It does not block determined people from getting the information they seek.
  
  Thus, if you assume that our implementation will be of equal quality, we can assume that determined pirates will continue to pirate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re:
  And for all that Zachary Knight is correct about how the Chinese do it the reality is that millions of Chinese route around the firewall every hour of every day of the week. It's not all that much of a firewall cause it leaks like crazy. Of course, in the context of a nation of a billion people millions doesn't account for all that much but it does show that even at that smallish percentage the firewall leaks like crazy and the authorities only occasionally make a (small) example of someone for doing it. If that's the case in a closed down tight society like China just imagine who much the Great Wall of MPAA will leak if it gets its way in the United States?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  Why bring it up as long as Dodd was fool enough to.
  
  And no the Great Firewall of China does NOT work. It's sprung more leaks than a sieve and only rarely does China even bother slapping someone's wrist for routing around it anymore.
  
  Even at that they're only interested in sites they consider as spreading anti-government propaganda. You want porn? Fill your boots. You want the latest music and movies from the MPAA and RIAA, we'll have it for you a week or two before the official release date. And we'll pirate the CD and DVD covers too so that if you need some extra money you can flog the CDs and DVDs on the streets of Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong with better quality and art work that what you'll get from Hollywood should they ever bother to do a Chinese release.
  
  Actually it's not an attempt to duplicate the Great Firewall of China that worries me. It's not been all that successful to start with. It keeps enough out to make the bureaucrats in Beijing happy while letting more than enough through to keep the populace happy and content and has leaked profusely from Day 1. It's the futility of it all. If there was a finer example that these things don't work I don't know what is except for the proposal to erect a Great Pornwall of Australia to keep all those nasty nudie flicks out of a country that otherwise celebrates just that on its beaches.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  um yeah except that china has a broken internet. I don't think anyone ever claimed it was impossible to end up with a non-free internet like China's got. You still need someone somewhere to be allowed to make things and use the internet freely though, or even the controlled stuff will degrade pretty quick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  I thought China was the source of most counterfeit items and pirated more material than all other Countries combined?
  
  Is that what you mean by it works?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 12:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, no, no...
    
    Tuesday is the "China is the source of everything bad so we should attack them" day. This was posted on Friday, which is "America would be great if only they had a version of totalitarian communism like China" day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I'mToo Scared Of The Internet, 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  "More care tactics?"
  Yep, Mike Masnick does care about the internet, freedom and all that good stuff.
  Glad you finally figured that one out!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James McGrath, 9 Dec 2011 @ 4:19pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:53am
  Except that China's great firewall makes internet connectivity unreliable, slow and inconsistent. I don't think it is fair of you to say that "it does work".
  
  Media companies should start offering their goods in a convenient, affordable and reasonable format, instead of petitioning the government to protect their outdated business models.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 4:52pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:53am
  I also noticed the point you are making here when I read the article. Dodd is trying to say that the technology is available because China can do it; however, I think this article is trying to highlight the unspoken but necessary fact of Dodd's statement and that is: Something China is doing is what the RIAA wants done.
  
  I think it goes without saying that China has a questionable history as regards human rights. Personally I feel that, when an organization looks to China as an example of "How it can be done" in an effort to protect it's own interests, it shows that they feel their interests are more important than civil liberties and their suggestions, as regards new laws, should be examined with that in mind.
  
  The next question is: what other Chinese tactics will the RIAA suggest?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:56am

Yes, because when I think of cultures/societies with expansive protections for freedom of speech and expression, I think of China. [/sarcasm]

Chris Dodd is a blithering fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  wrong! Dodd is nothing more than a high paid, male prostitute with the entertainment industries acting as his pimp!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    We should get him an auto tuned microphone and pimp suit
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's right! He enjoys the spectacle of the media conglomerates ass-ramming the general public, and him getting paid for it. Kind of like being a whore, without having to give BJ's. Or does he?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: Chris Dodd isn't a blitering fool.
  I don't think that Chris Dodd is a blithering fool. He has managed to make himself rich by exploiting his position as a US Senator and saying whatever is needed to get votes, money and jobs.
  
  I DO think that he is morally and ethically bankrupt. He is just another corrupt individual that is allowed to be a part of the political discussion.
  
  Sadly, he lack of values, appears to be part of his family nature/nurture environment; (his father, Thomas Dodd was censored by Senate). Let's hope that his daugthers, Grace Dodd and Christana Dodd, can break the cycle of corruption and lack of ethics that infected their father and grandfather.
  
  In the mean time, it is important to point out to anyone that would listen to him, that anything that would come out of his mouth should be assumed to be a continuation of a set of behaviors from a self-enriching liar and now a supporter of Chinese Media management policies and China's bill of Rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:56am

No Google is not even the car manufacturer, Google is the map maker, it maps the internet(a small part of it).

Do we sue map makers because bank robbers use those to plan their scape routes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy Lyman (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  If people didn't know where the banks are, they wouldn't get robbed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    You forgot the /sarcasm. I almost thought you were serious.. Phew!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin H (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    If people didn't know where the banks are it would keep THEM from getting robbed.
    
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, what he wrote first is also correct....
      
      But that's a different topic altogether ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    In Russia, People don't rob banks, banks rob people!
    
    No... wait... that's here in the U.S.
    
    My bad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In Russia it's all become a game. The banks rob me in Moscow today so I rob them in St Petersburg tomorrow. And as long as we both donate to Putin's political party we can keep doing this still the next revolution then move to North America and poison them all pretending to sell genuine Russian vodka.
      
      Oh hell, that's starting to sound eerily like the American political system isn't it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  Nobody uses maps anymore. They use either GPS systems, OnStar, Bing Maps, or Google Maps. This should be proof enough for anyone that Google is an accessory to multiple and varied crimes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Nobody uses maps any more.
    Nobody uses maps anymore. ... , or Google Maps.
    
    nice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    By your logic the Auto dealer who sells a car that is later driven by a drunk driver is an accessory to that crime.
    
    Brilliant!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      By your logic the Auto dealer who sells a car that is later driven by a drunk driver is an (accessory)^Wprinciple to that crime.
      
      FTFY. Only if the auto dealer knows that the driver drove drunk and then hid him or that fact from the law. His logic here is that the auto dealer is equally guilty of the crime of drunk driving because he sold the car that the drunk driver says.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- michael, 9 Dec 2011 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: welll!
  they probably got their maps from google so yes...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:57am

Boycott the MPAA
Sorry about this guys but my position on MPAA & RIAA is to do what I can to avoid them.I own nor buy any music by Big Labels or any Artist who has signed with the RIAA.I love to support DIY & INdie type bands/artists

MOVIES:
I do not go to theaters nor do I pay for any online Netflix,ITUNES,etc.I read a lot and watch educational TV and when I have to watch an MPAA Movie/TV Show to own it I will buy only a physical copy and only used.

CHRIS DODD:
"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

AND AS STATED:
"How do you justify a search engine providing for someone to go and steal something?" he asked rhetorically in a recent interview at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conference. "A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."

FRAK YOU DODD !

WHAT A FRAKKIN ARSE !!!Where the hell does this moron think he lives in.This is the USA not China.
I am very fed up with this whole SOPA/PIPA Drama.Maybe if people who know of this joined a Boycott it would hurt their pockets.I would like to think it would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:12am
  
  Re: Boycott the MPAA
  I would be more than willing to completely boycott the MPAA save the fact that they are paid through so many different paths by my money that I would have to halt the majority of my entertainment activities to do so. They have so many licensed "windows" and "affiliates" that you can't help sending them some form of indirect money. As such is the case, I simply avoid the overt routes of paying them wherever I see them, otherwise I'd be sitting at home without the internet and overdue on my taxes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
    Just do your best to not give them any money, we don't need to make everyone stop, we just need to reduce it to levels where they will crumble by themselves since they don't know how to do things with less.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
      At some point maybe, just maybe, the global recession will catch up to them. Funnily enough it's having a hard time trying to do so. Can't imagine why!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Squirrel Brains (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
      If a lot of people did this and it started costing them some serious money, they wouldn't see the true reason. They would blame piracy and the wild west of the internet. They have been blind thus far, so it is unlikely that they would see the truth in the future.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
        That is not a problem, labels are falling like flies, there are only 3 right now and probably only 2 in the near future, the same can happen to studios, the thing is the general public didn't get sued yet, and the studios are being careful not to target the public because the backlash would be fierce, they need a proxy and that is what they want, they want more power to control things so they can force others to do all the dirty work for them because they think it will shield them from the certain backlash that it will generate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kevin H (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
        If there are only 3 of them, at what point do they open themselves up to anti-trust scrutiny for controlling most of the US's popular music libraries?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
        Ask Verizon and AT&T.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kevin H (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
        They still have TMO and Sprint in there though. The FCC paper referred to TMO as a disruptive force in the market with their cheaper plans and phones. Hence why the FCC and DOJ are at the moment trying to stop the merger from 4 major players to only 3.
        
        I wonder what would have happened if Spring and TMO tried to merge?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
        LOL
        
        Anti-trust hasn't been enforced in the US in decades.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
      Seriously, if you manage a boycott they actually notice, they will just make a new law to get your money some other way. You can't win when they control the legislature.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - erowid, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
    if you aren't boycotting them already, then you have failed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 10 Dec 2011 @ 7:13am
  
  Re: Boycott the MPAA
  Better still... In addition to not purchasing big label products...
  
  Torrent and share as many big label products as you possibly can!
  
  This will continue to dilute the big labels grip on the music industry.
  
  This tactic not only punishes the labels, but it can also act is an incentive for their clients to step away from companies that use out-dated business models and are blatantly guilty of buying the political influence responsible for SOPA & PROTECT-IP etc.
  
  Also, communicate with your favorite band (if they are on a big label) and implore them that you refuse to purchase their product until they leave that label... and for those reasons... out-dated business models and buying political influence... and remind them that you have and will continue to share this sentiment with your friends.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Breeegz, 10 Dec 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: Boycott the MPAA
  The problem with a boycott is that they would claim the lost income is because of piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
    Until they control the net, this will be claimed regardless.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - regardless, 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA
    they will do it regardless. with the dickory they do now it whould actually be a relief if they did go out of buisness.
    
    at this point they have treated enough people like crap i could care less regardless what happens to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:59am

They are stealling are jobs, our monies, our oxygen. This has to stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:57am
  
  Re:
  Copyright infringement is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re:
  Just the way your past has stolen the Native Americans Land, Homes and Jobs.
  But The Americans are no Communists. The Chinese are.
  See the Americans as the Arabs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:00am

Bad analogy
Google isn't the car manufacturer, they're the maker of the GPS device in the getaway car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wonderboy14, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  "Google isn't the car manufacturer, they're the maker of the GPS device in the getaway car."
  
  And to take that to it's logical conclusion the US Govt. maintains and provides unfettered access to GPS satellites. So if the US Govt is not proactively doing all it can to filter GPS data to bank robbers, child abductors, stalkers, pirates, and terrorists they are just as guilty.
  
  Do I need to start cutting my funding to them? If so, I'm much more on board with this whole thing...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:04am

Chris Dodd is a douche and a liar, he says ISP's having to do DNS censoring is the same thing as Google censoring others, well it is not and once secure protocols start to roll out the Chinese will be the last ones to use it if they want to censor anything.

I want him to explain in gory detail how he things DNS works and why it wouldn't be a problem when even Sandia Labs spoke of security problems are we going to believe a professional liar or people in the field?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am

Google "recently bought Motorola, with 700 patents," Dodd says. "If you can find patents on the Internet, maybe you ought to be able to steal it. Copyright is a limited right, patent is an unlimited right. But maybe people ought to have access to those patents. Maybe that ought to happen."

Now that I can agree no more patents too, no more copyrights, no more BS IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 9 Dec 2011 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: Coward
  Hold on but if there was no Copyrights or ISP's then individuals could easily sell something out of something you made. Thats the point of copyright not having them would mean if I created a game that I could not sue someone for using my story, setting, graphics, models or music. I don't think thats very fair, but censoring the entire internet is just stupid. I had a thought that the MPAA are doing this because they do want people to review their movies as crap so that way they make more money. Their plan would epic fail even if it did go through, all we do is just make a copy and physically trade them for free. Easy enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:18am

obviously, he was speaking to the feasibility of filtering content. Bad example, perhaps a better example would be Google's own Safe Search feature which is turned on by default. Search results are ALREADY filtered, how hard would it be to filter infringing sites that are known to harbor pirates (TPB or other torrent search sites)? The answer, not very hard at all. Obviously filtering all infringing content would be impossible, but targetting specific sites that are well known to pirates can and should be done. Now, all you pirates out there come and attack my comment and tell me how filtering TPB is infringing on their free speach rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  It won't be a few, Google alone gets hundreds of thousands of requests a year for the DMCA, SOPA with is more easy censor approach will just blow that number out of the water.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:08pm
    
    Just a feeling
    The MPAA is continually saying that if SOPA is passed it won't a big deal.....
    
    But
    
    I just get the sneaking suspicion that as soon as SOPA passes they will use it to destroy youtube, and possibly even take some shots at google at large.
    
    Google needs to get in this fight. It's time for them to perform a hostile takeover of either a Movie studio, a Record company, or both, and then to use that to crush the competition.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:27am
  
  Re:
  Because that worked so well with Wikileaks, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  Safe search is not perfect. It still lets through some pornography and blocks some non-pornographic content.
  
  However, trying to programatically decide what content is infringing is far more difficult than trying to decide what content is pornographic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What is porn?
    
    Mother breastfeeding?
    
    Baby in bathtub?
    
    I used to think porn was two people fornicating, now I don't have a clue what it is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  It is violating their free speech rights, Americans free speech rights and my free speech rights. Please, search for Linux custom stuff, open source stuff, movies and series (ie Pioneer One), songs and so on that would be censored along.
  
  Now, come out here and tell that we could just kill all immigrants to solve the problem of unemployment. Too much? Let's kill the libraries because ppl can get stuff for free there and don't pay the rich faggots from the MAFIAA. Let's close TPB because MAFIAA doesn't want to do its job and offer readibly available stuff for sane prices and take a long lots of legit content.
  
  Fuck you, sir.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  No, Google SafeSearch is a bad example, as it is far too porous to satisfy the SOPA/PIPA crowd. Using the default SafeSearch settings, I can give you several innocuous search phrases that will pull results which are definitely NSFW. If you wish to escalate to SafeSearch: Paranoid, you'll end up with one of two results - either a whitelist-based results page which dramatically limits how much of the internet you're seeing, or a slightly less porous results page, which is still likely to let some bad apples through.
  
  Whitelist would satifsy the SOPA/PIPA crowd, because that's essentially what they're arguing for. "Slightly less porous" might SOUND like it's acceptable, but you're a fool if you think people won't do their best to sneak through the gaps, and then we'd be back to square 1.
  
  And this isn't even touching on the fact that automation has no real way of distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAJikMARCer (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    But the trick is that the end user can turn SafeSearch on and off. It's user initiated/controlled 'filtering' not censorship.
    
    What the pro-SOPA/PIPA group wants is censorship. They feel that piracy is so 'evil' that it shouldn't be seen at all. The thing is, if there was some reasonable due process it might not be so bad to take down sites that are PROVEN to be illegal. But that's not what they want is it? They want the ability to censor any site immediately, to hell with collateral damage. If it doesn't directly affect them, who cares.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What the pro-SOPA/PIPA group wants is censorship. They feel that piracy is so 'evil' that it shouldn't be seen at all."
      
      Do you hurt yourself trying to twist things so much? I mean, geez, try to keep some crediblity here.
      
      Nobody wants censorship. Where the fuck do you get that from?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MAJikMARCer (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? Removing a wesbite from DNS records so it can't be seen isn't censorship?
        
        Censorship: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts
        
        Justified or not removing websites from the Internet because they are "ACCUSED" of piracy is censorship. Period.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - kirillian (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, he's being VERY reasonable and credible. You're plucking at strings because this argument strikes at the core of everything that you've argued so far on this thread. The difference between safe search and SOPA/PIPA IS the difference between filtering and censorship. Filtering is the act of the user to differentiate between what they want to see and what they don't. Censorship is another party preventing you from seeing something. You have no choice in the matter.
        
        Candy coat it all you want. Go ahead and pretend that it's necessary censorship, but you can't dodge the fact that it is, by it's very definition, censorship. Now granted, that doesn't paint you in a very good light. Your PR department boss isn't going to be very happy with that.
        
        We understand that it is censorship here. We're well past that definition stuff. What we continue to discuss is why this censorship is more damaging than it is helpful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nobody wants censorship. Where the fuck do you get that from?
        
        From Chris Dodd, your corporate master, asshat!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh? What do you mean nobody wants censorship? Thats what this whole thing is about. It's not even really about whether we want censorship or not, but how much and in what forms it is acceptable. Copyright by itself is a form of censorship, but these new laws that the people don't want but are getting anyway go too far in allowing censoring too broadly and with too little oversight.
        
        It's not that we can't have *any* censorship, because we do.. It's just that these new laws (again, that noone wants, but we are somehow going to get anyway) go way overboard on censorship in a really bad way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So yeah, it's pretty obvious that some people *do* want censorship, and unfortunately, they are the ones who get to decide what laws we get.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 12:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Nobody wants censorship. Where the fuck do you get that from?"
        
        Oh, so you support the free and open exchange of child pornography then? Or is it a form of censorship you are willing to accept?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 2:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction."
        
        Since a child cannot arouse me, there is no such thing as "child pornography."
        
        Do you get sexually aroused by children?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 3:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, child porn. The lazy man's new Godwin for the 21st century...
        
        To answer your question: yes, it should be freely and openly exchanged. Then the people who create and distribute such illegal material should be tracked down and prosecuted to the limit of the law and the material removed at the source. The fact that it's being openly exchanged would make it easier for the police to do their jobs, all without risking the rights of law abiding citizens.
        
        I'm not sure why you think putting a filter on such material would either make it unavailable or stop its production, but you're wrong to believe that it would.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  So we should have the ability to turn the filtering off? (Like you can do with Safe Search when you think its hiding results incorrectly)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  So you assume a definition for 'sites that are known to harbor pirates' exists in a general sense by providing only a specific example then use that to prove that it wouldn't be hard to block such things. I believe that's what's known as a hasty generalization.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:05am
  
  Re:
  It's easy to block a site that says "tits" or "tit" however, it also blocks "tit mouse". It's easy to block a site that says "breast" by also blocks "breast cancer." It's a lot more difficult to block a site because it mentions "Hurt Locker" and "pirate" on the same page. Moreover, Google allows you to turn safe search off for this very reason. We won't be allowed to do that with what you're mentioning. So plenty of innocent sites will be blocked and there's nothing to do about it. PLUS, who the hell knowns what's infringing and what isn't? The content labels already proved in court that they can't tell (when they accidentally called stuff that wasn't infringing, infringing, moreover it was stuff uploaded by them). How is Google going to know? Pro-SOPA people keep ignoring that the technology is NOT THERE to make a perfect filter. They keep ignoring the fact that innocent sites will be blocked (they even said that it will occur). That is 100% unacceptable. Even if one innocent site gets blocked, it's unacceptable if you're American. I guess if you're anti-American and anti-freedom, that's another issue altogether though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am

Just shocking?
It's kind of shocking, really.

Kind of? I must add that while it is not a surprise it's beyond shocking. Dodd can go get Chinese citizenship and sell his shit there and leave the rest of the world in peace.

Hopefully he just shot his feet and there will be both repercussion and politicians will withdraw from supporting SOPA and the likes. Just hopefully, my guess is US Govt is dying to implement the Great Firewall of America, they just don't want to admit it openly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:39am
  
  Re: Just shocking?
  my guess is US Govt is dying to implement the Great Firewall of America, they just don't want to admit it openly.
  
  They do. These laws not only benefit the entertainment industry but help the government fight their "cyberwar". The thing is, the "cyberwar" isn't against some foreign government or terrorists, it is against the American people.
  
  I have heard for over a decade comparisons of the US to Nazi Germany. As I have said before, I find that historically there are significantly greater parallels between the US today and the British Colonies from about 1730 to 1760 (Hell I can draw more parallels to the Old Roman Empire as well, than to Nazi Germany).
  
  One simply has to follow the direction of recent legislation (Patriot Act, DCMA, ACTA, PIPA/SOPA) to see the path this country is headed down. And what do the people currently in power have to fear? I've seen results from some recent mayoral elections that in some place barely 10-15% of the eligible voters actually voted. And most of those were generally hard-core dedicated republicans/democrats.
  
  Reid, Pelosi, Gingrich (just to name a few), do these people really care what the general population has to say? Even if enough voter dissatisfaction could be mobilized to force a few of these individuals (much less the high implausibility of large scale turnover) out of office, they have guaranteed pensions, high probabilities or well paying jobs in industry with the likes of the Pharmas, Big Oil, the entertainment industry.
  
  The only things these people have to fear is large scale civil unrest (as things like Occupy Wall Street have already started showing signs of) that escalates to outright disobedience/violence (because that generally leads to "regime" changes that severely disrupts how the status-quo operates).
  
  And, as recent events have shown worldwide, when that unrest finally erupts, current communications make such regime changes far easier to correlate. And communication is much easier to censor if it can be done in the guise of something else (No way, we're not censor free speech, they were linking to infringing content). One only has to look at the ICE domain seizures of the past few years to see test runs of this being put into practice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:23am
    
    Re: Re: Just shocking?
    That.
    
    A country where the citizens are not politically aware and active can be an issue.
    
    The Americans are used to having whatever their consumerist minds want. Their political selves have been thrown into some sort of stupor driven by this addiction to consuming everything as much as they can (and it has also sparked the subprime crisis).
    
    The ppl must stay vigilant. Those in power will easily stray from their true obligations when seduced by the money and the status.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:24am

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

So Mr. Dodd believes his industry is part of the Government?
While he used to be a cog in that machine, he no longer is.

Maybe it is time for the Americans to tell the MPAA to stop demanding everyone else change to suit their outdated business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:24am

That makes as much sense as saying 'If Hitler can kill Jews and other hated minority groups without a problem then why can't we?'

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do that something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do that something.
  
  Exactly. Does everyone remember the question your Mom or Dad asked about peer pressure?
  
  "Well, if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"
  
  Putting aside the fact that my friends and I were young, dumb and full of cum at the time and actually did jump off bridges on a couple of occasions, I usually heeded this advice and abstained when my friends were doing really stupid stuff. This lesson seems to have been lost on Dodd.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - I-Blz, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey, Godwin's Law! Good to see you again!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:28am

LIBEL
I have never driven a getaway car after a bank robbery. He just lost my support; or he would have if I ever supported him.

LIBEL AND SLANDER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:32am

Who knew Chris Dodd was a commie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:34am

When you need to use China as a role model to create laws to a democracy, something is wrong, very wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:40am

Dodd Douche! Vinigery LOL~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kelley Mitchell, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:07am

wtf
I'm getting tired of all of these comments from lawmakers and media company executives on shutting down the internet, parts of it, ISPs and websites because they apparently contribute to bad things like piracy. If that is the case, why don't lawmakers outlaw guns? Guns are used to do very bad things like, I don't know, oh yeah kill people. For that matter, even people do bad things. Let's ban people too. Turn them into autonomous robots then the media companies - or other loud, rich jerks - could have lawmakers force us to buy whatever they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: wtf
  The FBI contributes to terrorism, by advocating thatb US citizens go out and try and make bombs. Therefore, the CIA shouldn't exist.
  
  That's the kind of logic at play here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam J, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:10am

@the first poster:
If our side is losing the debate, then how come there are like 40 people posting anti sopa comments to your one pro sopa comment? LRN2math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forge, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:25am

Well if you love it so much....
Hey, MPAA guys!

If China is so wonderful, go set up shop THERE. I'll wait.

What? You can't do that because they won't have you? Oh, and if you did manage, they don't pay for anything? Oh, ok. In that case, STFU and get me a sammich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MorbidHorror, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:33am

NO you cant sensor the internet they startwith illegal downloads next they wiill be blocking porn on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:41am

Well - move the MPAA along with the rest of the entertainment industry to China, like most other companies are doing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:42am

"A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."

So by this logic - we should restrict where ALL cars can drive, because *some may* be used to rob a bank?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:52am

"A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."

Lets not forget the guy who designed the car. If he didn't design the car, their would be no getaway car, and no getaway driver. Or maybe, we should blame science. Yeah, lets just blame science for letting a combustion engine work.

But seriously, just because information is provided or conceived of does not mean that the entity providing the information is at fault of anything. Chemicals are labeled as poisonous. Maybe we shouldn't require that because that will just let people know that they could use that chemical to poison someone. Just because google provides information about infringing sites does not mean they are telling people to do something bad with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Foster Hagey (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  Better yet, the bank that was robbed was the lender that financed the getaway driver's car purchase, so really they are responsible for robbing themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:46am

Bankers own the place Chris Dodd?
Is this the same Chris Dodd who, back when he was a senator, told us all that �Frankly, the bankers own Capitol Hill� (IIRC, the exact quote was, �Frankly, the bankers own the place.�)

Or was that some other Senator Chris Dodd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shallowthought, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:23am

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country..." google left china
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am

Re:
I have to agree with Dodd on this one, of course the very first thing we have to block is all music and movie advertising online, cause hey, if we don't know about new music and movies, we sure cannot download them, RIGHT???

I'm 100% behind this, that way they can never be pirated.

No more music reviews, no more Movie reviews, no more advertising what is at your local movie theater. no posters no radio play, no commercials on TV. Think if all those advertising dollars they will save, it's a win/win for everyone

(do I put the s/ tag here, or am I serious? that is up to the few free thinkers left to decide)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:37am

As soon as the internet is 'shaped' like corporate America wants it to be - it will cease to be 'trendy' and will be as annoying as junk mail, store catalogs, and tv commercials.

People will cease to use it nearly as much, I suspect.

But that's been the same fate of every "over corporitized" concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perry Ahern, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am

Amazing
It's amazing just how low some people can sink to support something like this.

And about the "getaway car" idea, there's nobody driving this "car." It's more like a train, automated and needing no assistance. Anyone can get on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psyga Sanichigo (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:05pm

This just completely and utterly discredited their cause and gave us more ammunition against them.

Though they've been dead to me for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob McMillin (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:17pm

Did anybody see the Bernie Sanders amendment?
While we're talking about suppression of free speech: no free speech for you, corporations. Funny, last I checked, the New York Times, the ACLU, Google, all major ISPs, are all corporations. The "free speech" he claims to protect would cease to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:41pm

Censorship
This is all about Free Speech. After all the gov�t (and their corporate cronies) censor the media and ban books like �America Deceived II�.
Last link of �America Deceived II� before it is completely censored:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm

Don't people sue gun makers when the guns kill someone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robertsgt40, 9 Dec 2011 @ 2:08pm

"A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."----Funny, I could have sworn he was talking about Wall Street and Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ANunAMooseCowHerd, 9 Dec 2011 @ 2:43pm

Well that's funny.

You want to stop IP infringement by creating a firewall.
You point to China's firewall as an example.
While simultaneously disregarding the fact that,
No where in the world is IP infringement as rampant as China.

Oh the irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Voter, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:03pm

If the communists execuite renteir capitalists, why can't we?
Has he ever thought of that one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:59pm

Lets not censor pedofiles from accessing kiddie porn sites and kids from learning how to make explosives, but it's ok to legislate censorship because of IP piracy? Is this shit for real? What the hell kind of country do we live in. I would like to ask the MPAA's boss that question. I am not going to see, rent, buy a movie or buy music in 2012. We the consumers are the buyers and by not buying we say NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:06pm

Lets not censor pedofiles from accessing kiddie porn sites and kids from learning how to make explosives, but it's ok to legislate censorship because of IP piracy? Is this shit for real? What the hell kind of country do we live in. I would like to ask the MPAA's boss that question. I am not going to see, rent, buy a movie or buy music in 2012. We the consumers are the buyers and by not buying we say NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:11pm

Dodds example is stupid because if the banks would strip people down to their underwear and have them go through 'airport' type security before they even got to enter the bank then they wouldn't be robbed either, but the banks don't do that. They accomodate the convenience of their customers the best they can while updating their security constantly. There is where the problem lies because the entertainment industry doesn't want to change for the people that SUPPORT THEM. Without customers the banks would close. Without consumers the entertainment idustry 'as we know it' would close. Chris Dobbs is an idiot and his cause is rediculious and there will be backlash from this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brent Ashley (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:17pm

Contributory culpability
If the artists hadn't made that content, it wouldn't be being pirated. The MPAA and RIAA should make sure they aren't profiting from their contribution to piracy.

Oh yeah, they already are making sure of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
⬡, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:10pm

Google seems more like the guy who gave you directions to the bank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mavhc, 10 Dec 2011 @ 1:41am

China
I hear digital media sells really well in china and there's no piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Keating, 10 Dec 2011 @ 3:15am

Search engines and getaway drivers
Mike, the reference to Ford is not correct.....

"but those filthy rogue bartogrhers are to lame. Withoutthemap,thebankrobbers would not have known where theb ank was....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gubatron, 10 Dec 2011 @ 5:58am

Like China is doing a great job of stoping piracy
And why would he even name China, the country where they get pirated the most? even with all those useless blocks.

If he actually had it his way, piracy would only be even worse.

The labels need to know that they're running out of time, every day that passes it's easier for content creators to not depend on them to create, market and distribute their content.

Young filmakers who grew understanding that free gets everywhere with today's technologies are turning to file sharing and youtube and making a lot of money when they remove distribution costs and geographic borders from the equation.

Had they used all the money they've spent on attorneys into building their own version of netflix or a kick ass rental system online piracy would've been at an all time low right now.

Convenience and choice is the best enemy against piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero, 10 Dec 2011 @ 6:35am

I found that channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup

Thumbs down to this, Block It and Flag It...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:45am
  
  Re:
  Do something better don't ever pay a dime for movies ever again, steal it if you need to, find other alternatives just block the money flow and they will fail eventually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bluey, 10 Dec 2011 @ 7:21am

better idea
I haz a beter idee... Insted of all the blarter and bovine excrement and carry-on about SOPA, PIPI and every other bit of congressional excrement...

Lets just do away with the whole concept of IP!

No copyright bullshizzle, no 'Rights' to be screwing each other over for, nuthin!!

Furthermore, among all the gazillion column inches being wasted, theres 2 concepts to remember

Pirates do it in ships on the high seas, not on land or on the wire

Theft is taking something away, so nothing is left behind. I dont see ANY theft goin on when someone downloads anything. Bejayzus, if i share me kids birthday party pics online, I STILL GOT 'EM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bj�rn Remseth, 10 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am

I suggest taking the guy seriously
He's got political influence, he's got money, he obviously knows what he wants and his organization has been successful in their lobbying activities many times in the past.

If he wish to redefine the first amendment, who's to say that he won't get away with it? Everything is open to interpretation, and interpretation is open to influence by well heeled lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now now, 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:41pm

MPAA i know how you love dictatorships that suppress there people and block some of your movies but that does mean we do.:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trenton, 10 Dec 2011 @ 3:49pm

Yeah
Lets all just follow China's example. It's not like we are running a democracy or anything, ya know? It feels like he is pushing for a "two steps forward, one step back, short period of deep thought, one step forward" plan. It could be followed by a "two steps back, one step forward, one step back, two steps forward, two more steps back" plan. But that's just crazy right? Let's spend a ton of time deciding where the line is in Internet censorship. how did this dumbass even get a job that gives him authority to make such rash claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
redjujube (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 10:20pm

it's all about rights
Artists have a right to require people to pay for their work the same as you have a right to be paid for your work. Anybody who thinks it's OK to steal an artist's work is an azzhole. Those who steal work are thieves.

Sites that exist for the soul purpose of distributing copyright material you are required to pay for must be censored and shutdown to protect the rights of artists. Requiring search services, ISPs and DNS services to block those sites does not infringe upon anybody's right to free speech because the owners of those sites do not have and never will have the right to violate copyright law. The only "harm" done is that people will not get copyrighted pay-for-use material for free but they never had that right to begin with nor should they ever have that right. I am all for censoring sites that distribute child pornography, sell illegal drugs, traffic people or give away copyrighted material you are required to pay for. I fully support putting those people in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 2:22am
  
  Re: it's all about rights
  You get paid when you have met your jobs requirements.
  
  Writing a song that no one has seen/heard does not qualify you meeting requirements for me to exchange money with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bluey, 11 Dec 2011 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re: it's all about rights
  You missed the point I made above: It's NOT theft, the 'artists' still HAVE their works, nothing is irretrievably taken away...
  
  And seein as u wanna toss 'em in jail, you gonna pay to build the jails big enough to house half the US population?
  
  Not so cost-effective I think
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:43am
  
  Re: it's all about rights
  Quote:
  Artists have a right to require people to pay for their work the same as you have a right to be paid for your work. Anybody who thinks it's OK to steal an artist's work is an azzhole. Those who steal work are thieves.
  
  Nope, they don't, they don't have a right to stop anybody from playing some music and making money out of it, or a video, and certainly they shouldn't have the power to do so for life + 95 years.
  
  Everybody should get paid for their work that they do and it is direct not something that it is indirect and depends on the work of others to be realized those others should not have to pay no artist for the work they do, like artists don't have to pay the people who enable them like instruments manufacturers, electronic equipment manufacturers and so forth.
  
  Copyright needs to end, even if with it goes some good things it have done, at its core and by a large margin it just empower the corrupt and greedy and brings more pain than it takes from society.
  
  Everybody should start distributing copyright materials, copyright and artists that support that are a social cancer that it is killing the good and rewarding the bad.
  
  But you are right is all about rights, is about the right to not give up freedom for the benefit of a fringe minority that believes they can just do anything they want and others will just fallow.
  
  The sheep left the building is payback time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stevo, 10 Dec 2011 @ 10:51pm

So wait...should we ban libraries because I went to the library, read a chemistry book, and learned to make phosphine gas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curtis (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 11:17pm

censorship called instead regulation...
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

There is NO NEED for ANYTHING but following the laws that have existed since 1934.

Its all over but the ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court panel of three judges who have worked now since Sept 19, 2011 to figure out a way to keep pornography freely flowing by "Internet" wire communications despite the Communications Act of 1934. I will appeal, of course, to the Supreme Court regardless of why they allow nudity to be transmitted by wire communications despite the LAW.

Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

----------------------------------------
PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)
---------------------------------------------
This is NOT secret but this legal proceeding is being ignored by all media thus far.

Links above are to the documents as filed and to US Statutes as passed. The dockets are linked above with the case listing and all Court PACER links are listed there as well. Clicking links in this post does not support ANY ADS and is for free informational purposes only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NotGonna, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:54am

Is he nuts?
Did anyone ever stop to think that this isn't a law to protect copyright? It's a law to protect inflated profits. It costs about $2.50 to create, master, burn, and ship a DVD or CD movie. They charge Upwards to $30 for some of these. That's about 1000% profit. Even the $5 DVDs you buy at Wal-mart they are making 100% profit. The MPAA needs to be investigated under the RICO act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]