Once Again, SOPA Supporters Caught 'Copying' Others' Works In An Effort To Shut Down Sites For Copying
from the telling... dept
It's really quite amazing how frequently those who support more draconian copyright laws seem to be caught up in ethically dubious copying. We just had the example of the Hollywood astroturf group, CreativeAmerica, pretty blatantly "remixing" an anti-SOPA email alert from Public Knowledge, and turning it into a pro-SOPA argument. But this next one seems even worse. SOPA supporters, such as the MPAA and the very same Creative America, seemed overjoyed to point folks to an opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune by the state's attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, claiming to support SOPA and PIPA.Just one little tiny problem... there appears to be a fair bit of evidence that Shurtleff "copied" his work from elsewhere and simply "remixed" the work of others. TorrentFreak goes into great detail how many of the statements in the opinion piece supposedly written by Shurtleff, have appeared elsewhere from pro-SOPA folks.
To back up this claim we will highlight a few sentences from the Attorney General’s article, and compare them with those previously delivered by the MPAA and affiliated pro-copyright groups.They go on to find lots of other rather complex phrases that show up in both Shurtleff's "new" opinion piece... and lobbying efforts from times past. In fact, the whole thing seems like a classic "remix" -- cutting and pasting lots of works from elsewhere, and creating something "new" out of it. Who knows if this reaches the legal standard for copyright infringement... but it certainly calls into serious question either the legitimacy of the op-ed... or, the competence of Shurtleff. Once again, we think such remixing is good and should be allowed. But it's pretty crazy to argue for laws like SOPA... and do so with what certainly sounds like plagiarized phrases from elsewhere.
The first sentence that caught our attention is: “It will take a strong, sustained effort to stop Internet thieves and profiteers.”
Strong words, but also familiar ones. In fact, former MPAA President Bob Pisano uttered exactly the same words in 2010 when he congratulated the Senate Judiciary Committee with unanimously approving the COICA bill, the predecessor to SOPA and PIPA.
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: astroturf, copying, mark shurtleff, pipa, plagiarism, protect ip, shills, sopa, utah
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at his Wikipage:
The media has reported allegations that Shurtleff allows political donations or personal relationships to affect regulatory or prosecutorial decisions. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] He has also faced allegations of taking donations from companies he knows to be in the midst of legal proceedings for which he has responsibility.[30]
Yes, that's 19 [citations] in ONE section. This is one of the stories:
A second plea deal � after a judge rejected the first as too lenient � will cost an accused swindler $4.1 million more than first proposed.
It comes in a case where both sides had accused Attorney General Mark Shurtleff of unfairly meddling amid political pressure, and Shurtleff in turn said a bribe was offered.
Marc Sessions Jenson, 48, of Holladay, pleaded no contest Thursday to three felony counts of selling unregistered securities in a plea bargain accepted by 3rd District Judge Robin Reese.
This piece is one that exposes the problem of the link of business and government in the worst possible light. If Mark survives this year of elections, the system has failed miserably. He should be indicted on a number of charges including perjury, corruption charges and obstruction of justice (plea bargaining) among the other charges to put him away for a LOOOONG time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Isn't that boilerplate on every politician's Wikipedia page? If not, it should be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shurtleff is a very nice person but whenever I talk to him I make sure to keep my hand on my wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do as we say, not as we do~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As they are making money off of selling polygamy as reality television, it would be horrible if that income were to suddenly stop because people were sharing episodes online.
But then you need to overlook the idea that polygamy is actually illegal, he has evidence of it happening in his state, and he continues to look the other way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also find that law to be very stupid and before you jump all over me, listen to explanation. I do not support polygamy, personally I am just looking one great girl and that is all I need, BUT why is there a law against polygamy?
Look at the world today. I can legally go out and sleep with multiple women each night. There are no laws against me knocking up girls left and right. On the other hand there is a law saying I cant take legal responsibility for more than one girl? How is marrying more than one girl so evil and sleeping with a bunch of them without marrying them is just fine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I AM Mrs. Spartacus!
You raise an interesting point. Maybe it messes up government software used by the IRS or social security offices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Point is still the same though, a lot of laws really do not make sense if you step back and look at them from an unbiased view. That is the problem of ramming things through "for the children". Most of the time you ram through something that was really illogical and missing the real point. Lawmakers love getting into a frenzy feeling they must do SOMETHING and they fail to slow down and think of what that something should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So why are they even on the books? That is something that drive me insane. They add law after law and then ignore over half of them. If you are not going to enforce it then trash it.
I also might be mistaken but I think a lot of those laws pertain to if you are already married. Kind of a there as a stone to throw during a divorce. I am curious how many actually pertain to single people sleeping around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In order for them (local, state or federal) to write a new law they have to repeal another one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To have this AG asshat grandstanding on an issue that does not effect him or a majority of his constituents, and supporting the idea that marriage is 1 man 1 woman only sorta makes me that much more angry. He has open polygamy in his state, he allows it to continue.
I'm not debating if polygamy is good or bad, and will not be sidetracked into those waters.
I'm pointing out an AG has come out in support of a potential law, while he is derelict in his duty to uphold current law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Generally speaking, I think it's for tax and regulatory purposes, as well as to avoid problems that come with divorce. I mean, look at the nightmare that often comes regarding property and children when a couple get divorced, then imagine 10 partners going through that! Then you have the possibility of people joining polygamous marriages to get citizenship or avoid tax liabilities - how would you enforce that without being seen as prejudiced against that type of marriage?
I wouldn't have any moral objection to such arrangements as such (assuming all partners were informed and consenting, of course), but it would probably be a nightmare to legislate and regulate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
only after you overlook that he is only legally married to one of them and that all the other feelings you have are various forms of jealousy :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And really is besides the point I was actually making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Proper Introduction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA won't work ... If you get picky enough, you could shut down everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]