MPAA Uses Anon Attacks To Make Nonsensical Comments About Free Speech
from the a-protest-isn't-gov't-shut-down dept
I'm really beginning to wonder about the MPAA's PR people and their near total inability to think through how their statements will be perceived. It's put out a response to the DDoS attacks from Anonymous by trying to "take back" the moral high ground on the free speech issue. Yes, they're claiming that the DDoS is a free speech violation and then wrap themselves in the First Amendment:Unfortunately, some groups believe that speech or ideas that they disagree with should be silenced. This could not be more wrong. No matter the point of view, everyone has a right to be heard.Ok. So then you condemn SOPA and PIPA, right? Since those are attempts to silence people. But here's the thing: "free speech" issues are about government censorship. Such as passing a bad law that allows the government to take down websites. Having some people protest you may be annoying, but it's not a free speech issue (other than, perhaps, in arguing the protesters' rights to free speech. Trying to regain the high ground on this issue is pretty transparently ridiculous by the MPAA -- and simply calls much more attention to who's actually trying to stifle free speech by passing bad laws that allow for censorship.
The motion picture and television industry has always been a strong supporter of free speech. We strongly condemn any attempts to silence any groups or individuals.
The Internet is home to creativity, innovation and free speech. We want to keep it that way. Protecting copyrights and protecting free speech go hand in hand."
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: anonymous, ddos, first amendment, free speech, protests, seizures
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mega Song ---> Censorship ---> Fightback ---> US Government Attack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where are the pricks hypocrites? At the MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where TAM gets his stupidity from know we now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
RIAA Jedi - May the farce be with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot calling the kettle black...
But to be honest, I didn't expect that, really, at least they have not pulled out the "See guys? cyber-terrorists are allied with piracy apologists and are dangerous, this is the proof that concludes that the internet must be controled" card yet... But I wouldn't be surprised if they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just the government that can attack free speech
I disagree. The core issue is how much power the party attacking free speech has. Since the legal system and the government are central places from which where very powerful attacks can be launched it naturally attracts a lot of interest.
But if groups that are not affiliated with the state use their power to seek out and silence others I'd argue that that's too an attack on free speech.
Besides, if we want even people who say stupid things and who want to limit our freedom to enjoy freedom of speech then what better case can we get than this to demonstrate our willingness to stand up for those principles. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
True but is does sort of depend on the level of power of the organisation doing it.
I'd say its really hard to argue that a DDOS attack by a group with little money and no formal political power, that lasts but a few hours and only affect a very small part of the targets communication facility constitutes censor ship in any meaningful way.
It's like saying that throwing a custard pie in someone's face is censorship because they can't talk for a few seconds afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
However, even though throwing a custard pie on someone's fade is not censorship it is still an attack on free speech. Sometimes it can even be a quite serious attack.
We shouldn't just discuss censorship. If you for example take SOPA/PIPA a big part of the problem is that they introduce completely new risk structures for intermediaries and people who want to express themselves. Those risk structures need not always be censorship per see (one could perhaps call it outsourced censorship), but it's still a free speech issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
No, it isn't. Using overwhelming power (government mainly, but also wealth/political power) to stifle someone's means to speak freely is censorship, and an attack on their free speech.
Throwing a custard pie is a response to the other person's free speech. The response is simply "Shut the hell up, I'm through listening to you."
The rights and means to speak doesn't equate to a necessity to be heard and regarded highly. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
it survives today, on occasion, as a form of protest against something a politician is associated with or stands for. In the 19th Century and early parts of the 20th century tossing overripe fruits and vegetables was the more common form of expressing dislike with the politician.
It hurts no one but legally it's an assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
Anonymous can't stop that but they sure can protest restricting access to a couple of outlets they have, just like picketing outside any other big company HQ.
What exactly is wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
Yelling so hard that the DOJ can't get out their word is simply wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
Their right to speak hasn't been taken away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
After being pushed around for so long, people start getting tired, and then they snap. That's why you have the blackouts and the DDOS attacks. I think, quite frankly, that you are lucky that people aren't talking about bringing down the government or starting another civil war.
If the Government keeps pushing people around, sites aren't the only thing that will be going "down".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15king.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just the government that can attack free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon's attack was not about SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the attack itself, everybody's in the wrong here. ICE, Anonymous, and the MAFIAA. The first and last need no explanation here, but the middle apparently does.
To those in power, this looks like the Internet's stick coming out to beat them for not all capitulating on SOPA and PIPA Wednesday. Techdirt readers know that's not what it was about, but that's what it looks like from the land of lobbyists and backroom deals. And worse, by praising Anonymous' attacks, Techdirt is undermining its efforts in the vitally important work of stopping these bills. Anonymous is becoming toxic to its causes, and it's about time Techdirt admitted that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Big Content & their stooges In Washington have lied to us.They wanted to add on more "Government", and more Taxes, and more Regulations on Busainess and they wanted to go against our Constitution and attack normal Citizens.
18TH we protested nicely & on the 19th they lied some more and blew off the whole 18th online protests.
Anonymous is great for doing what they did.How many more people will now learn of the truth or at least wonder why this is happening and then figure it out? Mr. Normal is going to wake up some more now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Dark Side will have won! ;-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, the MPAA is looking like a freaking caricature of Big Business these past few weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anons
Yes as pointed out the 1st Amendment is all about Government censorship. From what we heard yesterday, including the odd concept of an on-line storage company paying its hosting bills now being called "laundering", then Anonymous has a very good reason to be upset.
Not to forget we all know that the MPAA site serves little purpose beyond being a brochure site. One would think by now they would have put their site behind a good router which could filter out the attack but in not doing so I guess they want to keep their reason to moan at Anonymous.
I could not happen to avoid notice that justice.gov got a serious kicking yesterday. There was no way anyone could load that site when it would take well over 50,000 attempts even to get a single valid response.
Well there has been far too much injustice recently but is not like we will all sit down to enjoy some tea and cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless they haven't paid as much as we have to have bills keeping our business model alive, and then fuck them and their ideas.
Really, you bring the music up and cut off speeches at your awards shows. You were a driving force behind silencing Rojadirecta. You were a driving force behind silencing Dajaz1, for DARING to do what was asked of them. You seem to think Free Speech is only allowed when it supports what you want, this is not the case.
No they don't. You want the internet around to keep giving you ideas you can steal and use to make more money. You want the next cool storage format developed without you having to spend anything. You don't want them doing anything that threatens your business model. We have spent so much time and effort protecting your copyrights, would you please explain what it is society gains in return for allowing you this monopoly? Because you've put your thumb on the scales and taken away what we were promised, so what is it we get for allowing you to have it now?
Why don't you teach all of us a lesson, and stop releasing movies.
Put your money where your mouth is and deny all of us "thieves" your content.
We made the internet go dark, make the theaters go dark.
In the long run you'll be saving money as you won't be loosing billions of made up dollars anymore, and you can teach us that we need you and we should remember our place.
Oh that won't work, because your terrified people will find more content in the huge amount of hours being uploaded to Youtube and other sites. That we might see the awesomeness that is made by people who will take a risk on making something we have never seen before, that didn't get a focus group approval and is just a retelling of the same 6 plots you keep using.
Stop trying to bend the entire planet to support your business model. Imagine for less than a third of what you have spent in backrooms, you could have updated your model to a global one. You could be making more money than ever before and crush piracy by giving paying customers content when THEY want it, not when your chart says you should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd like to know how they still have investors after a decade of decimation by "pirates."
Only a fool would invest in a movie if what they say is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Latest News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPe97vZJXM&sns=fb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon News
See for yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lXau4TDt7M&feature=relmfu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Where did you allow dissenting opinion to be heard throughout most of your back room negotiations of ACTA? Where did you allow dissenting opinions during that farce of a hearing Lamar Smith held on SOPA? Where is the dissenting opinions being heard while you negotiate TPP behind everyone's back?
The motion picture and television industry has always been a strong supporter of free speech.
Oh, bullshit. You only believe in free speech if it supports your twisted views. You sound even more absurd given the fact the only reason you even exist as an industry is you moved clear to the other end of the country so you could bypass the very types of laws you so stringently try to enforce on others.
The simply truth is that is SOPA level legislation had existed for Thomas Edison, the entire MPAA would have been sued out of existence before it even started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8
The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
For some reason I just didn't connect the dots though I knew they were there.
And, the guy is right, all of this is a great way to create a market where none may have existed before. So thank you Hollywood for creating and enabling the very market you now whine about so much and want to be protected from. The same market you helped create.
Not, by the way,that file sharing of a sort wouldn't have existed anyway but just imagine the technically challenged trying to use CNET and ZDNet without all those nice instructional articles, reviews and nice spots like Downloar
ds.com.
Not that there aren't far more legitimate uses for file sharing software and sites than piracy but the MPAA and RIAA will, of course, focus on the piracy.
I can't say I'm at all surprised. Or at all shocked. Standard method of operation for the MPAA, RIAA and publishing industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They never did!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free speech is for everyone, even opponents of your views. Above all opponents .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: free speech is for everyone, even opponents of your views. Above all opponents .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: free speech is for everyone, even opponents of your views. Above all opponents .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: free speech is for everyone, even opponents of your views. Above all opponents .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your speech doesn't matter, don't you know peasants know your place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they not the exact opposite things?
copyright and free speech that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death of the Dinosaurs
These feeble pathetic moves are just embarrassing. Someone got paid for that statement. Think about that for a moment. Someone was paid money to write and release that joke of a statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]