Open Offer To Chris Dodd & Cary Sherman: Meet The Internet Online And In The Open
from the no-more-backroom-deals dept
We've covered how the RIAA's Cary Sherman and the MPAA's Chris Dodd have both taken the strategy of first slamming everyone who took part in the internet protests against SOPA/PIPA as somehow being misinformed corporate pawns... but then concluding by expressing a desire to "meet" to discuss solutions. The problem, of course, is that both of them still think that it was Google that killed SOPA/PIPA, and so their idea of a "meeting" is to get Google into a back room and to "negotiate a deal." But, as many people have been pointing out, that isn't going to cut it.So let's make a clear offer to Chris Dodd, Cary Sherman and the rest of the corporate supporters of SOPA/PIPA:
Is this of interest? Over the past few weeks I've spoken to numerous people representing a variety of different groups, and they've all expressed interest in such a meeting. So how about you? You asked for a meeting. The community is happy to meet. But we want it to be open and transparent. And we want real internet users to be able to take part.
So, let's see if you're serious.
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: cary sherman, chris dodd, copyright, infringement, meeting
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They won't take it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They won't take it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They won't take it...
And those two? They're just trolls. Just kill them. Simple and clean and when done right, nobody will notice you did it. All those open forum bullshit they're blabbing about? You can bet a hundred they won't take it seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They won't take it...
Won't they do that "rapid ageing" thing first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They won't take it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They won't take it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lip service, or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lip service, or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lip service, or...
OUR FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Representation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Representation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Representation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Representation...
Also, given the LONG list of complaints I have, not the least of which is the pretty much gave everyone the finger when they thought they had the upper hand, I'm not interest in talking with either one now that they find they backed themselves into a corner.
My personal opinion is that as long people like Dodd and Sherman run the show, I am not willing to negotiate anything less than the total abolishment of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious?
Do you know how hard they would have to work to find everyone's selling point (assuming they could be bought)? Let alone how much it would cost them? And I'm sure they wouldn't get a bulk purchase discount like they would when buying, err, I mean, contributing to politicians campaigns.
With all the money the "economy" looses to piracy they can't afford this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am Chris Dodd AMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am Chris Dodd AMA
You must be Brie Larson, 'cause you whine like a girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, keep posting, buddy, we're all open to a decent well thought out comment, that brings to light an issue we might of overlooked, you never know, it may finally open our eyes entirely to you're point of view, the benefiting of the corporations at the expense of the consumers, .......keep posting buddy, its our right and privilege to do so
You never know, there's always dumb luck........and you seem to be half way there, you just need a bit of encouragement...... come on son..........you can do it boy, reach for the stars you dumb sonofabitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Speaking of constructive, your comment is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, you're right, my REPLY to a unconstructive comment, was, what do you know it, a tad unconstructive
I'll make sure to come up with something constructive next time, so i can post something non constructive, as you've so eloquently demostrated
Apart from that, i agree, let them dig their own holes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My reply was not to your post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's Data
Again, they don't want to listen to consumers, they'd rather pay $$ to bribe Congress and Google for data on consumers.
It's just to update their models on "what's the latest trend" so they can reproduce it.
And the open meeting won't fly because you want people there who understand technology and benefit from change (adapt). They might show up if Gene Simmons was there, as he clearly supports their legacy views. But OKGo or Wilco would be out of the question.
Don't hold your breath Mike, but if it does come to pass, make it open to the Internet where we can ask questions too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's Data
Mike did include that. The last line of the offer:
...and have it with a system that lets everyone, including those watching the stream, contribute comments and questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have little to gain from such a spectacle, and everything to lose. I can't see them wanting to play your game, sorry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, I think it is time for an intervention for you unhealthy infatuation with Marcus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those "virtual monkeys" as you put it are their customers.
Then again, since when did they care about their customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OH! Wait, you mean to tell me that you actually see all people on the internet as thieves and pirates?
Wow, just, wow...
Go back to watching Fox News so the rest of us can have a decent conversation, 'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Solve that riddle and we'll make you money.
I subscribe to netflix, rent dvd's from redbox both of which are successful companies. I refuse to pay 30 dollars for a blue ray, 5 dollars for on demand. Because of the internet, the cost of distribution is tiny. Content companies need to change their prices to start reflecting reality. Then they will have customers. Really simple IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA and MPAA could jump in as well, buy airtime on major networks to have it broadcast to show that they really understand people's issues before and want this to be much more open and honest legislation, and that they weren't trying to censor the internet, just trying to deal with what they see is a legitimate issue in the modern world.
Then you craft and pass a crappy bill that has broad implications to technology and is susceptible to widespread abuse. But dammit you pretend you're listening first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or maybe, just maybe, do they realize that they don't have a leg to stand on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those two sentences directly contradict each other. Those "virtual monkeys" as you so aptly put it is the market. By refusing to meet with the market after openly extending an invitation to do so would be far more damaging than actually meeting with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can:
Punch the (virtual) monkey and win $20
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, I'm just wondering. Whenever market monkeys trot out "The Market," I know they mean it in a haughty "Invisible Hand" kind of way, but it would be nice every once in a while to see it suggested that the invisible hand do something in order to prove itself useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea is that they meet with the Internet people, not media executives.
Pay attention!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep thumbing your nose and underestimating your opponents (hint: NOT GOOGLE) and you may have even more problems on your hands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By this statement I can only assume that you mean they would lose all their bs claim that it's only google, and you trolls would lose your arguments of 'but, but, it's just kids!' And they have absolutely nothing to gain, because in a real adult discussion, not one stacked, people could clearly see (for the few that don't already) just how full of shit they really are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah yes, why listen to the concerns of huge numbers of people from every background, political affiliation and industry when you can just wave them off with a stereotypical insult?
Seriously, though, you're the ones who have been attacking concerned paying consumers as "pirates" for several years. What are you? Too chicken to listen to real opinions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Notice the apeal to imagination.
A: [citation needed]
B: They could also ask (slanted) questions back if they want to.
C: Your comment is a slanted comment.
D: Slanted questions, like what? Can you provide any possible examples?
"There is little advantage to them, little benefit. ... They have little to gain from such a spectacle, and everything to lose."
Aren't laws supposed to be to benefit the public. Why should everything be about them? What about the public interest, shouldn't that be the primary focus here? Is your comment a tacit admission that they, and their laws, have no intent on benefiting the public, but only their own private interests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Personally I'm of the belief that such a thing cannot theoretically exist, but I invite you to prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private Negotiation with Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private Negotiation with Google
Yes Google has money, but the RIAA/MPAA can collect more and have more lawyer friends (their only friends?) than Google.
I doubt Anonymous would support Google in such a situation given Google's data mining actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private Negotiation with Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Private Negotiation with Google
Considering it was the BoG for a dorm/sub-college for a university, I found it strange they would NOT want to include students who's dorm fees provide them with the ability to make changes they propose.
Anyhow, the rule was if In Camera, you could not discuss or anything. You had to wait for what was agreed to be released. Which meant you can't record, audio or video, and share publicly.
If caught, it was implied there would be strong repercussions, legal ones. That's what we were told by a student on the BoG who said she could not say anything discussed. She's not stupid or naive either, so I trust she was correct on that.
But I could be wrong, as she could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private Negotiation with Google
If not they can't do nothing since you agreed to nothing, further it is a meeting, and you can say whatever you want if you participated, as long as you didn't sign anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private Negotiation with Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private Negotiation with Google
Sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private Negotiation with Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And much like pro wrestling, it will end up being an amusing show of little real consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armageddon is nigh
Inviting these two out into the public to face logical debate would only override their prior Skynet programming, and cause issues for the impending nuclear attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not even sure that would work.
Maybe carrier pigeons or smoke signals. Cave drawings would be the best (no big words, just pretty pictures), but they are so hard to deliver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reddit is already writing their own legislation.
http://www.reddit.com/r/fia/
The world isn't going to just sit around waiting for their next assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You spelled constituents wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You spelled "customers" wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your ability to predict the future is already suspect. Shall I point the crowd to your old comments about how SOPA/PIPA were slam dunks that were going to pass easily?
And so what about what Google wants? You're still under the misapprehension that this was and is driven by Google. You're wrong.
Just the fact that you refer to the wider public as "digital anarchists" shows your contempt for the real stakeholders here.
Fact it: you're an obsolete DC "insider" who is freaked out that your role of shoving through bad legislation just became significantly harder. Keep peddling your fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The digital anarchists are those who do not respect the intellectual property rights of others and do everything they can, including acts of cyber-terrorism to impose their view of the way copyright should be enforced. If the shoe fits......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The digital anarchists are those who do not respect the intellectual property rights of others and do everything they can, including acts of cyber-terrorism to impose their view of the way copyright should be enforced. If the shoe fits......
There may be a small group of idiots, who we've called out repeatedly for doing dumb things.
To think they represent the wider protests is another of your mistakes.
Underestimating what you're facing is not going to help your employer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll ask you, kind coward, please stop spreading your filthy lies on the internet and just go back to licking Chris Dodd's shoes, okay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL, you're so crazy it's uncanny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, it was funny to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boiling it down to some representatives from groups like wiki, reddit, EFF, etc, would be more reasonable. Those representatives of course could choose to pick up questions from those in their respective groups.. but the vast majority of us would have to be audience only.
I know you hate to hear it, but put yourself in his shoes. You can't negotiate with the entire internet simutaniously. It needs to be boiled down to a reasonable number of faces to communicate to if any meaningful conversation is to take place.
Straight up just picking random people to talk will surely turn up people who are out to troll him or are just plain not informed enough and will get rolled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone can watch, but you have to type your comments in and have someone filter through them before they get brought up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are already representatives for "the vast majority" - they get elected periodically! But they do not act in the interest of said majority. Either because
a) they don't know what the majority wants (
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are already representatives for "the vast majority" - they get elected periodically! But they do not act in the interest of said majority. Either because
- they don't know what the majority wants (bad)
- they know what the majority wants but think they know better (worse)
or
- they don't care what the majority wants because they have been bribed (catastrophic)
That's the problem with representative democracy: The (few) representatives can be bought.
But fortunately we live in a time and age where this sort of representation is not needed at all times. While hundred years ago it took a lot of time to count votes, today we have the means to do it instantaneously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repair your business model, not the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Late
The main remaining task is to get rid of the corrupt legislators who listened to Dodd and Sherman. US voters, do your duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAFIAA rep: You wrong, me right.
Tech rep: I don't understand, in what way do you feel I am wrong?
MAFIAA rep: You wrong, me right!
Google Rep: We are here to discuss what we can do to reduce the problems of piracy. We suggest that offering your customers improved shopping methods and easier access to their goods will go a long way to reducing piracy.
MAFIAA rep: You wrong, me right!!
Tech rep: Can you explain exactly how making it a felony for your customers to watch or listen to your media in the manner of their own choosing will help?
MAFIAA rep: You all freeloading pirate loving terrorists!!! Me right, you wrong.
Google rep: *sigh* We have explained in detail why you proposed method of censoring sites is not feasible from either an economic or security perspective.
MAFIAA rep: you wrong, me right!
Tech rep: This is hopeless, we may as well go home now. I hate to do it though, 'cause it means he'll get the last word.
MAFIAA rep: You wrong me right!!
Tech and Google reps leave.
MAFIAA rep: See, I must be right! Otherwise you would have shown my assumptions to be wrong. You can't even defend you pirate friends in an open meeting. Your silence proves it completely; you wrong, me right!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Alternative Suggestion
Why not extend the same invitation to the artist themselves? Did the SOPA/PIPA fiasco change any minds of the artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An Alternative Suggestion
But really, i'd like to hear from the artists they claim to protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An Alternative Suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We, the Internetz, for the first time, have a seat at every table. The world is no longer about your limited view of the world; companies, politicians and the military. The internet exposes all the corruption, back door dealing and propaganda which have stifled democracy until now.
Oh, and you might as well pack your bags and give up now. Free speech always wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know an insurgency when I see one. Others, not so much. Lessons were learned. I look forward to the next round.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There was no insurgency. There was a democratic an open discussion and debate and the people won.
You remember that, don't you? "We, the People..." and all the rest of it?
It didn't start out "We, the Special Interests..." or "We, the Lobbyists with truckloads of cash...." or anything like that it started out "We, the People..."
If you think it was an insurgency then no lessons were learned, nothing learned that you can take back to your employer which destroys your value to them. If standing up for everything the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution is an insurrection then you learned nothing. And we, too, look forward to the next round.
Bring it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like and ant saying to an elephant "Ok, you won round one, but round two is MINE DAMMIT!"
Wake up and smell the coffee. You try and paint Mike as the problem, and if you could win against him, everything would just be jim dandy, sparkles and rainbows.
Actually, it's the entire free world which is against your myopic view of how things work. The internet is the ULTIMATE printing press! (Well at least until telepathy comes along)
http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/1770s/pcomconvers.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bring it on, shilltard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you threatening us, Anonymous Coward?
Everyone who fought against SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, and soon TPP are "anarchists," "cyber-terrorists," and "an insurgency"? "Lessons were learned" in how to deal with us? Just what are you advocating? That the millions who are fighting against internet censorship literally be treated as terrorists? That we be imprisoned en masse? Because you sure seem the type to want that. You really don't care at all about civil liberties, free expression, open markets, or even basic fairness. You want a corporate tyranny, full stop.
Hate to break it to you, but we're not going to give up our civil liberties just so your corporate bosses can sleep better at night. We will literally fight to the death to preserve our rights, and no amount of corporate rhetoric is going to change that. You want to call us terrorists and anarchists? Be prepared for us to fight back. History has shown the people have zero use for tyrants and dictators, and your kind absolutely qualify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you threatening us, Anonymous Coward?
To illegally take the creative output of someone else without compensating the rightful owner?????
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..........*takes a breath* ..........hahahahahahahahahahahahha
There's a big difference between signing a petition or sending an e-mail, and taking a bullet (like it would ever escalate to that...)
The current law in the US is far more onerous than the proposals of SOPA. So why aren't you out in the street rioting? Don't bother. The answer is that you're soft and wouldn't conceive of putting yourself at risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you threatening us, Anonymous Coward?
Is that why SOPA failed, and failed hard too. It wasn't as onerous as the laws already are?
You make zero sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you threatening us, Anonymous Coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you threatening us, Anonymous Coward?
Now about the taking a bullet part, people just don't need to, you see copyright was always optional on the public level, people don't depend on the government to exist in fact they can exist without one and I doubt you will have the balls to intrude in every home to watch what others are doing so you can have absolute control of your little monopoly otherwise people will just disregard it and the more annoyed they get the less they will fallow it.
Yes people can and will take what is in the public space for free, the public space is not yours is for everyone and every resource in there is a common resource, trying to lock it down for the benefit of a few harms every single person on earth and that is why no one will ever respect your little monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you threatening us, Anonymous Coward?
You mean like the labels did in Canada?
You mean like the collection societies who can't find artists they owe money to, because they refuse to look?
You mean like Vevo using a pirated stream to entertain their guests?
You mean like Hollywood accounting showing top grossing films to be losers on paper to avoid paying money to artists?
Resorting to violence only makes them feel justified in their insane crackdowns, dismantling their lives piece by piece, bit by bit is far more effective.
While you can't conceive of it, maybe you should notice its an election year. It does not matter how much you and your cronies pour into the waters to get your way, you still can't buy off each and every voter who signed those petitions.
You'd like us to be violent so you could paint us as thugs out to destroy you, so you can make a play for sympathy.
The simple truth is your outmatched.
The business models of the past are no longer viable and the out boys network of protecting you is cracking.
Once you forgot it was about serving customers, and decided it was about wringing out every possible penny as many times as possible from customers you showed how little you cared. Consumers are now showing you how little they care about you.
Like Icarus you flew to close to the sun, your wings have melted... enjoy your short ride at terminal velocity.
You will not be missed, but your crater will stand as a symbol to remind those who replace you to never think you are above it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's meet then
I'm as cynical as anyone else here about just what it might accomplish but there's no harm in trying.
It would be important that Dodd and Sherman are treated with respect even if there's no necessity to treat their views and the views the represent respectfully.
It's just as important that Dodd and Sherman actually listen to what's being said and treat that with some degree of respect even if they disagree.
Equally important that the meeting not devolve into the mob scene our beltway insider troll seems to be sure it will. (Though that might be closer to debate on the floor of Congress it just doesn't look good.)
The meeting wouldn't solve anything. But it could be the start of them understanding that the revolt wasn't Google fueled but was fueled by people who were concerned that SOPA and PIPA would erode constitutional rights, impair the development of new and better ways of doing things and actually speed progress and the economic recovery. Keeping in mind that a free and fully functional Internet is vital to that recovery as is a thriving tech sector.
Ultimately that neither the internet or the tech sector are their enemy. It's a reality they need to adapt to.
No communication is going to start unless something like this meeting is held. The ones with the most to lose by a failure here are the RIAA and the MPAA and the IP maximalists who have already lost the day.
Let's meet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's meet then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's meet then
I can assure you they are meeting all the time with tech interests, professional apologist groups (PK et al) and legislative staff and others representative of stakeholders. The ones not involved (and never will be) are the anarchists and crazies who completely discount copyright and intellectual property rights. Those nutters (like most of the Techdirt community) will bring nothing to the table except their shrill complaints. Masnick won't be there and neither will you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just us old folks
Sometimes when I hear folks speaking of the government ruining the Internet (as we-ve come to know it) it reminds me of the line from the 2008 elections:
Keep your government hands off of my Medicare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an idea
It'd be nice to have them publicly condemned on their own turf.
Otherwise it's almost just masturbatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]