If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
from the misinformation-works dept
We already walked through the ridiculousness of RIAA boss Cary Sherman claiming that the reason SOPA/PIPA were defeated was because of a "misinformation" campaign on the part of some tech companies. Tons of folks who have followed the RIAA for years probably broke out in open laughter when we saw this statement from Sherman:Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works.Because, if anyone knows that "misinformation works," it's Cary Sherman, who is famous for his ability to run vast misinformation campaigns to get bills passed. Thankfully, Ernest Falcon, over at Public Knowledge decided that if Sherman wanted to open the door to discussing "misinformation campaigns" concerning SOPA/PIPA, we might as well focus on the biggest one of all: the claims by the MPAA and RIAA that DNS blocking was no big deal:
During the legislative hearing on SOPA, House Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman on Cybersecurity Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) questioned MPAA Exec. Vice President Michael O’Leary about the cybersecurity problem. In response he received the standard misinformation campaign line of there was no cybersecurity problem and that this type of activity “occurred all the time.” To bolster their misinformation campaign, the content lobby worked hard to manufacture the “truth” by highlighting the work of the very small number of individuals (a grand total of three) who wrote “technical rebuttals.” These were not so much rebuttals as they were well orchestrated advocacy pieces that ignored the engineering and distorted the studies they utilized in order to dupe Members of Congress to believe the legitimate concerns were in fact unsupported.Part of the RIAA's favorite tactics is to pull out all the dirty tricks in the book... and any time people call them on it, to accuse the other side of using the dirty tricks that were really being used by the RIAA. It's a classic DC-insider move, but in this day and age, where the internet can route around lies, it's going to backfire, as it did here. All you have to do is look at the comments on the original Sherman NY Times piece, where upwards of 90% of the comments call Sherman out for his ridiculous claims. Sherman has the old playbook, the one where those who knew the truth couldn't speak back. If he had paid attention at all to what happened in the SOPA/PIPA debate he would have know that playbook doesn't work any more. But, it's all he knows. If the major labels were smart (don't laugh), they'd dump Sherman and put someone in place who actually gets the internet.Part of the RIAA and MPAA misinformation campaign centered on the argument that DNS filtering and secure networks (DNSSEC) could both exist in the same network. This was despite the fact that top experts in the field provided an extensive explanation why that would not be technologically possible (a couple of these individuals actually saved the Internet in the past). In the end, when Comcast (a SOPA supporter) announced they had to shut down anything that filters DNS traffic when they activated DNSSEC and the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator stated that the bills “pose a real risk to cybersecurity,” the jig was up.
Lastly, claiming that censorship concerns in regards to DNS filtering were misplaced completely ignores the fact that SOPA and PIPA moved America closer to censorship oriented regimes. If these bills were enacted into law, American broadband providers would have been required to install the same filtering technology used in China, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Armenia, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Burma (Myanmar), Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. This reality triggered the outpouring of opposition from the international human rights community who fight censorship overseas every day and point to the United States as the model. Summing up the well informed reasoning behind their opposition, Julian Sanchez with the Cato Institute points out that enacting SOPA and PIPA would mean the “only difference between the Unites States and China is what's on the blacklist.”
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: blocking, cary sherman, dns, misinformation, pipa, sopa
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is the same logic that suggests that restricted speed limits on highways bring us closer to a police state.
It's a gross overstatement by those who with to create the good old FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a gross overstatement by those who with to create the good old FUD.
"
It's a gross overstatement by those who with to create the good old FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only difference is what would be filtered by the system. Once the system is in place, all you have to do is create the blacklist.
Creating a sensoring system is moving closer to a censorship oriented regime. That's not overstatement, it's fact.
You don't want to move closer to being a censorship oriented regime. Don't create a censoring system. It's that simple.
As for speed limits on the highways bringing us closer to a police state, you are missing a key point here: Speeding is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeding can be a felony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The existence of a tool that COULD be used for censorship isn't enough of a reason to say it is bad. A pair of scissors, used in the right way, could easily censor your internet access. Should we ban cutting tools?
The idea isn't to create a sensoring system, it's to create a system that maintains the rule of US law for everyone who wants to do business here. A website offshore selling to Americans (or pushing downloadable materials) should be subject to the same laws and same restrictions that exist for US businesses. You should not be able to just move offshore and keep breaking US laws while doing business here.
I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You do realize how stupid this sounds right? There are TONS of businesses that are not online that do not follow US laws. Why do you think almost all manufacturing is done overseas? You really think companies like shipping things halfway around the globe for the hell of it? NO they do it because the laws there are not as strict.
These laws would not have stopped all these terrible things you are crying about. They would have been abused and greatly hurt the stability of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except by definition of what it is claimed SOPA/PIPA is needed for, it would affect you likely regardless of whether you *wanted* to do business in the US. You would be affected merely by proxy of being on an open web where citizens from other countries can use or view your site.
You are flying in the face of a technology where the origin doesn't matter because the reach is inherently global.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
glad you say this because there are other TOOLS like bit torrent, cyber lokers and streaming that are faced with extintion based on the wiches of a few but you seem to forget those and only remmeber the ones that benefit the riaa/mpaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's your problem:
The existence of a tool that COULD be used for *copyright infringement* isn't enough of a reason to say it is bad. A *file locker*, used in the right way, could easily *distribute copyrighted material*. Should we ban *file lockers*?
The idea isn't to create a *copyright infringement* system, it's to create a system that maintains *lines of communication* for everyone who wants to do business *anywhere on the planet*. A website *somewhere* selling to *anyone* (or pushing downloadable materials) should be subject to the same laws and same restrictions that exist for *every business in the world, all at once*. You should not be able to just *change locations* and keep breaking *some law somewhere* while doing business *globally*.
I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong, sir. Wrong.
Site housed outside the US are subject to their own jurisdiction. It's the people inside the US who are liable for their actions. I don't see many individuals being taken to court over these things.
Why do you AC's not recognize individual accountability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The USG has had the use of cutting tools at it's disposal for a very long time, somewhat longer than the internet's been around. During the internet's time, has the USG shown a propensity to cutting people's phone lines with a pair of scissors to censor them? No, I don't know of any cases of this happening. So can they be trusted with cutting tools? Yes, they can.
The USG has also had the ability to create new laws at it's disposal for a very long time, again somewhat longer than the internet's been around. During the internet's time, has the USG shown a propensity to write laws ostensibly to target certain bad activities, then grossly and cynically stretched those laws to cover things never intended, with terrible unintended consequences? Yes, they certainly have, many times. So can they be trusted with new internet crime-fighting laws that inherently allow censorship? Hell no!
In other words, typical AC analogy fail.
"I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition."
Are you familiar with the concept that laws reflect the attitudes of the vast majority of the population? Have their been any mass protests about libel, consumer liability or product protection laws lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is a reason. Give someone cutting tools, and their first instinct is to cut.
"I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition."
Libel, I can see how that might be a "move towards censorship" in the sense that it punishes speech. The others, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with censorship on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a gross overstatement by those who with to create the good old FUD.
And where does the idea come from that reduced speed limits actually make traveling safer?
There are a lot of factors that go into safety. Sometimes just having a higher speed limit can produce the desired effect:
What the reduced speed limit seems intent on is bringing revenue to the police department. Else we wouldn't have a number of stories from places like Ohio and Oklahoma that use very shady tactics to increase the number of tickets being issued (Red light cameras, a lot of police officers for traffic violations, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, nice convincing argument you make there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And? This statement is completely factual.
Furthermore, seat belt laws do the same thing.
Control freaks want control. If it can be disguised as "for the public good" or "for the children", so much the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-safe-break-the-law.html
The speed limit on Route 3 is 55. The speed limit used to be 60….It was reduced by executive order in 1973 to comply with the national speed limit. When the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 the highway commissioner ordered the low limit retained…
It gets better. Route 3 was completely rebuilt a decade ago. The design speed for the project was 110 km/h (68 mph). The design speed is like a warranty: nothing in the road design requires a driver to go slower than 68 mph, not even on a wet road at night (the design conditions).
The average speed is not far from the design speed. The 85th percentile speed, which is supposed to be used for setting speed limits, is around 75 mph. A little over by my measurement, which found 1% compliance with the speed limit.
Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won.
After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultant’s report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit.
Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really, AC, you should give up and go cry to Chris Dodd how you can't argue on the net like a good person.
You can't even troll well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about free content. Your actions speak louder than your FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the rest of your comments, you obviously were not following the protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OPA COULD shut down Youtube, as it would place liabilities on Youtube for the actions of it's users, and to curtail said actions Youtube would be put in a difficult financial position.
The internet as we know it would break. There would be filtering. There would be U.S. restricted sites and there'd be the rest of the world.
Also, DNS blocking was removed from consideration FOR NOW. It was still on the table as far as possibly being implemented later.
The comparison between making a copy of a digital good and the actual theft and removal of a physical one is a central theme branded by your side of the debate, a comparison which flies contrary to a Supreme Court ruling and distinction on the matter itself.
If downloading a copy is truly theft of that good, then perhaps we should start applying the laws in regards to (you know) actual theft of the same good. Charging people with said crimes of theft and fining them as appropriate. Steal a cd, pay a $200 ticket (maybe a few days in lock up to a month). As opposed to owing millions.
It's all about dollars. You can't keep fleecing people any longer and now you're upset and wanting to ruin the one method people have for entertaining themselves (along with distributing and creating anything they please, without having to give up their rights or give you a majority of the profits). But no... *crickets*. It's all about people wanting a lawless society/internet and free stuff. /s
Your actions speak louder than your FUD. You know, actions like Hollywood accounting, bullying tactics, non-payment of royalties to artists, attempts at slipping in of words to deny creators the rights to take back their own creations, etc.
Want me to continue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Property Taxes for IP...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, my favorite part of your well thought out and length rebuttal is where you refuted EVERYTHING else I said with actual facts and evidence to debunk all my talking points. Kudos to you good troll. You have put me in place. I don't know how I could ever have been so wrong about everything I said. [hangs head in shame]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The dissenting opinions would have held that the activity complained of was comprehended within the scope of the term "theft".
Theft is a term developed at common law, and embraces a wide variety of actions. The fact so many here keep trying to limit it specifically to chattels misapprehends how the law actually works.
Your comment re "OPA" (presumably "SOPA") is just plain wrong, as would be readily apparent if you read the statute and all of the elements stated in it that are necessary to establish a prima facie case that it has been violated. Unless YouTube decided to radically change its business model to embrace Pirate Bay-like conduct, SOPA would have zero force and effect on it. At most, its pursuing its current business model is fully immunized, even with SOPA, as long as it complies with Section 512 of the DMCA.
DNS blocking was removed from consideration for the time being until it can be studied in more detail. Could some form come back? Of course. Is in on the table and part of the pending bill? No. Might DNS blocking, if ever implemented break the internet? Probably not since it is ongoing as I type. Even so, it is an issue worthy of further debate.
Yes, it is all about dollars...and much more. What a horrific thought that one who has rights secured by law should be able to interfere with people who entertain themselves by coping freebies off the internet. Something is not quite right when those who break the law portray themselves as victims.
I will pass by your accounting screed simply because it is a screed, and nothing more. I will, however, make one point. I am personally unaware of any instance where a person signed by a major label who came out with a clunker album has been required to pay back to the label the money invested by the label to have the album prepared and distributed. Such labels are investors...not banks making loans.
Feel free to rebut if you have more information to add.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always thought that it was rather ironic how the major labels go around claiming their poor artists are being hurt, all the while doing the most harm to the artists themselves, by far. Hunting down internet users and then charging them thousands per "infringement" is absurd on its face, to say nothing of their little 'work for hire' scheme, the dirty legislation they write in secrecy and bribe our politicians into supporting, etc.
The man in the three-piece suit equipped with his briefcase full of legal jargon is to be feared moreso than a 12-year old who downloads a song off the internet. Apparently even the law can be bought for a price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am aware of no provision in any such contract where the parties agree that the term of the contract extends into the indefinite future. Thus, once the contract expires each party if free to pursue other opportunites with other third parties. To call this "indentured servitude" is plainly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once again:
Private corporations are private. The only people who can force them to regulate free speech (or NOT) are their shareholders, or the government. All a consumer has to do is move to a different medium/channel, unless the government has restricted that speech.
Our government is forbidden to restrict speech (barring a clear and present preventable danger). But only in our own country. Each country has it's own sets of rules that it is allowed to follow.
Twitter is following the GOVERNMENT mandates in the countries it is being forced to censor. And it is, in fact, breaking those rules by doing it's best to show it's customers in those countries what is being censored, thereby mostly invalidating the censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or unless there are not alternatives. Or unless all the competitors are effectively colluding so that they all have the same restrictions. Both of these situations are so common in the US telecommunications business that it is accepted as normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SOPA would have been used to shut down YouTube, or are you unaware of Viacom still trying to sue them out of existence while their other hand uploads more content.
DNS filtering would break DNSSEC, and would have broken the net. DNS blocking was not actually removed, just the suggestion it be delayed so we can shove the bill forward.
Maybe you missed the Media Corps demands of how Google should change their business to suit what they wanted over being a useful search tool. Because they never ever try to stretch laws to get their way.
Political Speech and Ideas, uh huh.... DaJaz1. Based only on claims from a media company the blog was sized and shuttered for over a year. The claims were untrue, and the takedown was covered up for over a year. A blog where people discussed music and their thoughts about it and shared music, music sent by the same labels that took them down with requests that it be posted and shared with their followers. So doing something they asked got them screwed for a year with a court case moving forward with them being kept in the dark the entire time.
Twitter is a private corporation who have enacted a policy to keep themselves from being blocked in certain countries. While it is censorship it is only censored where demanded by law, and records of who and why are filed with chilling effects. The case against DaJaz1 was so secret even the lawyer from the blog was denied access to the claims.
We have free content, there is a veritable ocean of new content being created by people everyday. Some is good, some is crap but its not controlled by a few gatekeepers who are in their death throws and will do anything to keep themselves afloat... except adapt.
0/10 - you Feared, you were Uncertain, and i Doubt anyone bought a single thing you were selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DaJaz would not be subject to SOPA, which you surely know. And as you also know, SOPA had no provision for seizure of accused sites. It sounds like your problem is largely with existing law.
We have free content, there is a veritable ocean of new content being created by people everyday. Some is good, some is crap but its not controlled by a few gatekeepers who are in their death throws [sic] and will do anything to keep themselves afloat... except adapt.
The problem is with the free content that is thrown into the ocean without compensating the owners of it. Believe it or not, there are professionals who need to be paid for their creative output.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The real problem is with how the private corps are abusing the system in order to prop up their businesses. SOPA would effectively give private corps an internet kill switch to censor the internet with, among other damaging things.
"The problem is with the free content that is thrown into the ocean without compensating the owners of it. Believe it or not, there are professionals who need to be paid for their creative output."
The legcy corps are still turning in record profits regardless, all the while rooking their stable of artists out of due compensation. Regardless, they're not entitled to regulate the internet nor decide what individuals can/cannot do with their computing devices. Or are you trying to say that they are entitled to profit at the expense of our rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A foreign site was seized FOR OVER A YEAR. With little to no recourse available because information was kept from the attorney fighting on behalf of the site.
As far as free content that is thrown into the ocean, how do you know that the creators aren't being compensated? You are either misinterpreting what was stated to suit your needs or you're an idiot. Take your pick. I read what was written and understood (quite obviously and correctly) that NEW CONTENT IS BEING CREATED BY PEOPLE EVERYDAY AND IT IS FREE. As in they distribute it freely on Youtube and elsewhere. Which is the problem, insofar as the middlemen are panicking that people can do without them.
Believe it or not, there are professionals who DO NOT want or need to be paid for their work. And create and innovate just because they want to. And to share with others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
oooh a shot at my spelling... I must have you scared.
Umm pookie, the owners are the one putting their content out there for free. And the good ones make money, without a gatekeeper stepping in and protecting them from the other 90% of their profits. Ever heard of "The Guild"?
0/10 - Did you not get the memo? I'm not a pushover, and I typo like a fiend... its one of my more endearing quirks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And just who, exactly, is denying that?
Though, in the creative arts the correct ending is "who want to be paid" as a lot of them aren't. At least regularly. And certainly not by the RIAA and MPAAs of the world unless you live on an entirely different world that the rest of us do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This mental midget is only capable of viewing things in black and white Nothing else exists to him. Everybody has to be either a toady of the RIAA, welcoming their every action without question, or a pirate who wants to ensure that nobody ever gets paid. He's incapable of registering anything other than these impossible positons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BTW, SOPA and the YouTube lawsuit have nothing at all in common. The allegations against YouTube are based upon it having engaged during its formative years in copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is the laws were very flawed. First of all, the Justin Beiber issue was a problem at first, but still valid. I actually heard someone say that Justin Bieber would not be affected anymore because it only affects non-american infringers. I guess he never bothered to check to see if Bieber was American (he's not).
SOPA would shut down YouTube. The first time someone threw an infringing video on You Tube, the whole site could get shut down. without notice. And all those legit videos???
Oh well.
As for the whole twitter argument, they actually REMOVE censoring things, and we are supposed to riot over it? Get your facts strait, and then we'll talk.
Until you actually understand the facts, you look like most SOPA/PIPA supporters, as uninformed about the actual effects these bills would have.
Have you even read the bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is exactly the sort of misinformation campaign that the anti-SOPA insurgents ran. You bought it, hook, line and sinker. Read the fucking law. Even the Lord High Piracy Apologist, Masnick would disagree with this assertion. Yet you state it here as a fact. And you got this "fact" from the lying scum who distorted the implications of the bill to dupe people like you and whip you up into a frenzy. Thanks for making my point more eloquently than I ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please quote where it says "page" or "section" instead of "site", boy.
Oh, you can't!
Too Bad!
So Sad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please quote where it says "page" or "section" instead of "site", boy.
Oh, you can't!
Too Bad!
So Sad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's a piece of text from the so called f-ing law:
" No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--
(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property;..."
So if youtube were a foreign site, and its payment providers, registrars, etc. get a phone call from Movies-R-Us production studios stating that something on youtube.ru is infringing and that they have no intention of bringing secondary infringement actions against said service providers if they take voluntary action and secure immunity for themselves - what do you think would quickly happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so silly!
Did you not read the part about SOPA where ISPs would be LIABLE if they did not take down whole websites?
Hey, look, someone complains to the ISP responsible for Youtube.
Youtube is now gone.
Thanks for screwing stuff up, SOPA.
Look, AC, just go look at how copyright claims are handled on Youtube. I saw a copyright claim on a video from Sony, when neither the video, nor the song used in the video, were owned by Sony at all, yet, it was still taken down.
And that's with the DMCA, and that was only a couple months ago.
SOPA is worse, so, no, SOPA WOULD break the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can I be a Lord High Piracy Apologist too. That just sounds awesome.
Weneedhelp, Lord High Piracy Apologist.
Yes I like that. Mind if I use it? Too bad I will anyway.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
Yes asshole read it. Dont just look at it, read it. We will all be here to explain the big words and tough paragraphs for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a totally awesome title. Wonder if the position comes with a big hat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a totally awesome title. Wonder if the position comes with a big hat?
Yes. It's shaped like a big ice cream cone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, a big shiny tinfoil one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My, what a persuasive argument.
Anyway, SOPA and PIPA aren't laws yet. They are still bills that may be debated if they're ever taken off the shelf they're now collecting dust on.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Great!! So is Google, Comcast, Verizon and ATT. Glad to see you don't object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that's the point you're missing. Google, Comcast, etc are all objecting to bills like SOPA. They can CHOOSE to restrict whatever speech they want, but at the moment, they are under no legal compunction to do so and as such they ARE NOT AND WILL NOT.
Which means you and your ilk need to get over yourselves and stop telling others how you want them to do things to suit you.
In fact, the only ones who object to quite a bit are you and your ilk. Can't compete, legislate. Can't innovate, legislate. And so on and so forth. You object to the world and technology passing you by. It's not our problem, it's yours. Until you try and push your wants and needs and laws on other corporations and on us the people. Then it's our problem. And as we recently saw, we will put you in your place should the need arise. Look what we managed to accomplish with one day's worth of protest. Just think about and remember that the next time you try and push such idiocy on the rest of us, Shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
God! Get your facts straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you infer "ISP's" from "etc", but by "etc" I meant other companies and groups in general. Without naming any one in particular (I went with what you originally stated, FYI. Google, Comcast... up above. Did you mention any ISP's?)
So, the only FUD and disinformation being spoken/spewed here is by yourself.
On an unrelated note, the ISP's will do what's in their best interest. Enabling data caps, throttling usage, etc. all while charging more and more to "maintain" their networks and pipelines (all while not actually building and expanding upon their current networks/pipelines). When services grow to a point where using lots of bandwidth is the norm (as it is currently becoming with things like Netflix and Spotify and Pandora and all those streaming and cloud services) and they have to update their current networks or risk angering customers, then they might lobby for this or that. But they usually are willing to work with their customers and satisfy their needs, to an extant.
The same can't be said of your entertainment industries (for the most part)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I notice you ignored everything else I said to focus on that one part though. How lovely? Nitpick your battles much?
We are back to where we started, with you stating something and having it turned around on you or being disproved entirely.
It's okay FUDboy, we all get it. You're a shill. In a real debate or argument, you've got nothing to back you up. The rest of us have facts, evidence, logic, and so on and so forth. Not to mention the support of an obviously not so minor amount of people. No, not thieves and pirates and whatever other derogatory terms you feel like throwing out that don't actually apply. I'm talking about actual citizens (who can voice their opinion and vote their minds) as well as customers (who can deny you the contents of their wallets).
Face it, the minority here (on this site) is you. And people like you. The minority (as far as reality is concerned) is people who share your opinion and the corporations whose input into the GDP is less than 1%. Yet who feel the need to try and force their points of view and problems onto the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SOPA was GOVERNMENT trying to censor the ENTIRE internet.
Twitter is censoring content on THEIR servers.
Twitter as a private company is allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their stuff. It only affects their users. If the users don't like it they can go elsewhere.
SOPA on the other hand was government wanting power over things that do not belong to them. That is extremely different than a company choosing to do something voluntarily with their own servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This intarnet thingy must be stopped!
> route around lies, it's going to backfire
Wait. I thought the internet routed around censorship.
So Mike, now you're telling me it routes around lies as well?
This internet thing must be stopped! It is destroying every sacred thing the RIAA holds dear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misinformation Campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misinformation Campaign
And that's just one accused infringer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misinformation Campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misinformation Campaign
It really is a misinformation campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misinformation Campaign
"Piracy costs the economy billions of dollars a day!"
This is based upon what? Now we're talking true fud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misinformation Campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negative comments and NY Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Negative comments and NY Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Negative comments and NY Times
NYT publishes "infringement is theft" column and rips off another paper's article in the same weekend
its only bad when others do it?
wheres bob to tell me how a paywall would have stopped this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :O
A point I've made repeatedly. The RIAA (and its members) and the MPAA (and its members) have contributed, over the last 4 decades, a grand total of 0.0 to the Internet. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Meanwhile, we geeks have built for them the greatest promotion and distribution mechanism that they could ever want. It's so amazingly good that it's beyond their pitifully feeble comprehension...which is, of course, why they want to destroy it. It's not that they won't understand it, it's that they can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :O
They will have to submit a detailed plan to a special comity stating the reasons for remaking a movie along with their plans on how they plan to add anything to it. This submission will have to be made with a $1000 payment for the hassle of looking at their sorry plans. It then goes up for vote on the merits.
Sequels will have a very similar process. I think the fee on that will likely need to be $5000. It will take much higher pay to keep the poor people awake reviewing these plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :O
Where do you think the content you keep stealing comes from. Any idea who owns Hulu? Derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :O
I think that is one of the most stunning things about your side of the argument (other than the pathological need to lie to make your point), you think that everyone goes online to look at your stupid content.
The internet existed before your crap made it online and it would exist without it. I for one don't go online to watch crappy TV and the vast majority of people I know don't either. Take it all away, no one cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :O
The millions of people who illegally download billions of copies of songs and movies probably give a shit. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :O
They want billions for Hulu and are offering no deals for content in the sale... thats almost as smart as making people pay to get more commercials than the free users got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :O
Really, did the RIAA or MPAA give us blogs?
Or Instant Messaging?
Social Media?
SKYPE?
Webcams?
3G? 4G?
Wireless Cellphones/routers?
Firefox? Internet Explorer? Chrome?
Wikipedia?
How about online gaming?
Face it, they gave us nothing that we use in our daily lives and they want to control it.
Too bad, so sad.
Now go back to Dodd and lick his shoes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :O
You know that nasty little bit torrent that "pirates" use to get stuff that isn't available anywhere?
Guess what?
The supporters of SOPA and PIPA CREATED Bit Torrent and SHOWED EVERYONE how to USE it!!
If anything, the MPAA and the RIAA should go after the people supporting SOPA and PIPA first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
put someone in place who actually gets the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying to Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well it sounds like both sides are ready to negotiate
Seems that Sherman followed the invitation to dialogue with a hearty, "We want to talk with you, but you just have to understand that the content industry is right and anyone who opposes us is wrong. So let's sit down and talk until you agree with me."
The trolls can rally around "They just want free shit... they are thieves" or whatever other rhetoric they choose, but the fact is that the paying customers don't want any laws that hinder freedom or innovation on the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DC insider...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DC insider...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DC insider...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The purpose of shills!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The purpose of shills!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The purpose of shills!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actual impact?
MAFIAA GDP as of 2010 was the same as the Pet Industry, and Waste Management. Software was 3x the MAFIAA, and Radio and TV were 4x.
http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/GDPbyInd_VA_NAICS_1998-2010.xls
as a content creator myself, I write software, and am completely aware of copyright and patents,.. I have quite a few. I changed my business model 12 years ago, I created a physical scarcity and not an artificial one, and I have been making money ever since. So my advice to the MAFIAA is simple; put the crack pipe down, get off the couch, and go get a fscking job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah...
Yeah I downloaded it from Megaupload just last week....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro-SOPA people praised Chinese censorship
At the SOPA hearings:
It's not FUD to say RIAA and MPAA calling for censorship is like China when they make that comparison themselves, with China as the example they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police state
SOPA/PIPA to the best of my knowledge have no safeguards against false reporting, no due process before blocking a website, no way of an accused website of defending itself, etc. These bills if passed into law will be open to massive abuse. Any corporation or the US Government itself will have the power to shut down any website it doesn't like. And now we have ACTA and TPP each of which outdoes previous bills on restrictions. And worst of all these bills have been put on a fast track and have been negotiated in strictest secrecy by insiders, while the public has been left in the dark, except for what few documents have been leaked by insiders.
I see all of these as more tools to be used in implementing said police state than anything else. I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong. But that's what I see coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police state
This is why you WV rubes should lay off the squeezings. Under these proposed bills, an accused website had the same rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as any other civil litigant. Try reading the bill before commenting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Police state
[ 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 ]