Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
from the time-to-learn dept
In a short article about a panel of Congressional staffers at the NCTA show, they basically admitted that any new "anti-piracy" legislation may be tough to pass -- with one staffer saying that the SOPA protests "poisoned the well." However, perhaps more interesting were the comments from Stephanie Moore, the "Democrat's chief counsel on the House Judiciary Committee" who apparently still refuses to believe that the public actually spoke out against the bill of their own free will:“What happened was a misinformation campaign,” said Moore. “People were basically misled into contacting Congressmen with claims that were extraordinary. There was some genuine concern, but as for it being a genuine home grown grassroots up-from-the-streets opposition, I beg to differ on that.”I always find this line of reasoning quite extraordinary. If you look at the history of copyright law -- especially over the past 40 years or so, it's been one "misinformation campaign" after another by RIAA and MPAA lobbyists. As we've discussed, Congress has bent over backwards to pass 15 anti-piracy laws in the last 30 years -- each one pushed by industry lobbying about how they would collapse and die without the laws being passed, and how no one will create content without such laws. They've been wrong every single time. So even if it was a misinformation campaign on the other side, at best all it would do is even out the playing field. Besides, looking at the arguments in favor of SOPA and PIPA, they were so full of blatant misinformation that I don't think any amount of misinformation against the bills would have even out the score.
But, to be clear, since I was pretty closely involved in the effort to stop these dangerous bills, I can say first hand that the claim that this was a "misinformation campaign" and that it wasn't about an "up-from-the-streets opposition" are hogwash by a person speaking from ignorance, anger or jealousy over having their own pet bill blocked. The folks working against the bill worked pretty damn hard to paint a clear and accurate picture of the bill. While there were various people who helped shepherd the process along, the protests didn't take on any life until various communities of people took them over and ran with them -- starting with the users on Tumblr and Reddit (followed closely by those on Wikipedia).
Of course, when you have any large group of internet users, not all of them are going to understand the nuances or the details. So, certainly some misinformation got into the discussion. To be fair, though, the largest bit of "misinformation" I saw on the anti-SOPA side was from people who didn't realize that (under serious public pressure), Lamar Smith issued a manager's amendment to take out the worst of the worst of SOPA (still leaving in plenty of bad). Some people mistakenly referred to the impact of the original bill in protesting later versions. This was, indeed, a mistake, but hardly a result of "misinformation." After all, those issues were in the original bill and were clearly part of what the House Judiciary Committee's staff was going for when it
What I do know is that when misleading suggestions were made on the anti-SOPA email list, knowledgeable people quickly pushed back against those claims, noting that they were not true and should not be used. I did not see that on the other side. When the bogus claims of the entertainment industry were widely debunked, the supporters of SOPA kept on quoting them (and still do, to this day).
So, I'm sorry, but the idea that the defeat of SOPA was a misinformation campaign and not a grassroots effort is pure bunk. And if Moore wants to avoid a repeat, rather than lashing out mistakenly, and misunderstanding what happened, she should perhaps spend some time actually learning about why people were so upset by SOPA. But, of course, we know that won't happen.
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: anti-piracy, house judiciary committee, mpaa, ncta, sopa, stephanie moore
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is called willful ignorance. Best defined by Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I will modify it to say that, "it is impossible (the willful part) to get someone to understand something when there is good money in not understanding it." Yes, these actions can aptly be described as stupidity, but they are not due to a lack of intellectual ability, rather they come from a lack of character.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" or to stupidity that which can be explained by ignorance"
'course, willful ignorance is ignorance caused by stupidity or malice, so it kinda comes full circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never mind those Christians instructed to "Be sly as serpents and simple as doves" (Matt 10:16) and using the very same First Amendment that keeps them from being fed to the lions to instead feed heathens to the lions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them time to get it right than
If you are trying to pull a quick one over on the public, please understand there is not going to be time to correct all the misinformation that is out there. That is partly your fault for moving it so fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give them time to get it right than
But if you tell them what goes into the mystery meat then they won't eat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give them time to get it right than
"They say there are two things you shouldn't watch being made: laws and sausage."
That depends on the people. British Chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver did a tour trying to get children to eat healthy foods. One of the demonstrations he'd do is to show kids how chicken nuggets were processed and prepared. In the UK and other parts of Europe, the children were turned off by what they saw and refused to eat the processed chicken.
His surprise came when he tried this demonstration in the U.S.. American children would eat the processed meat - even though they saw the process for themselves.
As for mystery meat and my sausage quotation? Meat processing has a lot more oversight and regulation than Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give them time to get it right than
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Give them time to get it right than
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget...
All they care about is power & control. They will say & do anything to meet their ends.
So of course Stephanie Moore will claim the anti-SOPA campaign was "misinformation" when in reality "misinformation" is exactly what RIAA/MPAA/pro-SOPA has & will continue to engage in.
When you create a government that is a monopoly on the use of force within a geographic area & allow them to be funded through theft/coercion, it will always attract sociopaths/pscyhopaths to its ranks that will do ANYTHING to keep that power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why wouldn't we filth ridden, lower class of lifeforms revolt?
She's bought and we know it !
We are all fed-up of the corruptness of the political business.
Time to work for the people or GTFO Stephanie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stages of Grief
Come one people. It is only five steps: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hollywood actors and politicians are able to go through 12 step programs on a consistent basis, why are these five steps so difficult?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stages of Grief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stages of Grief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stages of Grief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stages of Grief
All the cocaine and whores will soon be yours : )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It'll break the Internet"; They'll put Justin Bieber in prison"; SOPA will shut down YouTube"
This whole protest was as organic, spontaneous and unscripted as the mourners at Kim Jong-il's funeral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
prosecutors are already finding "clever" ways to stretch and bend laws to charge people for crimes they haven't committed. id hate to find out how crafty they will get with something like sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One one side, people see super-mega-hyper huge corporations whose profit has been climbing at an alarming pace for decades bitch all day about the evils of "piracy" without showing any proof. They then see these corporations messing with laws that benefit them and only them.
On the other side, they see an old guy who allegedly invented the internet say "this law is bad, and here are the reasons", plus a shitload of other (credible) people say "this law is bad because X, Y and Z. But don't take my word for it, go read the law and check out what other people are saying.".
Whose side would you take? The faith-based side that basically tells you to shut up and take it, or the side that at least gives you a semi-plausible explanation? It's a no-brainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the sense that it's a no-brainer that asks you to use your brain, yes.
I'm always more trusting of the side that tells me to read around a look at as much information as possible than the side that says only its data is right and you shouldn't look at anyone else's. The second group is clearly afraid you'll find something that will make you disagree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. The arguments were more like this:
"It will interfere and break the implementation of DNSSEC."
"Justin Beiber made his fame by infringing copyright. SOPA would threaten future Beibers with jailtime for doing what he did to become famous."
"SOPA will put unnecessary restrictions and burdens on Future Youtubes that would threaten to shut them down or they would be sued into bankruptcy."
When you simplify things, sure it sounds bad, but when you provide more context, the arguments start to make since.
Of course, my favorite FUD comes from the pro-SOPA side:
"Piracy is costing the US economy $75 trillion a year"
"SOPA is needed to stop fire departments from buying faulty smoke detectors."
"SOPA is needed to stop people from being killed by fake drugs from Canada"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to the pro-SOPA crowd, they were.
That the pro-SOPA crowd was pushing this absolute dreck, yet are accusing the anti-SOPA crowd of "misinformation," is the height of disingenuousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is an oversimplified version of the argument but, as SOPA was originally, the full claim was true.
That wasn't what was said. What was said is that if SOPA had been in place when JB was getting started, he would have been at risk of jail time. Which is true.
This is an oversimplification of what was claim, much in the same vein as the "shut down the internet" business. The actual claim is that the parts of YouTube which are really valuable would be severely curtailed by SOPA, effectively destroying it by turning it into something more like television.
You are presenting oversimplified, cartoon versions of the arguments that were made. So oversimplified that they don't actually reflect the arguments at all. A very clever and subtle strawman, but a strawman nonetheless.
The overwhelming majority of the claim I heard were actually quite true. As the article notes, the ones that were exaggerated got there by oversight: they were true when SOPA was first revealed, but those issues had been mitigated a bit by the manager's amendment.
No "misinformation campaign" -- as in coordinated effort at deception -- was engaged in by anybody except the pro-SOPA people, who, much like you do in your comment, continue it to this day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those oversimplified cartoon versions are PRECISELY the terms used by the various piracy apologist groups to inflame the masses. They may not reflect the arguments made in hearings at at Congressional meetings by the top echelon apologists, but those are the exact words they used to mobilize their base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And who would those be? Since I don't remember a strong showing by "piracy apologist groups" I suspect that you may be taking a tiny minority and pretending that it was a mainstream voice.
[ 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: Re: Re:
...and other entities who were around before Google even existed, and whose funding comes from sources other than Google. Or who are publicly critical of Google.
Public Knowledge
...who have also been critical of Google, and whose income comes primarily from individual donations and not Google.
Not that it makes any difference whatsoever, since Google is not a "piracy apologist" by any stretch of the imagination, Chris Dodd's slander notwithstanding.
These organizations stood up against SOPA/PIPA because they are truly grassroots. At the very least, they truly represent the grassroots of people who actually know the technology people like Dodd are trying to stifle.
No matter who you are, you simply can't get millions of people to personally call their representatives, and tens of thousands of websites to black themselves out, just on your say-so.
You, on the other hand, don't represent any sort of grassroots movement. Hell, you don't even represent the majority of people in the entertainment industry. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will actually be able to move into the 20th century. (And, yes, I know it's the 21st century now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oops, the article I linked to is talking about Rupert Murdoch's slander, not Chris Dodd's. Apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So are you equally outraged by the blatant untruths from the pro-SOPA side that Zach listed above? In case you missed them:
"Piracy is costing the US economy $75 trillion a year"
"SOPA is needed to stop fire departments from buying faulty smoke detectors."
"SOPA is needed to stop people from being killed by fake drugs from Canada"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit and you know it. Pretty telling you have to resort to LIES to get your point across. Stephanie, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It'll break the Internet";
The claim was that it would break important security standards, something that eventually even supporters of the bill admitted (after denying it early on).
There were also reasonable concerns that it would be a break from how the internet had successfully worked in the past.
No one said that it would make the internet stop working entirely, but that it would "break" certain elements. That was true, not misinformation.
They'll put Justin Bieber in prison";
No, what was said was that what Bieber had done (singing others' songs and putting them online via YouTube and embedding them on his own site), would violate parts of the new law, and would likely prevent future Justin Biebers from doing similar things. The details on this were laid out in great detail, even with support from a Harvard law professor who explained how bizarre the wording of the law was.
SOPA will shut down YouTube"
Actually folks were pretty clear that YouTube would survive because people wouldn't attack it since it's so large. But, the next YouTube would be in serious trouble. And that's easy to see. Hell, we already saw how Veoh got shutdown under existing DMCA regs, even though the site was found perfectly legal. Under the original version of SOPA, Veoh would have been in even more trouble because it wouldn't have even been able to stay up while it fought the lawsuit, but would have been shut down completely upon notice.
So, no, none of that was misinformation. The misinformation is from folks like yourself pretending those statements said things they did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It'll break the Internet";
The claim was that it would break important security standards, something that eventually even supporters of the bill admitted (after denying it early on).
There were also reasonable concerns that it would be a break from how the internet had successfully worked in the past.
No one said that it would make the internet stop working entirely, but that it would "break" certain elements. That was true, not misinformation.
The was no such nuance in the many inflammatory messages to your base. And there was no disavowing of that claim when DNS blocking was removed from the bill. It was simple bumper sticker politics and it was used from start to finish for the express purpose of inflaming people, knowing (like most of the electorate) they'd look no further than the lie itself.
"They'll put Justin Bieber in prison";
No, what was said was that what Bieber had done (singing others' songs and putting them online via YouTube and embedding them on his own site), would violate parts of the new law, and would likely prevent future Justin Biebers from doing similar things. The details on this were laid out in great detail, even with support from a Harvard law professor who explained how bizarre the wording of the law was.
What are you talking about? I still have a screen shot of the ad with Bieber in the prison cell. I'm pretty sure it was compliments of your friends at Fight For The Future. Good job getting the pre-pubescent set involved.
"SOPA will shut down YouTube"
Actually folks were pretty clear that YouTube would survive because people wouldn't attack it since it's so large. But, the next YouTube would be in serious trouble.
Funny, that's what a number of piracy apologist groups claimed. Hell, even lobbyists were doing it for awhile until it was embarrassingly pointed out that the bill was limited to foreign sites.
And that's easy to see. Hell, we already saw how Veoh got shutdown under existing DMCA regs, even though the site was found perfectly legal. Under the original version of SOPA, Veoh would have been in even more trouble because it wouldn't have even been able to stay up while it fought the lawsuit, but would have been shut down completely upon notice.
I'm not that familiar with the case, but they were based in California so they weren't subject to SOPA. The only thing I know is that they had two lawsuits filed against them, and both times they received a summary judgment in their favor. Apparently the CEO, Dmitry Shapiro has a somewhat broader take on their bankruptcy saying:
"the distraction of the legal battles, and the challenges of the broader macro-economic climate have led to our Chapter 7 bankruptcy."
In addition to free speech, we have the right to redress in courts. I know you may not like that, but it too is part of package of rights enjoyed by all Americans. Besides, given the economy falling into recession in 2008, the year 2010 was a banner year for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. I'd suggest that was a more compelling reason than two dismissed court cases some years before.
So, no, none of that was misinformation. The misinformation is from folks like yourself pretending those statements said things they did not.
I stand by what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, there were lengthy discussion and explanations of just this nuance here on TD.
Again, there was. What the blocking was sidelined, that was not only noted here but people who mistakenly made the originally correct, claim were typically corrected.
Yes, so what? It's a succinct and humorous way of making the (accurate) point.
And, as explained frequently here and elsewhere, that whole "limited to foreign sites" thing was, although technically true, practically BS. It was political double-speak, pretending that there was some kind of difference between mandating action and making it economically impossible to opt out of an optional action.
Actually, redress in court is a right enjoyed by those who can afford it. That's nowhere near all Americans. Further, being able to defend yourself in court is a privilege only enjoyed by the well-off. The courts are frequently used as an economic weapon against people whose only offense is that they aren't wealthy.
And you remain egregiously wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "masses" were not simply the minions residing in the Techdirt echo chamber. This campaign was enormous in scope. I will grant you that there was a greater discussion of the facts here than some other forums. But there was a large amount of FUD to help drown out the few whispers of reason.
Why we are engaged in a SOPA rehash is beyond me. The take away here is that copyright legislation is now toxic and there won't be any for a very long time. IP enforcement will migrate to industry agreements (like six strikes) and treaties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the take-away here is that overreaching copyright enforcement is toxic, no matter who does it.
If it "migrates" to industry agreements, customers will leave those companies who agreed to it. And there are, and will continue to be, public outcries against "treaties" as well. Which doesn't bode well for those who make them, since they are all driven by the U.S.; and if it's a "treaty," it requires ratification by Congress, who will consider it too toxic to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Techdirt is an echo chamber then surely Congress can only be described as a parrot cage, since it's members regularly and frequently repeat the false claims of lobby groups like MPAA and RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There were factual errors, but you characterize them as FUD and lies. That's an unsupportable allegation (if it is supportable, then please support it.) However, even with those errors most of the conversations I saw, ignoring TD since you deem it an exception, were not that far off the mark. There were far more than a few whispers of reason. There was a great deal of rational, substantive discussion. I know you disagree, but I have yet to see you come up with anything to support your allegations.
For two reasons. Firstly, people such as yourself still stop by to spout their hogwash and therefore need to be rebutted. Secondly, because the minute that we stop paying attention to this, SOPA will happen in one form or another. If not as legislation, then, as you say, as "industry agreements."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that really should be the case it was very little compared to the scope of the FUD spewn by the backers of the bill. Funny you should ignore that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The was no such nuance in the many inflammatory messages to your base. And there was no disavowing of that claim when DNS blocking was removed from the bill. It was simple bumper sticker politics and it was used from start to finish for the express purpose of inflaming people, knowing (like most of the electorate) they'd look no further than the lie itself.
We actually had a careful discussion of what was meant by "breaking the internet" as well as multiple detailed discussions about what it meant when DNS was supposedly *temporarily* removed. No DNS removal ever actually happened. Merely it was stated that the Senate would *consider delaying implementation* until after the issue had been studied. The House said it would remove DNS from the bill, for the time being, but never actually presented the result.
So, yes, people were reasonably concerned because we had not yet seen the final product. However, we did, in fact -- contrary to your bullshit assertion -- have a nuanced discussion on this point.
What are you talking about? I still have a screen shot of the ad with Bieber in the prison cell. I'm pretty sure it was compliments of your friends at Fight For The Future. Good job getting the pre-pubescent set involved.
Yes, to make a point -- one that sailed over your head apparently. No one thought that Bieber himself was going to prison. The point was that the bill *would* have made a felony out of what he did. You can't rebut that point because it's true.
I'm not that familiar with the case, but they were based in California so they weren't subject to SOPA.
Bull and shit. As I said "under the original SOPA" which was NOT restricted to foreign sites, so they were abso-fucking-lutely subject to SOPA.
Apparently the CEO, Dmitry Shapiro has a somewhat broader take on their bankruptcy saying:
In which he says that the legal fight was a major part of why they went out of business. I've spoken with Dmitry, and he has told me that without that lawsuit they'd probably still be around.
Have you spoken to him?
I stand by what I said.
You shouldn't, because you're wrong. And if you really stood behind it, you'd put your name on it. But you won't because you know you're wrong and you don't want to have that associated with your reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is misleading to the extent it suggests that the mere act of streaming subjects one to possible criminal penalties. Criminal law requires several predicate conditions come together before a criminal charge can be brought and successfully prosecuted. It is also worth noting that streaming (the public performance right) is already embraced within our laws, only as a misdemeanor. Even then all the predicate conditions apply with equal force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's misinforming now?
Criminal law requires several predicate conditions come together before a criminal charge can be brought and successfully prosecuted.
We went through all of those conditions and showed how what Bieber did applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me suggest you take a bit of time reading and digesting what are know as the Third and Fourth Elements (the first two are relatively straightforward).
Thus armed, you should be positioned to provide a proper showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Er, we covered both willfulness and commercial advantage. Actually we did so multiple times. So, not quite sure why you want to keep pushing this smug asshole persona in which you act superior even though you're completely wrong. You really ought to stop doing that. It just makes you look like you're, well, full of shit (again).
We covered it. You're wrong. Get over it.
By the way, still waiting for your reply about Bret Easton Ellis having no fans and not hiring a producer. Both were wrong, and you still can't admit you made stupid assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am heartened by the fact you took the time to review the USAM. If nothing else it should have provided some measure of understanding that the DOJ does not as a general rule act precipitously and with casual disregard for the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An analysis was actually done by Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/04193216996/harvard-law-professor-explains-why- felony-streaming-provisions-do-put-justin-bieber-risk-jail.shtml
Andrew Bridges (of Fenwick and West) said the same thing to Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/under-sopa-justin-beiber-would-be-in-jail/
the DOJ does not as a general rule act precipitously and with casual disregard for the rule of law.
Considering the colossal failure that is Operation In Our Sites, it's hard to read that with a straight face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for your links, but they are not articles discussing any legal analysis of the bill's provisions. They are merely top level comments regarding personal opinions. I have opinions as well, but the links I ask about are any that engage in a legal analysis.
Anybody can say "Justin, or someone doing what he did, could be charged with a crime." I am interested in why they may believe this to be the case by reference to specific provisions of the then pending bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have discussed both in the context of Bieber specifically here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11572816419/free-justin-bieber-do-we-really-want-congress- to-make-bieber-felon.shtml
Similarly there was some discussion with Zittrain, tht Karl already pointed out.
I am heartened by the fact you took the time to review the USAM. If nothing else it should have provided some measure of understanding that the DOJ does not as a general rule act precipitously and with casual disregard for the rule of law.
Tell that to the folks at Dajaz1. Or multiple other domains seized under bogus terms. Sorry, but the DOJ is totally out of control and they don't give a shit about the rule of law. Having gotten to know a few people who have been railroaded by federal prosecutors, your comment displays an incredible amount of ignorance about the DOJ.
BTW, I am, of course, aware that you and others writing articles here have used the two terms. However, I am not aware of any analysis here of how these terms are interpreted by trial and appellate courts. It is links to the latter that my request is directed.
Oh look at that! We call you on your bullshit claim again, and you're quickly moving goalposts.
You're so full of it. You claimed we ignored willfulness and commercial advantage. You were wrong. Again.
But you won't admit it because that's your M.O. Come here, act like a sanctimonious asshole who knows more than anyone, refuse to ever make an actual point, but merely make snide references to how "if so and so were actually familiar with x, they never would have made such a comment" and when everyone calls you on your bullshit act all offended by both the language (watch, you'll get the "vapors" again from all this "sailor talk") and pretend you never said what you clearly said.
What's funny is we've been calling you on it for years, and you actually still think you're clever. Everyone sees through your bullshit.
What's most amusing to me, of course, is how directly and clearly you fucked up in doing that on the Bret Easton Ellis post but your head is so far up your own ass that you couldn't even admit it.
Let's try again: will you admit you made totally ignorant statements on the Ellis post? I might actually have a modicum of respect for you if you could admit it. But you can't. Because you're full of shit (*vapors!*)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since Mr. Zittrain provided absolutely no legal analysis, which is what I am looking for, your parroting a link having not a scintilla of any legal analysis tells me that you have not discussed and provided here any analysis of what was in the proposed bill elucidating upon how it would come to pass that the teenage heart throb, or his eventual successor(s) would find themselves in jail if one practiced precisely what JB did using YT. Thus, your response can only be described as non-responsive.
Oh look at that! We call you on your bullshit claim again, and you're quickly moving goalposts. You're so full of it. You claimed we ignored willfulness and commercial advantage. You were wrong. Again.
I asked for links associated with legal analyses by the experts upon which you rely. Hence, the goalposts remain precisely in the very same place. Since no responsive links were provided, I am assuming that you have none.
For one who repeatedly demands "show me the facts", you seem to turn on a dime when the same is requested from you.
Since you appear disinclined or unable to provide a responsive answer to my request, I hereby withdraw it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said in response to me noting the "Justin Bieber will go to prison" chant:
No, what was said was that what Bieber had done (singing others' songs and putting them online via YouTube and embedding them on his own site), would violate parts of the new law, and would likely prevent future Justin Biebers from doing similar things. The details on this were laid out in great detail, even with support from a Harvard law professor who explained how bizarre the wording of the law was.
That is simply untrue. That may have happened on Techdirt but Fight For The Future had an entire website call freebieberdotorg devoted to this bullshit. And that was tweeted, retweeted, linked, copied and otherwise distributed in total disregard of the facts. You conveniently seek to deny the larger campaign of deceit by focusing exclusive on what happened here.
Citing something as being subject to an earlier version of a bill in criticizing the current iteration strikes me as bit disingenuous.
As far as Shapiro goes, I can only posit that it's easier to blame a couple of lawsuits that were dismissed years earlier than accept responsibility for your own failures. Really? Two directed verdicts bankrupting a company 2-3 years after the fact?
Anyway, Round One goes to your side. Enjoy it while it lasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, the purpose of freebieber.org was to highlight why this was a problem -- and it did so effectively. No one took that site literally.
As far as Shapiro goes, I can only posit that it's easier to blame a couple of lawsuits that were dismissed years earlier than accept responsibility for your own failures. Really? Two directed verdicts bankrupting a company 2-3 years after the fact?
Um. Veoh decision came out in December of last year. What do you mean "years earlier"?
Talk about misinformation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, the purpose of freebieber.org was to highlight why this was a problem -- and it did so effectively. No one took that site literally.
No one took it literally? You're kidding right? It was a classic disinformation campaign and worked well.
"As far as Shapiro goes, I can only posit that it's easier to blame a couple of lawsuits that were dismissed years earlier than accept responsibility for your own failures. Really? Two directed verdicts bankrupting a company 2-3 years after the fact?"
Um. Veoh decision came out in December of last year. What do you mean "years earlier"?
As I said, I was not particularly familiar with this case. In any event, the Wikipedia section Veoh's legal issues lists only directed verdicts in 2006 and 2007. Perhaps you can update it:
"June 23, 2006: IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District.[17] The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment, that it was entitled to the statute's "safe harbor" provision.[18]
September 4, 2007: Universal Music Group Recordings, Inc. et al. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. et al. in the California Central District Court.[19] On September 15, 2009, the case was dismissed with the judge stating that Veoh was taking the necessary steps to stop copyright infringement.[20] Universal Music Group planned to appeal the decision.[20] On Dec 20 2011, the appeals court upheld the original dismissal. [21]
February 12, 2010: Veoh filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 on March 19, 2010.
April 8, 2010: Veoh assets acquired by Qlipso.[22]"
Talk about misinformation...
[ 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:
Hey you actually admitted getting something wrong. Good for you.
But, there isn't much more to the story, honestly. I've spoken with Shapiro about it, and I've spoken with someone who worked with the team that handled the appeal. It killed the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the very section you quoted: " On Dec 20 2011, the appeals court upheld the original dismissal."
Yeah. You might want to stop now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course everyone took it absolutely literally. With statements like the following, how can you not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BFG9000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BFG9000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BFG9000
that is all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BFG9000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BFG9000
Is it full of seamen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The anti-SOPA rhetoric was of epic proportions, was laden with statements that were not in the then pending bill, cherry-picked provisions without noting that those provisions related back to other provisions and definitions that were material to limitations associated with the cherry-picked provisions, presented flawed analysis of constitutional law, etc., etc., etc.
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill. The bill's sponsors were actually negotiating with themselves as it opponents refused to provide even an iota of constructive input into how the bill's provisions could be amended to address their concerns.
It was FUD then, and this article is little more than a misleading and disingenuous continuation of that FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You write like there's something wrong with that. Why did we need the bill? What positive benefits are we missing out on since the bill has been dropped? What negatives are we perpetuating since the bill isn't holding us back?
Where's the actual evidence that any of this was required? MegaUpload was taken down even without the help of SOPA. Dajaz1 was censored for more than a year without the help of SOPA. Rojadirecta is still arguing its case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can however, feel free to stay completely clueless.
Go troll Fox News.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks for admitting this, because it is the key to the whole problem. They WERE negotiating with themselves, they were not letting any other actual stakeholders to the table, they would not listen to subject matter experts, and so they got stomped. I couldn't be more thrilled.
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill.
The Internet's finest hour. By the way, there was something the sponsor's did not try to "ameliorate concerns": drop that unneeded piece of garbage legislation like it was a hot potato.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like the committee hearing in which every amendment proposed by Lofgren, Chaffetz and others who were listening to the public and technology sectors were shot down without even an inkling of consideration by Smith? Smith showed no desire to amend the bill in any way he disproved. I am really surprised he even let anyone who was against the bill to speak at all.
anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill
Perhaps that is because the bill is not needed in the first place. There are plenty of remedies available to copyright holders right now. Just look at what is happening with Mega upload and that kid from England. The US government seems perfectly willing to bend current law to the whims of the MPAA and the RIAA. Why do we even need SOPA?
The rationale? "Well, it was in the original draft, so it will likely be re-inserted at some time in the future, and that is a big problem because eventually what is enacted into law will mirror the original bill."
Were there a number of people who were not keeping up with the changes in the bill? Yes. Was Techdirt one of those areas? No. Techdirt made serious strides to keep people current on what changes were being made and whether the changes were for the better or worse. In the end, the bill was still unnecessary, overly broad and would do more harm than good. Why would we want something like that?
It was FUD then, and this article is little more than a misleading and disingenuous continuation of that FUD.
Oh you mean like "Piracy is costing the US economy $75 trillion a year" Or "SOPA is needed to stop fire departments from buying faulty smoke detectors." or "SOPA is needed to stop people from buying fake drugs from Canada".
Or are you thinking more along the lines of FUD like the 301 report or the IFPI's piracy numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not. Needed to keep up the appearance of compromise to the public after all.
I'm more surprised that despite everything that he's done, he's going to get re-elected for another term...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I seem to recall that the "anti-SOPA" side wanted to sit down and discuss things, and the SOPA supporters basically telling them to sod off.
Maybe that's what you meant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
Who said that? Point out who said that or admit again that you are making stuff up.
There was *quite reasonable* concern that the original draft did show the intent of the authors of the bill, and quite reasonable concern that without being clear on this issue, such language would likely get reintroduced back in discussion to reconcile house and senate language (in fact, we were told that was the plan).
Again, you are completely wrong if you think this was a "misinformation campaign." The people fighting this bill were VERY careful to avoid misinformation. You weren't there. I was.
The anti-SOPA rhetoric was of epic proportions, was laden with statements that were not in the then pending bill, cherry-picked provisions without noting that those provisions related back to other provisions and definitions that were material to limitations associated with the cherry-picked provisions, presented flawed analysis of constitutional law, etc., etc., etc.
Bullshit. Again, while some individuals misinterpreted things or focused on discarded language without understanding things, the people who actually were organizing the fight were quite clear and careful in their speech. I was there, you were not.
The "flawed analysis" is bullshit too. We saw over a hundred legal scholars -- some of the most respected in the field, come out against the bills.
We saw ONE prominent legal scholar support it -- and even then he admitted that it would lead to censorship of protected speech. It was just that he felt this was to an acceptable level. Furthermore, he was working for the MPAA.
Who the fuck are you?
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill.
If the entire bill is a problem, then why should any compromise be acceptable?
Furthermore, "as the process progressed" those protesting the bill asked OVER AND OVER AND OVER again for a seat at the table and were rejected. You know the first time they were invited to talk? The day before the protests.
So I'm sorry, but the only one spreading FUD and misinformation is you.
As usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the entire bill is a problem, then why should any compromise be acceptable?
Mike, small caveat. People have "compromised" on copyright for the last 30 years. We've hit the limit of copyright. We don't need copyright. We don't need acceptable censorship. We've needed the public to have a say in copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I'll cut down all your fingers!"
"No, I don't want you to do that!"
"See? He doesn't even want to compromise, try to find an even middle where I only cut down HALF of his fingers!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing stopping PIPA/SOPA from moving was the Wyden/Moran filibuster threat. The leadership was not willing to take the time necessary to run through cloture and post cloture debate with so many other issues waiting on the agenda.
"whenever a change was made to address feedback received from various quaters about some of the bill's provisions, this was many times not noted in criticism leveled at the bill. The rationale? "Well, it was in the original draft, so it will likely be re-inserted at some time in the future, and that is a big problem because eventually what is enacted into law will mirror the original bill."
This is exactly correct - what has these folks upset is that for the first time in the march of IP-maximizing laws churned out of the judiciary committee there was opposition who knew how the legislative process worked. Had any sort of changed PIPA/SOPA been allowed to move forward, the offending provisions would have been reinserted in the Conference Committee as has happened many times before. Only, conference reports cannot be filibustered, so they could have slipped the final bills with the original language to the President's desk easily. Before we get into a tit for tat about whether the advocates would actually do such a thing, the Committee and the RIAA still have about 50 years of penance to do for the Mitch Glazier provisions before they can dream of saying, "trust me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She finally saw the light!
----------------------------
So true! So true! For 3 decades the MPAA has been spreading misinformation among their employees as they relentlessly ratcheted up IP laws to the point where 90% of the public correctly recognizes these laws as toothless, overreaching and immoral. I, for one, am glad that Ms. Moore is finally calling out the MPAA for its lies.
�What happened was a misinformation campaign. People were basically misled into contacting Congressmen with claims that were extraordinary. There was some genuine concern, but as for it being a genuine home grown grassroots up-from the-streets opposition, I beg to differ on that.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is not some behemoth directed by a few powerful companies. It's several million insects doing their own thing, until someone steps on a nest and rouses a whole community. Even then, not everyone will get involved, but it may sure seem like it to someone on the receiving end. And if you step on a few hundred nests at once? It might seem like you're the victim of some terrible, coordinated attack, but really you were just an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is really simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is really simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BFG9000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BFG9000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they don't learn, it's a good thing.
Good. If they don't learn how they were beat, they are easily defeated next time. I see this as the only way to fight back against corporate money. Not just this, but any issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've heard that story before over on this side of the Pond back when Britain voted against the Euro, the EU constitution *and* the Lisbon Treaty - a lot of spanked-bottom whimpering from politicians wondering how we could all be so misled and ignorant. Hardly behavior guaranteed to win hearts and minds, especially since the SOPA supporters on the Hill have been quoting and requoting long-debunked 'facts and figures' in order to 'inform' the American public into giving away their constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't drop the SOPA, M. Slonecker. Watching you flail is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]