Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood

from the not-cool dept

Thu, May 24th 2012 8:44am — Mike Masnick

Ever wonder how many of your tax dollars are going to the federal government censoring music blogs based on no real evidence, but just the say so of the RIAA and MPAA? Well, in the newly proposed Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, just introduced in the Senate by Mary Landrieu, the federal government would like to set aside the following for the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) unit that is in charge of being Hollywood's private law enforcement wing:

Provided further, That not less than $10,000,000 shall be available for investigation of intellectual property rights violations, including the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination

Yup. At least $10 million of your hard earned dollars may be going to ICE to help them continue to be Hollywood's private police force, censoring websites without evidence. This is for just one year. You'd think with that kind of money, ICE could actually hire its own actors for the PSAs it's been putting on censored sites, rather than "pirating" a video put together by NBC Universal.

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: censorship, congress, hollywood, ice
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal

143 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jay (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 8:33am

Just sayin...
For that kind of money, can we get an audit and transparency as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Just sayin...
  Keep dreaming...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: Just sayin...
  That'll cost another $20,000,000.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 8:49am

Quit crying Masnick, your goofy medal may rust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  He can just replace it with the prize in a Cracker Jack box. Same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not Lucky Charms? That seems...weak.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, Mike... You can use whatever you want. Any cereal or candy wrapper should do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It'd look good with his Burger King crown.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        MY name's not Mike, it's Spartacus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I am spartacus!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHplngiagqo
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  "aaar mateys, the damned guvermint is protectin the intellectual propartee agayn!"
  
  I wonder if Masnick dresses up in pirate costumes at home.
  
  I'm guessing yes.
  
  But still too much of a spineless coward to actually admit he supports piracy.
  
  What a complete sociopath.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Boring troll is boring.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    But still too much of a spineless coward to actually admit he supports piracy.
    
    Do you never get tired of being so completely wrong? Mike has been 100% solid on this point: He does not condone copyright infringement. Nothing he has said/written has been in support of people copying/sharing. What he has said many times is that Intellectual Property enforcement is a no-win game. How, unless you yourself are a sociopath, do you read that as an endorsement? Telling someone that you can't stop the rain by waving your arms at it is not condoning rain, it's just a statement of fact!
    
    p.s. Since we're going for the personal insults, you're a douchebag.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Whoops, left out a key word:
      
      Nothing he has said/written has been in support of people illegally copying/sharing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      he has said many times is that Intellectual Property enforcement is a no-win game.
      
      That's obviously incorrect and you're a moron for actually trying to pass that off as an intelligent statement.
      
      It's the same as saying "Despite laws against speeding, people still speed. Ergo, speeding laws should not be enforced".
      
      That's an institution full of retardation there.
      
      That you people are so deluded as to think your trope actually comes off as believable, is hilarious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's the same as saying "Despite laws against speeding, people still speed. Ergo, speeding laws should not be enforced".
        
        Err, no.
        
        It's more like saying "despite laws against speeding, people still speed. Ergo, we should look at other ways of increasing the safety of the roads that might be more effective."
        
        That you people are so deluded as to think your trope actually comes off as believable, is hilarious.
        
        That you get so outraged over arguments that exist only in your own head is hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's an institution full of retardation there.
        
        That you people are so deluded as to think your trope actually comes off as believable, is hilarious."
        
        You're overly aggressive responses and complete unwillingness to to debate with facts makes it quite clear that you are trying very hard to promote a position you don't even believe yourself. You simply sound like you're writing this stuff because you're being paid to push a message.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Almost Anonymous (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's the same as saying "Despite laws against speeding, people still speed. Ergo, speeding laws should not be enforced".
        
        That's an institution full of retardation there.
        Actually, that's a really interesting analogy you bring up there, Mr. Douchebag. Because in my considered opinion, enforcing speed limits does precisely zero to increase safety. Hmmm, I wonder why they do it then?
        
        Also an awesome analogy, because as soon as a speeder has received his ticket and is back on the road, he's probably speeding again in less than five minutes. So you've just made Mike's case. What do you want to bet that Intellectual Property Enforcement is getting a lot more money thrown at it than speeding?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 8:55am

the entertainment industries as usual expect anyone and everyone else to pay to have their dirty work done for them, with the anyone and everyone usually being the public. considering the amount of money that has just been made ON ONE MOVIE ALONE (THE AVENGERS), SO FAR THIS YEAR, what possible excuse could there be for not paying for their own content protection? even more troubling, what possible incentive could Mary Landrieu have been given for recommending this amount of money to be 'set aside' for censoring websites on behalf of those industries? has a 'nice little earner' been promised, perhaps, for when she 'moves on' from politics??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  Our taxes are apportioned to all sorts of law enforcement. Would you really like to see private police forces? The ultra-rich and corporate would like nothing better. In the meanwhile your car would get stripped to the chassis while you watched because you don't have a private police force backing you.
  
  You should have supported SOPA which put more of the onus back on the companies, but you didn't. Let's face it, all these objections are so much bullshit. What you want is to have no copyrights laws/enforcement at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 24 May 2012 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    What you want is to have no copyrights laws/enforcement at all.
    
    I will take an order of that with a side order of no more patents.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    You should have supported SOPA which put more of the onus back on the companies, but you didn't.
    
    I should have supported legislation that further entrenches belligerent corporate power at the expense of civil rights in general? And what do you mean by "put more of the onus back on the companies"? Which companies? Why do we need legislation for that?
    
    What you want is to have no copyrights laws/enforcement at all.
    
    I can't speak for other, but what I want is reasonable copyright laws, not the absence of them. However, if the choice is between copyright laws as they are now and no copyright laws at all (a false dichotomy) then no copyright laws at all is clearly the lesser of two evils.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    "What you want is to have no copyrights laws/enforcement at all."
    
    Actually, we'd rather have copyright law/enforcement that prevents greedy companies form milking the money out of IP.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 11:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    "What you want is to have no copyrights laws/enforcement at all."
    
    Absolutely, I want IP abolition. and I expect a representative government to be proportionally representative of that. Instead, our government is disproportionately representative of government established monopolists which is why we have 95+ year copy protection lengths. ABOLISH IP!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and the practice of government established monopolists buying disproportional representation through revolving door favors and campaign contributions (in exchange for laws) needs to change.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - 6, 24 May 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Welcome to understanding what governments are all about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Daniel Williams, 24 May 2012 @ 1:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I certainly would like to see copyright done away with for recordings of music. A digital copy of a piece of music is simply instructions for a device to replay something approximating that music. Copying it is the same as copying a recipe.
    
    A musician (or "artist", when dealing with illiterates) DOES create a product: his performance. That's what he is paid to do--to make music. Not digital approximations of music, but the music itself. It can't be duplicated. Everything else is weird version of his art, in the way that a Xerox of the Mona Lisa isn't the Mona Lisa.
    
    Record companies are paid to sell copies of music, digital versions that are _similar_ to a proper performance, but not the same. There's a difference between a porno movie and a stripper, right? In the old days, they could maintain this silly business because it was too expensive for regular people to make little copies of music themselves--who could press vinyl. Now it's really cheap. What are record companies selling again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Daniel Williams, 24 May 2012 @ 1:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I certainly would like to see copyright done away with for recordings of music. A digital copy of a piece of music is simply instructions for a device to replay something approximating that music. Copying it is the same as copying a recipe.
    
    A musician (or "artist", when dealing with illiterates) DOES create a product: his performance. That's what he is paid to do--to make music. Not digital approximations of music, but the music itself. It can't be duplicated. Everything else is weird version of his art, in the way that a Xerox of the Mona Lisa isn't the Mona Lisa.
    
    Record companies are paid to sell copies of music, digital versions that are _similar_ to a proper performance, but not the same. There's a difference between a porno movie and a stripper, right? In the old days, they could maintain this silly business because it was too expensive for regular people to make little copies of music themselves--who could press vinyl. Now it's really cheap. What are record companies selling again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  What is really sickening is when you think about it, we are paying these people to attack us. That just makes me feel a bit sick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 6, 24 May 2012 @ 1:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Welcome to understanding what governments are all about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 24 May 2012 @ 9:02am

This is not censorship
Censorship is when the government stops you from circulating your OWN opinions, not when it stops you from repeating someone else's without their permission. There's a big difference.

The irony is that pirate sites do more to shut off artists from making a living than any government censorship. These pirate sites are the real censors.

You can keep repeating that it's censorship, but that doesn't make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:06am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  Censorship is when the government stops you from circulating your OWN opinions, not when it stops you from repeating someone else's without their permission. There's a big difference.
  
  There is indeed. However, the censorship being discussed here is the "stops you from circulating your OWN opinions" part.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 24 May 2012 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: This is not censorship
    Really? How? Only in your dreams. Let's say I've got my content on a site and ICE comes in and shuts it down. I can be up and running in 10 minutes from any other site on the web. I can still sign contracts with legit sellers like Amazon and ICE's seizure is just a minor inconvenience. Oh, I'll grant you that it's an inconvenience, but you can be up and running again in a few minutes.
    
    I'm not saying that ICE should go seizing web sites whenever they feel like. They should have evidence. But given what I've seen on the web, there are plenty of bad sites that can be detected in 1 or 2 minutes of browsing. Whamo. Probable cause.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      Really? How? Only in your dreams. Let's say I've got my content on a site and ICE comes in and shuts it down. I can be up and running in 10 minutes from any other site on the web. I can still sign contracts with legit sellers like Amazon and ICE's seizure is just a minor inconvenience. Oh, I'll grant you that it's an inconvenience, but you can be up and running again in a few minutes.
      
      In the mean time, you will lose over 50% of your readership as they won't know where to find you because their RSS feeds are now busted, navigating to the site URL redirects them to ICE and they are lost at where to go.
      
      You are an idiot. Losing a domain is damaging to a site.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Why did Sony, the credit card companies and others complain about getting denial of service attacks. They could have just set up other websites, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Oddly enough, there's a difference between aDoS attack and having your site replaced by a page that accuses you (you haven't even been charged yet) of committing criminal offences.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Yes, but that's an issue of being accused of being a criminal with no trial.
        
        The main point, that a DoS is structually the same as a redirect, i.e. your business is hurt (unfairly), still holds.
        
        Both are worth debating and fighting abuses of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      So where do you draw the line? 10 minutes? 10 hours? 10 days? I mean, without a line we could say the same about locking someone up for 10 years and saying that once they are out they can get back to their life.
      
      Not that a line is necessary. You can't be prevented from filing a lawsuit even in prison and nothing says your lawsuit can't have your opinions in it. So even if you're in prison you could state your opinions.
      
      Tell us, since you don't consider the government illegally taking down a website as censorship, what do you consider censorship?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      Here is an example from my experience:
      
      A while back, I use to play a popular game on Facebook. After a while of playing and becoming decent at it, I joined a Facebook Page that focused on sharing tips for playing the game better. I was eventually asked to become a contributor to it. The page was really popular and had over 100,000 members.
      
      Then one day, Facebook shut the page down. No warning. No explanation. Nothing. We could no longer post. We could no longer communicate with our fans.
      
      After fruitlessly trying to get our page unbanned, we started up a new one. Same content, same writers. Sadly, we no longer had the same membership. After being live on the new page for the same length of time as the other page was active, we still had less than half the membership. Why? Because there was no way for us to communicate with our fans that we had a new page. We were harmed beyond repair by the banning of the original page.
      
      So tell me again how websites being blocked is only an "inconvenience"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        "So tell me again how websites being blocked is only an "inconvenience""
        
        An honest answer would require knowledge of how the internet actually work. Our usual trolls have demonstrated a woeful lack of this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Makes me curious what the game was, to have such devotion!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      I can be up and running in 10 minutes from any other site on the web.
      
      Irrelevant and misleading. Besides, the courts have already established that the fact that censoring protected speech can be a violation of the Constitution even if that speech can be made elsewhere.
      
      I'm not saying that ICE should go seizing web sites whenever they feel like.
      
      And yet, that's exactly what's happening.
      
      But given what I've seen on the web, there are plenty of bad sites that can be detected in 1 or 2 minutes of browsing.
      
      This is clearly true, and the actions of ICE would probably be a lot less controversial if they even did that much due diligence, instead of shutting down sites that weren't actually engaging in or promoting piracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Peter, 24 May 2012 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        "Irrelevant and misleading. Besides, the courts have already established that the fact that censoring protected speech can be a violation of the Constitution even if that speech can be made elsewhere."
        
        Agree...
        
        "And yet, that's exactly what's happening."
        
        Indeed it is...
        
        "This is clearly true, and the actions of ICE would probably be a lot less controversial if they even did that much due diligence, instead of shutting down sites that weren't actually engaging in or promoting piracy."
        
        Maybe...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Well, I said less controversial, not "uncontroversial".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      "Let's say I've got my content on a site" Well you dont, and appears you never have.
      
      "I can be up and running in 10 minutes"
      Then tell us oh master if internet wizardry. How do you get your users updated links to your free speech? You cant.
      
      www.suspected.pirate.site.com/my_stuff/MyFreeSpeech.whatever is gone.
      
      So you may have your whatever available on the internet in 10 min, but your users will be lost.
      
      "I'm not saying that ICE should go seizing web sites whenever they feel like."
      No boB, it appears you do.
      
      "there are plenty of bad sites that can be detected in 1 or 2 minutes of browsing. Whamo. Probable cause."
      Whamo, another search of those sites will also turn up legitimate content as well. But you dont look for that stuff do ya boBBy boy? You just ASSume that since you found something that may be illegal, and you truly dont know if it is or if a website has licensed that content, that it must be and BAM! Probable cause. FAIL in so many ways as usual.
      
      You keep trying to hit that ammo depot but miss every time.
      At least you are consistent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        "You just ASSume that since you found something that may be illegal, and you truly dont know if it is or if a website has licensed that content, that it must be and BAM!"
        
        Plus, surely this is the sort of thing a DMCA notice is intended for? It looks extra suspicious when ICE seem to just be diving in there without DMCA and other avenue having been tried and failed, let alone the question of whether the content was infringing in the first place...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      So enforcement isn't actually effective?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      So, another two failed arguments bob...
      
      So...
      
      That's what? 912 failures?
      
      Come on, bob, and you were doing so well when you were playing in the street.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:07am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  ICE is a piece of shit ! Yes it is Censorship because ICE has no Respect for our Laws.They have abused their Position and the News of their Actions have been outed more than once.
  I for one truely hate everything about this Government and one day it will come crashing down on all their Corrupted Sold-Out Heads.
  Sounds to me like you would of supported SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/ACTA/TPP
  Not Me ! I believe in our Constitution and our way of life and seeing the crimes in Washington makes me want to vomit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  "The irony is that pirate sites do more to shut off artists from making a living"
  
  boB, you're so cute. Like 5 o'clock charlie from M.A.S.H.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - squirrel (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:12pm
    
    Re: Re: This is not censorship
    I love you for this reference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 2:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      Poor guy/girl, boB, he just keeps on trying though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- quawonk, 24 May 2012 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  I'm sure there are instances of people stating their opinions on sites that have been censored already, or circulating their own content. Megaupload, Pirate Bay, contains lots of other stuff as well, but I don't expect the industry and apologists like you to care about that. Just censor everything! Screw the little people who lose their content. They didn't sell their souls to the corporations so they don't matter.
  
  Right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 24 May 2012 @ 9:45am
    
    Re: Re: This is not censorship
    Can you point me to ANY so-called little person who lost anything legit when MegaUpload was shut down? The EFF made a big deal about the so-called innocent users and they asked to be contacted, but where is the summary? Where is the blind grandma who lost her chocolate chip cookie recipe to the Feds?
    
    I expected the EFF to drag up a handful of innocent users, but I'm beginning to wonder if there are any. My guess is that the people who stored their own files at MegaUpload were also downloading unlicensed content-- something I would call "theft" but you will no doubt feel is something almost as saintly as the way Mother Theresa treats the lepers of Calcutta. These folks aren't going to come forward. They should hope and pray that the Feds will destroy the log files that prove their guilt.
    
    And get a clue. No one is censoring everything. You can still get legit copies from iTunes, Amazon and a few other sites. If you want to self-publish, there are hundreds of legit sites out there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      I lost half my work for a game I was developing. I also lost some amount of backstory for a tie-in short story collection. I lost my submission for NaNoWriMo.
      
      Some businesses lost a considerable number of backups that they had made of their data.
      
      Moreover, a good number of people uploaded their legitimately purchased content so that they could re-download it later (for example, when replacing a computer.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        What kind of fucking moron would store valuable data at megaupload?
        
        That's like me storing my cash with a bank robber.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Really? eejit must be a synonym for idiot. Didn't you read the Megaupload disclaimer? There's an old saying, "You can't get fucked unless you assume the position". You are far dumber than I thought...and my expectations were very low already. In fact, I think you are lying because I don't believe that even you could be so stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Not only is your comment offensive, immature nonsense, it's also completely irrelevant because the content lost was NOT ILLEGAL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        I was lucky that I had multiple backups, but it was a hassle. I was actually pointing out that bob didn't know what he was talking about when he claimed that Mega was only used for infringement purposes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        I lost half my work for a game I was developing. I also lost some amount of backstory for a tie-in short story collection. I lost my submission for NaNoWriMo.
        
        So this was bullshit. You didn't lose anything. Isn't that the rationale you use to counter arguments that infringement is stealing? You didn't lose anything but a copy that didn't cost you a thing. Glad to see that you're a liar and not the imbecile I had you figured for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AdamF (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: This is not censorship
        By the same argument, when I download a recent blockbuster, the studio doesn't loose anything but a copy that doesn't cost them a thing. Glad to see that we got double standards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        So, which side are you on? If a Megaupload file being lost isn't really "lost" if the user has a local backup, then by the same rationale a sale being "lost" isn't really lost when a person downloads an infinitely duplicatable file. The studio still have their film to sell. If your argument is that eejit having his file even after the other copy has been removed means nothing was "taken" then the same applies the other way round.
        
        Pick an argument. You contradict yourselves so many times when you try moving the goalposts, it's silly. Just as your arguments change from "it works for a small artist but not a big one" to "it works for a big artist but not for a small one" depending on the article posted, you both contradict and ridicule your own arguments here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        I never said I didn't. But my main backup was MU, and it set me back at least six months. That was the one I used the most often.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Ok, so then you are an imbecile after. Thanks for setting the record straight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Your definition of idiocy must be not being able to read the minds of the people at the DOJ and ICE.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        LDoBe (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        I'd say it's more like storing all of your cash in a cardboard refrigerator box on the curb.
        
        Anyone can take a peek, and it could be gone tomorrow.
        
        But it's a REALLY BIG cardboard box. You could put anything in it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      If you want to self-publish, there are hundreds of legit sites out there.
      
      Too bad "legit" means approved by the middle-man industry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      Can you point me to ANY so-called little person who lost anything legit when MegaUpload was shut down?
      Yes
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      If you want to self-publish, there are hundreds of legit sites out there.
      
      But exactly none that can be trusted, thanks to these legal actions. Megaupload was considered a legit site by quite a lot of self-publishers, after all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      "Can you point me to ANY so-called little person who lost anything legit"
      boB, why do you ask questions you know the answers to? You know from reading TD everyday that there have been examples given here.
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/03423718322/megaupload-user-asks-court-to-return-le gitimate-files-he-uploaded-to-megaupload.shtml
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04350018 087/megaupload-negotiating-to-let-us-govt-officials-everyone-else-retrieve-their-legit-files-that-we re-taken-down.shtml
      
      boB, you suck.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Peter, 24 May 2012 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        What weneedhelp said/posted... and that's just TWO of the many links/articles i've read ever since it happened...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Peter, 24 May 2012 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      Many teachers and academic researchers lost some of their papers/work/content because of the shutdown of Megaupload. Oh, you didn't knew that? Shame... because you probably didn't bother to research it carefully, or didn't care.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        So did eejit... at least until he was questioned about it and admitted he had other copies. I'm not sure I buy your version any more than his. I believe that Megaupload was rife with warnings about not using it as a sole backup. Hard to believe those high-powered academic researchers and teachers failed to heed that warning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Hear, hear! They were warned so they get no sympathy at all. It's like those idiots who drive and get hit by drunk drivers. I mean they were warned that drunk drivers might be driving around and they might get hit by said drunk drivers. I give them no sympathy.
        
        And there were lots of warnings that planes might be hijacked, but airlines kept flying and people kept getting on airplanes. Those idiots deserve no sympathy.
        
        Parents have been warned that evil people will kidnap their kids, but do they lock up their kids in bank vaults? No, they don't, so they get no sympathy when their kids go missing.
        
        Sheesh, I'm glad you, oh great anonymous coward, were here to say boldly what needed to be said. If you don't heed warnings, then you deserve no sympathy when others do illegal things to you.
        
        By the way, RIAA and MPAA, you have been warned. If you release content publicly, someone will try to copy it. You'll get no sympathy from me if you release movies and music and someone copies it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        You come down on people for not backing up their data before uploading to Megaupload, yet you ignore the fact the data was taken with no authorization from the people who created it.
        
        Then you bitch about us not wanting there to be copyright law.
        
        Which is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 24 May 2012 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        "Hard to believe those high-powered academic researchers and teachers failed to heed that warning."
        
        You find it hard to believe that some people saw a warning and ignored it?
        
        Well, that says how little you know about people. That and how little you realize that not all people pay attention to warnings or know about technology. Most people who aren't as up to date on tech as some of us here would feel more than secure in the thinking that if they had ONE back up available in one place, say an online cloud storage site which for this example we'll call MegAnonCowardUpload, that it would be perfectly secure and always available to them should they need it.
        
        "I believe that Megaupload was rife with warnings about not using it as a sole backup."
        
        What you believe is irrelevant. What you know is relevant. So you obviously DO NOT know for a fact that any warnings at all were on the site about backing up data in more than one place. That is what I'm gathering from your statement.
        
        And whether eejit had more copies or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is had he had no other copies elsewhere he would have suffered irretrievable losses. Now tell me, is that acceptable in your book? (Although the answer seems quite obvious I'd still like to hear you say it.)
        
        Also, since you had to take a shot at "high powered academic researchers and teachers", might I point out that one of those Congressman aggressively pushing for SOPA legislation was made to look like a fool when his own website had evidence of copyright infringement. Did you know this? If you didn't I can get you a link to some of the articles on the matter. Now isn't it a bit odd that a man looking to censor websites and severely punish those who commit copyright infringement is himself guilty of the same crime? Guess it shows that no matter who you are or what you do, sometimes you just don't know better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        "I believe that Megaupload was rife with warnings about not using it as a sole backup. "
        
        Hard to check that though now, isn't it?
        
        Anyway, regardless of warnings, if Megaupload had gone bankrupt or the servers had died or some other natural/unforeseen catastrophe had happened, then most of us would be there with you, saying "well, you learned your lesson...". Cloud storage will always be regarded by suspicion by the educated.
        
        But, that's not what happened. The site was shut down based on accusations of infringement. On claims that perfectly legitimate content like the above was not stored there. To protect the profits of a 3rd party who had nothing to do with more of the content being shut down. Despite the fact that artists not only used it as a mean of backup, but as a form of monetised distribution for their own legally produced content.
        
        Surely, even someone as dense as yourself can see a difference between unavoidable natural failure and malicious action by a government agency acting on the orders of a biased 3rd party to protect their own profit over and above smaller players?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        People were warned. They ignored the warning. They lost shit. Who cares how? Sounds like you were one of those dopes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        Hmm. So based on that attitude then it seems fair to say the same applies to the labels and studios. They were told what the people wanted: DRM free content in a variety of formats with no windowed releases at a reasonable price. They were warned. Looks like whatever came next from their unwillingness to heed the wants of the market is their own fault. Ipso facto, they may have lost sales. Who cares? Sounds like they were dopes and you're an ass.
        
        Hey I like it. If you get warned, even once and don't change then too fucking bad if anything happens to ruin your day. No bitching allowed. Sounds good to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 2:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        >Hey I like it. If you get warned, even once and don't change then too fucking bad if anything happens to ruin your day. No bitching allowed. Sounds good to me.
        
        I like this line of thinking; we should apply this to supposed rightsholders. "You were warned about safe harbours before you were allowed to fire DMCA notices willy-nilly. If you don't like them, vote it out or it's too damn bad."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 6:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        "People were warned. They ignored the warning. They lost shit"
        
        So, no answer, you just consider it OK for people to lose things as long as they're not a corporation. Then you expect everybody to bow down to their demands when they want something, no matter the cost. Got it.
        
        "Sounds like you were one of those dopes"
        
        Your psychic abilities and attempts to assume what I am doing, as ever, fail you miserably. I've never used the site, either as an uploader or downloader.
        
        Perhaps you could try dealing with reality? Your fictions are increasingly laughable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        People were warned. They ignored the warning. They lost shit. Who cares how? Sounds like you were one of those dopes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 6:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
        LOL, are you the same AC who attacked Mike for double posted? Do you consider it to be a sign of your own character flaws now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  Just because a particular "opinion" has been expressed before does not make it any less censorship when a source of it is silenced.
  But that's ignoring the shutdowns of sites which were not infringing anything, or those which were used�not exclusively�for some infringement but cannot sanely be held culpable for the same reason that you cannot blame a gun for whom it is used to shoot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- quawonk, 24 May 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  "pirate sites do more to shut off fat cats in suits from making a living off the work of artists"
  
  Fixed it for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 24 May 2012 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re: This is not censorship
    Oh, that hasn't been true for more than a decade now. Get a clue. Amazon, Apple and others have been helping people self publish since the first Internet boom.
    
    The only so-called suits that are left in the business are ones that are adding real value to the product. Artists often aren't great marketing geniuses and 99% of the people I've met who've drank Mike's Kool-Aid go crawling back to the suits with their tail between their legs. Selling is hard work and the suits earn their money.
    
    The vision of a suit leeching off of artists is just an easy rationalization by the P2P crowd. Ask yourself this: how has Courtney Love's career gone since she told those nasty suits to shove it? I bet her music career has been stellar since got rid of those leeches, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      How has Courtney Love's career gone since she became a drug crazed junky is more like it. Great example boB. NOT.
      
      She was not always that way:
      http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
      http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 1:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
      bob, bob, bob, bob...
      
      Quit failing so hard, please? It's painful.
      
      As for your comment, let me fix your comment to be accurate, okay?
      
      "Oh, that hasn't been true for more than a decade now. Get a clue. Amazon, Apple and others have been dragging the RIAA and other gatekeepers into the internet age kicking and screaming. After all, iTunes has a very lucrative deal with the music industry because the music industry took so long to get into the game and focused on shutting down Napster that Apple's made a killing on legal downloads."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 24 May 2012 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  You assume that all take downs are against infringements and not valid fair-use.
  
  Anything you post on the internet is your speech. If you post a video-clip, you are entitled to a court hearing before your post is taken down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 24 May 2012 @ 9:50am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  "Censorship is when the government stops you from circulating your OWN opinions, not when it stops you from repeating someone else's without their permission. There's a big difference."
  
  No. You're just blinded by the "without their permission" part that gets you frothing at the proboscis.
  
  Imagine this scenario: You are a Marxist (I know, that's absurd to imagine a corporate shill as a Marxist...) and you post Karl Marx's public domain work Das Kapital online and the government pulls it down because the government doesn't like Marxism. That's censorship. And not only is it censorship, but it's censoring the person who posted it, not the person who wrote it. The act of posting is speech and the act of removing that posting is censorship.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:12am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  just like you can keep repeating that 'pirate sites do more to shut off artists from making a living', but it doesn't make that true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J. C., 24 May 2012 @ 11:08am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  I would think that Hollywood and RIAA member accounting practices actually do more harm to artist than downloading or viewing content from time to time free of charge. I have noticed how some "Blockbusters" NEVER make a profit because of creative accounting. You wouldn't know anything about that, would you, Bob?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  Wow, bob...you are a moron on all different kinds of levels. SEO is tied in directly to certain things a website has, namely the amount of time that website has existed on the web plus all the outbound and inbound links. Losing your domain, means losing your spot in Google's search results, so yes it can be a big deal when you have to spend several years work your way back up to the point you were originally at.
  
  Plus if the domain is shutdown, there's a possibility you won't have access to your database. If you run Wordpress, all the article information is contained within your database, so at that point in time you're SOL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  "Censorship is when the government stops you from circulating your OWN opinions, not when it stops you from repeating someone else's without their permission. There's a big difference."
  Umm, no. The source of the opinions has sweet fuck all to with whether blocking that speech is censorship. A news site may report nothing but opinions pieces from other people, but if you take it down without any kind of adversarial hearing it's censorship.
  
  "The irony is that pirate sites do more to shut off artists from making a living than any government censorship. These pirate sites are the real censors."
  Right, you know that this is a complete non-sequitur don't you? Even if pirate sites were stopping someone making a living, that's not censorship.
  
  "You can keep repeating that it's censorship, but that doesn't make it true."
  You might want to swat up on this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship?s=t&ld=1031
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bill, 24 May 2012 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: This is not censorship
  You are correct, this is not censorship. But what is at issue is why is it so pressing that the federal government needs to spend $10 million on it?
  
  If these artists were so broke, why are they living in million dollar homes, flying G7s around the globe, and living the high life. Let the industry do their own dirty work, not the tax payers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
quawonk, 24 May 2012 @ 9:05am

Downloading movies is national security issue now? Either this means there are no more real threats in the world, or the appropriate agencies have been bought and paid for.

I'm leaning towards the second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  A little from column A, and a little from column B.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WDS (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:06am

$10 Million is neccessary
Surely you wouldn't expect them to tramp on so many rights for only $9.5 Million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Glen, 24 May 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: $10 Million is neccessary
  Where is the "funny and sad at the same time" button?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:08am

Well, I think it's great. As an artist, I'm quite concerned about my intellectual property. Who should I contact at ICE to discuss what they're doing to stop people from pirating my artwork? Is there like a form or something? I've tried doing it myself but without a SWAT team I just can't make any headway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  As an artist... unless you are signed to a major label, you are not an artist. Sorry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Artist (Noun) - An indentured servant to the MPAA/RIAA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    And they will probably censor the sites that sponsor your music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Curioso, 24 May 2012 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re:Artist
    Oh, you mean like the whiny dimwit that 'won' American Idol last night? He's an artist now...big contract....(yawn) ..the fact that he can't sing, makes anything coming out of his mouth sound like someone has a Visegrip on his testacles, doesn't count. weneeedhelp says being signed by a major label makes him an artist...no, it makes him a commodity....creativity, unqueness, originality make you an artist, not a signature ona contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  Smells like propaganda mate
  
  Oh, im sure there are artists who feel that way, and its a shame they trully do not identify themselfs, would make it alot easier to know, exactly who NOT to throw my money at
  
  One man, one voice
  Who cares right
  
  I do
  
  Anyone else who feels that way, means more to me then some guy in a suit living in a white house, unless that guy in the white house feels the same
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:13am

Oh brilliant, let's copyright opinions now, record attribution and get us a law that any site enabling repeating of an opinion should be shut down unless they had proof of prior approval from their owner prior to posting. If ever they can identify that opinion "patient 0" that would have unknowlingly infected the world with his unique opinion. Hmmm, we'd need a database to record every opinion that appeared on the web for that. And, and, and... I wanna be a lawyer now, the future is bright :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:18am

Investigation? Oh, yeah, that'll work. If the RIAA's track record is any indication of success that's a shitton of money down the drain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:30am

It's only a hand out if you give you $10 million to the poor or middle class.

But if you give money to any of the following then it's not a handout!
-Stopping IP theft for the companies that own the IP.
-Stopping people from buying illegal drugs that there's a market demand for.
-Wall Street companies that are in danger of going bankrupt from too many risky bets (don't get this confused with giving money to poor individual gambling addicts who lost all their money at casinos or playing state lotteries! Giving them money is a handout!).
-Banning government run Medicare from negotiating better prices for prescription drugs just like any other private insurance company would.
-Giving people in hurricane prone areas free hurricane insurance AFTER a hurricane strikes, simply because a pro-free market US congressmen owned a house in the hurricane prone area (don't get this confused with areas that DON'T have influential US congressmen living there, that would then make it a hand out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 24 May 2012 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  I think we can simplify your algorithm:
  
  if ( beneficiary->is_future_or_current_large_campaign_contributor() || beneficiary->is_family() ) {
  handout = false;
  } else {
  handout = true;
  }
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or even simpler.
    
    It's only a handout if I don't get a cut of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 24 May 2012 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ugh.
    
    handout = beneficiary->is_future_or_current_large_campaign_contributor() || beneficiary->is_family();
    
    No need for branch. I assume your logic was inverted, also.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 24 May 2012 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      OK, I see you're logic was not inverted (you were showing the O.P.s stupid logic). So:
      
      handout = !beneficiary->is_future_or_current_large_campaign_contributor() && !beneficiary->is_family();
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:07am

More and more I am amazed at the sense of entitlement that comes from this corruption in action. Yes, there is no other word for it.

Do you know what makes the whole ball of wax shiver in it's boots? I can tell you in one phrase.

At a time when we are experiencing a second Great Depression this is what the government deems 'most important'?

That one phrase that all the corporations, the government, Wall Street, and the established and entrenched monopolies fear? It's called Peasants with Pitchforks. If you've any doubt it's coming, you should look around at the real grass roots movements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:12am

Call Mary Landrieu
Tell her what you think about this provision. FYI...fax believe it or not is the best way to get their attention.

Washington, D.C. Office
431 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Telephone: (202) 224-5824
Fax: (202) 224-9735
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:22am

man we could've used that money to help veterans, homeowners, students, but you know, this is the most important most vital issue to our livelihood, it will save America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russ, 24 May 2012 @ 10:26am

Federal waste and duplicatoin - intellectual property rights violations
I thought the FBI also investigated intellectual property rights violations? Why does another federal bureaucracy have to become involved? Is this the reason our government has gotten so large?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:36am

Better Proposal
How about for every dollar that congress adds to the debt/deficit they must put up a dollar of their own money in collateral.

That should help get our priorities in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffhole (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:42am

And all I need is ~$23,000 to pay off my house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brooklyn227, 24 May 2012 @ 10:49am

Sad
Lets help the rich get richer. Ii would be different if we saw a reflection it the cost of a movie ticket, But we won't. Our government is far to intrusive and will not stop until this nation gets a backbone and does something. Where is the real change this is all money after the fact of your hard earned tax dollars going to lock up non violent drug offenders. Weed people we could grow it tax it and make jobs all over the country as well as fight the Mexican drug war by removing US dependencies and therefor halting the demand.

this is ridiculousness the government is no longer for the people.

sincerely, In the heard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 24 May 2012 @ 11:00am

RE
Bob, have you EVER owned an automobile?? did you purchase it online?? I do wonder, I bet you are the ONLY person in the world the buys a car you have Never driven.

is driving a CAR before you buy it stealing Bob?

In your world it seems it is...

Some of us are just not that foolish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brodave (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:53pm

Damn the entertainment industry & Congress
Boycott everything the obscene, greedy, union-infested entertainment produces.

Just don't buy anything from them - bring them to their knees and let them come begging to consumers.

Drive them out of business. They are scum.

And, of equal importance;

Vote against any elected official that pimps for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC Cobra, 24 May 2012 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re: Damn the entertainment industry & Congress
  I'm union. I work my ass off earning my pay. Hey, Bro, I'm as frustrated as anyone that IATSE's leadership decided to support SOPA, but don't forget that the unions have done more good for the working class in this country than anyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: Damn the entertainment industry & Congress
  "Just don't buy anything from them -"
  
  But that's lost sales due to PIRACY (not customer choice). They've already lost 2 generations due to video games and other interests. In 10 years there has been ZERO change. It's an industry (trade organizations) that deserve to die.
  
  Better;
  - send a dollar to every artist that you download (that's about what they'd get from the labels and they didn't have to file a lawsuit or pay for an audit to get it. Tell them why.
  
  - support local independent artists and tell your friends about stuff you like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug John, 24 May 2012 @ 12:53pm

How close is Louisiana to Hollywood?
Not less than $10million. So $11million would be OK? How about $50billion, would that be enough to make Hollywood safe and secure?

Is there a Hollywood Louisiana?
Are things going so well in Louisiana that their senator needs to be concerned with the entertainment business in Hollywood?

Something stinks here.
Maybe it just the smell of crony capitalism.
(This is a joke, right?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC Cobra, 24 May 2012 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: How close is Louisiana to Hollywood?
  There is a very large film industry in Louisiana, due mostly to large incentive payouts given by the state to production companies, both large and small.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon B, 24 May 2012 @ 1:01pm

Missing a piece of info
Which Party is Landrieu in again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: Missing a piece of info
  IT doesn't matter: it's a very bad case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" when it comes to Imaginary Protectionism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ricardo Queso (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 1:02pm

$10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
At first I was outraged until I realzed that since the hollywood libs are just about the only people sending $ to the leftists in Congress, this isn't so much quid pro quo on behalf of the government in exchange for favorable propaganda from entertainment industry as it is the entertainment industry simply buying these services from Obama outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skychief, 24 May 2012 @ 1:14pm

ICE
Piracy is costing revenue from the artists, thus less revenue for the country via taxes. However, inefficient Homeland Security has no experience or business getting involved in this issue. More Union jobs with no competition or regulations or controls. America is completely Fed up with the abuse of our tax dollars. Try having the entertainment industry enforce their own oversight with a nonprofit corporation. Will be more effective and less costly. Just like they did with the nonprofit 501(c)3 medical marijuana facilities. Sorry, bad example, the government is closing those down even though they granted them licenses to do what they promised. Of course, Big Pharma and their campaign donations are behind that. Good thing our President promised us no lobbyists in his administration. But, if George Clooney can raise 15 million for Obama in one night, don't you think they can afford to pay their own way to protect their own revenue? Guess Hollywood has its own lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patrick, 24 May 2012 @ 1:15pm

Pay back
obama has to pay them back with tax payer $$ for all their campaign contributions. Should come out of the millions they gave him. Heck, they should have kept their money and paid someone to monitor the sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cd, 24 May 2012 @ 1:16pm

L!ar
This young LADY has NO PRIDE,her state is one of the poorest in the NATION with the most uneducated children unfeed children and she pass this crap for his @s s KISSING Hollywood 0BAMA lovers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cd, 24 May 2012 @ 1:18pm

L!ar
This young LADY has NO PRIDE,her state is one of the poorest in the NATION with the most uneducated children unfeed children and she pass this crap for his @s s KISSING Hollywood 0BAMA lovers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 24 May 2012 @ 1:19pm

How bout a refund by hollywood and the unions for all the fucking subsidies they've recieved or shut the fuck up
$10 mm is just the beginning. Look at the McCaws and Ted T and all the subsidies they milked us (the people via congress) over the years. Then they have the balls to shut down free upload and shareware websites after most Americans have PAID (you fucking GOVCO assholes), yes PAID at least once, whether at the box office or on radio (who sells millions in private adverts coming from companies where WE THE PEOPLE WORK) to covert there 1000k a year BMI licensing agreements. YOU ARE FUCKING THROUGH. GET READY ICE AND CONGRESS AND ALL OTHER HYPOCRITES! YOU ARE DONE!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Citizen, 24 May 2012 @ 2:06pm

RIAA et. al.
If the industry could find a way, it would bill everyone for each time you heard a song, viewed a picture, watched a movie at a friend's house. And there would be no stopping them from billing you for uttering an artist's name. This is not much different from the government trying to figure a way to charge you for breathing out C02. Maybe the virus writer experts should come up with a nasty little bug that distributes mp3s to every infected device on the planet.
Why am I so hostile sounding? Because the recording industry artists can't keep their big fat political opinions to themselves. They don't care that they insult half of the population. Shut the hell up and sing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Govt Hater, 24 May 2012 @ 2:12pm

Authority?
Why are we having to foot the bill for this POS Govt to act as the industry's private security firm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re: Authority?
  Because you derailed SOPA. Derp.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - drew (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 12:47am
    
    Re: Re: Authority?
    Right, so the politicians get a kicking for trying to censor the web via SOPA/PIPA and their response is to give more funds to a body that censors the web.
    This may be cause and effect but it sure doesn't answer the question of why tax dollars are being allocated to protect an industry that is failing to adapt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2012 @ 6:13am
    
    Re: Re: Authority?
    Oh, yeah, because things would have been so much better under SOPA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC Cobra, 24 May 2012 @ 2:15pm

Re: Federal waste and duplication
"I thought the FBI also investigated intellectual property rights violations? Why does another federal bureaucracy have to become involved? Is this the reason our government has gotten so large?"

I suspect two reasons: 1.)Homeland Security was created with a huge budget they didn't know how to spend, so the powers that be threw this on their plate, 2.)DHS/ICE was given extraordinary license to conduct investigations in ways that are constitutionally questionable, which proves very useful for going after copyright infringement on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Aspen, 24 May 2012 @ 2:17pm

Hollywood $$$
And you young fools will STILL vote for Obama. You've been scammed !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 12:48am
  
  Re: Hollywood $$$
  Right, because the republicans would completely reject all those lobbyist dollars...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Woods, 24 May 2012 @ 7:55pm

What a shocker; we have ICE (short for immigration customs enforcement) out there doing the bidding of hollywood while we are swamped with illegal aliens.

At what point did ICE become an arm of the general police state over keeping the countries immigration under control?

It seems to have happened rather quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]