News Corp. Wonders If There Could Possibly Be Any Arguments Against Anti-Piracy Efforts
from the apparently-paying-attention-isn't-a-core-competence-at-murdoch-and-co. dept
The International Institute of Communications is hosting a particularly one-sided "roundtable seminar" in Hong Kong this week about "content piracy." Just from that phrase, you should know the deck has been stacked against a reasoned analysis of the nature of internet communications. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that the RSVP email is actually from News Corp., or that the "agenda" of the session is entirely one-sided, and suggests a pretty impressive tone-deafness to the worldwide protests against SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. For example, the final question is particularly amusing:Are there arguments against actions aimed to reduce the impact of these overseas rogue websites?Apparently, all the concerns about collateral damage, free speech, due process, internet security and the like fell on deaf ears at News Corp. Instead, they seem to be wondering how anyone could possibly have an argument against the next SOPA. An intellectually honest discussion would at least admit that there are arguments being made both for and against these kinds of actions, and actually explore the reality. As we've noted plenty of times in the past, it's no secret that online infringement represents a challenge for established players, but that doesn't mean the immediate reaction should be to go on the attack in a way that creates many more problems, and is unlikely to solve the problem they think they're attacking. So, the argument "against" going after such websites is that it won't work, it's a waste of time and money, it will have tons of collateral damage... and you can better deal with the "problem" by providing more quality legitimate services without restrictions and at better prices. See? Not that hard.
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: acta, pipa, piracy, rogue sites, sopa
Companies: news corp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Short answer: yes, FFS.
Long answer: so long as such actions are confined to those that have the least impact on innocent & incorrectly targeted parties, and are combined with actions aimed at reducing the demand for such websites in the first place, then most people will support them, at least cautiously.
So long as the actions drive roughshod over free speech, target innocent consumers and 3rd party services, remove rights to due process, first sale rights and others, and are combined with the delusion that regionally- and format-restricted, heavily rationed, often poor quality product is workable in the modern age? No, there will be plenty of objections if the fools in charge of these companies lower themselves to actually listen to their own customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I won't bother holding my breath to see if these outfits finally learn it's not web sites that have gone "rogue", its their customers looking for services and products the "content industry" refuses to give them. And, no, it isn't wanting freebies. If it was iTunes would have gone bust on day one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The hilarious thing is that situation never even existed. They had more control, perhaps, but they still failed to meet customer demand, still had piracy and other media to compete with, and still had people getting things for free. Piracy was rife in the 1980s, no matter how much these people try to pretend it's a new thing with dawn of the internet.
The problem is that they profited mainly from things that were naturally-occurring obstacles back then. You had to buy albums to get individual tracks, because it wasn't economical to split them up. Imports were expensive, and thus not popular. Differing TV systems meant that the video market was fragmented, while language and other obstacles meant that region windowing made sense. Format shifting from vinyl to tape happened, but people re-bought albums on CD to get the extra benefits in greater number, and so on.
Their problem is that now that these natural obstacles have been removed, they're not only failing to take advantage of the many benefits they would give them, they're actually trying to enforce market realities that simply don't exist today. It's their own dated practices that mean that, say, Hulu and Netflix aren't available worldwide, while it's their own failure to deal with reality that means that they lose money when people decide to buy the 99c track instead of the $15 album. It's their own fault they haven't dealt with massive competition from the internet and video games as alternative entertainment sources, and so on...
"And, no, it isn't wanting freebies"
I've been saying this since Napster. Some progress has been made, but this ridiculous argument not only prevails in spite of all the other evidence, they actually use it as an excuse not to compete!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, really? You're whining about someone else not being "intellectually honest"? That's rich, Pirate Mike. Nobody is more intellectually dishonest than you. Nobody has a worse case of confirmation bias than you. Nobody lies about IP law day in and day out as much as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your continued unwillingness to provide meaningful discussion does nothing to sway people to your side or make one curious as to what benefits there are to your point of view.
As far as I can see, given you lack of effort, other than to chide, your ability to discuss any controversial topics is on par with a 12 year old. Basically resorting to base insults and name calling.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have hard time imagining someone spewing such bullshit. Even if paid to do so. "Pirate Mike"? really? Is that supposed to be an assault?
I would suggest to techdirt to employ capcha to reduce amount of this junk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any Mike will do, all it has to be is the author of the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If website=Techdirt & Author = Mike then insert "Pirate Mike!!!"
If article contains the words "free speech" insert "Freetard!!!!"
If article contains the words "intellectually honest"
insert "bias and lies!!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please don't. Then you'll put all us shills out of a job!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you have an argument to make say something. Argue with us. PLEASE SAY SOMETHING NEW! We'd like to hear it but coming on a site that supports copyright reform and going neener neener neener doesn't make your point or convince anyone of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah! Who's the big man now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, not viewing television advertisements counts as copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
Since your entire post is a lie then apparently you do. But I suppose it's OK for you to lie by falsely calling others dishonest.
and who are you anyways? I know who Mike is so I can reference the integrity of his track record but I can't do the same with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
Thank You.
Your carefully thought out argument has completely convinced me of whatever it was you were trying to say.
Your moral clarity and vision are unparallelled in the annals OF Anonymous Cowards. I humbly salute you, Sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your solution is too simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
intellectually honest
I'm surprised you would think the News Corp, the folks behind Fox News, are even capable of an intellectually honest discussion, either in terms of intellect or honesty.
(Note: this is not a reflection on their ideology: they can subscribe to whichever ideas they choose. It is a statement against them pretending to be "Fair and Balanced" when they are so clearly not.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: intellectually honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: intellectually honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: intellectually honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: intellectually honest
Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I watch Jon for the fair and honest news (though I realize he has a bias, he is clear with it and has a lot of fun with it, especially his "Socialist" play two nights ago,) and Stephen for his making fun of the real news outlets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: intellectually honest
You can be biased and still say things that make sense... but some, like Fox networks, will say things like "teachers are fatcats, oh lawks woe is me, I'm just this millionaire and I have to pay taxes, how unfair" :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's hoping the Leveson Inquiry will bring the end of the whole corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Exclusionary powers are censor powers if for nothing else this should be the first and foremost point of all, what right do others have to censor people? Basically IP law is the biggest threat to democracies everywhere today since it is attacking fundamental foundations of it like free speech, ownership and so forth.
- Some proposals today have severe consequences for today security that at the very least could delay implementation for a decade or so until people can plan and come up with a new method and probably will hamstring future deployment of security features.
- Mercantilism was abandoned a long time ago, specially since it harms the creation of business, which in turn harms economy, but most importantly it harms deployment of technologies. Granting monopolies is not the way to go forward. I thought the people who studied those things made it clear that the next stage of social evolution is services, but those can't happen in a place where at every turn you need to get permission from dozens or hundreds of parties that is just not possible, anything you want to do today have been sliced and it is owned by dozens of others people that want rent and not really work how is that any good for creation of wealth which is not the same thing as economic growth you can have wealth without money, you can't have wealth without goods though and IP law severely stop the creation of goods and services since the bar is so high today to enter the market.
Those also branch to more reasons, the domino effect is huge, and I just can't understand why anyone would like to do that to themselves it harms everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
"Are there arguments against actions aimed to reduce the impact of these overseas rogue websites?"
Of course there are no arguments against legislative/enforcement actions aimed at criminal endeavors, but that isn't the issue. These "rogue websites" only have an impact because the do what the content providers are unwilling to do. They offer cross platform media solutions at a reasonable price. Maybe they should change the question to:
Are there any arguments against our industries innovating new services and busniess models aimed at reducing the impact of these overseas rogue websites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
Uh, yes there are.
Lack of effectiveness, lack of proportionality, violation of the constitution, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newscorp?
Why would they have concerns about monitoring and censoring the internet, the very internet btw they haven't managed to turn into a Newscorp cash maschine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Though I do think it's funny he's bothering to hold a conference around a question when he thinks the answer is "no". Most of us have learned to move on from those questions. Maybe there's a little doubt there after all, and the guests need a group hug before they can go off and commit yet more perjury, bribery, and fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]