From SOPA To Cybersecurity: All About Trying To Control The Internet

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the watch-this dept

Fri, Aug 10th 2012 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

Al Jazeera English recently did a very well done episode on its Fault Lines program about attempts by Hollywood and the US government to control the internet. It's about 24 minutes long and includes interviews with a bunch of people who were involved in protecting the internet discussing what happened. The first half is about the SOPA/PIPA fight, and how it was basically about Hollywood trying to hold back the internet: Halfway through, it shifts to talk about the various cybersecurity bills and attempts to crackdown on Anonymous. Basically, it's about the government completely overreacting to what they believe are "threats" to the internet. Towards the end it also talks about how the government can and does abuse its powers, highlighting the case of Thomas Drake. It's a great video with some fantastic interviews, though it could do without the overly dramatic music. Still, it's good to see more people connecting the dots, and recognizing that much of what we're seeing these days is really just an attempt to "control" a platform that has been so successful because it was so wide open. Many of us believe that it needs to stay that way to remain a powerful tool for speech and for progress.

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: control, cybersecurity, internet, sopa

105 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:49pm

Tee-hee snicker. Mike, Al-Jazeera? Really? The story is entirely slanted because it's specifically about being against the US.

Moreover, the Arab world is the area, outside of China, with the most censorship and control of the internet. These are the areas where the most harm has been done to the free internet. Taking a lesson from their media on the issue is laughable at best.

Why do you fall for this shit? Are you that desperate to try to make a point that you are willing to blindly ignore the source's credential in the matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:51pm
  
  Re:
  Why do you fall for this shit?
  
  Everytime I see a copyright/MAFIAA supporter, I think to myself that same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Seriously, it seems to be a pattern of thinking with the MAFIAA supporters that the government is not in their pockets.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      government is not in their pockets* (the MAFIAA's pockets)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Everytime I see a copyright/MAFIAA supporter, I think to myself that same thing."
    
    Way to deflect there. Why not address my points rather than giving it an offhanded was an a semi-attack?
    
    Oh wait. You mean I am right and you hate to have to admit it and call Mike out for it. Okay, I understand. Next time try english instead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You don't have any points to address, as usual.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Deflecting? Didn't you just do that with the last paragraph of your post?
      
      Wow, and you want people to address your obvious point on how the video is slanted against the U.S? Are you an idiot? Of course it's slanted against the U.S. but how does that mean it's the information is incorrect especially when they interview a US congressman.
      
      Also, why did you even bring up the part about the "Arab world"?
      
      Your point, if there is one, is lost in a soup of vague references.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:22pm
      
      What points?
      Way to deflect there. Why not address my points rather than giving it an offhanded was an a semi-attack?
      
      And yet you did not address a single point presented in the video, merely expressing scorn that it was made by an Arabic news organization.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why not address my points rather than giving it an offhanded was an a semi-attack?
      
      Okay I'll try, where's the point?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Besides the one used to poke Mike everytime he posts an article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - gamma ray, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, sadly one comment derailed the comment section. I am guessing he doesn't post here to discuss anything.
        
        Maybe he gets high getting people's attention by being a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seems to be a sudden influx of peeps who don't seem to want discuss anything but calling someone out. Something in the water maybe? IDK. My catnip needs more bong. BRB
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently SujaOfJauhnral is a catgirl/boy
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No (but I do have a cat). I just keep thinking maybe if I smoke long and hard enough some of the shit I've been reading/hearing might actually make sense. Or maybe I'll just figure out what the trolls have been smoking to make their responses. Who knows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        grownhomes and TD at the end of the week...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:25pm
  
  Re:
  Even a biased source can bring fourth a good point once and awhile. After all, what better propaganda is there than the truth?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, you might want to consider if an incredibly biased source is making points you agree with, perhaps the points themselves are rather biased as well?
    
    It's the scary part.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I did consider that the points are biased, I also looked at what's actually going on and came to the same conclusion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean people who generally don't like Americans are saying American governments is trying to kill the internet and Americans themselves are like "Yup it's true" so basically that means American government is bias against the internet and pay people to be bias against the internet by making posts on the internet (wtf) about how none of this is true cause some people who generally don't like Americans are saying exactly the same thing Americans themselves are saying??
      
      Well, fuck. Maybe I'm beginning understand why these people generally don't like Americans. (Hollywood)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Daniel Scheinhaus, 11 Aug 2012 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    All humans have biases. We mustn't expect people of what's becoming a whole world-wide human society to abide by them. At the same time, we must also be aware of biases that may be harmful to other individuals or groups. I'm concerned about protecting the right of people to think freely in ways that aren't harmful to individuals. At the same time, we must have an environment where creators of ideas of all kinds, whether scientific, political, economic or artistic can create without having their ability to make a living threatened.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 9:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is not the choise here. The choise is between having the same financial models as yesteryear and protect it with all our might or let the internet be a platform for micropayments and other new models on a lower economic scale.
      If you protect yesteryears financial models, you are hurting the possibilities for the new models and if you do not, you are hurting the new models.
      That is the choise and SOPA is infinitely biased towards yesteryears models and there were severe concerns from professors about the human right implications. Human rights? Aren't they for all of us?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That is not the choise here. The choise is between having the same financial models as yesteryear and protect it with all our might or let the internet be a platform for micropayments and other new models on a lower economic scale."
        
        That's one of those wonderful ideas that sounds great on paper, but is unworkable for the most part in reality.
        
        Micropayments systems generally fail because the costs per transaction online are just too high. It's one of those "been there, done that, watched it crash and burn" things. Most systems that allow you to pre-load for micro payments tend to end up either failing financially, or fail to offer enough products for you to want to load them up for payments. In order to make it work out for them they have to ask you to load your virtual card with many times more than the micro payment you want to make today, making it a hard sale for most consumers.
        
        Credit card fees and such make it pretty hard to selling things for pennies. Many merchants face a "cost per transaction plus percentage" situation, either because of their card agreements, or the need for a processing gateway to handle their business. It's hard to sell something for 25 cents, when your gateway fees are 50 cents per transaction!
        
        The only real bias in these laws was to protect and maintain a business that generates billions of sales every year, employs tens of thousands, and generates millions of direct tax dollars - and trickles down much more in each of these areas. The alternatives offered up are, well, anarchy. We don't have any functional system to replace what is there, just a whole bunch of wishful thinking and sort of a hippie commune business concept. It's nice, we can all move up to Big Sur and grow virtual veggies and weed for each other, but the economic model is a little lacking in roundness, if you know what I mean.
        
        The real bias at play here is keeping people in jobs and keeping the economy rolling with actual sales and taxable revenue, not with "platform building" or "social interactions". Facebook continues it's faceplant on the stock market as people are coming to realize there isn't all that much there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 8:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The alternatives offered up are, well, anarchy"
        
        Spotify, Netflix, Apple, etc. Not much anarchy there.
        
        The real issue is that the internet is a disruptive change to the content industries. If we held back innovation for the sake of saving some peoples jobs, we would all be ridding horses and buggies right now.
        
        "We don't have any functional system to replace what is there"
        
        That's the point with disruptive change, the current content industries were at one point just small companies trying to make a buck. Now they are no longer needed as Gateway's to culture, the internet, and new companies do a better job.
        
        Letting the current players adapt or die is better overall for the economy because it frees it from inefficiency. Just like automobiles made transportation more efficient, the internet makes distribution of content much less costly. There are some who find ways to make money from that and some who don't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Spotify, Netflix, Apple, etc. Not much anarchy there."
        
        Well, actually, Netflix and Apple run on the old system, so they aren't alternatives, they are just digital extensions of what was already there.
        
        "The real issue is that the internet is a disruptive change to the content industries."
        
        Nope. Piracy is a disruptive force, but not a change. Normal disruptive changes in business are a move from one reasonable successful model to an even more successful one. This is a move from a functional and successful model to no model at all, just give it all away.
        
        "Now they are no longer needed as Gateway's to culture, the internet, and new companies do a better job."
        
        Not true at all. What is getting pirated (and purchased) out there? The vast majority (nearly all of it) still comes from the label and studio side, and very little comes from the new companies. The consumption is still the "legacy" product base.
        
        "Letting the current players adapt or die is better overall for the economy because it frees it from inefficiency. "
        
        What you don't seem to get is that copyright doesn't stop anyone with a better idea, a better system, and better product to operate in their own ways. If there is a better way that makes so much more money, the labels will climb over broken glass to get to it. What's lacking here is a concrete base, a solid foundation, an actual functional business model to replace the current actual functional business model.
        
        ". Just like automobiles made transportation more efficient, the internet makes distribution of content much less costly. "
        
        Yes, but it doesn't change the cost to make what is being transported, and that is still the big end of the deal. Don't get trapped into thinking that marginal distribution costs are the start and the end of it. Even economics professors and theorists agree that the supply demand curve calculations fail when your product is almost entirely an up front cost, not a marginal cost.
        
        In simple terms, don't believe the hype. Please point to the part of the "new company" music industry that has made even 20% of the sales in the last year (so about 1 billion).
        
        *crickets*.
        
        Nothing there.
        
        So you want the music industry to give up 5 billion (was 10 billion) of business for, what, air?
        
        Fail whale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but it doesn't change the cost to make what is being transported, and that is still the big end of the deal. Don't get trapped into thinking that marginal distribution costs are the start and the end of it. Even economics professors and theorists agree that the supply demand curve calculations fail when your product is almost entirely an up front cost, not a marginal cost.
        
        Computers do that, we reached the point where you can carry all the studio equipment in your pocket.
        
        The cost of producing that crap is minimal.
        
        Now lets see how many musicians were making a living before and after the tech came along.
        
        I want the music industry to die already.
        I don't care if there are 5, 10 or 20 billion in it, it is not worth it if it comes at the expense of civil liberties and individual rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, actually, Netflix and Apple run on the old system
        
        Not exactly. They do run on the "system" of selling access to media, so in that way they are similar. But they have significant differences that make them closer to a "new" business model. iTunes Match is a good example.
        
        Normal disruptive changes in business are a move from one reasonable successful model to an even more successful one.
        
        That is not even remotely what "disruptive change" means. A disruptive change is a change in market conditions, not business models, usually brought about via technology. The "even more successful" models don't exist until upstart industries find ways of capitalizing on disruptive changes. But the disruptive changes come about whether "even more successful" models exist or not.
        
        This is a move from a functional and successful model to no model at all, just give it all away.
        
        The only person who thinks anyone is saying "just give it all away" is you.
        
        What you don't seem to get is that copyright doesn't stop anyone with a better idea, a better system, and better product to operate in their own ways.
        
        That's exactly what it does. If that were true, Megaupload or The Pirate Bay would be perfectly legal, since that's exactly what they were doing.
        
        If there is a better way that makes so much more money, the labels will climb over broken glass to get to it.
        
        That's not what "efficiency" means. In fact, the more efficient an economic system is, the less money labels will make. Their profit arises entirely from economic inefficiency.
        
        Taking a dozen songs, packaging them together in $1.50 worth of plastic and paper, and selling them for $15, is not economic efficiency. Yet that's the only reason record labels were able to achieve their profits in the 90's. On the other hand, taking those songs, packaging them as digital files, and distributing them for $1 each is much more efficient. And it's the main reason labels aren't making as much money nowadays.
        
        Yes, but it doesn't change the cost to make what is being transported, and that is still the big end of the deal.
        
        Then, the sunk cost will shift from those who make money under the old, inefficient system - manufacturers and wholesalers (which is what record labels really are) - to those who make money under new, efficient systems.
        
        That may not happen soon (copyright ownership has delayed this process considerably). And the "new" moneymakers may be the same companies as the "old" moneymakers (if they embrace change and adapt). But it will happen.
        
        Please point to the part of the "new company" music industry that has made even 20% of the sales in the last year (so about 1 billion).
        
        Digital sales are certainly part of the "new company" music industry. I'm pretty sure iTune, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Rhapsody, and eMusic made a hell of a lot more than 20% of sales. Not to mention services like Pandora, Tunecore, CD Baby, RouteNote, Soundcloud, Kickstarter, etc - the impact of which is hard to quantify, as most don't report to Soundscan.
        
        The real question is how much the "old company" music model made - that is, sales of physical CD's. They still sell plenty; but as of 2011, they make up less than half of total sales for recorded music. (That's in dollars; in purchases, digital overtook physical way back in 2007.)
        
        Since the "new company" music models pay artists a much higher percentage of income than the "old company" music models, I'll bet that they all account for a lot more than 20% of the money that actually goes to musicians.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 4:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If that bias was real you would get rid of the granted monopoly and start some sane parameters to do business not try to block everything and everyone from every possible use and claim everything is theft, because you want to charge absurd fees from every possible use that can be done today and in the future all the while making the public foot the bill for enforcement and at the same time undermining the publics rights like free speech, privacy and ownership.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 4:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Extinguinshing a granted monopoly never will threaten anybody's ability to make a living.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, unless they suck at what they do and couldn't win in a free market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:25pm
  
  Re:
  Even a biased source can bring fourth a good point once and awhile. After all, what better propaganda is there than the truth?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim O (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:35pm
  
  Re:
  The video is 24 minutes long and you responded to the post within 10 minutes, so you clearly didn't watch it. Your argument is null and void.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ummm had you considered that I might have seen it already? I do get Al Jazeera on my TV. I know, I haven't cut the cable. How shocking!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 3:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Given your clearly stated opinion of Al Jazeera, I don't believe for a second that you watched it.
      
      Funny that you were completely incapable of refuting or even discussing any points made in the video. Just a lame attack on Mike because based on your ignorant opinion of a non-US news source.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Moreover, the Arab world is the area, outside of China, with the most censorship and control of the internet. These are the areas where the most harm has been done to the free internet. Taking a lesson from their media on the issue is laughable at best.
      
      You pay for propaganda? That's just silly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:45pm
  
  Re:
  Because attacking the messanger disproves the message, if you are an idiot or shill or that is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:54pm
  
  Re:
  "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  
  And you're asking others to address your points? You didn't make a single point except the above fallacy. You fail, hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    'Latin for "to the man"'
    
    What's latin for "stick it"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      adherebit ad homo - "Stick it to the man."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ummm, you seem to fail here.
    
    What I was pointing out was that the source is biased, and went looking for the story in the way they wanted to present it. They clearly ignored other points of view, or other people who would have negated their point of view.
    
    Further, they ignored the basic fact that, in their home region, the internet is censored, blocked, controlled, and sometimes even disconnected at the whim of the various governments, dictators, and Royal Families.
    
    So the question remains: Why use an incredibly biased source to support your point of view? Don't you think it makes it clear that Mike's view on this is just as biased as a result?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and how is the Arabic media responsible for what Arab governments do?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      First off, ignoring your own counties censorship problems does not invalidate points made about other counties that censor. After all a murderer criticising someone for commiting murder does not make the second guy any less a killer.
      
      Second, if there are counterpoints that you think can negate their points then by all means elaborate. You must know what those counterpoints are or you would not bring it up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *countries.
        
        Clearly I am a master of engrish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " After all a murderer criticising someone for commiting murder does not make the second guy any less a killer."
        
        Since we aren't talking murder here, I will guess you were waving your arms and jumping up and down as you tried to write this, ranting and raving.
        
        Let's be fair here. The Arab states almost without exception have some form of internet censorship or restriction in place. For them, it is normal to censor things, it's the way their societies have worked for generations.
        
        So getting lessons about freedom from a group of people who don't know about freedom, well...
        
        Only Mike (and his choir) could not see the bias in all of this, and the direction that the story took, seemingly with the conclusion written before the "facts" were even collected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thing is, biased or no they still came to the correct concluion. You're the one who choose to blind himself from reality
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 12 Aug 2012 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So getting lessons about freedom from a group of people who don't know about freedom, well..."
        
        Really? where have you been last few years? Green revolution? I feel sorry for you if you'd rather have "balanced" "news" like FOX.
        
        "Since we aren't talking murder here, I will guess you were waving your arms and jumping up and down as you tried to write this, ranting and raving."
        
        Now this is some deflecting here - have you addressed any points here? Let me check:
        - you rant about him ranting and raving
        - because they have censorship, they can't know freedom? Wow, talk about being condescending.
        - bias, Mike (patronizing?), choir, bias, quotation marks around the word facts
        
        Hmmm... I see no points from video addressed here. Strange.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HumbleForeigner (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Biased source?
      
      *ahem*
      
      Fox News anyone?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        faux news, for when you can't afford the real thing
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In all fairness, not just Fox news, but all mainstream news, especially on linear television.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank god for Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So wait a second and think about what you just said because that is exactly what the people you support do.
      
      The irony is strong in this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 11:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I consistently seek news sources outside the US to get a better handle on what is really going on because I cannot count on US media, as it is extremely biased.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What I was pointing out was that the source is biased, and went looking for the story in the way they wanted to present it. They clearly ignored other points of view, or other people who would have negated their point of view.
      
      Just like every other news outlet regardless of nationality. There is no indication that Al-Jazeera is any less reliable than mainstream western news organizations. I do find it interesting, though, that Al-Jazeera frequently pisses off middle-eastern governments.
      
      The proper way to use news outlets, from any source, is to get your news from multiple sources, use critical thinking skills, and take no source as gospel.
      
      It's OK to write off particular outlets when they have shown by their history that they are particularly unreliable (Fox comes to mind), but even they are not completely without value. Al-Jazeera, however, has a pretty decent track record of accuracy when you look back at their reporting vs what has turned out to be factual in the long run.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gamma ray, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:14pm
  
  Re:
  "Why do you fall for this shit? Are you that desperate to "Way to deflect there. Why not address my points rather than giving it an offhanded was an a semi-attack?"
  
  .
  
  Iam responding to you because of point 3.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gamma ray, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:16pm
  
  Re:
  "Why do you fall for this shit? Are you that desperate to "Way to deflect there. Why not address my points rather than giving it an offhanded was an a semi-attack?"
  
  People will respond to your messages only
  1.If you make a point that is at least debatable.
  2.If you make your point by respecting other people even though many people might disagree with that point.
  3.If you behave like a piece of shit.
  
  Iam responding to you because of point 3.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:38pm
  
  Re:
  Well then they are well positioned to put out the dirty laundry in public, just like the Russians are unraveling the cyber capabilities of the US military using an IT security company to do it(i.e. Kaspersky), God only knows why they are doing this now.
  
  Also Aljazeera has been using some competent journalistic and documentary talent, you should watch their news, it is well edited, well produced, well managed and trying hard to be impartial or at least apparently, different from Fox news or my favorite ones the UK tabloids.
  
  I also watch the French, Latin American news, it is amazing how different things gets reported all over the world and the insights you can gain from it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:53pm
  
  Re:
  What are you implying now? Are you saying since it a "Arab" news station, it must be biased and fox/cnn/[insert a news station] provides absolutely true/ unbiased news? Did you even watched that video before posting? If so, can you say which points you agree/disagree with?
  
  You need to come up with valid points before judging something.
  
  You don't respect anyone here and yet you are expecting us to respond to you your 'points'?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:06pm
  
  Re:
  At least it's not the Russian this time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:49pm
  
  Re:
  er...so only pro-US reporting is allowed these days? Al Jazeera admittedly does not have a por-US line, but it's an independent and respected news outlet (unlike RT, btw). Just because they have an opinion piece that disagrees with US policy (as do judges, activists and public opinion worldwide, for example in Europe - oh I forgot, that's a haven of dictatorships too isn't it?), doesn't make the facts or the storyline any less valid. Opinion pieces are just that - people find them persuasive if the facts come together to support the opinion. Why do you think public opinion worldwide is so much against US policy on this and other matters (hint: it's not because they are all dirty pirates)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:08am
  
  Re:
  Moreover, the Arab world is the area, outside of China, with the most censorship and control of the internet. These are the areas where the most harm has been done to the free internet. Taking a lesson from their media on the issue is laughable at best.
  
  Never use the actions of a government to judge it's citizens. Citizens fault the government doing whatever it's doing, in fact the their the victims.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:15am
  
  Re:
  Why are you so much on the side of the MAFIAA & US Government?
  Because all you are is an Industry Tool or a Government fool or probably both.
  
  We are not all SHEEPLE !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dreddsnik, 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  So then, what specific points in the video so you have problems with ? Why not counter them ( and provide references ) ? Or is it only the source that you have a problem with ?
  
  what's that fallacy called again ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am
  
  Dear Troll
  Exactly how dimwitted are you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Dear Troll
    "dim"?
    
    You're giving the troll too much credit. As a no wit he aspires to be dim witted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:42am
  
  Re:
  Al Jazeera has excellent articles and works. It's amusing and scary to see how biased and blinded by your prejudice you are. I'd believe there are the Arab versions of you that probably think the same about Fox or BBC (except that they are probably right about Fox and BBC has very interesting works just like AJ).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:50pm

it could do without the overly dramatic music

Aw. That's what makes videos on the internet fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Daniel Scheinhaus, 11 Aug 2012 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Regulating Musical Tastes
  SujaOf has an urge to decide what music should be the underscore. Isn't that censorship?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Togashi (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 3:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Regulating Musical Tastes
    Yes! Having an opinion is censorship!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 3:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Regulating Musical Tastes
      I think Obama's policies suck.
      
      TAKING AWAY THE PRESIDENT'S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:48am
  
  Re:
  Soundtracks are the soul of most videos nowadays (note that I'm not saying that 'mute' works are not valuable).
  
  Music imprints feelings upon us. Try to watch Lord of the Rings without the soundtrack for instance. It loses its soul.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:14pm

Wow, Adam Schiff have you no shame?

His partiality is thick enough to cut with a knife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:08pm

the interview starting at about 18:05 is a bit scary to listen to. "I think any type of activity online can be considered a security threat."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:22pm
  
  Re:
  They're posting pictures of cute kitties with captions?
  
  Kittens! My god.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Kittens? With captions?? Clearly these people are advocating animal abuse by making fun of poor innocent kittens over the net.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:02pm

Funny how almost everyone of those website spokesmen were so uninformed or biased as to claim that their US-based website would have
been subject to SOPA. The bill targeted foreign sites yet the FUDfest continues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 3:38am
  
  Re:
  read SOPA again... Or just rely on some of the media-predictions on its effect. Both of those techniques seems to have failed for you thus far.
  
  As for bias: As far as I know Al Jazeera (former BBC middle east) has british ideals for how news should be presented. In 2010? some group of scientists made a study of bias in media and surprisingly Al Jazeera was the least biased. It lends credibility to the study that FOX News was the worst by a margin in the study. Of US sources CNN did the best. BBC did better than CNN, but worse than Al Jazeera...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 3:44am
  
  Re:
  Dude, the bill died. You can stop trying to convince us US websites wouldn't be negatively affected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 8:55pm
  
  Re:
  We just want an unfiltered, uncensored internet. Where's the FUD in that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 4:22am
  
  Re:
  Yes they would, apparently you didn't even read the law proposed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:30pm

Aljazeera
I watched this and did not see any bias at all. Just what everyone has been saying for many years. I know it is hard for the trolls to accept and for those that think the MPAA and gov can do no wrong but the truth can hurt , and yes there are called on here of bias that is how aljazeera has been attacked since they started out, they still produce more truth than most American news networks, which in itself is sad, but that does not make them bias.
If you follow aljazeera which i did for a short while you start feeling really uncomfortable as the truth when it comes out can be hard to swallow at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 2:11am

the openness and success of the internet the way it is is exactly what frightens the shit out of governments. they cannot bear to have anything around that they do not control or is a way of people being able to communicate quickly and easily with so many others. unless, off course, that communicating is of benefit to the various governments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 5:43am

"I think any type of activity online can be considered a security threat."
Brian Boeting, Cyber Investigative Task Force, FBI

And that's the most ridiculous and depressing thing I've heard all week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:13am
  
  Re:
  FBI = Fat Bellied Ignoramuses !
  
  And that is a pretty assinine thing to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mega1987 (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:36am

If any of those freedom restricting bills goes into law...
then I will never buy anything from them...
I'll just download whatever I can to watch or play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben S (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 7:07am
  
  Re:
  Technically, ACTA was illegally made law here in the US, so the wait for one of those laws to be passed is over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dansing1 (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 9:04am

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert
I agree that, for T.V., they're a breath of fresh air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 10:19am

Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
[My comment would be full of anger and vitriol and doubtless contain expletives (yet it would still be mild in comparison to anything hollywood has barfed out in the last several years), and the mafiaa trolls would just use it that as an excuse to censor it. So I'll just quote the most current comment on the Youtube page:]

"It sucks being a candlestick maker in a electric light world... unless you can get control of the government to pass laws to protect candle sticks - and attack electric lights. THAT is what the recording & copyright industry is doing; paying congress to protect their candle-making, while attacking the electric light makers (internet users) of the world."

[username:]techcafe

The quoted comment encapsulates how things currently stand quite nicely, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
  ""It sucks being a candlestick maker in a electric light world... unless you can get control of the government to pass laws to protect candle sticks - and attack electric lights. THAT is what the recording & copyright industry is doing; paying congress to protect their candle-making, while attacking the electric light makers (internet users) of the world.""
  
  yeah, especially when nobody has electricity, it's just a rumor, and nobody has a plan to put electricity in place, there is no business model to support it, nobody wants it, and there is no generating plants.
  
  Yup, it's good to be a candlestick maker.
  
  My suggesting to Mike Masnick and the Techdirt crew: Stop worrying about what the music and movie industries are doing. If they are useless, if they are "legacy players", and if they are on their last legs, what they do won't matter. You need to look at your own issues.
  
  If you really want to disrupt the music industry, try actually doing it with product, with business, and with some common sense. Don't just support piracy to cripple the existing industry - it doesn't make the feeble attempts to take over the music world look any better.
  
  Don't worry about tearing down what is already there. If you don't like the old neighborhood, go somewhere and build your own. Make it so good that everyone moves there, and you win the point.
  
  Until then, you are just crapping on something - but you cannot do better yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 3:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
    Until the yime they go out of business because they stick to the old ways, Mike will serve as a warning to change their ways before it's too late.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 12 Aug 2012 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
    "Don't just support piracy to cripple the existing industry..."
    
    With more music and movies being made than ever before, most of us aren't terribly concerned about the state of "the industry". The fact that you think they're being "crippled" despite the evidence of healthy output means either you're completely wrong about the state of the industry or you're completely wrong about the effect of piracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
      Content industry types tend to not care what the actual effects of piracy are.
      
      They just go to their strange notion that someone enjoying a copyrighted work without paying is somehow screwing them even if they could not or would not have bought the product anyway.
      
      Nor do they consider that piracy rates might be the RESULT of sales they DID get and the "pirates" are only downloading the pirated version out of fustration that their legally purchased copy doesn't work because of DRM.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 5:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
    I would try if every resource I try using, was not claimed to be owned by some schmuck.
    
    I can't build a new neighborhood when everything I try to do is "owned" by someone that keeps complaining I must pay him for anything I do even if it is in my own property.
    
    And yes I could do better I just need to get rid of the monopoly guys first.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
    My suggesting to Mike Masnick and the Techdirt crew: Stop worrying about what the music and movie industries are doing
    
    I'll stop worrying about them when they stop attacking me and the freedoms I hold dear.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re: Youtube commenter "techcafe" says it well.
    So you want us to play their game of "Stay on the Sinking Ship", with their written (i.e. bought and bribed) rules.
    
    No dice. If they're going down we're going to make sure they don't take the whole planet with them, which they seem intent on doing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 11:26am

Honestly I didn't like it. This short-documentary seeks to reach sheeple, mainstream garbage.

And, yes, I am against MAFIAA and United Fascists of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dansing1 (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 12:06pm

Finding new ways to compensate the creative among us
While the biggest complainers are those who have controlled the Media when it comes to information, the Recording Industry in regard to music,the large distribution companies when it has to do with films or videos, I'm concerned with the actual creators - writers, composers, song writers, musicians, singers, etc. These last have been the victims for many years of the publishing industy, recording industry, etc. While we rightly have to guard against these large companies taking away our freedoms by shackling our internet, we must find viable ways that creators can make decent livings. So far, I haven't seen any really good ideas yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:45am
  
  Re: Finding new ways to compensate the creative among us
  I'm guessing from your profile that you're a fairly new reader here? Apologies if I've misread that, but have a shufti through the case studies section of the site. There are a lot of people doing a lot of interesting things and finding their own ways to make it work.
  Two things are consistent in their experiences:
  1) there is no single new way of working, you have to tailor any approach to the artist and the fans in question.
  2) there is no short cut, each and every way involves hard work and dedication - as you'd expect in any other walk of life.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dansing1, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:26am
    
    Re: Re: Finding new ways to compensate the creative among us
    I'm glad to see that optimistic note- that creative people are finding ways to "ply their crafts" in this new economy. I'd feel more optimistic about it if I could see the specifics of how they do it. If they do it in different ways, I'd like to see some examples. That they have to work hard is a given. I know that being creative and producing good stuff, whatever it is, isn't easy. Believe me, I'm not enamored by the old ways of bringing creative results to the general public.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 3:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Finding new ways to compensate the creative among us
      Seriously, check out the case studies stuff. There are specifics from the likes of Zoe Keating, Amanda Palmer, Dan Bull, Kevin Smith, Joe Konrath, OK GO, Humble Bundle* etc going right down to how much money they're earning in $ and c.
      
      * and those are just the ones I've heard of
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:28pm

Shameless Terrorist Propaganda
After we killed their leader, Osama Bin Laden, here they are, back again, STILL trying to overthrow us. And they have their own TV channel now!

Well, they can run, but they can't hide. We can still trace their tubes and bomb them. The Internet is a pretty big place, but so is Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: Shameless Terrorist Propaganda
  WTF? You must be a blind USA citizen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - drew (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:46am
    
    Re: Re: Shameless Terrorist Propaganda
    Think you missed the sarcasm there...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shameless Terrorist Propaganda
      If you don't read the nickname it's fairly easy to miss the sarcasm. I almost missed it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:53am

It's pretty amusing to see a network that's related (as in, belongs to the same geographic/ethnic group) to the usual US made up enemy (Arab terrorists) and usual censors point their fingers at the US for trying to control the internet. I won't be surprised once China starts pointing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ibili, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:37am

comment
I think all th world is now controled by few powerful people and we all, i mean all the world, is beeing watched and brain washed by them, and me has nothing to do bec i m a user and a broken piece of chess in the sand. Actually we are all like that.........Ibili.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dansing1 (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am

news reliability
I generally agree with the view that all news sources have some value. An important thing not mentioned regarding the reliability of news sources is the age-old notion of motive or, as they say, "Follow the money." Going by that dictum, we can say that, since most news media are corporate owned and their boards of directors are generally interchangeable with the various kinds of corporations, there'll be a bias toward the viewpoints of the various kinds of corporations -- banks, oil and coal companies included. Even the New York Times includes only what it considers "all the news that's fit to print". "Fit" is a big word here. Since Fox News is the most blatant in its lying, that source should be discounted altogether. Since it's owned by the Rupert Murdoch-controlled and tainted News Corporation, we must even be careful about such a source as the Wall Street Journal, also under Rupert's control. In England his company is still under investigation with one of his most senior people convicted of serious crimes -- carrying out unethical and even immoral policies. Al Jazeera is owned by an Arab Emir who, so far, has been as reliable as any corporate news source. National Public Radio has been so fearful of corporate power that it, demonstrably, has been a disappointment. The BBC has probably been the best source since it's, so far, the most independent from corporate control. Perhaps, as good as or better than BBC are the various non-government organizations that represent various causes like a free internet, better protection for people's health, fighting for a safer environment, anti-war groups that include some veteran's organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against War, Iraq Veteran's Against War, etc. These have newsletters that are very worth reading for information. Do they have biases? Of course, but those are in favor of a healthier, safer, freer humanity, rather than the corporate bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]