Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It
from the which-means-it's-not-at-all-about-internet-freedom dept
We were already skeptical of the GOP's claims about supporting "internet freedom," and it seems that our concerns have been more or less confirmed by the fact that the MPAA seems positively thrilled by the GOP's official position on internet freedom. If the MPAA is pleased with someone's policy outline for the internet, you can bet that it's bad policy. Here's what Chris Dodd had to say:The Republican Party platform language strikes a very smart balance: it emphasizes the importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom. As the party points out, the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation. Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation; it allows creators to benefit from what they create. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- herself once a Republican elected official -- wrote, '[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.'As he is prone to doing, Dodd is presenting a very distorted version of history and intellectual property. There is no evidence (none, zip, zilch, zero) that "intellectual property helps drive innovation." Historically, it's been shown that competition and need is what drives innovation -- whereas intellectual property laws tend to lock in place legacy players, holding back disruptive innovation. Either way, the MPAA's support pretty much shows that the Republican's "internet freedom" platform isn't serious.
I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.
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: chris dodd, internet freedom, republicans
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Who needs facts anyways?
We don't have to worry about IP theft there is no such thing...
Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation
Cause again, everyone knows before copyright there was no innovation, just like there was no authors or fans either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs facts anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs facts anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs facts anyways?
Boycott the MAFIAA
Support INDIE Art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs facts anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.toyarchive.com/XMen/MovieSenatorMutant2Up1a.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't say much, it's the municipal elections here and not a single candidate that has any chance of winning is a good choice. And we got at least 5 candidates that have some expressive electorate. Imagine with 2 and with both being complete and utter shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike Masnick just hates it when bad intellectual property laws are supported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike Masnick just hates it when ANY intellectual property laws are supported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue the comparisons...
Take out the term extensions and the heavy fine for small scale copyists and remove the restrictions on cracking and THEN you've got something balanced.
That would be the copyright of my youth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue the comparisons...
I'll start worrying about protecting the "property"/monopolies of wealthy corporations as soon as we solve society's real problems like inequality in education, employment, and healthcare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wish they'd make a Mike Masnick Tiger Beat poster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2chq906.png
Behold, a Tiger Beat poster for Masnick haters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
yes, especially when the opposition to those laws is almost entirely all "faith based" with little in the way of real world consideration taken into account.
Let's trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it, and then let's see what happens. This is the faith based approach at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perfect prefect!!
Let's just stop passing laws without adequate scientific evidence as to the net benefit to society.
I'm glad we've come to an agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, why not? Do a hard-reset on intellectual property, and as problems crop up we can fix them in a reasoned way, in the context of the world today as opposed to the world 80-200 years ago.
(The exception might be Trademark, which is a consumer protection not intellectual property, but I'm not convinced we even need that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People are still quoting Ben Franklin around here to justify mouthing off to the cops. There's no money in that one.
A "hard reset" as you call it would mean killing industries generating billions to the curb, hoping like hell we make it up somewhere else. Just doing that is entirely faith based, and therefore not a very good move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why shouldn't we quote someone who's a lot smarter than any cop could ever hope to be?
"A "hard reset" as you call it would mean killing industries generating billions to the curb"
What industries?
The Tech industry (which DOES generate billions and new jobs) would prosper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, YOU THINK that would happen. There is no proof it would. It's equally likely that they stop major innovations altogether (why invest in what will be stolen 10 minutes later) and instead we get stuck near or around the current technology levels, very slowly plodding forward as someone makes a 0.00001% incremental improvement, probably by accident.
See, you don't know, and I don't know either. Your assertion that X or Y would happen is "faith based" with absolutely no basis in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Franklin Principle
Reset copyright and Patents to 1790 or so.
That's perfectly "safe" despite all of your crocodile tears. Genuine innovation would be protected. Creativity would be encouraged.
The fiefdoms of Disney and Apple might be at risk. However that is not such a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any industry that "generates" billions simply by virtue of the concept of intellectual property -- that is to say, that could not survive absent that poisonous concept -- deserves to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Example, let's look at movies.
How many billions of dollars of ticket sales? What happens if the moment a new movie is released, it becomes public domain and any and every movie house who wants it can play it for any price, without paying for the content?
How many minutes do you think the movie industry would last after that?
(Oh, and for the nit pickers in the audience, yes, some people would still be making movies. But even the business models for indie films would be ruined, effectively leaving us with hobby films).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's get real for a second. While many commenters here advocate eliminating these laws altogether, I don't think that's the majority opinion. The majority opinion appears to be that these laws have become too oppressive and deviated too far from their original purpose. As such, they should be reformed (made closer to what they used to be). Reformed is not the same as trashed.
I'm in the reform camp, personally. I think these laws, properly written, can be a great benefit to society. That said, I do not think they're properly written right now, and if the choice is between the laws as they are now and no laws at all, less harm is done by having no laws at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With patents, by discouraging people and companies form keeping their inventions a secret, thus encouraging the distribution of new discoveries.
With trademarks, by preventing companies from intentionally tricking consumers into buying one thing when they intended to buy something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What's faith based about the assertion that a proposed law with no factual support for its purpose has no factual support for its purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fun with antecedents!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, creators are voters too
So it's not that the Republican version is "weak", it's just a different vision from your embrace of the freedom to be ripped off. Admit it. You're only concerned about the rights and freedom of Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. You could care less about the rights and freedom of the creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
You're making stuff up again.
And still others think that "internet freedom" is more than that. Freedom form being ripped off, yes indeed! But not just in the context of business.
A 100% business-friendly internet would be one of the least free forms of internet I could imagine. It'd be, essentially, cable TV.
I want an internet where I can communicate freely and without fear, where I am not punished for the actions of others, where I am not subjected to tracking or monitoring except when I consent to it, and where I don't have to worry about the capricious abuse of the legal system to restrict my legitimate freedoms and rights.
If business can operate in that environment (and I know that it can), awesome! If business cannot, then business should go elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
Oh wait, I remember. They grew complacent and apathetic and as a result are inept and too blinded by hubris and their own delusions of grandeur to do anything of relevance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
See, the deal was you get copyrights, patents, etc, (in spite of the fact that those artificial rights infringe on my far more fundamental ,basic rights to freely copy, modify, and distribute whatever information I have lawful access to) IN EXCHANGE FOR promoting the progress.
Well, the deal's off. No promoting the progress, no copyright. No promoting the progress, no patent.
NO PP, NO IP! NO PP, NO IP!
Pirate! Blackguard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
I feel like I heard this through the bathroom door when my nephew was potty-training.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
That's a hell of a sentence, I may pirate it off you for future debates. I honestly think this really needs to be more of a talking point, that the social contract on which modern copyrights are founded has been broken. By lobbying for extensions to copyright that have left us with a century that has a ghost town of public domain works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob!
Didn't we give you some rabies shots last time?
No? Well, too bad, go to the vet and come back when you're calmed down, 'k? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artificial Rights expire.
Yup. 28 years for art. 20 years for inventions.
A good bit of my multimedia stockpile should be fair game for sharing. This goes triple for works where all of the relevant artists are DEAD already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
And then I read your second paragraph, and did a spit take. Went from being reasonable to potentially retarded rather quickly.
Sorry about calling your potentially retarded, I really could not think of a less insulting word or phrase to describe the second paragraph. Spent like 5 minutes trying to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
First: This site endorses legal sharing, so if there is money involved, it would be taxed.
Second: You're the same one who (falsely) believes "Big Search" and "Big Hardware" are the ones behind "Big Piracy." Now, both "Big Search" and "Big Hardware" do pay taxes - in fact, they pay far more taxes than "Big Content." So, by your own definitions, you can tax "piracy."
You never get sick of being wrong, do you, Bob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
Major labels have been dodging taxes since the 70's:
http://www.shit-fi.com/interviews/AaronMilenski
And, according to "Hollywood accounting," Return of the Jedi never made a profit:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-not- getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
Even if Google does have "offshore tax dodges," they still pay more taxes than the RIAA or MPAA clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
...not to mention the film subsidies from state governments, which in 2010 totaled $1.5 billion; or the tax breaks from the federal government, which totaled $30 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, creators are voters too
You're right, I could care less, since I care a great deal. But because I care a great deal about creators, I would quite like to see gatekeepers - sorry, Big Gatekeeping (just to translate for you) kept out of copywrite, and let the ACTUAL creators have a reasonable amount of time to monetise before they then are given further incentive to create something new.
You on the other seem like you COULDN'T care less about creators - it's all about Big Gatekeepings ability to make Big Money off Small Creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*No mixing languages into unapproved sentences. Sentences that are mistrustful of the Languages© system, Copyright, or Intellectual Property in general are not allowed. Frequent phrases can and will be revoked and broken into smaller blocks, necessitating a separate charge for each.
**After 6 months rates rise to as much as you can pay and increase monthly by 4%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*Until we change our minds and annex said language, at which point only Languages© users will be allowed its use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can throw around quotes too!
Take that, Dodd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can throw around quotes too!
It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme....It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ibid., and a constitutional requirement....To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.... This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.
I'm surprised and pleased to hear that Dodd supports O'Connor's views on copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can throw around quotes too!
+funny for that ;)
But indeed a very sane and reasonable view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
I certainly hope there is benefit from innovation/invention beyond the ability to own said creation. Otherwise I'm not sure why the first caveman tied a pointy rock onto a stick in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? Yes really
That was actually the first attempt at IP enforcement. The caveman tied a pointy rock to a stick and then charged all the other cavemen a fee to make their own. They all gladly paid and then killed the inventor. IP enforcement was not attempted again for many millennia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Without Mother Copyright, where would we be?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Mother Russia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beat me to it...
The whole thing (America Rock) takes up about 367M.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahh the good ole us vs them, dems repubs bullshit.
All parts of the same machine.
At least the repubs are in your face about the f'ed up shit they want to do. Those cockroaches are a little less afraid of the light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Well here's a crazy idea, how about none of the above. I'll go with the populace, we were sick of the Rs 4 years ago and now it seems people are sick of the Ds. So how about we do something crazy and move away from those parties completly.
Obama's AMA on Reddit didn't give me much more hope either. Both parties don't have a clue where we are going and how to get us there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motivation at any cost.
Much like in Terminator 2 when the T-1000 was "helping drive" the car by hanging on the back trying to kill the passengers inside. What? They drove faster than they would have didn't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Motivation at any cost.
Just like in FPS games when you shoot a rocket up someone's ass and their bloodied corpse goes flying 500 meters into the air before crashing down and exploding in a shower of blood and guts.
They wouldn't have been able fly those 500 meters without that rocket, would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Motivation at any cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Motivation at any cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Motivation at any cost.
(Getting laggy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Motivation at any cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://youtu.be/B39W91O-rUg
View of teleprompter, proof of no rushing or scipted.....well..scripts
http://youtu.be/77W5OKStO5s
Its a sad day when a citizen of another country cares more for some of you americans, why is,nt techdirt covering this bullshit, at least a front page mention, regardless of your take on it,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Liberty on everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Urgh...
I wish I had more money, I'd move to Sweden.
Yeah, I'm an American and I'm sick of this country and hate the path it's taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where's the news networks? They could eat this up all day long and kill any credibility...
Wait! Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert! Do it man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given howm hard the copyright maximalists are working to control the Internet, the above equated to ;_
The free flow of information is what we let you have, after we have decided to publish it and you have paid for it. And by the way we need to control all your devices so that you can't cheat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republican: AKA: Slowly removing all civil liberties and freedoms.
Democrats: AKA: Slowly converting the U.S.A. into a socialist republic.
Both options are not particularly good in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right-wing future: The Handmaid's Tale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to "theft" again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how crafty is Dodd, anyway
I don't think he is actually smart enough to think of that himself. But perhaps his masters are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what parties are really serious about it? May just some individuals in the congress, but no party as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://youtu.be/jw1Pz0mzLV4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably wishful thinking but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's telling the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]