Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'

from the don't-list-to-them,-they're-just-the-public dept

Mon, Mar 25th 2013 8:46am — Mike Masnick

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That is the purpose of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which is sometimes referred to as the "copyright clause" (or "the patent clause"), which enables both areas of law to be created via Congress. It's also the part that is most often ignored. As we've discussed, the whole purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the public are the sole stakeholders when it comes to proper policy making decisions regarding these laws. However, with this new push for comprehensive copyright reform, it appears that the copyright lobby is already working on ways to make sure that the public is marginalized in the discussion.

We've got two recent examples from the "Copyright Alliance," a DC-based lobbying shop put together by copyright maximalists (with the help of super right wing interests who normally don't link up with Hollywood on much), who are seeking to spin the debate in their favor with a lot of bluster and propaganda, often trying to demonize and/or marginalize the public's role in this debate. First up is an op-ed piece, in which the Copyright Alliance argues first that any new copyright reform must focus on maximalist principles, whether or not they make any sense. And then it digs in against the public, arguing that their voice shouldn't count for much because, apparently, they're so easily manipulated.

Those skeptical of copyright protection have expended a lot of energy to redefine its language and revise its history. Calls for lessening copyright protections are far too often accompanied by heated rhetoric. Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions. Finally, it is not hard to find examples of those who propose dramatic changes without understanding the business realities of how creative individuals and industries operate.

Let's unpack that a bit. Each sentence is ridiculous in its own special way. If we are to look at the history of the copyright debate, one side and one side alone, has focused on "redefining its language and revising its history" and that would be the maximalists. In fact, there's an entire book that details exactly how the copyright maximalists have continually changed the language of copyright and revised its history. Copyright turned from a very narrowly focused concept, which was designed to encourage the spread of learning and knowledge, to something entirely different. A "limited monopoly" (as the framers called it) was turned into boundlessly vague "intellectual property." The act of "infringement" was turned into "theft and stealing." People who incidentally infringed on copyrights were describes as "pirates." The law was expanded and expanded because of moral panic after moral panic.

As for "heated rhetoric," we've been told over and over again that if we don't expand protections and kill of technologies, "the creative industries will die," despite no evidence to support that. Technologies which have helped to expand the industry, to create new ways to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize were seen as the enemy because the powers-that-be did not control them. This is why the VCR was called "the Boston strangler of the movie industry" by the MPAA's Jack Valenti. I'm sorry, but the idea that those of us skeptical of today's copyright laws are the ones redefining the language or history is simply a laughably false claim.

But the really disturbing part is the next line. The claim that the public speaking out, such as via petitions or through various actions in which they contact politicians, should be ignored because it has "no place in policy discussions" is really just downright insulting. We know that, in the wake of SOPA, the copyright lobby has spent plenty of effort pretending that the public really didn't speak out, or that, if they did, it was only because they were stupid and deluded. But that should be seen for what it rightfully is: an insulting way of dismissing the public's interest in a law that is for the public's benefit.

The copyright lobby is scared to death that the public might actually speak up on its own behalf, because that would ruin the scam it's been running for quite some time.

In another piece by the same Copyright Alliance group, in response to the good ruling in the Kirtsaeng case, the alliance lashes out at public interest groups Public Knowledge and others for supposedly deluding the public:

Supporters of Kirtsaeng, including companies like eBay and groups such as Public Knowledge, have played an aggressive role in warping the public's understanding of the anti-arbitrage provisions of the Copyright Act and the benefits of market differentiation. Behind the veil of the Owners Rights Initiative, they perpetuated a series of falsehoods; these sweeping generalizations mischaracterize the impact of Kirtsaeng, generally attempting to recast a case limited in scope as an issue that will concern all individual resellers of goods.

The entire article is full of "redefinition" and "revising of history" -- to the ridiculous point of suggesting that the US hasn't recognized first sale rights on foreign goods for decades (a laughably false claim). But in the paragraph quoted here, you see its true contempt for the public. Apparently the public is simply too stupid to understand copyright law and is easily led astray by groups like Public Knowledge.

Taken together, you see both the fear and outright contempt that the copyright lobby has for the public. To them, the public are interfering with "the industry's rights" and are apparently stupid, gross and easily led astray and into mob behavior. I'm guessing that some of this is just PTSD following the lobbyists getting their clocks cleaned in the SOPA fight -- through cognitive dissonance, they've determined the only plausible explanation is that the public was duped.

But some of us believe that copyright law is supposed to be used in the public interest, and if that's the case, we should recognize that the public is the stakeholder who matters. To claim they should "have no place in policy discussions" isn't just wrong, but it's insulting. We should be welcoming the public into these discussions as much as possible -- not just because they are the key stakeholders here, but (more importantly) because if the Copyright Alliance actually wants a law the public respects, it might want to try including them in the process this time around. That its kneejerk reaction is to insult, demean and exclude the public gives a pretty clear indication where they would like this debate to go.

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: copyright, lobbyists, public, rhetoric

282 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 7:20am

That its kneejerk reaction is to insult, demean and exclude the public gives a pretty clear indication where they would like this debate to go.

The troll ramp up here in TD speaks volumes too. And I'm betting this is happening in every single group/author that is standing for the public rights and interests are seeing similar things in their forums or whatever.

And honestly it is good. If they fear, smear, insult us all then it means we are achieving decent success and influence in those topics where we should be the de facto main stakeholders.

I don't expect anything good to come out of this reform in the US despite of any public pressure (so anything good will be a surprise for me). Nobody is advocating no copyrights as they seem to imply every time. People want a sane, sensible system that can protect the artists without destroying the public domain and criminalizing socially accepted behavior. How hard is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  I'm advocating no copyrights and it doesn't mean they lose their right to express themselves as the article from "The Hill" claims. The first amendment protects freedom of expression, not copyright. Quite the opposite. It also doesn't mean they lose the ability to be profitable either, as they claim. Both points are a load of horse honky; there are plenty of viable and successful business models that don't require any copyright-like control over the dissemination of works.
  
  The cold truth is, with the technology we have, copyright is impossible to enforce and impossible to justify. The computer I'm writing this comment on has the power to access every creative work ever published in a digital format and no law will ever change that fact. Furthermore, that technology will only get more efficient and more robust in the task of sharing and access of content regardless of what the law says about it.
  
  Due to that fact, there is no such thing as a "sane" copyright law because enforcement requires that you violate basic civil rights of privacy and free speech to achieve it. This isn't like other laws such as murder or theft. Those crimes don't have an alternative strategy that nullifies their negative impact on those it affects (unless you can resurrect the dead and have matter replicators like Star Trek), but copyright does. Shift your revenue stream away from selling access to copies and infringement becomes inconsequential. No matter what adjustments to copyright are made, technology can and will always bypass it all.
  
  The whole reason the copyright industry is throwing a fit over these issues is because the means of production is shifting from the hands of the multinational corporations, to the hands of common individuals. Now every goon with a PC can be a producer of quality content, so long as they have the necessary talent and time. Smosh is the most viewed channel on YouTube and they started with little more than two guys with a camera and an overabundance of imagination. The only way they can stop this, is if they can "own" the means to create content, but the genie is already out of the bottle. So it stands to reason that they need to adapt and we need to get rid of copyright because it stifles innovation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I believe that if you focus and narrow on commercial exploitation it's very feasible. Emphasis on narrow. But I will agree that as things are now maybe getting rid of it altogether may be the only way out.
    
    Still I believe, agree and support copyrights as they should be. I'm talking about people getting stuff produced by others and blatantly selling and profiting DIRECTLY over it. Just providing means for people to share is not profiting from what's shared. I believe there are many out there who would love to actually do what the MAFIAA acuses the pirates of doing: rip off the artists and actually "steal" (MAFIAA semantics) money from artists, developers and so on. But using Gigaton bombs to tackle a gang in some back alley in New York is not gonna help in any way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But the thing is, the technology that makes copyright toothless also makes copyright unnecessary because the internet is the most anarchistic distribution medium and computers enable universal accessibility to creative tools that were impossible twenty years ago. When the tools to be a creative force in culture becomes available to any and all people, it dissolves any power of exclusivity that copyright used to grant. It's cultural socialism.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The internet makes anarchy, as in people self organising, a practical proposition. It must scare big-government politicians and big corporation because of this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  "The troll ramp up here in TD speaks volumes too. And I'm betting this is happening in every single group/author that is standing for the public rights and interests are seeing similar things in their forums or whatever."
  
  And maximalists' blogs either don't allow comments at all or censor opinions different from their own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The content industry blogs are nothing more than press releases that they can point to in emails, news stories, and other blogs.
    
    see - http://www.mpaa.org/blog
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 7:28am

Projection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Both the op-ed and other piece are full of psychological projection.

Anyone who looks critically at the statements can easily see through them. They're basically saying "We can't admit that we've distorted the truth for deacdes, so any pushback against our version of the truth is distorting." And "We can't admit that all of our arguments are emotional or disputes about business model and technological disruption, so any attempt to argue against our irrationalities doesn't belong in a public debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:50am
  
  Re: Projection
  Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions
  I think Mike read the above slightly wrong, even though I do believe the way Mike read it is the way the copymites feel. However, what they really said isn't any better. They are saying that appeals to emotion shouldn't have no place in this discussion. I'd agree. So it'd be nice then if they'd stop telling us to worry about corn farmers, the little guys, the jobs of grocers, etc, when they have no evidence (much less proof) that copyright law is needed to help those groups.
  
  Appeal to emotion is wrong in policy discussions. It'd sure be nice if they stopped using it. Psychological projection indeed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:43pm
  
  Re: Projection
  I think it is more along the lines of ...
  
  "We have lied a thousand times over the past one hundred years, and we do not want the 'cretinous scum of the earth' pointing that out."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duke (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 8:41am

Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions.
From my experience of working in policy (and opposing copyright maximalists), I agree, and wish we *could* eliminate emotional appeals from legal or policy debates.

I'm perfectly happy to agree not to keep spouting out rhetorical nonsense focused on eliciting emotional reactions if they will do so as well. I have a feeling I know which one of us will be hit harder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Mar 2013 @ 8:54am

TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
Emphasis added exposes his PHONY premise:
"Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions."

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike "supports copyright" but always overlooks or excuses piracy.
04:54:00[f-917-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
  getting pretty lame. You should try a little harder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
    getting pretty lame? Hasn't he been there for a while?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
  So it's perfectly ok to argue that feedback from the public has no place in policy discussions as long the appropriate pejorative is used to describe it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
    no, ootb is saying that the quoted paragraph means something other than what is implied by the article. Specifically, the paragraph means that decisions should be taken on the facts, not appeals to emotion. Or, in other words, ignore the rhetoric spewed out by both sides. (for example, copyright has often been portrayed as only protecting big companies- its not actually true (I'm afraid I can only back it up with personal experience) but it's just as bad as the people who want copyright extended.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
      The article clearly implies that widespread public support online is just a response to appeals to emotion and should be ignored. Again, it labels the public outcry with a pejorative and then says we should reject the pejorative.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 2:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
        many online petitions are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
  Further proof that we're in the right.
  
  OOTB can't even spin up anything better than this.
  
  ....or is that further proof that OOTB has the intellect of a blueberry muffin??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
    "...or is that further proof that OOTB has the intellect of a blueberry muffin??"
    
    FLASH: Blueberry Muffin lobby sues Reuben for slander.
    Film at 11.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re: TITLE IS TOTAL FABRICATION BY MIKE.
  This is the smartest thing ootb has ever said. I don't know how Mike misread that sentence so thoroughly. That is really pretty bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 8:55am

It sounds to me like they've just openly declared war on the people.

So now we'll see if the government sides with or against the people they're supposed to be representing.

An organization that takes and survives on money from the people who is so against the people shouldn't be allowed to continue to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  You really think there's any question of which one the government will side against at this point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:04am
  
  Re:
  Quite a few Governments chose to cave to the demands of the corporations already. Unfortunately. Also, by your logic most the current Govts should be replaced. And I have to agree.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  War was declared long ago when Napster started giving away all that music that did not belong to them. So this is simply the latest battle after a long line of battles.
  
  The Copyight side is getting quite fearful these days when they are aware that public opposition can strike down their proposed laws. Indeed they are now very worried when those in Politics are now starting to hear what the public are saying.
  
  I cannot be more happy. Now lets go rewrite copyright into what it should be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    I cannot be more happy. Now lets go rewrite copyright into what it should be.
    
    Good. Glad to know you're cool with the industry agreements. BTW, what's with the moniker, bad experience in prison?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tanj, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Napster was first released in 1999.
    
    The CTEA was in 1998.
    
    It was the 1976 act that changed copyrights to life +50 and 75 years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 8:57am

They may not like the public, but the public also don't like to have their own rights eroded specially the right to own stuff, which most people understand perfectly.

If you own something nobody should be able to tell you what to do with your own damn property is that simple, something copyright and patents takes away, in the case of copyright it goes to the realm of absurdity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:02am

The public has no place in this, except that little over looked line where copyright is supposed to benefit the people.

So far the benefits we've gotten...
- Technology we can't control
- Paying full price for things we can't own
- A public domain bereft of content
- Laws and rules putting corporations first
- The right to subsidize industries that create so much value, but still need handouts
- Hollywood accounting
- Rules that apply to the public, but when corporations violate those rules they get special treatment

There is more, but I'm to angry to list them all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:45am
  
  Let's not forget outsourcing...
  Hollywood is now decimating it's own talent pool by doing to special effects artists what other American corporation has being doing to it's IT staff for years. Award winning special effects studios are closing en masse because the work is being farmed to the lowest bidder offshore.
  
  There was an LA Times article about it just today.
  
  The MPAA screws their talent just like the RIAA does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Let's not forget outsourcing...
    ... Can you post that link? I'm reapply interested in that...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Let's not forget outsourcing...
      Google "Digital Domain" and "Rhythm and Hues" for the gory details. Also read what VFX Soldier has to say about the state of digital sweatshops.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 5:15am
      
      Re: Re: Let's not forget outsourcing...
      Look for all the plain bright green avatars on Facebook and other social media networks...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - William, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Let's not forget outsourcing...
    Not Hollywood's fault that the effects studios are so overpriced. You're crying about an entirely different issue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - teka (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Let's not forget outsourcing...
      But Hollywood is still claiming they need special laws, they need special help, they need new governmental task forces with Fuckin' Eagle emblems to save them from being forced to lay off American workers, like those FX crews (and the place where they buy morning bagels, and the place that sells them office chairs and masking tape)
      
      They have been getting their way with laws and enforcements and having record-breaking box office turnouts year after year.. but are still quietly snuffing out the projects and sending the work overseas.
      
      Things get too blatantly offensive when they get to have everything their own way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:03am

through cognitive dissonance, they've determined the only plausible explanation is that the public was duped.

SOPA will break the Internet. Justin Bieber will go to prison. SOPA will shut down Facebook an YouTube....

yeah, duped is pretty accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  You do realize that SOPA would have undermined key parts of the internet and wouldn't have stopped piracy... right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Bullshit. You have SOPA right now (plus six strikes). The only thing missing is judicial oversight. My internet works fine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Bullshit. You have SOPA right now (plus six strikes). The only thing missing is judicial oversight. My internet works fine.
      
      DNS blocking? Nope.
      Ability to force companies to try to deny existence of site? Nope.
      Ability to force companies to stop working with a site? Nope.
      
      What are you talking about?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DNS blocking: ICE Domain seizures.
        Ability to force companies to try to deny existence of site:
        http://torrentfreak.com/new-york-public-library-blocks-the-pirate-bay-and-torrentfreak-130320 / (It's a stretch, but does happen to some extent)
        Ability to force companies to stop working with a site: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/google-settles-pharmacy-ad-probe_n_935183.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bullshit. You have SOPA right now (plus six strikes). The only thing missing is judicial oversight. My internet works fine.
        
        DNS blocking? Nope.
        
        I know you enjoy clinging to portions of SOPA that were discarded.
        
        Ability to force companies to try to deny existence of site? Nope.
        
        Search engine demoting will have much the same effect
        
        Ability to force companies to stop working with a site? Nope.
        
        Voluntary agreements with payment processors and ad networks is ramping up and without the need to drag it through court, will probably end up more widespread without having to offer a judicial standard of proof.
        
        What are you talking about?
        
        Sorry it's unclear to you. But hey, if you're happy- so am I. Things a far better now than pre-SOPA. Particularly with the rise of six strikes.
        
        Funny that you try to diminish the impact of these SOPA-like industry agreements, after devoting so much time to decrying them when they were announced. Why the change of heart?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know you enjoy clinging to portions of SOPA that were discarded.
        
        "Discarded" *after* the protest day when everyone already knew the bill was done -- and not actually "discarded." Leahy just said he's put off implementation until a study had been done. Don't lie. I thought you and your friends were only going to deal in facts now.
        
        Search engine demoting will have much the same effect
        
        Wait, last week weren't you bitching about how they weren't demoting enough? Search engine demotions are not what was in SOPA and pretending otherwise shows you don't even understand how search engines work or why the MPAA and RIAA are still complaining. Besides, just one search engine is doing the demoting.
        
        Voluntary agreements with payment processors and ad networks is ramping up and without the need to drag it through court, will probably end up more widespread without having to offer a judicial standard of proof.
        
        We shall see...
        
        Sorry it's unclear to you. But hey, if you're happy- so am I. Things a far better now than pre-SOPA. Particularly with the rise of six strikes.
        
        Saying that what we have today is not SOPA is not the same as saying that I like the bad policies you and your buddies are stupidly cheering over. Everything's black and white for some ignorant folks, huh?
        
        Funny that you try to diminish the impact of these SOPA-like industry agreements, after devoting so much time to decrying them when they were announced. Why the change of heart?
        
        No change of heart. Those agreements are stupid and damaging, but not nearly as damaging as your pet project. But, nice attempt at saving face. Are you really so emasculated by the fact that some nerds beat you that you can't admit your own ignorance?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really don't get it, do you? Legislation is but one component. SOPA was a frontal assault. It didn't work. No one on my side was ready to hang themselves over it. We simply moved on to other approaches to dealing with the issue. Some you've seen, others you will see. The SOPA defeat was a big lesson to traditional lobbyists and believe it or not, they're mostly really smart guys deeply entrenched in the political machine. They learn fast and adapt.
        
        Politics is mostly an inside game. And you guys still exist at the margins. That's going to take a long time and a lot of money to change. And by then, even if it ever happens, it will be too late. It is nearly impossible to undo something that is already entrenched and fiercely guarded by savvy, well-monied players.
        
        And the possible saviors on your side are already being co-opted by being brought into the "content club" and sharing in the wealth of this vast market. The price of entry is pretty clear and there are signs of it paying off already.
        
        So savor your victory, you earned. Hopefully you'll find some comfort reliving your brief glory as things continue to spin out of your influence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Politics is mostly an inside game.
        
        Indeed. Technology, however, is not. When you figure that out, we'll be waiting for you.
        
        And the possible saviors on your side are already being co-opted by being brought into the "content club" and sharing in the wealth of this vast market. The price of entry is pretty clear and there are signs of it paying off already.
        
        Only if you believe this was a fight between Google and Hollywood. Keep believing that, though. It makes things easier to have you so distracted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Politics is mostly an inside game."
        
        Indeed. Technology, however, is not. When you figure that out, we'll be waiting for you.
        
        I'm well aware. Go ahead an continue playing checkers, while we're playing chess. I generally hear how that is working for you in your daily screeds.
        
        "And the possible saviors on your side are already being co-opted by being brought into the "content club" and sharing in the wealth of this vast market. The price of entry is pretty clear and there are signs of it paying off already."
        
        Only if you believe this was a fight between Google and Hollywood. Keep believing that, though. It makes things easier to have you so distracted.
        
        Google is already on the sidelines. They see the content dollars signs dancing before their eyes. They're well down the road from adversary to ally. No one else has the wherewithal. Who will put up the kind of money and possesses the expertise to win the battle? EFF? Public Knowledge? Techdirt? Demand Progress?
        
        Copyright reform in the direction you want is not exactly an Arab Spring issue to most. Granted, it is for a small number of shithouse anarchists, tenured law professors and professional malcontents- but no one with the gravitas to actually win is even in the game. So continue to author your screeds and rail against the injustice. No one that matters to the outcome is even listening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LoL, the sense of entitlement is tingling! If Google actually starts delivering crappy service because they give in to all the MAFIAA's whims (hint: just because they gave you some cand it doesn't mean they love or are in under your control) people will simply move on. There's plenty of competition ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        True, but the competition is similarly mesmerized by those same content dollars. Google getting bigger and richer, able to offer more and more of the content people are clamoring for isn't much of an inducement to leave.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 3:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google doesn't offer content, it offers platforms that are convenient, flexible and widely available. If they chose to follow all the MAFIAA's whims they'd be scanning e-mails for 'infringing' mp3, pro-actively filtering stuff and so on. If they were amused by the MAFIAA dollars. I'd say they just gave in here and there to stop with some annoyance or save money that would go to litigation. If you push too hard Google will become your enemy ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who will put up the kind of money and possesses the expertise to win the battle? EFF? Public Knowledge? Techdirt? Demand Progress?
        
        How'd you miss the CATO Institute? Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), we just had Jim Harper on TD yesterday. Oh, but he doesn't have any influence in DC, does he?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The CATO Institute is your White Knight? You are seriously fucked then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't take Masnick long to violate your privacy and look at your IP, did it?
        
        You'll search far and wide before finding a bigger douchehat and sociopath than Mike Masnick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Agreed!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't take Masnick long to violate your privacy and look at your IP, did it?
        
        I knew it was our friend from inside the Beltway from the beginning. You don't need an IP address to recognize some people around here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't take Masnick long to violate your privacy and look at your IP, did it?
        
        If I had, it wouldnt' be a violation of privacy, because that's data that we are clearly allowed to collect and view.
        
        Except I didn't. Some of you (including you) have very distinct writing styles and it's easy to know what regular clueless AC is what regular clueless AC without looking at anything.
        
        Facts: not your strong suit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're such a slimy liar, Masnick. You were pegging that poster as a specific person after two short posts. Nothing "unique" about his "writing style" other than, like many of us, he is prone to pointing out your bullshit.
        
        You really never learn, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, it's pretty easy to figure out who's who based on what they say within the posts and how they type it out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think he regularly checks up on my IP address. Do you ever notice how my comments never get "censored"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 3:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Masnick threatened me with death in a recent post. I hope he enjoys my "unique" answer to that behavior the next time I see him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 3:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        link or stfu
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 5:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To whine some more and crap your pants like your idol, Nugent?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Death in a recent post? Really? Tell you what, if this was about the whole "we know where you live" joke, that was me. And I live in a country several oceans from where you are.
        
        If this is the sort of thing that hits a nerve for you, small wonder people are horrified that you aim to be in charge of deciding technological policy for everyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stop the whining already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google is already on the sidelines. They see the content dollars signs dancing before their eyes. They're well down the road from adversary to ally.
        
        And then Google will lose it's relevance to the internet community. As soon as their "Don't be evil" mantra gets tarnished enough, they will end up as irrelevant as AOL and Alta Vista. Seems like a stupid move for Google to me, but, c'est la vie!
        
        Though I have to say, it's still pretty funny that you think Google was the big dog in the SOPA fight and are still marginalizing the millions of citizens who vocalized their opposition.
        
        No one else has the wherewithal. Who will put up the kind of money and possesses the expertise to win the battle? EFF? Public Knowledge? Techdirt? Demand Progress?
        
        Aren't those the same groups who mobilized the public against SOPA? Are you really thinking it couldn't happen again? When you have the hearts and minds of millions on your side of an issue, is the inequity of the lobbying dollars really all that important?
        
        No one else has the wherewithal. Who will put up the kind of money and possesses the expertise to win the battle? EFF? Public Knowledge? Techdirt? Demand Progress?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Crap. Ignore that last line. It was supposed to have been deleted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you not understand that there will never be another frontal assault like SOPA? As in; not ever. Please feel free to gear up for such a battle.
        
        As you've already seen with the various industry agreements, you'll be shadow boxing. You won't see it until it's too late. Any legislative action will be minor tweaks and amendments that will be part of larger packages that are fairly unassailable. Or agency enforcement policy. Or trade agreements. Or diplomatic influence. There are hundreds of ways to accomplish the same goals without having a street fight. And few, if any are subject to defeat by FUD-whipping the masses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But... but... "FUD-whipping the masses" is Mike's only move. Who will think of the selfish d-bags with huge hard drives and fast internet connections? Shouldn't they be able to take whatever they want? Sigh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, talk about FUD...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, talk about FUD...
        
        Not really. Just look at the comments from entitled shitbags like Josh in Charlotte. It's all about the freeloading.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hahahaha....ah, sniff. Pot meet kettle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you suggesting that it's FUD to point out that Mike is a piracy apologist? You should get out more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No it's FUD to whine on and on about the "plight" of the artist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, talk about FUD...
        
        To be fair, it's all the maximalists have left. Everything has gone against them lately, and the old strategies are proving less and less fruitful. So it's all out FUD before they collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy and failed logic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So which is it Masnick? If copyright initiatives are feckless and every attempt at strengthening has fallen face first; what's with all of your FUD-filled screeds and dire warnings than fill the pages of your blog?
        
        You invested tons of pages and comments on six strikes, industry initiatives, CFAA, CISPA and IsoHunt. Are you now suggesting those are part of "everything has gone against them lately"? What victories are you claiming?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What victories are you claiming?
        
        Right back at ya. Piracy has stopped?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To be fair, it's all the maximalists have left. Everything has gone against them lately, and the old strategies are proving less and less fruitful. So it's all out FUD before they collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy and failed logic.
        
        This from the guy who chose to lie about what the Copyright Alliance said. They didn't say that the public has no place in policy discussion, and you know it. Only a very sad and desperate man would publish such lies. Way to keep yourself on the margin, Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are hundreds of ways to accomplish the same goals without having a street fight. And few, if any are subject to defeat by FUD-whipping the masses.
        
        Nice. Your Mother must be so proud.
        
        You are basically saying: "If we can't get what we want by being upfront with the public, we'll just go behind their backs and make slimy backroom deals anyways"
        
        How do you sleep at night? Your mattresses of cash must have magical properties that alleviate your scruples.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuck you and your moralizing. I break no laws and I play to win. There'd be no need for any of this were it not for entitled, freeloading scumbags who think that they're free to take the creative output of others without compensation. You brought this on yourselves, so quit whining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you're about as ignorant as they come. Even if piracy was non-existent these companies would find some way to blame someone else for their failing profits and we'd all suffer one way or another. The fact that you can't see that is astounding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There'd be no need for any of this were it not for entitled, freeloading scumbags who think that they're free to take the creative output of others without compensation.
        
        I'm not convinced there is a need for this at all, personally.
        
        Movie studios continue to make record profits each year. Book authors are selling Ebooks for the same prices as dead-tree versions, without the overhead of actually producing printed copies. Music has seen a redistribution of wealth where we are now seeing more more artists being able to make a decent living then ever before. Same thing happening with newsprint - more opportunities for reporters than ever in history.
        
        This has more to do with the legacy gatekeepers freaking out over some new technology and thinking they need to be "protected" from it instead of embracing it and profiting in the long run.
        
        Bottom line: Stopping piracy will not increase sales. Bringing back the public's respect for copyright and offering up the services the public wants will. Ratcheting up copyright enforcement is about the worse thing to do, yet here we are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        entitled, freeloading scumbags
        
        Yeah, no appeals to emotion there! Thank goodness that only happens when opponents to copyright maximalism are "drumming up signatures for online petitions."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuck you and your moralizing
        
        Hmm, so you know that what the copyright lobby is pushing for does not benefit the public. Yet you are making excuses for the copyright lobby and are calling yourself a winner. Then I guess you can't be an author or composer.
        
        Is it really your goal in life to "win" at the expense of the public? I wouldn't be happy if I had to "explain" these "wins" to my partner, children, family members, colleagues or neighbors. I'd just be embarresed and ashamed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words, "I'm going to push things through and make your life ridiculously, needlessly difficult no matter what you say, neener neener neener". Really mature of you!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I break no laws and I play to win."
        
        And by winning, you mean fucking over the public for the gain of your corporate masters. With that sort of amoral attitude, it's incredibly galling for you to talk about the "immoral" behaviour of copyright infringement
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuck you and your moralizing. I break no laws and I play to win.
        
        Thanks for dropping the mask. Gosh, you guys are too easy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You could have said all this as a Southern slave-holder to a northern anti-slaver and said the identical thing with as much sliminess and inhumanity.
        
        When the laws are immoral and wrong (and possibly actually unConstitutional) and support companies who regularly screw those who produce the work they peddle and try to control, who are you to whine about being called out on your amorality?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are hundreds of ways to accomplish the same goals without having a street fight.
        
        Yeah, and none of those will stop piracy. Tough luck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        art guerrilla (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        gonna be a really big surprise to the puppetmasters when the sheeple finally bear the fangs...
        
        ain't gonna be pretty...
        
        you know why ? ? ?
        'cause of what kennedy said: (paraphrasing) when you make dissent impossible, you make revolution inevitable...
        
        we are getting well on into the 'inevitable' stage, and there ain't no spider hole big enough to hide all the korporate lackeys due comeuppance...
        
        the kock bros and bush klavern, etc may have multi-thousand acre kompounds abroad, and merc armies at their disposal, but all the bootlicks will be left behind; they will be easy pickins'...
        
        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This would make an amazing monologue from an evil corporate CEO in a futuristic big brother corporate capitolistic... huh. I guess it makes an amazing evil monologue now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, in other words...
        
        "We failed to realize the money we were spending to corrupt the government into doing our bidding wasn't going as far as it use to go. So, we'll be redoubling our efforts (read: spending even more money) to bring them back into the fold to do our bidding."
        
        Got it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You still think this is about Google. Hilarious.
        
        Wake up. We killed SOPA. We killed ACTA. Until those, you had never lost a fight. Sure, we won't win everything, but we'll kill off enough bad legislation to make it risky for your bought congresscritters to keep proposing bills. They care about votes more than money, and its our votes they want. We'll shame enough large companies (we'll even fight Google when we need to) to make it risky going along with your voluntary agreements. Those companies want money, and its our money that we can choose who to give it to.
        
        The problem with your well-monied idea of corporatocracy and cronyism is that we're not building a competing well-monied opponent to slug it out with you in the halls of Washington. We're attacking the source of your money. We're routing around your long built infrastructure. We're not fighting "fair" in a way you understand. And you fundamentally don't understand the distributed, headless opponent that we are.
        
        But thanks for the look into how you see government. I'm sure the founding fathers would respect you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You still think this is about legislation. Hilarious.
        
        Wake up. Search engine demotion, payment processor and ad network severing ties with pirates, six strikes... where were you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Search engine demotion,
        
        I'm free to use other search engines not buying into your Koolaid.
        
        payment processor and ad network
        
        There's other competition there, too. And Bitcoin is a thing now, if you haven't heard.
        
        six strikes
        
        Perfectly happy with my list of dozens of VPNs that don't keep logs, thanks.
        
        Your move.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Josh,
        
        Enforcement will never touch soulless, thieving freeloaders such as yourself. It has always targeted the soft middle who infringe out of convenience and lack of consequences.
        
        How many of the soft middle will migrate to Bitcoin? How many will pay for a VPN?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's the problem with enforcement...it's a game of tug of war, and it will never end, but it's easier than having to re-think your business model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 3:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well that's good to know.
        
        Say, could you point me to a blog that takes the pirate view?
        
        Because all of you are claiming you don't.
        
        Gee gosh thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the majority of us were pirates, sure we could.
        
        But we aren't, so we can't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How many of the soft middle will migrate to Bitcoin? How many will pay for a VPN?
        
        You don't get it. P2P existed before Napster. Napster made it easy - but when Napster was killed, most of those using it didn't start throwing money your way, they moved to other services that may have been harder to use at first, but quickly adapted to get easy.
        
        Six strikes is already turning VPNs mainstream. A year ago, you heard no one but techies and remote business users talking about them. They're easier to use now. There are more available. And cheaper than they used to be - both from competition and lower bandwidth/server costs.
        
        As to your ad-homs?
        Soulless? I'm an atheist, never claimed to have a soul.
        Thieving? I infringe copyright, sure. Made no secret of that. Give me a reason to buy. Haven't infringed on any copyrighted music in months, though. Offer me a convenient service, with the features I want, at a reasonable price and I'll pay.
        Freeloader? I'm listening to music right now on Spotify. I pay $10 a month for it. $120 a year. That's more than I spent when I was in my 20s on music, because services weren't available that didn't suck. Give me a Spotify-like service for video and I'll throw money at you. Give me a service I can download high quality movies and episodic shows from that are not encumbered with DRM, available when they release in theaters and TV, and available at reasonable prices and I'll throw money at you. When you want my money, give me a reason to give it to you that doesn't involve threats. Until then, I'll give it to people offering useful services that don't suck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 4:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fatality. Poor troll. No mercy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Enforcement will never touch soulless, thieving freeloaders such as yourself. "
        
        Wow, no wonder any retail initiatives your side tries crash and burn, with that attitude. I can see you in a store, or doing an online chat with a potential customer, and you cursing their soul because they haven't bought, and even after they have bought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Enforcement will never touch soulless, thieving freeloaders such as yourself."
        
        Note that this person is acting on behalf of large, soulless, morally bankrupt corporations who claim to represent artists. This is a the language of a corporate thug, not actual creative artists. The dollar we are accused us of "stealing" was not taken out of the pocket of an artist, but from someone who gives as little as practically possible to those artists. So these insults will not illicit guilt or shame or behavioural change or one penny of extra income, because these companies deserve none of that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It has always targeted the soft middle who infringe out of convenience and lack of consequences.
        
        Moving the goalposts again, are we?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You and your ilk are going to cheerfully grind the worlds economy in to lawsuits and eventual loss of the right of first sale. One day all of this will dawn on you but it will be too late and the US will be just like France and the UK, a legal mess of confused, bribed politicians and a mass of copyright lawsuits, with no real gains in industry to be had. All due to the fear of copyright's mantra of "It's mine and you can't have it!!". And it will be the fault of the lawyers and the copyright industry.
        
        Sure, be a troll on TD and revel in your Pyrrhic victories. You can continue to screw the public and bribe our useless politicians. But the end result is the same, copyright is slowly killing innovation in the US and around the world. The older I get and the more informed I become, the more I want the people to regain control of the government. I for one would cheerfully punt copyright from existence.
        
        If for nothing else, I applaud the Chinese for beating the copyright cartel at it's own game. Perhaps that will be the stick that will wake up you guys. Until then, please be so kind as to Die In a Fire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one on my side was ready to hang themselves over it.
        
        Your side? Will be funny to see you guys hanging themselves when piracy will continue unabated with all the silly stunts of your multi-pronged attack failing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike Masnick said:
        "Discarded" *after* the protest day
        
        That's a blatant lie.
        
        It was discarded a week before the protest.
        
        http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57358947-261/dns-provision-pulled-from-sopa-victory-fo r-opponents/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike doesn't do details. He just spreads FUD and hate. Anyone not drinking the Kook-Aid is summarily ignored as inconvenient.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL wow, the hypocrisy in your statements is astounding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LMAO. Huh? NOBODY ignores reality more than Mike. Nobody. That's why he's too scared to engage me on the merits of anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry man, but you sound like a dramatic teenager spouting this FUD about artist rights.
        
        Plus, Mike probably doesn't want to hear you whine after he beats you in a debate. I'm sure you'd sling insults throughout anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Aaaand that makes a difference in his point, how? So what! He made a slight mistake, got his dates mixed up.
        
        Then again, that was all you could point to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  SOPA will break the Internet. Justin Bieber will go to prison. SOPA will shut down Facebook an YouTube....
  
  Well, well. Looky who is trying to revise history as we speak...
  
  - The original portions of SOPA/PIPA (which were removed early on) that mucked with the DNS system would have made the internet less secure. The very people who created the DNS voiced these exact concerns.
  
  - No one was saying Bieber would go to jail. They were saying that future Justin Beibers would if they leveraged other peoples songs on YouTube like he did.
  
  - No one was saying that SOPA would shut down Facebook or YouTube. They were saying that similar new start-ups would never have a chance to get off of the ground.
  
  That said, please continue to underestimated the internet public and write-off their opinions as "brainwashing" by Google. That will only serve to make it easier to undermine your future endeavors.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Those statements were precisely the ones used. Even after DNS blocking was removed and never with an acknowledgment that SOPA did not apply to domestic websites.
    
    I'll never underestimate how gullible and easily misled the masses are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      never with an acknowledgment that SOPA did not apply to domestic websites
      
      That's because there were no such limits and many of the provisions in SOPA would have affected domestic websites. Altering the private right of action provisions to apply only to foreign sites doesn't mean nothing in SOPA would have applied to domestic sites.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Read the bill, moron. Obviously you have formed your opinion without ever bothering to read it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do realize SOPA was more than just section 102... right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'll never underestimate how gullible and easily misled the masses are.
      
      If that really bothers you, should I then assume that you also advocate for open and transparent negotiations concerning copyright laws going forward?
      
      If there are no secret backroom deals and everyone knows all the facts upfront, nobody can be misled, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have a copy of the draft legislation. Go sign a petition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have a copy of the draft legislation. Go sign a petition.
        
        Or call and mail your congressperson. Or black out your own website in protest or.....wait.....that is exactly what happened with SOPA, isn't it?
        
        And yet you are here still bitching about the "misled masses" who read the draft legislation and voiced their opposition to it? What gives?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's just pissed off we killed his pet project. Rather than learn from it, like a true bully, his only thoughts on how to get revenge. Sad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        SOPA, for all intents and purpose is implemented. All without any judicial oversight. Six strikes is in place. The current judicial picture is bright and CISPA and CFAA reform looks promising. What is there to be pissed off about? I'm not the one moaning day-after-day about the state of copyright. That would be you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        William, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For someone who's not pissed off, you sure do bitch and moan a lot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, if SOPA "for all intents and purposes is implemented", exactly why was there the need for such a big campaign to have it put in publicly, and the massive bout of pissing and moaning after it passed, when all along you were going to give everyone the finger and secretly pass it in anyway?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is there to be pissed off about?
        
        The fact that it won't stop piracy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait. We have a copy of TPP? That's funny, I thought the last leak was about a year or two old? And that there hasn't been any official declarations of what's in it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Checkmate. Hats off to you dear sir.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Those statements were precisely the ones used. Even after DNS blocking was removed and never with an acknowledgment that SOPA did not apply to domestic websites.
      
      1. Until the manager's amendment, the private right of action (section 103) absolutely did target domestic sites as well.
      
      2. Even with foreign sites being *targeted*, SOPA still *applied* to domestic sites, in that they would still have to *comply* with orders against foreign sites, doing things like barring links, payments, etc. And that would very much impact domestic sites.
      
      3. No one ever said that DNS blocking would *KILL* the internet, but that it would *break* important pieces of how the internet worked, such as DNSsec.
      
      4. And this is exactly why no one trusts your side on this debate. You have no problem trying to rewrite history with lies.
      
      You should have just 'fessed up that SOPA was a bad bill that you guys wrote without understanding how technology works. People would have forgiven you. But now... as you continue to lie... well, tough to take you seriously.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Even after DNS blocking was removed and never with an acknowledgment that SOPA did not apply to domestic websites."
      
      And the CIA is not supposed to conduct operations on US soil.
      
      Any other fantasies you want to preent, boy?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, it's the "boy" guy. I haven't heard from you for awhile. I'd hoped you were busy working on a new line for 2013. I guess you couldn't come up with anything, huh? Well, thanks for your inane comments. Nice to have you back to laugh at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's rich coming from you jackass with your tired same old rhetoric.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you sure you aren't hacking in and reading his IP address? No - you're using his 'writing style' to identify him? So you have this super-ability, but neither Mike nor the other commenters can use this on you? hah!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  You're not really trying to argue that everyone that was against SOPA was misinformed are you? It's like you're trying to avoid addressing any of the legitimate criticism by making inane observations like a few misguided individuals that interpreted using Justin Bieber as a metaphor for a literal fear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    The majority were. I'd be surprised if 10% even read the bill. And the " inane observations like a few misguided individuals that interpreted using Justin Bieber as a metaphor for a literal fear." was promoted by Aaron Swartz and Demand Progress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't think you have any idea what 'the majoirty' were and you're just making it up on the spot to make yourself feal better and I don't think you're following at all what that sentence you quoted means. Your observation that a few misguided individuals took the 'free Justin Beiber' campaign literally instead of understanding it was a figurative example of a real issue was inane, not the campaign itself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      was promoted by Aaron Swartz and Demand Progress.
      
      Is that a veiled threat that you'll sic the FBI on us once we piss you off enough, like what happened to Aaron?
      
      How's the bullying thing working out for you so far?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And to the DA?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Look among your own ranks kind sir and you shall see what rallies them or or what they keep away from, cause free to take a stance without cripling consequences, they are not!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  SOPA will break the Internet. Justin Bieber will go to prison. SOPA will shut down Facebook an YouTube....
  
  And don't forget Masnick's FUD du jour that even talking to a 12-year-old about setting up a Facebook page will land you in jail for years. Years! http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/14342822435/rather-than-fix-cfaa-house-judiciary-committee -planning-to-make-it-worse-way-worse.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's worse than that. FUDboy even suggests that the kid and Mom will both go down for racketeering as they conspired to sign Junior up.
    
    What an embarrassing buffoon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    And don't forget Jack Valenti's Boston strangler!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  It is true that during the SOPA, PIPA and ACTA protests some hype was used simply because the larger public can get behind basic ideas better. I played rather a large hand in that myself and spread some beautiful concepts but I would not state that any of these claims were untrue.
  
  I believe "shatter the Internet" was the correct term and we already see evidence of that happening.
  
  Justin Bieber going to prison was a valid example based on the proposed law. He of course started his career by singing copyright protected songs and then uploading them to YouTube which then triggers that streaming felony concept law. They had some experts examine that one in detail. No Bieber would not have gone to prison but it could well have stopped others following his example.
  
  If you want to see what SOPA could have done then go ask the owners of DaJaz1 and RojaDirecta. SOPA would have made it much worse though by closing their advertising revenue and financial accounts. In others words they want to completely destroy a business even before there is any justice to prove their innocence or guilt.
  
  YouTube-like service are already being killed even without SOPA but to add SOPA would turn business rivalry into a bloodbath.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:11am

What they're arguing is that our opinions shouldn't matter, but they're obfuscating the actual reason. That being, the overwhelming majority of the public is opposed to IP expansionism. From blocking websites to censoring competition, throttling ISPs to suing people, often without due process, the negative effects of copyright have far outweighed any beneficial aspect.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" ...yeah, at the public's expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:12am

the question to ask, then, is, when are the people going to have the chance and the balls to do something about this? the way things keep being changed and the Constitution keeps being shortened, things keep being changed, things keep being left out purposefully, by those that are interested in what they want only and not what it actually says in the Constitution, dont deserve to be part of a Democratic Society! the public is what copyright and patents were started for, why they came into existence, not for those who would stop everyone else from benefiting from and sharing information concerning various things. and as for the punishments that have been introduced 'in the name of protecting copyrighted and patented items', what a insult and disgrace!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:14am

First of all, thanks for linking to the fine work by the Copyright Alliance. No press is bad press, right?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That is the purpose of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which is sometimes referred to as the "copyright clause" (or "the patent clause"), which enables both areas of law to be created via Congress.

I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors. No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?

But the really disturbing part is the next line. The claim that the public speaking out, such as via petitions or through various actions in which they contact politicians, should be ignored because it has "no place in policy discussions" is really just downright insulting.

You're being deliberately misleading, as per usual. The article doesn't say that the public shouldn't speak out on issues. It says that heated rhetoric and appeals to emotion--your specialty!--have no place in the debate. In other words, mindless bullshit like this very article aren't helping. Congrats on proving their point--again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  It says that heated rhetoric and appeals to emotion--your specialty!--have no place in the debate.
  
  You mean heated rhetoric and appeals like this one?
  
  "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
  -Jack Valenti
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or their statements that every new technological advance since the player piano is going to kill them. Kill them! Doom! Gloom!
    
    I'm just sad that their predictions never came true. We'd all be much better off if they had been killed off.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But then what would you pirate? Those huge hard drives aren't meant for just kitten videos, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You see, this is why copyright maximalists fail. They try to get everyone to believe that copyright is what causes works to be created in the first place.
        
        Why do they feel that way? Self-importance and arrogance.
        
        Congress gave them a copyright monopoly privilege, something they were not obligated in anyway to do, taking away rights from the public in the process, and now they feel they deserve it. They don't. They've abused these privileges for decades.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think it's an undeniable fact that copyright does incentivize the creation of new and better works. Not all works are created pursuant to this incentive, but the incentive nonetheless does substantial work. Again, what do the pirates fill up those hard drives with? It's not kitten videos or 10,000 copies of "Sita Sings the Blues." Talk to me about the death of copyright when the pirates stop needing the copyrighted stuff so badly that they're willing to violate other people's rights to get it. Then, maybe you'd have a point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Doesn't matter.
        
        Your sentence begins with "undeniable fact", which is wrong, since stuff was being created long before copywrite appeared. The fact stuff is made and copywrite exists does not prove copywrite incentivized creation, and there's no proof of any connection between the two, only assumptions.
        
        Death of copywrite would not stop the creation of things or the paying for things. This is a fact, as proven by many who do things for "free" without regard to copywrite and still make a living.
        
        Pirates don't need copywrited stuff, which is the real problem with your argument. They would get by making a million other random things which takes up 90% of their day, as opposed to the occasional mass pirated movie flick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your sentence begins with "undeniable fact", which is wrong, since stuff was being created long before copywrite appeared. The fact stuff is made and copywrite exists does not prove copywrite incentivized creation, and there's no proof of any connection between the two, only assumptions.
        
        The fact that stuff is made without copyright does not negate the fact that stuff is also made because of copyright. It's simply amazing to me that you guys deny that copyright actually incentivizes new works. The evidence is literally all around you. Just look at all those pirated movies on your hard drives. Each one the product of copyright. Mike never explicitly denies this, and I presume it's because he knows it's true. Only on Techdirt do incentives (copyright) not actually incentivize people while disincentives (infringement liabilities) do not disincentivize people. Amazing. Where does Mike find you guys?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And your proof these films would not be made without copywrite?
        
        I mean lots of other countries with non-existant/weak copywrite schemes ALSO make popular movies.
        
        I also don't pirate movies, because I don't like movies. I don't pirate music either.
        
        You also didn't actually counter my point, just reiterated your own. There's no actual evidence of a connection between creation and copywrite, just an assumption that it will incentivize it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If copyright was revoked tomorrow, the copyright reliant industries would keep right on making new stuff.
        
        Are you seriously arguing that Hollywood would stop making movies if they didn't get to keep their monopoly? That musicians would stop writing music? That authors would stop writing books?
        
        It's absurd. Copyright is not needed to create. Humans create because that is what humans do! They are driven by the desire for creating stuff.
        
        Let's not forget where most copyright is now owned. By large multi-national corporations. Corporations with lots of money and power to buy laws that favor them over the benefit of the public. Who has had the money and power over the last several decades to lobby heavily for 16 different expansions of copyright? To continually press for lengthening terms, just as they are about to expire? Who aren't satisfied with life plus 50 years and who have to go back for 20 more years? Who are never satisfied with any disruptive technology, up to and including launching lawsuits to try to get said technology stopped, and who staunchly believe we should have to ask permission from Congress before being allowed to innovate?
        
        A single author or creator working on their own to make a living doing what they love to do may deserve their copyright privilege. The corporations at front and center of this debate are the ones who do not. They have abused this privilege for far too long.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just look at all those pirated movies on your hard drives. Each one the product of copyright.
        
        Just because they're protected by copyright, does not mean they're a "product of copyright."
        
        It does not mean that they would not have been produced without copyright, that copyright necessarily incentivizes their production, or that overall production would not have been higher without copyright (or with more limited copyright protections).
        
        Here's a talk that may shed light on the matter for you:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think it's an undeniable fact that copyright does incentivize the creation of new and better works.
        
        It is not undeniable. It's completely disputable. I could say it's an undeniable fact that creativity thrives IN SPITE OF copyright.
        
        Not all works are created pursuant to this incentive, but the incentive nonetheless does substantial work.
        
        The second part needs a citation that directly links copyright and creation. You see you keep telling piracy will kill creativity and yet it hasn't done so, over 60 years after this bs started. Actually, the cultural output grew exponentially thanks to technologies you fight as if they were some horrid offspring from apocalypse and doomsday themselves.
        
        Again, what do the pirates fill up those hard drives with? It's not kitten videos or 10,000 copies of "Sita Sings the Blues."
        
        Any lousy computer comes with 1Tb+ nowadays. You seem to think only pirates need huge drives. You see I installed Diablo III, DC Universe and World of Warcraft (all of them legit) and they alone took 50Gb of my HDD. Any decent game nowadays legit or not uses 10Gb+. And I have over 30Gb of free legit music (mp3) and another 15 of lossless stuff (ripped from my CDs which is ironically illegal even though I own the media). Then there are tons of free High Definition content (one movie can go for over 20 Gb). And my camera produces 5Mb HD pictures (my pictures folder has over 15 Gb of HD movies and pics from my camera plus 10Gb of stuff from older cameras). Suddenly 1Tb seems small doesn't it? I am a pirate. Proud to be. I have 10Tb of HDD, half of it acting as backup and media server of legit content.
        
        Talk to me about the death of copyright when the pirates stop needing the copyrighted stuff so badly that they're willing to violate other people's rights to get it. Then, maybe you'd have a point.
        
        Amusingly and interestingly a lot of us has switched to indie/free content. The MAFIAA should be afraid of that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Talk to me about the death of copyright when the pirates stop needing the copyrighted stuff so badly that they're willing to violate other people's rights to get it.
        
        Oh, right, I forgot about that other appeal to emotion: "violating other people's rights."
        
        Keep 'em coming! I'm sure there are more that I forgot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're arguing that greedy pirates aren't violating other people's rights? Good luck with that argument, Karl. I'm sure the TD faithful think it's meaningful. Can I violate your rights? Do I get to decide unilaterally which of your rights are meaningful and worth respecting? Hmmm....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your ilk does violate individual rights every time an action is taken without proper judicial review!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your rights are described in the voluntary TOS. You're not entitled to judicial review until one of you takes the other to court. Comprendez?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A page from your book: "TOSs are law? lol"
        
        No TOS describes my rights. A TOS may attempt to limit my rights, but the word there is attempt. About the only thing they can do is refuse me service or stop selling me stuff if I break their TOS.
        
        The rights I have are natural rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're arguing that greedy pirates aren't violating other people's rights?
        
        The correct phrase would be "infringe on other people's statutory rights."
        
        But the word "infringe" does not have the violent, rape-like emotional gut-punch of the word "violate."
        
        And by not specifying "statutory rights," you put them on par with fundamental human rights. Like you did in this very comment.
        
        So, yep: nothing but an appeal to emotions.
        
        You probably can't see that, though, because your entire thinking on this subject is driven by emotions (angry, "hang 'em high" emotions), and not by anything approaching reason. I've debated you enough times to know this is true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think it's an undeniable fact that copyright does incentivize the creation of new and better works.
        
        As far as I can see, the main use of copyright is to allow the publishers, labels and studios to gain control of other peoples creative works. The way they pay these creators shows that most are not driven by money, and the few that do make it rich make even more money for the middlemen.
        Most creators that go it alone do not rely on the protection that copyright give their works.
        Further copyright relies on a false premise, that each creators work is totally unique, when in fact they are derivatives and mash ops for the most part. The other false premise being copyright is that culture consists of a few people creating for many passive consumers, when in fact it is participatory. A pub for instance should not need a performance license to allow a sing-song even though people will be singing copyrighted works; those are the songs they are familiar with.
        Copyright had limited value while the copying of works relied on expensive industrial processes to produce lots of cheap copies. It did not exist when copying was by a person laboriously copying a book, and should have no place copying is virtually free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You DO realize that "pirates" pirate EVERYTHING, even stuff that is not copyrighted, right? You DO realize that they do not "pirate" JUST because something is copyrighted, right? You DO realize that "pirates" don't actually care about whether something copyrighted or not, and it has ZERO bearing on what they copy, right?
        
        If someone copies Avengers, they are interested in Avengers, and its copyright status has no bearing on whether or not they are interested in Avengers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have several 2TB hard drives. One of them in particular has over EIGHT HUNDRED GIGABYTES of legally purchased games, most of them through Steam. Want to try again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you wonder why you've never gotten laid.........
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do I need to get a restraining order against you? You're far too interested in my sex life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 5:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What sex life?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hm, that's the sound of jealousy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What sex life?
        
        Well, it would've been with your mom, but I couldn't get her to take off the Army boots.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh man Karl, you're bringing back some old memories here.
        
        I haven't heard a "your Mom wears Army boots" joke in ages. Lol.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So if someone has terabytes of content, you accuse them of piracy. If otherwise, you accuse them of being a nobody. Classy.
        
        Eventually, this sort of attitude is going to discourage anyone from partaking in any form of your precious entertainment. Good luck trying to backroom deal that against the law then, nutjob.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    This. It (the content creation industry associations) would do itself favors if it didn't resort to rhetoric and emotion in its own policy making decisions.
    
    Since, after all, they have proven time and time again to be wrong, based on their "feelings". With very little actual evidence ever presented to backup these "feelings" they have that the industry is doomed.
    
    We've been waiting about 60 years for it to happen, and it hasn't happened yet.
    
    So why should we take their rhetoric at face value but dismiss the rhetoric of the public?
    
    Can't have it both ways, can we?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sure. Let's not have empty rhetoric from either side. Agreed. Now when is Mike going to stop with the bullshit rhetoric? Hmmm. Never. That's an easy one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, Valenti was engaged in not-so-helpful rhetoric there as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ruben, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As is Chris Dodd these days.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors.
  
  What are you talking about? That's not quoted directly but it's not left out. It's directly acknowledged in the quote right here: "which enables [the copyright and patent] areas of law to be created via Congress"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    When one quotes the Copyright Clause, one typically quotes the whole thing and not just the first half. Mike hates that second half more than anything else in the world. That's why he thinks the public are the "sole" stakeholders when it comes to copyright. In his mind, authors have no place whatsoever at the table. Amazing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When one quotes the Copyright Clause, one typically quotes the whole thing and not just the first half.
      
      And violating this completely arbitrary made up rule you just pulled out of your ass totally proves... well nothing actually.
      
      Mike hates that second half more than anything else in the world.
      
      Oh my science you can read minds? What are you doing here then? Shouldn't you be off making boatloads of money off your mind reading?
      
      That's why he thinks the public are the "sole" stakeholders when it comes to copyright.
      
      I don't know that I've ever seen Mike say they're the "sole" stakeholders (but hey, I could be wrong I don't exactly know everything Mike has ever said). He does say that the purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, not authors over the public, but that should be pretty noncontroversial given that the copyright clause says the exact same thing. Even claiming their the sole stakeholders is certainly supportable given the language but that seems a fair point for debate.
      
      In his mind, authors have no place whatsoever at the table. Amazing.
      
      Again with the mind reading. Seriously, you could be making a mint.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know that I've ever seen Mike say they're the "sole" stakeholders (but hey, I could be wrong I don't exactly know everything Mike has ever said).
        
        You should read the very article above. Mike says: "As we've discussed, the whole purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the public are the sole stakeholders when it comes to proper policy making decisions regarding these laws."
        
        It's funny how this claim is so dumb that even Mike's supporters can't believe he would say it. I agree. It's really that dumb.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because there's no modifying clauses in that sentence at all or anything. Remind me again how you're against empty rhetoric.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you (also) saying that authors/artists are not stakeholders in policy discussions about copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Artists + Audiences = Art
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright + Artists = Art so wonderful that you guys will violate other people's rights to get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You cannot have art without an audience, so your equation doesn't work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll have to think about that one. Maybe you're right. It's not "art" until somebody else sees it. Interesting. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And artists wouldn't create if not for the audiences, so the equation is more like:
        
        Audiences + Artists = Art
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's simpler than that: Artists = Public
        
        The chokechains imposed by copyright hang artistic types just as destructively. No one squawking for more copyright law and/or enforcement seems to remember that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No art without copyright? This is just ludicrous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes. Their stake is completely irrelevant. The public stake is the only one that matters. The only consideration given to author's is how changes in their behavior could affect the public stake. The problem remains that copyright has been completely twisted to be something that's about securing rights to authors regardless of any purpose other than securing rights to authors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe there was an article once about that very question. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110430/11134414099/copyright-industry-is-not-stakeholder-copyrigh t-policy-its-beneficiary.shtml
        
        The copyright industry is a beneficiary of copyright law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:44am
        
        It's the art, not the work.
        > In his mind, authors have no place whatsoever at the table. Amazing.
        
        The copyright clause is about creating art, not enriching artists. The work is the point. That is something that is lost in this rush by corporate interests to distort copyright into some sort of virtual land grab.
        
        We have this pile of new stuff and it's fodder for the next generation of artists to use in creating more new stuff.
        
        Payments are just a means to an end, entirely optional.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: It's the art, not the work.
        The copyright clause is about creating art, not enriching artists.
        
        On the contrary, it's about both. You enrich artists by making excludable that which is not naturally excludable. This incentivized the investment of time, energy, money, and skill into the creation of new and better works. This in turn benefits the public. If you erase the means, then the ends the means produce get erased too. You guys seem to think the copyright system serves no purpose, when your big hard drives full of pirated stuff says differently. It's like you're saying that money is useless while you rob the bank.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: It's the art, not the work.
        You know, I don't pirate, but a lot of artists don't get my money anyway, because their works aren't legally available where I live. So you protect the artists' rights by... limiting the number of people who can legally enjoy their work? Copyright nowadays does way more than it was originally meant to do, which is what's bothering most people here. Not the fact that it requires paying for the art.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: It's the art, not the work.
        Precisely. I want to watch One Piece. Would be fantastic if I could do so legally, but nope. Not on Netflix, not on Crunchyroll, and the only DVDs available to purchase in Ireland are the first few dozen episodes at best.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: It's the art, not the work.
        You enrich artists by making excludable that which is not naturally excludable.
        
        Nice theory, but the practice seems to be make the middlemen rich while keeping artists poor. Yes a few big stars become insanely rich, mainly because they can hold out for massive up front payments, but this is manly the performers, rather than the writers and other creative types.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's why he thinks the public are the "sole" stakeholders when it comes to copyright. In his mind, authors have no place whatsoever at the table. Amazing.
      
      I don't believe I've seen Mike state that at all. I also don't believe I've seen anyone state that the creators themselves should have no place at the table either.
      
      On the other hand, I've seen plenty of examples where the legacy gatekeepers try every trick in the book to keep the public from the table.
      
      If you ask me, the creators and the public should be the most important entities at the table. Copyright is a deal between the public and the creators. The legacy gatekeepers should be the ones vanquished to the little kid's table, so the grown-ups can talk without distraction.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't believe I've seen Mike state that at all.
        
        It's like you guys don't even read the articles. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130322/23560222425/copyright-lobby-public-has-no-place-policy-dis cussions.shtml#c961
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's actually like you don't know what prepositions do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you please elaborate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A preposition is a part of speech that is used in a grammatical construct called a prepositional phrase. Prepositional phrases alter the specific meaning of a sentence by adding adjunct details.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I remember middle school English. What I mean is, can you elaborate on what preposition that you think I'm ignoring?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fair enough.
        
        I can see how you interpreted it that way. I took it as that was Mike's opinion of the Framer's intention when including the Copyright Clause in Constitution, not necessarily his opinion on who should or shouldn't be at the table for current negotiations, with the exception that the public should most definitely be included.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors. No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?
  
  That is not misleading. Mike was explicitly talking about the purpose of copyright. You are confusing the purpose of copyright with the method. The purpose of copyright is not to grant a monopoly, that is the method.
  
  Since the purpose of copyright is to promote science and useful arts, then we should be framing any and all discussions of the method of copyright in those terms. Is the approach we are currently taking or plan on taking going to promote the science and useful arts? IS there a better way to promote the science and useful arts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    The means and the ends are inextricably intertwined. If the Copyright Clause merely said Congress has the power to promote the progress, you might have a point. But, unlike all of the other enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, the Constitution provides the means of accomplishing the ends.
    
    IS there a better way to promote the science and useful arts?
    
    That's a great question, and it's one that there will always be disagreement over. Mike clearly wants authors to have no exclusive rights whatsoever. That's why he constantly reminds people that the means are severable from the ends. And that's why he thinks the ONLY thing wrong with piracy is that the victims don't like it. I have yet to see him ever acknowledge that copyright in any way, shape, or form promotes the progress. He's a copyright denialist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If there inextricably intertwined why the constant push back from you over the claim that the public benefit is the purpose of copyright? It's like it only works one way with you.
      
      AGAIN with the mind reading. Seriously. A fucking mint.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm just not following you. Yes, the primary purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. But it accomplishes this end by giving authors exclusive rights that permit authors to exclude the public for limited times. Authors are clearly significant stakeholders since, unless authors' incentives are sufficient and meaningful, the public won't get the benefits in the end.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JEDIDIAH, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:47am
        
        It's not certain at all.
        Your entire thesis is just self-serving wishful thinking.
        
        You are trying to take as an article of faith something that needs to be put up for public debate so that we can really get to the truth of the matter. Copyright is in direct conflict with individual liberties. In any situation where it is not productive, it needs to yield.
        
        Copyright comes last, not first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure if we're just parsing the sentence differently or what but to me:
        
        "As we've discussed, the whole purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the public are the sole stakeholders when it comes to proper policy making decisions regarding these laws"
        
        Means the proper way to make policy decisions on copyright is to consider only the public stake rather than implementing copyrights for the sake of copyrights themselves or for authors. How copyrights are crafted can obviously alter author incentives but any argument that just stops there doesn't contribute to the discussion on proper policy at all because the only stake that's supposed to matter is the public's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Authors are clearly significant stakeholders since
        
        If they use any of the traditional publishing routes to market, they lose all control over their work when they sign a contract. If the publisher decides to cease publication, or only produce a small number of copies there is nothing an Author can do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once again for those (you) in the cheap seats:
        
        "I'm just not following you. Yes, the primary purpose of copyright is to benefit the public."=PURPOSE. This is the "what/why."
        
        "But it accomplishes this end by giving authors exclusive rights that permit authors to exclude the public for limited times."=METHOD, or the "how" and "when."
        
        "Authors are clearly significant stakeholders since, unless authors' incentives are sufficient and meaningful, the public won't get the benefits in the end."
        
        And this is where you conflate the two and equalize them as being the same thing.
        
        THEY
        
        ARE
        
        NOT.
        
        The PUBLIC is granting the AUTHOR (or, ultimately, the copyright holder) the privilege. That privilege ONLY exists because of what should be LIMITED rights for a LIMITED time to the author.
        
        BOTH sides benefit when these sides are in balance. Right now, ALL of the rights, privileges and benefits go SOLELY to the COPYRIGHT HOLDER, with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (3 YEARS now of NOT ONE SINGLE WORK being returned to the public domain, let alone all the absurd lawsuits against a single individual downloading a handful of songs with no "commercial" aspect.) going back to the public IT BELONGS TO. And yes, IT BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC. THAT is the bargain for those exclusive rights.
        
        Your side has reneged on the bargain and keeps trying to move the needle EVEN FURTHER in favor of Copyright at the expense of those who granted the privilege in the first place.
        
        Until you can address WHY this balance is totally in favor of one side over the other, you don't get to whine and cry doom and gloom about a relatively small amount of infringement that goes on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike clearly wants authors to have no exclusive rights whatsoever.
      
      Interesting, he has never said as much publicly or in private.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TheUglyOne (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As a matter of fact, my interpretation of Mike's view on copyright is that the term should be reasonable not death +70 years. Further, the limitations that are placed by copyright holders are frequently so backwards and draconian that it actually creates incentives for people to find alternative methods to access said copyrighted material.
        
        Then again, I'm no mind reader so I could be wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike C. (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors. No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?
  
  I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says "for a limited time". No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?
  
  Of course, I'm sure you'll reply that current copyright is limited. I disagree. While in the scope or frame of all of human history, life+70 is limited, but in terms of a single human lifespan, it's not. Any creative product created by any "author" in my lifetime will never be available to me outside of copyright. As far as my perspective is concerned, that's an infinite restriction, not "limited".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says "for a limited time". No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?
    
    You're right. I did leave that off. Thanks for clarifying. My omission was rightfully pointed out by you. Thanks again.
    
    Of course, I'm sure you'll reply that current copyright is limited. I disagree. While in the scope or frame of all of human history, life+70 is limited, but in terms of a single human lifespan, it's not. Any creative product created by any "author" in my lifetime will never be available to me outside of copyright. As far as my perspective is concerned, that's an infinite restriction, not "limited".
    
    You're right, I do think that life + X is limited, because, well, it is limited. I understand that it's not as limited as you would like, but it's still limited. The fact that you don't have the access to the work product of others that you invested no time, energy, money, or skill in creating won't keep me up at nights. I think your sense of entitlement to the works of others is extremely dubious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ruben, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And how is copyright benefiting Miles Davis right now?
      
      Oh wait.
      
      He's dead.
      
      I'm not sure what reality exists where the public gains from this set of circumstances.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think your sense of entitlement to the works of others is extremely dubious.
      
      Oh, thanks for reminding me! There's another word designed to appeal to emotions: "entitlement."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you think you're entitled to the work product of others that you played no part in creating, then you must believe in Techdirt--home of the "entitled" malcontents. Congrats, Karl! You're in the "club." What other people produce is "yours." You "earned" it. Mike Masnick approves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you think you're entitled to the work product of others that you played no part in creating . . .
        
        The public domain, creative commons, fair use, etc. says otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The public domain, creative commons, fair use, etc. says otherwise.
        
        Not to mention public libraries.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or friends and family, second-hand sales, the Internet, etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I paid it once and they said it was a sale, I am fully entitled to whatever BS they produced.
        
        What I will not do is keep paying for a bunch of bums to not work another day in their lifes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike C. (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ooops - looks like I left something out which caused you to make false assumptions. Let me rephrase something and see if it helps you at all:
      
      Any creative product created by any "author" in my lifetime will never be available to me outside of copyright for use as a base or starting point to build something new.
      
      Of course, you would have us believe that the original creator still deserves a major cut of any profits from the new work. You believe that the 2nd generation work couldn't possibly exist without the first. The point you're ignoring is that the 2nd creator puts just as much if not more effort into the 2nd generation work. If you disagree, then stop being a hypocrite and demand that the Ray Charles estate donate their proceeds to all the people Ray copied to become a star.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " The fact that you don't have the access to the work product of others that you invested no time, energy, money, or skill in creating won't keep me up at nights. I think your sense of entitlement to the works of others is extremely dubious."
      
      Okay, so tell me. I can watch a Freddy Astaire movie right now if I wanted to, as its in the public domain. I had no part in the creation of his movies. Am I somehow ethically in the wrong here for watching his movies.
      Now, let's say I watch a movie that's older than Freddy Astaire but is still under copyright. Let's say its Steamboat Willie. I had no part in the creation of that movie. Am I somehow in the wrong for watching it?
      
      Let's say someone released a movie yesterday, and I want to watch it forty years from now, but its still under copyright. Am I still in the wrong?
      
      The problem with you is you use absolute statements. You completely ignored the fact that life+70 is basically infinite by simple hand-wavium. You might as well have said "Eh...so?" And then lumped the free viewing of all movies that one watches when they've had no part in their production as being in the wrong, with no attempt to look at the shades of grey, with no attempt at realizing that that is the problem, that the public domain is being starved.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  It says that heated rhetoric and appeals to emotion--your specialty!--have no place in the debate.
  
  Ironic, considering that your main arguments against Mike are attempts at "appeal to emotion." (Not that they work, of course.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:13am
  
  Re:
  It says that heated rhetoric and appeals to emotion--your specialty!--have no place in the debate.
  
  You mean like the poor corn farmers? Oops, that was your side too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:15am

Usual nonsense from out_of_the_blue, not a big suprise. The constant taking away from the public domain and rights of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:15am

Corporations - Too big to ignore

Public - Too small to matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shane (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:26am

Tyop
"Technologies which has helped...." I think should be "...which have helped...."

A little too late it seems, since the tread is already quite lively. Or maybe I am wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:27am

"Finally, it is not hard to find examples of those who propose dramatic changes without understanding the business realities of how creative individuals and industries operate."

They like to throw stones in a glass house huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ralph, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:28am

What did those hackers put up on that LED billboard in Serbia?

Something Gandhi said?

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

Where are we now...the third one? The final act is coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  Personally, I'm stuck at laughing at you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    The internet is laughing at you.
    
    The internet always wins.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's clearly not true since you're clearly still fighting for SOPA elsewhere in the thread...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    And how's the working out for you and your ilk?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:31am

If appealing to emotions is considered to have no place in policy discussion, then what do they call:

- Home Taping is Killing Music
- Claims of poor, starving artists
- Claims of poor, starving corn farmers
- Claims that supermarkets are an IP-driven industry

Anyone else want to help me with this list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- relghuar, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  You forgot the Boston strangler ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  Jack the ripper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:40am
  
  Re:
  Poor starving 1%ers when they become unemployable, and their money valueless, when the economy goes down the tubes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  "Piracy" and "Theft" are two invalid words they much use simply to stir emotional responses in the uninformed.
  
  I doubt you can ever run short of examples of their false scenarios simply aimed to get an emotional response. They have been doing it for far too long.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Piracy" and "Theft" are two invalid words they much use simply to stir emotional responses in the uninformed.
    
    Let's not forget "Victim," a favorite of one of our major appeal-to-emotion trolls here.
    
    And, of course, attempts to debate "morality" are always just thinly-veiled attempts to turn the debate into appeals to emotion as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    No reason why we shouldn't compile a massive wall of shame for the world to see. We already do it for Prenda.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  Oh, yeah, and let's not forget this big of FUD:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urGeA-d9Utw
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ha, "big piece of FUD."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:36am

...without understanding the business realities...
So very true!
I'm sure none of you internets freetards could ever understand things so complicated and carefully balanced as Hollywood accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re: ...without understanding the business realities...
  Wha there to understand, it is designed so that the money flows to the studios, and so they can also claim poverty to get government help making the next film. That film won't make a profit, just like all the films before it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:43am

I won't try to argue that the maximalists actually care about the public, but this particular quote in no way says what Mike is saying it does. The subject of the sentence is "appealing to emotions" -- emotional appeal is what has no place in policy discussions, not the online petitions themselves.

Maybe there's another quote where they explicitly say that online petitions and public voices shouldn't be heard. I wouldn't be surprised. But that's not at all what that sentence says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  I don't understand why you think this changes anything. The fact they see widespread public support as merely a response to base appeals to emotion and should therefor not be part of the discussion on policy is the problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  this particular quote in no way says what Mike is saying it does.
  
  Well the quote is objecting to the combination of emotional appeals and online petitions. Since these people use emotional appeals all the time the only reasonable interpretation is that it is the online petitions bit that they really don't like!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurker Keith, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:45am

As the old saying goes...
What is good for the goose is good for gander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:53am

"Finally, it is not hard to find examples of those who propose dramatic changes without understanding the business realities of how creative individuals and industries operate."

Yeah, sure, isn't hard at all - it's what the copyright lobby has been doing for the past few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:06am

Ummm.
The public is the primary stakeholder, why should we have no say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:11am

The Team
I am sure the Copyright Alliance do fear public involvement when we are like mortal enemies where it would he hard to find common ground that we could agree on. They just want to ramp up copyright law to increase their control (regardless of profit) and we of course want to ramp down copyright to provide public gain and to open up the market to improve creation and distribution.

They do indeed fear us when the public are now well aware of the failures of copyright. They do not like what they see and big changes are obviously needed. What I am sure they most fear is a sane and reasonable voice.

Had I been an American I would have been happy to meet them face to face when after all I have been very aware of copyright matters for 16 years now. My business in fact is to assist the public to achieve their fair use goals under copyright. Still despite my wider view of the issues at hand I am sure that there are plenty of others who can well handle policy debate. It could make an historic turning point in how new copyright law is created namely always with public interest involvement.

I do think out best next step should be to assemble a team who are skilled in their knowledge and can handle policy debate when called upon to do so. They would be no end of people and groups to choose from but a good understanding of politics would be a bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:12am

"We want only money to matter"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:47am

The only reason why copyright law becomes so annoying lately is because the whole thing is extremely one-sided. Indeed, the creators should get their rewards, but what do the consumers get? Tons of inconvenience caused by DRM, regional restrictions and general lack of a way to get the product quickly and easily.

Many people turn to piracy because it allows them to get what they want right away, in any format they want, and no matter where they live. Create a legal service like this, and voila - money. I'm not saying EVERYONE will stop pirating, but the amount of money that could be earned will sure be pretty large?

Instead, the content producers insist that DRM is great, regional restrictions and release windows are great, and then chose to fight the resulting rise of piracy instead of trying to fix things. So, who is misguided, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re:
  "Indeed, the creators should get their rewards..."
  
  Except the ACTUAL CREATORS don't get rewarded!
  According to "Hollywood accounting", no movie ever makes a profit, so directors, writers, actors, et al never receive their due!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 11:53am

"Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'"

To be fair, the headline does not accurately reflect what was written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re:
  The headlines on Techdirt seldom accurately reflect what was written.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    As do the AC's comment who pull stuff out of their asses, Mike never said.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:46pm

Some quotes to think about.

This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
Western Union internal memo, 1876

The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?
David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

We anticipate a global world-maket with place for perhaps five computers.
Tom Watson, IBM 1949

All imaginable inventions have already been invented.
Manager of the American Patent Agency Charles Duell 1899

Guitar-groups have no future.
EMI-manager for Beatles 1962
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:37pm

Slogans...
One of the popular slogans of a certain revolution some 238 years ago was "No taxation without representation!"

Will one of the slogans of the next revolution in the region be "No regulation without representation!"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 25 Mar 2013 @ 2:50pm

Re:
Yes gun control should be a non emotional debate................

Oh wait.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tomxp411 (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:01pm

what happened to Democracy?
Shouldn't the public ALWAYS have a say in public policy?

The last time I checked, this country was nominally a Democracy. I could see those statements making sense in a dictatorship or a monarchy. (Of course, in a Communist state, there would be NO Copyright, since everything belongs to everyone - in theory.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowards Anonymous, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:48pm

"Those skeptical of copyright protection have expended a lot of energy to redefine its language and revise its history."

Those copyright maximalist astrotrolls have expended a lot of energy to redefine its language and revise its history:
Astrotroll refuted here.
Astrotroll refuted here.

"Calls for lessening copyright protections are far too often accompanied by heated rhetoric."

Calls for extending copyright protections are far too often accompanied by heated rhetoric:
Astrotroll refuted here and here.

"Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions."

Astrotroll refuted here.
Astrotroll and astrotroll refuted here.

"Finally, it is not hard to find examples of those who propose dramatic changes without understanding the business realities of how creative individuals and industries operate."

Examples here, here, here and making money Gangnam style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypersapien, 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:07pm

The public?
Am I the only one who read that quote as meaning that "appeals to emotion" have no place in policy discussion rather than "the public" having no place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 5:11pm
  
  Re: The public?
  Am I the only one who read that quote as meaning that "appeals to emotion" have no place in policy discussion rather than "the public" having no place?
  
  That is quite clearly what it said. I have no idea where Mike got his headline.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 5:52pm
    
    Re: Re: The public?
    That is quite clearly what it said. I have no idea where Mike got his headline.
    
    That's just FUDboy, spinning away. Do you now understand why he's considered a figure of fun?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 9:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The public?
      Do you now understand why he's considered a figure of fun?
      
      No, I understand that he flubbed a story. Don't try to paint me as one of you lot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The public?
        Oh snap!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 25 Mar 2013 @ 4:49pm

A War of Trademarked Words:
My feelings are that the copyright industries & maximalists believe the public is stupid as it's foundational premise. We are sheep, to use an overly abused analogy, in their eyes to be leveraged for their personal enrichment. Now they hoot, holler, and hiss for they feel some upstarts are leading us astray into different pastures where the legacy players can't get to us as easy. This leads me to wonder if they'll ever believe us to be autonomous even as we stand up to them and say "no more fleecing!" Saddly, I think them so entrenched in their own gloss that they'll forever believe someone else is behind us herding us along. To this end I think them lost and undeserving of guidance, so I write them off like they do us. I wait for the day everything they hold dear crumbles and collapses under the wait of their hubris. I see them as the enemy of our future. There is no honor in this, but this is how I feel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 25 Mar 2013 @ 6:14pm

But some of us believe that copyright law is supposed to be used in the public interest...

Sadly, very few such individuals work in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:04am

learn what a 'steakholder' is first
he is right, the public are NOT stakeholders in this context, neither are customers.

look up what a 'stakeholder' is a "stockholder" and "CUSTOMER" is, and trying to understand they are not the same things.

you might want to look up the entomology of the term stakeholder.

A person who uses a product from an organization is a customer or consumer, but not a person with a "stake" in the company they are consuming off. The public could also be a customer, and a member of the public could also be a share holder, or a stakeholder, but that does not mean all of the public or all customers are therefore stakeholders.

A person who buys a gold ring does not have a stake in the gold mine the gold came from, for example, nor can they be affected or affect the goldmines actions. They are not stakeholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 6:27am
  
  Re: learn what a 'steakholder' is first
  he is right, the public are NOT stakeholders in this context, neither are customers.
  
  look up what a 'stakeholder' is a "stockholder" and "CUSTOMER" is, and trying to understand they are not the same things.
  
  "Stakeholder, an entity that can be affected by the results of that in which they are said to be stakeholders, i.e., that in which they have a stake."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: learn what a 'steakholder' is first
  Stakeholders are insects?
  
  I think you meant 'etymology' ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 7:00am
  
  Re: learn what a 'steakholder' is first
  Learn to spell "stakeholders", jackass. Or is proper spelling not required in the field of solar panel research and engineering?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: learn what a 'steakholder' is first
  No one is asserting that the public has a stake in a particular product or composition. You can also leave the words "customer" and "consumer" out of these debates.
  
  This is about citizens asserting their stake in the public policy of their country. We are stakeholders in the government, its policies, and its actions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 12:23am

Their attack of the Kirtsaeng verdict nicely demonstrates how clueless those jackasses really are: too stupid to realize that even they stand to lose much more from destroying the first sale doctrine than they could ever earn from their copyrights (which says a lot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
special-interesting (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 1:39pm

Sounds like another proposal to meet behind closed doors. Is government so broken they don't even feel embarrassed about secret meetings anymore? Blatantly suggesting that the public should have no input in such important law affecting everyday life takes gall. Its these types of political insects that make insecticide sales swell.

Of course any firm supported by a monopoly would want to expand on that. The funny thing is why they have a public voice at all? But politics listens to money these days not the public and certainly not common sense.

�Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions� Is an attempt at marginalizing a group using demonizing (bedeviling?) terms to justify themselves self sanctimoniously. Its exactly that type of emotional appeal Mrs. Aistars blames the public for and sounds hypocritical at best. Grow up!

Copyright already has negative connotations. Bad law is destructive to value. Since most commercially made media with all the copyright laws jacketing it modify such products in the same way toxic waste would to you or your lawn why tolerate it?

Current copyright law disallows even its own use. Why would anyone pay for anything they could not legally use? Songs we cant sing or videos we cant act out skits from because of public performance laws? Get real.

Current copyright law wastes time. How many (cumulative) days total have we been forced to spend reading (or not reading!) FBI warnings in front of movies and videos? Give me my life back!

Current copyright law is destructive. How many lives have been obliterated with overly large fines/fees and or publicly shamed to death by porn chasing copyright lawyers? A waste of money and economic strength.

How much time is wasted reading 20 page EULAs the current bastardization from contract law. (a bit off topic but couldn't help the jab)

Copyright law is bad news all around. It makes life more dangerous to even own copyrighted media. It devalues the media itself. It wastes time and money. It censors media in ways so disastrous to the sharing of culture and ideas its legendary. (The 'cultural black hole' as phrased by others.) As it stands now copyright is a direct drain on the economy let alone the damage to culture through diminished public domain.

The argument that authors and publishers need more protection to make more money is flat our a lie. No new jobs will be created. No money will be made. Culture will suffer. Lives will be destroyed. The economy will shrink. All this I predict when/if copyright is expanded or removed from civil courts.

And. Now I have to wade through a mountain of FUD just to get to talk intelligently about copyright? Thanks! -sarcastic- Who stole, with ridiculous term extensions, from the public domain anyway?

Almost the entire problem with copyright is lack of public input. The selfishness of copyright knows no bounds.

�There is no viable invention without people who wanna use it and think its cool. There is no book if nobody can or wants to read. There is no author without an audience. There would be no Stradivarius without a public that did not appreciate and afford violin music.

Upon the shoulders giants we stand. (somebody said that before) Even Stradivarius. What we are saying is that we want to stand on top of the shoulders of the greats by making the scope and term limits of Copyright and Patent reasonable. (to expire well within our lifetimes) � (from an earlier post but fits so swell here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2013 @ 6:22pm
  
  Re:
  TL;DR
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NaBUru38 (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 5:34pm

Mike, thanks for writing so frequently and deeply about the problems of intellectual property laws. But this article is misleading at some places.

"that should be seen for what it rightfully is: an insulting way of dismissing the public's interest in a law that is for the public's benefit"

The article says that what doesn't belong to policy discussion is "heated rhetoric" and "appealing to emotions".

"You see its true contempt for the public. Apparently the public is simply too stupid to understand copyright law and is easily led astray"

The article says that anti-copyright activists "have played an aggressive role in warping the public's understanding". This criticises them, not the public.

You have good arguments on why their proposals hurt citizens and their behaviour is dangerous, Mike. Please focus on them, and avoid unnecessary drama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 27 Mar 2013 @ 12:58pm

Unconstitutional
Copyright terms in excess of 20 years are unconstitutionally long.

I'd also like to see rules stripping copyright protection for any material locked behind DRM schemes. You should be forced to opt for legal protection, or technological protection, but not be able to use both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: Unconstitutional
  Copyright terms in excess of 20 years are unconstitutionally long.
  
  The Constitution specifies that the term must be limited, but it says nothing about being less than 20 years.
  
  I'd also like to see rules stripping copyright protection for any material locked behind DRM schemes. You should be forced to opt for legal protection, or technological protection, but not be able to use both.
  
  No need for that, just don't make it illegal to bypass DRM. Without the club of the DMCA, I don't think DRM could survive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - NaBUru38 (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Unconstitutional
    Life plus 50 or 70 years seems unlimited to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 3:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
      Life plus 50 or 70 years seems unlimited to me.
      
      It does indeed seem that way, but it isn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]