SOPA Didn't Die, It Just Emigrated

from the to-russia,-with-love dept

Tue, Jun 25th 2013 11:37am — Glyn Moody

It's hard to believe that the heady times that saw SOPA's rise and fall are only a year and a half ago. Of course, SOPA didn't die, but was merely "delayed". But if you've ever wondered what happened to it, wonder no more; it emigrated to Russia, as TorrentFreak reports:

Aggressive new anti-piracy legislation that allows for sites to be rapidly blocked by ISPs upon allegations of copyright infringement passed through its final two readings in Russia's State Duma today. Lawmakers fast-tracked the controversial legislation despite intense opposition from Google and Yandex, Russia' biggest search engine. Following upper house and presidential approval, the law is expected to come into effect on August 1.

Its measures are extreme: The proposals would see copyright holders filing lawsuits against sites carrying infringing content. Site owners would then be required to remove unauthorized content or links to the same within 72 hours. Failure to do so would result in their entire site being blocked by Internet service providers pending the outcome of a court hearing.
Not surprisingly, Russia's biggest Internet company, Yandex, is deeply worried by what this might mean in practice; "This approach is technically illiterate and endangers the very existence of search engines, and any other Internet resources. This version of the bill is directed against the logic of the functioning of the Internet and will hit everyone -- not just internet users and website owners, but also the rightsholders," a spokesman for Yandex said in a statement.
That's a good summary of the problem with this and similar SOPA-like laws. Those proposing them believe, incorrectly, that it is possible to stop people sharing files online if the measures are harsh enough. At the most, that will simply encourage people to swap files on new sites still under the radar, or to exchange them in person using portable hard drives or high-capacity USBs.

But the collateral damage is serious: entire sites can be shut down because of one or two infringements, causing large numbers of people to lose access to their personal files; at the same time, startups will struggle with the disproportionate burden of policing their users, and high-tech investments will fall, put off by the unfavorable market conditions. Bringing in these kind of laws certainly won't get rid of infringing content online, but is likely to impoverish the online landscape in Russia, which is bad for Internet users, bad for Internet companies -- and bad for the whole economy there.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

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: blocking, censorship, copyright, russia, sopa

54 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 11:07am

This has nothing to do with copyright infringement. It's just a facade that will be used as means for censorship.

SOPA will be approved in the US. Bit by bit, slice by slice in different, unrelated agreements and laws.

We'll need to fix all the damage afterwards. Then there will be blood (both figuratively and literally speaking).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  Russia is basically almost completely in line with the chinese way of censorship. To them it is important to protect the fictive "old traditional values". SOPA is pretty far away. Not saying it won't get revived, cause it will, but they need another president since Obama somewhat opposed most of SOPA/PIPA. There may be small bits and pieces trying to pull through as part of some pork-bill, but that is it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- frank87 (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 5:17am
  
  Re:
  Russia doesn't have anything like the 4th ammendment.
  Back to the USSR thanks to Hollywood.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 11:41am

Since when has Luddism been so powerful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 11:51am

Disclaimer: I like every Russian I have ever met, and love watching their wacky dash cam videos, however...

Russia is physically far enough away from me to not really matter so I hope this passes. Maybe once people see the destruction we can start to move towards a proper copyright solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 11:54am
  
  Re:
  Governments and the entertainment industries won't see the destruction. All they will see is the protection of their tight-fisted control of their content.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, the only thing they'll be destroying is things they can't make money on, so it's fine with them. When it's their own revenue that gets destroyed, that's a different story.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  This may be problematic especially if the "destruction" is spun as a positive thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re:
  Not true�Russia will install this abomination and then homie will be obligated to adopt it and you�re screwed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 11:54am

Thank Kaspersky for those.
He is the one in Russia telling everyone that those things are viable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cosmicrat (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:13pm

Full of problems
Certainly just full of problems, and I have some inkling of how things work in Russia leading to even more problems for search engines, site owners and the public. But, to be fair, there is at least a glimmer of suggestion that it improves on SOPA/PIPA by requiring a court hearing before a blocking order is issued. It remains to be seen whether that hearing is a prosecutor and judge only rubber stamp session or an actual adversarial hearing that starts with presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. (And yes I understand the difference between US criminal and civil law. I still think it should apply.) There is one part of PIPA I almost did support; the cutting off of payment services to site owners convicted of making a profit from piracy activities, but I supported it only on the condition that there first be a full adversarial trial and conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re: Full of problems
  Certainly just full of problems, and I have some inkling of how things work in Russia leading to even more problems for search engines, site owners and the public. But, to be fair, there is at least a glimmer of suggestion that it improves on SOPA/PIPA by requiring a court hearing before a blocking order is issued.
  
  Ummm, SOPA/PIPA both required adversarial hearings to determine whether the site was "dedicated to infringing activities". Then a second hearing was required for the petitioner to convince a judge to implement a specific sanction. Both hearings allowed for the defendant to appear. I really don't understand how you people can continue to be so deliberately ignorant to the facts.
  
  It remains to be seen whether that hearing is a prosecutor and judge only rubber stamp session or an actual adversarial hearing that starts with presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. (And yes I understand the difference between US criminal and civil law. I still think it should apply.) There is one part of PIPA I almost did support; the cutting off of payment services to site owners convicted of making a profit from piracy activities, but I supported it only on the condition that there first be a full adversarial trial and conviction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 3:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Full of problems
    Yeah, like a foreign (to the US and now Russia) website operator is likely to even receive notice of the court case against him/herself and then fly out, on their own money, hire a foreign (to them) lawyer(s) and battle out these accusations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 3:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Full of problems
      So, there's a complaint that there's no opportunity for an adversarial hearing that's destroyed by the truth- then you decide that an adversarial hearing isn't workable anyway? Other than no accountability whatsoever, what the fuck do you want?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 6:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Full of problems
        Something that doesn't end up having that much collateral damage and actually puts some burden on the plaintiff. Hint: The RIAA's style of litigation didn't work for that reason. SOPA, and any law that would make this easier isn't a solution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Full of problems
        "Yes, fellow Congressmen. There *is* an adverserial hearing - all the defendant has to do is get the clearance to read the Highly Classified letter informing him a year after the fact, send in the (redacted) form without redactions, and attend a randomly scheduled hearing in the basement of Fort Knox, if he can get clearance in time. All this for the bargain rate of one bar of gold, to be deposited a year in advance of the hearing. We guarantee that his hearing will give a response within one (Jupiter) calendar year, and if successful, his site will be restored within a Limited Time as provided for in copyright legislation (in other words, the day after Mickey Mouse enters the public domain).
        
        Although Douglas Adams says it better, about planning permission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:19pm

You'd think the ISP's would be smart enough to have protested this as strongly as the search engine companies. What better way to attract customers to you if such a SOPA bill passes then to set yourself up as the biggest ISP opponent of SOPA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:21pm

Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
Laws aren't just for actual effect, they're for teaching too. Adult society values copyright and takes some actions to sanction and thereby prevent it.

But here's a 14-year-old -- I mean, a Techdirt minion with boilerplate saying it won't work and they're going to continue taking content without paying. -- And warning of the dire consequences if advice isn't heeded, even though has just said won't have any effect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shadow Dragon (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
  I better you pirate more then anything,just how anti-gay homophobe being caught with gay hustler.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nastybutler77 (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
  When are you going to stop molesting children, OOTB? I'm just asking the question other people have brought up. I have no opinion about you one way or the other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    out_of_the_blue, 25 Jun 2013 @ 5:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
    @ "When are you going to stop molesting children, OOTB? I'm just asking the question other people have brought up. I have no opinion about you one way or the other."
    
    Really, when I snipe at apparent 14-year-olds here, accusing me of molesting children is your way of showing maturity? Point proven, fool.
    
    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    This is Techdirt! If you value civility leave at once!
    13:37:12[o-370-3]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 6:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
      Obviously you don't value civility. So if you won't leave, why are you talking down to people?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 6:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
      you seem to think that it is easy to prove a negative. So prove that you have stopped molesting children.
      
      An accusation is enough to prove guilt per all of your previous posts. You do not believe in due process, so you should just go hand yourself in for incarcertion.
      
      Or is it only for your precious copyright that those standards apply?
      
      Hypocrite douchebag
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 7:30pm
  
  Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
  "Adult society values copyright..."
  
  I'd call that a gross exaggeration of reality. Greedy corps certainly value copyright, but most people have merely tolerated it, until those corps reactions to the digital age resulted in a dramatic loss of respect for the whole copyright system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:37pm

you know where the thanks for this has to go, dont you? squarely at the feet of Hollywood and the entertainment industries of the USA. they are still the perpetrators of this and similar legislation world wide. they have no interest in any damage that will be done, even though what they want to achieve will not be. you can also put the blame of the loss of any and all files from ant and all sites that they have had shut and/or blocked everywhere. the idea can only be that if they manage to totally screw the internet people will be falling over themselves to buy media from the shops. if that fails, they think that controlling the internet will bring in loads of dollars because they will be able to sell at prices they determine, in formats they say (any different format wanted will mean a new sale. talk about stupid thinking!), riddled with DRM and sent from 3rd rate servers at dial up speed. they haven't had a successful business plan in 20years. why the hell they think that fucking everything up for the whole world will result in them having a golden future is beyond me. people are so pissed off at the way they have behaved, the way they treat customers, as if they were/are criminals and that when paying good money for something, are actually only getting a 'license to use', so ripping people off, everyone is gonna flock to their sites etc. think again guys! you have no idea how to get people 'through the door' but you had better learn quickly before it's too late!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  I understand your point, but...
  
  squarely at the feet of Hollywood and the entertainment industries of the USA. they are still the perpetrators of this and similar legislation world wide.
  
  The entertainment (or any other) industry is not supposed to be able to write and pass legislation. That they can do so is the fault of Congress, not industry. (That industry tries to do so is skeevy in the extreme, but in the end it's not their decision to make).
  
  As a result, I put the blame squarely at the feet of Congress.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 7:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    this is the result of the most corrupt government in the world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 12:51pm

If the old soviet union could not stop samizdat, why does the current regime think they can stop file sharing. Their are many more options for distributing digital files, darknets and flash memory devices among others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kirion, 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:08pm

First of all, new law also applies to links, including search engines and social networks. Also the wording is so vague, that its possible to apply it to individuals.

Fair Use provisions of Russian civil law are ignored.

It bends Russian Procedure Law - all cases will be reviewed by Court of Moscow.

And finally, today they introduced new law with fines up to $30000 for companies and individuals that refuse to police content. That's additional to blocking and whatever money court will award rightholder.

Oh, and USA lobby is totally behind this. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3619
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:40pm

Always the last to know
"At the most, that will simply encourage people to swap files on new sites still under the radar, or to exchange them in person using portable hard drives or high-capacity USBs."

Wait, does that mean we'll have the return of the 'swap' meet... or has this been going on and I'm totally just hearing about it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re: Always the last to know
  has this been going on and I'm totally just hearing about it now?
  
  This has been going on since before the internet existed, and has never stopped.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:40pm

For someone who claims to loathe the studios, I'm amused to see that this doesn't prevent Masnick from taking money from TVLand (Viacom- owners of Paramount) in the form of front page advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re:
  For someone who claims to loathe the studios, I'm amused to see that this doesn't prevent Masnick from taking money from TVLand (Viacom- owners of Paramount) in the form of front page advertising.
  
  1. [citation needed] for when I've ever claimed to "loathe the studios." Seriously. Saying stuff like that makes you look really foolish. I don't loathe the studios.
  
  2. Given that I'm pretty sure you're one of the folks who continues to insist I only write what I write because of some mythological money you think Google has given me, wouldn't your own internally consistent logic require you to think that if you see an ad for a Viacom owned property on this site that all my content would only be to support Viacom?
  
  3. Learn how internet advertising works. You, again, look foolish in the statement above, because it shows you don't understand the first thing about internet advertising. Hint: look up what an advertising network is.
  
  4. Why would it be amusing for us to accept ad money from an organization that we disagree with, if we did, in fact, "loathe" them (which we don't)? Wouldn't a reasonable analysis say that it's a lot better that they give money to those of us suggesting a more productive way forward, than giving it to folks like lawyers who are throwing it away on lawsuits that do more harm than good?
  
  Either way, nearly every assumption you made in the statement above is wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "For someone who claims to loathe the studios, I'm amused to see that this doesn't prevent Masnick from taking money from TVLand (Viacom- owners of Paramount) in the form of front page advertising."
    
    1. [citation needed] for when I've ever claimed to "loathe the studios." Seriously. Saying stuff like that makes you look really foolish. I don't loathe the studios.
    
    I've never seen you speak with anything other than contempt for the studios and MPAA. Here's your big chance to clear the air: Exactly how do you view the studios?
    
    2. Given that I'm pretty sure you're one of the folks who continues to insist I only write what I write because of some mythological money you think Google has given me, wouldn't your own internally consistent logic require you to think that if you see an ad for a Viacom owned property on this site that all my content would only be to support Viacom?
    
    No, I think your internally consistent hypocrisy allows you to take money from anyone- including those you repeatedly malign.
    
    3. Learn how internet advertising works. You, again, look foolish in the statement above, because it shows you don't understand the first thing about internet advertising. Hint: look up what an advertising network is.
    
    I don't claim to understand anything about internet advertising, but can't imagine anyone dumb enough to agree to an arrangement where my adversaries were advertising on my site. Until I met you, of course.
    
    4. Why would it be amusing for us to accept ad money from an organization that we disagree with, if we did, in fact, "loathe" them (which we don't)? Wouldn't a reasonable analysis say that it's a lot better that they give money to those of us suggesting a more productive way forward, than giving it to folks like lawyers who are throwing it away on lawsuits that do more harm than good?
    
    Other than it looks like you prostitute your values and beliefs for money, I can think of no good reason. I doubt Viacom will have to forego any contemplated litigation due to the money they're putting in your pocket.
    
    Either way, nearly every assumption you made in the statement above is wrong.
    
    Whatever you say.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 6:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anyone who has no qualms about suing the blind, the kids and the grandmothers regardless of innocence should be viewed with nothing but contempt.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suing the blind regardless of innocence? Citation please.
        
        Suing kids regardless of innocence? Citation please
        .
        Suing grandmothers regardless of innocence? Citation please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gertrude Walton.
        
        Anyone callous enough to sue the dead should be treated with contempt. Learn to Google, or is that prohibited under your corporate law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2013 @ 2:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, of course, one random mistake actually means the norm.
        
        Oh wait, no it doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2013 @ 4:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, of course, this only happened once.
        
        Oh wait, no it didn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2013 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey douchy pirate guy, lying doesn't mean a person is suddenly not guilty of breaking the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2013 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The RIAA goofed, and you're furious that they're called out on it. Surprise, surprise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 2:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I've never seen you speak with anything other than contempt for the studios and MPAA. Here's your big chance to clear the air: Exactly how do you view the studios?
      
      You seem to confuse me questioning stupid *actions* with hating them. I support them when they do smart things. I was impressed that Warner Bros is experimenting with Kickstarter, for example. I have no hatred for the studios at all. In fact, most of what I talk about is how they could do much better for themselves by not treating their fans as criminals.
      
      No, I think your internally consistent hypocrisy allows you to take money from anyone- including those you repeatedly malign.
      
      Again, you really ought to learn how ad networks work.
      
      I don't claim to understand anything about internet advertising, but can't imagine anyone dumb enough to agree to an arrangement where my adversaries were advertising on my site. Until I met you, of course.
      
      So you admit to being ignorant, and double down on that ignorance? Fascinating.
      
      Seriously: learn something before you mouth off and look ridiculous again.
      
      Other than it looks like you prostitute your values and beliefs for money, I can think of no good reason. I doubt Viacom will have to forego any contemplated litigation due to the money they're putting in your pocket.
      
      Prostituting my values would suggest presenting views that only support my advertisers, something you've already admitted I don't do.
      
      Whatever you say.
      
      You've already admitted to being ignorant of ad networks. Maybe try not being snarky when you're already deeply, deeply confused and already looking dumb.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 6:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't claim to understand anything about internet advertising, but can't imagine anyone dumb enough to agree to an arrangement where my adversaries were advertising on my site.
      
      Here's how Internet advertising works in general.
      
      1. Website signs up with an ad provider (AdSense, AdBrite, Bidvertiser, etc).
      
      2. Ad provider gives website owner a bit of code to put somewhere on their webpage.
      
      3. Ad provider software scans the page for keywords.
      
      4. Advertisers sign up with ad provider.
      
      5. Advertisers (like Viacom) bid on keywords that they want their ads to appear next to.
      
      6. Ad provider matches bids to keywords algorithmically, no human interaction required.
      
      7. Money from advertisers is split between ad provider and website owner.
      
      You'll notice a couple of things about this setup:
      
      Advertisers don't know the actual pages their ads will end up on.
      
      Website owners don't know whose advertisements will appear on their sites. They certainly don't sign any kind of agreement with the advertisers.
      
      Ad providers don't know who is being matched with whom unless they examine their logs; everything is done in software.
      
      So, yeah, if you'd actually take the time to learn about how Internet advertising works, you'd realize just how idiotic your accusations are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Karl, you take all the fun out of exposing someone's ignorance. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 27 Jun 2013 @ 1:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you take all the fun out of exposing someone's ignorance. ;)
        
        Don't worry, knowing this guy, I'm pretty sure you've still got plenty of opportunities ahead of you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 1:42pm

That's a good summary of the problem with this and similar SOPA-like laws. Those proposing them believe, incorrectly, that it is possible to stop people sharing files online if the measures are harsh enough. At the most, that will simply encourage people to swap files on new sites still under the radar, or to exchange them in person using portable hard drives or high-capacity USBs.

So are you suggesting if these pirate sites are cut off, there traffic will be replaced at the same rate by new sites and/or the sneaker net?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re:
  I think that's a reasonable hypothesis.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 6:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why? Because it's so much easier to infringe hand-to-hand than clicking a mouse? Or find an under the radar site?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because pirate sites don't cause piracy. They are a tool used by people who are going to pirate. If they didn't exist, the same people will simply use different tools -- just as they did before pirate sites existed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Jun 2013 @ 5:36pm

"This comment has been flagged by the community."
So I re--post just to show anyone new here how hypocritical are the Techdirt kids talking about free speech but censoring mere snark in practice.

Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"

Laws aren't just for actual effect, they're for teaching too. Adult society values copyright and takes some actions to sanction and thereby prevent it.

But here's a 14-year-old -- I mean, a Techdirt minion with boilerplate saying it won't work and they're going to continue taking content without paying. -- And warning of the dire consequences if advice isn't heeded, even though has just said won't have any effect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re: "This comment has been flagged by the community."
  I already read your 'censored' comment. Why would I want to read it again? Idiot...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 9:41pm
  
  Re: "This comment has been flagged by the community."
  Reposting is spam. Just because it is flagged does not mean it has been removed. Don't be that guy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2013 @ 11:11pm
  
  Re: "This comment has been flagged by the community."
  So I will re-post my previous comment to your post.
  
  When are you going to hand yourself in for incarceration for child molestation
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 5:35am
  
  Re: "This comment has been flagged by the community."
  Well, when you stop with the meaningless 5-yerar-old insults then maybe you won't be auto-reported. And you so wish you were important enough to be censored.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]