Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement

from the wave-that-magic-wand dept

Mon, Dec 2nd 2013 3:27am — Mike Masnick

Every so often it seems like a completely, technologically (and basic concept of properly applied liability) ignorant court does something like what a French court did last week. The High Court of Paris says that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo need to completely delist 16 full sites from their index -- even to sites hosting perfectly non-infringing works. This, of course, was the dream of SOPA: that search engines would have to make sites completely disappear based on their say-so that the sites were "pirate" sites. But reality doesn't work that way for a variety of reasons. Sites that have significant infringing uses at one time, also have significant non-infringing uses, and as the technology develops, they tend to increase the non-infringing uses. The VCR, for example, was mainly used to copy works in unauthorized ways when it was first launched -- but part of the problem was the refusal of the industry itself to embrace the new technologies. Yet, now the court is killing even that possibility -- so creators who want to make use of these platforms to promote themselves are completely out of luck, because the more powerful legacy industry lobbyists got a court to basically kill off those platforms.

As we noted last week, this SOPAfication of the world is increasingly the goal of the entertainment industries, and they've been having a lot of success in Europe, where sympathetic lawmakers and courts don't seem to recognize how they're propping up an industry that doesn't want to adapt, while striking a blow against two important things: disruptive new innovations and the concept of secondary liability.

Search engines aren't there to help people find what the legacy industries want them to find. They're designed to help the searcher find what that searcher wants. Telling those search engines they can't do that, and that they have to point to what some other industry wants, sets a very dangerous precedent. Letting legacy industries effectively program search engines to their liking pretty much guarantees limited innovation, both by stopping those innovative new platforms from gaining traction, while at the same time convincing the legacy players that they can continue to rest on their laurels.

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, europe, france, intermediaries, search engines
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo

140 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pragmatic, 2 Dec 2013 @ 3:50am

This is SOPA by degrees, one bite out of our freedom at a time, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:28am
  
  Re:
  Freedom to pirate? LOL. You're a complete d-bag.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Freedom to pirate? LOL. You're a complete d-bag.
    
    Nope. You are being the douchebag here. We are talking about the freedom to search for what we are looking for. Which is not even remotely close to illegal downloading.
    
    It's like removing a Flea Market from Google Maps because someone in one of the booths was selling knock-off designer handbags.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We are talking about the freedom to search for what we are looking for.
      
      So? Tough shit, douchebag. It's a pirate site trafficking content illegally.
      
      I want to search for a professional assassin in the Yellow Pages. Waa waa, I can't!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not even remotely close.
        
        At least TRY to get a similar point.
        
        What the court is ordering search engines to do is equal to courts saying that all blank DVDs and VHS tapes are illegal, or that reading books in a library is illegal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL no it isn't at all like that.
        You grew up underneath power lines, didn't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently not all the children are back in school after Thankgiving...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I want to search for a professional assassin in the Yellow Pages. Waa waa, I can't!!
        
        Leaving aside you conflating the traditionally civil crime of copyright infringement with a serious criminal charge of killing someone, your analogy still doesn't hold much water.
        
        Search engines are not like the Yellow Pages. More like the White Pages - if there's a phone number it's included, unless you specifically request an unlisted number. The Yellow Pages are more like the sponsored links on Google - they pay for placement.
        
        The White Pages most certainly do not vet the owner of each and every number and (AFAIK) the Yellow Pages does not vet the businesses they list either. If you pay them, you get listed. Nor do I believe that listing a professional assassin would even be illegal. If someone was really stupid enough to do that, more power to them. It's like putting a giant flashing arrow above your head for the authorities find you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 3:51am

First they told me what I could search
Then they told me what I could say
Not before long they told me what I could do
In the end they told me what I could think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 3:55am

Still cannot grasp what search engines are.

Next, they will be ordering the removal of criminals' phone numbers from the phone book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:32am
  
  Re:
  Well, they'd have to start with the criminals in power...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:06am

You almost have to wonder...
Given the apparently non-stop parade of foolish, ridiculous, and flat out stupid decisions regarding the internet and companies that are involved with it coming out of the french courts, I just have to ask... does anyone know if the judges making these decisions even know what the internet is?

Honestly it's almost like they've never used a computer for anything more complicated than typing something up, and get their entire 'knowledge' about the internet from the cases that come before them, and the arguments presented in said cases, never doing any research, or learning about the subject at hand, beyond that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:08am

They should delist France , riaa and mpaa and all movie and music company sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:17am
  
  Re:
  Well, since 'no collateral damage is too big'(according to them), and their sites might contain infringing files(because if HBO's own site can be listed as hosting infringing files, then any of them can be), that sounds like a fitting way to make sure none of their sites are used for piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    And then, of course, they'd hypocritically claim that it was illegal for search engines to deny them profit by delisting their sites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  I have often thought that the best thing for search engines to do would be to ignore the nutcases completely and simply remove everything France.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea..., 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:26am

Google, Microsoft and Yahoo should jointly declare that effective immediately, all french IP addresses that try to use ANY of their services will now be blocked with the message "Apparently your leaders have declared that you're too stupid to have the internet - go talk to them about it."

I'd love to see this happen and watch the fallout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:33am
  
  Re:
  But...But...that would be socialism and is badwrong.
  
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:36am

to me, more than the 'cluelessness of the French Courts', this shows that the entertainment industries are just going to carry on making more and more ridiculous and outrageous demands, using even more ridiculous reasons, at some other industries expense and inconvenience. they get away with one thing, then go for the next but increasing the 'severity' of whatever it may be. it also shows how absolutely stupid all these internet giants have been to just sit back and do nothing against the entertainment industries, allowing them to increase the burden for saving their industry' on to as many others as possible, with no work or expense for themselves. had there have been some sort of resistance from the beginning, the situation may well not have been what we have now!
these industries are not going to stop until they have complete control of the internet! that will come with the blessing of the NSA, DoJ and others who will be able to continue spying on everyone because of laws allowing 3rd parties to watch everything that everyone does on the net. it wont be long before you have to go through those industries who will decide what sites can go to the net, what they can contain, what people can view, upload and download, etc. etc. and while you are waiting, your site, your business could easily be going down the tube. it will eventually get approved, but a fee will have to be paid for their 'admin work' and agreement to you doing whatever. the only way to speed up the process will be to ,dare i say it, bribe someone! half the reason we're in this position now is because of bribes paid to and accepted by US politicians! it would be interesting to find out exactly who was given what in France to allow this case to go to court and to achieve the verdict it did. those concerned, like the fucking idiots Cameron and Perry in the UK, think it is just a matter of turning off a switch to get what you want to happen without fucking up everything else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:42am

Still won't work...
If they were successful at getting the search engines to effectively hide the sites new sites will simply pop up and once they have effectively killed the usability of the search engines, new search engines will pop up and take over. Either that or search will become decentralized such that there attempts will become fruitless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:58am
  
  Re: Still won't work...
  YaCy is not that hard, but we all Seeks new frontiers.
  
  And there are torrent specific distributed search engines making the rounds like the dubious torrentforage.
  
  Oh look all piracy stopped...oh wait, false alarm pirates just moved to other places that are not reachable by French law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:16am
  
  Re: Still won't work...
  New sites don't even need to pop up. This isn't a take down like the Megaupload case or even ISP level filtering like is happening in the UK.
  
  This is forcing a couple of search engines to remove allegedly infringing sites from their search results.
  
  All people have to do is use a different search engine or, better yet, bookmark their favourite site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:19am
    
    Re: Re: Still won't work...
    Actually it's ISP level filtering as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:47am

Yandex, Baidu and Tencent all are grateful to the French courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:53am

They'll never win this fight because pirates don't need Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. Most pirates have the know how to get their warez fix without search engines.

In the long run this will not hurt pirates at all, but it will hurt your average user. I mean fuck how do they plan to stop word of mouth, countless online chat communities, gamers, or the billion other ways to find your shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan Jentzsch (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:56am

By the magical powers vested in me...
I decree that the Internet begone.
Damn. Didn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:28am

Sixteen comments in on a copyright infringement related article and no trolls? I'm amazed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:00am
  
  Re:
  The trolls must still be eating leftovers and are still in a turkey coma.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:29am
  
  Re:
  You have probably crossed over one of my bridges multiple times in the last 20 years. You owe me approximately $700,000 for the alleged use of my bridges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:04am

Not one penny...
Should EVER reach the hands of the Copyfraud Alliance ever again!

They want money, they need to stop being stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:47am

Unsurprisingly, in it's blind nerd rage, Techdirties missed the really interesting tidbit.

This isn't as one-sided as Techdirt would have you believe. Google et. al. aren't the ones that are going to have to foot the bill to implement this insanity: The music/movie industry is. This silliness is coming out of their pocket. And that's fine by me.

As for the blockade itself, my opinion is that it is doomed to fail. Sites can move to Tor, Freenet, GNUNet or the myriad of alt-nets that exist. These networks are far more resilient to censorship and most are encrypted by default. If this blockade bothers you, do as they do in the Open-Source movement: fork the Internet. Make a better one, instead of sitting on your ass whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:57am
  
  Re:
  "This isn't as one-sided as Techdirt would have you believe. Google et. al. aren't the ones that are going to have to foot the bill to implement this insanity: The music/movie industry is."
  
  How do you figure that? Google and the others now have to take significant measures to make sure they don't accidentally list these sites, or face harsh fines from the courts. This translates into time, labour and money. This will cost Google et al
  
  As for your last paragraph, yes, that would be great if the majority of the internet moved to those censorship-resistant networks. The problem is that you first need to know that they exist and second, that you possess some technical skills to access them. If we think of it in terms of a Venn diagram, only a tiny subset of the total amount of Internet users will have even heard of Tor, and only a subset of that subset would know how to access the network.
  Given that this is the equivalent of a niche market, then censorship has been achieved, more or less, towards the majority of Internet users.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    "How do you figure that?"
    
    RTFS.
    
    "Google and the others now have to take significant measures to make sure they don't accidentally list these sites, or face harsh fines from the courts. This translates into time, labour and money. This will cost Google et al"
    
    I don't know the details, but they can probably bill the content industry for time/money spent.
    
    "As for your last paragraph, yes, that would be great if the majority of the internet moved to those censorship-resistant networks. The problem is that you first need to know that they exist..."
    
    Talk to people. Tell them about these things. Give them a copy of the software. Give them the source. Help them set it up. Help them use it. Note their difficulty and improve the software, if you can, or contact people that can.
    
    "...and second, that you possess some technical skills to access them."
    
    Installing the tor bundle takes 5 minutes. I admit that using tor effectively is still difficult. But that is our - the people with technical ability - fault. We most note their difficulties and improve the software.
    
    After all, using the internet used to be scary and hard (I still have nightmares about setting up a PCI modem card that I had...oh the pain). Now it is mostly plug-and-play.
    
    "If we think of it in terms of a Venn diagram, only a tiny subset of the total amount of Internet users will have even heard of Tor, and only a subset of that subset would know how to access the network."
    
    Same point as above.
    
    "Given that this is the equivalent of a niche market, then censorship has been achieved, more or less, towards the majority of Internet users."
    
    That's rich coming from a Techdirt usual. You know how you keep telling people that the report button isn't censorship because you can still reveal the comment? This is about the same thing.
    
    But snide comment aside, people are being censored because they don't know about the alternatives. You can solve this by teaching them about the alternatives.
    
    Unfortunately, if they still choose to be bound and gagged, you can't change that. It's the tragedy of Democracy, I'm afraid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You know how you keep telling people that the report button isn't censorship because you can still reveal the comment? This is about the same thing.
      
      It is NOT the same thing; with a hidden comment a marker is visible on the page; with this there is no marker to indicate that which is hidden.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For someone who "doesn't know the details" you sure are confident in your blind declarations of fact.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For someone who doesn't know how to present facts in a discussion format, you sure are confident in your blindness to rational discourse, boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "That's rich coming from a Techdirt usual. You know how you keep telling people that the report button isn't censorship because you can still reveal the comment? This is about the same thing."
      
      How? Take a regular troll comment that gets reported here on Techdirt by the community. First off, this is the community at large voting independently of one another (re-read that part a few times just so you understand. We TD regulars don't communicate with each other and say "Click report on this comment!" We don't say anything. We each click report out of our own free will) versus a site or network, under attack from those misusing the legal system having to go onto an alt.net to survive.
      Second, hidden comments on Techdirt are still plenty viewable. There is a notice that tells you there is a comment there, just not viewable unless you click a single button. Contrast that with what the copyright cartels are pushing for, with search engines being told they can't even list certain sites in their search results; this is done because these search engines don't want to end up in court, so they automatically delist these sites. Without the threat of a court battle hanging over their head like the Sword of Damocles, they wouldn't do it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you find it at all odd that the "hidden" comments used to be in a fairly viewable pink color but are no just a shade or two different from the background and are far less noticeable ? I wonder why that was done?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I recall a lot of kvetching that the fairly viewable pink color was too hard to see. Not that grey is an improvement in that respect...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't confuse the copyright cocksucker with facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't confuse the copyright cocksucker with facts.
        
        That's like the third time you've used the term "cocksucker" in this thread. What happened? Mom teach you a new word?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2013 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whined the fanboy of the RIAA's buzzwords.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Could you click on a website blocked under SOPA and view it normally? With a single mouse-click?
      
      You have no idea what you're talking about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Could you click on a website blocked under SOPA and view it normally? With a single mouse-click?
        
        You have no idea what you're talking about.
        
        No, but you could type in a ten number address. So fucking what? Also, under SOPA, you'd first have to gotten the court to agree that the website was DEDICATED to infringing activity- not just happen to have infringing material on it but DEDICATED to infringing. And then you'd have to return to court to get that specific sanction approved. All the while the website owner is free to defend himself under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
        
        It amazing how stupid you are and ridiculous you look telling others they don't know what they're talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Given how frequent plaintiffs and rightsholders strong-arm or bullshit their way into everything with their "but but but piracy" rants, that's not reassuring. What, you have to prove it? Was that not a requirement before?
        
        Maybe your definition of "due process" would be more publicly accepted if you lot hadn't shit on it so much over the years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  Techdirties missed the really interesting tidbit.
  
  Personally, I don't think that's the really interesting tidbit at all. I think it's not really relevant to why orders like this are a Bad Thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:14pm
  
  Re:
  Footing the bill for your own stupidity doesn't make it any less stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 2 Dec 2013 @ 7:18am

What did you expect? They still worship Jerry Lewis' at corpse...

You'd think they would've join the 21st century by now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 7:21am

Can we..
Can we give the example of the Church and alternative Bible beliefs.. Which make up the OTHER groups in christian beliefs..
HOW the Church tried to cover up, and Shoot any other interpretations..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:15am

Sites that have significant infringing uses at one time, also have significant non-infringing uses, and as the technology develops, they tend to increase the non-infringing uses.

So why should they get a pass for infringing? Are you suggesting it's ok because eventually, maybe they might in the future not infringe?

Your reasoning gets more and more desperate as the noose tightens around the necks of these infringement profiteers and the freeloaders they serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  So why should they get a pass for infringing?
  
  Because you don't blame the tool for how people use it. Kinda common sense.
  
  Are you suggesting it's ok because eventually, maybe they might in the future not infringe?
  
  No, I'm suggesting it's moronic, because when your buddies in the industry finally (after kicking and screaming) figure out how to actually use the technology properly, they always discover that there are more ways to make more money. That's why you don't blame the tool.
  
  Your reasoning gets more and more desperate as the noose tightens around the necks of these infringement profiteers and the freeloaders they serve.
  
  Yeah, just like you and your friends would have killed the VCR and the MP3 player, right? Seriously: you don't have a clue. Please stop killing innovation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Because you don't blame the tool for how people use it. Kinda common sense.
    
    So you believe that banks have no responsibility to guard against money laundering either? How's that any different?
    
    I don't think chanting "but, but innovation" trumps the law and respect for the IP of others. It is possible to innovate without violating the law, but your buddies seem to find it burdensome. And how innovative is it to distribute movies that belong to others for the purpose of ling your own pockets. Maybe your friends should try actually creating a motion picture and profiting for that rather than simply being another parasite, feeding on the creativity and innovation of others.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It is possible to innovate without violating the law...
      
      Do you mean someone like Aereo, who innovated and purposely took insane precautions to remain within the current laws and got sued for their trouble anyways?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Companies get sued all of the time. Aereo won for now.
        
        There are hundreds of thousands of companies that start up legitimate, non-infringing businesses every year. They're to be applauded. But the parasites who unlawfully appropriate and monetize the creative output of others shouldn't be congratulated as innovators- they're nothing more than parasites living off of the creativity and hard work of others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Alana (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "unlawfully"
        
        Citation needed.
        
        Even you said "Aereo won for now."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 3:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like fox? Why is the industry located in califormication again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So...we should go after the real criminals, right?
      
      Why not start at the top? And remember, Hollywood directly funds criminals through its drug connections. And their constant frauds and taxation shenanigans. And their own IP infringements. And their perversion of justice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you believe that banks have no responsibility to guard against money laundering either?
      
      The reason banks have that responsibility is because banking is very heavily regulated by the government. Banks are not free agents, they have to adhere to the rules of their license to get and keep their license.
      
      I don't think chanting "but, but innovation" trumps the law and respect for the IP of others
      
      And nobody says it does. What people are saying is that you should go after the people who actually break the law, not the people who make legitimate tools.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So banks and financial institutions should be responsible for guarding against lawlessness within their ecosystems; yet players in the internet ecosystem get to wash their hands in the Holy Water and say they're not responsible?
        
        I don't see why they should get a pass, other than it is inconvenient; which frankly isn't much of an excuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We totally disagree. Fair enough. But you should be honest and argue for what you really want: government regulation and licensing of the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's never what I said. But if the players in that space won't take responsibility for criminal behavior in their ecosystem voluntarily what's the answer?
        
        I'm open to any resolution that strikes a balance between free speech and the protection of intellectual property. I will never agree that IP should be sacrificed on the alter of free speech. Nor the opposite. But I have a real tough time seeing how illegally displaying a movie is the kind of protected speech that needs the highest degree of protection. Political speech, religious speech social commentary, criticism are all very worthwhile to afford protection but the claims surrounding pirated movies as "free speech" frankly offend the lofty principles of the founding fathers IMHO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I will never agree that IP should be sacrificed on the alter of free speech
        
        That's not what we're talking about here at all. What we're talking about is whether or not people should be "held accountable" for crimes they did not commit.
        
        If you really want to target the pirate sites, then that's what you should do. Attacking search engines is silly and stupid -- it accomplishes exactly nothing inn exchange for the harm is does. What you really should do is, I dunno, maybe target the site which is actually engaging in the infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Going after easy meat has always been the goal of copyright enforcement. Sue the children, the grandmothers, the homeless, the computerless, the technologically illiterate, the dead, the laser printers that can't fight back.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Please stop killing innovation"
    
    LOL Hyperbolic much?
    If your "innovation" requires breaking the law, then it's a bad business model. Not my problem, sorry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If your "innovation" requires breaking the law, then it's a bad business model. Not my problem, sorry.
      
      The other side of that coin is:
      
      If your business model depends solely on holding back innovation, that's also a bad business model.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does taking the creative output of others and monetizing it for yourself get characterized as "innovation"? It is self-serving greed- not innovation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does taking the creative output of others and monetizing it for yourself get characterized as "innovation"?
        
        I just love it how you guys downplay the "creative output" of those who write the software and build the systems. It's almost like they are second class citizens to you, instead of on equal footing when it comes to creativity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I think it is just as wrong to pirate software as movies. But software doesn't suffer from nearly the amount of piracy that music, motion picture and television do. Nor (at least as far as I know) do the people who write software receive residual benefit from their work. In the motion picture industry, retirement plans, health insurance and income (SAG, WGA and DGA) are funded by the downstream revenue that's subject to the corrosive effect of piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But software doesn't suffer from nearly the amount of piracy that music, motion picture and television do.
        
        Incorrect. Here's a quote from PCMAG. Although, they are using the BSA, RIAA and MPAA numbers, which I think are all overinflated:
        According to the Business Software Alliance's most recent report, 42 percent of all software used in the world is pirated, and the commercial value of unlicensed software put into the market last year totaled $59 billion�nearly double the figure from 2003. By comparison, a study cited by the Recording Industry Association of America claims a total annual loss of $12.5 billion. The Motion Picture Association of America doesn't break out its own share but cites the total loss to digital piracy of all kinds as $58 billion. Source
        
        Nor (at least as far as I know) do the people who write software receive residual benefit from their work. In the motion picture industry, retirement plans, health insurance and income (SAG, WGA and DGA) are funded by the downstream revenue that's subject to the corrosive effect of piracy.
        
        That's because the software guys are focusing more on creating the next cool thing instead of resting on their laurels waiting for the residual check to show up. As for the health care and retirement plans, that's a sweet deal - too bad the average joe sweating it out on a hourly job in the real world doesn't get such things these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's because the software guys are focusing more on creating the next cool thing instead of resting on their laurels waiting for the residual check to show up. As for the health care and retirement plans, that's a sweet deal - too bad the average joe sweating it out on a hourly job in the real world doesn't get such things these days.
        
        Getting residual income to sustain your family between temporary assignments is hardly "resting on their laurels". The US motion picture industry is the most dominant and creative in the world. And if the software guys formed labor unions the way that the motion picture industry workers have, they'd have such a "sweet deal". Clearly the software industry generates the income to provide those things for their hourly workers, but asking politely will never get you there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean if the software guys bribed the government as much as the Motion Picture industry has?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And if the software guys formed labor unions the way that the motion picture industry workers have, they'd have such a "sweet deal". Clearly the software industry generates the income to provide those things for their hourly workers, but asking politely will never get you there.
        
        Yes, I'm pretty sure that the software industry has good benefits also. That wasn't really my point.
        
        I was just reminding you that the majority of your customer base, the people who spend money on your products, don't consider things like affordable health care and retirement benefits as an automatic given these days. It's not the 1980's anymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So people who stand up for themselves and demand dignity and equitable treatment in the workplace should somehow apologize for that to people who have not done it in their own workplace? Sorry, I don't think so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 7:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dignity and equitable treatment does not involve suing anyone and everyone lacking the resources to mount a defence against a litigious fishing expedition like the RIAA and IFPI have done.
        
        But keep trying to convince yourself that it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 8:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ummmmmm�. we were talking about the entertainment industry unions. Please try to keep up. FYI, they spend much of their time fighting against the studios you seem to dislike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 4 Dec 2013 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So people who stand up for themselves and demand dignity and equitable treatment in the workplace should somehow apologize for that to people who have not done it in their own workplace? Sorry, I don't think so.
        
        Hmm. Maybe you should stop looking down your nose at the *real* world around you. Your ivory tower view is a bit distorted.
        
        First point: Unions only represent less than 12% of the US workforce. Less than 7% if you remove government workers.
        
        http://smallbusiness.chron.com/much-american-workforce-composed-labor-unions-60087.html
        
        Secon d point: Union support by the general populace is waning. Michigan, one of the traditional places were union support runs high recently passed a "Right to Work" law that made it illegal to prevent someone from working at a union shop even if they don't join the union or pay the dues. Nationwide support for these type of laws is at 74%.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
        
        Third point: Most innovation and 39% of the GDP comes from small business, not major corporations. Small businesses have the viable option of going out of business, instead of bowing to unreasonable union demands when forced with unionization. Not much bargaining power for unions there.
        
        http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/opadhome/mtdpweb/sbfacts.htm
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 4 Dec 2013 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whoops. Meant GNP (gross national product) up there, not GDP (gross domestic product). Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The US motion picture industry is the most dominant and creative in the world.
        
        As all they can seem to produce is comic-book movies and endless remakes and sequels, "creative" isn't in the list of adjectives I'd use.
        
        if the software guys formed labor unions the way that the motion picture industry workers have, they'd have such a "sweet deal".
        
        And software would suck hard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The US motion picture industry is the most dominant and creative in the world."
        
        As all they can seem to produce is comic-book movies and endless remakes and sequels, "creative" isn't in the list of adjectives I'd use.
        
        If you look at it through the eyes of the market rather than your own personal bias, you'd see you're wrong.
        
        "if the software guys formed labor unions the way that the motion picture industry workers have, they'd have such a "sweet deal"."
        
        And software would suck hard.
        
        I see. So you contend that having things like residuals, industrywide pension and health insurance and the right to negotiate over wages, hours and working conditions would make software suck? Perhaps; but the US motion picture and TV industry is among the most successful global enterprises ever and is pretty much union top-to-bottom. And you and your greasy pirate friends can't wait to see the next installment of whatever it is you watch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 4:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, so everyone you don't like is a filthy pirate. Whatever you say, Prenda fanboy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does taking the creative output of others and monetizing it for yourself get characterized as "innovation"? It is self-serving greed- not innovation
        
        I think that question should be addressed to the RIAA and MPAA, no? That's been their MO from the beginning.
        
        That's not what these other companies are doing. What they've done is improved *access* *distribution* *promotion* and *monetization* for anyone. Artists who embrace it find themselves better off. It's only troubling for the RIAA/MPAAs of the world who built their business model off of having a gatekeeper-level control over access, distribution, promotion and monetization. They're the ones profiting off of someone else's work.
        
        Really: you need to stop blaming innovators for doing what your friends refuse to do themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It takes no particular innovation to distribute things over the internet when you don't have to trouble yourself with issues like licensing, fees and paying the owners of the content. Those so-called "innovators" don't have a business at all were it not for the content of others that they're monetizing for their own profit. If Netflix and the many other true innovators can do it the right way, I don't see how anyone with an honest bone in their body would not condemn the parasites who make their living on the creativity of others�� unless all they truly care about is getting something of value for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who are these parasites you're talking about? I thought this was about sites that allow visitors to supply their own content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It takes no particular innovation to distribute things over the internet when you don't have to trouble yourself with issues like licensing, fees and paying the owners of the content."
        
        You've conflated two completely separate issues; the implementation of the distribution service (i.e. the innovation) and the cost of the licensing. If internet distributorship is so easy when licensing isn't an issue, why have the content owners failed so spectacularly in offering their own services? After all, since they don't have to pay fees to themselves for the content (dodgy accounting practices aside...) and it's super easy to throw up a website, the money should just pour in shouldn't it?
        
        "Those so-called "innovators" don't have a business at all were it not for the content of others that they're monetizing for their own profit."
        
        Ugh, this old trope. It's a meaningless statement, which you could equally (and equally stupidly) apply to anybody selling anything made by someone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Content owners distribute their product in a manner they see fit. Just because it isn't in the manner you want, doesn't mean they should. It is THEIR content, they get to decide.
        
        This is generally a complaint of non-Americans whose countries have no meaningful creative output of its own. My response to this is that you are not entitled to US content. Maybe you should try some innovation of your own instead of your mindless obsession with American culture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My response to this is that you are not entitled to our eyeballs, our attention, our wallets or our laws. Maybe you should try making the effort to provide content legally instead of your mindless obsession with refusing to legally provide the content so you can sue us all for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My response to this is that you are not entitled to our eyeballs, our attention, our wallets or our laws. Maybe you should try making the effort to provide content legally instead of your mindless obsession with refusing to legally provide the content so you can sue us all for it.
        
        We don't need any of that. You are the ones so disenchanted with your own lives and state of culture that you escape into American made entertainment. You claim to hate Americans yet you obsess over the latest Hollywood gossip, American television, movies, fashion and trends. Face it. Without this your lives would be even more pathetic and boring than they already are. Our culture is like crack for you. You are hooked and will do anything to get it. Pretty sad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, aren't you just the most over-entitled jackass, assuming everyone overseas is a US television/movie/Hollywood buff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not everyone. But clearly the numbers speak for themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is that an indication that the anecdote of independent filmmakers and producers being somehow magically harmed by piracy can be put to rest? Because no one downloads anything other than Hollywood stuff, right? That diamond-studded swimming pool isn't gonna pay for itself!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You claim to hate Americans..."
        
        Who did? When?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Content owners distribute their product in a manner they see fit. Just because it isn't in the manner you want, doesn't mean they should. It is THEIR content, they get to decide."
        
        Yeah, keep telling yourself that with your head buried deep in the sand, ignoring what's actually happening in the real world. Artist who don't freak out about not being able to lock down their works and instead make an effort to give fans what they want will go from strength to strength, while those with attitudes like yours will wither and fade.
        
        "This is generally a complaint of non-Americans whose countries have no meaningful creative output of its own. My response to this is that you are not entitled to US content. Maybe you should try some innovation of your own instead of your mindless obsession with American culture."
        
        Really, you're going to throw American exceptionalism into the mix now? Are you deliberately trying to come across as an asshole?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 3:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Content owners distribute their product in a manner they see fit. Just because it isn't in the manner you want, doesn't mean they should. It is THEIR content, they get to decide."
        
        Fine. What is the purpose of copyright again? Legitimizing temper tantrums when people aren't making as much money as they think they are entitled to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sort of like the entertainment industries using the internet without paying for it.
        
        Like the entertainment industries want everyone else to pay to do their dirty work.
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries are responsible for the Drug use of their employees.
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries bribing government officials.
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries crooked book keeping.
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries constantly being caught infringing copyrights and not paying anything close to what they ask for when the public does it.
        
        Just like the American Army being caught infringing copyrights and not paying for licenses and then only paying 25% when they are taken to court.
        
        If we are going to follow the law to the letter, there are a couple of suggested starting places for you.
        
        Or do you only want the law to apply to the little people?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow Gorehound, you forgot to sign in for your latest crazy rant. Don't suppose you have a single citation to back any of these recent nutty allegations, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15092825408/us-hypocrisy-pushing-maximum-damages-infringem ent-while-settling-its-own-piracy-bill-less.shtml
        
        Just going to drop one link for you, because you're such a freetard with your head up Chris Dodd's cum-soaked rectum you can't see past the MPAA/RIAA's shortcomings. How's that "Home Taping is Killing Music" thing working out for you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hahahaha�. what a salad-tosser. That's like Glenn Beck making a point and backing it up with a link to a story written by Rush Limbaugh.
        
        BTW, I'm confused by your use of "freetard". What is that supposed to mean?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Techdirt frequently reports on copyright holders and enforcers mucking things up, which is pretty common since the RIAA embarked on their children-suing crusade. Unsurprisingly you don't consider it possible that copyright holders and enforcers would ever do that. Let me guess: You think Otis Wright is an enemy of intellectual property, and John Steele was entitled to sue that dead grandmother.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 6:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see you did not rebuff a single point.
        
        You call me crazy, but it is you who is living in a deluded fantasy world.
        
        Where are all of your citations? You have made some mighty bold claims, yet have not backed up a single part of it.
        
        Shall I post a link to where the MPAA claimed that the loss from Piracy was more than the Entertainment industry has made since it inception. 7.5 Trillion dollars.
        
        Why is that the studios always settle their court cases before their shady accounting practices can be brought into the spotlight?
        
        Ask David Prowse how he feels about Empire Strikes Back still not making a profit, yet has grossed over half a BILLION dollars
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        David Prowse got paid his wage for walking around with a mask and cape on and not uttering a single word. Dumb example.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, so only speaking parts deserve to be paid?
        
        Darth Vader was not a pivotal part of the movie?
        Have you even seen Empire Strikes Back?
        
        Where is his share of the profits?
        
        Oh, that is right $18 Million to make the movie, grossed over $500 Million dollars, yet still has not made a profit?
        
        So from that, no one has the right to cry about copyright infringement as they have already received their wage..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And what about his share of the profits as per his contract? Are you honestly going to claim this movie did not make a profit? Are you going to claim you're on some moral high ground about piracy while trying to justify deeply immoral accounting practices at the same time?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it was a standard SAG contract he gets residuals, not a percentage of profits. Those residual figures are derived from income realized through various sources (N. Amrican box office, dvd sales, foreign distribution, cable and broadcast exhibition, PPV, etc) not profits. SAG audits the global income of every production with which it has a contract. So spare me the moral outrage unless you have a clue as to what you're talking about. There's not an agent in Hollywood that'd make a deal on "profit". Not one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 3:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pardon me for not using exactly the right word...
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prowse#Darth_Vader
        Prowse claims his contract for Return of the Jedi included a share of profits on the film, and although it grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget, Prowse explained in an interview in 2009 that he has never received residuals for his performance. Due to "Hollywood accounting", the actual profits are sent as "distribution fees" to the studio, leaving nothing to distribute to others.
        
        Not exactly a new story...
        http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-pr ofit/
        http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/04/lucasfilm-still-not-paying-vader-actor
        http://www.filmbuffon line.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/tag/david-prowse/
        
        Are we all clueless about Hollywood accounting too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prowse can claim whatever he wants but he's lying.
        
        A guy that is hired to hide his face and not say any lines is not going to be promised "a share of the profits". As mentioned above, if he was owed anything, SAG would have taken care of it long ago.
        
        This BS story is easily one of the lamest freetard memes on the net.
        
        But pirates like Mike Masnick enjoying spreading it around because he hates actors and musicians and wants the monetary fruits of their labor to go to his bosses at Google.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not surprising he'd pull this BS either, considering how much he's tried to milk his mute performance walking around in a cape and mask that someone else designed, SOMETHING ANY FUCKER COULD DO.
        
        Here's a gem from an interview with him:
        
        Q: Are you a good tipper?
        A: No, I'm not. I don't think you should have to tip, to be perfectly honest
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds like Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Not surprising he'd pull this BS either, considering how much he's tried to milk his mute performance walking around in a cape and mask that someone else designed, SOMETHING ANY FUCKER COULD DO."
        
        Wow, and you accuse Mike of hating actors. How does the cognitive dissonance not make your head explode? With that sort of disrespect for costumed actors it's no wonder you post anonymously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        paradox-absorbing crumple zones.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        David Prowse isn't an actor. He's a former body-builder from England.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Would the real actor haters please stand up...
        
        Selected filmography:
        Casino Royale (1967)
        Hammerhead (1968)
        The Horror of Frankenstein (1970)
        Up the Chastity Belt (1971)
        Carry On Henry (1971)
        A Clockwork Orange (1971)
        Vampire Circus (1972)
        Black Snake (1973)
        Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974)
        Callan (1974)
        Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)
        Jabberwocky (1977)
        The People That Time Forgot (1977)
        Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
        Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi (1983)
        Saving Star Wars (2004)
        Ravedactyl: Project Evolution (2005); short film
        Perfect Woman (2006)
        The Kindness of Strangers (2010)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funnily enough this explanation vanishes into thin air when insisting that IP is needed to protect florists, supermarkets and red carpet layers - things that "any fucker could do".
        
        Copyright cocksuckers just hate it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny, then, that copyright cultists love bringing up supermarkets as IP-intensive industries, but when it comes to an actual actor in a suit in an actual film, all they can say is "tough tits".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rather than continuing to wallow in abject stupidity; why don't you actually look into how SAG contracts are structured? Then after some time in the corner wearing your dunce cap- you can return with a lavish apology.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Whine, whine, insult, insult, ad hominem, neener neener neener. Now apologize to me!"
        
        No wonder you have to shove in laws via international bribery after you insult them.
        
        You copyright fanboys are such entitled tards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Don't suppose you have a single citation to back any of these recent nutty allegations, do you?"
        
        Seriously? I don't think even industry insiders would be so bold as to deny any of those claims. There's nothing particularly controversial or surprising there. Just par-for-the-course movie and music biz antics that make their protestations about "immoral" piracy such a joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 10:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nothing surprising or controversial?
        
        Sort of like the entertainment industries using the internet without paying for it.
        
        WTF does this mean? Like they go to Starbucks to get free wifi?
        
        Like the entertainment industries want everyone else to pay to do their dirty work.
        
        Oh, you mean they ask that the law be enforced or that other companies not facilitate the theft of their product?
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries are responsible for the Drug use of their employees.
        
        WTF, are you serious? Is your employer responsible for you being a demented asshole?
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries bribing government officials.
        
        Who, what, when where?
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries crooked book keeping.
        
        We have a system of laws and accounting in the US. While people might find the exploitation of loopholes distasteful, it's hardly limited to the entertainment industry. You should see how Google juggles its books to attribute profits to foreign subsidiaries while writing off its global R&D expense on its US taxes.
        
        Just like the Entertainment industries constantly being caught infringing copyrights and not paying anything close to what they ask for when the public does it.
        
        I'm sure you have an example but all civil suits are subject to different outcomes and settlements. A lot depends on how good your lawyers are and how hard you want to fight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 12:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "If your "innovation" requires breaking the law, then it's a bad business model."
      
      If if a popular innovation is breaking the law, then it's probably a bad law. And in case you've missed it, based on their actions it seems the general public believes that's the case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If your "innovation" requires breaking the law, then it's a bad business model
      
      I agree. We're not talking about that kind of "innovation", though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  Nice jingoism, sunshine. How exactly are "profiteers" making bank on "freeloaders"? And try to leave that "but but advertising!" trope in the leave-a-penny tray where it belongs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah, there's no money in infringement. Just ask Kim Dotcom.
    
    Wait...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Queen Phara seemed to do pretty well over at Ninjavideo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Crickets...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alt0, 2 Dec 2013 @ 11:34am

The more I read...
The more it seems the only way the Legacy players can rid the internet of piracy is to stop making movies.
I would say movies worth copying, but they did that years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:28pm

As we noted last week, this SOPAfication of the world is increasingly the goal of the entertainment industries, and they've been having a lot of success in Europe,...

I told you this would happen. You all we so smug after SOPA got derailed and now you're getting SOPA'ed without any of the judicial protections and additional goodies like six strikes (whatever happened to that parade of horribles anyway, Masnick) and other industry driven measures that you nor the courts have jack shit to say about. Congratulations on your victory!! Oh, I've heard that TPP's latest IP chapter will have a few additional aspects that may give you some heartburn as well. Merry Christmas!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Dec 2013 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  SOPA didn't provide any effective judicial protections, so nothing lost there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps you don't recall that in order to get a judgment, you first had to convince the court that the website was "dedicated to infringing activity". That is a fairly rigorous judicial standard, and the website was free to be present and argue that it did not meet that standard. Then if the court ruled that the website met that standard, the plaintiff would have to return to court and any sanctions it sought would also have to be approved by the court. At all times, the website had the same protections as any other civil litigant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
    
    So maybe you can explain to the class how those aren't effective judicial protections.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 2:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This thread is a giant pail of freetard fail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 4:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So a website owner was welcome to travel to America to face your corrupt courts?
      
      Yeah, great fucking protections..
      
      You are aware that the world does not start and stop at the American borders?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or he could retain US-based counsel. I don't understand: First you whine about no judicial involvement; then you whine about judicial involvement. And you call American courts corrupt? Please, douchenozzle! Why don't you tell us all about the court system in your country and why it is better. And I am aware of where the border is. But it is the rest of the world that is obsessed with American culture and has demonstrated its inability to mount any serious creative industry of its own. Seriously, tons of countries have LAWS on the books limiting American programming so as to force its citizens sit through its own stupefying "entertainment" lest they forget where they actually live.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In our courts here in Australia, iiNet kicked your fucking arse all over the court room. That is why you sleazy scumbuckets have to go the backdoor route to get TPP through.
        
        The Supreme Court ruling was that iiNet is not responsible for the actions of its users, so you scum are trying to have our laws modified. Sore losers, bad losers and losers overall who can't win without bribing politicians.
        
        It is too late, your fucktard American parasitic entertainment bribers have already got their hooks into our politicians.
        
        When are you going to start paying your fair share of property tax, you freeloading scum?
        
        Ahh, that is right, it is only property when it suits you, like it is a sale or a license when it suits you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 8:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What do you expect?
        
        Copyright cocksuckers just hate it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't like TPP? Don't sign it. The world can live without emu oil and frozen lamb chops. By the way, Australian Rules Football is for pussies and cricket is the dullest game in the history of modern civilization- and despite that you clowns still get owned by India, much to the merriment of your betters in the UK and Ireland.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2013 @ 9:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, the greatest gift of copyright supporters: insults and ad hominems about how the rest of the world is a rotting, backwater cesspool, necessitating the glorious legacy of life plus 70 years to pull us out of our doldrums. You've convinced us all that suing children for Beiber downloads will be our salvation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Dec 2013 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because what you're talking about was the process for only one relatively small part of SOPA. What about all those "voluntary" actions that various service providers are compelled to do, for example? The bar for those actions would have been very low.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 3 Dec 2013 @ 2:20am

If I were running a search engine and some court ordered me to start delisting sites based on someone's word, I would immediately delist every site even remotely associated with the corporation making the demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  Yes, but you run a cash register so maybe you can just overcharge the BBC exec for cucumbers next time he's in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2013 @ 7:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah, what BBC executive would lower himself to buy cucumbers? Nice ad hominem, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2016 @ 7:26pm

Anonymous64 and average_joe just hate it when due process is enforced. Meanwhile HADOPI is dead. Suck it, assholes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]