It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
from the maybe-think-on-that-a-bit-more dept
Last week we wrote a critical analysis of Elizabeth Warren's big plan to break up "big tech." As we noted, there was a lot in the plan that was nonsensical, unsupported by the facts or just plain confused. We'll be talking more about some of these ideas a lot over the next few years I imagine (stay tuned), but there was one line in Warren's plan that deserved a separate post: it appears that a part of Warren's big attack on big tech... is to give a massive handout to Hollywood. Here's the line:
We must help America’s content creators — from local newspapers and national magazines to comedians and musicians — keep more of the value their content generates, rather than seeing it scooped up by companies like Google and Facebook.
That may sound rather basic and lacking any details, but what's notable about it is that the language reflects -- almost exactly -- the language used in the EU in support of the absolute worst parts of the EU Copyright Directive (specifically, Article 11 and Article 13). For example, this Q & A page by the Legislative Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament uses quite similar language:
The draft directive intends to oblige giant internet platforms and news aggregators (like YouTube or GoogleNews) to pay content creators (artists/musicians/actors and news houses and their journalists) what they truly owe them;
Why, that sounds quite familiar. Indeed, Warren's announcement even uses "keep more of the value their content generates," which appears to be a reference to the completely made up notion of a "value gap" between what internet platforms make and what they should be paying artists.
It's no secret, of course, that those pushing strongest for Articles 11 and 13 plan to bring them to the US as soon as possible. Indeed, that's why we pointed out that it is quite important for Americans to pay attention to what's happening there -- as it's likely to follow across the Atlantic before too long. The fact that a leading Presidential candidate is already mimicking the language of such controversial European legislation is quite amazing, and suggests a Warren campaign that is very out of touch with what people actually want from their internet.
It's also kind of odd for someone who paints themselves as a "progressive politician" who will stand up "against big business" to be hinting at policies that are obviously designed solely as a wealth transfer mechanism to the giant Hollywood studios, major record labels, and large newspaper publishers. It's difficult to square that position with helping the little guy.
Similarly, one of our big concerns with Articles 11 and 13 is that, by their very nature, they will increase the monopoly issue. They are rules that only make sense if you have a few giant companies on each side negotiating with one another -- rather than a large number of competitors, and a wide variety of independent creators. So, it's doubly bizarre that Warren would include this suggestion in her big post about how terrible monopolies are and how she needs to break up big tech. Copyright-directive style proposals won't do that. They'll simply reinforce the dominant position of the big companies by making it nearly impossible for startups to even enter the market.
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: antitrust, article 11, article 13, artists, break up big tech, content creators, copyright, elizabeth warren, journalists, value gap
Companies: facebook, google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Absent clarification on her part, this just cost me my support for Warren.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
She's 100 percent correct: tech companies siphon money from creators and have been doing it for two decades. They didn't print the money out of thin air.
If infrastructure is all people want, they shouldn't expect content on top of it.
Might have to vote for her if she keeps talking like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"siphon money from creators"
and how long have the copyright holders been doing that for 100+ years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except they pay the creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes there are stories of people getting screwed by record labels, so we'll take away the right of the artist to make their own choices, and simply give all their money to the tech giants. Excellent plan. Makes total sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...we'll take away the right of the artist to make their own choices, and simply give all their money to the tech giants."
That would be a terrible thing to be happening. Lucky it's not even close to the truth. Artists have more choices available to them than ever before and can make more money than ever before. That's exactly why the legacy companies are freaking out and convincing gullible and/or corrupt politicians that Something Must Be Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists have more choices than ever before?
LOL
Google, Spotify and Amazon just SUED to try and prevent a royalty rate increase for songwriters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s nice and all but your strawman is making a huge mess all over the place and I’m afraid I’m going to have you to leave before someone trips over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1: I don’t care about your content.
2: I don’t care about the infrastructure that makes it when it comes at everyone else’s expenses. Build your own stuff.
3: im not even taking a risk and I’m just going to vote against her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Be strong and ignore all the naysayers attacking you.
Have you noticed all the attacks on Warren of late on Techdirt? The man-babies don't like the idea of strong independent women in charge so they have to sling mud at her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, ignore rational dissent. That's a great way to arrive at a well-thought-out resolution. Nothing breeds great solutions quite like an echo chamber of party talking points.
/s (for the mentally impaired)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please it's the indies who will start getting paid, not the major studios. Every dollar in Google's pocket was for the search function, not for what people actually search for.
Masnick argues at the level of an eight year-old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh please it's the indies who will start getting paid, not the major studios
Yeah, that's what always happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No they won't, they will lose their publication platforms, as the administrative costs of dealing with hundreds of thousands of them will swamp the benefits of being an open platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
New platforms will spring up. Google will lose its gravy train, and that's what bothers the crowd around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If those sites have to negotiate a license, and keep records for royalty payments, they will be selective about what they publish, and most people will not be able to find a publisher. The net effect will be that most creators will not have an opportunity to make money from their creations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You honestly think the commentariat here are Google partisans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You honestly think the commentariat here are Google partisans?"
The alternative might mean we have a point - which old Baghdad Bob won't be able to live with.
Hell, we should be happy he hasn't started repeating how we're all just acting "as expected from aspies" since, you know, he hasn't realized yet that trying to marginalize someone by putting them in the same category as half of the greatest geniuses through human history isn't a winning idea.
It's also pretty much the act of a shitty bigot to slur people with disabilities to begin with but we shouldn't ask him to act like an actual person after all the time he's spent on these boards proving he's basically made of hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hell, we should be happy he hasn't started repeating how we're all just acting "as expected from aspies" since, you know, he hasn't realized yet that trying to marginalize someone by putting them in the same category as half of the greatest geniuses through human history isn't a winning idea.
It's also pretty much the act of a shitty bigot to slur people with disabilities to begin with but we shouldn't ask him to act like an actual person after all the time he's spent on these boards proving he's basically made of hate."
You mean like "3 day hold," "batshi*t," "nutjob," "Mentally ill" and the fifty other slurs which appear here regularly?
Oh wait, Aspies can't detect irony. I'd post more but I have to go now, as it is definitely five minutes prior to the start of People's Court reruns starring the late judge Joseph P. Wapner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You lie worse then then then the Rita in front of Jesus 😆
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: King of Projection
“Masnick argues at the level of an eight year-old.”
He said when his opening statement was “Oh please”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: King of Projection
While you say he does not argue like that, I would have to digress and say that, in fact, he does too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought your rebuttal for any indies who don't rely on the copyright model was that nobody downloads, buys or steals from indies.
Funny to see how they matter to you all of a sudden when you're busy mocking works based on the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google makes money off the search function, i.e., what people use to find the CONTENT they want. Often the creators of that content work for next to nothing, while Google gets ad money because they put up a toll both on the highway there and then acted like that booth has to be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone is spreading the Spam a little thick this morning. Three posts, and not an honest fact among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Says "Gary" the astro-turfing done by some TD minion.
I like them. The opinions are just rare here at TD because you fanboys and astro-turfers so rabidly run off anyone who differs from the pro-corporate loony liberal / libertarian orthodoxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inquiring minds want to know.
Did you and Jhon boy ever consummate that crazy copyright wedding of yours? Did hamilton pit on his Fran Drescher mask and watch? Do tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And three different tones, like he wasn't making the other two posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personally I haven't decided if I like what Warren is stating. I agree that corporations are getting too big and need to break up but I also see that as trying to put out a single house fire when also the entire forest is burning. The part I am curious how else Google/any search engine make money. They get Ad money because their search functionality is free. It is because it is free to use that people will use it to find the stuff the content creator creates. If you don't want search engines to link to your stuff, it is a simple hidden line of script that keeps your content off of a search engine. Can you give an example of exactly how content creators would make money without leveraging a search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is more valuable to the internet user: content, or the search engine that finds the content?
No contest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try attracting people to your website while blocking the search engines with robots.txt, and not using the social media sites to promote your work, and see how many people find your content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quite the conundrum, why can't you have your cake and eat it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually it's debatable. As an internet user, content is useless to me if I can't find it, and a search engine is useless if there's no content to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's like a car and a paved road.
The latter might be useless without the former; but the former's usefulness is massively increased by the latter, without which it'd be nice to have sometimes but also kind of a pain in the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Totes right bro. Content is worthless if you can’t find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, there is no contest. Both are valuable to users and nobody except those with vested interests and a lack of intelligence wants to pick one over the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, last week you contrived pro-corporate attack on The Public.
My GREAT regret with Warren is that in her youth she FOOLISHLY started that "Native American" claim. I've been tempted to put that on forms too, but I decided never to get into politics. Anyhoo, while not perfect, Warren has some good ideas, and this is one. -- Politicians are either naturally insane and contradictory, or they're forced to adopt poisoned, majority-popularity-breaking positions to gain party support. There has NEVER been a politician I agree with fully or even mostly, ALL seem to have large loony flaws so that one can only pick out one or two topics -- immigration and anti-deep-state with Trump, say -- and hope that the rest isn't any worse than would be with, say, the murderous globalist dictatoress Hillary. We're always offered two HORRIBLE choices, by intent of The Establishment, it's divide-and-conquer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, last week you blanked
Mey Mac, please accept my downvote, courtesy of the TD user-driven moderation system.
At least you know who to blame - not me, but Tim, right? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, my guess is that astro-turfer YOU are Timothy Geigner.
My evidence is piling up. "Gary" had 12 accounts total in first two years, now has zoomed up to over 360 per year! It's not credible.
Repeating from below, since "Gary" brags about Techdirt's censoring:
Techdirt / Masnick claim is "the community" censoring, I mean "hiding" comments with a "voting system" in which are NO upvotes even possible.
Techdirt / Masnick even claim to not "Moderate". But of course there's an Administrator who decides. So the whole "hiding" scheme is a LIE. Masnick wants to censor (and must to prevent him being hooted off teh internets) so he's contrived and provides this mechanism by which he can claim isn't censoring and yet all dissent is effectively suppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry, my friend, but the world does not revolve around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 360 posts
Mac, thanks for reading all my posts! :)
Still waiting on you to "Leave and never come back" as promised, ya big lying buffon.
You can't even talk about the voting system without lying - so I gave you a big LOL vote for your efforts. Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In case you were interested in how blue is broken
Folks this is what paranoid schizophrenia looks like in real life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, last week you contrived pro-corporate attack on The Publ
"murderous globalist dictatoress Hillary" That is new, can you give an example? I hated both choices but I see Trump more along the lines of a dictator wannabe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a work has been lawfully put into a platform, then the copyright holder is due no more than what they agreed to at that time, and per the terms of any agreement, can always remove their work again. If a work has been put up unlawfully, then it’s up to the copyright holder to give proper notice to the platform so that it can be removed as the law requires. Only if a platform refused to do so, or put the work up itself, would it become liable.
As for aggregators, they really owe no one anything. Everyone is free to compile their own lists of information, whether this is lists of recent news events and links to stories covering them, or pretty much anything else, really, such as search results for information that’s online generally. Travel guides listing good restaurants owe nothing to the restauranteurs, reporters owe nothing when they discuss other reporters’ efforts (TV newsreaders often read directly from newspapers on the air, which I’ve always thought was odd; reporters frequently talk about how subjects of interest responded to other reporters, etc.). Selling ads against this is not new and not worth griping about.
And as has been noted around here for some time, imposing liability will not only cause substantial harm, it will nevertheless favor large businesses over small simply due to their greater ability to tolerate harm and to take costly measures to protect themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet the travel guides are worthless if that which they "guide" is not making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually a restaurant could probably demand to be removed from a travel guide if it wanted to, but the restaurant makes money so it likely waives any objection. That doesn't mean it couldn't protect its mark if it wanted to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong!
A listed restaurant could make the demand but it’s an empty demand that cannot be backed up. And the guide is protected by the nominative use doctrine in trademark law; anyone can use a mark to refer to the marked goods or services. They could try to claim defamation if they are listed and given a bad review, but as bad reviews are fundamentally just opinions, they’d have no chance of success, which is why it never happens successfully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except there's nothing preventing a site from using robots.txt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, and no analogy is perfect. I doubt that it’s possible to compel anyone to respect a robots.txt file, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except all major search engines including Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not always (a scenic overlook on the side of the road is unlikely to make money for anyone) but even if so, that isn’t the guide’s problem. If the destination goes out of business, the guide will remove the listing and soldier on. In fact, in many guides, the destination will pay for a better, bigger listing because the destination sees the value in the guide. Guides never pay destinations though— they don’t have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, she's not wrong. The statement is tautological. The platforms are paying the amount they owe, which is zero. If we change the law to require non-zero payment, they'll pay the new amount they owe (after a decade of legal appeals).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or... they'll stop linking to your stuff and owe nothing. You will also earn far less since it is now hard to find your stuff assuming anyone knows about it to begin with.
Search engines are effectively advertising your wares by listing and linking to them. They do this at no cost to you. Thank them instead of demanding they pay you for the privilege of making you more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absent clarification on her part, this just cost me my support for Warren.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I definitely agree that this needs some clarification, and leaves me with concerns about voting for Warren.
However, I'd add that, unless you're in an early primary state, it's probably premature to decide who you plan to vote for at this point. There are an awful lot of Democrats running, and a lot of them will be knocked out of the race within the first couple of primaries.
I keep reminding myself that at this point in 2007, I planned to vote for John Edwards. By the time my primary rolled around, he was out of the race -- which is just as well, knowing what we know about him now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are politicians promoting these little pet projects. This is something that affects a tiny portion of the US population. Infrastructure, Healthcare, income inequality, fighting non stop wars for 222 years. Just one of those platforms has more problems than any politician would have time to fix in 4-8 years. Fix the big problems and possible the little problems with fix themselves, if not work on them afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think Warren is wrong on this one, but you're speaking as if she hasn't had anything to say about infrastructure, healthcare, income inequality, or foreign policy. I think you'll find that she does, in fact, have stances on those issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I think you'll find that she does, in fact, have stances on those issues."
Does it matter?
Some political platforms are so toxic whatever her stance on other issues is does not matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one who brought it up.
If you consider this to be one of them, that's fair enough. I'm more likely to place it in the "very concerning, and hopefully she clarifies or changes her mind, but I still might vote for her in the primary and would certainly vote for her against Trump" column.
Somebody's going to be the Democratic nominee, and somebody's going to be the president. And I'm never going to agree with any candidate on everything. I'm more inclined to judge a candidate against all the other candidates than against perfection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No law is to be made unbalanced.
This is not a fair and unbalanced law..
It has to pertain to every corp..
On/Off the net.
Can we ask her, about how many jobs the Internet corps loose will give up, will Leave behind..
Fine kill it all, and you now have 1000's of jobs you need to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No law is to be made unbalanced.
They will have far more jobs than that to find; how many Americans make a living by being on YouTube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Masnick- writing stuff like this and pretending the tech giants don't cornhole content creators is totally going to convince people that black is white, so yeah, definitely keep doing that. I mean, you've been super effective at it up to this point, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If your metric for whether or not someone should keep talking is how many minds they've changed, then perhaps you should take your own advice and shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I need an automated account creator so I can up-lol-vote this a few thousand times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not interested in your strange sexual fantasies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nighty nighty keep your butthole right
Someone sounds super triggered. Best get back to your safe space bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What she'll do is take from Peter, (Google, Facrbook etc) and give to Paul, (Hollywood, the Labels and publishers) enabling them to do ehat they've been after for years, take control of the Internet and use it as a media distribution mechanism only! Even worse, they'll charge ordinary people for using a free service, only letting them on the net to do what is allowed! The 'free for everyone, everywhere forever will be destroyed, just like everything the industries always do, mostly through their own greed! And this stupid bitch wsnts to help the industries do that! Ehst a plum! I wonder how much she's getting out of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know that is her intention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because it is the same old situation, over and over and over. I am currently too lazy to do any of the research on her but the one tried and true method is follow the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, we did this in the last thread. OpenSecrets shows Alphabet as her ninth-biggest contributor; AT&T and Comcast (owners of Time-Warner and NBC-Universal, respectively) are a few slots down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
YOU are ruining the site, Masnick. No one reads Techdirt to get your opinions: we already know it!
I believe that reading and responding to comments is THE major draw. -- And so do YOU, that's why keep the plain HTML to invite everyone, AND at same time, why you suppress all dissent.
By the way, for new readers, IF any: Techdirt / Masnick claim is "the community" censoring, I mean "hiding" comments with a "voting system" in which are NO upvotes even possible.
Techdirt / Masnick even claim to not "Moderate". But of course there's an Administrator who decides. So the whole "hiding" scheme is a LIE. Masnick wants to censor (and must to prevent him being hooted off teh internets) so he's contrived and provides this mechanism by which he can claim isn't censoring and yet all dissent is effectively suppressed.
Just my thoughts when perfectly acceptable under common law terms comments were hidden AND then the fanboys who have NOTHING of interest to say comment that those are unacceptable.
And what the HELL do you fear in those comments? (Or mine, as this will be censored too.)
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU GAIN IN PRACTICE? The comments can still be seen, and visually the warning is jarring. That makes people NOT want to read the site AT ALL, which is proven by the millions who stay away every day. Techdirt is NOT appealing, to say the least.
YOU have very nearly ruined the site, kids. It's laughingstock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
Techdirt's article titles are very descriptive and seem to be aimed at the audience that surfs Google News, without necessarily clicking on to the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
When's the wedding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
Say, thanks "TFG" for providing yet another example of how any two dissenters agreeing a bit are attacked with ridicule as if lovers. -- It's another indication that many of the regulars with fixed screen name as YOU do "TFG", are actually the SAME astro-turfer repeating feeble little attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by W
When you can grow up and discuss the article maturely please do join the conversation. Until then you can keep your personal attacks and nonsensical jabs at the site to yourself and the voices in your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And by WHOM? Me the goddamn batman
If the copyrighed shoe fits bro. By the way if that attack was so feeble why did you respond to it like it deeply wounded you? Also why you still here bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by W
Desired response achieved.
The reason I have chosen to only engage in snide commentary is because past experience with you and the AC who responded to you has proven that there is no legitimate method of engaging either of you in actual conversation.
It is therefore not worthwhile to actually attempt to argue in good faith. As you remain stone-deaf to any arguments that are not in agreement with you, and concoct elaborate scenarios rife with unsubstantiated assumptions that you take as gospel truth (see Astro-Turfing claims) you don't rate anything else.
Essentially, at this point, you are for entertainment purposes only. I flag your posts when I see them (thanks for making it obvious with your random, sometimes punny names, btw) and when I find some amusement in it, I'll poke you to see what nonsense comes out in response.
In terms of actually listening to you? You'd have to have something worthwhile to say, and you'd need to actually listen back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is fair play
They don't engage honestly and throw out insults like a child during recess, and as such they deserve no respect and are free game for mockery and derision(assuming you don't just ignore and flag them).
By their own actions they have ensured that they be treated as they are, dishonest trolls(at best), and for them to object to being treated no differently than they treat others just adds the hypocritical cherry on top of the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
Yeah, I agree that one doesn't need to read more than the "descriptive" titles to know EXACTLY the pro-corporate Establishment hackery. -- It's another sign that Masnick doesn't actually care to even appear impartial and draw a large audience. Has his few fanboys, his astro-turfers, and his hooters like me.
The site is for entertainment purposes only.
You cannot dissent and get treated fairly. The site removes all incentive from anyone who differs. -- It's amazing that the site ISN'T actually trolled, but that's because the dissenters generally have old-fashioned decency instead of the empty ad hom of the fanboys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
When your dissent isn't factual and boils down to "Masnick lies, techdirt sucks!" you get what you sow.
It shouldn't be that hard to understand, but as we seen you do it again and again while complaining you aren't treated fairly which can only mean that you are kind of stupid to change you ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, Blue, I call BULLSHIT and I can prove my point.
I've had thousand word discussions with Average Joe in the past and he disagreed with pretty much any view Techdirt held. The difference is that Average Joe at least had enough human decency to actually respond to counter points (and not simply ignore them like you) and mostly behaved in a civil manner (unlike you) and refrained from name calling (also unlike you).
Communication is a two-way street. If your communication problems are between you and everyone else, then the common denominator is YOU. Learn to talk and debate like an adult and the "problem" of your comments being hidden by the people you are attempting to communicative with will be negligible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Above comment is mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's also worth noting that Mason Wheeler, btr1701, and bamboo harvester occasionally dissent from both article points and majority commenter opinion.
Notably, I don't see their dissenting opinions getting flagged and hidden on a regular basis. In some cases the lack of listening is there, but they notably refrain from accusatory nonsense and abusive behavior.
Can you tell the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
Just like people read the headlines of papers on display in a newsagent, and do not buy the paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
And yet, if the reader has the option to click on a post that has been "moderated" to see it. I just did. I didn't gain anything beneficial but I read it. How is that been censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The self-entitlement is strong with that one
Because they think that not only do they have a 'right' to post on someone else's platform(they don't, it's entirely a privilege) but that they have the 'right' to be 'heard'(which is also wrong).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
Comments censored within 10 minutes?
Come on friends, we’re all better than this. I think that if we reflect on what’s best for ourselves, for the site, and for good, honest debate generally, and act accordingly in a forthright fashion, we can get this down to five minutes, tops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
There ought to be a filter that auto-hides any post that contains the name of any of the regular article writers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
Ah, but that would hide people who are actually attempting to engage in real discourse with the article writers as well, or might use their name in legitimate discourse with other commenters.
There are cases where the article writers respond to commenters. Should we auto-hide the comments that respond to those comments, because they address the poster by name?
It's the automation problem in miniature. How could a bot determine that an anonymous comment that uses the words "Mike Masnick" is from one of the troll ACs or is from someone brand new who is actually trying to interact? How can algorithm determine this nuance?
I certainly don't have an answer - and looking at similar attempts, it doesn't seem that there is one out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And by WHOM? The goddamn Batman
“kids. It's laughingstock.”
Careful your bride to be is queen of projection in these parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M.O.R.O.N
Hey, Moron, maybe you should try not proving yourself wrong in the same comment. If they can still be seen, it's not censoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU GAIN IN PRACTICE? The comments can still be seen
See, even you yourself admit you're not being censored.
That makes people NOT want to read the site AT ALL
Only you could bitch about achieving your own personal victories.
Never mind the fact that said personal victories aren't actual victories.
Also, I'm not from Bangladesh. That puts the piss in your cereal, don't it blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
By anyone who has added techdirt to their RSS feed, possibly?
Sorry, Baghdad Bob, but if a few dozen subscribers suddenly find their ping screens flooded with the raw sewage you keep putting out in such copious amounts it does not call for a conspiracy theory when said subscribers try to stem the tide of rancid shit as soon as they possibly can.
Metaphorically you keep walking into a building, pulling down your pants, and shit on the floor. And you wonder why people are quick to show you out. This, in your mind, even merits a question as to why and how...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a fan of Warren, but yeah that rhetoric is concerning. As big a critic as she is of big business and its influence on politics, she absolutely should not be repeating lobbyist talking points like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Warren to attack Google, Facebook, and others)
Tech Media: "Yeah! Go get em Elizabeth!"
(Warren includes Apple on that list for doing the exact same monopolistic things)
Tech Media: "She's clearly crazy!"
Amazing what a difference a day makes. This is bias you can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
Where has the tech media lauded Warren's attack on Google and Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To be fair, Apple isn't a monopoly in any meaningful sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Their App Store is one in a very meaningful sense: it's the only way to get third-party apps onto an iOS device. No competitor is allowed to run a competing service, and no developer is allowed to simply put their app up for download on the Web and let people download and install it for themselves. There is no way to get your work into the iOS ecosystem without Apple taking their cut, and if that's not monopolistic I don't know what is.
And before anyone says it, yes, a very, very narrow sideloading exception exists, but that's for first-party apps (stuff you, or more likely the organization you work for, created yourself) rather than third-party programs. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And Google's app store is the only (easy) way to load apps onto your Android device.
When you buy a phone you're buying the phone and its ecosystem which includes the app store associated with it. They come together as one product. You can't expect to attach your iOS device to the Google Play store nor your Android device to the Apple App Store.
You've basically said "Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices!". Uh, yeah. They sure do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least with Android you can relatively easily add third party apps from outside the Play store. Just download the app and change a system setting to allow outside app packages to be installed.
The downside to that is that you take on some security risk. If you do this, I recommend toggling the setting back after you installed what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, actually. You're perfectly free to put a competing app store on an Android device, or to load apps without one. It's not locked down in any way even remotely comparable to what Apple has done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who do you believe?
I used to agree with almost everything tech dirt writes about copyright and artists renumeration. But then I started reading David Lowery at the Trichordist. While I recommend him and Chris Castle of the subject, I have to add the caveat that David is bombastic, hyperbolic, and insufferable at times- BUT, he has made me realize that the situation is a lot more complicated than presented in posts like this.
I also read Bill Rosenblatt who is one of the most sound and unbiased thinkers on copyright I know of. I still don't know where to put my feet on the issue. I think both Warren and the views represented in this post mean well and want what is best, but the situation just seems far more complex than most people are willing to admit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who do you believe? Definitely not Trichordist.
Considering the first article on their front page is an attack on Cloudflare because they offer an "anonymizing screen" to their customers and basically accuse them of being a criminal organization because of it, yeah I think you might want to reconsider that site as a legitimate source of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do you believe? Definitely not Trichordist.
Yeah, they absolutely lost me at 'David Lowery', given the massive(and dishonest) fit he threw a few years back in the comment section, which for me at least absolutely tanked any possibility of ever taking anything he says seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do you believe?
Lowery and Castle are idiots who share half a wit between them. Rosenblatt I am less familiar with but a quick skim of his site suggests that he’s way too into blockchain and at least is okay with the maximalist position.
I don’t think the situation is really all that complex, though. Focus on the public interest and the best way to achieve it and you’ll rarely if ever go wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do you believe?
Hi David!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do you believe?
David Lowery... you mean the guy who purchased a domain "fightcopyrightrolls.com", referencing "fightcopyrighttrolls.com", to redirect to his own site and mislead people looking for a supportive community when under attack by the likes of Prenda?
Yeah, when your "but the other side" is a guy who believes that accusation by porn trolls is all the evidence you need of copyright infringement guilt, you don't have a fucking leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do you believe?
The trichordist?
Their recent attacks on CDN's is the digital equivalent of complaining that the presence of road networks enables crime.
There's no real middle ground to be found here, when the pro-copyright side views even the most basic logic with contempt when it contrasts the braying chorus of "Pay us! Pay Us!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As with pasta, likewise with press releases...
... in either case 'throw everything at the wall to see what sticks' is a bad idea.
Between this and the previous post I'm starting to think that whoever's running her campaign is just throwing things out that they think will make them sounds good, without putting much thought into what they actually mean.
(I'd still love to know whether her 'break up tech' plan includes Comcast and company, of if they'd be completely untouched. If anyone with a Twitter account could ask her for clarification on that, it'd be appreciated.)
If that is what's going on here she needs to fire whoever's doing her PR quick, as they are not doing her any favors repeating rhetoric straight out of the wildly unpopular Copyright Directive fluff pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a funny way of saying "repeated advertising industry talking points".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Says the lying troll repeating legacy copyright industry talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want to get rid of Google and facebook? ...make advertising illegal.
Want musicians and film makers to get more money for their creations? ...get rid of the labels and studios (since they're the ones doing the most stealing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know. I trust Elizabeth Warren more than Axel Voss
I find it hard to believe that Elizabeth Warren, and The Democratic Party in General, would brazenly betray America's own fight to save the internet from big Telecom by allowing Big Hollywood to wreck havoc. Pushing for something as unpopular as Article 13 and Article 11 is such a politically suicidal move bound to give Republicans a weapon to take back power with, including giving Trump a second term.
Speaking of which:
https://boingboing.net/2019/03/11/rep-greg-walden.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know. I trust Elizabeth Warren more than Axel Voss
Then you underestimate the human capacity for greed, stupidity, and willingness to jump on a short term gain that actually shoots themselves in the foot long term. Not saying all humans are like that but the capacity is there.
I'm willing to give Elizabeth Warren the benefit of the doubt and assume she is just completely ignorant of how any of this new fangled "internet" technology works, instead of a money grubbing sellout. But I reserve the right to change my mind should evidence otherwise come to light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know. I trust Elizabeth Warren more than Axel Voss
"Pushing for something as unpopular as Article 13 and Article 11 is such a politically suicidal move bound to give Republicans a weapon to take back power with, including giving Trump a second term. "
That sounds disturbingly plausible...
The deep hatred and resent many have for Trump could also be the perfect spoon-full of sugar to make Article 13/11 go down without a fight. =works both ways in this twisted system where people just chose the least evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]