Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
from the your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine dept
I’m certainly not the first person (especially on Techdirt) to point out that if conservatives are really concerned about online censorship, they should be putting copyright law under the microscope, rather than, or at least in addition to, Section 230.
The New York Post debacle and gating President Trump’s post-election tweets are the most recent arrows in the quiver for anti-tech conservatives. It doesn’t have anything to do with copyright (though Hunter Biden’s emails, if they’re real, are eligible for copyright protection). But whenever Section 230 is used as a synecdoche for the more general laws that govern what private tech companies can and can’t do on their sites, I cannot help but ask myself, “why aren’t conservatives up in arms about copyright law?”
I haven’t done a full accounting of all conservative run-ins with online content moderation policies. Still, at least for the President, the only instances something he has posted was taken down–not had a warning label attached, but properly removed–were for copyright infringement. In one case, Trump erroneously blamed Twitter and Section 230 for the removal of a video on copyright grounds.
Trump’s campaign has also gotten into legal trouble by playing music to which he doesn’t have the rights at rallies, and conservative figures have been on the receiving end of clearly bogus claims of copyright infringement. Of course, this isn’t to dismiss other cases where content has been removed, whatever you may think of them. My point is this: Put yourself in the shoes of a right-winger online, and you’d think copyright would get at least as much airtime as Section 230, or any airtime at all. Yet such criticisms are nowhere to be found.
Why is this the case? I have a few theories, though none are particularly satisfying:
One: Copyright is Private Property
I am emphatically against this position, but many conservatives subscribe to the belief that copyright is property and deserves the same moral treatment as tilled land or gathered acorns appropriated by mixing one’s labor with it. My disagreements with this position aside, it’s an idea that must be taken seriously on the merits and, more relevant to this discussion, because it’s a sincerely held belief.
From this vantage point, it’s easy to see why the right isn’t up in arms about DMCA takedown notices, automated copyright systems, or artists not allowing their songs to be used at political rallies. If someone owns their property, they have a claim against the world to exclude others from its use. You’re under no obligation to host a political rally (especially one supporting positions with which you disagree) on your front yard. You can own content in the same way you own your land. Thus you can restrict the use of your work.
This is a straightforward position, but one which contradicts claims of unlawful or unjustified censorship by tech platforms. Twitter and Facebook own their websites in the same way I own my work or someone else owns their lawn. If preventing someone from speaking by using one of these is censorship, they must all be considered censorship.
Though the treatment of works protected by copyright as property seems like an easy way to separate copyright enforcement from content moderation, Twitter has just as strong a claim to ownership of its website as a photographer does to a photo or an artist to a song. Whether or not enforcing one’s copyright constitutes censorship, both these views run into an all-or-nothing wall.
Two: China
The terms “thief” and “infringer” are often used interchangeably. Still, if if you’re criticizing the unauthorized user of a copy who you don’t like for other reasons, you’re more likely to call them a thief due to the negative connotation associated with the word. A thief deprives someone of the fruits of their labor, while an infringer sounds like someone who forgot to check the right box on form E-7A.
And that’s what the U.S. has done in the case of intellectual property violations by Chinese actors. Allegations of theft cover more than just copyright, extending to a wide range of behaviors ranging from outright espionage to strong-arming business partners into transferring technology. And, while there’s no shortage of bootleggers operating out in the open in China, those complaining about Chinese IP theft are more concerned about patents and trade secrets than works protected by copyright.
All that being said, when grievances are aired about the Chinese government, complaints of intellectual property theft inevitably come up alongside far more serious charges against the regime. This tweet from Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) best illustrates this dynamic:
Or - and hear me out - the communist Chinese govt and its collaborators could stop stealing American IP, imprisoning religious minorities like the #Uyghurs, and trampling on #HongKong’s lawful autonomy and basic rights. Until then, strong sanctions for perpetrators are necessary. https://t.co/QHGhU3Yzij
— Senator Pat Toomey (@SenToomey) June 26, 2020
Whatever you think about the extent of and damage done by these technology transfers, putting that next to two egregious human rights abuses, one of which meets the UN’s definition of genocide, is in extremely poor taste and demonstrates a complete lack of perspective. Still, it shows just how closely we associated IP theft with the other crimes of the CCP.
Were conservatives to confront the serious drawbacks associated with aggressive enforcement of copyright, they would admit that infringement (“theft”) is something we should be less concerned with.Perhaps we should even change the scope of what is covered by copyright, i.e., say what was once “stealing” shouldn’t be.
Decrying Chinese IP theft is most certainly bipartisan, and the beating of this drum helps cement the association of IP theft with “the baddies.” But a subconscious association still doesn’t explain the indifference to the issue. Most of the conservatives’ copyright-related censorship doesn’t deal with the wholesale piracy associated with China, and the PRC is a lucrative export market for works protected by copyright. And all that aside, this train of logic is probably too clever by half.
Three: Stronger Copyright Enforcement Hurts Big Tech
Notice-and-stay-down requirements, expanded reach of ContentID and similar systems, link taxes, or any other measures that (implicitly or explicitly) shift the costs of enforcement from the latter to the former most certainly harm the bottom line of tech companies.
I should point out, of course, that while Google or Facebook can afford to sink tens of millions into copyright filters, this requirement would be crippling to smaller websites and a serious barrier to entry for would-be rivals to these larger platforms. These things matter for competition.
Whether or not these rules make it easier or harder for an upstart to dethrone current dominant platforms, these added costs--either through compliance costs or costs associated with litigation--will most certainly harm big tech’s bottom line. Throw Google v. Oracle into the mix, and it’s easy to see how stronger copyright enforcement is viewed as a way to go after big tech.
A better explanation, then, centers on the political dynamics of techlash. Big tech companies are in everyone’s crosshairs, set up a clear “corporate Goliath interfering with democracy” narrative, and are easier to stay focused on than whichever rights holder objects to their content being used online. Anyone can lay out a laundry list of offenses against big tech companies (some more justified than others), but this or that rights holder (or person claiming to be a rights holder) taking down an infringing image doesn’t lend itself to a clean narrative.
Four: Copyright Isn’t Cool
Whenever someone tells me copyright isn’t sexy, my immediate response is “if that’s true, then why does porn come up so much?” But my personal feelings aside, there comes a time when every copyright nerd must accept one hard truth: copyright law isn’t cool.
For any question of the form “why doesn’t [politician or political body] talk about [issue]” the easy answer is “they don’t care.” Saliency and elite opinion matter. If headlines about an issue won’t draw views or elites can’t be bothered to care, it won’t see the light of day.
But here’s the problem with this narrative: when you get down to it, Section 230 also isn’t particularly cool. Laws that determine who is liable for what online aren’t particularly interesting. Of course, Section 230 is in the news, but I think that’s because it’s been erroneously coupled to the cooler issue of free speech (or at least coupled in a way which misstates the dynamic), about which everyone has an opinion.
Section 230 probably became a buzzword due to the debate surrounding sex trafficking and SESTA/FOSTA, and the momentum has carried over into other issues while sucking the oxygen necessary for a productive debate around copyright. Let’s return to the tweet flagged for copyright infringement, the removal of which Trump blamed on Section 230. Nobody has ever accused the President of being detail-oriented. Still, his being exactly wrong on this issue is the product of the fact that everyone is talking about Section 230 but (virtually) nobody was talking about copyright.
From this angle, the answer for why copyright doesn’t get the attention that Section 230 does is as simple as it is unsatisfying: because Section 230 got more attention.
--------
All of the above explanations have their shortcomings. This is just an exploratory look at why conservatives have ignored the role copyright plays in current debates surrounding online censorship, which is a fancy way of saying I don’t have an actual conclusion. Even so, there’s some value to be found in examining why certain policies aren’t scrutinized, even if that value is only therapeutic.
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: censorship, conservatives, copyright, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright law massively favours entrenched players in a creative field and the entire purpose of the republican party is to roll up the ladder so as few people can climb out of poverty as possible. The only way conservatives are going to start caring about copyright law is if major corporate players start lose their stranglehold on popular culture to the individual, if major properties get pulled from the hands of Warner Brothers or Disney by their creators, then they will move heaven and earth to make sure that they tighten laws to make it all so much worse for everyone.
Musicians not wanting republicans to use their work is inconvenient for their politicians, but it's not a fight they feel that is worth having on a PR front, and they know a song can't be unplayed once they've used it a few times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it was more of a rhetorical question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
are you saying the republican party is a pyramid scheme?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
that would explain a lot, frankly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"...are you saying the republican party is a pyramid scheme?"
Most of US politics is. The republican version just happens to have a far, FAR wider base and a disproportionately tall and narrow center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Copyright law massively favours entrenched players in a creative field and the entire purpose of the republican party is to roll up the ladder so as few people can climb out of poverty as possible. "
False, that would be Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Nuh uh" and "no, u" are still not actual arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because copyright law is applied in an asymmetric way, one which benefits the gate keepers over the creator, politicians like it, because it helps their pals grow their fortunes, and push donations in their direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neck-snapping reversal in first paragraph!
Section 230 and coryright are NOT connected in any mind not intent on attacking copyright and defending the alleged right of corporations to censor.
Not worth reading the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neck-snapping reversal in first paragraph!
Then why did you take the time to comment? You could always go and start your own blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you get to your real worry: corporate profits.
BOO FUCKING HOO. -- Now ya done it, got me being vulgar.
This -- can't call it an article -- not even polemic -- it's just text in support of corporatism, no doubt paid for by corporate money -- NOTE he doesn't give an org -- and certainly by a liberal -- NOTE that he avoids all statements about self in order to preach to opponents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then you get to your real worry: corporate profits.
The old shill gambit... One of the last refuges of a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this comment mean you think corporations can’t enforce copyright because corporations have no rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worst article I’ve ever read on tech dirt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nice
And yet you still read it, so the magic code strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero: "Conservative" doesn't mean shit
My theory is that the term "conservative" doesn't mean anything anymore. It's just a thing politicians say because they think it will appeal to a certain set of people. Any relationship to actual conservatism is purely coincidental.
(The same goes for "liberal", by the way.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try to be quieter about this, you will make Leonard French sad.
More seriously, copyright really is not cool, it is a pain to deal with regardless of whether you are buying a license or a copyright owner looking to sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Option 4 seems the most plausible. Right-wing complaints about Internet regulation are entirely geared to creating a sense of grievance. They're not based on principles, even the principles that one might expect an "economic conservative" or "small-government advocate" to espouse. They're grandstanding, meant to help the Fox/Breitbart/OANN audience claim the role of persecuted minority. In this mindset, "Section 230" isn't a law to be understood and debated --- it's a totem. Expecting the debate over tech regulation to involve serious, self-consistent policy wonkery is roughly as feasible as hoping that a young-earth creationist actually cares about DNA mutation rates.
People from across the spectrum can end up operating in this way; it's just psychology. But it's the psychology at work in the right-wing ecosystem now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CR and other things
Like taxes and the IRS and the Pentagon. All need abit of fixing.
Its strange that tariffs were designed only to compete with imported products. So that those Made in the USA had a chance to sell. but recently its a Fight for everything made anywhere. Because the corps Dont make much of anything in the USA. And if we do, its bought and exported for Quality concerns.
China and Hong Kong are NOT our problem. China Loves Hong Kong, but wants Their people to understand China. China isnt Communist anymore. They are taking advantage of Hong Kong. Putting people to work int he surrounding area, and Learning how the rest of the world Works. I give China another 20 years before another revolution.
BUT, besides those strange TRADE agreements the corps keep shoving at the other nations. Our CR system has no meaning to other nations. They dont need to obey any of our laws. And Corps that deal with Hong Kong need to understand this, because Hong Kong Now belongs to CHINA.
So. sending your idea/product to be made in China is asking "Why dont I make it myself, or have someone in the USA build it?"
Plus's for other countries, are Cheap materials, No Pollution Laws, Their taxes are NOT my taxes, Labor. and the Answer is? Corps in the USA have over charged for along time. Labor was/is Hard to get a DECENT wage after everyone raises prices.
Think about the USA in the last 8 months and the prices at the gas station. Inflated prices DROPPED(at 1 point the Stocks were -$35, think about being PAID to buy stocks). The middle men Didnt loose money, he lowered prices so he could keep selling. This has shown us how Over priced our Goods are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well...
Five: Big Media LOVES Copyright
Suppose for a second that a major cable news network, regardless of political leaning or bias, invites on a politician who wants to talk about online censorship and how much of it is causing a problem. If that politician brings up section 230, they can stay on. Section 230 doesn't affect the MSNBC's, CNN's, and Fox News's of the world. Change that to copyright and/or the DMCA, they'll cut off the mic. Media conglomerates love copyright just as much as the MPAA and RIAA. That should be no secret.
Furthermore, they see the rise of the Internet as creating a bunch of new competition for these networks. Section 230 helps the free and open internet. Stronger copyright enforcement hurts it. And as I stated before on Techdirt, politicians need positive news coverage so they can get re-elected. Talking about copyright hurts that prospect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well...
...do you have examples of anyone at any of those networks cutting off somebody's mic for talking about copyright and/or the DMCA?
Not really; the vast majority of incumbents get reelected. But I'm sure they like the campaign contributions from the RIAA and MPAA.
Not for nothin', the head of the MPAA is a former senator Chris Dodd; he's still friends with a lot of people in the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well
Specific examples, no. I was more or less being dramatic. My point was more so how big media TAKES ADVANTAGE of using copyright as a tool for censorship. There isn't one cable news network that isn't owned by a giant corporation with special interests in copyright maximalism.
I probably shouldn't have used the word "needed". A better phrase would have been "politicians like positive news coverage so they can reach more potential voters and improve their chance of getting re-elected." And even in this case, sometimes negative news coverage is better than no news coverage. It takes guts for a politician to stand up to big media. But good point on campaign contributions from the MPAA and RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another possible reason, and it affects the left as
Yes, and that could be why you don't see cable news networks talking about copyright reform much.
But the reason congresspeople don't talk about it much isn't so much about who owns the TV networks as who owns the congresspeople.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well...
Politicians can get reelected with negative news coverage, too. As polarized as this country is, especially now, any kind of news coverage will increase popularity with one side or the other and have negligible impact on the other (who already hates them). In politics, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well...
"Section 230 doesn't affect the MSNBC's, CNN's, and Fox News's of the world."
It definitely affects their online presence, and their use of third party sites to promote themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone can sincerely believe “Earth is flat” or “gay people are subhuman abominations who will bring the wrath of God upon this world in the near future”, but I don’t have to take those beliefs seriously only because of the sincerity of the person who holds them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if your objective is to figure out why someone is holding a "God hates fags" poster, it would be a mistake to ignore those beliefs. Similarly, if the objective is to understand the focus on section 230 instead of copyright, it's necessary to consider all relevant beliefs, regardless of their merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trash Article
This isn't an article from Masnick who far exceeds in his professionalism in writing. If anyone has followed his written articles, you'll know this article headline from top to bottom is amateur at best and BIASED, lacking the knowledge from prior works that Masnick himself has written, which has substance and facts, unlike this article.
Example. Wouldn't you think that Masnick himself would have written an article with the headline already, given the years of work he has dedicated to copyright if it were true? Obviously, he hasn't because it isn't true. Everything else in the article is either opinion or BIASED. Hence the subject, it's a trash article.
If the author knew copyright half as good as Masnick or anyone else that writes professionally about copyright for websites elsewhere,i.e. Torrentfreak. The headline wouldn't be the headline, and the content of the article wouldn't be based on opinion and BIASED with false statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trash Article
Nobody cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trash Article
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trash Article
Are you expecting Candyman to come in and slay the people who question you if you keep repeating a word over and over again? Do you expect Beetlejuice to change reality so that you suddenly made a decent argument? Bloody Mary to announce that single word arguments are now adult discourse?
Come on, explain to me why you think this word is a magic incarnation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trash Article
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives care about copyright the way they care about anything else - when it affects them personally. If they stand to benefit from it, they will defend it passionately. If it benefits them to to have it, they will pretend it doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You keep coming in here with that same one word response. I can only conclude that you have no actual rebuttals and you're scared of the truth being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You too are as clueless as the author of this article. You don't have a clue of a majority of Masnicks work where this article is baseless, misleading, and false. And if it were ever true, which it isn't(neither are your statements to mine), Mike Masnick would have written about it years ago, over and over and over again with sources to his own work that prove this to be true, which he hasn't because it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure that Mike, who gave the author of this article the space to publish it, gives as little of shit about your opinions as I do.
But, thanks for clarifying you don't have a real argument in rebuttal to anyone else's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm more sure now than ever that what I said was right. Talking down to me is your only recourse after making false statements, then following up with more false statements. I don't care about your hurt feelings.
Masnick gave the amateur space to write starting this year. Given my prior statements, they are true. Compared to yours, they are false. It matters because when the article itself (including the headline) ends up being a trash article. Readers are going to say something about it, especially those who are long time readers of Techdirt, such as myself.
My statements are real arguments clearly because you yourself are trying to silence me with your baseless and misleading insults.
Good journalism from Techdirt usually comes from Mike Masnick himself. When I read trash like this, knowing there are present articles that debunk the statements in the article, including the headline is false. Criticism is necessary.
But, thanks for clarifying you don't give a shit about the fact that Masnicks years of articles debunk everything this article was about and trying to silence me for it. You just ended up proving my point. You don't know what you are talking about.
Also, please don't write to me again. Obviously, you and the author of this article need to go back and read every single article Mike Masnick has ever written. This article needs to be deleted because of its fact-free and BIASED, like your statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Talking down to me is your only recourse after making false statements,"
No, it's my only recourse because you fail to provide any counter argument other than "nuh uh" and "I'm butthurt because someone disagreed with my fantasy version of what someone else would have said".
"Masnick gave the amateur space to write starting this year."
No, he gives guest spots and new writers a spot every year. If you believe he's wrong to do that, provide a reason.
"Also, please don't write to me again"
I will do whatever I want on this public forum, thanks. If you disagree with that, try and adult conversation rather than childish whining. I stand by my statements, and am happy to discuss them when you grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's my only recourse because you fail to provide any counter argument other than "nuh uh" and "I'm butthurt because someone disagreed with my fantasy version of what someone else would have said".
Obviously, you would rather make false statements than actually READ mike Masnicks articles starting from day one.
No, he gives guest spots and new writers a spot every year. If you believe he's wrong to do that, provide a reason.
False, if you look, the author has been writing for Techdirt starting this year.
I will do whatever I want on this public forum, thanks. If you disagree with that, try an adult conversation rather than childish whining. I stand by my statements and am happy to discuss them when you grow up.
I asked nicely. Are you stalking me? I feel like I'm talking to an argumentative child who doesn't know how to READ. WHo hasn't read enough articles from Mike Masnick to know this article is BULLSHIT, and would rather talk down to whom knows this article is BULLSHIT.
I don't want to talk to you. Your head is up your ass. Your statements are FALSE, and I stand by what I've written from start to finish on each statement I have made because I know what I am talking about and clearly YOU do NOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Obviously, you would rather make false statements than actually READ mike Masnicks articles starting from day one"
I've read them, but that's irrelevant. What's needed is for you to actually quantify what you dislike about the article you're commenting on, and provide something other than childish whining and single word answers to things you don't like.
"False, if you look, the author has been writing for Techdirt starting this year."
Lol you might want to learn the meaning of words. I stated a verfiable fact, so the correct rebuttal to that is not "false". Either you're lying or you don't know what the word you keep using means.
Furthermore, your words that I quoted did not refer to an author but rather to a "space", either a collection of people or an area on the website. So, learn to use words correctly, and then reader can understand that you meant this one author.
Now that we've established that your childish mind is referring to this specific author, what particular issues do you have with his writing, and why are you intend on meaningless rants about him rather than just skipping to the next article written by someone you do wish to read? Driving more traffic to this author's articles while not stating why others reading it should not agree with the words written is a strange way of addressing your problems.
"Your statements are FALSE"
They're really not, you just don't seem to understand words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I've read them, but that's irrelevant. What's needed is for you to actually quantify what you dislike about the article you're commenting on, and provide something other than childish whining and single word answers to things you don't like.
Lol, you might want to learn the meaning of words. I stated a verifiable fact, so the correct rebuttal to that is not "false". Either you're lying or you don't know what the word you keep using means.
Furthermore, your words that I quoted did not refer to an author but rather to a "space", either a collection of people or an area on the website. So, learn to use words correctly, and then reader can understand that you meant this one author.
Now that we've established that your childish mind is referring to this specific author, what particular issues do you have with his writing, and why are you intend on meaningless rants about him rather than just skipping to the next article written by someone you do wish to read? Driving more traffic to this author's articles while not stating why others reading it should not agree with the words written is a strange way of addressing your problems."
My first statement answers your last question.
"They're really not, you just don't seem to understand words."
False statements such as this is why I don't want to talk to you. Again, don't write to me. You're really not worth my time to write to. You're really nobody I need to write to anyway. You're just wasting my time in order to dismiss taking accountability going back, reading articles Masnick has wrote and what he hasn't and actually seeing why this article is BULLSHIT.
Furthermore, I encourage others who haven't read Masnicks articles that has read this garbage, to go back and read Mike Masnick's many articles about copyright, along with another source that covers heavily about copyright, Torrentfreak. Then you'll realize this article is amateur, borderline identity politics TRASH.
I refuse to go over the history of copyright and the articles that cover DECADES of copyright news by actual journalism that Mike Masnick himself has covered on, Just because you want satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My first statement answers your last question."
No, it doesn't. I'm sorry that you're too dumb to understand why.
"False statements such as this is why I don't want to talk to you"
Once again, "false" is a word with an actual definition and it's not what you seem to think it is. There's nothing false about my correct, verifiable observation that you don't appear to understand the words you're saying, and that you have presented no actual argument in response to either the article or the comments in the thread thus far.
Do you have anything to actually say, or are you running some kind of competition to see how many times you can incorrectly use the word "false".
As for the rest of your nonsense - again, I've read other articles, that doesn't change the fact that you refuse to state what you actually have a problem with. No, "durrrr Mike does better journalism" is not a valid argument. Make one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My first statement answers your last question."
No, it doesn't. I'm sorry that you're too dumb to understand why.
"False statements such as this is why I don't want to talk to you"
Once again, "false" is a word with an actual definition and it's not what you seem to think it is. There's nothing false about my correct, verifiable observation that you don't appear to understand the words you're saying, and that you have presented no actual argument in response to either the article or the comments in the thread thus far.
Do you have anything to actually say, or are you running some kind of competition to see how many times you can incorrectly use the word "false".
As for the rest of your nonsense - again, I've read other articles, that doesn't change the fact that you refuse to state what you actually have a problem with. No, "durrrr Mike does better journalism" is not a valid argument. Make one."
You talk like one of those paid trolls that hasn't a clue about the history of copyrght, just like the author of this article. Proves to me that you're responses are meaningless GARBAGE.
Keep swimming in your own ignorance, you're drowing in BULLSHIT, just ike this authors Identity politics CRAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dear me, when prompted you can't even offer an adult level of discourse, and now you're claiming that nobody else can have a valid opinion if they disagree with you.
So far, you've refused to offer any reason why you dislike this article , or why the subjective opinions you've been faced with are wrong. All you've done is whine, display a woeful grasp of the English language, and provide people with zero reason to believe anything you say in this or any other thread.
Congrats on having zero credibility, I suppose, when all you needed to do is explain what you disagreed with, and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Dear me, when prompted you can't even offer an adult level of discourse, and now you're claiming that nobody else can have a valid opinion if they disagree with you.
So far, you've refused to offer any reason why you dislike this article , or why the subjective opinions you've been faced with are wrong. All you've done is whine, display a woeful grasp of the English language, and provide people with zero reason to believe anything you say in this or any other thread.
Congrats on having zero credibility, I suppose, when all you needed to do is explain what you disagreed with, and why."
Nice note to yourself.
Nobody needs to explain aything to you. Because facts are, if you read the past DECADES of articles involving Copyright, including the many litigations etc. You will find this article headline is FALSE and BIASED.
Obviously you're just buzzing around as if you're some authority that I have to answer to, when you aren't
You are entitled to your BIASEd opinion, since you have your head so far up your ass you can't figure out why DECADES of copyright articles written here would discredit this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nobody needs to explain aything to you"
It would be nice if your gibberish on a public forum intended for debate of the subject at hand included a reason why you should be listened to. But, all we have is your word that you know more than the people you're complaining about, without even the first hint as to what is wrong with the article. A nice, adult, response would be along the lines of "point X is wrong because Y", and we could have a nice discussion about things, which might even lead to other adults such as the author you're complaining about taking such constructive criticism and taking it on board for future articles.
Sadly, you've chosen the whining toddler route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
""Nobody needs to explain aything to you"
It would be nice if your gibberish on a public forum intended for debate of the subject at hand included a reason why you should be listened to. But, all we have is your word that you know more than the people you're complaining about, without even the first hint as to what is wrong with the article. A nice, adult, response would be along the lines of "point X is wrong because Y", and we could have a nice discussion about things, which might even lead to other adults such as the author you're complaining about taking such constructive criticism and taking it on board for future articles.
Sadly, you've chosen the whining toddler route.'
False.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, that is not a magic word, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and your insistence on avoiding actual discussion with that word just highlights that you're a lying immature child who has no actual argument,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you still don’t get it:
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nobody needs to explain aything to you."
...says the man who keeps insisting that "nuh uh" and "My butthurt!" are valid arguments and people should respect that.
Meanwhile no one here's giving you more leeway than that old Monty Python skit when you keep failing to demonstrate any form of refutal rooted in anything other than personal opinion.
And yet it would be so damn easy; Produce any argument based on logic and factual reality and you might get the respect of people at least hearing you out.
Honestly, though, I don't hold high hopes. Haven't seen any single individual even TRY to defend copyright or contemporary republicans without instantly devolving into deranged trolling. It's as if there isn't, for those particular topics, any defense available other than whataboutism, projection, deflection, strawman rhetoric, history revisionism or sheer denial.
So you just keep on being you, Baghdad Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Dear me, when prompted you can't even offer an adult level of discourse, and now you're claiming that nobody else can have a valid opinion if they disagree with you.
So far, you've refused to offer any reason why you dislike this article , or why the subjective opinions you've been faced with are wrong. All you've done is whine, display a woeful grasp of the English language, and provide people with zero reason to believe anything you say in this or any other thread.
Congrats on having zero credibility, I suppose, when all you needed to do is explain what you disagreed with, and why."
False.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awww... it's almost cute how you think this means anything.
What is false? Break down your argument. I have evidence and a decent argument to back it up. Where is yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again:
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump's loss seriously tore a gaping hole in the void where these guys' hearts used to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I know what I am talking about and clearly YOU do NOT."
Don't be such a Donald
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spoken like a paid Hillary troll still on the payroll from 2016.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a ridiculous thing to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spoken like your a paid Hillary Clinton Troll from 201t6.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't
(Had to be done)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey. There's no need to sully the good name of Monty Python by dragging them into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There's no need to sully the good name of Monty Python by dragging them into this."
It's a sign of the times that if Monty Python held that skit today they'd have to wear a sign saying "Warning, Sarcasm!" because they'd more or less sound exactly like a bona fide defender of modern republicans, the alt-right and copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since you like spamming the same thing over and over again, I shall reply similarly:
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it isn’t!
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrightable emails
The "Biden" emails are clearly copyrightable. The question is by whom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile in new and concerning copyright system abuses, Disney has decided when they buy a company, the get to pick and choose what liabilities they must honour.
https://mobile.twitter.com/doctorow/status/1329240238816858120
They've stopped paying royalties to Alan Dean Foster for his Star Wars books, having decided that they don't have to honour the liabilities of 20th century fox. They refuse to meet with him without him signing an NDA, which is insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a fucking disgrace.
Though I'll say one thing for Disney: they've been pretty good about settling with creators to avoid bad press. So now that this is getting attention, maybe they'll finally take some steps to make it go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow. But remember, kids, copyright is all about protecting those poor starving artists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the headline is false(READ)
2009 US Holds Ridiculously One-Sided Anti-Piracy Roundtable
https://torrentfreak.com/us-holds-ridiculously-one-sided-anti-piracy-roundtable-091215/
2 011 The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/12431012712/companies-who-support-censoring-inte rnet.shtml
2011 Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111102/11450816604/joe-biden-internet-if-it-aint-broke-dont- fix-it-unless-hollywood-asks-you-to.shtml
2011 New Law Will Shut Down TorrentFreak, Music Industry Expert Say
https://torrentfreak.com/new-law-will-shut-down-torrentfreak-music-industry-expert-says-110322/
2011 White House: Streaming Should Be a Felony, Wiretap Infringers
https://torrentfreak.com/white-house-streaming-should-be-a-felony-wiretap-infringers-1103 16/
2011 MPAA Anti-Piracy Lobbying Targets FBI, DOJ, ICE, DHS and Biden
https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-anti-piracy-lobbying-targets-fbi-110622/
2012 Joe Biden Picked An Interesting Day To Raise Money From Silicon Valley.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/00492717468/joe-biden-picked-interesting-day-to-r aise-money-silicon-valley.shtml
2012 To Pols Trying To Raise Money From Silicon Valley: Supporting SOPA/PIPA Probably Isn't Wise
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/12085317350/to-pols-trying-to-raise-money-silicon-va lley-supporting-sopapipa-probably-isnt-wise.shtml
2012 Joe Biden Ordered the Megaupload Shutdown
https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-joe-biden-ordered-the-megaupload-shutdown-120703/
2013 Joe Biden Pushed For “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Plan
https://torrentfreak.com/ifpi-governments-should-push-for-3-strikes-anti-piracy-plans-130407/
T his is just an example. There are DECADES of examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
OK thank you for providing links, this is a good start. Now I hope you don't expect anyone to read through all of those articles looking for the evidence that you claim is in them. So how about pulling out a few relevant quotes that demonstrate that the headline "Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?" is false? That is, passages that show conservatives showing an interest in problems caused by copyright. The reason I ask is that it would be far from the first time that someone posted a bunch of links that don't provide any support for their argument, and I don't want to do the work for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Now I hope you don't expect anyone to read through all of those articles looking for the evidence that you claim is in them. So how about pulling out a few relevant quotes that demonstrate that the headline "Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?"
Why don't you read the articles to figure it out? Oh yea, you don't want to. But you speak for youself. Not for everyone else.
I read the articles, and they are in the right direction.
While I won't do what you want. I will mention that while the Trump administration has had it's blunders with copyright, tweets, using music without expressed permission from musicians, etc.
The statement "I haven’t done a full accounting of all conservative run-ins with online content moderation policies" should already be an indication the examples given prior to the statement were cherry-picked and not a full spectrum of Copyright involvement of political parties, compared to asserting it is conservatives that these examples are why conservatives do not care about copyright. When to the contrary, the linked articles paint a very different picture showing the massive concerted effort the copyright monopolies(MPAA/RIAA copyright mafia, Joe Biden and the Obama Administration) were conspiring against the American public to push draconian internet policies throughout the Obama Administration.
The examples given are just a very small example, and they are right to say that. Expecting for anyone to do the reading for you and explain to you each article isn't going to happen. You yourself need to actually do the reading yourself. And if you refuse, that's on you.
It's the same as bringing a donkey to a body of water to drink but they cannot force the donkey to drink the water. I use that reference because horses drink water wherever you bring them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Well I read one of them, and it has absolutely zero to do with the conservatives' approach to copyright. I'm going to assume the rest of them are equally relevant - not at all - which is about what I was expecting, especially given your refusal to provide any specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
If you are going to read ONE article and not the rest, that is on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Yep it sure is, just like if you're going to do a link dump and not explain what it's supposed to demonstrate, that's on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
No, it's more like. There's a lot of information to gather for it to be in a thread in text. Explaining it to you would be doing the work of reading for you and you expect me to get it right informing you, rather than you actually understanding the references were about and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Here's the thing, given that my sample showed a relevance level of zero percent, I haven't seen any sign that it would be worth my time to read through all those articles looking for the evidence that conservatives are in fact on the ball about copyright abuse. I don't think that evidence is likely to be there, so I don't see why I would want to go looking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
You're right, your understanding what the references where to and why are zero at the moment. There isn't a reference to conservatives being on the ball about copyright because the articles aren't about who are in bed with the copyright industry, such as the MPAA, RIAA, the entire entertainment industry, etc.
IF what you want to read is "evidence that conservatives are in fact on the ball about copyright abuse", then you won't find it. Happy?
That is why the headline is false. Because the headline of this article states "Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?"
If you can place the copyright industry in bed with Trump, or a broad majority of conservative republicans conspiring against the public to create really bad internet bills and policies, such as SOPA/PIPA 2.0, TPP 2.0, etc(you can't).
Pointing out the Trump administrations blunders with copyright doesn't portray conservatives in such a way that there's a history of them being too heavily involved with Copyright controversies to push through draconian Copyright law/Internet policies, compared to the Obama Administration.
That's just a small part of Copyright history because there's way more than waht is linked that puts the Obama Administration and Joe Biden at the center of a lot of attempts by the copyright industry to slide through really bad copyright laws and policies(while some actually did).
Furthermore, that doesn't even scratch the surface with copyright law because there have been many many instances where had the copyright monopolies self-centered arguments swayed legal cases such as Betamax vs Sony ( that had nothing to do with conservatives), America would be very different than it is at present.
There is a reason why the copyright industry has been relentless in their attempts to sway politicians to let them have their way, it's because at the court level, they haven't had many successes. Who they have been able to sway are the Democrats, where there is plenty of documentation about, especially here on Techdirt and Torrentfreak.
The last administration that actually allowed the MPAA/RIAA and entertainment industry to sway their policical office was the Obama administration. I suspect, hence the links and their reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(RE
Correction, I said arn't when I meant are. The articles are about who are in bed with the copyright industry, such as the MPAA, RIAA, the entire entertainment industry, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(RE
Then that means you have no evidence that the headline is false because that’s what it’s referring to. In other words, you’re admitting the headline is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is fals
"Then that means you have no evidence that the headline is false because that’s what it’s referring to. In other words, you’re admitting the headline is true."
That doesn't make sense. The reason why it isn't true is becaue you cannot tie conservatives to being in bed with the copyright/entertainment industry to being in bed with them to secretly push through authoritarian/draconian copyright bills/internet policies, such as the SOPA/PIPA, and TPP. They haven't because they are corrupt and are not
The copyright/entertainment industry never has had the best interest for the public or the artists. Everytime there has been a new inovation for copying and sharing media, the entertainment industry, MPAA/RIAA has tried to squash it with very little in court success without Judge hunting that would rule in their favor.
Just because the Trump administration weren't pushing copyright laws/internet policies at the Copyright industries behest, does not mean the headline "Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?" is true. Though that may be your opinion.
Not everyone gets copyright law right. Even judges that preside over cases get confused on copyright law, relying on lawyers to explain it to them, i.e. the Aereo supreme court case where supreme court justices were confused on undertanding that Aereo did not violate copyright law, but decided Aereo did because of their lack of understanding of copyright law.
Though the courts aren't that great of a mechanism to weigh fairness in copyright. It is better than the copyright/entertainment industry corrupt politicians to do their bidding like the Obama Administration.
It's not that Trump, conservatives or republicans don't care about copyright. It's that being influenced by the copyright/entertainment industry brings about corruption. Mistakes made involving copyright by the Trump administration does not make it true that they do not care about copyright. It's that copyright litigation should be dealt with in courts but not a mechanism that can sway political office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
Then I think the problem is you misinterpreted the headline. It isn't saying conservatives are responsible for bad copyright legislation; it takes no position on that question. What it says is that to be consistent, conservatives should be attacking copyright just like they're attacking section 230. But they're not. To demonstrate that the headline is incorrect, you would need to show examples of conservatives pushing back on copyright abuse, or perhaps copyright more generally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline
"Then I think the problem is you misinterpreted the headline. It isn't saying conservatives are responsible for bad copyright legislation; it takes no position on that question. What it says is that to be consistent, conservatives should be attacking copyright just like they're attacking section 230. But they're not. To demonstrate that the headline is incorrect, you would need to show examples of conservatives pushing back on copyright abuse, or perhaps copyright more generally."
It's not that Trump, conservatives or republicans don't care about copyright. It's that being influenced by the copyright/entertainment industry brings about corruption. Mistakes made involving copyright by the Trump administration does not make it true that they do not care about copyright. It's that copyright litigation should be dealt with in courts but not a mechanism that can sway political office."
The issue with section 230 is at issue at present, but that has more to do with websites acting as publishers censoring information determining who can see what information. And the litigation with those companies, they want Section 230 protections while acting as publishers censoring free speech,which is a constitutional right.
When it comes to copyright abuse. The biggest abuser of copyright is the copyright/entertainment industry itself. For DECADES they have tried to push draconian laws/policies which favor thier business model of extortion and censorship, thwarting inovation. Leaving it up to the courts has demonstrated better than allowing them to influence political parties up to the presidency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the head
"The issue with section 230 is at issue at present, but that has more to do with websites acting as publishers censoring information determining who can see what information."
Oh dear, so either section 230 is another one of those terms you fail to understand, or you are opposed to people moderating their own platforms.
"The biggest abuser of copyright is the copyright/entertainment industry itself."
Yes, which makes you knee-jerk partisan whining at the mention of a different group in a headline even more laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the
"Oh dear, so either section 230 is another one of those terms you fail to understand, or you are opposed to people moderating their own platforms."
Obviously section 230 does have purpose. Getting rid of it isn't What I am in favor for. But the issue at hand with content moderation becoming censorship, compared to moderation then changes the platform into a gatekeeper of denying free speech, of who can or cannot publish whatever. Though it may be argued it is best left untouched, that's not what is happening. Whether I agree or disagree with it, is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
That would be an issue. Fortunately that hasn't happened. It's still just businesses moderating what happens on their own platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the head
Regardless, the headline itself only says “Why Don’t Conservatives Care About Copyright?”. In context, it’s clear that one should add “as much as they do §230” to that. You haven’t provided evidence that that is false, and with the addendum, you seem to think it’s true even if you believe there’s a good reason or that liberals are just as bad, neither of which are relevant to the question of whether the headline is, in fact, true or false.
Instead, it seems you take issue with other things unrelated to whether the headline itself is true or false, which is what the whole thing started with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
You’re completely missing the point. The headline itself doesn’t even imply ties between conservatives and being in bed with the copyright/entertainment industry or any of that. That’s all irrelevant to what the headline actually says.
They weren’t pushing copyright reform, either, which is the main point, nor were they actively opposing copyright maximalist efforts. That does imply that the headline is true: taking no action at all and not speaking up on an issue tends to imply a lack of concern with that particular issue.
More to the point, you weren’t simply saying that the headline wasn’t adequately supported; you said the headline was actually false. As such, the burden of proof is on you to refute the headline by showing examples of conservatives caring about copyright rather than on us to show that conservatives don’t care. You’re making the positive claim here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(RE
"If you can place the copyright industry in bed with Trump, or a broad majority of conservative republicans conspiring against the public to create really bad internet bills and policies, such as SOPA/PIPA 2.0, TPP 2.0, etc(you can't)."
SOPA, the bill written by Republican Lamar Smith?
The rest of your position seems to be pathetic whataboutism, where you seem to think that you can reject anything conservatives have done or are doing so long as you can point to some bad things Democrats have done. Sorry, most of us are too intelligent to fall for that one, try defending the actions being discussed rather than deflection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is fals
"SOPA, the bill written by Republican Lamar Smith?"
Not all Republicans have not been in bed with the copyright industry, Lamar Smith did write SOPA.
My point was that the copyright industry has for decades trying to sway political office. The Obama administration and Joe Biden were involved in collaborated attempts with the copyright industry to secretly push through authoritarian copyright, internet Bills/policy, such as SOPA/PIPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
"My point was that the copyright industry has for decades trying to sway political office"
If that was your point, you made it incredibly poorly, and had to be goaded for so long into actually stating it that it was fairly meaningless before you made it.
"The Obama administration and Joe Biden were involved"
Yes, they were. What does that have to do with correctly noting the actions and opinions conservatives in years where they are not in office? Unless you're stupid enough to think that "conservatives do X" means that "liberals never do X", it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Also, no matter how much you try to pretend, the people you're whining about were not alone in doing these things, conservatives certainly were involved as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"There's a lot of information to gather for it to be in a thread in text."
No, it's more like - you've wasted a hell of a lot of time and effort not stating your objection, while a reasonable person might have stated it in a couple of short sentences already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Yes, it means that his time is more valuable than your pathetic gish gallop attempt, where you are refusing to explain what your actual objection is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Nope. I'm happy to discuss why if you're able to type more than one word at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"Well I read one of them, and it has absolutely zero to do with the conservatives' approach to copyright. I'm going to assume the rest of them are equally relevant - not at all - which is about what I was expecting, especially given your refusal to provide any specifics."
LIAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Responding with single word answers does not make you look any more insightful or less of a desperate idiot even if you put it in caps, but congrats on finding a different magic word to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
I can do this all day.
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"Well I read one of them"
LOL, LIAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
False.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
LIAR, LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
No, he’s not!
Yes, he is!
No, he’s not!
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Also, it’s rather ridiculous to assume a commenter on Techdirt did not read any of the listed Techdirt articles without evidence to back up that assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
OK, now state which definition of "conservative" you're using, since at first glance half of those refer to Biden and not the mainly Republicans that the article author seems to be referring to.
Is this just another example of how your problem with your arguments seems to be that you're using different word definitions to other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
I get the impression that when he reads "conservatives are doing X" he thinks the author is also stating "liberals are not doing X" and so he can disprove both assertions at once by showing that liberals are in fact doing X.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"Then I think the problem is you misinterpreted the headline. It isn't saying conservatives are responsible for bad copyright legislation; it takes no position on that question. What it says is that to be consistent, conservatives should be attacking copyright just like they're attacking section 230. But they're not. To demonstrate that the headline is incorrect, you would need to show examples of conservatives pushing back on copyright abuse, or perhaps copyright more generally."
It's not that Trump, conservatives or republicans don't care about copyright. It's that being influenced by the copyright/entertainment industry brings about corruption. Mistakes made involving copyright by the Trump administration does not make it true that they do not care about copyright. It's that copyright litigation should be dealt with in courts but not a mechanism that can sway political office."
The issue with section 230 is at issue at present, but that has more to do with websites acting as publishers censoring information determining who can see what information. And the litigation with those companies, they want Section 230 protections while acting as publishers censoring free speech,which is a constitutional right.
When it comes to copyright abuse. The biggest abuser of copyright is the copyright/entertainment industry itself. For DECADES they have tried to push draconian laws/policies which favor their business model of extortion and censorship, thwarting innovation.
Leaving it up to the courts has demonstrated better than allowing them to influence political parties up to the presidency.
If it were up to me, I would implement Kopimism as a constitutional right. At least at least some of the main Kopimist constitution.
Copying of information is ethically right;
Dissemination of information is ethically right;
Copymixing is a sacred kind of copying, more so than the perfect, digital copying, because it expands and enhances the existing wealth of information;
Copying or remixing information communicated by another person is seen as an act of respect and a strong expression of acceptance and Kopimistic faith
The Internet is holy
But since freedom of religion is already a protected right, that's already covered, just not widely accepted, compared to Christianity based faiths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Yeah, I worked out after replying to later comments that he was just playing an idiotic game of whataboutism. That's probably why he refuses to address any of the points raised in the article - he didn't read past the headline before trying to invoke the word he's decided is a magic incarnation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"Yeah, I worked out after replying to later comments that he was just playing an idiotic game of whataboutism. That's probably why he refuses to address any of the points raised in the article - he didn't read past the headline before trying to invoke the word he's decided is a magic incarnation."
I think he meant to say. " Yeah, I didn't read any of the linked articles either. But I'll think whatever I want them to mean, so I can just act like I know what I'm talking about and do what I'm popular for, talking down to anyone who has insight on articles in comments".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Dude, the person who posted the articles essentially admitted that they don’t actually disprove the actual headline. They admitted that they don’t prove that conservatives care one way or the other about copyright, which would be necessary to disprove the headline. They merely assert that liberals are corrupt regarding copyright (irrelevant) and that there isn’t enough evidence to prove that conservatives don’t care (which gets the burden of proof wrong).
Also, why is it so hard to believe that a person commenting on Techdirt read one of several given articles on Techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
I read them. But I do not believe that anyone would have read ONE article and not the rest like I did.
I think to say the Trump administration did not push copyright "reform" by is false, because he signed the USMCA, which thankfully did not actually change copyright law very much to the liking of the MPAA/RIAA.
Found here: https://torrentfreak.com/president-trump-signs-usmca-trade-deal-that-exports-us-copyright-policy-200 130/
Though to be fair, they did "modernize" some copyright legal jargon between the US&Mexico prior to the USMCA under the Trump administration.
Found here: https://torrentfreak.com/us-and-mexico-modernize-copyright-protection-in-new-trade-deal-180828/
The links given prior detail what the Obama/Biden administration were doing behind closed doors trying to work against the public and push draconian internet law/policy, which is what you can expect with the presumed Biden administration.
It is no secret the MPAA/RIAA have been startegacly placing their employees in judicial/political government positions(and visa versa) to sway the odds of the MPAA/RIAA getting their way.
Found here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191209/08460843532/revolving-door-revolves-some-more-head-copyri ght-office-leaves-to-join-mpaa.shtml
Found here: https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-lobbyist-sopa-sponsor-to-draft-democratic-party-platform-160531/
If you read in the prior sourced material Kim Dotcom was a target by the Obama/Biden administration at the behest of the MPAA/RIAA, something the justice department suspended essentially, assuming they are expecting to resume trying to extradite him to the USA under Biden.
I suspect the reason why the Trump administration did not do too much about copyright law besides the ammendments to some legal wording in copyright law with Mexico and passing the USMCA is that the media hates Trump and he hates them, obviously with his mostly correct assertion that they are corrupt.
As for section 230, if you notice the major gripe that the Republicans have are with Facebook and Twitter, who are mostly opponents to the Trump administration existing. I suspect that their antagonizing the Republican political officials(Trump) etc, is an attempt to on purpose piss them off so they amend section 230 up to possibly removig it.
I am against the idea of removing section 230 and am aware how well documented it is on techdirt and elsewhere of why this is a really bad idea. I'm also aware of the arguments on the other side as the platforms sensoring free speech as a way to silense political officials from doing things such as inform the public of information the platform doesn't want the public to know. I think that's what the real issue is trying to find a middle ground to resolve. But at the same time I think it's a political ploy to portray the Republicans (at least during the Trump administration) as the enemy to the Tech community.
While keeping the public distracted, the mainstream media doesn't talk about that the Biden administration not only wants to get rid of sectin 230, they wan to impliment internet censorship and that the MPAA/RIAA are just waiting to attempt to get SOPA/PIPA 2.0, TPP 2.0, etc to bring about draconian internet laws/policies.
My view understanding this is. I think the argument that the Trump administration did nothing for copyright reform doesn't hold up with passing the USMCA. Sure, it wasn't this big reform of loosening or tightening internet privacy/copyright laws. But it wasn't a complete disregard for it either.
In any case, this doesn't make trump out to be a bad president under these circumstances. On the contrary, he hasn't allowed his administration to be corrupted by the MPAA/RIAA giving into their draconian demands for internet censorship etc. He allowed the Six strikes rule to fizzle out as it was stupid anyway. But he didn't stop the copyright industry from litigating in courts against Compcast for a Billion dollar judgment either. He has allowed copyright litigation to carry out in courts as they should.
With Biden around the corner, be prepared for the MPAA/RIAA to push through more draconian versions of the SOPA/PIPA, and TPP in secret.While attempting to dilute free speech protections, remove section 230, and the 2nd amendment(if not removing it all together).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"In any case, this doesn't make trump out to be a bad president under these circumstances. On the contrary, he hasn't allowed his administration to be corrupted by the MPAA/RIAA giving into their draconian demands for internet censorship etc. He allowed the Six strikes rule to fizzle out as it was stupid anyway. But he didn't stop the copyright industry from litigating in courts against Compcast for a Billion dollar judgment either. He has allowed copyright litigation to carry out in courts as they should."
I know this statement sounds silly. But you get my drift. Given the Copyright blunders the Trump administration till allows the copyright claims to go to litigation in court. But he hasn't had absolutley no contributation to copyright law, given the circumstances the USMCA was signed by Trump, which in the articles linked detail the copyright jargon apart of it.
So to say the Trump adminisration and the conservatives under thim do not care about copyright is subjective, but I think it's a false assertion.
The MPAA/RIAA were pissed he didn't give them what they wanted in the USMCA. So in a way that's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
At this point, let’s just agree to disagree. As you said, the claim is fairly subjective, so a lot of the arguments would just be about what we consider to be adequate evidence in our opinion.
For example, IMO, not including copyright in the USMCA isn’t evidence that Trump cares about copyright or evidence that he doesn’t; it could be construed either way, honestly, which makes it weak evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(RE
The USMCA was in a way an FU to the copyright MPAA/RIAA marfia. They wanted to take the world when he gave them nothing more than was already in the previous trade agreement.
So you're saying that if Trump were corrupt by the MPAA/RIAA like the DNC is and was pushing their draconian copyright law/policy, he would care about copyright? Because the article points out blunders in copyright that ended up in litigation, which has happened more than once with politicians and their campaigns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is fals
And I disagree that the lack of copyright changes in the USMCA was anything more than just Trump wanting to get a new deal even if little actually changes with it. He probably did not care enough about copyright to try to put it in. I’m not sure he actually used the input from any industry to make decisions in those negotiations.
Well, technically yes. The MPAA/RIAA care about copyright too, after all. That said, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the question is that it’s about wanting to reform copyright, not make it more stringent, and failing to make it worse doesn’t mean he cares to make it better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
There is no way Donald Trump was aware of the details of what was in the USMCA, regarding copyright or anything else. His objectives were 1) make a deal that is technically not NAFTA, with his name on it and 2) put "US" first in the acronym.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline
I'm sure you no NOTHING about what the benefits were to the USMCA compared to NAFTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the head
True, I know about as much as Trump does on the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
And I disagree that the lack of copyright changes in the USMCA was anything more than just Trump wanting to get a new deal even if little actually changes with it. He probably did not care enough about copyright to try to put it in. I’m not sure he actually used the input from any industry to make decisions in those negotiations.
Then you didn't read the prior articles about what changes were and were not made.
Well, technically yes. The MPAA/RIAA care about copyright too, after all. That said, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the question is that it’s about wanting to reform copyright, not make it more stringent, and failing to make it worse doesn’t mean he cares to make it better.
Then you haven't read Techdirt long enough to know how corrupt the MPAA/RIAA are. That they do not care about copyright reform. Copyright is a joke and just a tool used to destroy culture, freedom, communication, and sharing. The MPAA aren't for the artists, they are for screwing artists and the public at large through any means necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline
I’m just saying that Trump cared little about what changes actually were, and most analyses I’ve read suggest that little changed between the old and the new trade agreements. From what you said, nothing actually changed regarding copyright in the USCMA, despite apparent attempts from lobbyists to make copyright worse. Furthermore, from what I read about the negotiations, Trump personally didn’t actually have much to do with that beyond wanting a new agreement ASAP.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. For the record, I actually agree with most of what you just said. However, “caring about” something is not the same thing as “supporting” something. MPAA and RIAA care a lot about preventing real copyright reform. And when I said that I was refining the statement to go beyond a strictly literal interpretation of what “caring about copyright” means, I meant to exclude the MPAA and RIAA.
My actual point was that failing to do what the opposition to copyright reform wants doesn’t prove that one actually cares about copyright reform. It could be that they just didn’t care enough either way. To demonstrate someone actually caring about copyright reform, you’d need active steps (or at least words) towards promoting/supporting copyright reform, not just failing to make things worse.
It’d be nice if you could address what I actually say rather than misunderstand my statements and attack a strawman. You should probably work on your reading comprehension.
Let me be clear: the MPAA and RIAA are horribly corrupt, and copyright as it exists today is a direct result of that. They don’t want to make copyright better for artists or the public at large. That said, none of that refutes anything I said, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not Trump or current federal Republican politicians care about copyright reform. Not making copyright worse is not necessarily indicative of a desire to improve copyright.
To disprove the headline, you have to show something Republicans did (or at least attempted or directly expressed support for) that would actually improve copyright, not simply maintain the status quo. Anything else is irrelevant, inadequate, and/or supports the headline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Please excuse my typo's. I have sticky keyboard keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
"Yeah, I worked out after replying to later comments that he was just playing an idiotic game of whataboutism. That's probably why he refuses to address any of the points raised in the article - he didn't read past the headline before trying to invoke the word he's decided is a magic incarnation."
I think he meant to say. " Yeah, I didn't read any of the linked articles either. But I'll think whatever I want them to mean, so I can just act like I know what I'm talking about and do what I'm popular for, talking down to anyone who has insight on articles in comments".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is fair play
False.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
I think these articles are very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]