And how exactly is such parasitic behavior justifiable?
Because no one is entitled to be paid any amount of money. If you want that money, you better be working extra hard to convince me that my $10 is better spent with you than someone else. And no, extortion is not the way to do that.
Why would anyone pay money to get pirated content when the pirate bay is free? This is the problem you Copyright Maximalists have. You believe that there is money in piracy and that people readily part with cash to get said pirated content.
In reality, people who pirate to "get free stuff" do so but make sure that they are not paying money for it. That money they are not paying to copyright holders or pirate websites goes to other things such as food, electronics, clothing, cars etc. That is money that stays in the US economy.
I do a quick google search of my name and there is another Zachary Knight that works in web developer (the same fields as me) but he lives in Florida. If one of us commits a crime, should we both be potentially liable simply because we share a name? No.
Just because this girl gave an identity that matched a criminal's on the surface, they should have been absolutely sure that she was that person before deporting her.
Even if we were to take you definition of the $58 billion in economic activity, that economic activity does not dry up when a movie is pirated. That economic activity simply shifts to another path. It is still there, just no passing through the film industry.
To be honest, it is far easier to forgive someone for ignorance than it is to forgive them for malice. That is one of the reason why I think many politicians vote for things based off the names of the bills rather than the substance.
I think in this instance he is completely right. A "news" outlet came to a conclusion about certain companies based on no evidence. That story got picked up by dozens of other news outlets. Mike then looked at the evidence and came to the above conclusion. I don't really see a problem with that.
If you really cared about due process, you would be concerned with the way SOPA handles the blocking of sites. SOPA only allows for an adversarial hearing AFTER the site has already been blocked. This is after damage has been done. After a punishment has already been enacted. This is contrary to the Constitution's definitions of due process rights.
I guess if you want another reason, OPEN is actually open to debate for all parties involved. No party is excluded from the editing process. SOPA was written by its supporters with no input from its opponents. That is another reason why it is better.
I guess, all I can really do is point to this article regarding OPEN and its pros and cons.
Censorship should never be easy. That is the point. If you are going to cut off the communication of an entire website's community, you better have a solid case and be able to prove it to a 3rd party authority in a full adversarial hearing.
SOPA does not have that. OPEN does. That is one reason why OPEN is better.
To tell you the truth, I think neither law is actually needed as we have seen time and time again that they are not needed at all. Many companies and artists are able to make money despite the proliferation of piracy. Piracy is a business model problem and so it is the business model that needs to adjust to reality.
Tell me, Zachary, what the perfect law would be to deal with these rogue sites.
I don't think there is a perfect law. A perfect law would be one that completely eradicated the problem. Therefore, there are no perfect laws.
However, if you want an example of a better solution, you already have one. It is called the OPEN Act. While it is not perfect, it does a better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites than SOPA does.
If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason."
Mike never said it was "the key reason" he said it was "a key reason" It was reason enough to be the sole cited reason in the source article. If that is not enough to consider it a key reason, then I don't know what is.
This is one of the things that really bugged me over the weekend. I have come to regard this as Techdirt reflecting on my outlook on tech news. But I never understood why anyone would believe that any of these companies (aside from Sony) actually supported SOPA to begin with when all they said was that they supported a SOPA like law. All this before SOPA was even introduced.
As the AC above said though, the ESA is still listed as a supporter of SOPA and these three companies are members of that organization. So I doubt that they would be allowing the ESA to support SOPA if they actually oppose it or dropped support for it.
You want my opinion on censorship and how that relates to your own definition? OK.
Let's take your example of a noise ordnance. Let's say that a city has had a number of people exceed the noise level and are not able to keep up with the infractions. So instead of reviewing the issue, finding out what the real problem is and working a solution that actually addresses the problem, they instead decide to ban all amplified outdoor communication instead. Not only does this effect those that were in violation of the noise ordnance, it also makes other legal activities illegal, such as the ice cream man and protestors. This is how SOPA works. Instead of creating a narrowly targeted law that deal only with copyright infringement, Congress has instead made it possible to shut down entire avenues of communication.
That is bad. That is censorship.
As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?
Really? Piracy is what you got out of this article? Are you really that insane? Has it never occurred to you that censorship, no matter what justification is given, is bad and people don't like to be censored?
So it is fine for Veoh and the dozens if not hundreds it could have employed are lost to the economy because UMG could have lost some money to people posting music videos? You are an idiot.
Nobody is asking the copyright holders to give up their rights. We are simply warning them that failure to adapt will lead to their fiscal death. We are also warning them that SOPA will not solve their problem. They will still need to adapt their business models or die.
Mike is not ignoring the real issue. Mike is quite clear that the real issue is that legacy gatekeepers need to adapt to the internet. Piracy is merely a symptom of their failure to adapt. SOPA is them fighting to the death to avoid having to adapt.
You absolutely do not understand the the unintended consequences of SOPA.
The "unintended consequences" comes from people who will post their "free speech" on the same site that embeds pirated material, sells counterfeit goods, or facilitates access to pirated material.
What you call that, I call Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, tumblr, Flicker etc. These sites are valuable tools that millions of people use to share legal content. However, these sites are consider "rogue sites" by legacy gatekeepers that want to regain the control they have lost. Every legal user of these sites will be threatened with censorship if SOPA passes.
In the same manner that I wouldn't post my personal political manifesto on the wall of a crack house, I wouldn't post it in the middle of a pirate site either.
Yet, Every minute of every day someone is posting their legal free speech to the so called "crack houses" of the internet. What you call crack houses I call incredibly useful tools to share my views and content.
The "unintended consequences" are a result of people being careless about the sites they support and use, not about the law squashing their rights.
People are not careless in their choice of sites to use. They choose those sites because that is where their friends are. That is where their audience is. Why should some legacy gatekeeper decide whose audience is important or whose friends are important. Nobody uses a site unless there is value in it. That value will tank once SOPA passes and that is the worst thing that could ever happen to these great tools.
Perhaps you might want to stand back and see the bigger picture. Things look a lot different when you take your nose away from a single, narrow issue and look at the overall effects.
I understand quite well what is happening. We have a handful of legacy gatekeepers that are losing the control over distribution that they have managed to hang onto for the last few centuries. Faced with the prospect of individual creators bypassing them and making money on their own by connecting directly with fans scares them to death and they are lashing out like a cornered animal. That is what SOPA is.
you have spoken down to me a couple of times today like that
Yes I have, only because you continue to spout the same lies and half truths despite being proven time and time again to be incorrect.
On the post: Cato Institute Digs Into MPAA's Own Research To Show That SOPA Wouldn't Save A Single Net Job
Re: Re: Re:
And how exactly is such parasitic behavior justifiable?
Because no one is entitled to be paid any amount of money. If you want that money, you better be working extra hard to convince me that my $10 is better spent with you than someone else. And no, extortion is not the way to do that.
On the post: Cato Institute Digs Into MPAA's Own Research To Show That SOPA Wouldn't Save A Single Net Job
Re: Re: Re:
In reality, people who pirate to "get free stuff" do so but make sure that they are not paying money for it. That money they are not paying to copyright holders or pirate websites goes to other things such as food, electronics, clothing, cars etc. That is money that stays in the US economy.
On the post: ICE Mistakenly Deports Missing Teen To Colombia
Re: Girl didn't help the situation thoough
I do a quick google search of my name and there is another Zachary Knight that works in web developer (the same fields as me) but he lives in Florida. If one of us commits a crime, should we both be potentially liable simply because we share a name? No.
Just because this girl gave an identity that matched a criminal's on the surface, they should have been absolutely sure that she was that person before deporting her.
On the post: Cato Institute Digs Into MPAA's Own Research To Show That SOPA Wouldn't Save A Single Net Job
Re:
On the post: How Senator Wyden's PIPA Filibuster Will Work, And What Harry Reid Will Try To Do To Kill It
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Sony Electronics, Nintendo And EA Have NOT Publicly Changed Their Position On SOPA
Re: Re:
On the post: Gov't Able To Keep Details Entirely Private In 'Public' Hearing Over Twitter Subpoena
Re: Why not
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess, all I can really do is point to this article regarding OPEN and its pros and cons.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/13013417024/good-bad-new-open-bill-wyden-issa.sht ml
Whether you think that is a valid defense or not is not my concern. But as I said before, I really don't think either law is necessary.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA does not have that. OPEN does. That is one reason why OPEN is better.
To tell you the truth, I think neither law is actually needed as we have seen time and time again that they are not needed at all. Many companies and artists are able to make money despite the proliferation of piracy. Piracy is a business model problem and so it is the business model that needs to adjust to reality.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think there is a perfect law. A perfect law would be one that completely eradicated the problem. Therefore, there are no perfect laws.
However, if you want an example of a better solution, you already have one. It is called the OPEN Act. While it is not perfect, it does a better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites than SOPA does.
If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason."
Mike never said it was "the key reason" he said it was "a key reason" It was reason enough to be the sole cited reason in the source article. If that is not enough to consider it a key reason, then I don't know what is.
On the post: No, Sony Electronics, Nintendo And EA Have NOT Publicly Changed Their Position On SOPA
As the AC above said though, the ESA is still listed as a supporter of SOPA and these three companies are members of that organization. So I doubt that they would be allowing the ESA to support SOPA if they actually oppose it or dropped support for it.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
Let's take your example of a noise ordnance. Let's say that a city has had a number of people exceed the noise level and are not able to keep up with the infractions. So instead of reviewing the issue, finding out what the real problem is and working a solution that actually addresses the problem, they instead decide to ban all amplified outdoor communication instead. Not only does this effect those that were in violation of the noise ordnance, it also makes other legal activities illegal, such as the ice cream man and protestors. This is how SOPA works. Instead of creating a narrowly targeted law that deal only with copyright infringement, Congress has instead made it possible to shut down entire avenues of communication.
That is bad. That is censorship.
As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re:
On the post: Will Politicians' Support For Draconian IP Laws While Ignoring Civil Liberties Issues Come Back To Bite Them?
Re:
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re: Sounds fine to me
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re: Re:
I don't see where he is missing anything.
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "unintended consequences" comes from people who will post their "free speech" on the same site that embeds pirated material, sells counterfeit goods, or facilitates access to pirated material.
What you call that, I call Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, tumblr, Flicker etc. These sites are valuable tools that millions of people use to share legal content. However, these sites are consider "rogue sites" by legacy gatekeepers that want to regain the control they have lost. Every legal user of these sites will be threatened with censorship if SOPA passes.
In the same manner that I wouldn't post my personal political manifesto on the wall of a crack house, I wouldn't post it in the middle of a pirate site either.
Yet, Every minute of every day someone is posting their legal free speech to the so called "crack houses" of the internet. What you call crack houses I call incredibly useful tools to share my views and content.
The "unintended consequences" are a result of people being careless about the sites they support and use, not about the law squashing their rights.
People are not careless in their choice of sites to use. They choose those sites because that is where their friends are. That is where their audience is. Why should some legacy gatekeeper decide whose audience is important or whose friends are important. Nobody uses a site unless there is value in it. That value will tank once SOPA passes and that is the worst thing that could ever happen to these great tools.
Perhaps you might want to stand back and see the bigger picture. Things look a lot different when you take your nose away from a single, narrow issue and look at the overall effects.
I understand quite well what is happening. We have a handful of legacy gatekeepers that are losing the control over distribution that they have managed to hang onto for the last few centuries. Faced with the prospect of individual creators bypassing them and making money on their own by connecting directly with fans scares them to death and they are lashing out like a cornered animal. That is what SOPA is.
you have spoken down to me a couple of times today like that
Yes I have, only because you continue to spout the same lies and half truths despite being proven time and time again to be incorrect.
Next >>