I would suggest, in the future, forget directing insults at me as I have yet to find any insult that fails to make me laugh. It sort of seems counter productive on your part. If you feel you want to waste time directing your anger issues at me, that is fine, as I said I think its funny. I just feel you should probably devote more effort to coming up with a solid response versus verbal attacks that really just make everyone here think you are trying to over compensate for personal issues.
As for whether or not I get insulted, I really do not care either way. I am just trying to offer you some constructive criticism and a view into how I think you are perceived as a result of your actions.
On the other hand, if this is just a tactic to make people think those who support the PROTECT IP laws are ignorant and throw insults around as a cover, nice strategy. It is working.
Good. Insults should make you laugh at some level. Glad you're not like some of the thin-skinned, Nancy boys that fly into a rehearsed nerd rage.
There's been a lot of punches thrown by both sides. Your side has suggested the MPAA guy quoted in the article is a child molester and fucks farm animals. Hardly examples of class and refinement.
The PROTECT IP minority seems to be monopolizing the term "douchebag" and "apologist" but frankly if you put the diatribe before the decision makers, the infringing side of the debate has fallen way short on the free speech and due process issues. The arguments that infringing is not stealing and somehow OK plus all of the Ted Kacyzinski talk makes you guys look like crackpots.
I've only characterized the behavior as stealing. I have only denounced individuals who have said they engage in it. Most of the time I let people know that they're piracy apologists.
You are just a numbskull- claiming that lobbyists write the bills and lawmakers blindly sign them.
You really go to absurd lengths to justify your freeloading:
""To address your argument, while you can contend that a copy doesn't equal a sale. "
"No, a copy is not a sale. If you mean that a copy does not equal a lost sale, even if it does equal a lost sale, that doesn't make it wrong. Opening up an ice cream shop next to someone elses Ice cream shop may cause the first mover to lose sales but that doesn't make it wrong."
Did the owner of the second shop rig a line to the ice cream machine of the first and siphon off his product and sell it for pennies on the dollar compared to the actual owner of the ice cream?
"Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some."
"Which makes it no less wrong"
Which makes it no less right.
"By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing. "
"and you breath air and are getting something for nothing. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting something for nothing. The purpose of IP is not to prevent people from getting something for nothing, it's to promote the progress and to expand the public domain so that more people can get some'thing' for nothing'. The founding fathers understood this. If IP is about preventing people from getting something for nothing then it should be abolished. Making people pay for things for the sake of preventing people from getting something for nothing does not make good law."
Nobody invested millions of dollars creating air. No one owns air. And no one can do without air. Its entertainment you cheap fuck. If you can't afford to pay the creator, then do without.
"This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers."
"Lets see how much longer voters keep these lawmakers in office."
This is an enormous joke. This administration has more affinity for the netroots than any other in history and really don't give a shit about abetting continued freeloading and digital theft. Things will get worse for you, not better in subsequent elections.
"Lawmakers are not the ultimate authority of morality. Just because they maybe bought by corporate entities does not make them so."
Visa processing payments for a website that is dedicated to infringing content facilitates infringement. Adsense monetizing websites dedicated to infringement facilitates. Search engines that guide people to websites dedicated to infringing facilitate infringement. Those are the areas the law would affect, and only those that are foreign-based.
""Taking something of value from someone else is stealing. Most rational people view it as such. "
"Then you are disingenuously conflating two different definitions of the same word. One definition, making a copy, does not deprive the person being copied from what it is that's being copied. There is nothing immoral about this definition of the word. The second definition, taking something and depriving someone else of it, is immoral."
It's these sorts of tortured responses that proponents of PROTECT IP love to cut out and send to Senators. You use pseudo-intellectual words like "conflating", while posing absurd arguments.
To address your argument, while you can contend that a copy doesn't equal a sale. Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some. But the point you ignore is unjust enrichment. By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing.
This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers. You refuse to acknowledge that there is something wrong with what you do. Then you bulwark you bullshit premise with hysterical Constitutional arguments and specious due process claims. This is why no one but crackpots like Wyden and Google employees like Lofgren take you seriously in Washington.
"You are just too fucking cheap to pay for the latest Transformer movie so you steal a copy instead."
"Calling it stealing is a lie, why should anyone take the opinion of a liar seriously?"
Parse words all you like douchebag. Taking something of value from someone else is stealing. Most rational people view it as such.
You and the hysterical zealots like Masnick are outstanding examples to help make the case in front of the people actually VOTING on the matter. The apologists and freeloaders are off the deep end with their rhetoric. "It'll break the internet", "It will violate free speech (in Russia?)" "It's not stealing" "they can't stop us" It's the MPAA/RIAA's fault" etc, etc. If any of you think your rantings are resonating with Senators and Congressmen you're mostly wrong. Zoe Lofgren and Ron Wyden are pretty much all you've got, and are both light-weights. There's a few fencesitters, but once they are handed the articles and comments from the Techdirtbag insane asylum and other Unibomber-esque forums, they run to the other side of the issue as fast as they can. Masnick is already regarded as a buffoon and a figure of fun on the Hill. The overwhelming number of lawmakers are already supporting. That's why COICA went out of committee 19-0 last Congress. Everyone's on board. So please keep pumping the looney tunes, it will only serve to make the vote more one-sided than it will already be.
Are you actually so stupid that you do not recognize a different between air and a motion picture. How much money was investing in creating the air, how many artists and technicians worked to create it? You'd better PM the Lord High Apologist and ask that he grant you use of a better example.
Sorry about your monopoly/copyright issues. Get in you time machine and talk to the founding fathers about it and maybe they;ll take it out of the Constitution for you. There are all kinds of substitutes for a given film. Some even legitimately free. Why not enjoy those instead of freeloading? Because tis is what the debate is all about. You are just too fucking cheap to pay for the latest Transformer movie so you steal a copy instead.
You copy the creative output of others and refuse to compensate them for their time and investment. I don't see how you have a moral (or legal) defense for that. Air is a natural resource, not creative output of human beings. Are you so desperate to freeload? It's entertainment for Christ's sake. Not food, not medicine nor any kind of necessity. Yet you feel entitled to take it for free.
I guess that you have adulterated the term "monopoly" as a substitute for copyright. The founding fathers put copyright protection in the Constitution because they realized that in order to promote creation, creators need a period of exclusive use in order to profit from their innovation. Funny how you apologists jump up and down waiving your copy of the Constitution about due process and free speech and when it comes to Constitutional provisions for copyright seem to have a convenient memory lapse. That's called hypocrisy.
"isn't that kinda the point? People often go to the movies for the experience. Such an experience is a scarcity that can be sold. Techdirt readers believe there is nothing wrong with charging for movie theater entrance."
Don't make me laugh. This is all about freeloading and an exaggerated sense of entitlement. People illegally download and stream movies and TV because it's easy, free and low risk. Legally downloading and streaming copyrighted content could be a scarcity that could be sold (more widely) too, if it was not competing against free or a price point that doesn't actually include the production costs.
And what's with this monopoly shit? Paramount, Sony, Warner Bros, Fox, Disney, NBC/U- they all compete. Throw in the mini-majors, independents etc. How's that a monopoly?
Actually, the Constitution tells the government what it can do. The Bill of Rights tells it what it can't. Both documents regulate the government, not individuals. Recent rulings allowed habeas corpus for foreign combatants held by the US. If an illegal alien gets arrested he has Miranda rights, right to speedy trial, etc. But it only applies in instances where the government exercises sovereign powers. That's why the government can't seize a foreign website. It has no standing to impose its laws. For the same reason, Yuri the Pirate has no Constitutional free speech claim because his speech is beyond the reach the US government (if it was within reach, Yuri's infringement would negate a free speech claim) So PROTECT IP Act orders follow to US enablers.
There's no viable legal or Constitutional basis to challenge PROTECT IP. Evidence of is seen in the ICE takedowns. Those sites either stayed down or popped back up with foreign domain names, out of reach of US law enforcement.... for now. PROTECT IP will actually leave the"free speech" rights in tact. They can still offer their infringing wares, just not with the aid of US payment processors, search engines or ad networks.
Let me make a prediction for you. This fight is going to go the same way as you middle school dodgeball games. Remember those?
"Also, the movie studios, the other part of piracy, the main part of piracy now, have been having record box office year after record box office year."
So are you saying that taking something that belongs to a successful business is OK? That's interesting.
Maybe the record box office comes from the fact that it's kind of hard to sneak into movie theaters.
"So, to you, I have to say: put up or shut up."
About the kind of argument I'd expect from someone whose avatar looks like it has an extra chromosome. I assume it's a good likeness of you.
Good idea or not, US Constitutional rights aren't guaranteed to everyone in the world. By the way, the usual apologist argument is that we have no business trying to force US laws (whether the USC or Constitution) on other countries. But the PROTECT IP Act doesn't even do that. It allows orders to be served on US search engines, US payment processors and US ad networks. So even under the tortured theory that foreign web sites are somehow "entitled" to free speech rights, (even if they are infringing and wouldn't be protected anyway) they are still free to exercise those undeserved "free speech" rights as the only thing that is cut off is the money and easy recognition of their name by US search engines.
"There have been a number of studies in the US and abroad about job loss due to digital theft. Love to see your study on why the reverse is true.
Yes, studies funded by content industries, where content companies are asked to estimate how much they lose a year to foreign piracy. Great studies."
Feel free to cite apologist studies. Do you reject every study whose conclusion calls into question your moral imperative to freeload?
"Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
Hey, you got one piece right. Domain siezure only applies to non-domestic sites. How about search engines? How about links from domestic blogs? "
Read the bill. There are no seizures.
"One last thought: if the US can censor the internet, why can't France or GB? We've seen that France and Great Britan both issue super-injuctions, what would stop them from deciding that reporting on a certain French offical is illegal? Or some British football player? Logically, they should be able to take out the entirety of our news system. After all, it's against the law in their countries..."
Once again, even 1st Amendment scholar Abrams, and Lord High Apologist Masnick both agree that infringing content isn't covered by the First Amendment. France and Britain, like China are autonomous countries. If France chooses to block US news stories about their pervert IMF banker so what? That's a matter for the French people in French courts.
"This is really shameful how the MPAA twists the debate. First of all, the PROTECT IP does not effectively combat large-scale commercial infringement at all."
Interesting conclusion about a law that hasn't been yet enacted much less enforced.
"That's just wishful thinking. The actual infringement will continue."
Yes, dedicated freelaoders will be able to continue to get something for nothing.
"Second, there is no evidence that it will support American jobs or the economy. In fact, the reverse is almost certainly true, as these kinds of laws will harm large parts of the internet that enable new jobs."
There have been a number of studies in the US and abroad about job loss due to digital theft. Love to see your study on why the reverse is true.
"But the really sickening part is the Floyd Abrams quote. While it is entirely true that copyright violation is not protected by the First Amendment that's not what Schmidt or anyone else raising these issues are concerned about. No one -- not Schmidt, not us -- is arguing that copyright infringement is protected by the First Amendment."
Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
"We're saying that this tool will be used against non-infringing and perfectly legal speech."
Why would this tool be any more subject to abuse than any of the other laws on the book that first require a judges order before implementation?
There's Google Bing and others. Then there's Paramount, Disney, Sony, NBC?U Warner Bros, etc. There's no monopoly in either endeavor. Though Google is more dominant in its field than any of the studios are in theirs.
(untitled comment)
As for whether or not I get insulted, I really do not care either way. I am just trying to offer you some constructive criticism and a view into how I think you are perceived as a result of your actions.
On the other hand, if this is just a tactic to make people think those who support the PROTECT IP laws are ignorant and throw insults around as a cover, nice strategy. It is working.
Good. Insults should make you laugh at some level. Glad you're not like some of the thin-skinned, Nancy boys that fly into a rehearsed nerd rage.
There's been a lot of punches thrown by both sides. Your side has suggested the MPAA guy quoted in the article is a child molester and fucks farm animals. Hardly examples of class and refinement.
The PROTECT IP minority seems to be monopolizing the term "douchebag" and "apologist" but frankly if you put the diatribe before the decision makers, the infringing side of the debate has fallen way short on the free speech and due process issues. The arguments that infringing is not stealing and somehow OK plus all of the Ted Kacyzinski talk makes you guys look like crackpots.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That way you can choose to be insulted if you like.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are just a numbskull- claiming that lobbyists write the bills and lawmakers blindly sign them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, I had no idea. That's really significant. Who's the sixth largest in the US? The Whigs? Nazis? Communists? All forces to be reckoned with.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
""To address your argument, while you can contend that a copy doesn't equal a sale. "
"No, a copy is not a sale. If you mean that a copy does not equal a lost sale, even if it does equal a lost sale, that doesn't make it wrong. Opening up an ice cream shop next to someone elses Ice cream shop may cause the first mover to lose sales but that doesn't make it wrong."
Did the owner of the second shop rig a line to the ice cream machine of the first and siphon off his product and sell it for pennies on the dollar compared to the actual owner of the ice cream?
"Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some."
"Which makes it no less wrong"
Which makes it no less right.
"By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing. "
"and you breath air and are getting something for nothing. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting something for nothing. The purpose of IP is not to prevent people from getting something for nothing, it's to promote the progress and to expand the public domain so that more people can get some'thing' for nothing'. The founding fathers understood this. If IP is about preventing people from getting something for nothing then it should be abolished. Making people pay for things for the sake of preventing people from getting something for nothing does not make good law."
Nobody invested millions of dollars creating air. No one owns air. And no one can do without air. Its entertainment you cheap fuck. If you can't afford to pay the creator, then do without.
"This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers."
"Lets see how much longer voters keep these lawmakers in office."
This is an enormous joke. This administration has more affinity for the netroots than any other in history and really don't give a shit about abetting continued freeloading and digital theft. Things will get worse for you, not better in subsequent elections.
"Lawmakers are not the ultimate authority of morality. Just because they maybe bought by corporate entities does not make them so."
Maybe not, but they are law m-a-k-e-r-s.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Quake meet boot ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Then you are disingenuously conflating two different definitions of the same word. One definition, making a copy, does not deprive the person being copied from what it is that's being copied. There is nothing immoral about this definition of the word. The second definition, taking something and depriving someone else of it, is immoral."
It's these sorts of tortured responses that proponents of PROTECT IP love to cut out and send to Senators. You use pseudo-intellectual words like "conflating", while posing absurd arguments.
To address your argument, while you can contend that a copy doesn't equal a sale. Perhaps not in every case, but certainly some. But the point you ignore is unjust enrichment. By making a perfect digital copy of a motion picture that is offered for sale without paying the creator, you are getting something for nothing.
This is why you people have no traction with lawmakers. You refuse to acknowledge that there is something wrong with what you do. Then you bulwark you bullshit premise with hysterical Constitutional arguments and specious due process claims. This is why no one but crackpots like Wyden and Google employees like Lofgren take you seriously in Washington.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Calling it stealing is a lie, why should anyone take the opinion of a liar seriously?"
Parse words all you like douchebag. Taking something of value from someone else is stealing. Most rational people view it as such.
You and the hysterical zealots like Masnick are outstanding examples to help make the case in front of the people actually VOTING on the matter. The apologists and freeloaders are off the deep end with their rhetoric. "It'll break the internet", "It will violate free speech (in Russia?)" "It's not stealing" "they can't stop us" It's the MPAA/RIAA's fault" etc, etc. If any of you think your rantings are resonating with Senators and Congressmen you're mostly wrong. Zoe Lofgren and Ron Wyden are pretty much all you've got, and are both light-weights. There's a few fencesitters, but once they are handed the articles and comments from the Techdirtbag insane asylum and other Unibomber-esque forums, they run to the other side of the issue as fast as they can. Masnick is already regarded as a buffoon and a figure of fun on the Hill. The overwhelming number of lawmakers are already supporting. That's why COICA went out of committee 19-0 last Congress. Everyone's on board. So please keep pumping the looney tunes, it will only serve to make the vote more one-sided than it will already be.
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But that's only in CD sales, right?
There's more musicians working now than ever before, if I understand correctly. But cite something to the contrary so I can look for myself, please.
Also, the movie studios, the other part of piracy, the main part of piracy now, have been having record box office year after record box office year."
How does a company's revenue or profitability affect the discussion over whether illegally appropriating its intellectual property is right or wrong?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry about your monopoly/copyright issues. Get in you time machine and talk to the founding fathers about it and maybe they;ll take it out of the Constitution for you. There are all kinds of substitutes for a given film. Some even legitimately free. Why not enjoy those instead of freeloading? Because tis is what the debate is all about. You are just too fucking cheap to pay for the latest Transformer movie so you steal a copy instead.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess that you have adulterated the term "monopoly" as a substitute for copyright. The founding fathers put copyright protection in the Constitution because they realized that in order to promote creation, creators need a period of exclusive use in order to profit from their innovation. Funny how you apologists jump up and down waiving your copy of the Constitution about due process and free speech and when it comes to Constitutional provisions for copyright seem to have a convenient memory lapse. That's called hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't make me laugh. This is all about freeloading and an exaggerated sense of entitlement. People illegally download and stream movies and TV because it's easy, free and low risk. Legally downloading and streaming copyrighted content could be a scarcity that could be sold (more widely) too, if it was not competing against free or a price point that doesn't actually include the production costs.
And what's with this monopoly shit? Paramount, Sony, Warner Bros, Fox, Disney, NBC/U- they all compete. Throw in the mini-majors, independents etc. How's that a monopoly?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no viable legal or Constitutional basis to challenge PROTECT IP. Evidence of is seen in the ICE takedowns. Those sites either stayed down or popped back up with foreign domain names, out of reach of US law enforcement.... for now. PROTECT IP will actually leave the"free speech" rights in tact. They can still offer their infringing wares, just not with the aid of US payment processors, search engines or ad networks.
Let me make a prediction for you. This fight is going to go the same way as you middle school dodgeball games. Remember those?
Re: Re: Re:
So are you saying that taking something that belongs to a successful business is OK? That's interesting.
Maybe the record box office comes from the fact that it's kind of hard to sneak into movie theaters.
"So, to you, I have to say: put up or shut up."
About the kind of argument I'd expect from someone whose avatar looks like it has an extra chromosome. I assume it's a good likeness of you.
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Yes, studies funded by content industries, where content companies are asked to estimate how much they lose a year to foreign piracy. Great studies."
Feel free to cite apologist studies. Do you reject every study whose conclusion calls into question your moral imperative to freeload?
"Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
Hey, you got one piece right. Domain siezure only applies to non-domestic sites. How about search engines? How about links from domestic blogs? "
Read the bill. There are no seizures.
"One last thought: if the US can censor the internet, why can't France or GB? We've seen that France and Great Britan both issue super-injuctions, what would stop them from deciding that reporting on a certain French offical is illegal? Or some British football player? Logically, they should be able to take out the entirety of our news system. After all, it's against the law in their countries..."
Once again, even 1st Amendment scholar Abrams, and Lord High Apologist Masnick both agree that infringing content isn't covered by the First Amendment. France and Britain, like China are autonomous countries. If France chooses to block US news stories about their pervert IMF banker so what? That's a matter for the French people in French courts.
(untitled comment)
"This is really shameful how the MPAA twists the debate. First of all, the PROTECT IP does not effectively combat large-scale commercial infringement at all."
Interesting conclusion about a law that hasn't been yet enacted much less enforced.
"That's just wishful thinking. The actual infringement will continue."
Yes, dedicated freelaoders will be able to continue to get something for nothing.
"Second, there is no evidence that it will support American jobs or the economy. In fact, the reverse is almost certainly true, as these kinds of laws will harm large parts of the internet that enable new jobs."
There have been a number of studies in the US and abroad about job loss due to digital theft. Love to see your study on why the reverse is true.
"But the really sickening part is the Floyd Abrams quote. While it is entirely true that copyright violation is not protected by the First Amendment that's not what Schmidt or anyone else raising these issues are concerned about. No one -- not Schmidt, not us -- is arguing that copyright infringement is protected by the First Amendment."
Here's a real question I don't know the answer to. Are foreign operators entitled to free speech protection? Inasmuch as this bill targets only foreign actors are they entitled to any Constitutional protection?
"We're saying that this tool will be used against non-infringing and perfectly legal speech."
Why would this tool be any more subject to abuse than any of the other laws on the book that first require a judges order before implementation?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
More comments from buck lateral >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by buck lateral.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt