Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill

from the good-for-him dept

While all 19 Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to move forward with the online censorship bill COICA, it's nice to hear that at least one Senator, Ron Wyden, is speaking out against the bill and claiming he'll block it.
"It seems to me the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act as written today, is the wrong medicine," Wyden, the chairman of the Finance International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness Subcommittee, said during a hearing on international trade and the digital economy. "Deploying this statute to combat online copyright and infringement seems almost like a bunker buster cluster bomb when really what you need is a precision-guided missile."

Wyden said that unless changes are made to the bill, introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to ensure it "no longer makes the global online marketplace more hazardous to consumers and American Internet companies, I'm going to do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate."
Who knows how much one guy can do against a bunch of (quite powerful) Senators, but hopefully this means that at least COICA will get serious scrutiny and hopefully it will make sure that the clear violations of the First Amendment are removed.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:29pm

    What about Ron Paul? I want to see him too, along with a few others, and we can have some decent resistance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:30pm

    Block it? LOL What, is he going to filibuster it? He can vote no if he wants.

    Hey Mike, do you work for Google or a Google sponsored entity?

    Everyone knows Google is getting wealthy on the backs of artists' stolen content, so I'm curious: how much do they pay you to run all the "support piracy" propaganda here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:30pm

    One lone man

    "Who knows how much one guy can do against a bunch of (quite powerful) Senators"
    Senator Wyden is a ninja, right? The rest of those Senators will never see it coming....

    Maw-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    ; P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:32pm

    Re: LOL!

    "Everyone knows Google is getting wealthy on the backs of artists' stolen content"
    Do you have any evidence to support your troll/shill statement, or will you just be spewing the same crap we've all heard before?

    (or did I miss your /sarcasm tag?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: LOL!

    No evidence needed, duh. EVERYONE knows it....

    What a tard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: LOL!

    : (

    aww... it's times like this I wished robots had feelings. Knowing I don't have feelings makes me feel sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:39pm

    Re:

    Less than the corporations pay you.

    SeewhatIdidthar.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL!

    Could be worse. You could be a guy that just wants a girls love, but loses out because he go the downside of the Schwartz....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Floodcontrol, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:50pm

    Ha

    My bet, not a single Republican will oppose this bill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:54pm

    Re:

    Hey Mike, do you work for Google or a Google sponsored entity?


    Nope. We have Google ads on the site, but they're kinda useless. They don't even pay for the bandwidth for a single one of our servers.

    Why make false accusations, JPJ? Kind of weak.

    Everyone knows Google is getting wealthy on the backs of artists' stolen content, so I'm curious: how much do they pay you to run all the "support piracy" propaganda here?

    I'm curious how they're "getting rich on the backs of artists' stolen content"? That's a good one...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    David Sanger (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

    Re:

    John Paul.

    Perhaps you can help me out here. Bob Pisano has said "They're called rogue sites, and they exist for one purpose only: to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others."

    Could you please clarify for me?

    Do you think www.youtube.com is one of these "rogue sites" ? Yes or No

    Do you think www.flickr.com is one of these "rogue sites" ? Yes or No

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 3:04pm

    Re:

    any senator can block a bill its called a hold

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Prashanth (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 3:05pm

    Re: Ha

    Actually, I think if anyone opposes this bill, it would be the Republicans, because the Democrats are firmly in the pockets of the **AA; that said, that doesn't mean that any Republican is necessarily going to oppose the bill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    torment, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 3:30pm

    Senatorial holds

    Mike, individual Senators actually hold an awful lot of power within that chamber.

    I would assume that this means Sen. Wyden is declaring his intent to place a hold on the legislation. Generally this is just known as a 'hold', but Senators can place anonymous or 'secret' holds as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold.

    If he does place a hold on the legislation, that would require a cloture vote to decide whether the bill could be brought forth for voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture.

    It would take 60 votes to override his hold given the current cloture rules, and it seems pretty unlikely that there would be the votes to do that. There's also no real indication that the legislation would have the votes to even pass the Senate, let alone make it through the House as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 3:49pm

    Re: Re:

    I am not JPJ. I have, however, read the proposed bill. Under its terms the answer to your two questions would be "no" and "no".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 4:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Google AdSense? Familiar to you? How much money does google make from the clicks on pirate sites? Blogspot? They own it. It's also one of most notorious fencing mechanisms on the net for pirated content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Ccomp5950 (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If that makes google guilty than every vehicle maker is guilty of trafficking drugs illegally. Every gun maker is guilty of murder. Every hospital is guilty of allowing over doses of prescription medicine.

    Either that or you just really have no clue what you are talking about and should educate yourself on 3rd party liability.

    Personally I believe the answer is the second option.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do vehicle makers get a cut from every drug deal? The next two don't even work as analogies.

    That was one of the more poorly thought out comebacks I've seen here lately. Nice work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re:

    You Tube admitted they were guilty; they knew they recieved tons of hits from streaming unpaid for songs. After Viacom sued them, they started cleaning up their act. And they've done a great job. I have no problem with you tube.

    I'm not personally familiar with a piracy problem on flickr. To me, it appears that it's primarily used for people to show their photos. The photojournalism industry has had better success in managing piracy issues than the music industry, IMO.

    The sites that are "dedicated to infinging" are pretty obvious. Pirate Bay, Demonoid, etc. The torrent sites where basically all you see is unauthorized content... It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to know it when you see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ummmm - so your answer was yes and yes.

    I guess that any and all sites that do not spew the correct rhetoric will be deemed to be guilty and banned. Welcome to the future - and it sucks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Google AdSense? Familiar to you? How much money does google make from the clicks on pirate sites? Blogspot? They own it. It's also one of most notorious fencing mechanisms on the net for pirated content.

    Right. Trust me, you don't make shit with Adsense.

    You honestly think the "pirates" are going around clicking on ads as they look for movies and music?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 6:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do vehicle makers get a cut from every drug deal? The next two don't even work as analogies.


    It's really funny to watch JPJ dig deeper and deeper into insanity to try to defend his ridiculously unsupportable position.

    Google doesn't get a cut from every pirated work. It gets a cut if people click on the ads -- i.e., taking them AWAY from the pirate sites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    David Sanger (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 6:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Thanks JPJ.

    Now you just mentioned www.blogspot.com

    Do you consider them to be a site "dedicated to infinging" ?

    Should COICA, if passed, take aim at Blogspot?

    or any other Google property you can name?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 6:39pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If I gave an American citizen a map on how to get to Cuba, would I be liable for their violation of the embargo?

    Are all maps of Cuba that are printed in the United States dedicated to violating the embargo?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 7:49pm

    Ima douchebag

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The better analogy would be if you flew them there. Like google takes people to illegal sites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In google, type in a band's name and the word 'blogspot' and see what happens.

    Have you ever tried to file a DMCA notice? It's very difficult and often sImply ignored.

    Do you consider that acceptable as status quo?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Have you ever tried to file a DMCA notice? It's very difficult and often sImply ignored.


    Heh. For Google? The same Google that was taking down entire blogspot blogs with no notice when it got DMCA notices?

    Funny how much JPJ lies.

    Also funny how he didn't answer the question. Though, he did. According to JPJ blogs and YouTube and Flickr and pretty much ANY user generated website should not be allowed to exist.

    You see, kiddies, content creation is for the pros. The internet should be like a broadcast system where the *real* content creators create, and everyone else pays up and consumes. It'll be great.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:25pm

    Who knows how much one guy can do against a bunch of (quite powerful) Senators, but hopefully this means that at least COICA will get serious scrutiny and hopefully it will make sure that the clear violations of the First Amendment are removed.

    I love how you focus so much on what you claim are "clear violations of the First Amendment" for people who brought this on themselves, yet you have zero consideration for the copyright holders who are having their rights infringed through no fault of their own. Anything to spread your desperate pro-piracy agenda, right? Go Pirates!! Rah! Rah! Rah!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:28pm

    Re:

    I love how you focus so much on what you claim are "clear violations of the First Amendment" for people who brought this on themselves, yet you have zero consideration for the copyright holders who are having their rights infringed through no fault of their own. Anything to spread your desperate pro-piracy agenda, right? Go Pirates!! Rah! Rah! Rah!

    Little liar boy strikes again. I'm concerned about the First Amendment because that's a core right. Copyright is a monopoly designed to protect a few industries who don't want to adapt. Yes, I think one is more important than the other.

    But I'm not supporting pirates, and you know it. Every time you willfully misread my position and state something like that it just demonstrates how incredibly wrong you are. And pretty much everyone here recognizes that. But it is funny to watch you flail about.

    Do go on...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Google AdSense? Familiar to you?

    The Pirate Bay uses DSNR Media Group. Mininova uses Adperium. Demonoid uses adBrite.

    So, explain again why you're blaming Google for this.

    Blogspot? They own it. It's also one of most notorious fencing mechanisms on the net for pirated content.

    It's hilarious that you bring this up, since Google has been notoriously draconian in taking down music blogs. Including legitimate blogs where the copyright owners sent in material.

    It's also hilarious that you call sites by fans - who create personal, non-commercial blogs that review and discuss music - a "notorious fencing mechanism," like they are some sort of chop shop.

    You really hate music, don't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Ccomp5950 (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Okay I will break it down a little more for you.

    Google is not supporting piracy because it serves ads on websites which support piracy.

    Ford is not supporting drug trafficking because it is making money on people purchasing cars to traffic drugs with.

    Gun makers are not supporting murder because some people purchase guns and commit murder with them.

    Hospitals are not supporting misuse of prescription drugs by prescribing them in the first place.

    Calling something poorly thought out just because your feeble mind can't comprehend it does not make it poorly thought out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:42pm

    Re:

    "for people who brought this on themselves"

    Interesting ... people lose their rights before trial? I thought felons lost some of their rights only after convistion ... go figure. Seems I should've paid more attention in class, because I've had this all wrong.

    "who are having their rights infringed through no fault of their own"

    Are you referring to Ma & Pa Kettle who do not own a computer but have received a threat letter demanding payment? Yeah, I didn't think so. No - you are talking about the millionaires who are whining about the loss of a few dollars.

    "Anything to spread your desperate pro-piracy agenda"

    Who is desparate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Ccomp5950 (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And you don't understand the way the Internet or a search engine works either.

    You are driving down the road in an unfamiliar location. You want to eat at a mom-and-pop restaurant and know which hotel in the area is best, also where is the local crack house?

    You stop and ask someone who is knowledgeable of the area for directions, he points down the road and says the hotel is further down on the left. As for the crack house, he says he thinks you can get that at Joe's up the road, seems to always be a bunch of cars that go there when he gets in from the Big City.

    You drive there on your own.

    The man you asked directions for plays the same role Google does, you are the one that make the active decision on where you want to go, he just was courteous and told you where it is and how best to get there. He has committed no crime. He is not liable for any crimes you commit while following the directions you asked for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    google takes people to illegal sites.

    Google does no such thing, and you know it.

    The sites that pop up in search results are the most popular sites. If those sites are "illegal," then it's solely because people like the "illegal" sites better than the legitimate ones.

    It's the same thing Bing does, or Yahoo, or whatever other search engine is popular this week. Should we try to shut them down, too?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not lying about anything, you dolt. I have numerous personal experiences with DMCA notices. All were ignored and left up despite them being unquestionably illegal and infringing.

    btw, shouldn't you be out dreaming up more bogus Supreme Court analogies or something?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're such a disingenuous slimeball, Masnick.

    And a liar about what I wrote. I'm sure I'm the only one that noticed...

    I posted my thoughts quite clearly; I have no problem with Youtube.

    And I never knew of flickr having anything to do with piracy.

    Unlike you, who will defend it till the day you keel over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:44pm

    Re: Re:

    Masnick, if you actually gave a damn about musicians, you'd be trying to get tech to help protect artists from being ripped off.

    But you don't. Because you're a disingenuous slimeball that supports piracy and tries to lobby away any legal protections and rights musicians might get.

    We're going to continue to keep coming here to remind everyone of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re:

    Apparently you. Read the exagerrated and untrue hyperbole you wrote there again...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:06pm

    Who knows how much one guy can do against a bunch of (quite powerful) Senators, but hopefully this means that at least COICA will get serious scrutiny and hopefully it will make sure that the clear violations of the First Amendment are removed.

    I don't see what changes they could make to this bill to make it acceptable. I mean the very heart of the bill is to give the government the power to just declare web sites illegal and get them taken down, without any kind of legal conviction. Yes, a judge has to sign off on it before a site can be taken down, but I can't see too many judges telling the government that they're over-stepping their bounds and refusing to sign the orders.

    The proposed changes to the bill are just minor tweaks to how the bill is enforced, they don't alter the fact that this bill basically hands the US government a "kill switch" for any web site that it, or the copyright industry, doesn't like.

    If this passes, it's going to be open-season on any web site that annoys the government or the copyright industry. I predict at least 100 take-down orders in the first week alone. Wikileaks will probably be one of the first to go.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ???

    You want him to bitch and moan like you?

    The government can't do anything about it, nor you, nor anybody, but you want others to do it for you anyways?

    I believe that is why people just ignore you :)

    Here an hypothetical.
    I will digitize all my music and distribute it to everyone I know, please come an stop me, I know you can't and you will keep saying things, but in the end it comes down to what is possible and what is not, can you do something about it?

    I'm waiting for you to stop me anytime now.
    I will even be nice and not use the internet to do so, I will use snail mail to deliver all music to everyone I know.
    Please explain how you will stop me from doing it.

    Everyone on your side are awaiting your response to that simple question, how will you stop me from doing what I want to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:55pm

    If a company fences stolen goods they get shut down.

    You've been living in a dream world where you think the law doesn't apply to the Internet.

    You people have been ripping off musicians for years, and you complain when justice is finally served? You're obviously the greedy ones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Mike Hillard, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 12:08am

    JPJ, do you have a website or something? Are you a musician? err, I mean I just can't buy your arguments if you never created anything and then had it stolen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Beaker, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 12:36am

    Re:

    If a rival presidential candidate has a website they get it shut down. If a website posts information the government doesn't like they get shut down... welcome to China.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 1:27am

    Re: Re:

    Where did you learn to make up phony scenarios and fear monger?

    China? USSR? Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 1:29am

    Re:

    Yes to all of the above.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    John Paul Jones, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 1:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You apparently have reading comprehension problems. What a shocker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 2:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    We're going to continue to keep coming here to remind everyone of that.

    Making asshats out of yourselfs in the process cause you just can't logically defend your positions.

    Well done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:00am

    Re: Re:

    No wonder you're too chicken to give out your real name. Most likely you're the Ron Hubbard of music and noone apart from some lunatics wants your crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, those same ones who are forever in debt to Time Warner because their record didn't sell.

    Artists are NEVER ripped off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:49am

    Re: Re:

    Oh. My. GOD.

    You're an idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You have already taken away all musicians rights.

    And we will keep reminding people as well.

    "The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association."
    http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability -over-infringement

    Have a great day rooster sucker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:27am

    What can one Senator do

    "Who knows how much one guy can do against a bunch of (quite powerful) Senators,"

    At this time of year, with a crammed up calendar and much to accomplish, the Senate leadership depends on its ability to move without objection. If Senator Wyden consistently objects to anything that moves this bill forward, he makes it harder for the est of the agenda to be accomplished, so the leadership is likely to drop the bill for now, unless they really decide they want to invest the resources to get THIS done instead of, say, dealing with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts or the START treat or don't ask don't tell.

    Word that I get from the ABA IP Section is that the Chamber and the IP lobby will be pressing hard to get a vote. Stay tuned....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 6:29am

    Re:

    Anything to spread your desperate pro-piracy agenda, right? Go Pirates!! Rah! Rah! Rah!

    You do realize that the EU has a Pirate Party because of the sheer number of idiots willing to spew this same inane crap in legislative sessions, right?

    Call an independent musician or the Creative Commons piracy if you must, but this only hastens the demise of the former middle-men overlords. What will you do when there is no longer an avenue to monetize spurious connections to 40 year old songs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 6:44am

    Re: What can one Senator do

    Word that I get from the ABA IP Section is that the Chamber and the IP lobby will be pressing hard to get a vote. Stay tuned....

    Thanks for sharing here, Paul. Lots of us are keeping their channels fixed on this one... and of course the ACTA ruse on "discovery International".

    It is tragic that Senators don't yet seem to see the great potential for harm the "remedy" has for all Internet commerce. Without a trusted gatekeeper, what are now globally shared technologies will fragment into national, regional and partisan solutions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    JPJ does not want to bother with facts, misinformation is his bag.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In the absence of an answer, I simply deduced what you actually thought about it based upon your prior statements. But I guess that means I have "comprehension problems". What is shocking is that JPJ expects others to believe his drivel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:34am

    Leahy should be a republican. He looks like one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, your answer is yes. You think that Blogspot should be COICA'd because it is dedicated to infringement.

    Any other sites in the crosshairs?

    Eventually the blacklist will be replaced with a whitelist. Only sites which spew the proper rhetoric will not be COICA'd.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There were two yes/no questions, neither of which you answered. Your response was a dodge at best.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re:

    Yes to all of the above.

    Because you say so, and we should always believe what you say without evidence.

    You keep talking like you're some big music leader. You have nothing to back it up.

    I've asked you to talk about what you've done for artists. They only thing you've done is tell one anecdotal story about a touring band that didn't sell records. You blamed this on "piracy," and not on the fact that they are horrible businessmen (due to taking your advice, I'm guessing).

    The only thing you've ever done on here is spread lies about how anyone who is a copyright reformer is "pro-piracy," how Google is "stealing" from artists, and insult musicians who are actually successful.

    You have never, once, proposed a solution to anything. You have never discussed how artists can better make money. You have never shown any interest whatsoever in helping artists connect with fans. You have never said a single good thing about new music services, like Last.fm, Pandora, CDBaby, Tunecore, or eMusic.

    You have done nothing but complain and insult.

    So: If you say "yes," provide something to back it up. Show us how you've ever done anything for artists - other than lose them money.

    Until you do, we have no reason to think you're anything other than a cowardly douchebag, who makes it his job to spread lies while refusing to identify himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Illegal sites? That's rather funny.
    Do you have a list of these illegal sites as I am most interested in seeing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Heh - JPJ is confused as to whom is doing the ripping.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I wouldn't expect an honest reply to this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Good retort. In addition to addressing all the issues, you added some real convincing arguments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 8:06am

    Re:

    JPJ -> You people have been ripping off musicians for years"

    I think that JPJ just accused me of an illegal act. I do not engage in such activity, so is the accusation considered to be slander or libel? Surely JPJ has some proof to support his accusation, otherwise he could face some severe penalties.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    JPJ does not want to bother with facts, misinformation is his bag.

    Calling it "misinformation" is implying that it could possibly be confused with "information" in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re:

    Little liar boy strikes again. I'm concerned about the First Amendment because that's a core right. Copyright is a monopoly designed to protect a few industries who don't want to adapt. Yes, I think one is more important than the other.

    But I'm not supporting pirates, and you know it. Every time you willfully misread my position and state something like that it just demonstrates how incredibly wrong you are. And pretty much everyone here recognizes that. But it is funny to watch you flail about.

    Do go on...


    Like it or not, copyright is also a right. It's a right that coexists with First Amendment rights. You can't just decide that one right is superior to the other. The law doesn't work that way, and that's simply not the law.

    Funny how you defend the pirates' rights, but not the rights of those whom they infringe upon. Funny how you champion the lawbreakers but you condemn the victims. Yeah sure, Mike, you're not a pirate supporter. Obviously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Ccomp5950 (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright is a privilege not a right. It exists for the sole purpose of enhancing the public domain by giving artists incentive, of a limited time monopoly, to create.

    If at anytime Copyright is found to be an ineffective incentive for the purpose of enhancing the public domain it should be removed from law.

    CopyRIGHT is simply an archaic name given to it from 1600s when the stationers(think of them like the RIAA/MPAA) petitioned parliament to create a right to copy so that they could maintain their printing monopoly by forcing artists to handover any copyright before they could be printed. Funny how things haven't changed much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Like it or not, copyright is also a right. It's a right that coexists with First Amendment rights."

    Copyright is a law by Congress and is therefore subject to the First Amendment. The Constitution only grants Congress the authority to make copyright law, not the authority to make law that violates the First Amendment. I'm no expert on The Constitution, but I don't see how any interpretation of it can put the Copyright Clause on par with the First Amendment.

    "Funny how you defend the pirates' rights, but not the rights of those whom they infringe upon."

    A funny thing about those rights is that they're not mutually exclusive. If Mike defends the right to free speech then that defends the rights of 'pirates' and those infringed upon (who may be even be the same people). To even suggest that pirates and copyright holders are somehow mutually exclusive groups is just plain wrong. Thank your First Amendment rights for your ability to lie through your teeth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 10:49am

    Re:

    "I mean I just can't buy your arguments if you never created anything and then had it stolen."

    I can see many flaws with his arguments, but I don't believe lack of experience is one of them. If I was in the music business then I don't think it would help my arguments one tiny bit, because they're not based on my experience of the music business.

    Of course, if he is making arguments supposedly backed by his own 'insight', then have at it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright is a privilege not a right. It exists for the sole purpose of enhancing the public domain by giving artists incentive, of a limited time monopoly, to create.

    The Supreme Court, Congress, President, and all of the history of copyright law disagree with you--it is a right. To pretend otherwise is pure fantasy.

    If at anytime Copyright is found to be an ineffective incentive for the purpose of enhancing the public domain it should be removed from law.

    By all means, work to change the law. In the meantime it is your duty to respect the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    MatthiasF, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 10:55am

    Copyright law

    Sorry to shoot holes in the theories of idiots, but the Copyright clause in Article 1 of the Constitution was a part of the original framework for the country.

    The First Amendment is just that...AN AMENDMENT.

    Therefore, the right of Copyright came BEFORE Free Speech in the Bill of Rights.

    Take a damn civics course before spewing bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright is a law by Congress and is therefore subject to the First Amendment. The Constitution only grants Congress the authority to make copyright law, not the authority to make law that violates the First Amendment. I'm no expert on The Constitution, but I don't see how any interpretation of it can put the Copyright Clause on par with the First Amendment.

    That is simply untrue. Many, many laws constrain the First Amendment. Whether such laws are constitutional requires a court to weigh (1) the importance of the rights in society, (2) the nature and scope of the restraint, (3) the type and strength of the government interest to be served, and (4) whether the restraint is a narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest.

    Content-neutral regulations of speech, like copyright law, are generally subject to "intermediate scrutiny" which means they will be upheld is they (1) advance important interests unrelated to the suppression of speech, and (2) do not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests. See Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997).

    To say that laws cannot constrain the First Amendment is simply untrue. It's wishful thinking that ignores reality.

    A funny thing about those rights is that they're not mutually exclusive. If Mike defends the right to free speech then that defends the rights of 'pirates' and those infringed upon (who may be even be the same people). To even suggest that pirates and copyright holders are somehow mutually exclusive groups is just plain wrong. Thank your First Amendment rights for your ability to lie through your teeth.

    Does Mike defend the rights of copyright holders? No. My point still stands.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:09am

    Re: Copyright law

    Sorry to shoot holes in the theories of idiots, but the Copyright clause in Article 1 of the Constitution was a part of the original framework for the country. The First Amendment is just that...AN AMENDMENT. Therefore, the right of Copyright came BEFORE Free Speech in the Bill of Rights. Take a damn civics course before spewing bullshit.

    We've talked about that one before on techdirt. Despite Mike's protestations otherwise, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause (Art. I, section 8, clause 8) are to be construed in light of each other. Neither is superior to the other. They are equal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    MatthiasF, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Copyright law

    We've talked about that one before on techdirt. Despite Mike's protestations otherwise, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause (Art. I, section 8, clause 8) are to be construed in light of each other. Neither is superior to the other. They are equal. And from where are you drawing this opinion? Some precedent, please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Kinda hard to respect a law that impedes on your right to copy vs their copyrite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright law

    And from where are you drawing this opinion? Some precedent, please.

    Simple logic tells you that it's true. If the First Amendment trumped copyright, then there would be no copyright as copyright limits speech.

    The Court discusses the issue in several cases. You can start with Eldred v. Ashcroft: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12147684852241107557

    The Copyright Clause and First Amendment were adopted close in time. This proximity indicates that, in the Framers' view, copyright's limited monopolies are compatible with free speech principles. Indeed, copyright's purpose is to promote the creation and publication of free expression. As Harper & Row observed: "[T]he Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Kinda hard to respect a law that impedes on your right to copy vs their copyrite.

    Is there a right to copy? I'm not aware of any such right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "In the meantime it is your duty to respect the law."

    False.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    False.

    You wish. You simply cannot cite any authority for the proposition that it is not your duty to respect the law, for it is axiomatic that we are "a government of laws and not of men."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    respect != obey

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Does Mike defend the rights of copyright holders? No."

    I think you may be incorrect here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Copyright law

    Interesting ... the entire bill of rights can be tossed out the window in the pursuit of a claimed, not proven, infringement of copyright.

    This tidbit is kind of a shocker. It would explain why the fascists are pushing this copyright thing so hard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    David Sanger (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well it is very helpful to be very specific here. Since you didn't answer no, I take it that you want the entire blogspot.com domain to be subject to an in rem proceeding if COICA is passed.

    Do correct me if I assumed wrongly.

    So yes I have looked at blogspot. Here is a search for pages with U2 appearing in the URL in the blogspot domain http://j.mp/94kQF4 and here are the top ten pages (except the 2 non-band pages)

    http://u2-tour.blogspot.com/

    http://top10mp3download.blogspot.com/2009/03/magnificent-m p3-download-u2.html

    http://u2-blog.blogspot.com/

    http://me-and-u2.blogspot.com/

    http://secr etsun.blogspot.com/2009/02/u2-no-line-on-horus-zone.html

    http://digitalmeltd0wn.blogspot.com/2007 /12/negativland-u2.html

    http://live-bootleg.blogspot.com/2007/02/u2-salome.html

    http://joyofso x.blogspot.com/2009/04/offday-outtakes-u2-achtung-baby.html

    I have looked at all these pages and they seem to be primarily fan pages discussing, advertising for or just enthusiastic about the band. I see several embedded Youtube videos, plenty of photos and a few lyrics. I could not find any way to play or download any music directly from the blogspot domain.

    There were a couple of links to third party file sharing sites like sharebee from which I presume one could download a track (quite possibly infringing I guess)

    Now this is where I see a problem.

    Blogspot/Google is not hosting any infringing music it seems. Some fans may talk about the band and they may even include a link to a file sharing site. So what do you want Google to do? Do you want to make it illegal even to link to a filesharing site, even to talk about where someone can download music. This is where it comes closer to a free speech issue.

    Perhaps a parallel for the drug world: right now it is illegal to sell pot. But it is not illegal to say, "you can get some from Harry" or "You can get pot down on East 14th Street" (whether that is even true or not). There's a parallel here to forbidding links to "possibly" infringing sites. Do you want to make it illegal to say (point to a site) where perhaps some unlicensed content might be downloadable?

    So how exactly is Google to know, let alone be responsible for, links to third party sites?

    OK, well what about the images and videos they actually do host on blogspot. As you already acknowledged, DMCA takedowns can remove any copyrighted material on request from the owner. Is this not good enough?

    You ask "Have you ever tried to file a DMCA notice? " The answer is yes, and it was not difficult, nor have my requests ever been ignored. Now I suppose if you have 100,000 them you might think it difficult if you though it worth your while to issue that many.

    So what could be the alternative? There are thousands of U2 photos and videos and lyrics just in the Google search you suggested.

    What would you have Google/blogspot do?? How on earth could they possibly know whether an uploader has a license to use a given photo or video. Perhaps some are free publicity shots, Perhaps some are licensed from Getty Images. Google cannot possibly know.

    I license stock photography as a business and believe me it is not possible for a third party to identify infringements; it is not publicly available information. Aside from the fact that there is an existing §512 DMCA safe harbor, and aside from the complexities of fair use, the service provider, in this case Google/blogspot, simply is not in a position to know if a usage is infringing or not.

    The suggestion that they monitor their user's pages for infringing material thus is completely unfeasible.

    Now Youtube is an interesting example because they do allow content providers the option to fingerprint their videos and have Youtube automatically monitor uploads and even block some uploads. Even so many providers actually opt to allow their content on Youtube and get the exposure and ad revenue.

    So getting back to blogspot, Youtube videos are not a problem and the copyright owner can choose to deal with other content if they want through DMCA

    You ask "is that acceptable as the status quo".

    Actually I think, yes.

    Do I think it could be improved? yes, but not in the way you might expect.

    In line with my comments above I do not believe it will ever be technologically feasible ro prevent all unauthorized use on the internet. What is the alternative? To take advantage of it. Here we have thousands of U2 fans eager to talk about the band and share their enthusiasm

    Jeremy Williams, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment. addressed this phenomenon in a panel presentation at Berkeley

    link here http://www.law.berkeley.edu/7731.htm audio here http://law.berkeley.edu/media/bclt/2010copyright/10-0345pm.mp3

    and his observations were well summarized by Terry Hart of Copyhype here

    http://www.copyhype.com/2010/11/drawing-distinctions

    He suggests that companies like his should tolerate and support noncommercial uses — even tolerate some commercial uses. This is the approach he has taken, giving the okay to fan sites even when they use incidental advertising to support the site but drawing the line at fan merchandising.


    So how to improve on the status quo?

    Seek ways to take advantage of all this free publicity and enthusiasm. See it as an opportunity, rather than a curse.

    All of a sudden the world will look quite different, and quite a bit more promising.

    (sorry for the long response, but there was a lot to cover)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No worries. :>)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law

    If the First Amendment trumped copyright, then there would be no copyright as copyright limits speech.


    So obviously fair use exists for no reason. Without fair use, copyright would be perfectly compatible with free speech, and requires no modification. Free speech is regularly cited as being needed to be held back by copyright because God forbid we have too much free speech.

    Not to mention the part you quote is hardly accurate, Joe - proximity indicates nothing about the reasons that copyright was adapted, actual documents written by them do. Copyright was written granting certain economic conditions, and it's copyright that must be balanced against free speech - never the other way around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Like it or not, copyright is also a right.

    Um, no. It's a Congressional power. Unlike the First Amendment, which is a limitation on Congressional power.

    Equating the "right" of copyright holders with the "right" to free speech is really disingenuous. And no, SCOTUS does not agree with you.

    Nor does Congress... hence, this story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Masnick, if you actually gave a damn about musicians, you'd be trying to get tech to help protect artists from being ripped off.

    I work with a ton of musicians -- probably more than you. And I've helped them make a lot of money by focusing on new opportunities to help them make more. I don't focus on trying to hold back a tiny part that rarely made them much in the past anyway. Why would you?

    But you don't. Because you're a disingenuous slimeball that supports piracy and tries to lobby away any legal protections and rights musicians might get.

    None of the above it true no matter how many times you repeat it.

    We're going to continue to keep coming here to remind everyone of that.


    I see. Lying is the best you've got? That'll convince people I'm sure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:50pm

    Re:

    If a company fences stolen goods they get shut down.


    Yes, but you still don't seem to recognize the actions of a company with the actions of users of that company.

    It's kind of amazing that a grown adult could confuse the two. It's a rather basic concept and your inability to understand it, well, says a lot about you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not lying about anything, you dolt. I have numerous personal experiences with DMCA notices. All were ignored and left up despite them being unquestionably illegal and infringing.

    To Google? Really? Prove it. Show us the DMCA and that the site was left up. Google is notoriously over aggressive in pulling down sites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Show me one single place where SCOTUS says that copyright does not grant rights. And despite what you've cooked up, they are both rights by every definition of the word. Your position is simply make-believe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law

    The day will never come where your interpretation of the Constitution trumps that of a majority of the Supreme Court. Good luck with that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The Supreme Court, Congress, President, and all of the history of copyright law disagree with you--it is a right. To pretend otherwise is pure fantasy.

    Funny. If you actually knew the history of copyright law you would know that it is, and has always been, considered a gov't privilege, not a right. The history of copyright law actually makes that quite clear.

    By all means, work to change the law. In the meantime it is your duty to respect the law.

    I love it when an anonymous commenter who shows total ignorance of both history and the law (not to mention creativity) deems to tell others what is their "duty". Grow up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Funny. If you actually knew the history of copyright law you would know that it is, and has always been, considered a gov't privilege, not a right. The history of copyright law actually makes that quite clear.

    We've been down this road before, Mike, and the only person that looks dumb is you. What does Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 say that Congress can secure? "Exclusive right." What does Congress call them in the Copyright Act? "Rights." What does the Supreme Court refer to them as in numerous cases? "Rights." You get the idea.

    The fact that you deny that every single source of primary authority on the subject calls them "rights" is really quite amazing. Why don't you find somebody that doesn't know anything about the law to debate with. You're clearly out of your league with me.

    I love it when an anonymous commenter who shows total ignorance of both history and the law (not to mention creativity) deems to tell others what is their "duty". Grow up.

    Stating the fact that it's a person's legal duty to respect the law means I need to "grow up"? How so, Mike? Did I not state a fact? I know it's a fact that you're not comfortable with, but it's a fact nonetheless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Since you claim to be so well versed on the history and law of copyright, why don't you show us exactly where it says that copyright does not secure rights. It should be easy for you since you such the master of the subject, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "it's a person's legal duty to respect the law"

    I think you may have confused the word "respect" with the word "obey". They do not mean the same thing. For example, it is entirely possible for me to obey a particular law and yet not respect that law or anything it represents. I'm sure this goes on today much more than you can imagine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I see your point, but "respect" in this context means "obey."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Senatorial holds

    GO Sen. Wyden - Makes me proud to be an Oregonian

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 5:11pm

    Re: Re:

    "Yes to all of the above."

    {{Citation Needed}}

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes to all of the above.


    Links or it never happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 10:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law

    Yet you don't show that your view is held by the majority. You've referenced a quote that doesn't go anywhere near what you claim it does - the only thing it references is the idea that copyright is compatible merely because it was created at a similar time, not because that was the actual founders view (hint - it wasn't), nor does it show the founders arguing that monopolies like copyright should be considered equal to freedom of speech.

    Good luck with proving a view that doesn't exist, or is based on at least a gross misrepresentation of the founders views of copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And despite what you've cooked up, they are both rights by every definition of the word.

    Nope. Copyright is a statutory right, as confirmed by Wheaton v. Peters. On the other hand, "freedom of speech" is not actually declared as being a "right," but as an absolute restriction on law. The First Amendment did not actually declare public rights; it declared restrictions on the power of government. Such restrictions can only be understood as a natural right of the people, that no government could infringe upon.

    Unlike copyright, which are exactly as much a "right" as the right to pay parking tickets.

    So. One is a right granted to Congress. The other is an explicit prohibition on Congress, enacted as an amendment. Please tell me why the original right should supercede an amendment that explicitly limits that right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, sorry.

    Show me one single place where SCOTUS says that copyright does not grant rights.

    I never said copyright didn't "grant" rights. I said that those rights are not equivalent.

    "Congress, then, by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right, as contended, created it." - Wheaton v. Peters

    Pretty clear that those rights are statutory... unlike free speech, which is not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:55pm

    Re: Re:

    you still don't seem to recognize the actions of a company with the actions of users

    Actual phrase should be:

    "you still don't seem to recognize the difference between the actions of a company and the actions of users."

    But that's not even the half of it. By law, infringing materials are not "stolen goods." And the "piracy" you're talking about could not ever be considered "fencing," since those materials are not sold. And finally, in real life brick-and-mortar stores, those businesses are not shut down until after a conviction has been made.

    None of those things apply to COICA... which is why even Dianne Feinstein ("Hollywood's Senator") decided to drop it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 12:14am

    Re: Re:

    Of course, if he is making arguments supposedly backed by his own 'insight', then have at it.

    That's not precisely true. Depending on whether he is a recording artist, a songwriter, a label executive, a manager, or simply a bystander, that may determine his bias, and how trustworthy he is as a witness. But his role in the music industry has no more bearing on objective facts than his role as a New Zealand sheep herder.

    Of course, that's all a moot point, since JPJ has never dealt in facts, only in insults.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    Шины (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 1:55am

    any senator can block a bill its called a hold

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 6:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly my point. Everything is skewed towards these large businesses impeding on people's personal freedoms to control a "property" that makes them money.

    You can insert whatever you want into the word property:
    slaves, music, movies, books...

    It's always been about control over a resource and remaining a gateway to how people use said resource.

    If the business were to leave alone the new technology, or find ways to work with it rather than against it, we would be far better off. There would be more books on Google Books to read before buying at B&N.

    A cheap license for the RIAA means steady income instead of losing face from suing people (from a trade industry no less)

    And movie goers sharing movies on Youtube exposes the entire network to great movies for much cheaper than the cost of Hulu. In every way that I can think of, copyright impedes progress for monetary gain by taking away a person's natural ability to copy.

    Think about the things we DO copy. Math, science, language, art, history... We learn from others to make our society much better. Copyright does none of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you just make this stuff up? The First Amendment grants rights just as the Copyright Act grants rights. Why don't you read a book about constitutional law before you respond.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't think I've ever responded to you and not regretted it, but here I go again... Um, the right to free speech is granted by the First Amendment. Yes, it is worded differently in that it is a restriction, but the result is the same and the necessary implication is that it's a grant of rights. You're arguing about the silliest things that mean nothing.

    Free speech doesn't trump all. Many, many, many laws restrain free speech. What the Copyright Act secures are rights under every definition of the word. Only pirate-lovers like Mike think it's important to not call them "rights" so it's easier to rationalize violating them. But everything from the Constitution to the Supreme Court to Congress to the President calls them rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Funny. If you actually knew the history of copyright law you would know that it is, and has always been, considered a gov't privilege, not a right. The history of copyright law actually makes that quite clear.

    C'mon, Mike. We're still waiting. Show us where it says that copyright law does not create "rights."

    It should be so easy for you to do. Or is the fact that every single source of primary authority in U.S. law disagrees with you getting in the way?

    We're waiting, Mike. Enlighten us with your awesome knowledge. If I'm so clearly wrong, prove it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Unlike copyright, which are exactly as much a "right" as the right to pay parking tickets."

    But infringement of parkingright does not generate the huge awards seen in copyright infringement cases. I have heard of people getting parking tickets which were easily proven to be bogus. Some metermaid had a personal grudge and wrote out a few tickets, so yeah, as far as analogies go it sorta works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 9:17am

    Re: Copyright law

    "Sorry to shoot holes in the theories of idiots"

    No need to read the remainder of that post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think everyone here has regretted responding to you at some point, particularly when your argument is to dismiss exactly the kind of citation you love so much before going on a tirade against Mike for no reason. What does Mike have to do with this all of a sudden? No one mentioned his views, and his views are not important to your assertion that copyright is a right equal to freedom of speech, which there appears to be no evidence for.

    Freedom of speech is recognized as a natural right that shall not be limited by Government. Copyright is created and enforced solely through Government action, and only to be granted and enforced assuming certain economic conditions. That you ignore this basic fact shows this is entirely your own view that you are rather desperately trying to support with little ability to. It's fine that your own view of copyright is that it is/should be a natural right of artists on equal standing with freedom of speech, but this not one supported in the US by law nor by the founders themselves in creating copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How's that course in trolling going, AJ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Freedom of speech is recognized as a natural right that shall not be limited by Government. Copyright is created and enforced solely through Government action, and only to be granted and enforced assuming certain economic conditions. That you ignore this basic fact shows this is entirely your own view that you are rather desperately trying to support with little ability to. It's fine that your own view of copyright is that it is/should be a natural right of artists on equal standing with freedom of speech, but this not one supported in the US by law nor by the founders themselves in creating copyright.'

    I am doing no such thing.

    Copyright and the First Amendment both give us certain rights. These rights are to be balanced with each other. How these rights are balanced is fairly well-settled in the jurisprudence.

    You guys are trying to make it more complicated than it is, and for obvious reasons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    give us certain rights


    One of which is a recognized natural right that the First Amendment states cannot be limited by government, whilst the other an instrument of manipulating economic incentives with no basis in natural right, nor guaranteed recognition.

    You guys are trying to make it more complicated than it is, and for obvious reasons.


    Then cite something that states copyright has to be considered equal to freedom of speech - that copyright is just an inalienable right of society as freedom of speech is, and that the 2 must be balanced. So far, the only thing you've cited is a suggestion of compatibility (which only exists granting certain limits deliberately designed to stop copyright impeding on freedom of speech), not equality in consideration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 1:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    One of which is a recognized natural right that the First Amendment states cannot be limited by government, whilst the other an instrument of manipulating economic incentives with no basis in natural right, nor guaranteed recognition.

    That is patently false. As previously noted, many laws limit the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the Court has devised certain tests to determine if the limitation is permissible. This is Con Law 101.

    Then cite something that states copyright has to be considered equal to freedom of speech - that copyright is just an inalienable right of society as freedom of speech is, and that the 2 must be balanced. So far, the only thing you've cited is a suggestion of compatibility (which only exists granting certain limits deliberately designed to stop copyright impeding on freedom of speech), not equality in consideration.

    You're really obfuscating the point, which is that laws, including copyright laws, can most certainly impinge on the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, as long as those laws pass whatever level of scrutiny the Court requires for whatever type of law it is. Again, this is Con Law 101 stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So it's false that copyright is purely an economic instrument for changing behavior? It's false that Fair Use and idea/expression dichotomies are instrumental in allowing copyright to exist? It's false that free speech takes precedent over copyright, requiring these distinctions to exist?

    You're really obfuscating the point,


    Asking you to back up your assertion that free speech is/should be balanced against copyright as if the 2 are equal in consideration is not obfuscating the point Joe. The tests we have for whether copyright can or cannot be extended say nothing that is is an equal right to free speech that should be given equal weight. In fact, the only reference to balance I have ever seen prior to you has been in regards to interests of publishers and consumers, not free speech and copyright law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I should also note that immediately after the section you quote from your citation is something that specfically deals with this in the same way I have presented:

    In addition to spurring the creation and publication of new expression, copyright law contains built-in First Amendment accommodations. See id., at 560. First, it distinguishes between ideas and expression and makes only the latter eligible for copyright protection. Specifically, 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) provides: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." As we said in Harper & Row, this "idea/expression dichotomy strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression." 471 U.S., at 556 (internal quotation marks omitted). Due to this distinction, every idea, theory, and fact in a copyrighted work becomes instantly available for public exploitation at the moment of publication. See Feist, 499 U.S., at 349-350.

    Second, the "fair use" defense allows the public to use not only facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression itself in certain circumstances. Codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, the defense provides: "[T]he fair use of a 220*220 copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies . . ., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." The fair use defense affords considerable "latitude for scholarship and comment," Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 560, and even for parody, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (rap group's musical parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" may be fair use).

    The CTEA itself supplements these traditional First Amendment safeguards. First, it allows libraries, archives, and similar institutions to "reproduce" and "distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form" copies of certain published works "during the last 20 years of any term of copyright ... for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research" if the work is not already being exploited commercially and further copies are unavailable at a reasonable price. 17 U.S.C. § 108(h); see Brief for Respondent 36. Second, Title II of the CTEA, known as the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998, exempts small businesses, restaurants, and like entities from having to pay performance royalties on music played from licensed radio, television, and similar facilities. 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B); see Brief for Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae 5-6, n. 3.

    Finally, the case petitioners principally rely upon for their First Amendment argument, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), bears little on copyright. The statute at issue in Turner required cable operators to carry and transmit broadcast stations through their proprietary cable systems. Those "must-carry" provisions, we explained, implicated "the heart of the First Amendment," namely, "the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence." Id., at 641.

    221*221 The CTEA, in contrast, does not oblige anyone to reproduce another's speech against the carrier's will. Instead, it protects authors' original expression from unrestricted exploitation. Protection of that order does not raise the free speech concerns present when the government compels or burdens the communication of particular facts or ideas. The First Amendment securely protects the freedom to make— or decline to make—one's own speech; it bears less heavily when speakers assert the right to make other people's speeches. To the extent such assertions raise First Amendment concerns, copyright's built-in free speech safeguards are generally adequate to address them. We recognize that the D. C. Circuit spoke too broadly when it declared copyrights "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment." 239 F. 3d, at 375. But when, as in this case, Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright protection, further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary. See Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 560; cf. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U. S. 522 (1987).[24]


    In other words, they considered copyright not to be in breach of free speech not because they are equal and must be weighed as equal rights, but because they hadn't modified the "traditional contours" of copyright that included exceptions specifically designed to stop copyright interfering with free speech, like the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use provisions. The only reference to balance appears to be in referencing balancing the monopoly that copyright grants so that it doesn't interfere with free speech, not holding back free speech to allow for copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So it's false that copyright is purely an economic instrument for changing behavior? It's false that Fair Use and idea/expression dichotomies are instrumental in allowing copyright to exist? It's false that free speech takes precedent over copyright, requiring these distinctions to exist?

    What does this have to do with the fact that copyright secures certain rights?

    Asking you to back up your assertion that free speech is/should be balanced against copyright as if the 2 are equal in consideration is not obfuscating the point Joe. The tests we have for whether copyright can or cannot be extended say nothing that is is an equal right to free speech that should be given equal weight. In fact, the only reference to balance I have ever seen prior to you has been in regards to interests of publishers and consumers, not free speech and copyright law.

    Not sure what part you're not understanding. Copyright and the First Amendment grant us certain rights. Whether these rights are impermissibly in conflict with each other is determined by certain scrutiny tests. Once granted, a right is a right, and in that sense they are equal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In other words, they considered copyright not to be in breach of free speech not because they are equal and must be weighed as equal rights, but because they hadn't modified the "traditional contours" of copyright that included exceptions specifically designed to stop copyright interfering with free speech, like the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use provisions. The only reference to balance appears to be in referencing balancing the monopoly that copyright grants so that it doesn't interfere with free speech, not holding back free speech to allow for copyright.

    Again, and I don't know how else to explain this to you, but the question of whether a given granted right is violative of the First Amendment requires application of the correct scrutiny test as laid down by the Court. Once a right has been granted, it is a right just like every other right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What does this have to do with the fact that copyright secures certain rights?


    The question of whether copyright is some how an equal right to freedom of speech. Everything about how the law was originally constructed and its interpretation in the courts as shown by even your own citation shows that copyright law is not of equal weight to freedom of speech.

    Copyright and the First Amendment grant us certain rights.


    What is granted is the ability to Congress to create copyright law should it deem it socially productive to do so. Copyright is not granted as an inalienable right akin to freedom of speech, it is granted as something the Government may do if there is good reason to, and by just about everything I've read does not interfere with free speech. In fact, every argument I've ever seen about copyright is careful to point out expression/idea dichotomies and Fair Use (as Eldred v Ashcroft did) in suggesting that copyright law as it exists at the time cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

    The granting of the ability for Congress to create copyright law is vastly different from the express denial of limiting a right like freedom of speech, not least because in process of creating that law Congress may for whatever reasons produce a law that conflicts with freedom of speech. Eldred v Ashcroft in fact confirms this as their own reasoning as to why a term extension was not unconstitutional was based on the same principles that have always been used to say copyright law at that time is not unconstitutional, that is exemptions to copyright like Fair Use. Nowhere did they affirm that copyright is of equal importance and weight (particularly as copyright law is not defined in the constitution, only that Congress may create such a law), and their arguments seem to affirm that any copyright law is not of equal importance by their heavy reliance on Fair Use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 4:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    All that gloss ignores the simple fact that once you are granted a right, the right is yours just like any other right. You're focusing on the constitutionality of granting rights that conflict the First Amendment and ignoring the reality that once such a right is granted (and assuming it pasts muster), it's a right that is on par with all your other rights. In other words, they are equal.

    What is the supposed significance of what you're saying? Does it make the rights granted by copyright any less enforceable? Of course it doesn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    darryl, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 5:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Nope. We have Google ads on the site, but they're kinda useless. They don't even pay for the bandwidth for a single one of our servers.


    Im sure you ment to type YES, and not "nope", in that reply, because Nope is a lie right.

    You then confirm your lie, with "We have Google ods on the site".

    Thats right so its not "NOPE" is it Mike, its YES.

    "Yes, I freaking to get paid by Google, I am in Googles pocket"

    The fact that they dont pay you much is YOUR FAULT, do you honestly expect Google to care about your finances ?

    They dont put add on your web site for any other reason but to make freaking money FOR THEMSELVES..

    And you love it, you love Google, even if you rip you off, and profit from you're work, you are happy for them to screw you, and at the same time talk about how damn good Google is !!! HAHAHA..

    Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill

    Im not from the US of A bit I did not believe a senator is capable of blocking a bill, he can vote against it, or vote for it, or he might be able to filibuster it out.

    But could you please explain to you readers who a senetor is capable of blocking a bill ?

    Make us all proud Mike, and say something like.

    " I didn't mean 'block' I ment veto"..

    I'm trying to put my finger on just what you do have expertise in Mike, it appears its not politics, its not law, its not technology, its not the creative arts, it's not engineering, its not science, its especially not economics.

    So what is it you DO have to bring to the argument, the ability to read slashdot ?

    Do you ever create anything original, or a pure opinion peice ? It appears not, it appears you just troll the web for juicy (or is that joocie) tid bits and add some purile comments to it, and hope google sends you are nice fat cheque next week..

    They should, you suck up to them enough.. !!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    darryl, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 5:34pm

    If you actually knew the history of copyright law you would know that it is, and has always been, considered a gov't privilege, not a right.

    @Mike
    Funny. If you actually knew the history of copyright law you would know that it is, and has always been, considered a gov't privilege, not a right. The history of copyright law actually makes that quite clear.

    C'mon, Mike. We're still waiting. Show us where it says that copyright law does not create "rights."

    It should be so easy for you to do. Or is the fact that every single source of primary authority in U.S. law disagrees with you getting in the way?

    We're waiting, Mike. Enlighten us with your awesome knowledge. If I'm so clearly wrong, prove it.


    Nice one AC,, I wonder did Mike ever provide the information you asked for.


    So show us mike all you sources showing that it is a Government granted prividege, and not a right ??


    I guess Mike you have not provided that information because if you studied copyright at all you would know you are lying.. But on the off chance you are right, show us..

    Show us the proof, (he ask's not ever expecting anything from Mike)..

    Mike when you talk rubbish, and mike no logic, but when you expect people to believe you just because YOU said it, it must really hurt to have people questioning you, and when they ask for proof, that must really hurt..

    How dare they not take Mike word and the ultimate truth..

    So unless you can provide the proof, we just have to assume you lie.. it would be nice for you to clear your name and prove me wrong.. you can only do that by providing facts from someone else, ie independent proof, we've given up trying to believe what you say mike.

    How does a senitor block a bill ? he can vote on a bill, yea, or no.. or he can probably abstain, but he cant block a bill Mike.

    How up to date is your US politics knowledge ? again,, what is it you DO know about Mike?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 9:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    daryl -- You're not from the "US of A" so perhaps you shouldn't spout what you don't know about US Senate procedures. You are wrong. A US Senator can indeed single-handedly block a bill from coming to a vote. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the other Senators can overcome this by invoking a cloture, but that requires 60 votes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 10:20pm

    Senate Legislative Process http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm
    Senators can even place a "hold" on a measure or nomination, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules. "Holds" are requests by senators to their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any request to consider a matter, at least until they have been consulted. The majority leader will usually not even request consent to consider a measure if there is a hold on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 10:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I see your point, but "respect" in this context means "obey."


    Recent research suggesting otherwise.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3HFvPgAACAAJ&dq=property+outlaws&hl=en&ei =Pg7qTIXaDsP48AbG-pjmDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

    Since I know you'll shoot the messenger, and assume that pointing to this research means I'm "pro-piracy," I will simply note that it may be helpful for you to understand some historical context before spouting off about how it's best if everyone always obeys the law. History has long said otherwise. Don't shoot the messenger for teaching you some of the abc's of the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 10:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Since you claim to be so well versed on the history and law of copyright, why don't you show us exactly where it says that copyright does not secure rights. It should be easy for you since you such the master of the subject, right?

    I recognize that they may never get to this level of analysis in whatever correspondence course you learned the law from, but you really ought to read the available work on the subject. Tom Bell, for one, has done some rather good work in explaining how copyright is a privilege rather than a right. But, I'm sure, as a law professor of some renown, that he cannot "match wits" with the likes of you. It's also not difficult to find plenty of other sources that establish the history of copyright as a privilege, with the use of the word "right" applied later to try to calm down the content creators that were being abused by it.

    Do tell me, where did you get your law degree?

    I'm also reading another excellent treatise on the subject, that will not be published until next year, but it pokes plenty of holes in your usual claims -- and is written by one of the most cited *ever* copyright experts. It's currently scheduled for publishing next spring. I have been providing my feedback on the initial text, but I imagine that you will not like this book when it is published, as it seems to go against the world view you have invested yourself in totally sans evidence. This book, however, is so full of examples and evidence and historical record, I can't wait to see your reaction upon reading it. I fear that it will simply result in many more insults, but that would be an unfortunate decision, yet again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is patently false. As previously noted, many laws limit the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the Court has devised certain tests to determine if the limitation is permissible. This is Con Law 101.

    And yet, as noted by various folks who actually know this stuff, copyright's exceptions to the First Amendment do not, in fact, live up to the tests set forth. Here is but one of many discussions on this subject:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1367624

    But, since you present yourself as such an expert, I'm sure you knew that already. Or do they not teach that where you learned the law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 3:48am

    Re: If you actually knew the history of copyright law you would know that it is, and has always been, considered a gov't privilege, not a right.

    You're lying too. A Senator can hold a bill, and it takes a supermajority to pass the hold. Has done since the early 20th C.

    Also, what you're arguing is against the ideas of Benjamin Franklin and Nikolai Tesla. They seem like pretty smart guys, so that must mean they're idiots too.

    Nice try, but you fail at trolling. Again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    darryl, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 4:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There you go, I expected nothing from you, and you lived up to my expectation exactly.

    But instead you attack me, you dont just answer the freaking question. No, you accuse me of whatever it is you are accusing me of.

    But did you (YOU MIKE, not someone else) explain how copyright has anything to do with the first amendment ?

    Ofcourse not, You mention someone called "tom bell".

    Who is he ? and is he the one with the big secret you need to keep, that is the explination of your crazed notion that copyright is in any way related to the first amendment right of freedom of speech.

    You failed again Mike, Sorry, but you provided nothing I asked for, something you should of been able to rattle of in a minute...

    No its much easier to go the ad hominen attack route..

    Well if tom bell can explain how copyright is a privilege rather than a right..

    (nothing about free speech and copyright though).

    So is Tom Bell the expert, and you the pleb that knows nothing but talks alot.

    Can do nothing but quote other people without reference..

    You Mike, are a joke.. You dont need a law degree to see what you are saying is just stupidly wrong.. Just need a brain..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    darryl, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 4:19am

    Still nothing,, to be expected :)

    I wonder if you US legal experts will ever work out that the first amendment in relation to freedom of speech, relates to restrictions ON THE GOVERNMENT in their ability to censor and restrict speech critical of said government.

    So if that is not clear enough, its a rule that says the government cannot tell you not to talk bad about the government.

    It is not a government granted right for people to say anything they like, whenever they like, where ever they like.

    So how does a rule that restricts the Government enable the government to enfore a copyright rule.

    Answer: THEY CANT..

    Freedom of the press does not mean you are allowed to print whatever you like, whenever you like.

    Freedom of the press, means that the first amendment allows publishers to publish material critical of the Government.

    It has no control on any subject matter that is not related to government issues.

    Therefore, if you copyright harry potter book, then the US government, or free speech, or freedom of the press has nothing to do with what you publish.

    All it means that if your harry potter book is critical of the US government they are not allowed to censore it on that basis.

    Its your freaking constitution guys,, have you ever even actually read it ?

    If so, read it again, you did not get it first time.

    So Mike, the question remains, unanswered ofcourse, explain how free speech and the first amendment right to speak again the government, has anything to do with copyright law.

    Copyright is recoginsed as property, and therefore would come under the 14th amendment about property, liberty....

    But you see none of that Mike,

    And ofcourse you cannot link copyright with the first amendment, because no link exists..

    Or just tell us Mike, Fess up,, be honest, if you dont have a clue, its ok to admit it..


    Sounds like im getting you a bit flustered Mike !!!!..

    it does appear sadly, you're knowledge of the law appears badly lacking.. Maybe you used the wrong testbank questions when in constution class.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 4:32am

    The way it is....

    JPJ should realize several things when he defends his view.

    Heres a good analogy: Anti-piracy and copyright law can be compared to slavery.

    Its bad, just like slavery is bad.

    Now, it might be socially and morally acceptable in the present, but not forever.

    Theres no reason to even argue the subject. New legislation has gone against these abusive rules, and it will continue to do so until the people are content.

    JPJ, regardless of your views, or the views of your constituents, times are changing.

    I will ALWAYS "steal" the work of musicians, as long as they are backed by a large recording company, I will NEVER give them my money.

    I will ALWAYS convince my friends to do the same. I sold bootleg CDs in middle school. I sell bootleg movies now. These companies will never get my money.

    The artists however, will receive plenty of money. I will continue to buy their merchandise and go to concerts and events.



    The most important thing is, if there is a HUGE group of people disobeying the law, it is the LAW, not the people, that comes into question.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 4:42am

    Re: Still nothing,, to be expected :)

    Wrong - again.
    Color me suprised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 4:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Reading comprehension is apparently not one of Darryl's strengths.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    According to him, he is thee MasterBaiter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 5:23am

    Re: Still nothing,, to be expected :)

    "Copyright is recoginsed as property, and therefore would come under the 14th amendment about property, liberty...."
    Well then it should be taxed accordingly as well.
    Here in Canada, if you do not pay property tax for 3 years, your property will be seized. You see, you never actually own property, you just rent it as long as you pay the Governments rent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 6:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


    Recent research suggesting otherwise.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3HFvPgAACAAJ&dq=property+outlaws&hl=en&ei =Pg7qTIXaDsP48AbG-pjmDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

    Since I know you'll shoot the messenger, and assume that pointing to this research means I'm "pro-piracy," I will simply note that it may be helpful for you to understand some historical context before spouting off about how it's best if everyone always obeys the law. History has long said otherwise. Don't shoot the messenger for teaching you some of the abc's of the law.


    So we're finally getting somewhere. You respect and root for the pirates because you think they're improving the law. Hey, at least you're starting to admit it. I actually don't care if that's what you believe, I'm more concerned about you being dishonest about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I recognize that they may never get to this level of analysis in whatever correspondence course you learned the law from, but you really ought to read the available work on the subject. Tom Bell, for one, has done some rather good work in explaining how copyright is a privilege rather than a right. But, I'm sure, as a law professor of some renown, that he cannot "match wits" with the likes of you. It's also not difficult to find plenty of other sources that establish the history of copyright as a privilege, with the use of the word "right" applied later to try to calm down the content creators that were being abused by it.

    Do tell me, where did you get your law degree?

    I'm also reading another excellent treatise on the subject, that will not be published until next year, but it pokes plenty of holes in your usual claims -- and is written by one of the most cited *ever* copyright experts. It's currently scheduled for publishing next spring. I have been providing my feedback on the initial text, but I imagine that you will not like this book when it is published, as it seems to go against the world view you have invested yourself in totally sans evidence. This book, however, is so full of examples and evidence and historical record, I can't wait to see your reaction upon reading it. I fear that it will simply result in many more insults, but that would be an unfortunate decision, yet again.


    So you don't deny that every single source of primary authority in the United States law refers to them as "rights." Check. Game, set, match, me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 6:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And yet, as noted by various folks who actually know this stuff, copyright's exceptions to the First Amendment do not, in fact, live up to the tests set forth. Here is but one of many discussions on this subject:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1367624

    But, since you present yourself as such an expert, I'm sure you knew that already. Or do they not teach that where you learned the law?


    Your views on the law are kind of embarrassing, Mike. The Court gets to decide whether a law is impermissibly violative of the First Amendment. Has the Court done so? No. People writing papers expressing different views are not the law, Mike. The law is not what you make it to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When lacking in argument, suggest the courts are infallible merely because they are the courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When lacking in argument, suggest the courts are infallible merely because they are the courts.

    Finding a paper that says they are not rights does not change the fact that they are rights in the eyes of the law. Primary authority trumps random paper every single time in a court of law. The suggestion that they aren't rights wouldn't even pass the laugh test in court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    icon
    SailingCyclops (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > The government can't do anything about it, nor
    > you, nor anybody, but you want others to do it
    > for you anyways?

    This is a technical fact. COICA, even if implemented can't stop file sharing. First, the Internet is International, and no US law has jurisdiction over all of it. Second, if DNS is altered to not point to blacklisted sites, lists of blacklisted IPs will simply circulate via USENET, Email, or websites. In fact, what you will have created is a concise directory of infringing sites, making infringing even easier than it is now.

    The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to stuff it back in. Look at the hilarious side-show with respect to the pirate bay. It's a funny whack-a-mole game, and they have actually expanded without so much as skipping a beat.

    Every time the entertainment industry goes on a rampage, technology (private trackers, off-shore VPNs, encryption, etc...) steps in to obviate the attack; while making more and more fans of their content pissed enough at them to actually begin pirating. This simply can't be stopped by laws or by technology. What the entertainment industry has to do is adapt their business model to take advantage of what is current reality.

    COICA may be DOA, but even if it isn't, all it will do is create another useless and impotent government bureaucracy which will have the opposite effect from what it was intended to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Ha

    The Pauls (Ron and Rand) will both oppose for sure, and they are Republican.

    So you lost your bet already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you don't deny that every single source of primary authority in the United States law refers to them as "rights." Check. Game, set, match, me.

    When the actual details prove you are wrong, just declare yourself the winner.

    You should try that in court. Please record it so we can all hear the laughter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So we're finally getting somewhere. You respect and root for the pirates because you think they're improving the law. Hey, at least you're starting to admit it. I actually don't care if that's what you believe, I'm more concerned about you being dishonest about it.

    Oh look, as predicted you chose to shoot the messenger and assume that pointing to a book means I support it's exact message and "root" for someone.

    It apparently has never occurred to you that evidence is not about rooting for one side or the other, but seeking truth. I guess they don't teach that in correspondence courses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Does it make the rights granted by copyright any less enforceable? Of course it doesn't.


    Who ignored it? It's only been your terrible attempt at diverting discussion that has brought this up. What it does do is undermine your own assertion that copyright is an equal right to freedom to speech.

    What is the supposed significance of what you're saying? Does it make the rights granted by copyright any less enforceable? Of course it doesn't.


    It does if those laws can be shown to undermine free speech and someone argues that "but they must be balanced!", not that was an argument I brought up to begin with - it's you who wanted to assert that copyright is of equal standing to free speech.

    it's a right that is on par with all your other rights. In other words, they are equal.


    Assuming that permission for Congress to create copyright laws is in any way makes copyrights granted to authors equal to the express denial of Congress limiting freedom of speech such that free speech can be paired back for the sake of copyright, once again ignoring that copyright is fundamentally an economic instrument to change behaviour given certain circumstances, not a recognised inalienable natural right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    SailingCyclops (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright law, especially in the US, has gotten way out of hand. It does far more harm than good, and needs an overhaul. A good documentary on the subject can be viewed here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/88782/rip-a-remix-manifesto

    This is a great film!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No one says that under the eyes of the law - or at least, those who currently implement it - do not have the power to assert that they are rights, but the suggestion that the courts are right because they claim or assume they are right is something that wouldn't pass a laugh test of any human being with basic logical reasoning capabilities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When the actual details prove you are wrong, just declare yourself the winner.

    You should try that in court. Please record it so we can all hear the laughter.


    You really aren't making sense. What "details prove" I am wrong? It is undeniable that they are in fact "rights" according to every source of CONTROLLING authority on the subject. You simply cannot produce any controlling authority that says otherwise because none exists. Since you apparently don't know how this works, controlling authority is, well, controlling. It trumps whatever paper you've dug up. It's really quite silly that you won't concede this point. It really shows a lack of understanding on your part of how the law works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh look, as predicted you chose to shoot the messenger and assume that pointing to a book means I support it's exact message and "root" for someone.

    It apparently has never occurred to you that evidence is not about rooting for one side or the other, but seeking truth. I guess they don't teach that in correspondence courses.


    What exactly was your message by posting a link to a book about how great piracy can be? It seems like a logical connection that you posted the book because you are adopting its message, right? And let's be clear, is your position that since some piracy has in the past arguably done some good then you are in fact for piracy now? If so, how do you know which piracy is good and which is not?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't think I've ever responded to you and not regretted it

    I'll take that as a compliment.

    Yes, [freedom of expression] is worded differently in that it is a restriction, but the result is the same and the necessary implication is that it's a grant of rights. [...] What the Copyright Act secures are rights under every definition of the word.

    You're 100% wrong, and that's why you can't understand the argument.

    The First Amendment did not "grant" any rights. It "sanctioned" existing rights. If copyright really was the same type of "right" as free speech, Wheaton v. Peters would have had an entirely different outcome.

    This entire argument is exactly what Wheaton v. Peters answered - and it answered, "you are wrong."

    You're arguing about the silliest things that mean nothing.

    Here's the upshot of that silliness. Congress can repeal all copyright laws, and it would not be unconstitutional in the least. On the other hand, Congress cannot do away with laws protecting freedom of speech; that would be unconstitutional.

    And if you think that means nothing, you're really going to hate the Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins case. Unlike the First Amendment, California's Constitution has an affirmative free speech law. This means that in California, private entities (e.g. shopping malls) cannot regulate public speech, even on their own property.

    By finding this constitutional, the California Supreme Court effectively decided that free speech rights trump even the "Takings Clause." Free speech is even more important than private property.

    That distinction also comes up in other areas of law, like Due Process. There, the distinction is between SDP (Substantive Due Process) and PDP (Procedural Due Process). By analogy, free speech rights are "substantive;" copyright is "procedural."

    Free speech doesn't trump all.

    You're right. Obscenity laws, "fighting words," imminent lawless action, etc, are all exceptions to the first Amendment. Commercial speech is also held in lower regard than non-commercial speech. But in all of these cases, the public harm caused by that speech must be greater than the public harm of their loss of rights. And the laws must be narrowly tailored to only prevent that specific speech.

    Even on the internet. For examples, see Reno v. ACLU, or ACLU v. Ashcroft. If COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) is unconstitutional, why the hell isn't COICA?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 12:48pm

    No comment about Wyden?

    Wydon probable feels good for himself sense he just won his reelection (against some rather big out of state money) and has been in the senate longer then most now. So he probable has the weight to push and stop such a bill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And none of that changes the fact that a right granted under the Copyright Act is a right that can be enforced just like any other right. Your right to free speech does not trump my right under copyright law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Copyright law

    "Therefore, the right of Copyright came BEFORE Free Speech in the Bill of Rights."

    So according to that logic Article 1 of the constitution says all other persons are only 3/5ths of a vote. Since it is in the original framework and came before the 14th Amendment, minorities can no longer count as a full vote.

    Wait ... this might be good news. Now that I know that, I can finally tell my wife to stop watching Fox News since her vote doesn't mean as much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 4:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And none of that changes the fact that a right granted under the Copyright Act is a right that can be enforced just like any other right.

    The right to make a turn on red can be enforced just like any other right.

    On the other hand, it would be disingenuous to claim that the right to make a turn on red has equal weight as the right to free speech.

    Your right to free speech does not trump my right under copyright law.

    My right to free speech also does not trump libel laws, or laws against child pornography. Yet, when the government tried to blacklist those sites, it was ruled unconstitutional.

    Any exception to free speech (like copyright) must be limited, explicit, and targeted to effect only that specific speech. There can be no collateral damage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Any exception to free speech (like copyright) must be limited, explicit, and targeted to effect only that specific speech. There can be no collateral damage.

    Not true, in general. And it depends on the test. If the appropriate test is intermediate scrutiny, then the "collateral damage" just can't be substantial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What exactly was your message by posting a link to a book about how great piracy can be? It seems like a logical connection that you posted the book because you are adopting its message, right? And let's be clear, is your position that since some piracy has in the past arguably done some good then you are in fact for piracy now? If so, how do you know which piracy is good and which is not?

    My goodness. You don't even seem to remember what you yourself stated. You claimed that the only way to respect laws is to obey them. I suggested that was not always the case, and presented you with some research highlighting how some of the certain laws were better "respected" by disobeying them.

    Nowhere did I state this means you should always disobey laws or that "piracy" is good. That is your own weird obsession.

    I am not, and never have been "for piracy" and I do not understand why you keep insisting otherwise. I merely pointed the link since you appeared to be ignorant of the history of how laws develop, where "obeying" is not the only way to respect the law.

    I am sorry for trying to teach you something. Now that I know you prefer to revel in your ignorance, I will try to remember not to guide you any further. However, in the future, please do not ask me for "evidence" if you are only going to take the evidence I provide you and then misstate my position on it. It makes you look pretty clueless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


    My goodness. You don't even seem to remember what you yourself stated. You claimed that the only way to respect laws is to obey them. I suggested that was not always the case, and presented you with some research highlighting how some of the certain laws were better "respected" by disobeying them.

    Nowhere did I state this means you should always disobey laws or that "piracy" is good. That is your own weird obsession.

    I am not, and never have been "for piracy" and I do not understand why you keep insisting otherwise. I merely pointed the link since you appeared to be ignorant of the history of how laws develop, where "obeying" is not the only way to respect the law.

    I am sorry for trying to teach you something. Now that I know you prefer to revel in your ignorance, I will try to remember not to guide you any further. However, in the future, please do not ask me for "evidence" if you are only going to take the evidence I provide you and then misstate my position on it. It makes you look pretty clueless.


    I'm honestly confused. Let's talk about IP laws specifically. Do you believe they are best respected by obeying them or by disobeying them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Would you say that lobbying for longer and longer terms is disrespectful of the law and of the societies it is supposed to benefit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 10:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm honestly confused. Let's talk about IP laws specifically. Do you believe they are best respected by obeying them or by disobeying them?

    You are trying to twist the frame of the discussion. My concern is not about "respecting" laws. My concern is about what's best for society.

    I both respect and obey IP laws, even as I often believe certain aspects of them may do more harm than good to society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 23rd, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And you never answer questions asked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165.  
    identicon
    PACO, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    all i gatta say is that all that is needed is 1 man for a filibuster and just a handfull to back him up....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166.  
    identicon
    John Paul Fkucs Himself, Oct 26th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

    Re:

    John Paul, go f,u.ck yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This