Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
from the isn't-that-always-the-case dept
The two elected officials we’ve seen push back the most on plans like COICA are Senator Ron Wyden and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. So, it should come as little surprise that the two of them have released a statement saying that the answers the government gave Wyden after he asked some questions about the domain seizures were were insufficient. I particularly like Senator Wyden highlighting the government’s complete failure to explain how linking is infringement:
?Particularly troubling is their refusal to explain how linking is different than free speech. Given that hyperlinks in many ways form the foundation of the Internet, efforts to go after one site for linking to another site ? which the Administration is currently doing and the Protect IP Act would expand on ? threaten to do much more than protect IP. There are many actions that we can all agree the Administration can and should be taking to crack down on counterfeiting of U.S. goods and the illegal sale of U.S. IP products that don?t involve advancing novel and unsupportable theories like holding sites liable for linking.?
It’s really unfortunate that it appears there’s only one Senator and one Congressional Rep who seem willing to actually push back against these abuses of free speech rights, but kudos to Wyden and Lofgren for standing up for pesky little things like the First Amendment.
Filed Under: copyright, domain seizures, free speech, linking, protect ip, ron wyden, zoe lofgren
Comments on “Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures”
Enjoy them while you can...
… figure it will be a matter of time before some serious lobby money is thrown to their next opponent in their next election cycle.
they only need 51 senators to vote for this thing so all Wyden can do is slow it down correct?
Re: The cheese stands alone...
No Wyden will use a procedural move and put a “hold” on the legislation. That means it will take 60 Senators to move the bill. Remember when the Dems were all happy about having 60 votes in the Senate. The “hold” is why.
It makes little difference in this case. The vote will be overwhelming. And if Wyden is too big a dick about it, he may well find holds on some of his own pet bills and lots of trouble from groups he’s pissed of on PROTECT IP.
Lofgren doesn’t have a prayer.
Re: Re: The cheese stands alone...
“It makes little difference in this case.”
Depends upon ones point of view.
1) For some, the end justifies the means and getting there is all that matters.
2) Many realize there is much more to it and appreciate the willingness to express opinion regardless of consequence.
3) Others simply laugh because the emperor has no clothes.
Time for the tech companies to start throwing their weight around. And they aren’t 800 lb. gorillas, they’re 8 THOUSAND lb. Gojiras who shouldn’t take kindly to their raisons d’etre being made technically illegal.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
That is the real disappointing thing in all this. I can’t believe how Sergey and Larry just roll over on all this when it is set to completely destroy everything they have built. It’s really disappointing. I wish companies that have had outright war declared on them, like Google, would just pick up and relocate to another country. Can’t they like buy Antarctica or something? At least they wouldn’t need to cool their data centers…
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
The tech companies in favor of piracy would be who?
Google definitely, but they’re really not that big in the scheme of things.
Microsoft pays $200 million out of their own pocket every year in anti-piracy lobbying and legal action. They just got a special anti-piracy law passed in Washington just for them.
Apple hates the thought of ANYONE anywhere breaking their DRM, and with their desire to see iTunes and Apps sell and grow well, they’re not in any mood to advocate for pirates.
Facebook is not a piracy based platform. Minimal piracy takes place on it. Ditto with Twitter.
As for ISPs, many of them are cable companies, so while they don’t want the responsibility of filtering, it’s a bit irrational for someone like Comcast (that owns lots of TV stations and just bought NBC Universal) to come out claiming piracy is a good thing.
Amazon obviously has no interest in piracy.
Even GoDaddy supported COICA and domain seizures. The overwhelming majority of their business is legitimate, and they’ll will continue to make a huge amount of money either way.
I am anti-piracy so I see this as a good thing. If you’re wondering why the tech giants don’t speak out in favor of “freedom” online, it’s because it’s generally not in their interests to do so.
Google and its piracy friendly brethren aren’t big enough to control the dialog.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
It’s not piracy that’s the question, but rather Google suddenly becoming super-liable for every pirate on the Internet.
Let’s say I have a perfectly legal blog that gets indexed in Google and one day decide to put on my Jolly Rodger tricorn and upload a copyrighted movie to it with no prior warning. Suddenly, Google’s liable even though they had no way of knowing.
What about a site that offers perfectly legal free-licensed media? Would Google have to delink them on some random MPAA exec’s complaint that “all movies ever (c) to us”?
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
So your point is that monopolists like their government imposed monopolies. If you ask any monopolist if he wants his government imposed monopoly of course he will say yes. Wow, big surprise there.
The government should focus more on serving the public interest and not on serving the interests of those who want to be monopolists.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
Ummmm… I think you mean “Oligopolist” but even that doesn’t apply. First of all, none of the studios own theaters. In foreign countries their indigenous productions stink so bad countries enact laws REQUIRING a certain percentage of films shown be indigenous. People watch US content, not because there is some oligopoly controlling the market but because the quality of the product can’t be touched anywhere else.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
“In foreign countries their indigenous productions stink so bad countries enact laws REQUIRING a certain percentage of films shown be indigenous.”
In some foreign countries (namely, broke ones without much money, probably at least partly thanks to a government that tries to artificially secure jobs) those who show films are more open to showing foreign films instead of only showing their own.
People watch U.S. content because other countries are open to foreign content in general (and not just to U.S. content). and those countries also watch local content too. And Americans watch local and foreign content as well.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
(that is, they don’t have the money to create their own content to some extent).
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
“I think you mean “Oligopolist” but even that doesn’t apply.”
No, it doesn’t, because the word monopolist applies. Patents and copy protections are monopolies.
“First of all, none of the studios own theaters.”
Yeah, so?
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
Compare and contrast the following films with their original:
Fist of Fury
Game of Death
The Grudge
Let the Right One In
The Killing
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
And yet, America is the innovator. Odd, that.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
The tech companies in favor of piracy would be who?
We’re actually talking about the tech companies in favor of hyperlinks and appropriate allocation of liability. There are probably quite a few of those.
Is there really a First Amendment issue here? A content-neutral statute would only be subjected to rational basis review. I don’t see how this could possibly fail that test.
See U.S. v. O’Brien and Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes.
Re: Re:
There are 1st, 4th, 5th , and 14th amendment issues with PROTECT IP. Looking at the ICE domain seizures you also have prior restraint issues. Then there is the copyright clause.
For reading pleasure …
1st amendment …
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
4th amendment …
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
5th amendment …
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
14th amendment …
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Prior Retraint …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
Copyright clause …
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Re: Re: Re:
If I lived in another country, I would find it highly amusing how “the land of the free” has twisted, perverted, and bastardized its own Constitution, the very thing that we try and make other countries establish when “nation building.” It’s really sad. Is it anti-American to root for China now that America is en route to becoming a bigger police state? History will not be kibd to Obama.
This won't damage free speech
It’s about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily. Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money. Commerce (good and bad) has moved online. The internet (and all it’s assorted content) is not sacred, particularly the portion of it that is depends on a business model that depends on theft.
To frame this as a debate about “free speech” is disingenuous. These black market entrepreneurs are essentially thieves any way you slice it. To defend them only diminishes rightful defense of free speech when it IS an issue as with political discourse in oppressive societies.
It’s time for people to examine what’s happening online and work to find solutions. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I’m sure that’s also the case for Senator Wyden.
Certainly everyone should be mindful of what’s at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it’s clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community. This isn’t just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies. Their distribution outlets are also limited and for many digital sales comprise their main source of revenue. When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete. This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
Re: This won't damage free speech
This won’t damage free speech
You mean the use of similar laws to shut down over 80,000 legitimate sites was a non-issue?
Funny.
It’s about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily.
I see. So you’re one of those people who can’t tell the difference between theft and infringement. Tough to take you seriously when you can’t get the basics right.
Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money.
First of all, they don’t steal. They may infringe, but that’s different. And if they’re making money, then why isn’t the industry competing and setting up their own shops? Because the reality is that these sites aren’t really making much money. It’s a myth thrown around by those who wish to clamp down on innovation because it upsets their legacy business models.
To frame this as a debate about “free speech” is disingenuous.
No. It’s not. When we see how many reports of the government totally screwing up and seizing blogs with protected speech on them and music that was given by the copyright holders… it is not disingenuous at all. It’s real.
It’s time for people to examine what’s happening online and work to find solutions.
Hilarious. For the better part of a decade I’ve been pointing out solutions. And I get called a “freeloader” and a “sociopath” for it. There are plenty of solutions that don’t involve lawmakers trashing the Constitution. Those solutions are called: understand the economics and create a better business model. Plenty of folks are doing it already and it doesn’t require any such law.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I’m sure that’s also the case for Senator Wyden.
It’s not a one vs. the other thing, really. Google doesn’t actually “profit from piracy” — please give that myth a rest already. And this law is NOT about protecting those who create content. It’s about protecting the business models of a few obsolete middlemen.
Those who create content today are making MORE MONEY than ever before.
Certainly everyone should be mindful of what’s at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it’s clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community.
Last I looked, the studies on this have shown the “impact” has been that more content than ever before is being made, and more money is being made by more creators as well.
So, um, why must something be done?
This isn’t just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies.
Another myth. Over and over and over again we’ve shown that there are plenty of folks, small, medium and large who are being quite successful embracing these new business models. The risk to them is not bigger, it’s much less, because they no longer need to rely on a few gatekeepers.
Their distribution outlets are also limited
Ha! I call bull. Their distribution outlets were entirely limited by a few gatekeepers until a few years ago. Now they have the power to go direct or go to one of a ton of new sources of distribution.
When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete.
It’s easy to compete. Ask anyone who’s tried.
This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Another talking point myth from the copyright maximalists. The “playing field” has been massively tilted towards the gatekeepers for over a century, and this bill just seeks to tilt it even further.
Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
I respect the law. I’ve never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life. And I’m incredibly fearful of laws like this.
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
They don’t need to. A pirate site that distributes millions of copies of work that cost billions of dollars to produce may only have one or two ’employees’. They don’t have to pay a cent towards cost of production, so every penny they get from ad revenues over their hosting costs is profit.
They can easily make a couple hundred grand a year (or more if they’re savvy). The economic value they destroy is of course much greater than that.
Why should legitimate content creators have to compete with parasites like that?
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
“Why should legitimate content creators have to compete with parasites like that?”
They don’t have to. They can find other jobs. There will be other legitimate content creators without IP.
Re: Re: Re:2 This won't damage free speech
Good luck with that. You’re talking about an economy that can’t afford another couple million unemployed. It’s much more cost effective to just ban the sites/services that are pirating.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
“It’s much more cost effective to just ban the sites/services that are pirating.”
No, it costs everyone else money to ban those sites and to enforce such bans. It maybe good for the monopolists who benefit from their government imposed monopolistic jobs, but it’s bad for everyone else. Everyone else (the govt and service providers) must police these bans which is economically inefficient for everyone else and costs money. The govt takes that money from tax payers and so businesses have to pay their employees more to provide those employees with less and so they would be unable to hire as many employees. and Fewer service providers will be willing to bear the policy burdens necessary to police these laws and so fewer service providers will exist to hire employees.
The purpose of government isn’t to create jobs, digging a hole and filling it back up is a job but it contributes noting useful. Art, in itself, shouldn’t be something the government should try to artificially create jobs for. Doing so directs labor away from other marginally (though not necessarily absolutely) more important sectors of the economy and hence reduces aggregate output elsewhere. If the govt is gong to artificially create jobs for something it should be for something other than art. Aggregate output is the ultimate purpose of having an economy to begin with. What you want is for the government to direct what needs to be produced and to secure jobs and that sounds similar to communism. Communism doesn’t work. Government imposed monopolies don’t work. Job security is not the governments job.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
“It maybe good for the monopolists who benefit from their government imposed monopolistic jobs”
(and, personally, I don’t care if these monopolists lose their job, they deserve to lose their jobs. They’re, thanks to their lobbying efforts, largely responsible for the oppressive state of our current IP laws and for them to simply lose their jobs isn’t retribution enough).
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
“You’re talking about an economy that can’t afford another couple million unemployed. “
and to say that IP abolition will result in a couple million more unemployed is nothing but unsubstantiated FUD. The record industry isn’t one of the U.S. major industries and their size pales in comparison to the tech industry. If anything, these tech regulations will cost more jobs and already do.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
The music industry?
Disney alone pulls in $38 billion of revenue a year. Google is only $28 billion.
Microsoft is even more strongly anti-piracy than the RIAA (look at their new Washington law) and pulls $60 billion revenue a year. And that doesn’t even get started on the tens of billions each attributed to the book publishing, TV cable, movies, and porn industries.
Where are these giant tech companies in favor of piracy?
How much revenue does TechDirt pull a year? ArsTechnica? Wired? Because those are the only ones I see (beside Google and their advocacy buddies in the EFF) clamoring for a “free”, “open” Internet at all costs.
Everyone else seems to recognize there are compromises to be made.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
You do not compromise, though. That’s like saying murder is a compromise between my right to die and your right to live.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
Good luck with that. You’re talking about an economy that can’t afford another couple million unemployed. It’s much more cost effective to just ban the sites/services that are pirating.
Those legacy industries don’t employ anything like that number of people.
As always you need to lie in order to pretend that you have a point.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
Actually yes, the music, movie, TV, porn, games, software, publishing, pharmaceutical, and other copyright/patent industries DO employ millions, and represent hundreds of billions in revenue in the US alone.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
Actually yes, the music, movie, TV, porn, games, software, publishing, pharmaceutical, and other copyright/patent industries DO employ millions, and represent hundreds of billions in revenue in the US alone.
And if the PROTECT IP act isn’t passed, every one of those millions of people will lose their jobs?
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
Actually yes, the music, movie, TV, porn, games, software, publishing, pharmaceutical, and other copyright/patent industries DO employ millions, and represent hundreds of billions in revenue in the US alone.
Most of those are employees have jobs that do not depend on IP.
For example the software industry has very few programmers writing programs that are sold in ways than depend on copyright.
Most write bespoke programs that remain in house or are transferred to a single commissioning client. Many also write code that is distributed as open source s/w.
Once again you lie by suggesting that anyone who works in a job where copyright or patent laws apply somehow depends on those laws for their job.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
…..for their job.
Which in fact makes about as much sense as the notion that truckers, taxi-drivers and bus drivers would be unemployed if there were no speed limits.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
But what does IP do. It prevents competitors from entering the market. Those competitors that enter the market employ people too. Preventing them from entering the market makes them unable to employ people.
Government imposed monopolies reduce aggregate output. More aggregate output requires more labor and hence more employment. Government imposed monopolies cost jobs. The number of people who lose their jobs as a result of competitors who can’t hire people exceeds the jobs gained through the number of people that monopolists hire. and the overall aggregate output is lower.
This is econ 101. Govt imposed monopolies result in less aggregate output and a more centralized distribution of that aggregate output.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
(and that’s exactly the problem with Russia. The U.S. is headed down that path, if not already there. We can’t compete because competitors who want to hire people and produce more goods and services can’t enter the market because the government won’t let them).
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Wow, so the CEOs aren’t also parasites? After all, they mooch off other people’s work as well. Wonderful argument.
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I’ve never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life.
Doesn’t sound believable unless prepended with “To my knowledge”.
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Sadly, I agree with you. Isn’t that just an example of how copyright has overstepped its bounds?
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I’ve never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life.
Doesn’t sound believable unless prepended with “To my knowledge”.
and of course the same applies to everyone – including the IP maximalists themselves.
Re: Re: Re:2 This won't damage free speech
“and of course the same applies to everyone – including the IP maximalists themselves.”
But it’s ok when they do it because they are not filthy pirates like everyone else.
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
“This won’t damage free speech
You mean the use of similar laws to shut down over 80,000 legitimate sites was a non-issue?
Funny.”
Boo-hoo ICE tried to take down child porn sites and people got caught in the slip stream…. for a few hours to a couple of days. No lasting damage. Where’s their outrage that their provider was providing a playground for diddlers.
“It’s about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily.
I see. So you’re one of those people who can’t tell the difference between theft and infringement. Tough to take you seriously when you can’t get the basics right.”
Parse words all you like doughboy. The fact is that people unlawfully convert the copyrighted content of others to their own use. If you sleep better by calling it infringement instead of stealing fine. No one takes you seriously.
“Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money.
First of all, they don’t steal. They may infringe, but that’s different. And if they’re making money, then why isn’t the industry competing and setting up their own shops? Because the reality is that these sites aren’t really making much money. It’s a myth thrown around by those who wish to clamp down on innovation because it upsets their legacy business models.”
Same parsing as above. They are making money on content they’re not entitled to profit from. And you then blame the people who are being stolen from? Classic apologist-speak.
“To frame this as a debate about “free speech” is disingenuous.
No. It’s not. When we see how many reports of the government totally screwing up and seizing blogs with protected speech on them and music that was given by the copyright holders… it is not disingenuous at all. It’s real.”
Having some legit material doesn’t immunize you any more than a pawnshop with 75% stolen goods can make the same claim. How come your no one has come forward and even ADVANCED a free speech defense?
“It’s time for people to examine what’s happening online and work to find solutions.
Hilarious. For the better part of a decade I’ve been pointing out solutions. And I get called a “freeloader” and a “sociopath” for it. There are plenty of solutions that don’t involve lawmakers trashing the Constitution. Those solutions are called: understand the economics and create a better business model. Plenty of folks are doing it already and it doesn’t require any such law.”
There are plenty of legitimate alternatives, however they require to pay. There is no business model imaginable that can compete with free. Oh, you forgot “apologist”.
“Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I’m sure that’s also the case for Senator Wyden.
It’s not a one vs. the other thing, really. Google doesn’t actually “profit from piracy” — please give that myth a rest already. And this law is NOT about protecting those who create content. It’s about protecting the business models of a few obsolete middlemen.”
Read about campaign funding at opensecrets.com. And again, no business model can compete with free.
“Those who create content today are making MORE MONEY than ever before.”
Try making a living as a freelancer on a film set, bozo. Then get back to me.
“Certainly everyone should be mindful of what’s at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it’s clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community.
Last I looked, the studies on this have shown the “impact” has been that more content than ever before is being made, and more money is being made by more creators as well.
So, um, why must something be done?”
Again, ditch the slap shoes, bulb nose and little tin horn and get out and talk to some of the middle class workers in the creative industries
“This isn’t just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies.
Another myth. Over and over and over again we’ve shown that there are plenty of folks, small, medium and large who are being quite successful embracing these new business models. The risk to them is not bigger, it’s much less, because they no longer need to rely on a few gatekeepers.”
See response above
“Their distribution outlets are also limited
Ha! I call bull. Their distribution outlets were entirely limited by a few gatekeepers until a few years ago. Now they have the power to go direct or go to one of a ton of new sources of distribution.”
Could you please give me the names of people who are earning a full time living doing this?
“When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete.
It’s easy to compete. Ask anyone who’s tried.”
You are breathtakingly full of shit. So Producer A spends $1 million producing a film that will never get a N. American box office release. Scumbags 1-10,000 steal and distribute the film on their websites. Producer A out-competes them and wins the day. That is an astonishing statement even for apologist douchebag such as yourself.
“This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Another talking point myth from the copyright maximalists. The “playing field” has been massively tilted towards the gatekeepers for over a century, and this bill just seeks to tilt it even further.”
We’ll see, because this bill will pass…. easily.
“Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
I respect the law. I’ve never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life. And I’m incredibly fearful of laws like this.”
Peddle that nonsense elsewhere. You are a professional apologist and another one of Google’s lickspittles.
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I’ll just call you an idiot and a fool and be done with it. You keep spewing the same FUD we’ve all seen and laughed at for quite some time. Sad that you are going to fail as badly as the recording industry. In the meantime, the music industry is bright and shiny.
Re: Re: Re:2 This won't damage free speech
People covet recorded music, so it will always be monetized. Always. And the recording industry is starting to come back already since Limewire folded. And the PRO IP act will help the numbers even more.
It’s over. You lost. Deal with it and move on with your life.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
There’s independents and better artists outside the RIAA.
Deal with it and move on with your life.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
People covet recorded music, so it will always be monetized. Always.
Maybe – but when the act of copying costs zero – then that part of the process can no-longer be monetized.
Go take a course of Mathematics and then one on economics – when you’ve done that you will understand why you’re wrong!
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
“People covet recorded music, so it will always be monetized. “
That’s exactly part of the point that MM is making. If people want recorded music then they will find a way to fund it with or without monopoly privileges. These monopoly privileges are not needed to monetize recorded music. For example, bands normally monetize most of their recorded music through concert tickets, not CD sales.
I see you’re starting to learn. Good job.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
We don’t need the recording industry to get recorded music. They just think we do.
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Yawn…more dribbling from chicken lateral.
“If you sleep better by calling it infringement instead of stealing fine.”
If your failure to understand one of the most basic principles keeps you awake at night, then so be it.
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Yeah, there’s just no point. You don’t actually try to debate but spew the same tired rhetoric as the 2 or 3 ACs, that have nothing better to do than attack people and not positions.
Good luck here, man. It seems all you love is holding an inane position that says “But… But… Piracy!”
Sad and disappointing that you believe so much in Authoritarianism, but every last part of your post has been refuted. What’s worse is that you still like to use that childish rhetoric. Maybe if you can act like a mature adult, the debate can continue. As it stands…
*shakes head slowly*
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
another one of Google’s lickspittles.
All this attacking of Google is politics of envy.
The fact is that about 12 years ago Google’s success was available to anyone who was smart enough to come up with their search algorithm.
What all the anti-Google complainers have in common was that they weren’t that smart. Sorry – you’ve only got yourself to blame.
Re: Re: Re:2 This won't damage free speech
So how is Google’s “monopoly” position much different from that of “Big Content” which everyone likes to cry about?
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
So how is Google’s “monopoly” position much different from that of “Big Content” which everyone likes to cry about?
It isn’t based on the federal government enforcing their monopoly privileges.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
It isn’t based on the federal government enforcing their monopoly privileges.
It’s based on giving people something they want – without legal strings attached.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
…however, there’s loooooooooooooooooots of data involved.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
“So how is Google’s “monopoly” position much different from that of “Big Content” which everyone likes to cry about?”
Google does not have a monopoly position in the search market place. But you knew that and I’m guessing that is why you placed the word within quotation marks. It appears to be a cheap attempt to mislead others. I’m fairly certain that most readers of this site are not that easily swayed.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
There’s Google Bing and others. Then there’s Paramount, Disney, Sony, NBC?U Warner Bros, etc. There’s no monopoly in either endeavor. Though Google is more dominant in its field than any of the studios are in theirs.
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Did you hear that Buck Lateral raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
I’m sure I heard it somewhere on the web, and if it’s not true, why won’t he provide us with the information that proves he didn’t?
It’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, and this is just a mean and nasty accusation that will tarnish his reputation and have him liked to child porn for the rest of his life… but it’s not like there is any lasting damage to his reputation, amirite?
/sarcasm off
Re: This won't damage free speech
It’s good to see someone with an opposing position actually debate the subject matter of the artic……….oh wait, you didn’t actually do that there did you sparky?
You have done exactly what others of your ilk have done again and again, toss out the talking points of the industries that are trying to essentially cripple the internet.
The repeated use of the word “theft” in your comment just pushes people to think you’re nothing more than an industry shill (possibly paid by how many times you spew this garbage on as many blogs as you can).
If you believe that you have a valid comment on the subject matter of the article (but probably not) then by all means, post away.
If not….kindly be quiet.
My 2 cents
Re: This won't damage free speech
Outside the Internet, thanks to government regulation, free speech is systematically removed from public airwaves (ie: the government grants monopolist gatekeepers monopoly power over public airwave use, which includes radio and public airwave television) and cable . As a result, despite the fact that our current IP laws are absurdly unacceptable and causes so much social harm, the MSM only supports them and is hardly ever seen criticizing them over these communication channels. IP criticisms aren’t allowed over these communication channels despite the fact that IP law (at least as it currently stands) is absolutely indefensible. The reason these criticisms aren’t allowed is because the monopolists who control information distribution know that their position is indefensible and so they don’t want to further expose this fact. and what’s worse is I don’t see the government lifting a finger to correct the systematic free speech censorship that it wrongfully created. Why should I believe that the government is interested in preserving Internet free speech when this is the very same government that’s not making an effort to remove the free speech censorship that it’s responsible for. I have very good reason to believe that the government is trying to do to the Internet exactly what it did to communication outside the Internet and no good reason to believe otherwise.
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Censorship is already a reality and the government is responsible for it. MM would never be allowed to criticize IP on public airwaves (or on cable) and the reason is because to do so means he must go through a government imposed monopoly gateway keeper and such gateway keepers won’t allow him to express his criticisms since they can’t defend their position. Yet they have no problems broadcasting pro-IP propaganda while censoring any criticisms. Censorship, that the government is responsible for, is already real. It’s not FUD, it’s a currently existing reality.
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
Hahahaha. Perhaps you should read cnet’s take on PROTECT IP. They’re owned by CBS.
MM would never get on the airwaves due to lack of talent, not opportunity.
Re: Re: Re:2 This won't damage free speech
“Perhaps you should read cnet’s take on PROTECT IP. They’re owned by CBS.”
Censoring this from an Internet subsidiary is pointless since CBS already knows that those who have access to the Internet and are interested in this stuff have access to criticisms elsewhere as well. So there is no point in not benefiting from the ad revenue that an IP critical audience brings, or else that audience will simply go elsewhere and hence generate an audience elsewhere. Still doesn’t negate the fact that pro IP is broadcasted over (govt) monopolized communication channels while criticisms are not.
As far as ‘talent’ is concerned, the expression of Mikes viewpoints isn’t art, music, or theatrics so talent is irrelevant. Merit is what’s relevant and it should be left to the public to see if his viewpoints have merit. For the government to pass laws that allow a gatekeeper, or someone like you, to decide what has merit and what doesn’t and to deny any media access to those viewpoints just because someone like you thinks they don’t have merit is government imposed censorship. Mike Masnick and Larry Lessig are certainly more knowledgeable on what he discusses than many of the IP maximists that the mainstream media does allow on the mainstream media (and Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine are certainly more knowledgeable than many of them), some of which don’t even have degrees. IP maximists are known to avoid publicly debating IP critics because they know that their viewpoints have no merit. If Mike’s viewpoints really don’t have merit then the media should allow him the opportunity to express his viewpoints and then the MSM can also criticize his viewpoints and defend theirs as well. But they won’t because the MSM can’t defend their viewpoints.
As far as I can tell, MM has managed to gather a huge audience of people who agree with him without the help of a govt imposed monopoly. The MSM gets their audience due to govt imposed monopolies. Do you have a blog? If so, how many people read your blog? Perhaps not as many as Mikes because your opinion has less merit? Is that why you’re here? From what I tell, pro IP blogs deny comments because those comments get overwhelmed with criticisms that IP maximists can’t respond to. Anti – IP blogs have no problems gathering a huge audience of those who agree with them, and opening up their blogs to comments, despite not benefiting from govt imposed monopolies, yet IP maximists must comment on techdirt and slashdot to get an audience (or they must rely on govt imposed monopolies). Maybe IP maximists can’t get their views accepted because their views have no merit?
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
Mike Masnick and Larry Lessig are certainly more knowledgeable on what they discuss … *
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
“If Mike’s viewpoints really don’t have merit then the media should allow him the opportunity to express his viewpoints and then the MSM can also criticize his viewpoints and defend theirs as well.”
and if they don’t have merit then the public will make that decision. Why should the govt pass laws that allow gatekeepers like yourself to make that decision a priori? Why should your opinion be the only opinion with merit just because you said so? Let the people decide, stop trying to decide for them.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
(and stop trying to use monopolistic laws to manipulate their decisions).
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
(or, rather, their opinions*)
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
or else that audience will simply go elsewhere and hence generate ad revenue elsewhere. *
Better for that ad revenue to stay with CBS, where they can use it for campaign contributions and lobbying that helps expand their IP agenda, than for it to go to other sources that are truly against IP and that can use that revenue to suppress IP laws.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
Perhaps some “IP maximists” simply don’t see scum from The Pirate Bay as a legitimate opposing spokesperson, rather a radical nutjob. There is room for debate and discussion but zealots bring nothing productive to it. Most people hate zealots even if they themselves might be sympathetic to the cause.
I’m no industry spokesman but I have no problem mixing it up with freeloaders, apologists, excuse-makers and particularly techdirtbags Mike and Larry.
There’s a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing.
So bring it on.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
It’s been brought. You said it yourself, there are more of “them” than there are of “you”.
Intelligent businesses would consider them potential customers, court them, sell to them.
But yours is not an intelligently run business – when you have no better ideas than to buy legislation, on top of legislation that is already weighted in your favor, then you have proven your industry to be too stupid to survive as a business. Your market has told you for over a decade as much. More law won’t make you more money. More law like ProtectIP will only bite you in your own ass, guaranteed, since it applies to you too, don’t forget that.
You’re not special snowflakes. Grow up and get off your duffs and do the work of running a business.
And get the hell out of my government. Pay your own goddamn freight.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
Expecting the government to enforce copyright law is hardly an outrageous request.
Whether you or Mike Masnick want to accept it or not, the fact is that all the movie studios and record labels that were founded many years ago and built the industries which so many people now think they’re entitled to avail themselves to, did so because their investment was protected by IP law.
There is no evidence that you or Masnick have that can demonstrate that the majority of people, both consumers and creators, would be happier with a DIY system that doesn’t utilize the above already built knowledge base and infrastructure.
It’s a fantasy designed to get readers to his blog which is how he makes his pennies.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
There is no evidence that you or Masnick have that can demonstrate that the majority of people, both consumers and creators, would be happier with a DIY system that doesn’t utilize the above already built knowledge base and infrastructure.
And where is your evidence that none of that knowledge and infrastructure would exist without copyright?
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
Expecting the government to enforce copyright law is hardly an outrageous request.
Whether you or Mike Masnick want to accept it or not, the fact is that all the movie studios and record labels that were founded many years ago and built the industries which so many people now think they’re entitled to avail themselves to, did so because their investment was protected by IP law.
The movie studios were founded in California to avoid the patents of Edison. So in fact far from being protected by IP law they did their level best to ignore it.
Your country ( I presume) the US ignored the IP of other countries for about half of its existence.
Your opinions are devalued by your ignorance of history.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
It’s a fantasy designed to get readers to his blog which is how he makes his pennies.
The only fantasies people indulge in here are the shilltards like you who actually believe these kinds of laws will make a dent in file sharing rather than drive people to darknets or sneakernets.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
“Expecting the government to enforce copyright law is hardly an outrageous request.”
Yes it is. It is outrageous to expect that tax dollars be spent upon the pursuit and persecution of non commercial copyright infringement offenses.
” …their investment was protected by IP law.”
There is no such thing. Possibly you refer to laws which address copyright, patent and trademark.
“There is no evidence that you or Masnick have that can demonstrate that the majority of people, both consumers and creators, would be happier with a DIY system that doesn’t utilize the above already built knowledge base and infrastructure.”
What are you rambling about.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
“There is no evidence that you or Masnick have that can demonstrate that the majority of people, both consumers and creators, would be happier with a DIY system that doesn’t utilize the above already built knowledge base and infrastructure.”
I, for one, do not want IP laws to exist. and many here don’t. So at least that’s at start.
and if the majority of people really thought that these laws were important enough to exist they will likely follow their principles voluntarily without needing laws to force them to. IP maximists keep complaining that everyone pirates their stuff, if it’s only a small minority that pirates their stuff then it shouldn’t be a problem. If it’s a large majority then that is evidence (though not absolute proof) that no one wants these laws.
and I suspect that the people want these laws about as much as they want copy protection lengths to last 95+ years. These laws weren’t put in place because the people want them, they were put in place because industry wants them.
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
The founding fathers were very skeptical of IP laws and govt imposed monopolies because they seen how much harm those laws caused in other countries. Our success was largely due to this skepticism which helped minimize the negative impact of these laws. But now we’ve turned into a nation where the govt grants a monopoly on almost everything, and actively seeks to eliminate competition, and that’s largely responsible for many of our problems.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
Perhaps some “IP maximists” simply don’t see scum from The Pirate Bay as a legitimate opposing spokesperson, rather a radical nutjob……… excuse-makers and particularly techdirtbags Mike and Larry.
When you have no rational argument all you can do is dole out unjustifiable insults.
There’s a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing.
Other than a breathtaking arrogance that somehow believes you are “special” and better than all of us “ordinary” people – without having the courtesy to find out whole we are and what our abilities might be.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
I’m sorry, have you downloaded anything in the past month? Then you’re a freeloader. Accessing a webpage from your browser? Freeloader. Loading up your computer? Freeloader. Using a mouse? Freeloader.
Yet somehow, Big MEdia cries, “Exceptionalism!!!!” whenever sokmething happens that they aren’t used to.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
Watching TV? Freeloader. Living in a house? Freeloader. Living on corporate material things? Freeloader and Lover of corporate materialism.
My home is in Heaven, and I want to share it with by telling you all to leave your house and all those corporate material things and live in the woods like a True Christian should. Fish with your bare hands, build a fire with sticks, study on the Lord’s word until the Second Coming
Re: Re: Re:6
Will you teach me how to feed an army with two loaves of bread, some wine, and one fish?
Or is there an app for that?
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
Funny, She spoke to me and told me to fight for my right….to PARRRRRRTY! :p
Re: Re: Re:6 This won't damage free speech
Wow, you have internet service in the woods? you eat by fishing with bare hands (is that like noodling for catfish?) and warm yourself by fire? You should loosen that tin foil hat, it seems to be cutting off your circulation.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
“The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing. “
There are many people who would create without these laws and there are many people who create and release their works under licenses that are at least in part designed to circumvent these laws. For you to define the ‘creative community’ as those who hold your pro-IP position and then to argue that ‘the creative community’ is outnumbered is meaningless.
If the majority of people do not want these laws to exist, as you seem to indicate, then these laws simply shouldn’t exist. Creative communities (and not by your narrow, pro-IP, definition of the word) will exist perfectly fine without these laws.
Re: Re: Re:4 This won't damage free speech
“There’s a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing. “
So your argument as to why IP criticisms get censored from the MSM is because you assert that superior than everyone else and you assert that only your opinion counts. No one else’s opinion counts because you said so.
The better explanation is that you can’t defend your position and you know it and so you prefer to censor opposing vies. If it’s true that you’re right then you should have no problem defending your position against critics instead of resorting to (using bad laws to) censor them.
Like I said, censorship is real and the laws are written to allow tyrants like yourself to arbitrarily censor arguments just because they don’t like them and can’t defend against them.
Re: Re: Re:5 This won't damage free speech
is because you assert that you’re superior than everyone else and you assert that only your opinion counts. *
Re: Re: Re:2 This won't damage free speech
MM would never get on the airwaves
Which certainly does not prove your point at all. Bummer.
Re: Re: Re:3 This won't damage free speech
My point is that the laws are responsible for this. It does prove my point, IP criticisms are not allowed to make their way on public airwaves or cable and the laws are responsible. Censorship is real and the government is responsible.
Re: This won't damage free speech
Pick me !!! pick me !!! …. hold his hand up …
The problem here is that the entire internet is going to be put under siege for the actions of a few, and the stupidity of the politicians. Lets look at the numbers …
According to netcraft “December 2010 around 266,848,493 websites are available on the world wide web.”
vs
-weblockers
-the pirate bay and about a hundred other sites
-p2p software that isn’t coverd by this law
-Torrent software again not covered
266,848,493 legit sites vs about 10,000 sites …. hmmm thats a ratio of …
26685 to 1
That seems like a really fair approach. (sarc)
It's good to see.......
….but I’m sure as said above that this will push the money to their opponents come re-election time. The decision by the USSC to allow corporations to donate money to a campaign is one of many devices of late killing the country.
This third party liability campaign of the industries has to be quashed. I’m sure it won’t be but it should be or there goes just one more liberty U.S. citizens have to the corporate machine.
I say it’s time to get rid of all of them. It seems that they have forgotten that they are our employees. It’s time to remind them. Fire all of them come next election cycle, warning to those who replace them. They follow the same path, they’re next.
Damn I hate ranting, must have spent too much time offshore this time.
My 2 cents.
Before placing Mr. Wyden on a pedestal, keep things in perspective. This is not a bill, it has not been sponsored, it is undergoing changes as I type, at some point it will be introduced as a bill and referred to several committees for hearings and markup, and that what eventually, if ever, comes out will be markedly different from this “leaked” early draft.
Also keep in mind that this issue making him a “hero” here is way down on his priority list, with his two top priorities being the fishing and lumber industries.
Re: Re:
Sponsors: Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Al Franken (D-Min) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
It is a bill. It has been introduced. Mark-up is next week and will probably go out of committee 19-0 just like COICA did.
Re: Re: Re:
At which point, I suspect that the US Government will adopt the moniker, ‘National-Socialist Democratic Party’ and have done. Go look at the history of the National-socialist movement. The US is starting to resembale a historic diktat.
Re: Re:
Before placing Mr. Wyden on a pedestal, keep things in perspective. This is not a bill, it has not been sponsored, it is undergoing changes as I type, at some point it will be introduced as a bill and referred to several committees for hearings and markup, and that what eventually, if ever, comes out will be markedly different from this “leaked” early draft.
It is a bill, it has been sponsored. S.968. I posted the list of sponsors earlier today. Please keep up.
Also keep in mind that this issue making him a “hero” here is way down on his priority list, with his two top priorities being the fishing and lumber industries.
What does that have to do with anything?
Re: Re: Re:
Do not recall your posting that this has been submitted as a bill that has sponsors.
I see from Thomas that it was filed 5/12.
Why my reference to the two industries? Because a recent Senate hearing you discussed had Wyden on the panel, and these were the only two things he talked about. Add some language to the bill and he will fold his tent. Deny him his fish and trees and he will go nuclear.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See my posts both above and below yours.
Re: Re:
Go to Open Congress. Look at the sponsors of the bill, and donations received from 2008-2010. Sort by largest first. That should tell you all you need to know.
Ron Paul would strike down IP laws too!
Ron Paul would support eliminating intellectual monopolies! Don’t you forget it!
@anymouse: There are medications that can help you.
To all of the apologists, freeloaders and those calling for the overthrow of our government that has sold out the Constitution; I offer the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Re: Re:
To all of the apologists, freeloaders and those calling for the overthrow of our government that has sold out the Constitution; I offer the following:
Are any of those people actually here? And what exactly is your point by posting the copyright clause?
If only Ron and Zoe were more inclined to support the other parts of the bill of rights where it says “The Right Of The People”