Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech

from the good-for-google dept

While there have been a a couple of politicians speaking out against the very questionable PROTECT IP Act, we hadn't heard much from various companies that would be seriously impacted by the law. Thankfully, they're starting to speak up, starting with Google. Eric Schmidt warned that passing PROTECT IP would set a "disastrous precedent" for free speech, and that Google would fight against it passing, and suggested the company would fight the law in court if it did pass:
"I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems," he said. "So, 'let's whack off the DNS'. Okay, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent because now another country will say 'I don't like free speech so I'll whack off all those DNSs' -- that country would be China.

"It doesn't seem right. I would be very, very careful about that stuff. If [the UK government] do it the wrong way it could have disastrous precedent setting in other areas."
Of course, the problem here is that those in favor of PROTECT IP don't seem to understand the technology that they're regulating. So they don't realize that they're trying to create a "simple solution to complex problems," and don't recognize that they're effectively breaking the internet and infringing on free speech rights. It's not because they don't like free speech. It's because they don't understand what they're doing, and lobbyists for the entertainment industry insist this is needed to "fight piracy." The problem is that this won't "fight piracy" and will have massive unintended consequences. It's good that Google is willing to make this an issue.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Raphael (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    Kids these days...

    No wonder the country's in the toilet. They just sit in their rooms all day whacking off their DNSes. It shouldn't be allowed, that's what I say!

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    It's worse than that:

    Those in favor of PROTECT IP have constructed a mental image of "how the internet works" and they believe they understand it.

    I've seen this many times. I've had customers on the phone telling me I was wrong when I was attempting to explain to them the functions of the system they were using which I had designed!

    Plus, I'll bet you almost every person invested in their pigheaded wrongness has faith--they obviously have no problem holding in their head a nonsensical belief for which there is no evidence...

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    "the problem here is that those in favor of PROTECT IP don't seem to understand the technology that they're regulating."

    The bigger problem here is that these laws are partly intended to restrict free speech. After all, the legal system outside of the Internet already does a good job of restricting free speech (ie: despite the fact that our current IP laws are absolutely indefensible, an IP critic such as MM would never be allowed to express anti-IP opinions on public airwaves, but the corporations that wrongfully monopolize those airwaves are quick to express pro-IP propaganda).

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Re:

    The laws outside the Internet are purposely intended to restrict free speech, and they do, and these laws are no different. Politicians aren't lifting a finger to correct all the broken laws outside the Internet for a reason, because they don't disapprove of them, and if they approve of laws that wrongfully restrict free speech outside the Internet then it stands to follow that they approve of laws that restrict free speech within the Internet too.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:19pm

    is all the "whacking off" suppose to be making fun of what lawmakers do all day? I don't think I have ever heard that phrase used to not mean masturbate, unless maybe its coming from a old school mobster

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:27pm

    Re: It's worse than that:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

    i doubt many of our lawmakers have moved passed this idea

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    What a joke. He's complaining because the law will dent Google's revenue. Tough shit, asshat.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 2:34pm

    Re:

    This also affects the internet in a negative way. Way to make your case...

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:34pm

    Re:

    But it's OK for monopolists to complain because monopoly abolition will dent their revenue under the false pretext that it's for the artists, right?

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

    Re:

    And the movie/music industries are complaining that they can't compete with the internet.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re:

    They can't compete with competition, period, and so they must outlaw it altogether, and outside the Internet that's exactly what they did.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    buck lateral (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 2:49pm

    Here's A Different Perspective

    Google shows its true colors?
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 by Sandra Aistars

    Google’s chief executive Eric Schmidt today said his company would challenge legislative efforts to shut off access to websites like Pirate Bay that traffic in pirated and counterfeit goods, even if they were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States.

    In a rhetorical retread of the sky-is-falling cries from Google-supported, so-called “consumer interest groups” who line up to oppose copyright enforcement efforts, Schmidt reportedly raised the specter of free speech limitations as the basis for his position.

    But the self-interested hand-wringing is a bit much given Google’s history of reaping the benefits of doing business in China for years while censoring content at the Chinese government’s behest.

    Where rogue websites are concerned, Google profits from ad placement no matter whether the content is licensed or not. Given a recent study showing nearly one-fourth of the internet bandwidth globally is consumed by exchange of infringing content, it is only reasonable to assume someone at the Google campus is counting the potential lost eyes on ads and calculating the financial impact on the company.

    Indeed there is even publicly documented history of Google knowingly and purposefully working with pirate websites to increase traffic to such websites and profits to Google from the Sponsored Links/Adwords programs. In conjunction with the settlement of a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the major Hollywood studios against Luke Sample, Brandon Drury and their companies for operation of subscription based websites devoted to helping consumers find and download pirated copyrighted works, Sample’s Affidavit was filed by one of the defendants testifying to the fact that Google worked directly with the illegal website to drive traffic to it and increase Google’s revenues from its participation in the sponsored links program. In fact, Google’s ad teams even made suggestions designed to optimize conversion rates by using keywords targeted to pirated content – such as suggesting downloading films still in theatrical release, that obviously were not available yet in any authorized format for home viewing.

    Passing laws these days is an arduous process and the fact that a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not to mention 42 U.S. state attorneys general, have looked at the approach and endorsed it, should be indication that numerous behind-the-scenes legal minds have looked at the language and determined it passes muster.

    As Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) pointed out at a news conference last month, the Judiciary Committees considering this issue are experts in first amendment and due process issues. “It doesn’t do any good to pass legislation that doesn’t stand up. We’re not doing this to feel good,” he said.

    Perhaps the Google view is that a mere threat of non-compliance will somehow scare off officials eager to defend American creativity and American jobs. But the strident statements smack of corporate imperialism, and – delivered across the Atlantic in London – are a far cry from the tone Google’s General Counsel took while testifying back home in America before the House Judiciary Committee a mere six weeks ago.

    No matter how Mr. Schmidt tries to dress up opposition to copyright enforcement efforts as altruistically motivated, one can’t help but look to Google’s checkered history on aiding pirate websites in marketing their content, and wonder where the truth lies.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Re:

    we cant pass this law, think of the LOLCATS!!!

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    link please? sounds like fox news

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    So basically, a huge article about how the industry has set up a "with us or against us" line in the sand.

    If you're going to blame Google for treating all customers equally, might as well blame ICANN for letting anyone take a domain name.

    And LOL at trying to connect P2P traffic to ad views. Downloading a summer blockbuster has the same page hits as viewing a news article - Using up 10000x the amount of bandwidth means diddly-squat for ad revenue.

    Pirate websites don't even rank on the highest traffic websites. They're hardly major players when it comes to Google Ad Revenue.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:13pm

    But... But... Piracy

    I'm from The Copyright Alliance and you don't have a written contract to copy and paste that entire article here or even link to it. Mike Masnick is now required to remove ALL of your previous comments on Techdirt pursuant to the PROTECT IP Act. You may contest these accusations in court after the comments have been removed. GOOD DAY SIR!

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:13pm

    Pirate websites don't even rank on the highest traffic websites.

    Epic. Fail.

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thepiratebay.org

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    notRICHartist (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 3:16pm

    NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Stop hiding behind the tired free speech meme. Google makes tons of income from its advertising on websites the contain stolen or illegal goods. Try as they might, they cannot continue to cry "free speech" every time there are legitimate questions raised about their business model. (Seems the FDA and company are taking notice of this too). Where there's smoke, there's fire.

    Also, I should note that the victims of piracy aren't just the major corporations (ie studios, etc.). More important, and something that this website seems to regularly overlook, is the negative effect that content theft is having on the not-so-big companies/artists/individuals.

    Google's repeated cries of "free speech" remind me of a fable involving a little boy who cried "wolf" one too many times.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:20pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    According to Mike Masnick, you just need to sell more t-shirts.

    Y'know, so you can fund creations that people want to consume but not pay for.

    It's so easy.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re:

    No it doesn't.

    All you jokers have been able to come with are silly doomsday FUD scenarios.

    You people and Google are just greedy leeches getting fat on the backs of other people's labor.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:32pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Free speech is a meme now?

    If you want to stop piracy go ahead, just write good laws to do it and maybe find someon e who knows how the internet works to do that.

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re:

    There is no monopoly. Go look up the definition of monopoly some time.

    A person is free to distribute their art any way they wish.

    But how it's done is their choice, not yours.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Free Speech FUD is a meme. And a stale one, at that.

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:34pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    You seem to think that by Google censoring links it will make the problem go away. There's tons of search engines not under jurisdiction of U.S. law that will still contain those links, and sites will still be directly accessible.

    Free speech may be a meme in the middle east, but it's been a right in the United States for 222 years. Should I listen to the Constitution, or your shill account that was born 5 minutes ago?

    More importantly this is no guarantee that people will buy more of your shit. If it does pass, don't ever reveal your identity because people who support this will be boycotted, and that's a promise.

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

    Re: But... But... Piracy

    The scary thing here, is that your "sarcasm" wouldn't actually be sarcastic at all if PROTECT IP was passed. Your comment wasn't exaggerated one bit. If it is passed, a complaint of infringement can be made, and your registrar, hoping not to be sued, would under duress remove the content, and you can only protest AFTER your speech has been silenced.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's a good thing that those who don't understand technology get to regulate technological use.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    .torrent = .crime

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 3:44pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Stop hiding behind the tired piracy meme. The RIAA/MPAA companies make tons of income, even though there are some websites that somehow have physical stolen goods on them. Try as they might, they cannot continue to cry "piracy" every time there are legitimate questions raised about their business model (Seems the FDA (Food and Drug Authority) and company are taking notice of this too)....wait, the FDA are taking notice of this? Where there's smoke, there's fire.

    Also, I should note that the victims of piracy aren't just the major corporations (i.e. studios etc). More important, and something that this website seems to regularly show to hundreds of thousands of dedicated readers, is the positive effect that file-sharing is having on the not-so-big companies/artists/individuals.

    The entertainment industries repeated cries of "Piracy" remind me of a fable involving a little boy who cried "wolf" one too many times.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 3:47pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    /sarc
    Free speech is a meme! Wow, informed memebase!

    Google is to monitor all sites it.. I cant even sarc this.

    What is it in there business model exactly? I wonder where the smoke is because the other half of that is your actually inhaling it through your anus.

    Small business effect? I really want to see how much more copyright does from even considering a new business in a model based on transformative works verses say a big company considering a new venture and then tell me who has the resources to actually get it done.

    Cry of free speech? Yes please tell me when.. oh thats right history writes the story of the victors not the ones killed, skinned and quartered. Because nobody wants to think about that right? Normalcy Bias. 100k of them get out of Germany the other 400k get slaughtered thinking, "Nah, cant happen here". Thanks but I'll take the 100k route every time.

    I don't even need Murphy's law for this one.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 3:50pm

    What a FUDpuddle...

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 3:58pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Try as they might, they cannot continue to cry "free speech" every time there are legitimate questions raised about their business model.

    No legitimate question has been raised about Google's business model. The question was raised that the ProIP bill has the ability to cause chilling effects on free speech. Are you suggesting that merely linking to so-called illegal content being a *felony* won't have a chilling effect on free speech? How could you ever link to anything? A link is just a pointer. You could link to a cute fuzzy kitten one day and the same link, without any action from you, could be a Metallica song. BAM, you're a felon, welcome to the inability to vote or carry a firearm. Do you still think this is a good idea? If so, please post a link to this on your blog or facebook page and I'll change it to something else tomorrow, maybe a revisit of two girls, one cup.

    More important, and something that this website seems to regularly overlook, is the negative effect that content theft is having on the not-so-big companies/artists/individuals.

    The ones that are more impacted by their obscurity than the "theft" they can't lose because no one knows about them? Seriously? There's a good reason you're a not rich artist, my friend. Oh, and it's not theft.

    As a side note/rant, so many "poor artists" come to this blog and cry about how piracy is hurting them and they almost *never* link to an example of their art. If I was an artist I would pimp myself out at anyone whose eyeballs/earballs I could grab. Why no link to your art?

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 4:04pm

    Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    Nice infringement you perpetrated there, Bucky.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 4:09pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Oh, now it's "content theft"? I thought it was "IP theft" or "copyright theft".

    Try being just the slightest bit truthful and use the proper term: copyright infringement. Infringement on the right to make copies. If you do, someone might take you seriously.

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And what evidence do you have there, chief?

    An anecdotal look at Adsense along with a biased view on what is and is not piracy?

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 4:42pm

    Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    Hilarious. So you copy and paste an entire article from a *LOBBIEST* who was one of the main backers of the bill, and you consider that convincing?

    In the meantime, why would you infringe on the Copyright Alliance's copyright like that? Do you have a license to repost it elsewhere?

    Why is it always the maximalists who are caught infringing?

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    Mike what are you getting worked up about? Buck lateral's just doing what everyone else does on the internet and showing us something that caught his/her eye and wants to prove a point...by copying the article, which as we all know will not hurt the author in any way shape or form.
    Although I do find it hilarious myself. I note that buck doesn't say where s/he got it, or link to the article. That's self-censorship, almost as if s/he's practicing living under the repressive regime that PROTECT IP would bring about...except what I just said doesn't make sense considering s/he copied the article"

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    buck lateral (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 4:58pm

    Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Who cares? It's not like you're paying now.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    But he gave the author's name which people can automatically link to the source and... Oh...

    I see what you did there...

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    buck lateral (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 5:37pm

    Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    I love watching zealots self-immolate.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "There is no monopoly."

    Yes there is.

    "Go look up the definition of monopoly some time."

    Single seller, exclusivity, etc... IP = monopolies.

    "A person is free to distribute their art any way they wish."

    Sure.

    "But how it's done is their choice, not yours."

    It's their choice how they distribute 'their' art. Once they distribute it, it's also my choice how I redistribute it.

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Content Theft

    If you don't want me to access your content then keep it off my interwebz. If you put it on the internet then I am accessing it not stealing or even infringing. If you don't want me to access your content then keep it off my interwebz.

    Seriously, "Artist" or "Creator" or even "Inventor" shouldn't be a job/profession. They are hobbies. If you somehow mange to get people to drop some change in your guitar case I'm happy for you but you are not entitled. Quit expecting others to subsidize your artistic endeavors.

    When I write code I want to share, I share it for the joy of knowing someone might enjoy or benefit from it not because I might get some money for it. If I don't want to share it then I don't.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "No it doesn't."

    The U.S. govt and the FCC made the same claim back when the FCC started regulating public airwaves. "It won't kill free speech, it won't reduce peoples ability to communicate over these platforms, we'll make sure of it. We'll ensure a minimal amount of competition, we'll make sure the necessary broadcasting licenses are sufficiently easy for anyone to attain". That turned out to be a lie. This is too.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 5:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "All you jokers have been able to come with are silly doomsday FUD scenarios."

    Except for those silly FUD doomsday scenario are already reality. Copy protection lengths last insanely long and they keep getting retroactively extended to the point that nothing ever enters the public domain anymore. The constitution says that these things are to last a limited time and that these laws are only to promote the progress, but that no longer seems to apply and the courts have ignored the constitution and have effectively made copy protection lengths last forever (minus a day). Content can die in history, never to be seen again, before having the opportunity to enter the public domain. There are also a ton of other things wrong with these laws. The only FUD here is that art, music, and innovation will somehow cease to exist (or be slowed down) without IP laws and that IP laws are somehow needed serve the public interest or else ....

    The USPTO rubber stamps patents without any indication that it even reads any of them. The govt grants a monopoly on almost everything it can (ie: taxi cab monopolies) and the necessary free speech outside the Internet to bring attention to these unacceptable monopolies doesn't exist because the government wrongfully grants monopoly power over broadcasting spectra (and cableco infrastructure use) and hands that power over to corporate interests, interests that only express pro-IP propaganda without allowing any criticisms to be broadcasted whatsoever, despite the fact that these IP laws are completely indefensible. These doomsday scenario are already real and the govt just wants to seek to do to the Internet what it did to everything outside the Internet. After what it wrongfully did to everything outside the Internet, why should I believe otherwise?

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:01pm

    Re:

    Do you even understand what that link is saying?

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:06pm

    Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    There are already laws in place that prevent Google from assisting in the distribution of pirated content. Google doesn't make its ad revenue from pirated content, at least not any appreciable amount. It probably loses far more revenue in the costs of policing and taking down links to pirated content than anything it gains. Google already makes a lot of effort to remove pirated content from its search engines. To say that Google benefits from such content is disingenuous at best.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    Hypocritical zealots are humorous when they get called out.

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:18pm

    It's so amusing to watch these Imaginary Property fundies get their panties all in twist.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Baloney.

    Free speech is alive and well on the airwaves.

    Ask Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or that Alex guy, the conspiracy nut. They spew their nonsense and their listeners are free to call in and do the same.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Changing the subject I see.

    And what does copyright length have to do with anything? How does Mickey Mouse IP mess with your world? It doesn't.

    Snore.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Once they distribute it, it's also my choice how I redistribute it.

    No it isn't. Not unless you mean it's your choice whether or not you choose to break the law...

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, it's saying that out of millions and millions of websites, TPB is the 90th most popular in the world.

    Do you even understand what that link is saying?

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 6:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes tell me how giving something to a friend or even a third party is illegal.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 6:58pm

    Re:

    Is that sort of like your imaginary worth as a human being?

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Total bullshit.

    The people that are most hurt by piracy are small and independent record labels and musicians.

    They aren't part of the RIAA; they don't have a team of employees to send DMCA notices, post spoofed files or viruses to the pirate sites, etc..

    Stop trying to defend the indefensible. It just makes you out as a horrible and immoral person.

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    If its so stale care to show me even one demotivational about it?

    Maybe entrance in rear at planned parenthood?

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    I wish I could post the Fry poster of "I cant tell if he is trolling or just really stupid"

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    VMax, May 18th, 2011 @ 7:11pm

    Re:

    Sir,
    Please stop wearing human backside on your head.
    Thank you.

     

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

  58.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    "The people that are most hurt by piracy are small and independent record labels and musicians."

    False.

    "They aren't part of the RIAA; they don't have a team of employees to send DMCA notices, post spoofed files or viruses to the pirate sites, etc.."

    [citation needed]

    The smaller labels are actually the ones that experiment. You're trying to slander some good bands there, bucko.

    "Stop trying to defend the indefensible"

    If you really are still using the piracy meme some more, please go out and do your own research into it. And please, read some of the research that has come out, that no one has yet to dispute. What's incredibly wearing is when people come here, say "blah de blah", but then have nothing but some anecdotal evidence that has no correlation to the causes and effects of technology use in the 21 century.

     

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

  59.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:22pm

    Re: Re:

    Confirmed. You have no argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    For the assist?

     

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

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 7:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    To all of you, I work in the music business and see this every day.

    Where's *your* proof I'm wrong?

     

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

  62.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:42pm

    Congress..

    doesn't care about free speech anyway. Most members of Congress couldn't even tell you what tis in the Constitution anyway, much less care if they did.

    Congress would love to simply find a way to arrest people who publish anything that the members of Congress don't like.

     

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

  63.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    :) Thanks

     

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

  64.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 7:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Ah yes the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate. Lets Vilify each other(raises hand guilty) so nothing meaningful comes from the discussion.

    Point here was that proof right wrong isn't the issue the issue is the proposes effect (if any) and the fallout (if any) is leading to (if any) results... rather than solutions to free-market non-interference any time soon.

    Sad it takes 3 little pics for someone to release there work for ANY use including commercial and it only takes one to give someone a monopoly on it. OH and and that monopoly is implied whether we want it or not.

     

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

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 7:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're not very good at trolling.

     

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

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 7:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    They're obviously not making any money from the music business so it's "Trolling for Dollars" time.

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    Dave, May 18th, 2011 @ 8:00pm

    Re: Re:

    I've tried to find some middle ground on the whole IP thing. I've even tried reasoned discussion with IP extremists. You know what I found? You. In fact I found you(1000). I found people so blinded by their self importance and feeling of entitlement that reasoned discussion is impossible. Any hint of anything short of the most extreme policies imaginable is theft. Any discussion that even dares to suggest that their is such thing as "fair use", that the public is a stake holder in how copyright legislation should written is met with disdain and vitriol.

    So I've come to a conclusion. It is impossible to have a reasonable copyright. Completely and utterly. I'm not saying that their aren't reasonable ideas on how copyright should be. I'm saying that any attempt to create one will fail. Because of you. You will subvert anything even vaguely, through 30 feet of dense fog, resembling balance. You will cry "think of the artists!" "we won't ever be able to create anything unless we have complete control!" "a vote for fair use is a vote for theft!"

    Here's the upside. In our wonderful day of anything can be copied, copyright is completely voluntary for private citizens like myself. If I feel like supporting an artist I will! I can't be forced to! It's a great, liberating feeling. I spend money on entertainment all the time, but never because I give a damn about your precious copyright.

    So copyright will get evermore dictatorial, and will totally eliminate any good that it could ever have represented in the past, and at the same time will matter less and less and it is all your fault.

    TL;DR: Copyright sucks because copyright supporters are self indulgent ass-hats incapable of reasoned discussion. I don't care about copyright, and soon no one else will either.

    BTW, I've gone ahead and typed up your reply to my post, too (no need to thank me. Copy all you want): You are a dirty rotten thief who only wants free stuff you big poo-poo head. May fiery hell rain down upon you for all eternity, you thiefy thief stealer guy.

     

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

  68.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 8:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    i really like the anime piracy one consider on average for one show I find 4 different sources (on one site). Most with subs/no sub options.

    Joe can got an assist on Japanese language software source too?

     

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

  69.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 8:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

     

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

  70.  
    identicon
    AR, May 18th, 2011 @ 8:27pm

    This thing is probably unconstitutional.

     

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

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 8:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Freetard. They'll call you a freetard.

     

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

  72.  
    identicon
    AR, May 18th, 2011 @ 8:28pm

    This thing is probably unconstitutional.

     

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

  73.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Score! Ty kindly :)

     

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

  74.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 8:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    irk. These are all please pay us sites like work at home scams. Attempt again?

     

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

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Baloney."

    IP criticisms over public airwaves hardly exists, if at all. That's despite the fact that our current IP laws are absolutely indefensible.

    "Ask Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or that Alex guy, the conspiracy nut. They spew their nonsense and their listeners are free to call in and do the same."

    Saying that some speech is permitted is different than saying that free speech is permitted.

    and that's part of the point. Speech that reasonably criticizes our absurd IP laws are censored and replaced by insanity instead.

     

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

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "And what does copyright length have to do with anything?"

    Copy privilege lengths have to do with the absurd nature of our existing IP laws and the fact that our politicians should be repealing these laws instead of further expanding them.

     

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

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:03pm

    I see the trolls are out in force on this one. As was mentioned earlier, you can't talk to them, reason with them, it's like talking to a wall, you can't make a dent.

    ARSTechnia has a good article where the report is being turned in on a study.

    Among them is one telling point, working in the US as well as the UK. They seemed to have coined a term....lobbynomics as the method of determining the validity for the next in the line of succession of laws steadily coming out. One doesn't get dry on the page before the next one is coming down the pipes. The report recommends the changing of the way of determining the need for new IP laws by getting rid of lobbynomics and in it's place to start dealing with facts. Not the puff piece facts but real ones.

     

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

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "No it isn't. Not unless you mean it's your choice whether or not you choose to break the law..."

    The whole point here is that the law needs to be changed.

     

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

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes I do, but you apparently don't.

    Saying that pirate sites are the 90th most visited sites is different than saying that their Google or search engine referral rates ranks 90. In fact, the stats would seem to indicate otherwise, "The fraction of visits to the site referred by search engines is about 18%"

    That is, the majority of people who visit the site visit not from search engines queries.

     

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

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    not from search engine queries *

     

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

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2011 @ 9:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    "The people that are most hurt by piracy are small and independent record labels and musicians."

    The people lobbying for these laws the most are the RIAA and the MPAA so they are likely the ones 'hurt' most by 'piracy'.

    You, on the other hand, have no evidence to suggest that your statement is true.

     

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

  82.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 9:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And thus you show that it IS a monopoly. I bought it, I should be able to resell it. Having a law that says I cannot is a law that enforces a monopoly.

     

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

  83.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 9:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Yes, Free Speech is a meme. Tell me, why are you even an American? The 1st Amendment is one of our most cherished laws (right behind the 2nd, I'd imagine), so it's a meme that's lasted over 300 years. Yet you seem disinterested in it. Hell, even Europe understands the importance of such a thing. Stop wiping your ass with MY RIGHTS. The government, I fear, is going to find out just what the 2nd is for soon enough.

     

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

  84.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    So, because I have no interest at all in your product (note, I do not 'pirate' and I do not purchase label music), you should have the power to remove my rights?

    Get yourself bent around a telephone pole in your shiny, new car.

     

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

  85.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 9:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    [citation needed]

     

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

  86.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

     

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

  87.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 10:31pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I believe I'll start linking to this post because it's the most sensible one in regards to defenders of copyright.

    But just as a reference point, here's some other information in regards to copyright.

    I'm sure defenders will ignore it, but it's good for clarifying what frustrates the copyright debates:

    Stephen Kinsella - Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright

    Lawrence Lessig - Do Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity?

    Is Intellectual Property Even Necessary? The Case For and Against Piracy

    Eric Schmidt - CEO of Google discusses Intellectual Property (My, how things change...)

    Rethinking IP completely

    EMI mad at Joss Stone for making a new album

    Is Piracy the Real Problem? (3 minute video showing the breakdown of profits with the CD era.)

    RIAA training video regarding piracy (showing how the RIAA tries to have law enforcement pursue their copyrights by dubious means. Want to know? Only 2 minutes long, worth a look

    Against Owning Information

    There's more, but that should get you started on the various ways copyright is a complex issue.

     

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

  88.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 10:43pm

    Free Speech? HA!

    Howard Stern fought the FCC tooth and nail while he was on national radio.

    None of these other guys hold a candle to what Howard Stern has done.

    Add in all of the known payola, that keeps independents out, plus FCC licensing, and you have limited free speech on public airwaves.

     

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

  89.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 11:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    Good point. Enjoy your ban from the Internet.

     

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

  90.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 11:24pm

    Re:

    Unconstitutional? The Constitution has been being raped each day for that past three decades.

     

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

  91.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 18th, 2011 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Oh? Defending the indefensible? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because if you are, look at what you've written. You somehow think it's okay for the RIAA to send VIRUSES to the "pirate sites". Last I heard, dealing in computer viruses was 100% illegal. Same with the spoofed files, I'm sure: I'd love for that to be shown in court, with the defense's lawyers shredding it apart in that the file the RIAA is suing over, was put up themselves.

     

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

  92.  
    identicon
    three sixes, May 18th, 2011 @ 11:32pm

    these lobbyist should chill out before i bitch slap their parent company for using my name / numbers, and fighting for causes like this, as they have pirated my mind and can fuck off. Howard Stern didn't propose passing these laws so he could attack, and bankrupt the shit out of companies that are using his shit with out a contract.

     

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

  93.  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 18th, 2011 @ 11:55pm

    "simple solution to complex problems"

    What would you prefer ? a complex solution to a simple problem ?

    you have 3 options

    NO solution - ie it's still broke

    A Simple solution - the ideal solution to any problem.

    A complex solution - In which the solution might be more complex than the problem, and therefore more problematic.

    There is a 4th option, that is to not have a problem in the first place that requires a solution.

    But its silly to claim that a simple solution is a "BAD" thing.

    Assume you are about to crash your car, but you have several solutions that you can use to avoid that crash.

    what would you do ? the simple solution of applying the brakes, or the complex solution of trying to make your car fly ?.

    Or to try to jump out of the car, run faster than it, and chop down the tree you are about to hit.

    If you do not choose the simplest solution you die.


    That is if you consider this 'problem' to be complex in the first place, that would indicate your own lack of understanding of the problem.

     

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

  94.  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    You must be new here:


    Yes, and you've been here far too long, to just post Mikes articles as 'proof' LOL..

    Got ANY other sources, or do you think you need go no further than Mikes preaching ?

     

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

  95.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 12:09am

    Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    > According to Mike Masnick, you just need to sell more t-shirts.

    And according to the RIAA, the 4th Amendment no longer applies.

    Which is more absurd?

     

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

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:47am

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

    Post an example of prohibited speech.

    Post it right here:

     

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

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:53am

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

    Absurd how? How does it harm you?

    You do know everyone is on to this meme, right?

    That the stuff you rip off is newer stuff, and has nothing to do with copyright length, right?

     

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

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:55am

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

    The law that says I can't repeatedly kick you in the balls needs to be changed.

    Let's exercise that notion today. Where do you want to meet up?

     

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

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:57am

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

    There is no law that says you can't resell it.

     

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

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:58am

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

    Though I doubt you've ever bought anything...

     

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

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND THEIR RIGHT TO PIRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

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

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    hypocritical liar.

    btw, when is Masnick going to post his receipts for his mega-gig music collection? You, Masnick, and I know that if they're real purchases, they're tax write-offs. So seeing as he's the biggest piracy apologist on the net, proof should be close at hand.

    Since he is weaseling out of his debt to a charity that helps musicians get health care, we really need to start questioning these type of statements from him.

     

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

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    yea sorry, posting opinions from the the net's biggest piracy apologist is hardly proof.

    Care to try again?

     

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

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    ?

    Your conversations w yourself are OT. Anything to contribute?

     

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

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    The people lobbying for these laws the most are the RIAA and the MPAA so they are likely the ones 'hurt' most by 'piracy'.

    Does make you feel better to think that?

    Are you a smaller person?

    You, like Masnick, are guessing about something that is a remote concept/reality to you.

    I'm not.

    I don't expect people like you to understand, but if you're going to take advantage of artists, karma is going to deal you the nastiest hand you've ever experienced.

    Just a heads up, bud.

     

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

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    There is no law against spoofing.

    My post was about the majors having the money to do that.

    Indies don't.

    Your stance makes you a complete douchebag.

     

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

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So what?

    You've already admitted to yourself that the world wouldn't miss you if you were dead tomorrow.

    You hate yourself and you hate those that have been blessed with more talent than you.

    How exactly does it benefit society to have people like you around?

     

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

  108.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 3:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Each of the links i posted above, if you'd bothered to click on them, and it's clear you haven't, links to the source.

    Exactly how much work should I do to make you less ignorant?

    So, i showed my proof-- wheres yours?

     

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

  109.  
    identicon
    slashcammas, May 19th, 2011 @ 3:55am

    Fighting tyranny! Good for you google! VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN

     

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

  110.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 4:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    seeing as he's the biggest piracy apologist on the net,

    [citation(s) needed]

     

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

  111.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 5:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    those that have been blessed with more talent than you.

     

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

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How does Mickey Mouse IP mess with your world

    Um, by making congress pass laws to RETROACTIVELY change the rules to stopp works from entering the public domain benefitting society?

     

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

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:09am

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

    Who cares what you think?

     

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

  114.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    Sure, after all you had to learn it somewhere.

     

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

  115.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Dumb troll is dumb.

     

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

  116.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Why should he have any obligation to a dumb fuck shilltard like yourself?

     

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

  117.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Yes, which is why there's a propaganda campaign going on in the Capitol. Go to Open Secrets, search by company, then looks at bills like COICA and PROTECT IP. go on, I'll wait.

    When epoepl refuse to adapt to new technologies, that's capitalist Darwinism at work (alos known as free-market). Sadly, those who aren't innovating are litigating, thus pissing off a considerable portion of the public.

     

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

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    uh he just said the links WITH EVIDENCE are in the articles, learn to read before typing.

     

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

  119.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Saying that pirate sites are the 90th most visited sites is different than saying that their Google or search engine referral rates ranks 90. In fact, the stats would seem to indicate otherwise, "The fraction of visits to the site referred by search engines is about 18%"

    That is, the majority of people who visit the site visit not from search engines queries."


    Facts seem to have a quieting effect upon the cow-herd.

     

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

  120.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Any Mouse -> "So, because I have no interest at all in your product (note, I do not 'pirate' and I do not purchase label music), you should have the power to remove my rights? "

    AC -> "hypocritical liar."



    Not only is this an unsupported allegation, but it is also an immature response - or, maybe you've been drinking.

     

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

  121.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    That's rich coming from an asshat.

     

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

  122.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 19th, 2011 @ 6:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    "Each of the links i posted above, if you'd bothered to click on them, and it's clear you haven't, links to the source"


    Reading skills - who needs em?

     

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

  123.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 6:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    It'll be fun to see you bitch and whine the coming years when none of your bullshit moves will make a dent in piracy nor lead to increased sales.

     

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

  124.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 6:03am

    Re: "simple solution to complex problems"

    dumb darryl is dumb.

     

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

  125.  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 19th, 2011 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    good for you if you are willing to except mike's "proof" as all you need.

    As for the amount of work you have done I would consider it to be around ZERO.

    After all, are you not pointing to someone elses work who in turn in pointing to someone elses work? As said that is how it works.

    So what what work, (or critical thinking) did you undertake ?

    You might of taken some effort, but you producted no work. Your efficiency is zero as well.

    If you only proof that you can provide is the parroting of Mikes statements which are parroting someone elses statements (after considerable distortion). Then that is really no proof at all.

    And I do not need any proof that you are demeaning to someone possibly new to the site, because you think you know better because your only source of knowledge is filtered through Mike 'brain'.

    I guess its far easier than using your own.

     

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

  126.  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 19th, 2011 @ 7:07am

    Re: Re: "simple solution to complex problems"

    no, YOU ARE !!!!!

    Grow up !!

     

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

  127.  
    identicon
    lmx, May 19th, 2011 @ 7:12am

    "Breaking the internet."

    Web 2.0 = most immature, clueless generation of internet EVER.

     

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

  128.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    good for you if you are willing to except mike's "proof" as all you need.


    Mike isn't giving proof, he's discussing the proof given by others. You know, like we are right now.

    As for the amount of work you have done I would consider it to be around ZERO.

    My point (it was that thing that wooshed over your head when you pretended to read what I typed) was that the AC asked for proof (instead of just looking for it himself) and I was so kind as to give him a place to start-- and it was then commented that all I posted were techdirt links. Since the links to the actual studies are in every article I posted, it seems reasonable that I would wonder exactly how much work I should do to educate our anonymous friend.

    After all, are you not pointing to someone elses work who in turn in pointing to someone elses work?

    ..and you would have me... cut and paste the entire studies into this blog? Is that what you're suggesting?

    So what what work, (or critical thinking) did you undertake ?

    I never claimed critical thinking; I can't make the guy think about the data, I can only show him where it is. I *did* however search for the applicable links and post them in one spot so he could read at his leisure-- which is work, albeit a minimal amount.

    If you only proof that you can provide is the parroting of Mikes statements which are parroting someone elses statements (after considerable distortion). Then that is really no proof at all.

    You know, the guy that posted that talking to you IP Maximalists is a worthless endeavor just might be onto something. Ignoring the libel in the flat out lie that you claim Mike considerably distorts the data, he actually links to the data he's talking about so it would be quite easy to call him out on it with specific instances (of which, I can't help but notice, you have none) thus causing him to lose credibility. Now, on the other hand, if some semi-anonymous person comes here and starts spouting off anecdotal 'evidence' of how the sky is falling there a good reason to suspect the truth may be distorted. Hence, why we always say "[Citiation needed]".

    And I do not need any proof that you are demeaning to someone possibly new to the site, because you think you know better because your only source of knowledge is filtered through Mike 'brain'.

    I think I know better because I actually click through to the links and read from the source. You should really try it sometime.

     

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

  129.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:51am

    Mike, I respectfully disagree

    > It's not because they don't like free speech.
    > It's because they don't understand what they're
    > doing, and lobbyists for the entertainment
    > industry insist this is needed to "fight piracy."


    They either:
    1. DO UNDERSTAND what they are doing, or
    2. They don't understand, and therefore just DON'T CARE about free speech (because the issue has been made plain more than once to replies of "I just don't see it", "I just don't get it", etc.)

    Whether it is (1) or (2), you then cannot say that they like free speech.


    Of course, the fact that I am saying this means I must be a pirate, a piracy apologist, or a piracy lover. Or something. (Criminal? Terrorist?)

     

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

  130.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 7:53am

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

     

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

  131.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:54am

    Re: "simple solution to complex problems"

    Boy: Don't try a simple solution to a complex problem. For that is impossible. Only try to realize the truth.
    Neo: The truth?
    Boy: There is no problem.

     

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

  132.  
    identicon
    Howard the Duck, May 19th, 2011 @ 8:02am

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

    By rip off you mean when a person adds popular music to a family video on youtube? Or when I call my application store an "app store"? Perhaps you mean that idea I came up with to make a list of things to do using a writing device and wood based paper product (patent #677859). Puuuleease take your meds.

     

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

  133.  
    icon
    indieThing (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Please, don't start trying to ingratiate yourself with us indies, most I know don't want to associate ourselves with closed minded IP maximalists like yourself.

    The only people benefitting from these clutch of new laws coming our way, or already here (in the UK), are the gatekeepers.

    We're doing our best to escape from those, that's why we're indies. We also don't like that our civil rights are being eroded in many small but progressive ways.

     

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

  134.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    My stance is that it's wrong to do something illegal in order to stop something else that millions of people don't really see as illegal. And spoofing? What about entrapment?
    Entrapment is illegal too.
    The RIAA does plenty to harm artists. It only selects a few to promote, the vast majority being given no help whatsoever, whereas, if you go independent, you have all the opportunities in the world to make yourself famous. What about the Limewire v RIAA lawsuit? The RIAA sued over its client's tracks being downloaded, yet when the dust had settled, it pocketed the entire ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in damages. Not one of their artists got a cent. If some organization says it will protect my copyright and sue for me in the event of infringement, I better expect to see some of the damages won.
    Plus, I demand an immediate apology. Douchebag indeed. I didn't call you any names.

     

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

  135.  
    identicon
    Huph, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    The ones that are more impacted by their obscurity than the "theft" they can't lose because no one knows about them? Seriously?


    I think piracy hurts independent artists in a more indirect manner. It's not that a low-level musician can't compete with free, it's more that they can't compete with Led Zeppelin (for instance). This is a bit circuitous, but I think it's a point that needs to be brought to light. If the only music that was available for free, legal or not, was from independent artists, then I think you would see a massive flourish in culture. But, when a new artist can't even compete with big label bands by undercutting them, it makes it hard to entice listeners to new stuff.

    I'm thinking of it kind of like a physical store: say a Led Zep album is for sale at $12.99. My album is definitely not as good as any Zeppelin album, so I would choose to offer my album for less, maybe so cheap that hopefully a buyer couldn't resist (low enough that maybe they wouldn't care if they ended up disliking the album). In internet terms, I would offer my music for free, and hopefully people would bother to check it out since it would involve no risk on their part. But, when every amazing album ever made is basically available for the same price, and you "have" to sell at that price too, it can make it hard to set yourself apart in a simple manner. Think about knock-off brands that populate grocery store shelves, their entire selling point is that they're cheaper than name-brand. That's it. That's their model. They've no need to offer some sort of different value to a customer. Often, they blatantly tout the name-brand you should compare them to.

    The current situation seems to lead to merchandise like big box sets and elaborate packaging that ends up costing the consumer more, when really I think independent artists would rather just sell the music for a reasonably low price. And I think most listeners are a little tired of having "junk" taking up space in their homes (I am, at least).

    I don't think the current scenario is necessarily bad on the whole, just that it's not the wonderland for indies that it's sometimes made out to be. I certainly don't think laws need to be passed to protect legacy models. This is just something that kind of bothers me about trying to thrive artistically in the current musical climate. Led Zeppelin's discography being so easily accessible is awesome for culture as it relates to Led Zep. It may not be all that good for the band itself.

    (Obviously, Led Zeppelin was just a choice. You could insert Radiohead, Arcade Fire, or any other "name-brand" band into my musing)

    As a side note/rant, so many "poor artists" come to this blog and cry about how piracy is hurting them and they almost *never* link to an example of their art.


    That's not totally true. Some posters' names are links to their music/art/blog/whatnot (Some of us who aren't IP haters even post it all under CC licenses, too, plug plug). I prefer that to actually pasting links at the end of posts, which would be pretty annoying, and already happens enough across the rest of the internet.

     

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

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Bullshit.

    If you were really a real indie record company, then you would be painfully aware of how much piracy has hurt independent music.

    But I doubt you are.

     

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

  137.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Copyright maximalists frown on reading. That might lead to infringement so they get their knuckles rapped when they try to advance past elementary school logic level.

     

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

  138.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Can't help but notice that you never, not once, link to anything supporting your arguments that piracy hurts indie artists. All you have are your claims, and the people debating you link to plenty of sources over time. It is pretty apparent to anyone new to the debate that you have no proof and are just spewing junk.
    Most all I ever here from you is "doesn't count / FUD / lies" That means you have nothing to back you up and you are a liar. If you had stuff to back you up you would have cited it and rebutted with actual facts. Something I never see you guys do.

     

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

  139.  
    identicon
    Al E., May 19th, 2011 @ 11:54am

    Re: "simple solution to complex problems"

    Daryl, you think you're clever, but you're the opposite. Almost everyone, on both sides of the issue, understands what is meant by the complaint "simple solution to complex problems" ... EXCEPT you. Here's a complex problem: crime. Here's a simple solution: "Off with their heads!" What exactly is the problem with that? It's simple, really, and yet you seem unable to grasp it.

     

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

  140.  
    identicon
    whoa nelly, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    Re:

    The "PROTECT IP" act makes it a felony to include certain sequences of characters (a subset of those sequences characterized as "links") in any digital communication. Discuss.

     

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

  141.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    It's always refreshing to have an opposing point of view that isn't "omg pirates are thieves!". For that, I thank you. :)

    I'm thinking of it kind of like a physical store:

    This is your first logic mistake. Whenever (ever!) you try an equate scarce goods to infinite goods, it's broken. (Admittedly, I've done it on several occasions!)

    My album is definitely not as good as any Zeppelin album

    If your music isn't as good as another band's music then don't blame piracy for when I pick it over yours-- blame your lack of talent. This is how the market should work. The current system can be gamed; You can, as you said, try and sell your music at a lower price than a more talented band or you can dump tons of money into marketing to "sell" a mediocre band. In a world where music isn't sold, but used as marketing, only good music will survive because music will be consumed based solely on its own merits. Surely this is the ideal situation, yes?

    I don't think the current scenario is necessarily bad on the whole, just that it's not the wonderland for indies that it's sometimes made out to be.

    I slightly disagree. I think that at the present time a forward-looking, talented artist could make a killing for exactly the reason you stated above-- you would undercut the competition drastically. You should also factor in the goodwill you'd gain by legally allowing your music to be shared. Of course, this doesn't help an artist with no talent-- which is what I feel the *real* fear of piracy stems from. (perhaps, subconsciously) I emphasize at the present time because I foresee the level playing field in the future so the goodwill will evaporate (it will be normal) and it's hard to undercut 'free'. So many business models that will work today *can* bank on the goodwill of the fans for not attacking 'pirates'. (or, even better, intentionally sharing their music for free) Strike while the iron is hot, and all that. :)

    Some posters' names are links to their music/art/blog/whatnot

    I said many, not all, and I specifically said the artists that come here and wail about the evils of piracy. Then again, maybe I answered my own question-- perhaps those artists are so afraid of 'lost sales' (and they think everyone here at TD is pirates) that they don't want us to know about it. Who knows.

    I've saved a link to your site to Springpad, my cloud brain of choice, and will check it out. I encourage you to make an account here and participate in more discussions-- it gets old only hearing "nu-uh!" and "you're all thieves!" from people who disagree.

     

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

  142.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

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

    it's your choice whether or not you choose to break the law...

    The law in question being the one that establishes the monopoly that we object to and which you pretend doesn't exist..

     

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

  143.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    To all of you, I work in the music business and see this every day.

    You're a failure looking for excuses.

     

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

  144.  
    icon
    rxrightsadvocate (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 6:53pm

    PROTECT IP could harm public health

    Glad to see that Google is taking a stand on this. This new act is a serious threat to public health. It moves far beyond COICA’s potential blacklist of pharmacy websites. It would categorize all non-U.S. based online pharmacies as a risk to public health despite the fact that countless Americans are only able to afford their needed medications because of the savings available through safe, legitimate Canadian and other international pharmacies. Find out how you can take action to protect access to safe and affordable prescription drugs at www.RxRights.org.

     

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

  145.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:07pm

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

    Censored ≠ Prohibited - You can censor speech without rules.

    Just because people might say something you personally don't agree with does not prove that Free Speech is alive and well.

     

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

  146.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 21st, 2011 @ 7:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Who cares? It's not like you're paying now.

    Oh, brother.

    "A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files." (2002)
    Study: File sharing boosts music sales

    "Digital music research firm The Leading Question found that they spent four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans." (2005)
    Downloading 'myths' challenged

    "A newly study commissioned by Industry Canada, which includes some of the most extensive surveying to date of the Canadian population on music purchasing habits, finds what many have long suspected (though CRIA has denied) - there is a positive correlation between peer-to-peer downloading and CD purchasing." (CRIA 2006)
    Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music

    "researchers monitored the music download habits of 1,900 web users age 15 and above. Over time, the study found that users who downloaded music illegally from P2P file-sharing sites like BitTorrent ultimately made ten times as many legit music purchases than the law abiding users." (BI Norwegian School of Management 2009)
    Study finds file-sharers buy ten times more music

    Can we please retire the old "pirates aren't customers" myth?

     

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

  147.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 21st, 2011 @ 7:22pm

    Re: But... But... Piracy

    Mike Masnick is now required to remove ALL of your previous comments on Techdirt

    Your sarcasm didn't go far enough.

    The current (still pending) bill allows private parties to "suggest" sites that are "dedicated to infringing content." If Techdirt got on that list, then not only would the ISP be required to block the entire site, credit card companies would be prohibited from dealing with Techdirt at all.

    It is a horrible, horrible law. It's a recipe for abuse by folks like Righthaven, who would threated a "PROTECT IP action" unless you pay them $5000 up front, for "IP" that they don't even control in any way.

     

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

  148.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 21st, 2011 @ 7:39pm

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

    Post an example of prohibited speech.

    Post it right here:


    "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye"

    "U2" by Negativland

    "The Grey Album" by Danger Mouse

    And that's off the top of my head. There's more on Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_music#Censorship_due_to_copyright_infringemen t

     

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

  149.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 21st, 2011 @ 7:53pm

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

    Post it right here:

    How could I forget "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story?"

    I'd post a link to it on Google Video, but I don't want to get Mike arrested.

     

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

  150.  
    identicon
    mike thomas, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 7:14pm

    freedom of speech

    America is known for freedom of speech, apple pie, white picket fences and the american dream but not in my life time I would imagine America becoming like China, in terms of preventing freedom of speech.

     

    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