Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet

from the collateral-damage dept

Last year, after the entertainment foisted COICA on an unsuspecting public, Paul Vixie -- a guy you should listen to when he's concerned about the technical impact of something on the internet -- explained why COICA's reliance on DNS block was incredibly stupid. Not only would it not work, but it would fundamentally fracture the way the internet works, creating massive collateral damage. Last week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed forward with PROTECT IP, we mentioned in passing a new report from Vixie and other internet technology gurus explaining why PROTECT IP's focus on the DNS system would cause tremendous damage. While we had mentioned it, lots of folks keep submitting it, and judging from the ridiculous claims of those in favor of PROTECT IP, the folks in DC pushing for this bill are apparently still ignorant of what the report says -- so we're posting about it again. The report, titled Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill (pdf) is worth a read. The five authors are incredibly well respected, and the entertainment industry folks who are trying to claim this paper can be ignored are going to come out of this looking quite silly.

These are concerns that shouldn't be taken lightly. The paper's authors also make it clear that they're not in favor of infringement, and in fact support enforcement of IP laws. They just recognize that this particular solution is dumb and counterproductive:
Two likely situations ways can be identified in which DNS filtering could lead to non-targeted and perfectly innocent domains being filtered. The likelihood of such collateral damage means that mandatory DNS filtering could have far more than the desired effects, affecting the stability of large portions of the DNS.

First, it is common for different services offered by a domain to themselves have names in some other domain, so that example.com’s DNS service might be provided by isp.net and its e-mail service might be provided by asp.info. This means that variation in the meaning or accessibility of asp.info or isp.net could indirectly but quite powerfully affect the usefulness of example.com. If a legitimate site points to a filtered domain for its authoritative DNS server, lookups from filtering nameservers for the legitimate domain will also fail. These dependencies are unpredictable and fluid, and extremely difficult to enumerate. When evaluating a targeted domain, it will not be apparent what other domains might point to it in their DNS records.

In addition, one IP address may support multiple domain names and websites; this practice is called “virtual hosting” and is very common. Under PROTECT IP, implementation choices are (properly) left up to DNS server operators, but unintended consequences will inevitably result. If an operator or filters the DNS traffic to and from one IP address or host, it will bring down all of the websites supported by that IP number or host. The bottom line is that the filtering of one domain name or hostname can pull down unrelated sites down across the globe.

Second, some domain names use “subdomains” to identify specific customers. For example, blogspot.com uses subdomains to support its thousands of users; blogspot.com may have customers named Larry and Sergey whose blog services are at larry.blogspot.com and sergey.blogspot.com. If Larry is an e-criminal and the subject of an action under PROTECT IP, it is possible that blogspot.com could be filtered, in which case Sergey would also be affected, although he may well have had no knowledge of Larry’s misdealings. This type of collateral damage was demonstrated vividly by the ICE seizure of mooo.com, in which over 84,000 subdomains were mistakenly filtered.
The defenders of propping up the business models of dying industries will brush these unintended consequences as no big deal or a "small issue" at the expense of "saving" the entertainment industry. This is because they don't understand the technology at play, the First Amendment or the nature of collateral damage. It's pretty ridiculous in this day and age that we still have to deal with technically illiterate "policy people" and politicians trying to regulate technology they clearly have little knowledge about. Only those who don't understand the technology think the collateral damage described above is minimal.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:27am

    Perhaps you might want to sit back and try writing and article with a title like Why The Internet Breaks Everything.

    I like "The defenders of propping up the business models of dying industries". The industries are not dying, the demand for their products is higher than ever. This isn't a lack of demand for music, movies, or television. The demand has increased dramatically. Everyone wants 50 new buggy whips. They just don't want to pay.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      John, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:35am

      Re:

      The Internet is more important than the things it "breaks."

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:15am

        This breaks nothing.

        These complaints are incredibly minor and not remotely difficult to take into account.

        Subdomains? No shit. What's the surprise there? If the parent domain doesn't want to kill the illegal subdomain off, that is their choice to live with.

        Other sites that point and rely on pirate sites? They'll fix their scripts the next day to stop relying on pirate sites.

        Virtual hosting? Again, no big deal. Especially since PROTECT IP doesn't even filter by IP, it filters by domain. And sites like The Pirate Bay aren't exactly on shared hosting plans.

        Yawn. Wake me up when you whiners have something substantial.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Developer, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:26am

          Re: This breaks nothing.

          You're not very bright.

          PROTECT IP is to bypass the requirement of talking to the host. If a subdomain is the offender, they won't use precision. They'll just blow the entire domain itself off the net. That's the reason, they don't want to deal with the actual hoster.

          Site that rely on pirate sites? Google, Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Digg and all them would be a target under PIPA.

          Virtual hosting: DNS has to comply, so if you take down the host DNS server all the virtuals will fall as well.



          Yawn. Wake me up when you know wtf your talking about.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:53am

            Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

            Blogspot cannot be targetted under this law. You cannot take down Blogspot for one offending blog. Read PROTECT IP.

            Google, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, and Digg have to remove pirate sites, but none can be taken down under the language of PROTECT IP themselves.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:05am

              Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

              Did you not just read the "example.com" reference that's just up above?

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

              Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
              Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
              The dead rising from the grave!
              Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                That's the hysteria IP maximists are trying to use to pass their laws.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                  The normal world isn't hysterical about anything.

                  Nothing hysterical about expecting copyright law to be enforced.

                  Saying "BUT THE INTERNET WILL BE BROKEN!!!" if copyright law is enforced? Now that's some prime hysterical FUD.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:02pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                    "The normal world isn't hysterical about anything."

                    So your definition of the 'normal' world is a world that agrees with your opinion?

                    "Nothing hysterical about expecting copyright law to be enforced."

                    A: Nothing hysterical about wanting copy protection laws to be abolished. It is hysterical to think that society should sacrifice so much just to implement laws that don't need to exist.

                    The laws themselves are hysterical. 95+ year copy protection lengths is insane.

                    "Saying "BUT THE INTERNET WILL BE BROKEN!!!" if copyright law is enforced? Now that's some prime hysterical FUD."

                    The government already broke everything outside the Internet with oppressively plutocratic laws.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:07pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                      It must be fun to dress up and play "L00ny anarchist" in between rounds of WOW and while waiting for Mom to cook your dinner...

                       

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

            •  
              icon
              \r (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

              >>Google, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, and Digg have to remove pirate sites, but none can be taken down under the language of PROTECT IP themselves

              I think this is what gets me all riled up about the perception of prescriptive law supporting businesses that suck.. but I like this part - "PROTECT IP themselves"

              Find your own effing crap and take care of it.. and if you can't then make more effing crap and take -> better

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:31am

          Re: This breaks nothing.

          These complaints are incredibly minor and not remotely difficult to take into account.

          They may be minor to you. But to people who have actually built successful business on the Internet they are not minor.

          Subdomains? No shit. What's the surprise there? If the parent domain doesn't want to kill the illegal subdomain off, that is their choice to live with.

          What's an illegal subdomain?

          Other sites that point and rely on pirate sites? They'll fix their scripts the next day to stop relying on pirate sites.

          You're right. In fact, they'll fix it so fast the takedown wouldn't have mattered. Why would we do that again?

          Virtual hosting? Again, no big deal. Especially since PROTECT IP doesn't even filter by IP, it filters by domain. And sites like The Pirate Bay aren't exactly on shared hosting plans.

          It's a big deal to someone who relies on said virtual hosting for their livelihood and has it destroyed in the collateral damage.

          Yawn. Wake me up when you whiners have something substantial.

          Maybe if you spent less time sleeping you'd have a greater understanding of these matters.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:49am

            Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

            What's an illegal subdomain?


            Blogspot responds to takedown requests. If someone starts a "piratecontent.blogspot.com" domain that is blatantly infringing, and they receive notification of that, they will kill that subdomain, thus protecting them under safe harbor.

            Furthermore, PROTECT IP requires that domains be dedicated to infrining to be considered for blocking.

            Blogspot would only be taken down under PROTECT IP if:

            1) They were hosting a large amount of pirate material, and/or
            2) Willfully refused to take it down once notified.

            Don't use Blogspot as a shield to try and pretend PROTECT IP would in any way hurt them. It would not.


            It's a big deal to someone who relies on said virtual hosting for their livelihood and has it destroyed in the collateral damage.


            If you are an ISP that makes a living out of hosting pirate material on shared plans, that is your choice. And again, PROTECT IP filters by domain, not IP.


            You're right. In fact, they'll fix it so fast the takedown wouldn't have mattered. Why would we do that again?


            If you're suggesting they'll get a new domain, this hasn't happened in other countries that have blacklisted sites like The Pirate Bay. The major sites rely on brand recognition of their domain to get visitors. The second they lose that because all their identifiable domains have been blocked is the second they lose credibility.

            At that point, phishers and spammers can start a thousand "thepiratebay12233.com" sound-a-like domains for scamming. To the layperson just looking for a quick fix, the brand loses value completely.

            Again, I don't see how any of this breaks anything, except the nice little cottage industry pirates have built for themselves.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:57am

              Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

              You do understand that nothing anyone does will bring so called pirates back to the 90's right?

              You suggest government censorship of the internet to keep the pirates from having a free meal. I can't wait until they actually start to try and define what sites dedicated to infringement actually means. That isn't broad at all and could never be used to say take down something the government doesn't like (wikileaks)

              This opens up some flood gates and won't actually fix any of the problems with the content distribution industry.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              chris (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:45am

              Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

              If you're suggesting they'll get a new domain, this hasn't happened in other countries that have blacklisted sites like The Pirate Bay. The major sites rely on brand recognition of their domain to get visitors. The second they lose that because all their identifiable domains have been blocked is the second they lose credibility.

              it's already happened. demonoid.com has already moved to demonoid.me and kickasstorrents.com has already moved to kat.ph. both of those TLDs are not controlled by ICANN.

              those "major sites" won't be affected because they're already out of protect IP's grasp.

              PROTECT IP won't do any damage to piracy. all the damage it does cause will be collateral.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                Protect IP will block both Demonoid and KAT the day after it is signed into law.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  RadialSkid (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:49pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                  ....and then, out of nowhere, 100 mirrors of each.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:56pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                    Just like with all those sites that got seized by ICE, right?

                    Oh wait...

                    You're scared to death of losing your easy free lunch, aren't you Freetardo?

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      \r (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                      wow - a genuine donkey on the interwebs. spot it here first! (ok, not first so much)

                      Let me be brief. No technologist with any will whatsoever will ever be affected by what you're supporting punctuation period

                      so yes, free as in dom as in no money due and so the more you take from me the less I care for you - tiddledee doo

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      \r (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                      wow - a genuine donkey on the interwebs. spot it here first! (ok, not first so much)

                      Let me be brief. No technologist with any will whatsoever will ever be affected by what you're supporting punctuation period

                      so yes, free as in dom as in no money due and so the more you take from me the less I care for you - tiddledee doo

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:23pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                      Just like with all those sites that got seized by ICE, right?

                      You mean those that continue unabated under new names already? Or those that preemptively changed domains to .me?

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      RadialSkid (profile), Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 2:12pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This breaks nothing.

                      Yes, exactly like them.

                      And I've said it a million times: I enjoy Creative Commons, copyleft, and Creator's Mark endorsed content. I don't give a DAMN about your retail garbage, and won't download it, not even for free.

                      Get it through your skull already.

                       

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:37am

          Re: This breaks nothing.

          This depth and breadth of ignorance you've expressed here is astounding. It is clear that you do not understand routing, DNS, hosting, tunneling, SMTP, HTTP, BGP, caching, network allocation, or much else that's in play here.

          Vixie is one of the few -- VERY few -- people on the Internet who sees beyond the concerns of the moment and understands the deep consequences of technical decisions. If you don't understand why he's right, the best algorithm to use (and this is the one I use) is:

          1. Learn more
          2. Re-read his statement
          3. Return to step 1

           

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

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:39am

      Re:

      TechDirt is already about why the Internet is disruptive technology that breaks obsolete business models. Not just the record industry.

      Just like the automobile was disruptive technology to the entrenched horse and buggy.

      Yes, the demand for music, movies and TV may be higher than ever. Those who provide what people want will succeed. Those who don't won't.

      That also was true for transportation. The demand was higher than ever! Those who provided what people wanted, succeeded. The horse and buggy didn't succeed.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Christopher2 (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:30am

        Re: Re:

        Those who will provide what people want AT A PRICE THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY will succeed. Those who don't won't.

        Statement fixed.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:13pm

        Re: Re:

        The buggy whip analogy has been debunked numerous times as nonsensical.

        People that use it might as well grab a marker and write "doofus" on their forehead.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The buggy whip analogy has been debunked numerous times as nonsensical."

          Asserting that it has been debunked is different than actually debunking it. Just because you can assert that it has been debunked does not mean it has been debunked.

          "People that use it might as well grab a marker and write "doofus" on their forehead."

          Good argument there, way to debunk things.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          BearGriz72 (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The buggy whip analogy has been debunked numerous times as nonsensical."

          {{Citation Needed}}

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      masquisieras, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:48am

      Re:

      The demand is higher than ever for music, movies an television but less and less people are interested in DVD, CD and waiting a year to see what they want to see. Is not the music, movie and TV industries that are dying is the DVD, CD and TV distribution companies that are dying. Everyone wants 50 new horses but not as 50 buggy whips but in a internal combustion engine.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:17pm

        Re: Re:

        The entertainment companies are in the content business. CDs and DVDs are only one of the ways they deliver their product.

        Trying to use buggy whips as an analogy is moronic.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Trying to use buggy whips as an analogy is moronic."

          Just because yo don't like the analogy doesn't diminish its validity.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Just because you're desperate to propagandize doesn't make your inane analogies valid.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The analogy is valid because of the many reasons that others have given, regardless of my alleged 'desperation to propagandize'.

              Your rebuttal is not valid because it simply amounts to calling the analogy 'moronic'.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:59pm

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

                The analogy is invalid because there is demand for recorded music and there was no demand for buggy whips.

                It is easily one of the stupidest analogies the freetards have ever rolled out.

                In fact, they have to use secondary analogies to try and make sense out of the buggy whip one, LOL.

                But feel free to keep using it. I have no problem with ineffective pirate propaganda.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:07pm

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

                  "The analogy is invalid because there is demand for recorded music and there was no demand for buggy whips."

                  Except that you're misrepresenting the analogy.

                  Music is analogous to transportation.
                  Buggy Whips = a specific method or type of transportation.
                  Cars = a new method of transportation.

                  and the point is that when businesses argue for new laws, it's usually for laws in their own personal interest, not in the public interest. and the government often grants those laws for nefarious reasons, to support specific businesses that don't want to compete in a free market, a market that better serves the public interest and not just their own private interests.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:08pm

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

                    (music / transportation was/is always in demand, which is the whole point).

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:13pm

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

                      recorded albums = subset of entire music experience.

                      buggy whips = subset of entire transportation experience.

                      recorded albums = in demand.

                      buggy whips = not in demand.

                      =

                      Freetard's buggy whip analogy is the definition of freetarded.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:21pm

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

                        Almost. A closer analogy is something like

                        "RIAA et al = subset of entire music experience.

                        buggy whips = subset of entire transportation experience.

                        recorded albums = in demand.

                        Transportation = in demand"

                        You would even be closer.

                        You disingenuously replaced "Transportation = In demand" with "buggy whips = not in demand."

                         

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:26pm

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

                        Fail. No surprise there though.

                         

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

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:49am

      Re:

      Perhaps you might want to sit back and try writing and article with a title like Why The Internet Breaks Everything.

      You're a bit late to the party. October 2010:
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/01311411586/the-revolution-will-be-distributed-wiki leaks-anonymous-and-how-little-the-old-guard-realizes-what-s-going-on.shtml

      February 2011:
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/17251712913/distributed-party-we-is-already-control .shtml

      The industries are not dying,

      Stage of Grief: Denial.

      The demand has increased dramatically.

      And the supply has increased infinitely.

      They just don't want to pay.

      I'll pay marginal cost, or slightly above. With infinite supply, marginal cost is zero. Fix your prices to reflect reality instead of fantasyland, then I'll buy.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      Seems like the people of the world have a choice to make here. The legacy entertainment industry or the Internet. I wonder which one they'll choose.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Dave, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:57am

      Re:

      If demand is so high, why are these protections even necessary? Because you "can't compete with free?" If you can't compete with free, why does Netflix have so many subscribers and use up more Internet traffic than BitTorrent every day?

      You can compete. You just don't want to. Lazy bastard.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      FUDbuster (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:18am

      Re:

      Everyone wants 50 new buggy whips. They just don't want to pay.

      Exactly. Well said.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      I like "The defenders of propping up the business models of dying industries". The industries are not dying, the demand for their products is higher than ever. This isn't a lack of demand for music, movies, or television. The demand has increased dramatically. Everyone wants 50 new buggy whips. They just don't want to pay

      Ah, you misunderstand. You're right that the demand for content is increasing dramatically, but NOT in the form that the legacy parts of the industry are delivering it.

      Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.

      The analogy stands.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        FUDbuster (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:06am

        Re: Re:

        Ah, you misunderstand. You're right that the demand for content is increasing dramatically, but NOT in the form that the legacy parts of the industry are delivering it.

        Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.

        The analogy stands.


        I'm still struggling to see how the analogy works. What is the "form that the legacy parts of the industry" is not delivering? I listen to lots of music on demand. I also download mp3s and buy CDs. I listen to music on satellite radio and regular radio, and I listen to podcasts. I get my music in lots of forms from the "legacy parts of the industry." What form exactly are they not providing?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Modplan (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Forms that aren't prohibitively expensive for companies that try to provide such services?

          Forms that don't involve doing nothing on the labels part other than imposing taxes for uploading to private locker accounts?

          Forms that don't arrive several months after the cinema releases?

          Forms that are actually affordable by those in emerging economies?

          Forms that aren't arbitrarily region restricted for the sole purpose of price discrimination?

          How about forms that don't involve laws with low standards of evidence and low standards of due process?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          FUD, you have been asking this exact same question in various forms for a while now. People have been answering you in various forms.

          The legacy industries (example):

          MPAA and their constituents
          RIAA and their constituents

          Facing off against the internet. What the MPAA and RIAA want is to control distribution. This is anathema to how the internet actually works. Sure, you can "control" some resources. These two organizations are using laws to control startups and demand high prices (rents) from businesses. This is to keep them indebted to the old tradition of these organizations remaining the gatekeepers.

          However, these organizations do not give legal access to places outside of the US. The MPAA and RIAA believe in "windows" of access to content. They believe in regionalization. They believe in a lot of controlled distribution in various forms. These are the issues with their thinking. The internet allows new forms of distribution that do not *need* to be controlled. They are the new Luddites, abusing the law to enable their way of control over everyone in the field. That is the problem.

          There is nothing wrong with downloading an mp3, but it's a lot of the behind the scenes shenanigans that continue to frustrate businesses and people.

          "What form exactly are they not providing?"

          They aren't providing value for their products, and merely overpricing it. You might feel that a song is not worth $1 per track, feeling that you should price each song individually, based on its own merits. So either you pirate the songs of an artist, paying for it later on through Apple, or you pay for only the songs you want after you listen to them on Youtube.

          The services that become successful (Spotify, Netflix) are taxed HEAVILY for that success in the US. This does not make sense. They provide services and the entitlement industries are taxing them for having success. There's nothing that says we couldn't have much better products if the legacy industries stopped complaining, for two seconds, to figure out how to make money on the internet.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          JMT, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 6:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I'm still struggling to see how the analogy works."

          We know. God, we know. You ask and ask and ask, we explain and explain and explain. And yet you still don't get it. I think the problem is entirely yours.

          So one more time for the record, the analogy compares content distribution methods with buggy whips, not the content itself.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I listen to music on satellite radio and regular radio

          For free? You damn thief!

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re:

        It's still a fail. There was demand for music before, and there is demand for music after. The music hasn't changed in any way, certainly not in the same manner that transportation changed.

        You are confusing perhaps a change of delivery method with a change in the product. The product hasn't changed.

        Buggy whip makers were making a product for an industry that ceased to exist. Their business died because there was no longer a demand for buggy whips. The record labels / movie companies / tv companies are producing a product that is in higher demand than ever. In fact, what is pirated / shared the most is exactly that product.

        If everyone stopped watching hollywood movies, if they stopped listening to music, and stopped watching all forms of TV and instead started perhaps only seeing plays or listening to street side minstrals, you might have an argument. But the fact is that the movie, music, and TV buggy whips are in higher demand than they ever were.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "You are confusing perhaps a change of delivery method with a change in the product. The product hasn't changed."

          If you think that's true, then you don't realize what music labels' product is....

          "Buggy whip makers were making a product for an industry that ceased to exist."

          This just in, the transportation industry ceased to exist 100 years ago. Oh wait....

          "The record labels / movie companies / tv companies are producing a product that is in higher demand than ever."

          No, they aren't. Please, PLEASE try to follow along. Music labels do not make music, musicians do. Movie companies do not make movies, directors and actors do. TV stations do not make shows, directors and actors do. The folks you're talking about have a different product, one that revolves SOLELY around the delivery method, and their delivery product is waning in demand.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No, they aren't. Please, PLEASE try to follow along. Music labels do not make music, musicians do. Movie companies do not make movies, directors and actors do. TV stations do not make shows, directors and actors do. The folks you're talking about have a different product, one that revolves SOLELY around the delivery method, and their delivery product is waning in demand

            This. ^

            The companies that people are defending don't create content. Their business was always in being the gatekeeper: being the only one who could do promotion/distribution. That was the real product of the labels/studios. Promotion/distribution. That's the product that is obsolete, because people don't need the labels/studios for promotion and distribution any more.

            So, once again:
            buggy whip makers : record labels
            buggy whips : old distribution channel
            transportation : music

            Clear enough yet?

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It is entirely clear, but still wrong. Your basic assumption is incorrect, as the music industry / movie industry / tv industry are all in the business of producing content. They enter into contracts with musicians, artists, actors, and so on to produce content for their brand, which is what they sell. They don't see distribution, they sell music, movies, and so on.

              Itunes, Amazon, and other services are proof of the matter: They aren't selling discs, they are selling music.

              The buggy whip guys are the record stores. They are the ones who have lost as the industry has moved to other deliver methods. But in the end, the demand for the products made by the music / movie / tv / etc industries are still there.

              The only real difference at this point is that morally, people don't feel obliged to pay for what they are consuming.

              So yes, your analogy is very clear, but still very wrong.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:51am

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

                They aren't selling music, they're selling a service.

                If they were merely selling music they'd be complete failures, since it can be had for free somewhere else.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                The eejit (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:58am

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

                no, they're in the business of copying stuff and selling it to advertisers.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Modplan (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:08am

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

                Erm, no.

                As a publisher, your primary product is always distribution and promotion. After all, the livelihood of your business fundamentally centres around selling copies of CD/Cassette/Vinyl. Selling specifically in music or books or films is effectively an act of specialisation, perhaps based on interest or passion, perhaps not.

                As a music publisher however, you're likely not satisfied. Many artists who decide to sign distribution deals with you are happy with their lot, or have little interest in the daunting task of trying to appeal to millions of people all at once, perhaps happy in their niche, perhaps simply not sure about what changes may be made to give them that wider appeal. So what do you do? You integrate.

                The business has not changed from being about selling convenience as CD/Cassette/Vinyl. You simply exert more control over the creative side to ensure you can sell those 1,000,000 blank shiny discs you just bought because you weren't happy simply helping an artists get heard. It made sense to integrate like that because it allowed you an unmatched control over the selection process, and anything that didn't quite work out, you could change it. Even better, you can keep the copyright to carry on exploiting the songs indefinitely!

                So no, what was being sold is convenience on the consumer side (listening to music they liked when they want) and promotion on the artist side (getting heard in general). Choosing who you decide to promote and exerting influence to ensure the product sells more CD's is just rational business sense. It has no relation to the future of music as a whole, nor does it mean anything when you can't sell CD's any more because good quality mp3's can be distributed cheaply and independently of you.

                That is, assuming you don't confuse yourself into thinking you are the embodiment of music as a whole and get laws passed to force people to pay for a cheap commodity like distribution and tell people alternative methods of promotion will never work, or when they do work, tell everyone they're exceptions.

                Is that a concise enough explanation?

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:37am

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

                "Your basic assumption is incorrect, as the music industry / movie industry / tv industry are all in the business of producing content."

                Holy christ, NO THEY AREN'T. They essentially contract with those producing the content, they do not produce it themselves.

                "They enter into contracts with musicians, artists, actors, and so on to produce content for their brand, which is what they sell."

                That makes zero fucking sense. They contract to produce content FOR the band? Could you possibly have it ANY more backwards? The contract to distribute the music for the band, not produce it. The band produces the music. How do you have the basics so backwards?

                "Itunes, Amazon, and other services are proof of the matter: They aren't selling discs, they are selling music."

                This is awesome. You actually just labeled them correctly "services" and then claimed they were selling something physical (product). You literally proved yourself wrong in a single sentence. Utterly amazing....

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:44am

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

                  Okay, I fucked up the middle quote there and thought you said band when you said "brand". Still, the confusing part remains, in that you insist they're producing content but then state they're selling a brand, which is NOT content....

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 12:03pm

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

                    It is really no different from a newspaper paying journalists. Is the newspaper producing content? If you want to get extremely technical about it, the newspaper does nothing. But their employees and contracted workers create content for the newspaper, which they in turn sell.

                    A record label is the same, with their contracted artists producing content for the label, which they in turn sell. That selling is independent of the method used for distribution.

                    The distribution is independent of the product. Record labels sell their music via CD, digital downloads, vinyl, tapes, and other methods (including streaming). The distribution is part of but separate from the creation part, which the labels also participate in, by financing recordings, by providing staff such as producers, recording engineers, and so on. Labels often have song writers on staff or on contract who can work with artists to refine their material before recording.

                    Record labels are not purely distribution companies, nor are they purely restricted to selling CDs. Yes, they sell music, but they are also key in the production of it.

                    Selling the product doesn't mean they aren't involved in other parts of the process.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 12:57pm

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

                      Yes, they sell music, but they are also key in the production of it.

                      Key? Not in your wildest dreams.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:24pm

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

                        You have no idea what you're talking about.

                        Record labels and movie studios are venture capitalists.

                        Artists CHOOSE to work with them.

                        You want that taken away? Why are you anti-choice?

                         

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

                        •  
                          identicon
                          rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:29pm

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

                          At least you admit that the only function record labels provide is venture capital.

                          The Internet has replaced every other function or made them substantially cheaper.

                          Funding required is much less than it used to be and artists are increasingly choosing other ways to get it.

                          There are still plenty signing the old draconian contracts though, that's for sure.

                           

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

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:04pm

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

                            You know nothing about the all the contracts that are signed each year with the hundreds or thousands of record labels in the world.

                            It's still the artist's choice. Why are you anti-choice?


                            Support artists. Don't pirate them and don't be anti-choice.

                             

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

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:15pm

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

                              "Support artists. Don't pirate them"

                              That only supports record labels.

                              "and don't be anti-choice."

                              Abolish the FCC (or make them act in the public interest). Abolish cableco monopolies. Put in place more stringent laws, with greater penalties, against collection societies that threaten to sue restaurants and other venues that try to host independent performers under the pretext that someone 'might' infringe. Give the artists more choices to better distribute their content without having to go through so many govt imposed monopolist gatekeepers. Advocate for better laws that don't artificially restrict content distribution into the hands of a few monopolists.

                               

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

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:19pm

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

                                That only supports record labels.

                                You're not making any sense.

                                Artists wouldn't CHOOSE to sign with a record label if only the record label was benefiting.

                                Why are you anti-choice?

                                Just tell us already.

                                 

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

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:27pm

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

                                  "You're not making any sense."

                                  Of course I am. Most record labels hardly pay their artists much and even then they often don't even pay their artists what they owe. Artists don't benefit from this.

                                  "but promotion, etc..."

                                  The need for much of their 'services' is artificial in nature, due to a legal system that wrongfully and artificially monopolizes many information distribution channels into the hands of a few corporate entities at public expense. The Internet is starting to correct that to some extent, which is good, but a lot work still needs to be done. Unfortunately, IP maximists want to pass Internet governing laws that turn the Internet into the same plutocratic atmosphere that the legal system has wrongfully turned everything outside the Internet into.

                                   

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

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:43pm

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

                                  "Why are you anti-choice?

                                  Just tell us already."

                                  Why won't you stop beating your wife?

                                  See what I did there?

                                   

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

                                  •  
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:49pm

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

                                    Yes, you made a freetarded analogy.

                                    Par for the course here.

                                    Neither myself or my wife are being discussed.

                                    However the AC that knows nothing about artists, the music business or record labels is discussing how he wants the choice for artists to sign with record labels and benefit from the relationship taken away. He's anti-choice.

                                    Are you anti-choice also?

                                     

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

                                    •  
                                      icon
                                      angal2 (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 6:42pm

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

                                      Your overly broad, sweeping statements are greatly amusing.

                                      No one here is saying that record labels will go away altogether. What this blog and most of it's commenters are talking about is the reduced importance of record labels as methods of recording, promotion and distribution become cheaper and easier for the artists themselves to do. Thereby directing money (profits) into the newer methods and greatly reducing the profits and profit-making ability of the record labels as they are no longer the only game in town, or even the most important game in town.

                                      Just like some people still drive buggies and therefore need to procure a buggy whip http://www.bigdweb.com/prodinfo.asp?number=65-5219&CAWELAID=568705956, some artists will not want to do the recording, promoting and distribution on their own, and so will procure the services of a record label.

                                      The problem is that record labels are still structuring their companies and their services as if they're the only game in town. And even worse, they're pouring massive amounts of money into Washington politics to put laws on the books to keep themselves the biggest game in town with overly broad, sweeping laws that restrict free speech and the ability of our culture to do what it does best - which is build and elaborate upon what came before. THAT is what I, and many others, have a problem with.

                                       

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

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 5:41pm

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

                                IP maximists try to claim to be 'pro choice' but what they really mean is that they want to limit the choices of artists down to just one choice, sign with monopolists that will rip you off or find another career (and many of those other careers are also monopolized thanks to government imposed monopolies as well). and the laws outside the Internet have managed to do exactly that. Artists have little choice but to sign with record labels, most of the information distribution channels outside the Internet have government imposed monopoly gatekeepers that artists must go through in order to get their content distributed.

                                Don't be fooled, IP monopolists want to do nothing short of extending their monopoly power over to the Internet.

                                 

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

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:24pm

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

                              "and don't be anti-choice."

                              You're the one that's anti-choice. You're denying me the choice of exercising my inherit right to copy.

                               

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

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:31pm

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

                          "Artists CHOOSE to work with them."

                          Partly because the legal system wrongfully and artificially limits their choices (ie: through the use of broadcasting and cableco monopolies and laws that effectively deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers).

                           

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

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:43pm

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

                            Bzzt. Wrong.

                            Masnick preaches that artists can do everything by themselves because of the internet.

                            Are you disagreeing with him?

                             

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

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 4:49pm

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

                              A: Which doesn't negate the fact that other forms of distribution are also advantageous.

                              B: Currently, sure. After the government is done with it ...

                               

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

                        •  
                          icon
                          techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:32pm

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

                          Artists CHOOSE to work with them.

                          Less and less these times cause the gatekeeper's power is diminishing. Tough luck.

                           

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      HothMonster, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:26pm

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

                      funny that you bring up newspapers to support your point.

                      Newspapers are having the same trouble as the music gatekeepers. They used to be the only way for a journalist to reach a large audience. Now people have started getting their news from the internet where a journalist/author can produce his content without the assistance of a gatekeeper. We see a new style of content delivery gaining ground for news and classic newspapers are finding they have to adapt to stay in business. The demand for news and talented people delivering news has not declined but the supply of news sources has grown by a ridiculous amount while at the same time the margins for producing and distributing that news have greatly diminished. It is greatly parallel to the state of the recording industry.

                      "The distribution is independent of the product. Record labels sell their music via CD, digital downloads, vinyl, tapes, and other methods (including streaming). The distribution is part of but separate from the creation part, which the labels also participate in, by financing recordings, by providing staff such as producers, recording engineers, and so on. Labels often have song writers on staff or on contract who can work with artists to refine their material before recording."

                      This is true. Although 30 years ago to have a record produced that had the potential to reach millions of people you needed to go through a major label. Today you have a practically free content delivery system that allows you to reach the entire globe. Also the equipment needed to record and master a studio quality album used to be very costly, now with a little know how you can produce something of great quality on a mac book.

                      Now the problem arises because the recording industry wants to stick with the old 1989 way of doing things because it netted them amazing profits. This means regaining and maintaining their position as gatekeepers and refusing to adjust price points for new modes of delivery.

                      The were able to make these profits because it was a very small industry (the number of major players) and a very restricted industry (the amount of money required to be a major player). They used to hold all the cards and if an artist wanted to reach millions of fans they had to go through the existing industry. Now that door is open and the industry wants to close it as fast as possible before all their control is gone. Today you can see more and more minor labels reaching large audiences and representing major artists. You see more already established artists experimenting outside of the profit margins of the industry. But in much the same way that over 1/3 of Steam users still use windows xp people, as a whole, tend to accept change slowly and the industry has one last chance to stifle many of the technologies that shift the power from their hands into that of the content producer before the majority begins to move to these new and alternative means of production and distribution.

                      The other reason I mention was the refusal to adjust price points. The cost of a cd was justified by the production of physical media, all the trappings that media was stored in, and the delivery of that media. So why should a digital copy of a cd cost the same amount(or often times more if you buy by song) as an actual cd, case, and liner notes that had to be physically created, physically packaged and physically driven across the country? The only reason is so they can continue selling cds. There is no reason digital songs cant be a fraction of their current cost except it would (probably) hurt cd sales. There is no reason entire back catalogs can't be pulled up and released for a few dollars for an entire artists discography (I mean old stuff that is currently unavailable on physical media could be re-released for a few dollars an album instead of the same cost as a new album). Why are old early 80s tv shows the same price as brand new tv shows? There is no reason except maintaining a high fixed price across the market is good for the gatekeepers; not the artist, not the consumer just the label.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        hm, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:28pm

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

                        sorry if thats a little muddled (and ranty) i didnt get much sleep last night

                         

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:59pm

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

                        Of course newspapers have the same problems, because they are producing similar sorts of content: Thing that people have no problem pirating, no moral issues, no qualms.

                        As soon as you start referring to record labels as gatekeepers you pretty much lose the battle. It isn't in their economic interests to make things unavailable on purpose. I am sure they would love to sell you everything they can. There are restrictions that exist, costs involved, and so on to make the product available or to make older product available again, especially to a significantly limited or small marketplace.

                        If you don't understand all that goes into the business, then it is hard to understand why. Piracy is cheap because it respects nobody's rights, it doesn't have to track sales, it doesn't have to assure quality, it doesn't have to pay taxes, it doesn't have to account for residual payments, it doesn't have to pay songwriter credits and all those other things that come with the deal.

                        It all comes back to the same thing: If there was a profit to be made, they would be selling it. They don't get rich keeping things away from the public.

                         

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

                        •  
                          identicon
                          HothMonster, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:57pm

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

                          "Of course newspapers have the same problems, because they are producing similar sorts of content: Thing that people have no problem pirating, no moral issues, no qualms."

                          How do I pirate news? Its fact, someone write about it and makes it freely available on the web, now I'm pirating news? My point was the new market place of digital news has weakened the market place for paper news. Newspaper companies have had to shift into the new digital maketplace and find ways to innovate and stay relevant. Their decline has nothing to do with people pirating news stories it has everything to do with learning to compete with a new media.

                          "As soon as you start referring to record labels as gatekeepers you pretty much lose the battle. It isn't in their economic interests to make things unavailable on purpose."

                          You just showed how little you know about what you speak. Gatekeeper doesn't mean block access it means control access and there is certainly a ton of profit to be had by restricting access or, as you say, they wouldn't be doing it all the time. The term stems from when they were literally the only way to mass produce an album, it remains because of their attempt to maintain a stangle hold on the market.

                          What is the 28 day time frame between a dvd being on sale and available for rent? That is restricted access.

                          How about the Disney Vault? They release a movie on a limited run, then wait a few years and re-release it at full price. It keeps the market from getting flooded and guarantees that it wont have to compete with second hand copies in a few years and can sell at full price. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault

                          How about emulators? Nothing is stopping Nintendo from selling a cheap emulator of pcs and than their entire NES back catalog for a dollar a game. The tech exists, the games are tiny and require no formatting or work to release on an emulator. Emulators are not hard to build and fans have been doing it for free for ages. So why do they restrict access? So they can release a few old games a year on their new console at a high price.

                          I could go on and on with examples of gatekeepers restricting access, but I shouldnt have to. There are tons of examples right in your face. Control over the flow of information allows you to release the information as you see fit for the price you see fit. The legacy industry could license to all the internet start-ups that to have a license, allow the market to compete and watch the price of digital music drop to 10 cents or less a song but that would ruin their outdated business model which happens to be where they make the most profit. So instead they restrict the marketplace and fix prices. http://www.google.com/search?q=itunes+pricefixing

                          "I am sure they would love to sell you everything they can. There are restrictions that exist, costs involved, and so on to make the product available or to make older product available again, especially to a significantly limited or small marketplace. "

                          First of all a digital release is not a small market, its global so that idea is tossed right out. Second those restrictions that keep them from releasing Mr. Bellividere for 50 cents an episode are restrictions they created and demand remain in place. It also allows them to sell box series sets for 150$ or 30$ a season. Seeing as how a person can rip and distribute the series for 0$ i find it hard to follow your logic that its not cost effective for them to release it. It is cost effective just not compared to overpriced box copies.

                          "Piracy is cheap because it respects nobody's rights, it doesn't have to track sales, it doesn't have to assure quality, it doesn't have to pay taxes, it doesn't have to account for residual payments, it doesn't have to pay songwriter credits and all those other things that come with the deal."

                          Tracking digital sales = less work than tracking physical
                          What does paying taxes have to do with anything?
                          Thanks to the magic of secret accounting that doesn't have to be shared with anyone they dont seem to have to do the rest of this stuff either.

                          But yes I understand the label does do some work but it doesn't want to profit relative to that work, it wants to profit off of a style of distribution that died sometime around 1998. That area of the market is dead, trim the fat innovate and survive don't try to prop up your dead model with bad laws.

                           

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

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:09pm

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

                            How do you pirate news? You don't pirate the idea, you pirate the story they have written. You copy text from their site, you use their story verbatim, or repost their content without permission. All of that is pirating the news because you pirated their content.

                            You are playing a game of trying to link things together that are separate. The facts of a situation are not copyright, the story written about those facts is. They are not the same thing.

                            It is difficult to have a discussion about complex issues when you insist on tying things together, when they are not at all the same thing.

                             

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

                        •  
                          icon
                          Jay (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 7:55pm

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

                          "t isn't in their economic interests to make things unavailable on purpose."

                          Uhm... Yes it is...

                          Find a way to worm your way between an artist and their fans. Find a way to access the money and filter it so you get to keep a decent amount and the rest goes to the band you keep. Find ways to make multiple licenses on the same music, play your music on the radio and keep the consumers coming back to you. Albums should only come once a year, and regionalization should occur over time, between the US, UK, Brazil, etc.

                          "They don't get rich keeping things away from the public."
                          I'm sorry, but that's absolutely false, or else the gatekeepers wouldn't want to change copyright law in their favor.

                           

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      BearGriz72 (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:49pm

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

                      "Is the newspaper producing content? If you want to get extremely technical about it, the newspaper does nothing. But their employees and contracted workers create content for the newspaper, which they in turn sell."

                      He FINALLY got it!?

                      This is (almost) exactly correct. The newspaper doesn't do nothing of course, they sell ADVERTISING (or in internet terms "page-views") but the newspaper has never actually sold the content.

                      That is why the 'subscription' was often less than the cost of the paper, ink, and/or printing the newspaper itself. The subscribers are not the actual customers of the newspaper, they are the product, the actual customer is the advertisers.

                      Do you understand it yet?

                       

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

        •  
          icon
          Spaceboy (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "It's still a fail. There was demand for music before, and there is demand for music after. The music hasn't changed in any way, certainly not in the same manner that transportation changed."

          Music delivery has changed, and that's what has the RIAA pissed. People aren't forced into paying $15 per CD when all they want is a single track. They now have a choice of all or part of an album. Once a track is purchased, excuse me, licensed, there is no need to ever buy a license again. If I download a DRM-free tune from Amazon.com. It's mine forever. I can listen to it on as many devices as I want and even burn my own CDs. I can even upload that file to Amazon's cloud and access it anywhere. That's why the entertainment industry is screaming that they need protection. Not only do people have the ability to buy the music they want, but they won't have to buy it again and again.

          Lastly, and this will have a huge impact going forward, my son has never been in a music store. He wouldn't know what to do with a CD. When he wants music he goes to Youtube, like all his friends. The entertainment industry better wake up soon.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They aren't pissed at a change of distribution, they are pissed a piracy. They don't care how you use your single copy provided you use it one place at a time. What they are upset about is that the vast majority of people no longer feel the need to pay any initial amount, nor do they see any problem in giving away copies of what they have to others for free.

            That isn't a change in distribution methods, that's just piracy.

            As for your son, nobody is suggesting he can only have music by visiting a physical music store. That is horrid strawman created by piracy backers who want to make the choice "music store or pirated" with nothing else in the middle.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              HothMonster, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "nor do they see any problem in giving away copies of what they have to others for free."

              This is human nature not a development of the digital age, people have been giving away tapes and cds for decades and they would have been giving away vinyl if you could easily copy it at home.

              "They aren't pissed at a change of distribution, they are pissed a piracy"

              I would argue that they are scared and pissed at the what shifting entirely to the new means of distribution would do to their profits. If content were only distributed digitally there would be no excuse for the high prices as the margins do not justify it. The existence and prevalence of physical media allows them to justify the cost of a digital song, because they want to keep it close to that of a physical song so they are not cannibalizing their own profits. As digital distribution becomes the primary means of music delivery the purchase price will continue to drop to reflect the marginal cost of production. The only thing that prevents this shift towards marginal cost is the lack of competition. There are already sites out there offering 10 cent songs, as they grow and the amount of content they have access to grows that is only going to force the other major players, like itunes, to adjust their price to stay competitive.

              Protect IP is another attempt to stifle competition, prevent innovation and maintain a stranglehold on the market so they can keep the cost of their products so high above margin.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They don't care how you use your single copy provided you use it one place at a time.

              Bullshit. Why else would they feel entitled to Amazon paying for it's new service? They want pay-per-use but it's just not gonna happen.

               

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

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The recording industry isn't the music industry. They are to music what truckers are to canned goods. The delivery system. The delivery system has changed, they just do not wish to change with it.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:53pm

        Re: Re:

        You're right that the demand for content is increasing dramatically, but NOT in the form that the legacy parts of the industry are delivering it.

        itunes.com
        amazon.com
        rhapsody.com

        etc. etc.

        Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.

        The fact that you are the owner of this blog and are reduced to using blatantly silly and inept analogies proves that you're just interested in defending piracy here.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          itunes.com
          amazon.com
          rhapsody.com


          Too little, too late. How many years after Napster that they finally were dragged kicking and screaming into supporting these distribution methodes?

          The fact that you are the owner of this blog and are reduced to using blatantly silly and inept analogies proves that you're just interested in defending piracy here.

          Actually the fact is that his analogy still stand and your tries to disprove them are blatantly silly and inept.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Modplan (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      Who said anything about lack of demand?

      Your argument is another spin on conflating stealing with infringement.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:26am

      Re:

      The demand for the PRODUCTS is higher than ever. Distribution is no longer a barrier. This means that the artists have unprecedented opportunity, but folks like the RIAA, who built a business out of distribution, are obsolete. Instead of allowing the market to adapt to this new paradigm, they instead seek to pass legislation to artificially restrict distribution and 'prop up a dying business model'.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Christopher2 (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      Correction: they just don't want to pay the extreme amounts that these companies wish to charge for their products and services now that:

      1. A physical medium is not necessary.
      2. There are no 'store shelf fees'.
      3. It costs extremely little to 'ship' something to someone over the internet.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 1:24pm

      Re:

      It's really rather astonishing how quickly you can switch back and forth between "the industry is being destroyed by piracy we need to stop it immediately by any means necessary!!!!" and "the industry is doing perfectly well and all its decisions are correct!!!'

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 3:24am

      Re:

      This isn't a lack of demand for music, movies, or television. The demand has increased dramatically.

      You're right. That's why overall music purchases hit an all-time high in 2009, and have been climbing since at least 2006.

      You see, the "dying industry" isn't the overall music industry. It's the recording industry - the "CD industry."

      They are the buggy-whip makers, and CD's are the buggy whips.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:30am

    No law is better than bad law.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:30am

    Paul Vixie just wants to download free music. /sarc

     

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

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:42am

    To save time and space let me repeat

    In past discussions of how PROTECT IP breaks the Internet, the trolls say:

    I just don't see it.

    I just don't get it.


    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:45am

      Re: To save time and space let me repeat

      You can lead a horse to water, but you just can't make it drink the koolaid.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:33am

      Re: To save time and space let me repeat

      The only people who would possibly think those three complaints (subdomains, referrals, and shared hosting) would "break the Internet" are people who have never hosted or designed a website and don't actually know what those things are.

      This is making hay about nothing and hoping people are technologically disinclined enough not to realize how small the complaints are.

      MANY countries (and no, not just Iran and China) have now instituted domain level filters at the ISP level. Last I checked the Internet is still functioning.

      Is there some special Jingoism that makes it different when America does it?

      When Germany, Italy, or Israel filter illegal sites, nothing happens except that those sites are filtered, but when America does it, "IT WILL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTERNET!!!!"

      Give me a break.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:45am

        Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

        The only people who would possibly think those three complaints (subdomains, referrals, and shared hosting) would "break the Internet" are people who have never hosted or designed a website and don't actually know what those things are.

        I've developed websites professionally for a large software company for over a decade I think that those complaints would break the Internet.

        This is making hay about nothing and hoping people are technologically disinclined enough not to realize how small the complaints are.

        No, you're hoping the technologically disinclined won't realize how devastating they will be.

        MANY countries (and no, not just Iran and China) have now instituted domain level filters at the ISP level. Last I checked the Internet is still functioning.

        Is there some special Jingoism that makes it different when America does it?

        When Germany, Italy, or Israel filter illegal sites, nothing happens except that those sites are filtered, but when America does it, "IT WILL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTERNET!!!!"


        This isn't an internet filter. This taking down a domain hosting thousands of legitimate sites because one raised the ire of the entertainment industry.

        Give me a break.

        No. The Internet is more important than you're legacy distribution business.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:54am

          Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

          This isn't an internet filter. This taking down a domain hosting thousands of legitimate sites because one raised the ire of the entertainment industry.

          I would love to know where it says in PROTECT IP they can do that.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

            mooo.com

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 2:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

              You're not going to get any traction out of something that was a mistake. And one that was remedied 24 hours later.

              But feel free to keep wasting your time trying.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

                You're completely wrong, but feel free to keep wasting everyone else's time.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                \r (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

                Your control of media distribution is hereby sentenced to death. But feel free to keep wasting your time trying.\r

                 

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

      •  
        icon
        techflaws.org (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:42pm

        Re: Re: To save time and space let me repeat

        When Germany, Italy, or Israel filter illegal sites

        Germany filters what since when?

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    MM, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:49am

    Let's not be naive here. The entertainment industry understands perfectly the technical and first amendment issues involved. They just don't care.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:14am

      Re:

      So thewy're not only cutting off their nose to spite their face, they're also cutting off other people's noses too. Even a moron like me can see this.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    MM, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 8:56am

    Let's not be naive here. The entertainment industry understands perfectly the technical and first amendment issues involved. They just don't care.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Bob, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:06am

    Needs some help

    The problem with this report, as I see it, is that the eyes of these tech ignorant legislators will gloss over using the examples they're using. You need to equate it to something that they can understand, like roads. When you close a road because one criminal lives on it, you also close that road to

    1) every other person/business who resides/exists on it
    2) every person/business who commutes by it
    3) every person/business who does 1) and 2) on any side roads

    and so on. Then maybe their eyes will unglass and they'll stop to think what it means.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 9:15am

      Re: Needs some help

      Don't worry. I'm sure the entertainment association lobbyists they're having dinner with tonight will explain it to them.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Mike,
    I think this is really the heart of the issue:

    If implemented, this section of the PROTECT IP Act would weaken this important effort to improve Internet security. It would enshrine and institutionalize the very network manipulation that DNSSEC must fight in order to prevent cyberattacks and other malevolent behavior on the global Internet, thereby exposing networks and users to increased security and privacy risks.

    Combined with this:
    DNS filters would be evaded easily, and would likely prove ineffective at reducing online
    infringement. Further, widespread circumvention would threaten the security and stability of
    the global DNS.


    It's a major change to how the internet works with little real impact. This is a power play by Big Entertainment, nothing more.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:36am

    That's exactly what they want, to break the internetz so they can control it.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 3:17pm

    Politicians should have to answer a random, 10 question quiz on whatever subject they're proposing a new law for, before being allowed to introduce or vote on it. That would stop all these stupid laws in their tracks. It would also provide good comedic value as the entire world watches them try to explain what the DNS does, or how torrents work.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2011 @ 3:24pm

    "Only those who don't understand the technology think the collateral damage described above is minimal."

    Their intent is to cause as much 'collateral' damage as possible.

    Do you honestly think that preserving free speech is anywhere on the governments agenda? If that were so, the laws in place outside the Internet wouldn't do such a good job of censoring free speech.

    IP criticisms don't make it on public airwaves or across cableco infrastructure, despite the fact that our IP laws are absolutely indefensible, yet pro-IP propaganda is communicated over these information communication channels. Why? Because the laws wrongfully grant monopolists monopoly power to exclusively use these communication distribution channels and it is not in the interests of monopolists to criticize monopoly privileges.

    Crazy garbage can make it over public airwaves, things like "The end of the world is coming next month, the rapture is going to occur tomorrow" before the very reasonable IP criticisms can. The opinions broadcasted over public airwaves (and cableco infrastructure) are often extreme nonsense, often a smokescreen designed to distract us from more important issue and opinions, yet their influence still convinces many ignorant people of their validity, but legitimate discussions over the problems caused by IP laws and all the many many government imposed monopolies? They never get broadcasted. Only pro-IP propaganda.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jeni (profile), Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 5:25am

    Buggy Whips

    That "buggy whips" analogy is getting really old.

    Boy, reading through the comments I lost my original train of thought - it's like a zoo around here at times.

    But I do have one question, if anyone would be so kind...why is it that just because tech savvy people - and even some of us not-quite-as-tech-savvy-but-sort-of-tech-savvy people who have serious concerns about this invasive and unconstitutional "PROTECT IP" bull, are constantly labeled "pirates", "Thieves", etc.?

    I don't understand this - maybe I haven't been participating long enough, IDK, but it continues to baffle me because I'm a long-time advocate of privacy and respect for the privacy of others and my own. That is all that drives my sentiments on this issue.

    These laws are insane. Utterly and completely insane. And it's really quite scary to see people actually think it's "Okay" and should be enacted.

    I pay my cable company a hefty monthly fee. I subscribe to a movie tier. I get lots of channels of both music and TV shows in addition to the movie tier. When I watch a movie on that movie tier, or a weekly series on my television screen, it's okay. If I watch it on my computer at a time that is more convenient for me - which, BTW, I pay the same company to access the Internet - suddenly some of you want to label me a "pirate" or a "thief"?

    What am I missing here?

    "Kool-aid" must be doing quite a business these days...

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 8:56am

      Re: Buggy Whips

      I think that attitude can be explained with a brief scene from The Office between Michael Scott and Dwight Shrute:

      D: Knock knock!
      M: [giggling] Who's there?
      D: KGB*.
      M: KGB who?
      D: [slaps M. hard across the face] KGB will be asking the questions!

      *Wherein replace KGB with IP Maximalists.

      You are the lowly consumer. Despite your supremacy of numbers, you have no place at the table in these discussions. You are a walking wallet to be opened at all times in all ways forever and ever amen. Your convenience is of no import. Your innocence is terminally at issue. Whether you pay or not, whether you buy or not, you are a ticking time bomb of criminal activity. Because you are not them. Because you can't possibly understand. Because you can say no. Because you hold discretion over your own spending. Because you are merely a citizen.

      You are the customer and therefore the enemy.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 9:36pm

      Re: Buggy Whips

      why is it that just because [...] people who have serious concerns about this invasive and unconstitutional "PROTECT IP" bull, are constantly labeled "pirates", "Thieves", etc.?

      Because the people using those labels are deliberately setting up a false dichotomy. It's a pure propaganda move, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as criminals.

      On this site, you'll notice that most of these individuals post anonymously. I honestly believe it's because most of them work for an industry that will benefit from these laws, and are coming here in order to hijack the conversation.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Jeni (profile), Jun 3rd, 2011 @ 3:49am

    Ah ha.

    I wondered about that, Karl, thanks.

    Wouldn't surprise me one bit of RIAA/MPAA etc. nazi's are trolling.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    True Patriot, Jul 21st, 2011 @ 12:37am

    So I can see how this "Protect IP" thing can Spiral out of control say If a Website that deals with a group of car enthusiasts is not careful under this law and people post up the names of manufacturers and names of cars they will be Black listed for copyright Infringement,No? it sound like copyright Laws have taken a step to far in violating citizens right to me......

     

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


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