How Copyright Lobbyists Are Making The Child Porn Problem Worse

from the sweeping-things-under-the-rug dept

Over the years, we've noted that the entertainment industry has gleefully tried to link "child porn" to internet filters, in an attempt to make it easier to force censorship around the globe on the woefully stupid theory that this will somehow reduce infringement. At times they're completely upfront about this, admitting that "child pornography is great!" because it gets politicians to do what they want. Rick Falkvinge has another such story of an industry exec enthusiastically embracing child porn on the belief that hyping up child porn will help get their filtering/censorship plans through. The article does a nice job highlighting similar stories around the globe.

But the key point is all the way at the end of the article. All of these attempts to link filtering to child porn doesn't help stop the problem of child porn. In fact, it makes it worse. Falkvinge quotes a group that helps victims of child porn:
But more emotionally, we turn to a German group named Mogis. It is a support group for adult people who were abused as children, and is the only one of its kind. They are very outspoken and adamant on the issue of censoring child pornography.

Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”.

This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level.

The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture.

We've made this point before about those who try to censor based on child porn claims. Like most folks, I find child porn to be a horrific and dangerous issue. But the way to deal with it isn't through censorship and filters. It's to go after those who are actually responsible for the stuff. It's to track down and prosecute those who are creating and distributing the stuff. Putting up filters for censorship doesn't stop those who are creating and distributing. It just drives them further underground. If anything, it actually makes it more difficult for law enforcement to track them down and stop them.

But, thanks to copyright industry efforts, that's what we're getting. And for what? So that they can get ISPs to start putting in filters in a weak and unworkable attempt to stop infringement. It's really quite sickening that some in the copyright industry would go this far, but when you see just how often copyright lobbyists bring up child porn, and advocate for filters, it's hard not to be disgusted at the lows to which they'll stoop in their quixotic battle, where the end result is actually to make life worse for the victims of child pornography.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 8:20am

    To their credit, they haven't stolen medical information in order to sell dead trees. Yet.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 8:35am

    Politicians have used the child porn, terrorism, and for your safety card so often people are now beginning to tune it out. Everytime I hear those word, I wonder which of my rights are they trampling on now?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 8:56am

      Re:

      They're trying to obfuscate an issue, this we know.

      Thing is, what I would like to know is how much profit do they seek to gain by destroying your rights?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:07am

        Re: Re:

        all of it, really. the end goal is for you to live in destitution and squalor, barely surviving, and everything you produce goes to the landed gentry.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Eileen (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Too true. What I am amazed at is that they do not seem smart enough to know when to stop. Basically they squeeze and squeeze... until you get a revolution. This observation makes me realize there is no master plan, just typical human values at work. Pretty much the same thing would happen if you switched out the top 10% with the bottom 10%. :(

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That sounds like the 1984 sub plot...

            Oligarchical Collectivism

            " ...the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers."

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Hephaestus (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What you have is a multitude of groups, in different areas all rushing towards the same goal, to become monopolies. Pharma, energy, content, communications, banking, defense, food, etc all trying for government granted monopoly rents. They are only interested in their own little piece of the pie, and fail to see the larger pictures. Once they reach monopoly status they fail to innovate and believe nothing will ever change. That leads to disruptive technologies coming along to destroy them.

            Content - the internet
            Pharma - immortality
            energy - cheap local wind mills, solar cells, and energy storage devices
            communications - Quantum Entanglement
            banking - BitCoin or something similar
            defense - SCRAM projectiles
            food - automated hydroponic gardening
            Manufacturing - 3d printing and robotics

            We are headed towards a more distributed world, where not only are the content middle men removed, but so are the rest of the middlemen. The revolution you seem to expect will be the content industry repeated for other sectors. With them dying slow painful human rights removing deaths.

            Rinse - Lather - repeat ....

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:14am

      Re:

      Amen, brother.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:34am

      Re:

      Unfortunately the problem is in the process of tuning out the scare tactics, many are also tuning out the issues they are being used to manipulate altogether

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:10am

    "We're protecting the artists!"

    Um...what? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml)

    "Think of the children!"

    Huh? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/03050815040/how-copyright-lobbyists-are-making-child-porn -problem-worse.shtml)

    "We worship at the altar of cold hard cash to the detriment of anything else!"

    No argument there.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:14am

    Queue some idiot saying "Mike Masnick supports child porn" in 5...4...3...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:17am

    Anyone with half a brain could see past any of the lobbyists' anvils.

    When they bring up "child porn," these are the same people who have no problems hiring men who pee on teenagers.

    When they bring up "terrorism," these are the same people who have no problems hiring men who glorify gang violence.

    When they bring up "safety and well-being," these are the same people who have no problems hiring men who discourage children to continue their education in favor of endless hedonism.

    I could go on forever.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Zombies and politicians are both just as easy to distract by jingling a set of keys near them, however.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:54am

    It may or may not be true that censoring/filtering technology would increase the amount of or damage from child pornography.

    But it takes quite a leap to get to the conclusion that copyright industry lobbyists accept this debatable proposition, and lobby for censoring/filtering technology despite believing it would increase the amount of or damage from child pornography.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      Using the same logic as the RIAA shills:

      "You're not doing anything about a solution, so you must be part of the problem!"

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Aerilus, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 11:42pm

      Re:

      you really didn't read the article, please go back and notice the quotes of representatives of major components within the Entertainment industry specifically stating that they are using child porn for their own interest. the point is they don't care about helping with child porn they care about their own agenda.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Your increasing desperation is becoming really creepy, Masnick.

    Trying to somehow imply that copyright enforcement makes child pornography worse?

    Wow, just wow.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      You don't let little things like reading an article stop you from making sad little comments like this, do you?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      non-anonymous coward (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:16am

      Re:

      Your increasing desperation is becoming really creepy, RIAA, MPAA, and other rent seekers.

      Trying to somehow imply that fair use/open source/public domain makes child pornography worse?

      Wow, just wow.


      There - fixed it for you, AC.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:11pm

      Re:

      What weed are you smoking?

      But no srsly, there's truth in your statement because the copyright morons are using CP to promote censoring tools they could use later and this has the side effect of hiding the problem (CP) instead of solving it. And he's also pointing out how low and underhand is this tactic MAFIAA is using.

      So uh... If he's creepy for pointing this absurd out then make me a creep too. And yes, we might be desperated by how low MAFIAA is getting and how many innocents are being hurt in the path MAFIAA chose to walk.

      Oh, before I forget. TROLL.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 6:01pm

      Re:

      Actually, Masnick didn't say it; MOGIS said it. Masnick only quoted them (That's what the indentation is supposed to show, you will learn that when you make it to third grade). Actually, to be very nitpicky, MOGIS didn't even say copyright enforcement makes child pornography worse; only that it doesn't fight it as the MAAFIAA claims.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws.org (profile), Jul 13th, 2011 @ 3:54am

      Re:

      Dumb, just dumb.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2011 @ 10:14am

      Re:

      You give Anonymous Cowards on this site a bad name.

      If you are going to make ludicrous claims such as that, please sign up for an account so we can hold you responsible for your views or leave. Saying such things adds nothing to the subject matter and only shows your ineptitude at understanding how the internet really works.

      Mike and the group have it dead on right. Whether you seize a domain, censor the results, or destroy the server, if you do not go after the person(or people) who manufactured the content, you have done nothing to solve them problem. You have simply pushed it out of sight and out of mind. Since your are doing nothing to solve the problem, you are only helping the problem a long.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Alyssa, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    What's sad isn't that they try... But that it works. We need politicians who understand how important a free and open Intrernet is to our future economy

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:03am

      Re:

      That would actually be quite difficult. Wyden at least understands this to a certain degree. But think about Kloboucher, Cornyn, or Leahy, who have been in the system for a while and are pretty sure to profit from it in a number of ways.

      Honestly? The best way to get good ideas to go to the surface would be the very thing that senior politicians would oppose.

      Term limits.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:27am

        Re: Re:

        Term limits and outlawing political lobbying.
        Problem is that both of those hit them old shriveled up politicians where it hurts the most, the wallet.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, that's mainly a problem with the system.

          *WARNING POLITICAL INTRIGUE AHEAD*

          I know that the US is set up with a two party system. The problem is, both parties are so far apart from their ideals, that they'll do anything to remain in power, society be damned. Yes, Repubs believe in a sort of smaller government. But Dems believe in using the government as a weapon in general.

          Both parties get to pick the parts of the other two branches, however indirectly.

          The executive is made from the buddies of Obama or Bush respectively. The parts don't matter. They stay after he's gone other than the heads of certain branches. With regards to the judicial branch, the Senate gets to pick those favorable to their interests.

          So you have a system that's inherent to the two parties, screwing over others. The most important thing is to keep the system flowing, much to the chagrin of those that want to change it.

          Just something to think about...

          Does unlimited spending mean a victory?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 11:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Term limits and outlawing political lobbying."

          So much for free speech, I guess.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Free speech is fine, giving those with money full access to both your ears while not listening to the people you're supposed to represent is not.

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      So vote for Ron Paul. He seems to be the ONLY politician to get this. He was the only one standing up for Wikileaks, when all the other politicians wanted them hunted down like terrorists.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

        Re: Re:

        There's also Greg Johnson who is a very good person.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Eileen (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 3:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The problem is their positions on everything else. I mean, I will probably vote Ron Paul, because he seems like the only person NOT owned by someone. But it will be with an uneasy conscience, because I really don't agree with him on most social issues. And not the small things like abortion or gun control... but roads, public schools... that's where me and the libertarian ideal diverge, big time. I'd hate to vote for a libertarian to avoid modern serfdom, only to watch them create an enormous, uneducated underclass by essentially destroying education.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    evilned, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    You want to solve Child Porn? Here's how

    I wish I was able to attend a hearing where these people are making all these claims. I would reply thus:

    "Good day. The other people testifying have made a lot of noise about stopping child pornography. Their solution will do nothing to stop it. I have a fair better solution and it will work.

    It won't be easy of course. The execution of this solution will require actual effort.

    If you want to end Child pornography, simply track down the makers of child pornography and shoot them in the head. No fuss, No muss, (other than brains on a wall), and it will stop that child molester dead in his tracks...literally.

    After you have liquidated a few of these scum, you will see the manufacture of child pornography come to a virtual end.

    Thank you."

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The Incoherent One (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:18am

      Re: You want to solve Child Porn? Here's how

      We can then bait the zombies with the brains of dead child pornographers?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      If I told you I'd have to kill you, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 6:25pm

      Re: You want to solve Child Porn? Here's how

      That is irrelevant. Actual police units are doing that already, or at least so they say (if you want to question police numbers and statements, that's another bag). Child pornography has already become completely underground. There would be no way to actually filter it against those who want it, short of much more extensive eavesdropping, snooping and privacy invasions than there is now, to a point that would have repercussions on many areas of the economies and legitimate activities. (Effectively, the same would happen if we took seriously the copyright maximalists' positions)
      All child pornography that is not underground today, are honeypots set up by police or deputized civilians Chris-Hansen-style. In order to catch underground producers and users, police have to infiltrate moles in the sharing communities hoping someone to identify themselves as Dave from Missouri, and look for clues in the materials such as landmarks, weather, speech accents, and things of that sort. It works, but at a much lower rate and a much higher cost than detecting copyright breakers who are for the most part still above ground.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Doublethink

    Only two things you need to know:

    1. We have to prevent the filesharing of movies, because otherwise people will have zero incentive to make more.
    2. We have to prevent the filesharing of child pornography, otherwise people will have a massive incentive to make more.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:55am

    and exactly what did falkvinge do with this information when he got it, assuming he had proof of who said what? who did he pass the information on to? what happened next?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rick Falkvinge, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

      Re:

      We passed the information on to the public. The next thing that happened was the the public voted us into Parliament.

      That's a bit of a simplification, but still.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Ole Husgaard, Jul 13th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Rick Falkvinge wrote: "We passed the information on to the public. The next thing that happened was the the public voted us into Parliament."

        That is the ultra-short story, omitting a few interesting things that happened after the event.

        This event was in the week-end. On the following Monday The Pirate Bay (TPB) got a new member. He was quite active uploading torrents for the next few weeks. What he was uploading was not illegal, but quite disturbing. It was a mix of "barely legal" (but legal) porn, mixed with non-pornographic pictures of often nude children (again legal). Quite unusual for uploaders at TPB he was mostly active at weekdays from 8 am until 16 pm. This new member suddenly stopped uploading after about four weeks.

        A few days after this new member stopped uploading these disturbing but legal torrents to TBP, it was leaked to the Swedish press that the Swedish police was going to put TPB on the Swedish child porn censor list.

        There was a lot of writing about this in Swedish press, and many were wondering, because they could find no child porn via TPB. The Swedish police, however, maintained that they had evidence that child porn could be found via TPB.

        In the end TPB was never placed on the child porn censor list. The main reason was probably that nobody could find any evidence, and that some ISPs were threatening to stop using the child porn censor list because of it, because nobody could find any child porn. Although the Swedish police still maintains the claim they have evidence, nobody have been charged with any crime because of this.

        IMHO this was probably just some anti-pirates who got inspired by Johan Schlüter's speech about child porn being useful to stop file sharing.

        So why did Johan Schlüter say what he did at this event?

        He said so because he was right about child porn being useful for anti-pirates. He had run a case against an ISP trying to get a court injunction against the ISP to block access to allofmp3.com, and he won the case. The court reasoned that, because the ISP already had the infrastructure in place for censoring child porn, it would incur no extra cost for the ISP to also censor allofmp3.com. Soon almost all ISPs in Denmark started censoring allofmp3.com, as they did not want to have court costs trying to keep their net open.

        How could he get an injunction like that? Because local Danish law does not correctly implement the Infosoc directive (a piece of EU legislation, which Denmark has to correctly implement in local law). The main legal argument in the case is based on this faulty implementation of Infosoc.

        The top civil servant responsible for a correct implementation of the Infosoc directive at that time, Peter Schønning, did not do his work properly. He is no longer a civil servant. He later left to become a partner at the Johan Schlüter law firm. Today he is specializing in heading court cases abusing this faulty implementation of Infosoc, and he managed to uphold the censoring of The Pirate Bay on appeal.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:16pm

      Re:

      Owned. Public awareness is what we need indeed.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Ole Husgaard, Jul 13th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

      Re:

      amonymous wrote: "and exactly what did falkvinge do with this information when he got it, assuming he had proof of who said what? who did he pass the information on to? what happened next?"

      It looks like he is trying to imply that Falkvinge is lying.

      Having followed this case from the start, and having investigated every possible angle of it, I think I can give a meaningful answer to that.

      We do not have a video or audio recording as proof of what Johan Schlüter, the Danish anti-pirate lawyer speaking at the event, said. The only audio recording of this event seems to be one that the US Chamber of Commerce made, and they are not willing to share it. But I am sure that if this audio could clear the main speaker invited to this event by the US Chamber of Commerce of having said that child porn is good at the event, it would have been released.

      What we do have are three witnesses.

      They all said the same thing after the event. A short while after the event I was in personal contact with both Falkvinge and Engström (now a member of the EU-Parliament), and they both told me the same story as Falkvinge is now telling. The third witness, Oscar Swartz, I do not know personally, and had no contact with. But at that time he was writing for ComputerWorld in Sweden, and he got an article published which told the exact same story.

      What tells most about this, however, is the lack of response from the anti-pirate accused of saying that child porn is good, Johan Schlüter. He has known about these accusations for years, and he has never even tried to refute them.

      Schlüter's problem is that if he calls the witnesses liars, he risks being sued for libel. Suing the witnesses for libel would be just as problematic. In both cases there is a major risk that the court would subpoena the US Chamber of Commerce for the sound recording from the event, and this recording would then make the court determine - publicly - that the accusations are true.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:55am

    The funniest part here? This blog post plays the exact some cards, but in reverse. The case is made (but sort of fails) to state that blocking doesn't hurt child porn (buy helps it), so...

    in order to help stop child porn, stop blocking illegal file trading.

    Think of the children!

    It's amazing to watch Techdirt stoop this low, and not seem to notice how two-faced it is.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 11:23am

      Re:

      "The funniest part here? This blog post plays the exact some cards, but in reverse."

      Yeah, I've got to agree here. "Think of the children" grandstanding doesn't get any better when played in reverse.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

      Re:

      Noticed that an organization that helps abused kids also said the same? It's amazing how they stooped so low isn't it?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 11:41am

    Censoring bad language on CDs doesn't keep artists from using foul language. It actually makes it easier for them to drop all those F-bombs. Thus, we should completely remove censoring bad language on CDs...?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:19pm

      Re:

      Yes. We should. But this kind of censorship while damaging, is not as bad as others. Still, fake moronic moralism can do wonders to fck up good works.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    "starves the public of culture. "

    Have you seen culture lately? It is fairly bad.

    I dare say let them have their "culture" and I'll just opt out.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 10:01pm

      Re:

      well... most of the good stuff they keep locked up and is really obscure so nobody really knows about it, that's part of the problem

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2011 @ 6:06pm

    Putting up filters for censorship doesn't stop those who are creating and distributing.

    Umm, don't you think that CP caught in filter represents a slowing in distribution? It's impossible to completely eradicate but I find any effort to slow its distribution to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the more accessible and numerous the channels of distribution, the greater the volume of content. Look at the explosion in the volume of conventional porn with the rise of the internet.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 8:29pm

      Re:

      You just made the perfect point for why the content companies should open up their catalogs, and why the public domain should reign supreme ...

      "As we have seen, the more accessible and numerous the channels of distribution, the greater the volume of content."

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2011 @ 1:20pm

    Did you even bother to read your own quotes?

    How did you miss
    They are very outspoken and adamant on the issue of censoring child pornography.

    Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”.


    Then you go on to say, "Like most folks, I find child porn to be a horrific and dangerous issue. But the way to deal with it isn't through censorship and filters. It's to go after those who are actually responsible for the stuff. It's to track down and prosecute those who are creating and distributing the stuff."

    Couldn't resist going 'fuck you' to all of us that are victims of sexual child abuse.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Jul 13th, 2011 @ 1:49pm

    Child porn and copyright

    The way I believe it all works is this:
    The entertainment industry offers big bucks to politicians ("campaign" funds, unlimited by a recent Supreme Court decision).
    Some politicians say "Fine, but how to I explain this to my idiots (excuse me, "constituents").
    The EI then says, easy, "child porn"!
    SP then says, "where's the money, I am sold".

     

    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