Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan

from the rewriting-the-dmca dept

Defenders of E-PARASITE/SOPA have been going out of their way not just to mischaracterize the arguments against the bill, but now they've reached the point of outright lying. The American Bar Association has an email list for its "IP Section," and recently there was a bit of a debate over E-PARASITE/SOPA, in which the myriad problems and dangers of the bill were put forth. Not one to let an opportunity go by to mislead, Viacom's VP of Intellectual Property and Content Protection, Stanley Pierre-Louis, decided to defend the bill. I'll have more to say about his various points later, but on one key point, he seems to not only be wrong, but at odds with one of the guys who supposedly "wrote" the bill. That is, Pierre-Louis responded to the charges that E-PARASITE is a backdoor to rewriting the important DMCA safe harbors by stating:
The criticism below views SOPA as a “back door” means “with which to bludgeon” innocent site operators by expanding the scope of secondary liability claims and diminishing DMCA protections. Of course, this view largely ignores that SOPA explicitly states that its provisions must not be read to expand or diminish either. And, it doesn’t. The fact that SOPA does not permit sites to take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement merely restates the law as it stands today. There is no rule that permits “willful blindness” of obvious wrongdoing under U.S. law, and nothing in the DMCA or any other statute has been deemed to hold otherwise.
Of course, this is one of the more nefarious tricks pulled by the authors of the bill. In a few different places, right before they totally decimate existing and established law, they put in a little thing that says, "nothing in here changes existing law...," even as the plain text shows that it does.

But, in this case, why don't we go to the source: Rep. Bob Goodlatte, supposed co-author of the bill, and the chair of the IP subcommittee in the House. When asked about criticism of the bill by Gautham Nagesh at The Hill, Goodlatte flat out admitted that the intention is to take away the DMCA's safe harbors:
"I think it is unrealistic to think we're going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision," Goodlatte said.

"Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things."
So, who do we trust? A Viacom exec with a history of trying to stretch, twist and break the DMCA (see: YouTube) by pretending that it requires actions it does not, or the supposed co-author of the bill, whose statements will certainly be used in a court of law down the road. And, if Goodlatte is admitting his intention was to change the DMCA with the bill, why did the bill even include that false claim that nothing in it changes the DMCA?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:17am

    You found the smoking gun...

    It had to be found eventually. As I keep saying, when you try to lie, you will get caught painting yourself into the corner. The co-auther/puppet is on record as saying this bill will kill the DMCA. Now the various industry shills and OOTB can quit pretending it won't.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:53pm

      Re: You found the smoking gun...

      A bunch of lying thieving pricks is what these assholes are.And they want to take away our rights for their damn profits and their way to control all content on the Internet.
      If this thing passes I hope to see some real Anarchy as our freedom will be gone and we will need some payback.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 6:05pm

        Re: Re: You found the smoking gun...

        A bunch of lying thieving pricks is what these assholes are.And they want to take away our rights for their damn profits and their way to control all content on the Internet.
        If this thing passes I hope to see some real Anarchy as our freedom will be gone and we will need some payback.


        be sure to wear your "Techdirt" hoodie to the Occupy Whatever demonstration so the cops know who is most in need of pepper spray.

        Not that I think for a minute one of you keyboard anarchists would ever get off of your candy ass and actually do something.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 8:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: You found the smoking gun...

          You're adorable!

           

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

        •  
          icon
          BeeAitch (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 8:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: You found the smoking gun...

          Clicked 'report'.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:44am

          Re: Re: Re: You found the smoking gun...

          "Not that I think for a minute one of you keyboard anarchists would ever get off of your candy ass and actually do something."

          If I had a vote in your country, I would, believe me. Instead I just have to sit back and watch as you morons destroy your own industry, taking the rest of us down with you.

          "Not that I think for a minute one of you keyboard anarchists would ever get off of your candy ass and actually do something."

          Yeah, you tend to just attack people who get out there and state their opinion (e.g. Mike) instead of actually listening to their opinions.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:58am

          Re: Re: Re: You found the smoking gun...

          Why you don't either, fat boy.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      tim, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:57pm

      Re: You found the smoking gun...

      why does anyone care?

      protect ip means nothing to pirates.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Looks like Pirate Mike is attacking the messengers by using their own words against themselves. Typical freetard mentality; always stealing from others to advance their anti-IP agenda.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Another AC, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:19am

    A good questions...

    ... that Bob and Pierre-Louis I'm sure would rather you not ask.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:29am

    Sign the petition...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:35am

    Still wondering why we would even need a new law if it truly "merely restates the law as it stands today."

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Mike, there is little chance that the one sided "notification and take down" DMCA system would be left to stand alone. Clearly it is not working well, too many sites make their living by using copyrighted content until they are notified, and often allowing the same content to re-appear within minutes. It's not working out at all, neither side is happy.

    The won't re-write the DMCA, but PROTECT IP is certainly aimed at making sure that DMCA isn't being used as a business model by "third parties" who have so far thumbed their noses at copyright holders.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      Yeah, it sucks when business models are dependent on legislation...

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:10pm

      Re:

      Because other sites like Yahoo, Google, eBay, and Craigslist making money on the internet is the worst thing ever.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Jay, your answer isn't meaningful. Why do you think each of them is a problem?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Re: Clearly it is not working well, too many sites make their living by using copyrighted content until they are notified, and often allowing the same content to re-appear within minutes.

          People have made money on them. There's plenty of free movies on Youtube. Google aggregates data from all over the world at this point. eBay allows consumers to pay for goods at wholesale prices if they can bid for it. And CL has been around for a while as a place for people to find good deals from others. All seem to be illegal from the looks of SOPA.

          Quite frankly, I can't tell if the old content industry has a problem with aggregate data or platforms for expression of content. But because people other than those durned pirates are making money from ads, they're liable for what pirates do.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Jay, I know what the companies do. Why do you think SPECIFICALLY in each case they would be against SOPA?

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Because taking away that platform or its funding is exactly what SOPA is doing by attacking the financial support of a site.

              It's not hitting piracy at all. It's throwing an accusation at the wall, pulling its financial support and causing increased liability to site owners based on no evidence.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      Ron Rezendes (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:19pm

      Re:

      But...but... THAT'S THE LAW!!!

      Been hearing that for years from the paytard side.

      I am vehemently opposed to any process (bill/treaty/Executive decision) that intentionally leaves out the "due process" part of our legal system to hasten an agenda based on lies, mis-truths, and incompetence.

      Not a single study or industry citation on IP infringement provided by the content side of the table remotely comes close to the facts when viewed by third parties, including government institutions. If the government says your studies are faulty and without basis, along with notable top flight IT industry insiders, it's a pretty safe bet that you have a credibility issue since those two particular groups rarely agree on anything. Mostly because the gov't is 10 years behind the technology curve and they really don't have any idea how these things work thus allowing a proliferation of horrific bills like E-Parasite, Protect IP, and ACTA.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        BeeAitch (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 8:59pm

        Re: Re:

        But...but...

        Due process is /obviously/ an impediment to the content industries profits, so...

        (sorry ootb for using your /proprietary/ notation. Send me the bill...)

         

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      The won't re-write the DMCA, but PROTECT IP is certainly aimed at making sure that DMCA isn't being used as a business model by "third parties" who have so far thumbed their noses at copyright holders.


      I'm not sure that this is actually a big problem. At least, when people have mentioned examples of these nose-thumbers, the examples that I've seen are dubious at best (YouTube, etc.)

      Besides, I thought that the DMCA already had language that covered people fraudulently using safe harbors. I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:51pm

      Re:

      Like copyright holders thumbs their noses wnhen Ford comes asking for a piece of their profits? or when Ford says artists should be liable for anything that goes wrong with their cars?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:14pm

      Re:

      If they paid people for being stupid, you'd be a rich man.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:39pm

      Re:

      there is little chance that the one sided "notification and take down" DMCA system would be left to stand alone. Clearly it is not working well,

      I agree with this part.

      It is entirely too one-sided, where any random person can send a notification and have perfectly legitimate speech taken down. We should move to a notice/notice system where the accused person can respond before a service provider is legally required to remove the speech.

      Oh, you mean make it even more one-sided and favorable to obsolete corporations who are exploiting artists and real content creators while lying about trying to protect them?

      Screw that. Go pound sand.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rekrul, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 3:05pm

      Re:

      Mike, there is little chance that the one sided "notification and take down" DMCA system would be left to stand alone. Clearly it is not working well, too many sites make their living by using copyrighted content until they are notified, and often allowing the same content to re-appear within minutes. It's not working out at all, neither side is happy.

      The won't re-write the DMCA, but PROTECT IP is certainly aimed at making sure that DMCA isn't being used as a business model by "third parties" who have so far thumbed their noses at copyright holders.


      You mean third parties like eBay, Google and YouTube?

      Under the DMCA, a provider isn't responsible for what its users post through it. eBay isn't responsible for what people sell, Google isn't responsible for what people put on their web sites and YouTube isn't responsible for any copyrighted videos that people post.

      These new laws seek to strip away the DMCA's "safe harbor" protections and make providers liable for what their users do, unless the company takes steps to stop the infringing activity. Let's take a look at how that would affect the companies listed above;

      eBay - Has been accused of allowing the sale of counterfeit goods. So now they have to police all auctions/sales to prevent counterfeit goods from being sold. Since the items are being sold by different people all over the world, how exactly is eBay supposed to tell a real item, from a counterfeit one? The only viable option is to start banning the sale of large categories of items that companies are worried might be counterfeit. Soon, you won't be able to sell hardly anything on there. Movies, music, software, designer clothes. etc. The only people who will be allowed to sell anything copyrighted or trademarked will be registered companies.

      Google - The entertainment industry has long complained that Google doesn't prevent people from finding infringing files. Google is an automated system that indexes millions of web sites. There's no practical way that every site can be reviewed by a live human, and even if there were, how are they supposed to know beyond a doubt that a site is safe or not safe. The only viable method is to use content filters that will exclude sites based on keywords. Sure, just filter for words like "BitTorrent" and "MP3". Of course that will end up filtering pretty much every news story about piracy, even the ones that are absolutely opposed to it, and web sites that have perfectly legal sound files. In the end, you won't be able to find anything even remotely related to entertainment on Google, because allowing such sites to be indexed opens them up to liability.

      YouTube - According to Viacom, YouTube is a pirate site dedicated to making money off infringing content. They wouldn't hesitate to have it shut down if the law allowed it. Since they would be liable for any copyrighted content uploaded by the users, all videos would have to be screened before being put online. With thousands of videos posted every day, each clip would only get a cursory viewing before some under-paid staffer decided whether it was safe or not. A few seconds of a song on the radio in the background? Not safe! A clip from a movie in a video review? Not Safe! Pretty soon, a good half of all videos uploaded would just disappear into the ether, with no explanation of why. That is, if the various studios don't just band together and have it shut down altogether.

      And there are thousands of smaller sites that would be similarly affected. These laws would basically put the entertainment industry in control of the internet.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 4:45am

        Re: Re:

        Under the DMCA, a provider isn't responsible for what its users post through it. eBay isn't responsible for what people sell, Google isn't responsible for what people put on their web sites and YouTube isn't responsible for any copyrighted videos that people post.

        fwiw, the DMCA only covers copyright and not trademark. The ebay stuff is about trademark. eBay is protected, but under caselaw, not a safe harbor in the DMCA.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:41am

    Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

    1st says: "There is no rule that permits “willful blindness” of obvious wrongdoing under U.S. law, and nothing in the DMCA or any other statute has been deemed to hold otherwise."
    ...
    2nd says: "Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things."

    If don't start out to split hairs, those say the same thing to me. Web-sites, like any other business, have a reasonable duty to insure that they're NOT promoting illegal activities. -- Actually all citizens have some "policing" responsibility when it's perceived to be in the general interest. The degree is arguable, of course. -- However, copyright infringement is fairly straightforward. If you put up links to obviously first-run movies, or encourage such links to be posted, and you know full well that those links actually do get to obviously copyrighted material, then you ignore those facts at peril.

    An UNreasonable level of duty is not required. However, if your site traffic (Youtube) is so great you can't possibly check them all, it's NO excuse. It's a basic flaw with the site's premise. A LARGE volume of infringing material doesn't thereby make an excuse. You'd better hire people to run an eyeball over it. If can't and make a profit, TOUGH. Pawn shops, for instance, aren't allowed to let just anyone walk in with a truckload of merchandise.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:46am

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      It's important that we turn the internet into television. Remember when we only had a few channels? Life sure was easier back then.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      bjupton (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:48am

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      Do you get paid per post or is it a daily rate?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        rubberpants, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:59pm

        Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

        Oh, I'm sure he's on retainer with the chance of a bonus if the bill becomes law.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      DannyO, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:51am

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      Let's back this argument up 20 years and see how ridiculous it sounds...

      If the VCR, no matter how cool a technology, is capable of copying a LARGE volume of illegal material than that is simply a flaw in its design. If it kills the technology, TOUGH! (BTW... the Supreme Court already rejected this line of argument in the Betamax case).

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        John Doe, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:26pm

        Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

        You could also add in the DVR but lets not confuse anyone with facts. The content industry, if they had it their way, would have robbed society of many, many valuable innovations such as the record player, cassette tape, VHS, DVD, DVR, digital music, books and movies. Heck if it was left to the IP maximalist, we would be sitting around in log homes and riding horses..

        This is what OOTB and the other maximalists here don't want to admit, that their short sighted thinking and only looking out for their own pockets would stifle society as a whole. Any law on the books must take into account the good of society as a whole, not just some small segment of it.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Larry, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 7:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          You forgot to mention the printing press. How were the scribes supposed to compete with that?

           

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

    •  
      icon
      el_segfaulto (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:58am

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      And what about the part that makes me a felon for streaming television, movies, and music to myself wherever I might be? I would agree with you that web sites have a duty not to promote illegal activities in the country in which they're hosted, however the definition of "illegal activities" has gotten completely out-of-hand and is no longer in line with what the public at-large sees as morally and ethically wrong.

      Examples: I can record an episode of a sitcom to a DVR (or MythTV Box), but I cannot download it. The result is the same, the file on a storage device, so why is one stealing and the other okay?

      I can legally back-up my DVDs, but I cannot break the (simplistic) CSS encryption protecting them. That's like saying, enjoy this egg, but you can't break the shell to get to it.

      People like you drastically over-estimate both the value of your own work and the level to which it is used illegally. Entire episodes of television shows and music albums should and ARE being blocked from YouTube. A family video of a kid dancing to a Prince song or a crappy garage band covering Good Riddance by Green Day should be fair use.

      TL/DR: Your industry started this war by robbing the public domain and ramping up copyright lengths to ensure that it would never be a viable source of entertainment. How can you act surprised with people no longer respect the laws that let you rape our culture with impunity?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:58am

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      A LARGE volume of infringing material doesn't thereby make an excuse. You'd better hire people to run an eyeball over it.

      Just out of curiosity here, even if YouTube hired 100,000 new employees to "run an eyeball over" the content being uploaded - how would they even know if it's infringement?

      Fair use defenses are determined by a court of law, not the rights owners.

      And the rights owners themselves can't even figure out what content they actually have rights to or if they were uploaded with permission. From the Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. Wikipedia page:

      ...Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube with Viacom’s express authorization," that it was unreasonable to expect Google's employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        BeeAitch (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 9:11pm

        Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

        "Fair use defenses are determined by a court of law, not the rights owners."

        This.^^^^

        E-PARASITE eliminates this (very important) defense. That is, E-PARASITE is based entirely on accusation, not a court of law (even if that only means a warrant issued by a judge).

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Another AC, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:01pm

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      "An UNreasonable level of duty is not required. However, if your site traffic (Youtube) is so great you can't possibly check them all, it's NO excuse"

      Contradict yourself much? Shameful.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

        It isn't unreasonable - it's a problem of the business model. YouTube is claiming "too big to fail" status, but we know how that went with the banks. Nobody likes it, why tolerate it this way?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          bjupton (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          You know they are on the run intellectually when they try to conflate themselves with the current topic of the day, for a cause that they assume that everyone who is arguing against them believes.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          That has to be the most ignorant. IDIOTIC. ASININE statement you can have. Youtube is "too big to fail?" Are you kidding me?

          Our drug policy has failed but it's lead to an erosion of 4th Amendment rights. The Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work in the 20s and 30s. Again enforcement of what the law said did not work when no one respected that law. And now you're trying to conflate the topic of the day, the US economic crisis, with copyright law. Which is only similar in the fact that lobbyists are buying the politicians who thought this would breeze by. Sadly, you're mistaken. Youtube is not "Too big to fail". The fact is, the MPAA and RIAA business model needs to change to ensure the growth of the US, not the rest of the world conforms to their entitlement issues.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          That has to be the most ignorant. IDIOTIC. ASININE statement you can have. Youtube is "too big to fail?" Are you kidding me?

          Our drug policy has failed but it's lead to an erosion of 4th Amendment rights. The Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work in the 20s and 30s. Again enforcement of what the law said did not work when no one respected that law. And now you're trying to conflate the topic of the day, the US economic crisis, with copyright law. Which is only similar in the fact that lobbyists are buying the politicians who thought this would breeze by. Sadly, you're mistaken. Youtube is not "Too big to fail". The fact is, the MPAA and RIAA business model needs to change to ensure the growth of the US, not the rest of the world conforms to their entitlement issues.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          hothmonster, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          So not only do you not understand the argument at hand you also don't understand much of anything that has been happening in this country for the last 3 years?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:30am

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          So, basically, if I wanted to misrepresent you, all I'd have to say is, "But Officer! I didn't murder him, I only killed him enough so that he died."

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:10pm

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      So what you're saying is that you want tough government regulation, even if it kills jobs at companies that are engaging in legitimate business.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      The thing is you can't even show us if something is infringing or not, this is not something clear cut.

      Next you gonna say that every dude out in the streets now can say with absolute certainty what is and not infringement, than we wouldn't need courts would we?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Narcissus (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 12:48am

      Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

      Let's extend this logic and see what other services need to be shut down then.
      - Phone companies. I'm sure drug dealers use the phone a lot, not to mention terrorists and Pedophiles. Gasp! What about the children? They should screen all the calls to be sure everything is safe.
      - US Post. Didn't you read that they sometimes use the post to send threat letters? Clearly illegal so if they can't prevent it, shut it down. Shear volume (not to mention constitutional issues) is NO EXCUSE.
      - The Stock exchange. Some broker just went bankrupt and there is talk of foul play and illegal use of funds. We could also mention everybody's favorite Madoff. If the Exchange can't stop illegal trading or wrongdoings they should shut down! Sheer volume is NO EXCUSE
      - Flea markets: Some people use flea markets to sell stolen goods so they're all criminals. Shut them down!

      Orwell and Huxley would be proud of you OOTB. You're their best chance of proving their predictions right.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 3:28am

        Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

        "Orwell and Huxley would be proud of you OOTB. You're their best chance of proving their predictions right."

        One of the problems with the issues here is that we seem to be arguing with a bunch of people who don't understand - those books are meant to be cautionary tales of what we should strive to avoid, not instruction manuals.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Narcissus (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".

          "those books are meant to be cautionary tales"

          Thank you for clearing that up for me. Having actually read both books I obviously missed that point.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:58am

    take your pick! nothing to chose between them. both 'playing' politics, in one way or another, so both are just self-serving ass hats as well as out and out liars!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Does that void the section?

    If the bill contains a written statement to the effect of, "This does not change existing law," and then it is found to change existing law, can that whole section be thrown out since it contradicts itself?

    Wishful thinking, I know, but would it hold up?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    I feel sorry for content owners, their content keeps multiplying like rabbits without their consent that is just so sad LoL

     

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:37pm

    "Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things."

    Why?
    Why are you forcing others to protect the interests of a few?
    Why is what we have done so far not enough?
    What has the other side done other than pay you off to get a stupid bill proposed?

    The issue this bill seeks to solve is 2 fold.
    1 - it makes sure they do not need to consider consumer demands yet again.
    2 - it lets them kill off innovation, you know that amazing thing you all tout about americans, because it scares them.

    Why not stop sucking on the teat of the industry and oh I dunno... fix the rest of the country.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    peopleagainstheft (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 4:02pm

    Mike you're a better lawyer than that. Goodlatte is saying that "I think it is unrealistic to think we're going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision," Goodlatte said. Pierre-Louis is saying that the DMCA survives. the sentences are completely consistent
    the DMCA applies only in the US, for example. The DMCA is also NOT only a notice-and-takedown statute- for example there is no safe harbor if there is no agent for service of process, no safe harbor if the storage provisions is relied upon but the operator knows of infringement, etc. Notice and takedown only works for US sites that actually respond to takedown notices and act in good faith. No one is suing to block the phone company. But the pirate bay? Ever try sending them a takedown notice?

     

    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